Your favourite historical personality

[Romanus]

Willem III, Stadtholder of Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht, Gelderland, Overijsel and the generaliteit. King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland. Champion of Protestant europe and arch enemy of his most christian majesty Louis XIV.

[scipiosgoblin]

I have two. Both for the same reason.

Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus

Lord Arthur Wellesley, The Duke of Wellington.

Both because they beat the "BEST" Generals of their time. Hannibal for Scipio and Napoleon for Wellington. Both are overshadowed and forgotten by the men they defeated.

The average person probably couldn't tell you who Hannibal was these days, but for those who can, the majority couldn't tell you who defeated him.

If you go to Waterloo, it looks like a shrine dedicated to Napoleon. Wellington is barely mentioned in any of the monuments or literature.

[Conradus]

I have two. Both for the same reason.

Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus

Lord Arthur Wellesley, The Duke of Wellington.

Both because they beat the "BEST" Generals of their time. Hannibal for Scipio and Napoleon for Wellington. Both are overshadowed and forgotten by the men they defeated.

The average person probably couldn't tell you who Hannibal was these days, but for those who can, the majority couldn't tell you who defeated him.

If you go to Waterloo, it looks like a shrine dedicated to Napoleon. Wellington is barely mentioned in any of the monuments or literature.

Scipio might be less know, but surely Wellington is remembered? Especially the Brits'll know him, and even him a larger role than he actually deserves for Waterloo.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I am going to be boring and simply name Napoleon. The hammer of progress. The man who put a bayonet on the Enlightenment. What is there not to love and hate about him?

If you go to Waterloo, it looks like a shrine dedicated to Napoleon. Wellington is barely mentioned in any of the monuments or literature.

I'd say that is because Wellington wasn't all that important. In fact, neither was Waterloo. Napoleon had been decisively and irreversibly defeated before the Hundred Days, well before Wellington dared to ride out openly against Napoleon.
Russia, Leipzig, the Russian winter, the tactic of avoiding open battle with Napoleon and instead engaging his marshalls, a war of attrition. These defeated Napoleon at last.

Napoleon's short return from exile culminating in Waterloo was not important. It did serve to offer Wellington and Britain at last an opportunity to get a shot in too. Like a matador who hides backstage, waits for the bull to be defeated, and upon seeing the dying bull reaching up his head for a last gasp of air, quickly runs into the arena to stick his sword in and then claims glorious victory.

Jean Meslier: the first one who dared writing "there is nothing like a God". And he was a priest, mind you...

And La Mettrie, surgeon and philosopher:

Great choices! I love the combination of the two.

Et des boyaux du dernier prêtre serrons le cou du dernier roi...

[Prince Cobra]

I am going to be boring and simply name Napoleon. The hammer of progress. The man who put a bayonet on the Enlightenment. What is there not to love and hate about him?


I'd say that is because Wellington wasn't all that important. In fact, neither was Waterloo. Napoleon had been decisively and irreversibly defeated before the Hundred Days, well before Wellington dared to ride out openly against Napoleon.
Russia, Leipzig, the Russian winter, the tactic of avoiding open battle with Napoleon and instead engaging his marshalls, a war of attrition. These defeated Napoleon at last.

Napoleon's short return from exile culminating in Waterloo was not important. It did serve to offer Wellington and Britain at last an opportunity to get a shot in too. Like a matador who hides backstage, waits for the bull to be defeated, and upon seeing the dying bull reaching up his head for a last gasp of air, quickly runs into the arena to stick his sword in and then claims glorious victory.


Great choices! I love the combination of the two.

Et des boyaux du dernier prêtre serrons le cou du dernier roi...

About Britain, well, you miss Spain + the British gold for the continental enemies of Napoleon.

Mine favourite is Tokugawa Ieasy, the last of the three unifiers of Japan.

[KarlXII]

Champion of Protestant europe.

That can be disputed with Gustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden, Lion of the North, and leader of the Protestant cause in the Thirty Years War before meeting his end in battle.

[Beirut]

Hard to nail it down to just one.

Henry V (Nasty little SOB that he was.)
T.E. Lawrence
Scipio

[Fragony]

That can be disputed with Gustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden, Lion of the North, and leader of the Protestant cause in the Thirty Years War before meeting his end in battle.

Overrated, he may have perfected volley-tactics but in the end every battle was won because of superior numbers.

[PanzerJaeger]

Overrated, he may have perfected volley-tactics but in the end every battle was won because of superior numbers.

Oh no you di-int! You better have your sources ready because he's about to come down on you hard!

[Fragony]

HA to make it even worse, the volley tactics the Swedes pride themselves on isn't Swedish, they adapted the Dutch tactics against the French, the only difference is that Gustav Adolf used a forward rotation instead of a backward (and didn't have to fight superior numbers)

[edyzmedieval]

Basil II Bulgaroctonus - Brilliant statesman and Byzantine Emperor, lead the Empire to its greatest glory

Other favourites are Salah al Din Ibn Ayyub (Saladin), Otto von Bismarck, Count Camillo Benso di Cavour, Erwin Rommel, Hannibal.

[Ibrahim]

Basil II Bulgaroctonus - Brilliant statesman and Byzantine Emperor, lead the Empire to its greatest glory

they should have called him "faqqaa'ul3uyoon" instead of "bulgaroctonos"*

yeah he was awesome though.

*Bulgar-slayer

[KarlXII]

HA to make it even worse, the volley tactics the Swedes pride themselves on isn't Swedish, they adapted the Dutch tactics against the French, the only difference is that Gustav Adolf used a forward rotation instead of a backward (and didn't have to fight superior numbers)

A shame that wasn't his only innovation, and a shame you made an oversimplification.

It is true, the "Dutch formation" was already developed. It called for a thinner line in order to put more fire on the enemy. Gustavus adopted this and took it further. Putting his men at about 5-6 ranks deep, as opposed to the original 10, it allowed even more fire and maneuverability. Additionally, whereas a normal deployment called for the formation of pikes in the center to avoid friendly fire, Gustavus put his muskets in front, with the pikes on the flanks and smattered around to support and ward off cavalry.

In a time where there was about 2 pikemen to every 1 musketeer, Gustavus had about 3 to 2.

In the typical deployment, cavalry was placed at the flanks, alone, to exploit flanking moves and fight enemy cavalry. In order to make sure his cavalry didn't fall from the German cavalry, he put additional units of pike and shot. This allowed him to drop a number of enemy horsemen, and when they reached the cavalry and pikemen, it allowed the cavalry to reform and fire their guns as well. It gave them an edge in combat, and one of the first uses of combined arms.

Gustavus often found artillery too large and cumbersome to apply to his idea of aggressive, mobile, warfare. Against tradition, most of his batteries were made up of 3 pound brass cannon, allowing mobile deployments and reactions.

All these reforms made maneuver and reaction easier as oppossed to other armies. The line formations allowed them to maneuver without spearing their own men, and able to reform his line fast, albiet with some confusion on the part of the pikemen who needed to get to the flanks.

Gustavus never favored one part of his army over another, whereas many other armies favored the noble cavalry. His musketeers could fire twice, possibly three, times faster than his enemy. His units were extensively cross trained, his cavalry could operate cannon, his pikemen could fire (Naturally, not at the same rate as his musketeers), and his musketeers could ride, if the situation called for it.

Gustavus Adolphus made a huge impact on the tactics of warfare, and, in my eyes, and the eyes of other general's such as Clausewitz and Napoleon, earned the title of the "Father of Modern Warfare".

but in the end every battle was won because of superior numbers.

And? Breitenfeld. Look it up.

[Fragony]

Meh, evolutionary step from dutch pike/musket tactics, the real father of modern warfare is Frederique the Great of Prussia.