Military Top 5 - Most Influential

[Felix/FFDS]

I just picked up an interesting book - The Military Top 100 Most Influential.  Basically, it considers and lists the top 100 military commanders that most influenced the world.  Like all lists, a (relative) matter of opinion, but convincing arguments are made.

All countries, all periods are considered, and a short explanation of their military prowess and most importantly, the why they are considered influential - Military Success is not necessarily the prime consideration.

It would be interesting to see what we - amateur historians - would consider to be, say, the Top 5 most influential military commanders of all time.

[Woodlouse2002]

1/ Erwin Rommel
2/ Hannibal Barca
3/ Horatio Nelson
4/ Henry V
5/ Napolion Bonapart

The above are sort of in order.

[Felix/FFDS]

1/ Erwin Rommel
2/ Hannibal Barca
3/ Horatio Nelson
4/ Henry V
5/ Napolion Bonapart

The above are sort of in order.

Interestingly, Napoleon I is listed No.2, but I would be interested in your observation as to why you would consider Rommel as more influential than Napoleon I.

[Hagar]

This is not my subject but I'll have a shot anyway. In no particular order.

Alexander the Great
Hannibal the Great
Charlemagne
Julius Caesar
Genghis Khan

They all changed the course of world history & helped make it into what we know today. Not only geat military leaders but they also influenced civilisation itself by establishing law & order, however brutal some might seem today. There are many more to choose from, some far more recent, but these might not even have existed or been in a position to change anything if this had not been the case. That's my theory & I'm sticking to it.

[Woodlouse2002]

Interestingly, Napoleon I is listed No.2, but I would be interested in your observation as to why you would consider Rommel as more influential than Napoleon I.

There are a few reasons. Primarily because I thought of Rommel before I thought of Napoleon. Other than that I do consider Rommel to be one of the best tactitions in history.

[SilverFox441]

In no particular order:

Karl Doenitz
Mao Tse Tung
Ghengis Khan
Von Clauswitz
Sun Tzu
Custer

I suppose the argument could be made that Mao and Von Clauswitz are really variations of Sun Tzu's philosophies, but the applications seem important to me.

[Smoke2much]

Guderien - The development of Tank Warfare

Ludendorf - The 1918 Kaiserschlact offensive was the first "Modern" offensive of WW1

Edward I for his Welsh campaigns

Napoleon Bonaparte - Strategic genius until 1812

Sun Tzu as he literally wrote the book.

Will

[WebbPA]

Keeping in mind the original question criteria (mlitary (leaders?) who most influenced the world) and not necessarily the most successful I would have to go with with (chronological order):

Alexander the Great (d. 323 BC) - Basically stomped across the entire known world before his death at age 32.  He just didn't realize how big the world was so he turned around when he reached India.  He might have gone further but he died.

Julius Caesar (d. 44 BC) - The Roman conqueror.  Extended the Roman Empire to its greatest extent.  His adopted son/nephew Augustus finally pacified the conquered territories to bring them fully into the empire.

William, Duke of Normandy (d. 1087) - Have you ever heard of the Norman Conquest?

Napoleon Bonaparte (d. 1821).  Sort of.  The end result of the Napoleonic Wars was the treaty of Austria (and as a side effect the Treaty of Ghent guaranteeing American independence) which resulted in world peace for 100 years, until WWI.

Adolf Hitler (d. 1945) - Yes, he was a military leader.  Masterminded the blitzkrieg into Poland and France.  His final military offensive, which almost succeded, was the Battle of the Bulge (1944).  Why was he influential?  Because he commanded the last and largest war of the last century.  You could say that Josef Stalin was his equal because his army defeated Hitler's and his influence extended into the Cold War of the 1950-60's - but it's a judgment call.

Who doesn't get my vote.

Rommel, Hannibal - losing generals don't influence history.

[Hagar]

William, Duke of Normandy (d. 1087) - Have you ever heard of the Norman Conquest?

Being British I am not unaware of it. It's quite likely I'm part-Norman myself & I live less than 50 miles from where the Norman army landed. Every British schoolchild of my generation has the date 1066 engraved on their brain. It's one of the few historic dates I can remember without having to look it up. This was the last time my country was successfully invaded.

I never thought of William the Conqueror as a great general. He landed virtually unopposed more by luck than judgement. The Saxon army was occupied in the North, successfully repelling the Viking invaders. King Harold was forced to march with a depleted army almost the whole length of the country to meet this new threat. They probably picked up some reinforcements on the way but the men would have been tired & weakened when they arrived to do battle. Once Harold was fatally wounded the battle was essentially won.

William's considerable influence on the future of Britain (which no doubt spread to the rest of the western world) was more political & cultural than military. This was felt more in the south of England & even today the culture of the north is more Viking influenced than Norman.

[Felix/FFDS]

William's considerable influence on the future of Britain (which no doubt spread to the rest of the western world) was more political & cultural than military. This was felt more in the south of England & even today the culture of the north is more Viking influenced than Norman.

For some reason, that's one year that pops into my mind... although 1493 is a bit more relevant to me ..

I was reading that William actually had a claim to the English "throne" such as it existed at the time, so that when Harold proclaimed himself king, William went to 'defend' his claim.  Like you say, Harold was fresh from a battle with the Vikings, and the rest, as we say, is history.

Hagar hit the nail on the head.  William's influence was more in the social/cultural (do you eat pig or pork deer or venison) fields rather than military.  He ordered the first comprehensive census - the Domesday Book - that still exists.

[Tequila Sunrise]

Admiral Chester Nimitz
Admiral Hirohito Yamamoto
Alexander the Great
General Curtis E Lemay
Admiral Horatio Nelson
 

[WebbPA]

I never thought of William the Conqueror as a military genius  and to be honest I have no idea what his military abilities may have been.  The question was about influential military commanders and I think you would have to agree that he was influential.

A. Hitler was not a particularly competent military commander but he made my list over several other WWII era commanders (Eisenhower, Stalin, Zukov, Patton) because he had a greater individual influence than any of them.

[Hagar]

The question was about influential military commanders and I think you would have to agree that he was influential.

True but it has been suggested that if Harold had waited until the following day before starting his attack he might well have defeated William. If this had happened the history of Britain would be completely different to what it is today. It's more than likely I wouldn't be sitting here typing this. Of course, we will never know the answer but I find it fascinating. Ifs & buts eh.

[Smoke2much]

But Harald never attacked.  He turned up at Battle Abbey (lol) and formed a shield wall.  The Normans rather sportingly obliged by repeatedly attacking it.

If the theigns had kept a tighter control over their men we would have a slightly different history.

Will

[Hagar]

[quote]But Harald never attacked.