I can't seem to remember a discussion about this, which I think is an interesting topic nontheless. One thing that is very apparant is that religious figures dominate the list (implying that they were the most influential group of people). Next comes innovaters and scientists, and then political figures. The highest ranked political/military figures does not come until #17 (Qin Shi Huang), followed by Caesar Augustus at #18. This view would be consistent with "the pen is mightier than the sword"

Agree or Disagree?

The following list, an "annotated" version of Hart's with religious affiliation inserted comes from http://www.adherents.com/adh_influ.html - http://www.adherents.com/adh_influ.html

Another work that could be compared to the previous is one by Lt Col Lanning, who wrote a book on the top 100 most influential military leaders. Obviously there are significant differences. In general, I find Hart's (who is a historian) list of military leaders to be more plausible.

 1. George Washington
 2. Napoleon I
 3. Alexander the Great
 4. Genghis Khan
 5. Julius Caesar
 6. Gustavus Adolphus
 7. Francisco Pizarro
 8. Charlemagne (Charles the Great)
 9. Hernado Cortes
10. Cyrus the Great
11. Frederick the Great (Frederick II of Prussia)
12. Simon Bolivar
13. William the Conqueror
14. Adolf Hitler
15. Attila the Hun
16. George Catlett Marshall
17. Peter the Great
18. Dwight David Eisenhower
19. Oliver Cromwell
20. Douglas MacArthur
21. Karl von Clausewitz
22. Arthur Wellesley (First Duke of Wellington)
23. Sun Tzu
24. Hermann-Maurice, Comte de Saxe
25. Tamerlane
26. Antoine Henri Jomini
27. Eugene of Savoy
28. Fernandez Gonzalo de Cordoba
29. Sebastien Le Pestre de Vauban
30. Hannibal
31. John Churchill (Duke of Marlborough)
32. Winfield Scott
33. Ulysses Simpson Grant
34. Scipio Africanus
35. Horatio Nelson
36. John Frederick Charles Fuller
37. Henri de La Tour d’Auvergne de Turenne
38. Alfred Thayer Mahan
39. Helmuth Karl Bernhard Von Moltke
40. Vo Nguyen Giap
41. John Joseph Pershing
42. Maurice of Nassau
43. Joan of Arc
44. Alan Francis Broke (Alanbrooke)
45. Jean Baptiste Vacquette de Gribeauval
46. Omar Nelson Bradley
47. Ralph Abercromby
48. Mao Zedong
49. H. Normal Schwarzkopf
50. Alexander Vasilevich Suvorov
51. Louis Alexandre Berthier
52. Jose de San Martin
53. Giuseppe Garibaldi
54. Ivan Stepanovich Konev
55. Suleiman I
56. Colin Campbell
57. Samuel (Sam) Houston
58. Richard I (the Lion-Hearted)
59. Shaka
60. Robert Edward Lee
61. Chester William Nimitz
62. Gebhard Leberecht von Blucher
63. Bernard Law Montgomery
64. Carl Gustav Emil von Mannerheim
65. H.H. (Hap) Arnold
66. Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk)
67. John Arbuhnot Fisher
68. Heihachiro Togo
69. Moshe Dayan
70. Georgi Konstantinovich Zhukov
71. Ferdinand Foch
72. Edward I
73. Selim I
74. Giulio Douhet
75. Heinz Guderian
76. Lin Piao
77. Isoroku Yamamoto
78. Harold Rupert Alexander
79. Erwin Rommel
80. Lennat Torstensson
81. Saddam Hussein
82. Fidel Castro
83. Horatio Herbert Kitchener
84. Tito
85. Karl Doenitz
86. Kim Il Sung
87. David Glasgow Farragut
88. Garnet Joseph Wolseley
89. Chiang Kai-shek
90. Frederick Sleigh Roberts
91. Saladin
92. George Dewey
93. Louis II de Bourbon, Prince de Conde
94. Kurt Student
95. George S. Patton
96. Michel Ney
97. Charles XII
98. Thomas Cochrane
99. Johan Tserclaes von Tilly
100. Edmund Henry H. Allenby 

most ridiculous ever!
 

quite agree with that, maybe not with the order and one could argue about Caesars actual military abilites but overall this would be the standard top 3.

second most ridiculous ever!

totally overrated, just because they wrote some miltiary manuals that are popular today doesn't makes them great, this is especially true for Clausewitz who hasn't got many actual fighting experience at all

didn't bother to look at the following numbers

A pretty pointless ranking and impossible to put into correct order in reality. Fun to loot at, but nothing more

Both lists are fine, but the problem is with George Washington. Outside America he is a nobody and he certainly isn't the greatest general ever. No historian thinks that. His early military career was unspectacular and his successes were often more appropriately credited to someone else. Also, he did not even have a big part in achieving American Independence. He had little imput on the constitution, in fact Jefferson should be ranked ahead of him in terms of influence.

Actually, the last list on military leaders is bad too. They have most of the right people but they are in the wrong places. According to one source the best military leaders are Alexander, Hannibal, Genghis Khan and Napoleon. Hitler was not a military leader and Charlemagne wasn't very good either. In fact, at Roncesvalles he probably deserves the most criticism for the defeat.

I agree with Kalevipoeg.

I would add that many of those names shouldnt be really on the list.

Take for example brothers Wright who invented airplane. Did they change history? No!. Many people were working on this problem and it was only matter of time (the same year, year later or 2 years later) and even some kind of race who will invent the airplane first. So really they didnt influenced the world because airplane would have been invented anyway.

For me, people who infulenced the world are those who somehow changed history or changed the way in which people think. Therefore Mohammad, Jesus Christ, Nicholo Machiavelli or Napoleon were influential but brothers Wright, Leonardo da Vinci, Bethoven, Bach were not.

After consideration im not sure if Napoleon was influential. After his defeat everything came back to the old order so he didnt really change the world. The ideas of revolution which spread in Europe werent invented by Napoleon and would spread even without him. Maybe the fact that he helped spread them really fast made him influential.

Actually French republic before Napoleon had both bureaucracy and national army. Sooner or later others would follow this example. The question is if Napoleon really make those things happend earlier or not.

In fact, because of Napoleon's defeat most of continent came back to what was before and it was the spring of the nations in 1848 which changed the history. Can you say that without Napoleon there would be no spring of the nations?

Well, without Napoleon France would have been invaded in 1794 by the Great powers and the Bourbon dynasty reinstated. Without him revolutionary ideas would not have spread because the revolution would have been defeated. And yes there was something resembling a bureaucracy before Napoleon but it was him who developed it greater. And he created bureaucracies in places he conquered including Piedmont-Sardinia which would unite Italy into a single state.

I am going to first comment on the second list, about military leaders.

 1. George Washington  ??????????

This is very American-centric.  Did George Washington ever command more than 10000 men in a single battle?  Ranking Washington among the top 100 would be fine, but as the first, ahead of military geniuses such as Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, and Napoleon?  I agree that George Washington is both overrated as a military commander and a founding father.  Washington was more important to the American Revolution symbolically.

2. Napoleon I
3. Alexander the Great
4. Genghis Khan

I agree with Temujin here, for we have three true military geniuses.   Although the specialities were artillery, infantry, and cavalry, respectively.   Well deserved rank.

7. Francisco Pizarro ??????????

9. Hernado Cortes ??????????

What?  For manipulating and cheating on poor Native Americans?  Number seven?

I think that Tamerlane, Hannibal, Saladin, and Patton shoud move up many ranks.

Although I think Simon Bolivar well deserves his rank at 12.

This is where I disagree with Temujin:  Sun Tzu did command armies, and never lost a battle.  He was not only a military philosopher but also an actual general.  His rank should go up much higher than 23.

I also think that Eisenhower and McArthur are overrated (I like Patton better!)  Eisenhower was more natural as a politician, not a military leader, and MacArthur lost Phillippines (horrendiously) in WII and seriously miscalculated in Korea.  Therefore, I would put Patton ahead of his two contemporaries.

I do not quite agree with the following rankings:

48. Mao Zedong and 76. Lin Piao

Mao Zedong never lifted a rifle, while Lin Piao commanded the PLA.

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.

81. Saddam Hussein

We must think twice after the Second Persian Gulf War!

And where are Baybars and Subutai???

France had many good generals, if not Napoleon others could defend it. Even if France would have been defeated the ideas of revolution would spread. Who knows, maybe if not Napoleon and Holy Alliance which was created because of him, the ideas of revolution would result in spring of the nations long before 1848.

And noone else but Napoleon was the guy who has murdered revolution and made many nations on continent hostile towards revolutionary ideas.

I dont want to be too much polish-centric but were dozens of better generals only in Poland (what about the rest of central and eastern Europe). Take for example John Charles Chodkiewicz (pol. Jan Karol Chodkiewicz) who defeated 12000 or 14000 Swedes having just 4000 men (not to mention his other victories like Weissenstein vs Swedes, Kokenhausen vs Swedes, Chocim vs Ottomans where also was outnumbered by the enemy but victorious suffering minimal casualties) or Zolkiewski who won at Klushin having 7000 men against 35000-40000 russians and swedes or Sobieski.

It's rediculous to assume that something like that would eventually occur. That's like saying if Franz Ferdinand wasn't killed by Gavrilo Princip in Sarajevo someone else would have killed him somewhere else. It's just not logical. And besides France was losing the war against Austria and Prussia in 1793.  Napoleon added to the revolution more then he took away and even Wellington who practically ruled France after the Battle of Waterloo admitted that he had been good for France.

The American Revolution was not the main event that influenced the French Revolution. The enlightenment thinkers, the disenfranchisement with the monarchy, Ancient Greece and Britain's Glorious Revolution probably did more to influence France and Europe then George Washington.

Actually you hit the point. US revolution highly influenced history in Europe.

Do you belive that without assasination of Ferdinand the WW1 wouldnt happend? Everything was going toward war, the only question was when and how.

I agree with Imperator Invictus that the first list, being a scholarly attempt at the rankings, is relatively less biased than the second.  And considering that most people in the world are more or less influenced by Chirstianity, Judiasm, Islam, Buddahism, or Confusianism, one can argue with reason and logic that Jesus, Mohammad, Budda, Confucious, and Moses were, indeed, heavily influential people. 

The second list is even more biased the second time I look at it.  Even in terms of influence, George Washington should not have cracked the top 25.  The American Revolution succeeded because of many factors, not merely the integrity and symbolic leadership of George Washington.  If we use the logic of the second list, we can easily say that Oliver Cromwell or Miltiades were equally brillant military leaders.   One can argue that the Greek democratic tradition would not have been perserved without a victory in Marathon, or that parlimentary governments and even the ideas of the American Revolution would not have existed without the English Civil War.

I am going to refute your statement idea by idea.

How would history be different if Washington had not been the Commander in Chief of the American Colonies?  What if it were instead a lesser man such as an Oliver Cromwell? 

History would not be different.  I believe that history is not decided by the whims of one man, but by ideas and tides of change.  The American Revolution happened because it was bound to happen.  The French Revolution took place because it was bound to take place.  If George Washington were not the Commander in Chief of the Contential Army, we would have "Jack Washington" or "John Washington."  The American Revolution was bound to succeed, in the same way that Germany was bound to start a second world war after Versailles, regardless of the existence of Adolf Hitler.

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. 

Here, you make an good point.  And this is exactly why I do admire George Washington.  But I think his resignation from his post speaks as much about his limitations as his integrity.  Washington was never into partisan politics; he was a figurehead, a symbol, but not the machine that ran the American democracy.  He never fully embraced the dynamics of the emerging two party system, and proved to be a deterrent to the development of American politics as we know it today.  I argue that Washington lacked the audacity and finesse to become a Napoleon, and lacked the political skill and interest to become a Jefferson.

Would the Liberal revolts of Europe in the mid 19th century have happened if Washington appoints himself king?  Would the French revolution have occurred?

The French Revolution in 1789, the July Revolution in 1830, and (to a lesser extent) the revolutions of 1848 are more rooted in social class struggles and the discontent of a middle class against an obsolete aristocracy (especially the French Revolution).   The American Revolution, on the contrary, was a revolution for independence, for national sovereignty. 

If Washington appointed himself as King, he would have been deposed and replaced with a republican government by the likes of Jefferson, Madision, and Adams.  It reminds me of a Twilight Zone episode about a man going back to time to foil the assassination of Lincoln.  In the end, he fails to save the president, because what will happen must happen.

Yes, the French Revolution would have, in my opinion, occured regardless of the American Revolution.  The American Revolution served as a catalyst for the French Revolution, but mostly as a catalyst.  The seeds of rebellion were already cast in France long before the American Revolution; if the American Revolution did not take place, another event would serve as catalyst and at the end, spark the French Revolution.

My apologies for being so harsh.

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.

scum that just 20 or 30 years later that was beating Napolean's army down.  the best trained scum in the world.  though i agree that Washington wasn't the best general, it wasn't for the lack of talented rank and file soldiers on the British side.  Washington did however have endless land to work with and an enemy that was 2000 miles away though.

Poirot don't worry about it, and if I sound snippy and arrogant in this post please think nothing of it

I suppose I should have done a better job explaining myself.  First I at no point stated that George Washington was an indispensible part of the Revolutionary War.  Rather I think that given time without Washington far deadlier commanders would have emerged in the likes of Hamilton and Greene.  However how many would have had the moderation to simply resign their commission following the American victory?  You might make the argument that a dictator would have been overthrown but where does that put the fledgling American nation?  In the same boat as numerous collapsed states around the world.

And do his shortcomings diminish his influence on future events?  You might say yes but I believe you are making poor observations in this part of your post.   First you accuse him of lacking the audactiy and finesse of a Napoleon.  While he most certainly was not Napoleon's equal as a commander Washington was certainly everybit as audacious given his circumstances.  I would hope you are familiar with his assault on Trenton followed by his princeton campaign.  Even if the concepts for these successes originated with his subordinates it was Washington who decidedto embark on two separate successive campaigns which would have broken his army.  Second you claim Washington lacked political deftness yet was this a flaw of his character or was his refusal to engage in partisan politics another virtue of his leadership?  Washington's refusal to engage in petty political allignments allowed him to retain his reputation as a powerful unifying figure.  You may recall that the initial purpose of the presidency was to merely enforce the will of the Senate.

Though the spark may seem insignificant to the keg of powder it is still an integral part of the reaction.  Though the American Revolution was not the cause of the French Revolution and the student revolts it certainly encouraged these events.  I find it hard to believe that the successful American revolt and subsequent emplacement of a working American democracy did not provide the necessary catalyst for European liberals to stake their lives on the line and revolt.

he wasn't in the early 1810's before he invaded russia, and there was fighting in spain. not that he was there in person but once i think.  the english (with spanish guerrillas and portugese regulars, but not that many of them) were taking on french armies quite larger than there own.  are you going to put all that glory on the truly superb Wellington, did the men who were part of this (and i read it somewhere that they were the only ones who trained with live ammo and could shoot (man-per-man) the quickest in europe). 

TO Laelius: I always enjoy a good-hearted debate. 

I see two sides: a pro-Washington American-centric team and a George Washington was nothing compared to X and Y European-centric side

Also, the British never committed many troops to the War for American Independence nor did they committ much defending Canada in the war of 1812. The American Revolution was a very small and unimportant event when it happened, only resently with America becoming a superpower did people outside the U.S. begin studying it. But it remains a small event in history. In fact the French and Russian Revolutions changed the world in a more immediate and significant way.  America was not that important back then, continental interests and India were the main concerns the British had.

I think it's so ironic that nowadays Americans have such a dislike of the French. If it wasn't for the French expeditionary force, the Americans would have surely lost the revolution. They spent the first part of the war losing battle after battle, they lost New York and Philadelphia, all the while waiting for the French to get in the war. And when they did, not only did the French provide the Americans with vital naval support, but they also provided the bulk of the army which won the crucial battle of Yorktown - the turning point of the war. Washington was an excellent politican and a good rallying symbol for the Americans, but a very lousy general. Most of his supposed vctories were actually won by other officers.

I know that the Americans will disagree with me, because the version of history they learn in school is loaded with propaganda, but the truth is that without the French, America would have never won the war. America wouldn't be be America without the French that they hate so much right now!

Anyway this is hart's opinion which i disagree with. People like Bismarck and Louis IV who have radically changed europes landscape and military are missing.

 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.

BTW the claim that the army was composed entirely of scum is false, though they did have their share of convicts the majority came from the British lower classes.

also a gross misconception.  As the American troops converged on Trenton they encountered a Hessian outpost which began skirmishing noisily with the approaching American army.  By the time the American troops reached the town square the Hessians were already formed up.  Several factors contributed to the American victory including their heavy use of cannon.  European armies typically deployed 2-3 cannon per 1,000 troops whereas the continental army had around 9-10 guns per 1,000.  The heavy use of cannonry played havoc with Hessian lines in the relatively narrow avenues of Trenton.  A second factor was weariness on account of the Hessians.  They had been under harrasment from the New Jersey militia for weeks and were on alert for most of that time.  By Dec. 26 they were simply worn out.  third of course surpise they had been shocked to be attacked by an enemy they had thought beaten.  Finally the death of their revered Colonel Rall also contributed to the surrender.

You certainly wouldn't have a clue about what you are talking about. The revolutionary and napoleonic armies were without equal, The Prussian was routinely defeated from 1792 to 1815.  Davout corps would defeat an entire prussian army twice it's size.

LOL, yep, that was a typo.

Colonial militias then still loyal to the English crown, actually (if it's a battle in the French and Indian War)

Anyhoo they forgot Prince Henry, and I would like to know why Vasco da Gama ranks so below Columbus.

if we talk about the time 1770-1790s, the top 3 land armies would be 1. Russian, 2. Prussian, 3. Austrian.

In numbers or in quality?

Pretty ridiculous list, French forces was always at the top at any time. Russia was never a decent fighting forces, Prussia became an army of automaton after frederick. Austria was actually good.

leadership and tactics.

that was a really ridiculous and biased statement...France has hardly won a battle durign the seven years war and lacked decent command.

does Suvorov rign a bell? and did you knew that Russia never lost a battle during the 7 years war and their armies were traiend by Prussian officers. Prussia comes second because after Fredericks death Prussia still had an experienced army and commanders at their disposal. Austria is third because they also have decent commanders and a descent army. Britain on the continent sucked hell during the early 7 years war, they only won after a Prussian fieldmarshall took over command.

Pretty much nonsense, France did won many battles namely the battle of Hastenbeck, where combined Prussian and  Hoverian were defeated. Suvorov is overrated, he was never a great general but only one fighting weak ottomans armies. 

no they did not won many battles, Hastenbeck was before the prussians took over command of the armies of Hanover, Brunswick and Hessen-Kassel, and the prince of Brunswick did defeat the major French generals with the troops from those petty German principalities and outnumbered more often than the French did won a battle... Suvorov and Ottomans are in fact underrated, you cannot udnerstand this all because your usual French nationalism overwrites your logical thinking.

and there were no Prussians at Hastenbeck, only a bad British commander.

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.

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

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.

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-Jägersdorf, 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.

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.

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 Rac³awice was one of the first battles of the Polish Koœciuszko Uprising against Russia. It was fought on April 4, 1794 near the village of Rac³awice in Lesser Poland.

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 Koœciuszko 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 Koœciuszko 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.

 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.

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

 

American Revolutionary War 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.

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

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).

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.

The French army and navy were a bunch of farmers?

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.

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.

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.

The topic of the thread is most influential, not most capable...

First the office of the Presidency was created with George in mind second he was a prominent unifying figure during the constitutional convention and finally he created the standard against which other presidents are measured.  Besides how many great leaders became great without their trusted subordinates and allies?  History always focuses on the front man.

The army was completely behind him, who would have stopped him?

In the sense that they "rented" from Hesse-Calless.

It seems to have got away from that. I thought the list that Washington was put top off was supposed to be of the greatest generals. I'd agree that if influential replaces capable it changes the assessment considerably. I still wouldn't put him at the top of influential military leaders. Not nearly as influential as say Augustus (another one not particularly distinguished as a military commander).

If you're going to focus on the influence they had on history, then minor military figures like Monk (the Duke of Albemarle) come into play: the restoration of the English monarchy was a pretty significant event. Or John Churchill, who could have stuck with James II but didn't.

Churchill (Marlborough) was of course himself a pretty capable military leader as well as an influential one. If we were picking teams of generals I'd certainly pick Marlborough ahead of Washington (though I'm not saying first pick).

That Washington is a good candidate for history's most vaunted front man is something I'll unreservedly grant you.

By then, what army? How about a "well-regulated militia"?

Apart from the fact that most of the 'Hessians' were in fact Hanoverians',  the Landgrave of Hesse-Cassell like the Duke of Brunswick was a close ally of Hanover through most of the 18th century.  'Mercenary' as a kind of derogatory term means not someone fighting for money, but someone fighting for some other country/ruler  than his own, for money.

If you're a Hessian, and the Landgrave decides to support his friend from Hanover in North America, so you go and fight there, why does that make you a mercenary, but not the Frenchman who goes because his King tells him to? Both are being paid.

By any standard that classes the 'Hessians' as mercenaries the French fighting at Yorktown were also mercenaries.

(And wasn't von Steuben a mercenary?)

My arguments were largely in response to the bemused mockery of some of the forrumers.  I was largely attempting to demonstrate that George Washington was arguably one of the most influential leaders.

But weren't they all front men?  Any great commander/leader has a number of subordinates who are extremely capable if not brilliant in their own right.

The remaining continental army which was at the time of Washington's order to disband several thousand strong.

Your argument would have been sound had the Hessiens been sent to America purely in support of the crown.  Yet it is true that the British paid an exhorbitant amount of money for the Hessians.  Hesse Cassell was a princedom which thrived on 'leasing' its highly professional military to the highest bidder and the price was considerable to say the least.  In fact the British looked for alternatives to the Hessians on account that their price was seen by many in parliament to be too high.  If you wish to split hairs then the Hessians were soldiers serving what was essentially a mercenary nation.