Print Page | Close Window

Michael Hart’s ranking of the 100 Most Influential people

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: General World History
Forum Discription: All aspects of world history, especially topics that span across many regions or periods
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3843
Printed Date: 04-Apr-2020 at 14:06
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Michael Hart’s ranking of the 100 Most Influential people
Posted By: Imperator Invictus
Subject: Michael Hart’s ranking of the 100 Most Influential people
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2005 at 13:42

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

Rank Name Religious Affiliation Influence
1 Muhammad Islam Prophet of Islam; conqueror of Arabia; Hart recognized that ranking Muhammad first might be controversial, but felt that, from a secular historian's perspective, this was the correct choice because Muhammad is the only man to have been both a founder of a major world religion and a major military/political leader. http://www.adherents.com/adh_influ.html#Muhammad - More
2 Isaac Newton http://www.adherents.com/adh_influ.html#newton - Anglican (rejected Trinitarianism, i.e., Athanasianism;
believed in the Arianism of
the Primitive Church)
physicist; theory of universal gravitation; laws of motion
3 Jesus Christ http://www.adherents.com/adh_influ.html#jesus - * Judaism; Christianity founder of Christianity
4 Buddha Hinduism; Buddhism founder of Buddhism
5 Confucius Confucianism founder of Confucianism
6 St. Paul Judaism; Christianity proselytizer of Christianity
7 Ts'ai Lun Chinese traditional religion inventor of paper
8 Johann Gutenberg Catholic developed movable type; printed Bibles
9 Christopher Columbus Catholic explorer; led Europe to Americas
10 Albert Einstein http://www.adherents.com/adh_influ.html#Einstein - Jewish physicist; relativity; Einsteinian physics
11 Louis Pasteur Catholic scientist; pasteurization
12 Galileo Galilei http://www.adherents.com/adh_influ.html#galileo - Catholic astronomer; accurately described heliocentric solar system
13 Aristotle Platonism / Greek philosophy influential Greek philosopher
14 Euclid Platonism / Greek philosophy mathematician; Euclidian geometry
15 Moses Judaism major prophet of Judaism
16 Charles Darwin Anglican (nominal) biologist; described Darwinian evolution, which had theological impact on many religions
17 Shih Huang Ti Chinese traditional religion Chinese emperor
18 Augustus Caesar Roman state paganism ruler
19 Nicolaus Copernicus Catholic (priest) astronomer; taught heliocentricity
20 Antoine Laurent Lavoisier http://www.adherents.com/adh_influ.html#lavoisier - Catholic father of modern chemistry; philosopher; economist
21 Constantine the Great Roman state paganism; Christianity Roman emperor who completely legalized Christianity, leading to its status as state religion. Called the First Council of Nicaea which produced the Nicene Creed (which rejected Arianism and established Athanasianism (Trinitarianism) as "official doctrine")
22 James Watt http://www.adherents.com/adh_influ.html#watt - nonreligious developed steam engine
23 Michael Faraday Sandemanian physicist; chemist; discovery of magneto-electricity
24 James Clerk Maxwell http://www.adherents.com/adh_influ.html#maxwell - Presbyterian; Anglican; Baptist physicist; electromagnetic spectrum
25 Martin Luther Catholic; Lutheran founder of Protestantism and Lutheranism
26 George Washington Episcopalian; Deist first president of United States
27 Karl Marx http://www.adherents.com/adh_influ.html#marx - Jewish; Lutheran;
Atheist; Marxism/Communism
founder of Marxism, Marxist Communism
28 Orville and Wilbur Wright http://www.adherents.com/adh_influ.html#wright - United Brethren inventors of airplane
29 Genghis Khan Mongolian shamanism Mongol conqueror
30 Adam Smith Liberal Protestant economist; expositor of capitalism; religious philosopher
31 Edward de Vere
a.k.a. "William Shakespeare"
http://www.adherents.com/adh_influ.html#vere - Catholic; Anglican literature; also wrote 6 volumes about philosophy and religion
32 John Dalton Quaker chemist; physicist; atomic theory; law of partial pressures (Dalton's law)
33 Alexander the Great Greek state paganism conqueror
34 Napoleon Bonaparte http://www.adherents.com/adh_influ.html#napoleon - Catholic (nominal) French conqueror
35 Thomas Edison http://www.adherents.com/people/pe/Thomas_Edison.html - Congregationalist; agnostic inventor of light bulb, phonograph, etc.
36 Antony van Leeuwenhoek http://www.adherents.com/adh_influ.html#leeuwenhoek - Calvinist microscopes; studied microscopic life
37 William T.G. Morton ?? pioneer in anesthesiology
38 Guglielmo Marconi http://www.adherents.com/adh_influ.html#marconi - Catholic and Anglican inventor of radio
39 Adolf Hitler born into but later rejected Catholicism; allegedly a proponent of Germanic Neo-Paganism; Nazism http://www.adherents.com/adh_influ2.html#hitler - * conqueror; led Axis Powers in WWII
40 Plato Platonism / Greek philosophy founder of Platonism
41 Oliver Cromwell Puritan (Protestant) British political and military leader
42 Alexander Graham Bell Unitarian/Universalist inventor of telephone http://www.adherents.com/adh_influ.html#bell - *
43 Alexander Fleming Catholic penicillin; advances in bacteriology, immunology and chemotherapy
44 John Locke raised Puritan (Anglican);
Liberal Christian
philosopher and liberal theologian
45 Ludwig van Beethoven Catholic composer
46 Werner Heisenberg http://www.adherents.com/adh_influ.html#heisenberg - * discovered the principle of uncertainty
47 Louis Daguerre ?? an inventor/pioneer of photography
48 Simon Bolivar http://www.adherents.com/adh_influ.html#bolivar - Catholic (nominal); Atheist National hero of Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia
49 Rene Descartes http://www.adherents.com/adh_influ.html#descartes - Catholic Rationalist philosopher and mathematician
50 Michelangelo Catholic painter; sculptor; architect
51 Pope Urban II Catholic called for First Crusade
52 'Umar ibn al-Khattab Islam Second Caliph; expanded Muslim empire
53 Asoka Buddhism king of India who converted to and spread Buddhism
54 St. Augustine Christianity Early Christian theologian
55 William Harvey http://www.adherents.com/adh_influ.html#harvey - Anglican (nominal) described the circulation of blood; wrote Essays on the Generation of Animals, the basis for modern embryology
56 Ernest Rutherford ?? physicist; pioneer of subatomic physics
57 John Calvin Protestant; Calvinism Protestant reformer; founder of Calvinism
58 Gregor Mendel Catholic (monk) Mendelian genetics
59 Max Planck http://www.adherents.com/adh_influ.html#planck - Protestant physicist; thermodynamics
60 Joseph Lister Quaker principal discoverer of antiseptics which greatly reduced surgical mortality
61 Nikolaus August Otto ?? built first four-stroke internal combustion engine
62 Francisco Pizarro Catholic Spanish conqueror in South America; defeated Incas
63 Hernando Cortes Catholic conquered Mexico for Spain; through war and introduction of new diseases he largely destroyed Aztec civilization
64 Thomas Jefferson http://www.adherents.com/adh_influ.html#jefferson - Episcopalian; Deist 3rd president of United States
65 Queen Isabella I Catholic Spanish ruler
66 Joseph Stalin Russian Orthodox; Atheist; Marxism revolutionary and ruler of USSR
67 Julius Caesar Roman state paganism Roman emperor
68 William the Conqueror Catholic laid foundation of modern England
69 Sigmund Freud http://www.adherents.com/adh_influ.html#freud - Jewish (non-practicing); Atheist; Freudian
Freudian psychology/psychoanalysis
founder of Freudian school of psychology; psychoanalysis
70 Edward Jenner http://www.adherents.com/adh_influ.html#jenner - Anglican discoverer of the vaccination for smallpox
71 Wilhelm Conrad Roentgen ?? discovered X-rays
72 Johann Sebastian Bach Lutheran; Catholic composer
73 Lao Tzu Taoism founder of Taoism
74 Voltaire http://www.adherents.com/adh_influ.html#voltaire - raised in Jansenism;
later Deist
writer and philosopher; wrote Candide
75 Johannes Kepler http://www.adherents.com/adh_influ.html#kepler - Lutheran astronomer; planetary motions
76 Enrico Fermi http://www.adherents.com/adh_influ.html#fermi - Catholic initiated the atomic age; father of atom bomb
77 Leonhard Euler Calvinist physicist; mathematician; differential and integral calculus and algebra
78 Jean-Jacques Rousseau born Protestant;
converted as a teen to Catholic;
later Deist
French deistic philosopher and author
79 Nicoli Machiavelli Catholic wrote The Prince (influential political treatise)
80 Thomas Malthus Anglican (cleric) economist; wrote Essay on the Principle of Population
81 John F. Kennedy Catholic president of United States
82 Gregory Pincus http://www.adherents.com/adh_influ.html#pincus - Jewish endocrinologist; developed birth-control pill
83 Mani Manicheanism founder of Manicheanism, once a world religion which rivaled Christianity in strength
84 Lenin Russian Orthodox;
Atheist; Marxism/Communism [
http://www.adherents.com/adh_influ.html#Lenin - more ]
Russian ruler
85 Sui Wen Ti Chinese traditional religion unified China
86 Vasco da Gama Catholic navigator; discovered route from Europe to India around Cape Hood
87 Cyrus the Great Zoroastrianism founder of Persian empire
88 Peter the Great Russian Orthodox forged Russia into a great European nation
89 Mao Zedong Atheist; Communism; Maoism founder of Maoism, Chinese form of Communism
90 Francis Bacon http://www.adherents.com/adh_influ.html#bacon - Anglican philosopher; delineated inductive scientific method
91 Henry Ford Protestant developed automobile; achievement in manufacturing and assembly
92 Mencius Confucianism philosopher; founder of a school of Confucianism
93 Zoroaster Zoroastrianism founder of Zoroastrianism
94 Queen Elizabeth I Anglican British monarch; restored Church of England to power after Queen Mary
95 Mikhail Gorbachev http://www.adherents.com/adh_influ.html#gorbachev - Russian Orthodox Russian premier who helped end Communism in USSR
96 Menes Egyptian paganism unified Upper and Lower Egypt
97 Charlemagne Catholic Holy Roman Empire created with his baptism in 800 AD
98 Homer Greek paganism epic poet
99 Justinian I Catholic Roman emperor; reconquered Mediterranean empire; accelerated Catholic-Monophysite schism
100 Mahavira Hinduism; Jainism founder of Jainism
RU St. Thomas Aquinas Catholic influential early Christian philosopher
RU Archimedes Greek philosophy father of experimental science
RU Charles Babbage ?? mathematician and inventor of forerunner of computer
RU Cheops Egyptian paganism Egyptian ruler; builder of Great Pyramid
RU Marie Curie http://www.adherents.com/adh_influ.html#curie - Catholic; nonreligious physicist; radioactivity
RU Benjamin Franklin http://www.adherents.com/adh_influ.html#franklin - Presbyterian; Deist American politician and inventor
RU Mohandas Gandhi Hinduism; influenced by Jainism (mother was a Jain) Indian leader and Hindu religious reformer
RU Abraham Lincoln http://www.adherents.com/adh_influ.html#lincoln - Regular Baptist (childhood);
later ambiguous -
Deist, general theist or
a very personalized Christianity
16th president of U.S.; led during Civil War
RU Ferdinand Magellan Catholic navigator; named Pacific Ocean; first circumnavigation of globe
RU Leonardo da Vinci Catholic artist; inventor

RU = Runner Up (order is alphabetical)

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 




Replies:
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2005 at 15:04

Originally posted by Imperator Invictus

1. George Washington

most ridiculous ever!
 

2. Napoleon I
 3. Alexander the Great
 4. Genghis Khan
 5. Julius Caesar

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.


 

14. Adolf Hitler

second most ridiculous ever!

21. Karl von Clausewitz

23. Sun Tzu

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



-------------


Posted By: Kalevipoeg
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2005 at 15:10

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



-------------
There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible than a man in the depths of an ether binge...


Posted By: Winterhaze13
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2005 at 15:28

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.

 



-------------
Indeed, history is nothing more than a tableau of crimes and misfortunes.

-- Voltaire
French author, humanist, rationalist, & satirist (1694 - 1778)


Posted By: Komnenos
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2005 at 15:35
Not a bad list, but the ranking itself rather reflects the personal prejudices of the author than anything else. Would be interesting to see what criteria he applied.

-------------
[IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg">


Posted By: Winterhaze13
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2005 at 15:36

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.



-------------
Indeed, history is nothing more than a tableau of crimes and misfortunes.

-- Voltaire
French author, humanist, rationalist, & satirist (1694 - 1778)


Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2005 at 15:36

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.

 



Posted By: Winterhaze13
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2005 at 15:40
No, Napoleon definately changed history by spreading enlightenment or revolutionary ideas around Europe. It was Napoleon who created the first modern state equiped with a bureaucracy and national army. In fact Italian and German nationalism was largely influenced by him.

-------------
Indeed, history is nothing more than a tableau of crimes and misfortunes.

-- Voltaire
French author, humanist, rationalist, & satirist (1694 - 1778)


Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2005 at 15:55

Originally posted by Winterhaze13

No, Napoleon definately changed history by spreading enlightenment or revolutionary ideas around Europe. It was Napoleon who created the first modern state equiped with a bureaucracy and national army. In fact Italian and German nationalism was largely influenced by him.

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?



Posted By: Winterhaze13
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2005 at 16:02
Originally posted by Mosquito

Originally posted by Winterhaze13

No, Napoleon definately changed history by spreading enlightenment or revolutionary ideas around Europe. It was Napoleon who created the first modern state equiped with a bureaucracy and national army. In fact Italian and German nationalism was largely influenced by him.

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.



-------------
Indeed, history is nothing more than a tableau of crimes and misfortunes.

-- Voltaire
French author, humanist, rationalist, & satirist (1694 - 1778)


Posted By: mark1100
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2005 at 16:04
35 Thomas Edison http://www.adherents.com/people/pe/Thomas_Edison.html - inventor of light bulb

wrong! it was Heinrich Göbel


Posted By: poirot
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2005 at 16:08

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???

 



-------------
AAAAAAAAAA
"The crisis of yesterday is the joke of tomorrow.ďż˝   ~ HG Wells
           


Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2005 at 16:09
Originally posted by Winterhaze13

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.

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.



Posted By: Laelius
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2005 at 16:24
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?  What 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?


Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2005 at 16:25
Originally posted by poirot

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!

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.



Posted By: Winterhaze13
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2005 at 16:26

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.



-------------
Indeed, history is nothing more than a tableau of crimes and misfortunes.

-- Voltaire
French author, humanist, rationalist, & satirist (1694 - 1778)


Posted By: Winterhaze13
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2005 at 16:28

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?  What 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?

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.



-------------
Indeed, history is nothing more than a tableau of crimes and misfortunes.

-- Voltaire
French author, humanist, rationalist, & satirist (1694 - 1778)


Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2005 at 16:30

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?  What 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?

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



Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2005 at 16:34
Originally posted by Winterhaze13

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.

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



Posted By: poirot
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2005 at 16:34
The most influential founding father was Thomas Jefferson.  Washington served mostly as a symbol, a figurehead.  I admire Washington for his rectitude and honour, but not his military genius.  As to military exploits, ranking him above Napoleon woud be preposterous.

-------------
AAAAAAAAAA
"The crisis of yesterday is the joke of tomorrow.ďż˝   ~ HG Wells
           


Posted By: Imperator Invictus
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2005 at 19:43
I also think the second list is pretty bad. The fact that it was written by an American Military officer does suggest some bias there. One thing that should be emphasized about the second list is that it is a ranking of influence rather than skill. The author admits that if it were based on actual skill, George Washington would probably not even make the top 100. IMO, I dont think Wash can be top 10. I think he can still cut it for top 20 though.

As for the first list, I  do think that it was a scholarly attempt at the rankings; much better than the second (for its ranking of military leaders).







-------------


Posted By: poirot
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2005 at 20:15

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.



-------------
AAAAAAAAAA
"The crisis of yesterday is the joke of tomorrow.ďż˝   ~ HG Wells
           


Posted By: poirot
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2005 at 20:46

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?  What 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?

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.



-------------
AAAAAAAAAA
"The crisis of yesterday is the joke of tomorrow.ďż˝   ~ HG Wells
           


Posted By: Thegeneral
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2005 at 21:00
Washington is definatly one of the best generals.  Europe and others are just mad that they lost to him, and lost America!  And history IS based on one person, atleast in many cases.  If Hitler had not been around would WWII had happened?  I doubt it!

-------------


Posted By: Illuminati
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2005 at 21:09
The success of the American revolution changed the world. A bunch of farmers beat the best military there was, and When looking at america in the 20th century.......it does make sense that the commander of our revolution would be on the top 10. No one can deny America has not had a profound influence on the world.

Add this is a list of military figures, not constitutional figures like Jefferson or Franklin. So, Washington is really one of the only American revolutionaries that can even make the list.


-------------


Posted By: Imperator Invictus
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2005 at 21:14
No, Washington was definately not a "revolutionary" tactician LoL. He lost most of his battles. He was a great leader but that did not take form in military skill. He still won the war despite losing more battles than won. 

-------------


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2005 at 16:07

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...



-------------


Posted By: poirot
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2005 at 16:33
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.



-------------
AAAAAAAAAA
"The crisis of yesterday is the joke of tomorrow.ďż˝   ~ HG Wells
           


Posted By: Kentuckian
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2005 at 20:50
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.

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.



-------------
"I have not yet begun to fight." - John Paul Jones

"America will win through absolute victory" - President Franklin Roosevelt

"This was our finest hour." - Winston Churchill


Posted By: Cywr
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2005 at 21:07
British land army was never that good compared to others, just average, all the effort and resources went into the navy. Its only relativly recently that the British armys reputaion as a cut above the rest has some real merit, and even then, there isn't alot in it.
Napolean was fighting against half of Europe, not just against the British.


-------------
Arrrgh!!"


Posted By: Laelius
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2005 at 22:42

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

 

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.


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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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).

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. 

 

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.



Posted By: Laelius
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2005 at 22:44
BTW I agree that its history that makes the man and not the other way around yet I feel that you've underestimated the effects that one man's decision may have on the future.


Posted By: Kentuckian
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2005 at 23:11

Originally posted by Cywr


Napolean was fighting against half of Europe, not just against the British.

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). 



-------------
"I have not yet begun to fight." - John Paul Jones

"America will win through absolute victory" - President Franklin Roosevelt

"This was our finest hour." - Winston Churchill


Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2005 at 06:11
Originally posted by Thegeneral

Washington is definatly one of the best generals.  Europe and others are just mad that they lost to him, and lost America! 


Europe is mad for loosing America? Most of Europe was fighting against the British and/or supporting the Americans. France, Spain and the Netherlands fought an open war, while the most important naval supplies and ore producers, Russia and Sweden, boycotted the British and joined in the Armed Neutrality together with Denmark. Polish, French, German, Swedish, etc officers fought in the revolutionary armies. Washington being one of the best generals is about as truthful as your second statement.


Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2005 at 06:18
I'm sorry for the American pride, but the American revolution has nothing to do with the French one.

The people were very poor before the revolution, Louis XIV bankrupted the state and his successors, Louis XV and XVI did nothing against it. They made the situation even worse.

The French revolution would have happen with or without the USA, yet the American war of independance might not have been a success without the French support. Think of De Grasse and chesapeake bay.

And Washington is very overated, without La Fayette he was nothing. Before the American war of independance, do you guys even know of the Battle of Monogahela? The American forces came to seize the French lands in Louisiana under the general Braddock, the American had a 1.500 strong men force and the French a 700 men strong one. More than half of the American force were killed in battle with minor casualties on the French side. Braddock was hit and wounded and no one was couragous enough to rescue him, especially not this officer named Georges Washington who left the battle as the only officer to survive it.


-------------
Vae victis!


Posted By: Cywr
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2005 at 09:32
Washington is definatly one of the best generals.  Europe and others are just mad that they lost to him, and lost America!


Europe and others? LMAO.
Yes, i renember that long struggle for US indipendance from the rest of the planet.

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).


The French handed not a few defeats to the English on land, and Iberia was something else.
British army was nothing special, even British historians agree on this. There was the tendancy in Britian to distrust large militaries, especialy at home, so it often didn't get the attention other continental powers would have given it.



-------------
Arrrgh!!"


Posted By: poirot
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2005 at 11:54

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



-------------
AAAAAAAAAA
"The crisis of yesterday is the joke of tomorrow.ďż˝   ~ HG Wells
           


Posted By: Winterhaze13
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2005 at 12:35

Originally posted by Cywr

British land army was never that good compared to others, just average, all the effort and resources went into the navy. Its only relativly recently that the British armys reputaion as a cut above the rest has some real merit, and even then, there isn't alot in it.
Napolean was fighting against half of Europe, not just against the British.

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.



-------------
Indeed, history is nothing more than a tableau of crimes and misfortunes.

-- Voltaire
French author, humanist, rationalist, & satirist (1694 - 1778)


Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2005 at 13:59

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!



-------------
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi



Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2005 at 02:20

 

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.



-------------


Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2005 at 02:24
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.

 

 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.



-------------


Posted By: poirot
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2005 at 03:59
I would argue that the Prussians had a better army (the British had the best navy, but on land, the Prussians were far superior.)

-------------
AAAAAAAAAA
"The crisis of yesterday is the joke of tomorrow.ďż˝   ~ HG Wells
           


Posted By: akýncý
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2005 at 07:11
jesus is a little way off

-------------
"I am the scourage of god appointed to chastise you,since no one knows the remedy for your iniquity exept me.You are wicked,but I am more wicked than you,so be silent!"
              


Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2005 at 09:34
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

 

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.



Don't you rather mean Louis XIV? I can't think of any special accomplishment from Louis IV.
 

-------------
Vae victis!


Posted By: Laelius
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2005 at 10:57

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.



Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2005 at 12:02
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.


 


The Hessians aren't famed because they were good, but rather because the drunken stupor they had before the battle of Trenton, where only a fraction of them were able to stand up straight.


Posted By: Laelius
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2005 at 21:31

The Hessians aren't famed because they were good, but rather because the drunken stupor they had before the battle of Trenton, where only a fraction of them were able to stand up straight.

 

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.



Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2005 at 02:46

Originally posted by poirot

I would argue that the Prussians had a better army (the British had the best navy, but on land, the Prussians were far superior.)

 

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.



-------------


Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2005 at 02:47
Originally posted by Exarchus

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

 

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.



Don't you rather mean Louis XIV? I can't think of any special accomplishment from Louis IV.
 

LOL, yep, that was a typo.



-------------


Posted By: Degredado
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2005 at 14:37

Originally posted by Exarchus


And Washington is very overated, without La Fayette he was nothing. Before the American war of independance, do you guys even know of the Battle of Monogahela? The American forces came to seize the French lands in Louisiana under the general Braddock

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.



-------------
Vou votar nas putas. Estou farto de votar nos filhos delas


Posted By: poirot
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2005 at 17:30
Let's steer the argument elsewhere and focus on other discrepancies.  I think that we have argued enough about Washington.  The ranking of 199 more characters waiting to be reviewed by everybody

-------------
AAAAAAAAAA
"The crisis of yesterday is the joke of tomorrow.ďż˝   ~ HG Wells
           


Posted By: Cywr
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2005 at 17:37
and I would like to know why Vasco da Gama ranks so below Columbus.


I think the name 'Micheal Hart' provides a huge clue


-------------
Arrrgh!!"


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2005 at 17:46

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

 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.

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



-------------


Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2005 at 19:31
Originally posted by Temujin

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

 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.

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?



Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2005 at 21:26
Originally posted by Temujin

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

 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.

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

 

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.



-------------


Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2005 at 21:33
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

Originally posted by Temujin

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

 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.

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

 

 Russia was never a decent fighting forces in those, Prussia became an army of automatons after frederick. Austria was actually good.

I'll put it like that Austria, France, England, Prussia.



-------------


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2005 at 15:14
Originally posted by Mosquito

In numbers or in quality?

leadership and tactics.

 

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

Pretty ridiculous list, French forces was always at the top at any time.

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

Russia was never a decent fighting forces, Prussia became an army of automaton after frederick.

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.



-------------


Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2005 at 21:56
Originally posted by Temujin

Originally posted by Mosquito

In numbers or in quality?

leadership and tactics.

 

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

Pretty ridiculous list, French forces was always at the top at any time.

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

Russia was never a decent fighting forces, Prussia became an army of automaton after frederick.

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. 



-------------


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2005 at 15:19

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

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.



-------------


Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2005 at 20:27

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 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.



Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date 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 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.



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 )


Posted By: Laelius
Date 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



Posted By: Jazz
Date 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?


-------------
http://www.forums.internationalhockey.net/index.php?/index.php?referrerid=8 - International Hockey Forums


Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2005 at 05:44
I wanted to say that i would rank Russians after Prussians, not before them.


Posted By: Mosquito
Date 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.



Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date 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.


Posted By: Temujin
Date 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-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.

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.



-------------


Posted By: Mosquito
Date 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 Racławice was one of the first battles of the Polish Kościuszko Uprising against Russia. It was fought on April 4, 1794 near the village of Racławice 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 Ożarowski 400 bayonettes
1 battalion Infantry Regiment of Raczyński 200 bayonettes
10 squadrons of cavalry under Antoni Madaliński 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 Kościuszko 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 Kościuszko 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.



Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2005 at 16:57
Originally posted by Mosquito

Some of your countrymen Temujin fought there too.

 how was their performance?



-------------


Posted By: Mosquito
Date 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.



Posted By: Laelius
Date 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...


Posted By: Laelius
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2005 at 10:50

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

 

American Revolutionary War

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.



Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2005 at 12:04
Originally posted by Laelius

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

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



Posted By: Laelius
Date 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.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date 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.



Posted By: gcle2003
Date 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?



Posted By: gcle2003
Date 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.

 



Posted By: gcle2003
Date 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.

 



Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date 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 the King's Army (and indeed the French and American ones, no?) were mercenaries.

Probably because they were mercenaries.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date 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.

 



Posted By: Laelius
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2005 at 20:45

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.

 

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

 

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).

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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



Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2005 at 13:02
Originally posted by Laelius

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.

 

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

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).

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).

 

First theoffice 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.

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

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

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

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.

 

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

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?)



Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2005 at 14:06
yeah, allies would be a better term than mercenaries.

-------------


Posted By: Laelius
Date Posted: 26-Jun-2005 at 23:37

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).


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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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.


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.

 

 



Posted By: Laelius
Date Posted: 26-Jun-2005 at 23:38
BTW in all honesty I wouldn't have put him at the top either.


Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2005 at 06:18
Originally posted by gcle2003

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.

The Hessian units were placed in the British army, under British command payed for by the British crown, the French army operated as an army still under French funding and command, not as a unit subordinated to the Americans. That's your difference.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Apr-2014 at 12:18
It is surprising that emperor Asoka is ignored in the list. He belongs to 4th century BC. He conquered almost entire present India as well as Pakistan and parts of Afghanistan. Later he advocated peace and spread Buddhism in Asia including China. He was not only a military ruler but also a crusader of peace, whose influence is felt even today, even after about two and half millenniums. Who else is more qualified to be in the list?


-------------


Posted By: DoubleVlad
Date Posted: 22-Sep-2014 at 20:34
In reality, we must use the time elapsed from an influential person's period of influence to the present day as the most important indicator of influence. Yes, Hitler and Napoleon and George Washington were very influential, but they cannot be considered more influential than Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, Muhammad, &c. A person may have only had an influence of a magnitude 10 times lower than another, but simply because their influence came earlier, there influence has been magnified to a greater significance. It is a domino effect; just because one domino was able to push down other dominoes quicker and with more force does not mean that it had a greater impact than the very first domino that the butterfly landed on and knocked over. Time is the most powerful entity when analyzing history, and it must be employed to its full power here in order to provide a more accurate picture of how influential certain persons have been on the ebb and flow of history.

-------------
"Every action has its consequences that will never fade; whether they are good or bad depends upon what attitude we employ."   ~DoubleVlad



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com