Simviation Forum - Military Top 5

Reply #30 - Jan 26^th, 2004 at 7:58am

Hagar Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159

Quote:

Patton (who I also mentioned but Hagar didn't) were certainly influential.

I didn't mention Patton (or Montgomery) as they & other commanders of various services were both under the direct command of Eisenhower. He also had the power to replace them if necessary. Patton & Montgomery were both controversial characters whose intense dislike for each other might well have affected their decisions, causing unnecessary delay & casualties. Whether they were exceptionally talented generals is debatable. In any case, they were field commanders who I suggest had no long-term influence on history.

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 #31 - Jan 26^th, 2004 at 5:15pm

Woodlouse2002 Offline
Colonel
I like jam.
Cornwall, England

Gender:
Posts: 12574

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

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 #32 - Jan 26^th, 2004 at 6:16pm

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

Gender:
Posts: 1000000627

Quote:

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

He's ranked No.1 in the book.

Felix/FFDS

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #33 - Jan 27^th, 2004 at 12:01am

Smoke2much Offline
Colonel
The Unrepentant Heretic
Sittingbourne, Kent,

Posts: 3879

Quote:

He's ranked No.1 in the book.

There's a shock. Roll Eyes

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 #34 - Jan 27^th, 2004 at 4:06pm

Woodlouse2002 Offline
Colonel
I like jam.
Cornwall, England

Gender:
Posts: 12574

In that case, I assume the book as American origins. Roll Eyes

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 #35 - Jan 29^th, 2004 at 1:14am

WebbPA Ex Member
I Like Flight Simulation!

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #36 - Jan 29^th, 2004 at 4:14am

Hagar Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159

Very interesting. Life is full of ifs & buts although it's not possible to change what actually happened so we shall never find out. Things very rarely work out the way you would expect as many leaders & generals have found out to their cost. I think this is your most poignant comment.
Quote:

(Didn't Lyndon Johnson learn anything from this war?)

Those in power rarely learn anything from history. This has been proven time after time.

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

	Search the archive: