Military Top 5 - Most Influential

Discussions on History. Please keep on topic & friendly. Provocative & one sided political posts will be deleted.

Re: Military Top 5 - Most Influential

Postby Hagar » Mon Jan 26, 2004 7:58 am

Patton (who I also mentioned but Hagar didn't) were certainly influential.

I didn't mention Patton (or Montgomery) as they & other commanders of various services were both under the direct command of Eisenhower. He also had the power to replace them if necessary. Patton & Montgomery were both controversial characters whose intense dislike for each other might well have affected their decisions, causing unnecessary delay & casualties. Whether they were exceptionally talented generals is debatable. In any case, they were field commanders who I suggest had no long-term influence on history.
Image

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group
My Google Photos albums
My Flickr albums
User avatar
Hagar
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 30854
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:15 am
Location: Costa Geriatrica

Re: Military Top 5 - Most Influential

Postby Woodlouse2002 » Mon Jan 26, 2004 5:15 pm

I am suprised that no one has yet mentioned George Washington.
Woodlouse2002 PITA and BAR!!!!!!!!

Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains c
User avatar
Woodlouse2002
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 10369
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2002 3:51 pm
Location: Cornwall, England

Re: Military Top 5 - Most Influential

Postby Felix/FFDS » Mon Jan 26, 2004 6:16 pm

I am suprised that no one has yet mentioned George Washington.


He's ranked No.1  in the book.
Last edited by Felix/FFDS on Mon Jan 26, 2004 6:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Felix/FFDS
User avatar
Felix/FFDS
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 16776432
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 9:42 am
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Military Top 5 - Most Influential

Postby Smoke2much » Tue Jan 27, 2004 12:01 am

[quote]

He's ranked No.1
Who switched the lights off?
User avatar
Smoke2much
Major
Major
 
Posts: 2755
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: Sittingbourne, Kent,

Re: Military Top 5 - Most Influential

Postby Woodlouse2002 » Tue Jan 27, 2004 4:06 pm

In that case, I assume the book as American origins. ::) :P
Woodlouse2002 PITA and BAR!!!!!!!!

Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains c
User avatar
Woodlouse2002
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 10369
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2002 3:51 pm
Location: Cornwall, England

Re: Military Top 5 - Most Influential

Postby WebbPA » Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:14 am

I thought of Washington about 3 days after my first post.  Then I thought, naah, the Euros will trash him.  After all, he was a contemporary of Napoleon and European history at the time was much more important than American history.

In the end I could support the Washington theory the same way I could support my Elizabeth I/Victoria theory.  I'm not bound by this theory but it is as follows:  Who is more important, the leader (whatever) who makes an empire possible, or the leader who brings it to its fruition?

As a couple of examples:

1. Roman Empire - If Rome had lost the Punic Wars to Hannibal there would never have been a Roman Empire, no JC, no Augustus, no Holy Roman Empire, etc.  I like the popular Christian theory that the Roman Empire was an instrument of God to spread Christianity throughout the world.  Who was more important, then, Scipio Aemilianus, who finally defeated Hannibal and ensured the existence of Rome, or JC, who ensured the existence of the Empire.

2.  England - If the Spanish Armada successfully invaded England or destroyed its navy Spain would have been the master of the New World.  Would Spain have fared better against Washington?  If Spain wiped out the British navy (assuming occupation was impossible) what would have been the state of the Empire at Victoria's ascension?

3. Washington - Fortunately for America, Napoleon was occupying British troops, allowing Washington  to fight against a mininal occupying army.  (Didn't Lyndon Johnson learn anything from this war?)

Washington made American freedom possible, leading (primarily because of its unlimited natiral resources)  to its preemience.  In the end, however, America freedom was inevitable.  If Washington wasn't there someone else would have been there.

In a similar vein WW2 was an inevitable result of WW1.  If Hitler had not started it someone else (German) would have.  That person may not have been as ruthless as Hitler.  In such event he may have been satisfied with the occupation of Europe and a secure Russian border

Anyway, some things to think about.
WebbPA
Ground hog
Ground hog
 
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Military Top 5 - Most Influential

Postby Hagar » Thu Jan 29, 2004 4:14 am

Very interesting. Life is full of ifs & buts although it's not possible to change what actually happened so we shall never find out. Things very rarely work out the way you would expect as many leaders & generals have found out to their cost. I think this is your most poignant comment.
(Didn't Lyndon Johnson learn anything from this war?)


Those in power rarely learn anything from history. This has been proven time after time.
Image

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group
My Google Photos albums
My Flickr albums
User avatar
Hagar
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 30854
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:15 am
Location: Costa Geriatrica

Previous

Return to History

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 349 guests