Military Top 5 - Most Influential

[Smoke2much]

I'm just amazed that the battle took place in village called battle!  I mean, coincidence or what?

Will

[Hagar]

[quote]But Harald never attacked.

[Hagar]

[quote]I'm just amazed that the battle took place in village called battle!

[Smoke2much]

As I understand it (at work, no books ) William and his army had been busy during that time raising hell in Kent and Sussex and Harold wanted it stopped.  In addition the pre-feudal system that Haralds army was formed under was time limited and he had to bring William to battle quickly or they would all eff off home for the winter.

[Hagar]

As I understand it (at work, no books ) .

I have very few history books. It would cost me a fortune. The internet is the most comprehensive history book I've ever seen & it's free.

he had to bring William to battle quickly or they would all eff off home for the winter

Sounds like the typical British workman. Things obviously haven't changed as much as I thought.

[Hagar]

[quote]But Harald never attacked.

[Woodlouse2002]

Who doesn't get my vote.

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

Do you realise what you have said? Rommel, Hannibal, losing Generals?

Rommel was only defeated in North Africa because he ran out of supplies. If we hadn't cracked Enigma then we wouldn't have knowen where and when his supply convoys would be travelling and so we couldn't have shot them out the water. Once the Operation Torch landings had gone ahead Rommel was fighting on two fronts with less than 50 operational tanks. Thats against three fully equiped allied armies.

And Hannibal, When Hannibal attacked the Roman empire he pulled off some of the most fantastic victorys in history. He managed to get an entire army complete with Elephants over the alps and then started to hammer the Romans over and over again. His best victory being when he defeated a Roman army 10,000 strong with a force of barely 2,000 men. And you say he had no influence on history?


And you say losing generals don't influence history? Look at your choices! You've included Napoleon and Hitler!!! They both made the same HUGE military blunder a commander could make, invading Russia. And they both lost!!! And you say losers don't influence history?

[WebbPA]

Of course I realize what I wrote. The question was about influence, not about ability.

What influence did Hannibal have on history besides scaring the snot out of the Romans?  Does anyone even know what country he came from or where that country is?  I would say that Scipio Aemilianus had a lot more influence than Hannibal.

What influence did Rommel have on history?  He didn't even survive the war.  He is only known among historians as a great general and even that point is questionable.  I could name a lot of German military who had more influence - Goering, Hess, Doenitz, Himmler ...

I included Napoleon and Hitler primarily because of their political influence - or the political influence of their military conquests.  The end of the Napoleonic wars served as the basis of worldwide politics for 100 years, the end of WW2 for 60 years.

[Felix/FFDS]

I like this discussion...

[Smoke2much]

Rommel IMO did have an influence historically.  He was responsible for developing the Atlantic Wall, and it is debatable that had he had more control of the units under his command the outcome of overlord would have been differant.

Jim, you state:

He is only known among historians as a great general and even that point is questionable.

In this sort of discussion whose opinion matters, the general public or the historians?  I would say that anybody who takes part in this discussion should have heard of Rommel, anybody who hasn't needs to hit the books for a while.

You have also said that the Treaty of Ghent gave world Peace for 100 years...

The Franco-Prussian War 1870's
The Crimean War 1850's
The American Civil War 1860's
The Boer War 1890's
The Mexican American War 1840's
The Russo-Japanese War 1900's

To really discuss this properly we need to have a defination of "Influential" that we can all agree on.

So what is the definition of Influence that we are comfortable with.  I agree that Rommel isn't up there in the top 5 by my definition...

Will

[WebbPA]

Would have, should have, could have.  Rommel didn't have more control of his units and the Atlantic Wall was breached.  Germany lost the war and he wasn't around to help rebuild.

World peace is a tenuous concept.  The Pax Romana lasted 500 years but no one would say there was absolute, worldwide security.  When I speak of world peace I mean relative world peace - no major conflicts that affect global politics for the next century or so.

The people I nominated as influential had a real (not potential) effect, good or bad, on world politics for years after their deaths.

[Felix/FFDS]

You have also said that the Treaty of Ghent gave world Peace for 100 years...

No - he said " the Napoleonic Wars served as the basis of world politics for the next 100years, teh end of WW2 for 60 years."   - although I propose that WW2 has had more influence than the Napoleonic Wars already.

[quote]To really discuss this properly we need to have a defination of "Influential" that we can all agree on.

So what is the definition of Influence that we are comfortable with.

[Smoke2much]

[quote]

Napoleon Bonaparte (d. 1821).

[Hagar]

Interesting. As I mentioned before, I discounted modern leaders as it's quite likely they would not have been in a position to influence anything (& might not even have existed) without the events of centuries beforehand.

If Hitler is counted as a military leader, as he certainly was, apart from never actually being a general, then surely Winston Churchill must qualify. He was in overall command of the British & Commonwealth forces throughout WWII & also First Lord of the Admiralty. I'm not sure about FDR but Dwight D Eisenhower was the Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force in Europe. Despite his comparative lack of experience he was the general responsible for the victory over Nazism in the west which had considerable influence on subsequent world events until the present day. I think he should also be considered.

[WebbPA]

My mistake.  I should have said "Treaty of Vienna", not "Treaty of Austria".

I agree with Hagar to the extent that:

1. The president of the US is considered the commander in chief of the armed forces so FDR could be considered a military leader.  He just showed more sense than some other presidents and let the generals fight the war.

2. Churchill, Eisenhower (who I mentioned) and Patton (who I also mentioned but Hagar didn't) were certainly influential.  My selection of Hitler was based upon the fact that:

a. He almost singlehandedly started WW2, and

b. Although he lost, WW2 was a major event in world history, and

c. Although many distinguished military leaders contributed to his defeat no single person can be credited with it.