Simviation Forum - Military Top 5

Reply #15 - Jan 24^th, 2004 at 7:07pm

Smoke2much Offline
Colonel
The Unrepentant Heretic
Sittingbourne, Kent,

Posts: 3879

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

Will Wink

Who switched the lights off? I can't see a thing....... Hold on, my eyes were closed. Oops, my bad...............&&

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #16 - Jan 24^th, 2004 at 7:21pm

Hagar Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159

Quote:

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.

Maybe I could have worded it better. Harold had the tactical advantage as William had waited where he was for something like 2 weeks instead of advancing to meet him. The Saxons could choose when & where to fight.
Quote:

Why Harold chose to fight William the next day has always been something of a mystery. If he had waited another day for his full force to arrive, the outcome may have been totally different. Many theories have been put forward for this. Harold always had a reputation for being impetuous and impatient. He may also have been informed of atrocities carried out by William on the population, so wanted to conclude this battle sooner rather than later. His hand may have been forced when William was informed of Harold's arrival and pre-empted his first move. If Harold was nothing else he was his fathers son, a patriot through and through. His father defied the king when be refused to punish the people of Dover when they were abused by Eustace of Boulogne, and paid the consequences. The Godwin family were for the people.

http://www.battle1066.com/battle.shtml

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #17 - Jan 24^th, 2004 at 7:21pm

Hagar Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159

Quote:

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

Will Wink

LOL

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #18 - Jan 24^th, 2004 at 7:35pm

Smoke2much Offline
Colonel
The Unrepentant Heretic
Sittingbourne, Kent,

Posts: 3879

As I understand it (at work, no books Embarrassed

) 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.

Who switched the lights off? I can't see a thing....... Hold on, my eyes were closed. Oops, my bad...............&&

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #19 - Jan 25^th, 2004 at 2:16am

Hagar Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159

Quote:

As I understand it (at work, no books Embarrassed

) .

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. Wink

Quote:

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. Cheesy

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #20 - Jan 25^th, 2004 at 3:28am

Hagar Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159

Quote:

But Harald never attacked. He turned up at Battle Abbey (lol) and formed a shield wall.

Will

Quote:

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

Just to put the record straight for anyone confused or misled by Will's comments - & maybe Will himself. Tongue

Quote:

Battle Abbey

Abbey built on the site of the Battle of Hastings by William the Conqueror to commemorate that historic battle in 1066. It was established in 1067.
Today - Battle is a village of about 7000 people with the abbey at its centre.

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #21 - Jan 25^th, 2004 at 5:50pm

Woodlouse2002 Offline
Colonel
I like jam.
Cornwall, England

Gender:
Posts: 12574

Quote:

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?

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 contained in the Act made in the first year of King George the First for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God Save the King.&&&&Viva la revolution!

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #22 - Jan 25^th, 2004 at 7:26pm

WebbPA Ex Member
I Like Flight Simulation!

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #23 - Jan 25^th, 2004 at 8:11pm

Felix/FFDS Offline
Admin
FINALLY an official Granddad!
Orlando, FL

Gender:
Posts: 1000000627

I like this discussion...

Felix/FFDS

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #24 - Jan 25^th, 2004 at 8:50pm

Smoke2much Offline
Colonel
The Unrepentant Heretic
Sittingbourne, Kent,

Posts: 3879

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:

Quote:

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

Who switched the lights off? I can't see a thing....... Hold on, my eyes were closed. Oops, my bad...............&&

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #25 - Jan 25^th, 2004 at 9:28pm

WebbPA Ex Member
I Like Flight Simulation!

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #26 - Jan 25^th, 2004 at 10:34pm

Felix/FFDS Offline
Admin
FINALLY an official Granddad!
Orlando, FL

Gender:
Posts: 1000000627

Quote:

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. I agree that Rommel isn't up there in the top 5 by my definition...

Will

I will state the book's premise:

" This book identifies those military leaders who have dominated their times and exerted profound inlfuence on the future. It ranks these leaders in order from 1 to 100, judging each by his immediate and lasting impact, both positively and negatively, on world history - the lives of people affected and the direction of military and civil development that followed. Simple fame or even proven efficiency in battle does not necessarily earn a leader a place in the " top 100" . Rather, positions on the list result from enduring influence."

Rommel is #79, Hannibal #30, Scipio 34.

Top 100 already mentioned in this thread:

2 - Napoleon I
3 - Alexander the Great
5 - Julius Caesar
13 - William the Conqueror
22 - Arthur Wellesley - Duke of Wellington

Felix/FFDS

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #27 - Jan 25^th, 2004 at 10:47pm

Smoke2much Offline
Colonel
The Unrepentant Heretic
Sittingbourne, Kent,

Posts: 3879

Quote:

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.

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

Who switched the lights off? I can't see a thing....... Hold on, my eyes were closed. Oops, my bad...............&&

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #28 - Jan 26^th, 2004 at 5:05am

Hagar Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159

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.

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #29 - Jan 26^th, 2004 at 7:36am

WebbPA Ex Member
I Like Flight Simulation!

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

	Search the archive: