The 5 Most Influential People of Different Eras

[Preliat Mantis]

whoever made beer

 

[Bass]

Best military commanders of the Middle Ages? Thread should happen now.

Khalid ibn al-Walid
Saladin
Subutai
Genghis Khan
Jan Ziska

Those are the first three that spring to my mind. I would concur with Charles Martel, not so much with Richard III, William the Conqueror or any other of the multitude of western European rulers who have benefited over the years from astonishingly good press. Winning a few lopsided battles doesn't make one a great commander, developing and leading a military system which is consistently shown to be superior on the battlefield vs. it's opponents is.

So on that note the various military-minded Byzantine Emperors from around 800-950 deserve a mention as well.

 

[Natasi Fortan]

no missed it, read all if you going criticize me

Wah. Take a joke

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

Some interesting opinions in this thread….

[member="Spencer Jacobs"]
That’s an endless talking point for academics and pedants. But I’m setting the limit as 475CE because that’s a good conventional date for it.

[member="Darth Junra"] has an excellent point.

Rather than start a new thread I might just rename this thread and define eras of discussion.

Antiquity: ???-476CE
Medieval: 476CE-1453CE
Renaissance: 1453CE-1648CE
Early Modern: 1648CE-1815CE
19th Century: 1815CE-1914CE
20th Century: 1914CE-2000CE

Feel free to branch out into specific sub groups in each area such as military, scientific, literary, etc.

For mine, I would list the following:
Medieval:

1. Muhammed
2. Genghis Khan
3. William the Conqueror
4. Charlemagne
5. Othman, founder of the Ottomans

And so on.

 

[Darth Kentarch]

[member="Valeria Aetani"]

Uh right.

1.Plato - laid the foundations of Western philosophy and science.
2.Herodotus - Father of History
3.Hammurabi - Code of Hammurabi
4. Akhenaten - First Monotheist
5. Alaric I - Sack of Rome, and thus brought the end of the era of Antiquity


Wannabes

1. Hannibal - "Hannibal, you know how to gain a victory, but not how to use one." Also in the famous words of myself when I stole the county chess championship. "Your not actually any good if you beat a bunch of people who just suck. And then lose the last and most important match up to someone who is decent." Thank you Scipio.
2 and 3. August and Julius Caesar - Agrippa and a bunch of other lackeys did all your leg work.
4. Alexander the Great - See the second part of my statement about the Caesars, also you died shortly after you conquered your empire. And empire management is half the job.
5. Sun Tzu: Sorry man, you likely aren't even real. But I'll clump you in with King Arthur in the Legendary group.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

[member="Coric Adromak"]
Do you want honest critique?

 

[Darth Kentarch]

[member="Valeria Aetani"], wait are we taking this thread seriously?

And for the sake of simplicity and standardization lets make it:

Antiquity Age/Era
Postclasical or Middle Age/Era
Modern Age/Era

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

As seriously as you like.

 

[Darth Kentarch]

[member="Valeria Aetani"], Go for it.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

[member="Coric Adromak"]
Alaric did very little in reality. His Sack of Rome in 410 was an exercise in extortion. The Western Empire did not 'Fall' for another 66 years. The impact of the Gothic Sack to the city was far less than the Vandal sack of 455 for instance. By this time Rome was no longer even in the top 5 most important cities in the Empire. Attila had a more immediate impact, though his long term impact is very much disputed.
Hammurabi had an impact on his local region, but there's nothing in even later Persian rule and law which follows these guidelines.
Herodotus had a lot of impact on the western style of literature and history, but I'm not sure if we could put him in the top 5 when other luminaries such as Jesus missed out.

I would also disagree on Caesar and Augustus. One of them should definitely be there for the impact on first breaking the old then creating a new order. Lackeys or no, it wouldn't have happened without them. In Caesar's case it was his ruthless egotism which led him to conquer the Roman world.

 

[Cyrus Tregessar]

Woah, we got Hannibal haters here. That poodoo won't stand.

On a more serious note, Alaric and the 'barbarian invasions' are overstated to a certain degree in their influence on the decline of the Western Roman Empire. The Empire continued to endure long past (not super long, but enough) Alaric's sack and documents and writing at the time from people living in Italy find little indication that internal infrastructure that supported the Empire was at all effected. It did cause a shift in the political center and some de-centralization which helped contribute, after the Vandals took North Africa in 429 CE.

Even so there's a strong trend by the aforementioned 'barbarians' even after 500 CE to establish their kingdoms under Roman terms and even integrate themselves into the preexisting Roman political structure. That eventually starts to fade around the 6th Century and is basically gone by the 7th, until Charlemagne kicks off the HRE.

I would say all considered, Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar were far more influential in the scope of things, unless you factor in Alaric's contributions to the spread and popularity of Arianism, which even then is hardly an enduring legacy.


*shakes fist at [member="Valeria Aetani"]

Stealin' my thunder.

 

[Aurelio Murtix]

[member="Coric Adromak"]
Alaric did very little in reality. His Sack of Rome in 410 was an exercise in extortion. The Western Empire did not 'Fall' for another 66 years. The impact of the Gothic Sack to the city was far less than the Vandal sack of 455 for instance. By this time Rome was no longer even in the top 5 most important cities in the Empire. Attila had a more immediate impact, though his long term impact is very much disputed.
Hammurabi had an impact on his local region, but there's nothing in even later Persian rule and law which follows these guidelines.
Herodotus had a lot of impact on the western style of literature and history, but I'm not sure if we could put him in the top 5 when other luminaries such as Jesus missed out.

I would also disagree on Caesar and Augustus. One of them should definitely be there for the impact on first breaking the old then creating a new order. Lackeys or no, it wouldn't have happened without them. In Caesar's case it was his ruthless egotism which led him to conquer the Roman world.

I would have also pointed out that while Alexander did die early and the grand empire split up, it allowed the various Greek dynasties to rule over the different parts and spread Greek writing and culture for centuries. The Ptolemaic dynasty alone lasted from then all the way to the annexation of Egypt by Rome, taking on Egyptian traditions while spreading Greek ideas that would later be 'rediscovered'.

On another note, now that it is made into different eras I am going to be making a more modern list that will include my love of Teddy Roosevelt. Watch out. XD

 

[Darth Kentarch]

Well argued,.

However I can make a counterpoint.
For the Ceasers, most of the history about them and their time comes from well... Themselves. Or as my History professor said. "Julius Ceaser and August Ceaser were great men because they said they were." Most of our history about them comes from them. There are huge bias problems with history like this which is slowly no longer standing up to academic scrutiny.

Hammurabi - First person to come with a set of written laws inhistory. It was the first ever written legal document the first. And thus so gives us the first of anything that comes close to a social contract, thats huge. Unless we are making this list uber refined the only people ahead of him should be Greco-Roman philosophers.

Alaric. Likely my weakest entry. Hence no. 5. However its his betrayal and the fact he was the first to do it which cause the legions and other leaders to no longer be loyal. Plus with the barbarians turning against Rome, by the time the Vandals had shown up, the Huns had trashed most of Italy anyways, the city had already been looted and lost its value.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

[member="Cyrus Tregessar"]
Nicely said.

Well argued,.

However I can make a counterpoint.
For the Ceasers, most of the history about them and their time comes from well... Themselves. Or as my History professor said. "Julius Ceaser and August Ceaser were great men because they said they were." Most of our history about them comes from them. There are huge bias problems with history like this which is slowly no longer standing up to academic scrutiny.

Hammurabi - First person to come with a set of written laws inhistory. It was the first ever written legal document the first. And thus so gives us the first of anything that comes close to a social contract, thats huge. Unless we are making this list uber refined the only people ahead of him should be Greco-Roman philosophers.

Alaric. Likely my weakest entry. Hence no. 5. However its his betrayal and the fact he was the first to do it which cause the legions and other leaders to no longer be loyal. Plus with the barbarians turning against Rome, by the time the Vandals had shown up, the Huns had trashed most of Italy anyways, the city had already been looted and lost its value.

Yes, but they won and wrote the history. The fact that Caesar, Alexander and Augustus are three of the most recognised figures in history surely speaks to their influence. Whether you think they deserve it, it can't be argued that they DID have an influence. This isn't a list about the best, this is a list about the most influential.

Granted it's the first written legal code. For that it's significant. But...did it have a great influence on history seeing as it was forgotten for nearly 2000 years?

Rome had not been the capital of the Empire for almost 200 years by the time of the sack. Alaric died shortly after the sack in anycase, and it was not a sack as we'd understand it. Churches and populations were spared...Alaric was Christian after all. I just don't think Alaric belongs in the top 5.

 

[Darth Kentarch]

Alexander and Augustus are three of the most recognised figures in history

That Just makes them famous not influential, thanks to Great Man History, which is quickly dieing in classrooms faster than assignments on paper, ok thats an exaggeration. However we treading out of a history debate and in to historiography. So with that being said I'll give you last word, and that it seems that after my first people are taking this thread more seriously, so we are moving on to round two.


The Postclassical Era. I feel like I'm going to kick hornets nest here.

... Ok Let me think on this.

(Quick side note, I usually leave out religious, mythological, and legendary figures. As to not to offend anyone and due to crossing fields of academic discipline. I'm leaving it a that. Period.)

 

[Cyrus Tregessar]

The Great Man Theory definitely has issues, but it's not right to ignore people entirely as a result. The lasting impact of Alexander the Great's Empire (in that it created a largely cultural unified region, at least for the ruling class, all along the Mediterranean coastline, allowing for a massive increase in trade and interaction, and very possibly paving the way for later Roman conquest by allowing them to build on pre-established social and ruling structures) may have happened under someone else if Alexander hadn't managed it, but the fact is it didn't. And while he may have paid any attention to the creation of roads and cities and law codes and such he still was at the head of it.

Same concept with Caesar and Augustus. It's not strictly that he was a great conqueror, it's that the legacy he crafted and left behind still has ramifications on the world today (the 'Roman' Catholic Church, or less recently, the use of Tsar and Kaiser as titles). In contrast, Alaric really falls short, we only even know about him because there's so much panicked writing from the time period. In other words, he (perhaps ironically) benefits from 'good' press. Same with Attila, really.

As an excellent example of how primary sources can warp of view of a place/time. Look up what Liutprand of Cremona wrote about the Byzantines compared to what they (and others who didn't have an anti-Eastern Christian agenda) wrote about themselves.

There are people left out, there always will be. Especially the further back you go and our sources get more and more unreliable.

 

[Darth Kentarch]

[member="Valeria Aetani"]. I decided to make this list and throw you another curve ball.
Since Postclassical and Modern eras have tons of people I decided to make this top list instead.


Top 5 Military Commanders in History. (In know right) *Kicks Hornets Nets*

1. Temüjin 'Gengis Khan' - Largest contiguous empire of all time. Battle fought he was usually outnumbered.
2. Napoleon 'The Little Corporal' (We are not having a debate about his size, let me make that clear.) - Excellent battle win loss ration. Took an entire coalition of Europe almost a decade to bring him down.
3. Adolf Hitler 'Führer' - While one of the worlds greats villains. Hitler achieved massive victories In Europe thus taking control of vast swaths of the continent. The early success of the Nazi military the Wehrmacht was enabled by Blitzkrieg. Devastating.
4. Khalid ibn al-Walid 'The Sword of God' - Conquered a Large chuck of the Middle East from not one, but two empires.
5 (Wild Card). William T Sherman 'The First Modern General' - Thats right I said it. When you lead campaign deep behind enemy lines, split their territory in half, and lose less then a thousand men doing it. And most importantly you win. Thats get you a top spot.

Wannabes

1. Robert E. Lee 'Hero of the Confederacy'- From an academic military science sense, his performance is mediocre. Also never could lead a successful offense campaign against the Union outside Confederate territory.
2. Hannibal 'Thunderbolt'- I've said why before... I know total cop out right?
3. Frederick II 'Old Fritz' - His most impressive victories were won against complete idiots. See Early Hannibal comments.
4. Bernard Montgomery 'Monty' - Two Words: Market Garden
5. Alexander the Great - Yep hes back on the wannabe list. Sure, he wiped the floor with Persia with a vastly superior weapon system. Heavy cavalry, better heavy infantry, no chariots, no stunt weapons, and armed with weapons made of medal. Persia brought forth a weapon and armor base made of wicker which is reeds and swamp grass. Persia best chance of beating him was the Granicus.

Have at it.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

[member="Coric Adromak"]
I'll go through your lists.

Best Ever:

1. Agreed, certainly in the top two. No arguments.
2. On the other hand he never won a campaign after 1809. But, yes, I would agree with this one too.
3. Hitler was not a general. It’s generally agreed that Hitler’s meddling caused the catastrophe at Stalingrad, the ill-advised Bulge Campaign and the strategic blunders at Normandy. Hitler was bold and had good advisors, but after a while he started thinking he was the new Alexander…and he wasn’t.
4. Agreed.
5. Sherman is a difficult one. He understood modern warfare and made use of it, but he was not the man in charge. He had the easier job compared with Grant and he was always in partnership with Grant.

As for the wannabes

1. I agree about Lee. He was certainly the best tactical general either side possessed, but he lacked the resources and strategic vision to make it happen. Sure he had a lot of things against him and bad luck too, but truly great generals make their own luck.
2. Hannibal was a brilliant tactical general, possibly one of the greatest in history, but he was matched against the most formidable nation of antiquity, one which would never surrender. In the end he lacked the strategic gift and support from his masters to win the war.
3. Frederick II I also agree with. He was a good leader, facing off against vast odds, but his problem was that he was saved by an enormous stroke of luck when the Russian Czarina died. Had that not happened he would not have been ‘The Great’.
4. Montgomery was a capable leader but not a great one. He was effective but no genius.
5. Alright, we’re going to have a talk about this. Are you telling me that a 22 year old King of a backwater kingdom who conquered his entire known world in 10 years doesn’t deserve to be called ‘the Great’? Look at the achievements here. Never lost a single battle, marched over 15,000 miles total, and conquered from Thrace to India. Sure, he had a great army, but so have other leaders, but compare him to your leaders on the top 5. Only Genghis Khan can match the achievement, and it took him decades. Even Khalid conquered only 1/3 of what Alexander did, and with more favourable odds. And let’s for instance imagine a world where Alexander had died before his great campaign, the history of the western world would be fundamentally different. Really, of the great captains of history Alexander and Genghis are the only two which every scholar would agree on.

 

[Soeht]

Rather than start a new thread I might just rename this thread and define eras of discussion.

Still Euclid.

Man of the Year All Years.

 

[Ludolf Vaas]

Hitler was not a general. It’s generally agreed that Hitler’s meddling caused the catastrophe at Stalingrad, the ill-advised Bulge Campaign and the strategic blunders at Normandy. Hitler was bold and had good advisors, but after a while he started thinking he was the new Alexander…and he wasn’t.

While I don't think Hitler deserves a spot in the top 5, nor does he deserve the derision that is often heaped upon him from a military standpoint. This is because, being Hitler, he is an easy target for blame for everything. Hitler actually showed some remarkable strategic insight during World War 2 and actually proved himself more competent than his command staff on a number of occasions. I would say his worst error was declaring war on the U.S.A., which turned the tide of war irrevocably against Germany.

I would say that the superiority of the German army in both World Wars is mostly due to the superiority of the officer corps rather than any amazing generals. The military schools and gymnasiums were churning out more men who were capable leaders than any other country. Hence, on an individual soldier basis, the Germans were the best in the world.

Anyway, to prevent this thread from turning into a World War 2 debate, I'll finally give a Top 5.

Top 5 military leaders of the Middle Ages

1. Charles Martel - A person equal to Charlemagne's military supremacy. Maybe even a better commander, considering he only lost one battle in his entire life. Also, if it wasn't for Charles Martel, there would be no European Middle Ages as we know it. Much of Europe would be a Muslim caliphate. Without Charles "The Hammer" Martel, there would have been no Charlemagne. That's why he wins my top spot.
2. Charlemagne - Do I really need to go into why Charlemagne was great?
3. Clovis I - A leader who also won many impressive battles, but whose historical importance can be felt more today than Genghis Khan, in my opinion. His defeat of the Visigoths and Burgundians and establishment of Frankish supremacy influenced the shaping of modern Spain, France, Switzerland, and Germany.
4. Genghis Khan - Khan created the largest Empire known to man. We all know his military exploits, but the Mongols were eventually defeated. Not as much lasting influence as the men above.
5. Richard I LIonheart - I was originally considering people like Saladin for the bottom spots. But this guy beat Saladin, therefore he wins my number five spot.

Alright, so maybe I'm a bit biased considering my top three spots are all Franks. Well what can I say. The Franks were pretty good.