StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Is there any historical incidence of a single person or small group having a significant effect on the rest of society through their own efforts alone?

I'm wondering if there is any basis in reality for the heroic people that are almost always depicted in the stories we read/watch. Is possible for such people to exist, or for what they are said to do to be done?

I want to know this because the great hero who defeats the enemy alone is the highest ideal I can think of, and it would be cool if the concept was legitimate.

Seggybop wrote: I want to know this because the great hero who defeats the enemy alone is the highest ideal I can think of, and it would be cool if the concept was legitimate.

The N squared law makes it very difficult to impossibul for lone persons or small groups to have any effect on battles outcomes through direct combat, particularly when any form of ranged weapon is present.

Harder today than centuries ago, I'd say.

Does Red Baron count?

Shinova wrote:Harder today than centuries ago, I'd say.

Its impossibul today and is essentially another case of perfect being the enemy of good enough.


In the middle ages most combatants could only strike out a few yards from there own position, and so a small group of very good men might hold over a much larger force because only a fraction of it could fight them at one time. the longest ranged individual weapons in the form of bows where hard pressed to reach 300 yards, and then they could only conduct area fires with massed volleys. But today every combatant can reach out to about a minimal of about 300 yards with lethal fire and a great many much further. That simply makes the strength and skill of the individual irrelevant, they need a big team to be effective. Even the best special forces troops not facing heavy weapons (the biggest killer on the battlefield is generally indirect artillery) need teams and support, witness the Delta Snipers in Mogadishu defending the second crash site. They where simply overwhelmed by a bunch of untrained militia with AK-47's. But even if it had been two armored knights against peasantry armed with farm implements they wouldn't have survived all that much longer.

Does Red Baron count?

No, he never had any impact on the course of WW1 nor any battle, and he needed his Flying Circus squadron with him to avoid being swamped. Even then, the whole squadron was chased from the skies over Messines Ridge and a few other battles by superior Allied numbers

I don't think this topic is meant to cover strictly military heroes, though. The OP does say "society" as opposed to "battles" and "war" and all that good stuff.

Granted, one usually doesn't tend to apply the word "hero" to those situations, and movies/stories don't tend to be made for them, but what about these "non-combat" heroes who effect society?

Well, for a combat situation, how about a few Spartan warriors holding off the entire Persian army for several days in a mountain pass.

For something more modern, we have the marines holding Wake Island in WWII and delaying the Japanese take over of the island.

Sgt. York is the closest I can think of in modern times. But even then, he wasn't as significant as the OP is calling for.

Arrow Mk84 wrote:Well, for a combat situation, how about a few Spartan warriors holding off the entire Persian army for several days in a mountain pass.

There where still several hundred of them though.

For something more modern, we have the marines holding Wake Island in WWII and delaying the Japanese take over of the island.

A battalion sized unit with costal artillery and fighters doesn't really fit the whole "individual or small group" aspect. Really the only way I can think that a couple people can be decisive in a battle is if we bring nuclear weapons into the equation.

No more beowulfs.WHAAAAAAAAAAAAA