The 5 Most Influential People of Different Eras

[Alice Red]

[member="Ludolf Vaas"]

I don't think it would be fair to lump most of the success of the German armies solely on their excellent officers. They had a major impact on their war effort, I agree, but an officer shines only when the troops under his command are, in their own right, valiant and great men. The reverse is also true, as can be witnessed with the Italians in the World Wars. Their soldiers were praised by most, while the leadership was regarded as a bunch of buffoons that drag the army down with them.

As for Hitler, his role as a political leader, figurehead, and banner to rally under outweigh his military achievements tenfold. Germany would not have been as united, or as powerful, if he were a simple commander at the helm of a nation. He had a way with the common man.

 

[Cyrus Tregessar]

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.

That's a lot of supposition there, with little evidence to back it up. Muslim expansion beyond the Pyrenees was always pretty half-hearted. It was simply too far away from the tax and power base (at the time) in Syria.

Even al-Andalus ended basically independent without having to fight for it, and without a stable base of support from Arabia it fell apart to infighting very quickly.

Additionally you have to look at why the Muslims (realistically at the point of the Battle of Poitiers most of the army was still-pagan berbers) were even in France. They had been invited to provide military assistance for one Aqutianean dux vs another.

So you're better off looking at Sicily (a relative failure for the Muslims) than Spain (and even Spain was somewhat easily re conquered starting ariund the 10th century) because of the lack of centralization among the Andalusian emirs.

But you're right that it may have irrevocably changed the Middle Ages, as Charlemagne would not have been able to build off Martel's remarkable success to create the HRE. There's even a potential for the Catholic Church to not grow as large and powerful as a result. But again this is all supposition.

 

[sabrina]

Okay revised list

1: the Athenians who rallied together, and removed the spartan rule by proxy. Then invented democracy. With out this act plato archamieds and the rest would not of existed.
2: Alexander the great, with out him rome would not existed.
3: Attila da hun, his actions broke rome, and sent europe into the dark ages.
4: The People who edited the dead sea scrolls, to create the bible, and thus Christianity at the council of carthage
5: Charmaine as he kept europe christian, as we would of fell to the moors with out his actions. Not that I have a problem with them, it just he had major effect at this time

 

[Ludolf Vaas]

They had a major impact on their war effort, I agree, but an officer shines only when the troops under his command are, in their own right, valiant and great men

Undoubtedly the average German soldiery also surpassed their adversaries in most respects. But it was the fact that they were led by an elite officer corps in both World Wars (which were more numerous in Germany than the allied nations) that made them truly superior. Good soldiers also need good leaders to be effective.

That's a lot of supposition there, with little evidence to back it up.

Of course. This whole thread is based upon suppositions.

Muslim expansion beyond the Pyrenees was always pretty half-hearted.

Would the Muslims have stopped at the Pyrenees if they had not been defeated at Tours? You can split hairs over whether or not Tours was "that important" regarding the spread of Islam, but whatever their actual strength was, the Muslim advance was checked and no other single battle during the Middle Ages comes to mind that holds more importance for preserving Christianity in Europe.

Even al-Andalus ended basically independent without having to fight for it

I would also disagree with this statement. There were many hard-fought battles during the Reconquista.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

The German Army in WWI was probably the best except for the small British Professional Army which began the war and was destroyed by the 1914 and 1915 campaigns. The Germans had better technology, a better reserve system and a better pool of field officers than the French or Russians at least early on.
What doomed the German Army of the Great War was having to fight effectively on 3 fronts (West, East and Italy) as they were really the Central Powers’ only reliable army for the most part. The Austro-Hungarian forces were good if they were German or Magyar, but the other nationalities simply didn’t want to fight and so would take any opportunity to break or surrender when pressed.

In WWII the German infantryman was probably superior in technology, leadership and morale at least until the Stalingrad campaign where the massive losses and the relentless pressure of Russian and Western forces tipped the balance.

How much of this was down to Hitler? Not much, I would say. Whilst I agree it’s easy to blame Hitler for his mistakes he did have some striking successes at the operational level early on. However, it was the generals and the soldiers which delivered those victories.

Hitler’s meddling contributed to many mistakes or failings. The ‘Stop Order’ at Dunkirk for instance, the refusal to evacuate Stalingrad, the Bulge Campaign, etc.
Now, had these been successes then they would have been overlooked but the fact is that they weren’t and they didn’t.

 

[Siobhan Kerrigan]

[member="Valeria Aetani"]


What many people forget was that Blitzkrieg was not a super innovative German strategy, but actually born out of weakness. Put simply the German war economy was not equipped for a protracted war. As a matter of fact if the western allies had gone to war with Germany over the Sudeten crisis the Wehrmacht would have been beaten. It gained a lot from raiding the Skoda arms factories in Czechia!



So what people later called 'Blitzkrieg' was simply the German army making the best out of the fact that it could not hold out in a long war. Hence it need to win battles fast...and then thoroughly loot the countries it occupied, which was what the German war economy based on.


Oh, and the Stop Order at Dunkirk did not come from Hitler. As a matter of fact General Rundstedt gave it on his own initiative while Hitler was still wavering over whether the panzer troops needed rest before a push to the south. Hitler then confirmed it after more wavering, partly because Goering promised the Luftwaffe could finish the BEF off, partly because Britain was simply no longer seen as a threat. Of course, after the war was over Heer generals wrote self-serving memoirs about how they could have easily won the war on their own (and how they obviously knew 'nothing' about war crimes, genocide and such).

 

[Alice Red]

[member="Siobhan Kerrigan"]

A military strategy shouldn't be reviewed based on whether it was born under certain situations or not, but instead of it's pure effectiveness in the wars it was employed in. And for that matter alone, the Blitzkrieg deserves to be held in high regard for it's efficiency during the early stages of the war, afterwards revised and / or dismissed due to it's lackluster performance and ability to change gears quickly and efficiently once the initial momentum wears off and the front line is stabilized.

I believe the Blitzkrieg strategy was also developed and coined by the French, but dismissed due to the faith put into the Maginot Line if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

[member="Siobhan Kerrigan"]
Well there you go, I always thought it had come from the top. Thanks.

And yes, the German generals were self serving in their recollections, there's no doubt about that. It's just another form of 'stab in the back'.

 

[Siobhan Kerrigan]

[member="Valeria Aetani"]


Later the myth arose that Hitler had 'allowed' the BEF to retreat because he hoped Britain would 'come to its senses'. A belief also propagated by fascist sympathisers in Britain. But then after France fell Hitler thought he was absolutely infallible and the German army was likewise seduced by megalomania.

 

[Ludolf Vaas]

It's really easy to make a tactical decision from hindsight, 70 years later, when you have all the correct information and know exactly how everything will play out.

Not so much when you're actually in that situation making the decision in real time.

That's all I'm gonna say.

 

[Cira]

Oi vey....


I should probably expand more on this now.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

[member="Ludolf Vaas"]
Well obviously, but this whole thread is about hindsight. That's how you can tell who the best/influential/worst people are.

 

[Salem Norongachi]

And they will proclaim...this is our finest hour.

 

[Cyrus Tregessar]

Undoubtedly the average German soldiery also surpassed their adversaries in most respects. But it was the fact that they were led by an elite officer corps in both World Wars (which were more numerous in Germany than the allied nations) that made them truly superior. Good soldiers also need good leaders to be effective.

Of course. This whole thread is based upon suppositions.

Would the Muslims have stopped at the Pyrenees if they had not been defeated at Tours? You can split hairs over whether or not Tours was "that important" regarding the spread of Islam, but whatever their actual strength was, the Muslim advance was checked and no other single battle during the Middle Ages comes to mind that holds more importance for preserving Christianity in Europe.

I would also disagree with this statement. There were many hard-fought battles during the Reconquista.

1. Generally concur here, except for the niggling detail that in small-unit situations the US almost always did exceptionally well against the Germans. I would say that the Germany army in '40/'41 was the best in the world (similar to the Japanese Navy going into Pearl Harbor) but by around '44 or so they were suffering from attrition too hard to keep that title (similar to how the IJN basically ceased to exist by the end of '44).

2. *nod*

3. I concede the point. I still don't think France and central Europe were ever really threatened by Islam (the Mongols, yes). That said, Tours/Poitier was definitely a critical battle in stopping their incursions north, whether or not that would have amounted to anything. So I agree that the advance was checked, but I don't think European Christendom was ever seriously threatened.

4. I should have been more clear, I meant that Muslim Spain gained independence from the larger Muslim Caliphate basically without any fighting. Yes, the Reconquista was a nasty business (especially for the Jews, as usual), though I do feel it's worth noting that the most significant Christian success typically came when the various Muslim emirs were fighting amongst themselves.

 

[Cyrus Tregessar]

[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.

1. Everything I've ever read indicates that Subutai was the genius behind the Mongols. Not that Genghis Khan doesn't deserve credit for political acumen and vision and such, but at the very least this should perhaps be a shared spot.

2. Absolutely concur. All the Brits can cry about it later. Napoleon basically rewrote the rules of warfare (to say nothing of his profound effects on the development of Europe both culturally and politically). Ulm and Austerlitz are probably his masterpiece battles. I also agree that after 1809 or so he was a changed person and no longer worthy of this spot.

3. Points i would make have all been covered already. Maybe Guderian fits in this spot, but I tend to take WW2 in a category all its own because of its complexity and the fact that it was relatively recent. In short, absolutely disagree.

4. Agreed. Man was a beast. May the eyes of cowards never sleep!

5. He definitely should rank up there, but I would have a hard time putting him on the list and excluding someone like Alexander the Great or Hannibal.

1a. Lee is overrated as hell. Longstreet and Jackson were better by far, and probably were a reason he was so successful early on. But I honestly think Grant had his number if they were ever equally matched, especially once Jackson was dead and Longstreet kicked to the curb.

2a. Such an ignoble spot for one of the greatest commanders of the ancient world.

3a. Eh. Frederick the Great was definitely an innovator, but I have a hard time placing a guy who abandons his troops on the battlefield up with the 'best ever.' Even if they did subsequently win because of aforementioned innovations. And he did it TWICE.

 

[Beowoof]

I'm gonna throw in a wrench or two here... Bear with me.

Top 5 Military Commanders:

1. Napoleon Bonaparte - 'Nuff said, really. But he's the first commander to really emphasize the importance of luck and trying to compensate for when you don't get lucky. It's too bad his PR was terrible.
2. Charlemagne/Ghengis Kahn - Couldn't really decide who was greater here. They both united vast amounts of land and set the stage for what we know as Europe and Asia today. They also seemed to be on top of the procreation strategy...
3. William Sherman - [member="Coric Adromak"] said everything I was going to bring up.
4. Gustavus Adolphus - This guy emphasized quality over quantity. If he didn't get wrapped up in religious affairs and didn't ride into battle himself (though I suppose there's something honorable to say about that), Sweden would be the big fish in the small pond--or even the big pond if they could have broken into Russia.
5. Erwin Rommel - No one has mentioned the Desert Fox yet? Seriously, this guy is a humanitarian by military standards and still kicked butt. A desert battlefield is about as diverse as a chessboard, so it takes a great mind to be the severe headache he was for the Allies.

Honorable mention: The Russian Winter!