Antiochus III

It seems that many cultures treated menstruating women like a bomb close to detonation, barring them from most activities. The romans were most likely no different. Antiochus III

Hitler, however, had his troops divided into three major groups, Army Group North(AGN), Army Group South (AGS), and Army Group Central (AGC). Only AGC was actually going for Moscow. That being said, the number of men under Napoleon and hitler were relatively similar-600,000 for Napoleon, about a million for Hitler. Also, Napoleon's troops actually occupied Moscow, while the Germans never did. Napoleon's force took casualties consistently throughout his campaign, while Hitler inflicted unbelievably huge defeats on the red army in the beginning while taking relativle few casualties(look at Kiev-600,000 russians killed or captured. Did I see that number somewhere else?). It wasn't until later on when major battles like kursk(largest tank battle in history) went the way of the russians. Part of the reason for that is because of Stalin letting his commanders retreat, so as not to be surrounded, unlike early on. Also, there were some other major differences in the two campaigns. Napoleon had to move much slower though Russia than hitler's panzer divisions did. To add to that, German forces swept across all of th ussr, not just a skinny strip like napoleon. That may seem like it doesn't matter-just the decisive battles make the difference right?-however, it was easier for hitler to protect supply lines, and bring reinforcements, which in turn made it easier to bring around flankers and such. This idea also helped the Romans use their discipline to win battles even though they were outnumbered. As you look at it in more depth, there are many differences between the two campaigns, and not too many similarities. Antiochus III

Were all equites classified as equestrians? I don't think so, but does anyone kow for sure? Also, in the manipular legions, did they use any auxiliary cavalry? Antiochus III

Sorry, accidentally reposted. Antiochus III P.S. Why isn't Suleyman the Lawgiver on these lists? He definitely had influence on the Muslim world.

Well, there really is so much that these people have changed and ideas that changed as a result of them that it is difficult to compare them. Hitler, however, did influence our modern world and ideas and governments that exist. However, Mussolini is being over looked, since he had some influence on what ideas Hitler helped spread. Pretty much any idea about these leaders can be justified. Antiochus III

Exactly. Thats why I voted for Scipio. Antiochus III

What about Theodosius? Antiochus III

I think people are voting wihtout really thinking. It is important to think about what would have been different had the person not done what they did. Also, is the modern scientific/political world affected by their actions? For example, do we use a language that they helped become more infuential? Does our culture/religion have roots in their civililzation? Based on this, I decided that Scipio Africanus and William the Conquerer were good choices, though they have no votes. Scipio may not seem like he shouldn't be among the others at first, but think about it: wihtout him, Hannibal would have beaten Rome. Think about the consequences of that. Without Africanus there would be no Caesar, or Augustus. Carthage was the one and only equal (relatively) enemy that Rome fought against for hundreds of years. With Carthage as a victor in the Second Punic War, not only would our language be different, but it is possible that Christianity may not have been founded/spread like it did. Carthage was a Semitic civilization, and though we know little about the intricate aspects of it, it is obviously that its military system, language, and such were very different from Rome. What would have happened if it had become the dominant power in Europe? The whole world was changed by the Europeans, so indirectly everybody has been influenced by the Romans, so why wouldn't Carthage have had that same effect? Obviously, without a William the Conquerer there wouldn't have been an England as we know it. And isn't most of the world affected by England, the USA, and the English Language? Think of what would be different if the Anglo-Saxons drove away William the Conquerer. Antiochus III P.S. Want to read a good book? Check out The Battle that Stopped Rome

good: Zoroaster, Pizarro, simon bolivar Need: Antiochus the Great, Suleiman the magnificent Questionable: louis Pasteur that high? Seriously we'd be just fine wihtount the pasteurization process. i drink non-pasteurized stuff all the time. SHAKESPEARE? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU!!!!!!!!!!!??????????? Antiochus III