Well, I apologize if this "soft-question" (related to the "**Arnold-Serre**" debate) is considered as irrelevant for MO, and for possible misunderstandings in the two earlier versions of this post (which was not provocative).

I certainly do **not** want to stir a useless debate. As a french math teacher, I know that Henri Cartan, Claude Chevalley, Jean Dieudonné, Charles Ehresmann, Jean-Pierre Serre, André Weil ... were all great mathematicians. Obviously, N. Bourbaki had a huge impact on the mathematics of the last century. I'm also well aware of his predominance on french mathematics, but I know virtually nothing about his influence on others mathematical schools.

So I do believe that the following question is not really "opinion-based" (question which is **not** about the present production of the very much alive Bourbaki seminar) :

**Question** : Is it now possible to give a fair assessment of the influence of Bourbaki's "**Eléments de mathématique**" ?

(I'm ready to accept the answer : "No, it's impossible").

Structure, by Leo Corry: tau.ac.il/~corry/publications/articles/bourbaki-structures.html. It can be argued, for various reasons, that this concept did not "take". On the other hand, we have the masterly Lie Groups and Lie Algebras which really set a standard for generations. So it seems to me an assessment of the influence of the Elements might best proceed on a book-by-book basis. – Todd Trimble♦ Apr 7 at 2:15