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

The above are sort of in order.

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.

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.

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.

Quote:


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.

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.

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

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

Will

Quote:

LOL

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

Quote:

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?

I like this discussion...

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.

Quote:


No, I did misquote Jim but only by mentioning the Treaty of Ghent as opposed to Austria.  I agree totally that the Napoleonic wars gave us the basis for world politics for the next 100 years or more.  No Napoleon means no Franco-Prussian War which means no WW1 which means no WW2.....  Ad infinitum.

I disagree that this 100 years can be described as world peace, there were many major conflicts between many of the major players.  Just about the only two nations that didn't fight each other were the UK and US LOL.

Will

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.

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

Quote:


There's a shock.

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.