I understand that the outcome of most wars are determined before they even begin but has there ever been an instance of a notable individual single handedly affecting the greater outcome of the war?
I understand that the outcome of most wars are determined before they even begin but has there ever been an instance of a notable individual single ha...
No otherwise they would be famous.
I strongly believe Philip II or some competent general of Alexander (remember, they were the rulers of the successor states, so they worked as rulers) would have achieved precisely the same result.
None of them had the ambition, charisma or legitimacy of Alexander. He's a legit case of a single individual having a disproportionate effect over history given his starting point. He's Jesus-tier, not just a Caesar or Napoleon.
>None of them had the ambition, charisma or legitimacy of Alexander.
and you know this how?
Because we have a lot of primary sources about him and many more? He's one of the most well documented men in history.
I'm not asking about Alexander I'm asking about his contemporaries. Could be there were multiple people from that generation who would have outperformed Alexander given the same opportunities, maybe Alexander was even an underachiever given what he had to work with. If Alexander had never been born and his responsibilities had been passed off to some other son or something, how do we know that other son wouldn't have done just as much as Alexander if not more.
It's often repeated the Alexander just used the army that his father created, but he was still noted as an overachiever since he was a teenager, not to mention the marriages and murder of Philip II and the purge later. Alexander and his mother were already the winners of a Game of Thrones going on for a decade before he even started to conquer anything.
>The individual who existed and did all the shit doesn't matter because a different guy I just made up placed in the same position might have done something similar.
Whoever shot Stonewall Jackson by accident.
Yes, there are many instances of single generals or small units successfully completing seemingly impossible objectives, thus completely turning the predicted outcome on its ear.
For an example of commanders altering history, multiple British admirals have, throughout history, dumpstered far more massive naval forces and prevented any invasion of their home islands.
Another instance has been said famous commanders being shot by random infantryman, as in the Stonewall Jackson instance. There are also the occasions when a single man or small unit holds up hundreds or thousands of enemy troops, thus completely preventing major maneuvers in a campaign, such as Audie Murphy's notoriously insane 'last stand' against a German tank company, or the famous occasion when around twenty Sikh colonial troops in the British Raj held off more than three thousand tribesmen for long enough to warn their strategic target of the army's presence and then stalled the army until the fort was able to receive reinforcements, preventing a major victory of the Afghan tribals that might have drawn the war out for years.
Joan of Arc
Pure kino
>Virgin sent from God
>convinced the English army to leave
>captured and burned alive for a crime she did not commit, becoming a martyr
>England loses all territorial possessions on the continent
>Burgandians wiped from the map
>Jeanne de Arc becomes a Saint.
Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras, Alexander ,Caesar himself do not matter they were not remarkable in any way just products of a society. Individuals do not matter the social historian says. Marxism absorbed Hegels nonsense and the Marxist boomer academics could not be popular at parties or edgy unless they were marxists. Thus social history.
>I understand that the outcome of most wars are determined before they even begin
There is no fate but what you make. Kyle Eeese
David v. Goliath, read more you ill bred, mouth breathing, heathen.
Single handedly? Nagumo at battle of midway. As an aside, any of the pilots that sank 3 of IJN's carriers had a good claim too. Still a notably small number of people.
Jimmy Thatch.
There's also a strong argument that every successful delaying action had disproportionate effect, such as during Ardennes or market garden.
In terms of changing the outcome, these actions force both sides to adjust their grand strategy.
Remember that when discussing strategy, both the art of war as well as Clausewitz on war list principles that only provide retroactive value and present guidance. It guides the creation of a strategy and culture, it does NOT account for whether you did it better than your opponent (part of why the art of war places such high value on intelligence and spies). Therefore, any action outside the strategic scope that affects strategic outcome should be viewed as strategic outliers.
>Nagumo at battle of midway
If you're going to choose anyone at midway it should be McClusky or Best. At the end of the day Nagumo had his orders, and those put him in a shitty situation with no good options
Midway was pure dumb luck at the end. A few minutes of difference, and those diving bombers would have been wiped out without landing a hit in any jap carrier.
Also significant are the US teams that broke the Japanese naval code and enabled the US carriers to catch Nagumo with his pants around his ankles in the first place.
And the Japanese decision makers who kept shitty codes in use for too long.