Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedMichael Hart’s ranking of the 100 Most Influential people

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>
Author
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2810
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Michael Hart’s ranking of the 100 Most Influential people
    Posted: 14-Jun-2005 at 20:55
Originally posted by Mosquito

Originally posted by Temujin


Originally posted by Mosquito


In numbers or in quality?



leadership and tactics.



If you mean leadership and tactics i wouldnt rank Russians before Prussians. Dont forget that Russianarmy was defeated by the bunch of polish paesants armed with scythes in the battle of Raclawice.


In my opinion Prussian army was the best 18th century army.



Suvorov was still one of the very best commanders of the 18th century though, surely up there with Frederick. (<-that's and opinion, so you can't argue )

Edited by Styrbiorn
Back to Top
Laelius View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 22-Oct-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 354
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jun-2005 at 22:28

I agree that the Prussian army was the best with their draconian disciplineand their lock-step marching

 

BTW I could claim your opinion is a stupid one

Back to Top
Jazz View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 29-Mar-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 410
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jun-2005 at 02:48
Originally posted by poirot

14. Adolf Hitler and 79. Erwin Rommel

Granted, Hitler did conquer most of the European mainland, but his inability to listen to better trained officers such as Rommel led in part to his ultimate demise.



That, and listening to idiots like Goering....

BTW, since when was Justinian a Catholic?
Back to Top
Mosquito View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Location: Sarmatia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2537
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jun-2005 at 05:44
I wanted to say that i would rank Russians after Prussians, not before them.
Back to Top
Mosquito View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Location: Sarmatia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2537
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jun-2005 at 05:47

Originally posted by Styrbiorn


Suvorov was still one of the very best commanders of the 18th century though, surely up there with Frederick. (<-that's and opinion, so you can't argue )

Suvorov was a bloody massmurderer of civilian population. Being not able to take Warsaw slaughtered 10.000 civilians of Praga, on the opposite side of the of the river, to convice Warsaw to surrender. If he was so skilled he would take the city without need to commit such war crimes.

Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2810
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jun-2005 at 07:23
Originally posted by Mosquito


Suvorov was a bloody massmurderer of civilian population. Being not able to take Warsaw slaughtered 10.000 civilians of Praga, on the opposite side of the of the river, to convice Warsaw to surrender. If he was so skilled he would take the city without need to commit such war crimes.



There was no Geneva back then, so they weren't war crimes. Atrocity or not, it doesn't change his commanding skills.
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jun-2005 at 15:41
Originally posted by Mosquito

If you mean leadership and tactics i wouldnt rank Russians before Prussians. Dont forget that Russian army was defeated by the bunch of polish paesants armed with scythes in the battle of Raclawice.

In my opinion Prussian army was the best 18th century army.

Ok, if the Polish peasants did defeat a Russian regular army, how good was the regular Polish army?

of coruse it's very arguably if the Russians or Prussians were the better army, but i descide on direct comparison, Russians won Gross-Jgersdorf, Kunersdorf and Kay (Zorndorf is claimed a Prussian victory but if you look at the course of the battle it's clear that it was more like a draw if anyhting, pretty similar to Borodino) even against Frederick in person. but of course this is my personal opinion.

Suvorov was a bloody massmurderer of civilian population. Being not able to take Warsaw slaughtered 10.000 civilians of Praga, on the opposite side of the of the river, to convice Warsaw to surrender. If he was so skilled he would take the city without need to commit such war crimes.

Mongols did that too and it worked well for them, actually this is a quite smart move which speaks in favour of Suvorov, but i agree that in a pretty chivalric age of warfare this was not his greatest deed.



Edited by Temujin
Back to Top
Mosquito View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Location: Sarmatia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2537
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jun-2005 at 16:31
Originally posted by Temujin

Originally posted by Mosquito

If you mean leadership and tactics i wouldnt rank Russians before Prussians. Dont forget that Russian army was defeated by the bunch of polish paesants armed with scythes in the battle of Raclawice.

In my opinion Prussian army was the best 18th century army.

Ok, if the Polish peasants did defeat a Russian regular army, how good was the regular Polish army?

Well, i wasnt really correct.

Some of your countrymen Temujin fought there too. Polish forces were moreless in 50% regular army and in other 50% untrained paesants.

Here is a short description of battle from Wikipedia:

 

The Battle of Racawice was one of the first battles of the Polish Kociuszko Uprising against Russia. It was fought on April 4, 1794 near the village of Racawice in Lesser Poland.

The Polish forces prepared for the battle were relatively small. The Polish Order of Battle was as follows:


unit supperior soldiers
2 battalions Infantry Regiment of Czapski 400 bayonettes
2 battalions Infantry Regiment of Wodzicki 400 bayonettes
2 battalions Infantry Regiment of Oarowski 400 bayonettes
1 battalion Infantry Regiment of Raczyski 200 bayonettes
10 squadrons of cavalry under Antoni Madaliski 400 sabres
10 squadrons of cavalry under Magnet 400 sabres
4 cavalry squadrons under Biernacki 160 sabres
2 auxiliary cavalry squadrons Duchy of Wurtemberg 80 sabres
  2440 men altogether

In addition, Lesser Poland fielded also approximately 2 000 peasants armed with war scythes and pikes, as well as 11 cannons. The outcome of the battle was a tactical Polish victory, with Kociuszko defeating the numerically supperior enemy. However, his forces were too small to start a successful pursuit and the Corps of Gen. Denisov evaded destruction and continued to operate in Lesser Poland.

The victory was subsequently promoted in Poland as a major success and helped in starting the Kociuszko Uprising in other areas of Poland and the Warsaw Uprising of 1794. Also, the participation of peasant volunteers was seen by many as the starting point of the political evolution of Polish peasantry from serfs to members of the nation.



Edited by Mosquito
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jun-2005 at 16:57
Originally posted by Mosquito

Some of your countrymen Temujin fought there too.

 how was their performance?

Back to Top
Mosquito View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Location: Sarmatia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2537
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jun-2005 at 17:04
Originally posted by Temujin

Originally posted by Mosquito

Some of your countrymen Temujin fought there too.

 how was their performance?

Sorry for saying that but they are in shadow of peasants. Everyone focuses on those paesants and neglect regular forces. I wish i know somthing about those Wurttenbergians but majority of historians dont even write about polish troops, only about paesants. In school i was even told that there were only paesants.

Back to Top
Laelius View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 22-Oct-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 354
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jun-2005 at 17:37
I suspect peasents are more romantic.  Here in the US when discussing the American Revolution the focus is always on those buck skinned frontiersmen...
Back to Top
Laelius View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 22-Oct-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 354
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jun-2005 at 10:50

Would this Kociuszko be the same gentleman who served with distinction in the American revolution?

 

American Revolutionary War

Kościuszko Monument in NY
Enlarge
Kościuszko Monument in NY

Kościuszko was recruited in France by Silas Deane and Benjamin Franklin and in August 1776 he arrived in America. Based on their recommendation the Congress commissioned him a Colonel in 1776. Due to recommendation of Prince Adam Kazimierz Czartoryski and General Charles Lee Kościuszko was named head engineer of the Continental Army.

His first task in America was the fortification of Philadelphia. On September 24, 1776, Kościuszko was ordered to fortify the banks of the Delaware River against a possible British crossing. In the Spring of 1777 he was attached to the Northern Army under General Horatio Gates. As the chief engineer of the army he commanded the construction of several forts and fortified military camps along the Canadian border. His work made significant contributions to the American successful retreat from the battle of Ticonderoga and victory at Saratoga in 1777.

After the battle Kościuszko, then regarded as one of the best engineers in American service, was put in charge by George Washington of military engineering works at the stronghold in West Point on the Hudson River. Then he asked to be transfered to the Southern Army, where he also made significant contributions to the American victories.

After seven years of service, on October 13, 1783, Kościuszko was promoted by the Congress to the rank of Brigadier General. He was also granted American citizenship, 2.5 square kilometres of land in America, and a large sum of money. He used the money to help some black slaves gain their freedom. He was also admitted to the prestigious Society of the Cincinnati, one of only three foreigners allowed to join, and to the American Philosophical Society.

Back to Top
Mosquito View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Location: Sarmatia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2537
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jun-2005 at 12:04
Originally posted by Laelius

Would this Kociuszko be the same gentleman who served with distinction in the American revolution?

Yes, the same person. After american victory he came back to Poland.

Back to Top
Laelius View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 22-Oct-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 354
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jun-2005 at 20:51
I'd replace Eisenhower with Patton and MacArthur with Sherman.  Also Turrene could be a little higher on the list.  The tactics he developed highly influenced Napoleon and Nathaniel Greene among others, Nathaniel Greene actually modeled himself after Turrene.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jun-2005 at 14:43

Originally posted by Laelius

For those of you who have a problem with Washington let me ask you this.  How would history be different if Washington had not been the Commander in Chief of the American Colonies?

We're discussing his record as a general, not a politician, aren't we? Why would it be any different? All of the significant battles of the war  were won by other people, with of course the key battle being the defeat of the Royal Navy by the French in Chesapeake Bay.

I grant he has a place in history as a politician, more during the revolution than as first President. If he hadn't become President, who would have? Adams, Jefferson? Both of them had more impact on the development of the constitution than Washington did anyway (Adams more through the appointment of Marshall than directly).

 

if it were instead a lesser man such as an Oliver Cromwell?  The fact that he resigned his commission peacefully says a great deal about his character and ensured allowed the survival of the fledgling American democracy. 

If you wish for me to spell it out for you then let me ask you this, would the Liberal revolts of Europe in the mid 19th century have happened if Washington appoints himself king?  Would the French revolution have occurred?

Despite the legends, Washington had no more chance of being made king than getting away with chopping down the cherry tree. There were too many brighter and more manipulative politicians around for that.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jun-2005 at 14:48

Originally posted by Illuminati

The success of the American revolution changed the world. A bunch of farmers beat the best military there was,

The French army and navy were a bunch of farmers?

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jun-2005 at 14:53
Originally posted by poirot

Originally posted by Temujin

Originally posted by Illuminati

A bunch of farmers beat the best military there was,

no the british army was most definately not the best military of the late 18th century...

I am going to side with Temujin on this debate.  The British Army in the late 18th century was composed mostly of the scums of the British Empire.

I'll side with him too. 'Scum' is irrelevant since most armies of the time consisted mainly of society's 'scum': some pretty good ones consistes of 'scum'. However, the 18th century British army was in no way the best in the world. It was another thirty years before Wellington licked it into reasonable shape, and even then I'd hesitate to claim it was the best.

 

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jun-2005 at 15:05
Originally posted by Laelius

The british military was very decent perhaps second only to Napoleon elites before Russia. What was in america was simply a second rate british army, the better army was engaged in war against France. I don't see how the americans would have defeated the british if they were fully engaged there.

 

Completely false, Howe's invasion force was composed of some of the best troops in the Empire.  Heck nearly 1/4 of British military forces initially engaged in putting down the revolution were the famed Hessian mercenaries.

Why do people always refer to the Hessians as 'mercenaries'? In the sense of being paid all the King's Army (and indeed the French and American ones, no?) were mercenaries.

Don't forget George III was Elector of Hanover as well as King of England, etc. The King's German Legion, recruited from his German subjects, was part of the elite in the Napoleonic wars too.

 

Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2810
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jun-2005 at 15:43
Originally posted by gcle2003

Why do people always refer to the Hessians as 'mercenaries'? In the sense of being paid all theKing's Army (and indeed the French and American ones, no?) were mercenaries.

Probably because they were mercenaries.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jun-2005 at 05:52

Originally posted by Styrbiorn

Originally posted by gcle2003

Why do people always refer to the Hessians as 'mercenaries'? In the sense of being paid all the King's Army (and indeed the French and American ones, no?) were mercenaries.

Probably because they were mercenaries.

Well, yes, I pointed that out. I suppose what I really meant was why do people routinely talk about the Hessian mercenaries, but not say 'Scottish mercenaries' or 'Irish mercenaries' or (on the other side) 'French mercenaries'. In fact the Indians who fought in the war aren't usually described as 'mercenaries' either, although they were.

 

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.137 seconds.