Which singles person had the greatest impact on history?

[Lorenzo_H]

Now this is a difficult question.

My vote goes to Jesus Christ. He has easily the most amount of followers ever (me included:2thumbsup:).

What do you think?

[Aenlic]

I suspect this thread belongs in backroom before it explodes into a cat fight.

[Monk]

I suspect this thread belongs in backroom before it explodes into a cat fight.

I'm keeping a close eye on this thread. As it is a legitimate attempt at a historical thread i'm keeping it open; though I fear someone will give me reason to play an active role...

Let this be a warning. Play nice...

[Kralizec]

Interesting question.

Jesus Christ is certainly a candidate...in so far he was a historical figure. Besides in the end he had to rely on Paul, Petrus and his other apostles to spread his message, and it's not inconceivable that words were putten in his mouth here and there.

As for the person who had the most verifiable impact on history, I'd have to say Alexander the Great.

The only conquerer who can compete with him is Genghis Khan. But I like Alexander better ~;p

[English assassin]

Hmm. But Alexander didn't really change the course of history did he.

Its not going to be easy to knock JC off the pedestal, (though nominating St Paul was a crafty move) but...

From the classical world, I might nominate Octavian. But for him, would the Roman state have survived the transition to empire (and but for that, would Christianity be a world religion?) Probably not in both cases.

And then there is columbus, though lets be honest something as big as America was always going to be discovered by someone.

[Kralizec]

Hmm. But Alexander didn't really change the course of history did he.

The world wouldn't have looked differently had Darius III managed to bog down and defeat (or at least fight to a draw) Alexander? Persia's defeat was not exactly inevitable, you know.

Mohammed certainly needs mention too. Before him the Arabs were never a unity, just a bunch of nomadic tribes being bullied by more powerful neighbours such as the Persians, the Romans and the Parthians. Mohammeds religion binded them together into a force that rapidly conquered the middle east and North Africa, and would have conquered entire Europe if it wasn't for one failed battle (Poitiers)

[The Stranger]

i guess JFK and The russian leader at that time definitly had a chance to change history, they could have killed the world...but they didnt.

Hitler altered the way we look to many gestures and signs...but i do think that JC has had the biggest impact

[Justiciar]

There are so many individuals that have changed the shape of our world that it seems almost impossible to really select a single one. Just for the sheer success of his Empire.. Mohammed. The borders might have broken, but it's still going strong.

[macsen rufus]

And then there is columbus, though lets be honest something as big as America was always going to be discovered by someone.

It had been discovered many times before Columbus, but people had the decency to keep quiet about it :laugh4:

More seriously though, history always depends on what happened before, change one thing you change so much, even a great figure's chance to influence history later. Abraham has to be quite a contender, and Mohammed is at least as important as JC historically. The world would be unrecognisable today without any one of them.

Chingis Khan certainly had a great impact in his time, but is there really that much legacy of it now?

It's probably the ideologues who have the greatest influence: Mao, Marx, Hitler, Gandhi etc

Actually Gandhi has had a huge impact - not just independence for India/Pakistan, but also great impact on all non-violent protest movements from black civil rights movement in USA (any influence of MLK is a reflection of Gandhian ideals) to South Africa and other places.

So after all that wibbling, I'll vote for Gandhi as he has attempted to change some very big situations and succeeded against huge odds and entrenched vested interests :2thumbsup:

And as he said "There is no road to peace; peace IS the road"

[English assassin]

The world wouldn't have looked differently had Darius III managed to bog down and defeat (or at least fight to a draw) Alexander? Persia's defeat was not exactly inevitable, you know

Persia, defeated? No one told the Romans...

Its a bit like nominating a conqueror of China. Technically, china gets conquered. In practice, a new guy sits on the throne, and China carries on.

[Avicenna]

The Europeans were always going to find America. Alexander simply created Greek rule for a while, any Greek which was spoken was only by the authorities or as a lingua franca, and soon died out afterwards. I guess it did ease Rome's passage into power, though. Augustus was just one of many wanting the Empire with an Emperor, and had Caesar or Pompey gotten it, I don't think it would be so bad to have been destroyed immediately. Marcus Antonius does seem to be a candidate for quick collapse though, with his living standards resembling those of the worst ever Roman emperors.

I think one definite choice is Xerxes I. The Persians were massive, and could easily have regrouped in their empire and launched another attack, taking over the Greeks, who were effectively the fathers of Western civilisation, and the Euros did impact the world massively long after.

In modern history, any of the Soviet or USA leaders could have changed history dramatically, by launching a nuclear strike at the enemy, or perhaps by messing up in a precarious situation such as the Cuban crisis.

Whoever it was in China who invented gunpowder is also very significant, as is Einstein. On a social scale, Hippocrates, Galen or Avennica (spelling)? If they hadn't done what they did, medicine would be quite behind, and a different amount of casualties recovered and fighting again could perhaps impact a few wars, but I seriously doubt it.

Confucius, who impacted Chinese thinking to this day. How the massive Chinese nation chooses to act is very important to the world, and if China chose to go on a conquering spree as did many other countries, the world might be very different today.

[Kralizec]

Persia, defeated? No one told the Romans...

Its a bit like nominating a conqueror of China. Technically, china gets conquered. In practice, a new guy sits on the throne, and China carries on.

With the difference that any conquerer of China slowly but surely accepted their identity. The Seleucids, who for a good while ruled the bulk of what was the Achaemenid empire, did not adopt Persian culture, wich was generally thought of as inferior (despite what Alexander might have thought)
With the destruction of the Achaemenid state (not Persian culture), a huge danger to the Greek speaking world was removed, and the Greeks were not only masters in their own homeland, but in the entire eastern mediterenean.

I'm more inclined that the historical Jesus was just a rebel rabbi and a culmination of messianic legends. That aside...
Jesus' largest accomplishment (getting in the end over 2 billion followers) was a series of chain reactions. After he died, and particulary after the Romans hijacked it, "christianity" started leading a life of its own. Wich brings us to another point: it was helped enomously along the way, it's questionable wether it would have gotten so big if Constantine and most of his sucessors (all except Julian the apostate) didn't personally endorse christianity over paganism, wich turned the tables.
How far did Jesus' actions have direct relevance to today? It was recorded (likely, not entirely free of errors), reinterpreted and combined heavily with Greek philosophy. It's spread can also be partially explained by a trend from polytheism, to henotheism and finally monotheism. It was more a proces of evolution, then the influence of the actions of one man. I don't think the fact that 2 billion people pray in his name is a indicator of personal influence per se.

I'm surprised noone has mentioned Sidharta Gautema yet...

[Kralizec]

edit: merged posts, please delete this.

[Avicenna]

Mohammed certainly needs mention too. Before him the Arabs were never a unity, just a bunch of nomadic tribes being bullied by more powerful neighbours such as the Persians, the Romans and the Parthians. Mohammeds religion binded them together into a force that rapidly conquered the middle east and North Africa, and would have conquered entire Europe if it wasn't for one failed battle (Poitiers)

The Romans bothered to run all the way to Arabia to bother them? By the way, Parthians are Persians. I'm not so sure about that bolded section either.


Chingis Khan certainly had a great impact in his time, but is there really that much legacy of it now?

Who knows? Out of the many people he killed, some might have produced potentially incredibly influential descendants. This is one of the problems, you don't know what would happen to those who weren't born yet. Also, don't assume that the Yuan dynasty has changed nothing in China. I am doubtful about that, seeing as there's a whole book dedicated to what Kublai Khan did to China.


Actually Gandhi has had a huge impact - not just independence for India/Pakistan, but also great impact on all non-violent protest movements from black civil rights movement in USA (any influence of MLK is a reflection of Gandhian ideals) to South Africa and other places.

Oh dear, you left out Bangladesh! Also, you could say that Gandhi helped the liberation of British India. This in turn leads to other British colonies wanting independence, and finally getting it, leading to a severely weakened Britain and the end of colonialism. Of course, he wasn't the only one who helped the Indian bid for independence greatly. There's also his WWII role, by the way: convincing Indians to fight for the Empire, which provided lots of troops to help the Allied war effort.

[Kralizec]

The Romans bothered to run all the way to Arabia to bother them? By the way, Parthians are Persians. I'm not so sure about that bolded section either.

Well, "bothering" or "bullying" might not be correct. But in Arabia's vicinity there were all sorts of powerful neighbours, such as the Romans and later the Byzantines (in the Levant, the Sinai and Egypt)
Parthians are not Persians. The Parthians were originally north Iranian nomads that went by a different name (Parni I think, don't quote me on that though) and eventually invaded the Seleucid empire at a critical moment. They took the area called Parthia and made it their homeland, and so they were called Parthians henceforth. They're ethnicly and somewhat culturally related to Persians, but they're not the same. The Sassanids, their former vassals who rebelled against them, had an easier time ruling the same general area because the Sassanids were a Persian dynasty, and the Parthians were not.
Poitiers was a critical battle in history. The invading Moors (not Arabs) had crossed the Pyrenian mountains after having conquered Iberia. There was the Frankish kingdom, other then that there weren't any really powerful kingdoms in central or western Europe. Had king Karl not managed to beat them, the Moors probably would have succeeded in consolidating Iberia as well as a huge chunk of Europe.

[rotorgun]

On the historical/pastoral side of things I would say Jesus of Nazareth, Mohammed, and Buddha, and Ghandi were among the greatest. In the historical/seculoral vien, one might include such greats as Ramses III, Hamurabi, Alexander III, and perhaps Napoleon I. All these people had a great impact on their world and the worlds which followed them to a great degree. The greatest, IMHO, is Jesus of Nazareth. His teachings have been made known almost world wide in just about every language imaginable. Other's may disagree, but this is just my way of honoring my Lord. :bow:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Understandably for the .org, many suggestions are political or war leaders. My own nomination would be Galileo Galilei.

Whilst Copernicus did the theoretical damage, Galileo's telescope and observations tipped the balance towards the supremacy of science over superstition. Religious dogma which had stagnated the western world for so long began finally to lose its grip in the light of observational proof.

Of course, in the face of any righteous hostility I have no intention of defending this position to the death. Eppur si muove.

~;)

[Geoffrey S]

If I'd limit myself to the western part of the world, Themistocles for me. Possibly the single most important person in the Persian War, preserving the Greek culture that has played such an important part in the formation of Europe's cultural identity.

[Aenlic]

I nominate the captain of the ship that first brought the plague to Europe.

Whereas those in the Middle East and Asia had a somewhat limited immunity to the plague, allowing them to survive its effects in greater numbers, Europeans were wide-open to the disease (in much the same way they later transmitted small pox to the Americas). The effects of the plague on Europe can't be overstated. From 1/3 to 1/2 of the population of Europe was killed off in just a few decades.

What did this do? It concentrated wealth in the hands of the survivors. The surviving population of Europe, especially in Western Europe, was suddenly from 50% to 100% wealthier. This wealth increase spread across class lines as well. Those who were rich before the plague became much richer; but those who were poor or merely getting by, especially in the burgher class, also became wealthier as they inherited or simply grabbed the property of those who died. For the serfs and peasants, it meant more land to farm and more livestock as well as the personal property of the dead.

The sudden increase in wealth across the whole population led to a huge increase in education for many. Prior to the plague, from the wealthy to the poorest serf, few could be spared to send off to be educated by the church. After the plague, the increase in wealth and leisure time led to more and more people receiving at least some education. And the increase in wealth led to patrons of the arts and sciences. These, together, led directly to the Renaissance. And without the Renaissance, the history of Europe and much of the world would be very different. We might all still be stuck in the religious Dark Ages, although much of the rest of the world might have been spared the problems that came with the colonial aspirations of the Renaissance Europeans. :wink:

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Uh, Hitler?

[Homo Sapiens]

Sir Isaac Newton. Either him or Jesus and Muhammad.

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

What falls under "greatest impact on history"? There is so many. Jesus, Hannibal, Alexander, Constantine 1, Dioctolean.

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

[QUOTE=English assassin]Hmm. But Alexander didn't really change the course of history did he.QUOTE]

He did unite Persia,Egypt,and parts of India under greek culture. He conquered the largest empire in history only in 10 years. He is still revered in Greece as a liberator against a foreign foe. So yes he did change history.

[Avicenna]

The Greek impact on Egypt wasn't great, though, as you should know as an Egyptologist. Greek was, at best, a lingua franca used by merchants, and officials, but never truly adopted by the Egyptian peoples. Only Arabic made a truly major impact on Egypt. Earlier on, any foreign conquests had not been able to change Egyptian culture or her language, and Egypt would function pretty much as it had before, with the exception of being led by others. I'm pretty sure that Greece was already a lingua franca anyway.

Anyway, the Greek impact wasn't great. Apart from officials not many Persians spoke Greek, did they? Also, if you look at the Alexandrian empire now, none of them speak any form of Greek, so there is no lasting linguistic impact, nor a cultural impact.

By the way, Alexander's empire was nowhere near the largest. Even if you're talking about purely land empires, it should be obvious that the Russian Empire was larger, and the Mongol Empire the largest land empire known to man.

He is revered in Greece as a liberator against foreigners? I'm pretty sure in his time, the Macedonians were the foreigners to most Greeks, and there wasn't a foreign threat of invasion, so 'liberation' has nothing to do with it. He 'liberated' none, instead taking a whole empire, and I'm sure he would have enslaved many.

[Mount Suribachi]

Its hard to argue against the big 3 - Jesus, Mohammed & Buddha. The religious, cultural & political effects of their lives are still being felt, promoted, denied, fought over and influencing us today. Whereas Alexander the Great...yeah he achieved a lot in a short time, but his effect on the world to today is at best tertiary.

[The Stranger]

Napoleon had great impact on the lawsystem, i guess he deserves to be mentoined (sp?)

[Aenlic]

Some more ideas:

These are nameless people. We'll never know who they were; but their impact has been far greater than anyone so far mentioned.

The first person to figure out how to make fire using simple friction.

The first person to realize that some types of stone can be chipped into sharp shapes that make a great variety of tools.

The person or persons who led a group of the few surviving humans out of Africa after the population bottleneck following the Toba eruption.

The person who first found a way to tame a horse, and the person who then found a way to ride one.

[Lorenzo_H]

Hmm. But Alexander didn't really change the course of history did he.

Its not going to be easy to knock JC off the pedestal, (though nominating St Paul was a crafty move) but...

From the classical world, I might nominate Octavian. But for him, would the Roman state have survived the transition to empire (and but for that, would Christianity be a world religion?) Probably not in both cases.

And then there is columbus, though lets be honest something as big as America was always going to be discovered by someone.
Christopher Columbus did not discover America for the following reasons:

a) The natives didn't think it needed discovering.
b) The Vikings probably ended up there, but more verifiable is the fact that
c) The Romans were there. They had trade going back and forth across the Atlantic for centuries. Evidence? A sunken Roman galley was found at the bottom of the Atlantic with Roman Coins dating as far back as Dioclitan (or maybe Dominitian, I forget the details. Roman coins have been found in places like New Mexico and New Jersey (not 100% sure about the latter).

[Lorenzo_H]

Napoleon had great impact on the lawsystem, i guess he deserves to be mentoined (sp?)
hmmm. Napoleon...not really. His law systems really had little influence and the werent controversial. Besides, they weren't particularly original!

[Lorenzo_H]

[QUOTE=English assassin]Hmm. But Alexander didn't really change the course of history did he.QUOTE]

He did unite Persia,Egypt,and parts of India under greek culture. He conquered the largest empire in history only in 10 years. He is still revered in Greece as a liberator against a foreign foe. So yes he did change history.
Actually, the Eygptians taught the Greeks math, not the other way round.

[Avicenna]

Actually, the Eygptians taught the Greeks math, not the other way round.

I don't think he said that, he just said that the Greek Culture was taught to the former Achamenid Empire, which seems... completely irrelevant, since this culture was gone almost as soon as the empires and their Greek officials were.


Christopher Columbus did not discover America for the following reasons:

a) The natives didn't think it needed discovering.
b) The Vikings probably ended up there, but more verifiable is the fact that
c) The Romans were there. They had trade going back and forth across the Atlantic for centuries. Evidence? A sunken Roman galley was found at the bottom of the Atlantic with Roman Coins dating as far back as Dioclitan (or maybe Dominitian, I forget the details. Roman coins have been found in places like New Mexico and New Jersey (not 100% sure about the latter).

You missed out Zheng He!

Also, anyone can get a ship sunk. The middle of the Atlantic is a great place to get yourself sunk. The coins could have been planted, which I'll believe unless you can provide proof and a linky.

[Kralizec]

Zungh He would be the muslim eneuch who supposedly sailed to America while working for the Chinese? I recall that this claim was controversial...

Roman vessels (or any design used by contemporary mediteranean powers) were not suitable for ocean crossing.


hmmm. Napoleon...not really. His law systems really had little influence and the werent controversial. Besides, they weren't particularly original!

Laughable :laugh4:

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

The Greek impact on Egypt wasn't great, though, as you should know as an Egyptologist. Greek was, at best, a lingua franca used by merchants, and officials, but never truly adopted by the Egyptian peoples. Only Arabic made a truly major impact on Egypt. Earlier on, any foreign conquests had not been able to change Egyptian culture or her language, and Egypt would function pretty much as it had before, with the exception of being led by others. I'm pretty sure that Greece was already a lingua franca anyway.

Anyway, the Greek impact wasn't great. Apart from officials not many Persians spoke Greek, did they? Also, if you look at the Alexandrian empire now, none of them speak any form of Greek, so there is no lasting linguistic impact, nor a cultural impact.

By the way, Alexander's empire was nowhere near the largest. Even if you're talking about purely land empires, it should be obvious that the Russian Empire was larger, and the Mongol Empire the largest land empire known to man.

He is revered in Greece as a liberator against foreigners? I'm pretty sure in his time, the Macedonians were the foreigners to most Greeks, and there wasn't a foreign threat of invasion, so 'liberation' has nothing to do with it. He 'liberated' none, instead taking a whole empire, and I'm sure he would have enslaved many.

I agree that noone except the arabic conquerors had little or no affect on the Egyptian peoples. They hated Persians. They crowned Alexander their pharaoh in the traditional ways. Greek culture never really changed their lifes. Ptolemys actually used egyptian customs such as marrying their sister.
When i said largest empire I meant in his time sorry for the typo. Yes he is revered because without him Greece would be under Persian rule and probably wouldve been enslaved. I know in his time he was foreign to Greece yet he loved Greek culture and adopted many customs of Greeks and Persians. To me thats good enough to be a Greek.

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

Christopher Columbus did not discover America for the following reasons:

a) The natives didn't think it needed discovering.
b) The Vikings probably ended up there, but more verifiable is the fact that
c) The Romans were there. They had trade going back and forth across the Atlantic for centuries. Evidence? A sunken Roman galley was found at the bottom of the Atlantic with Roman Coins dating as far back as Dioclitan (or maybe Dominitian, I forget the details. Roman coins have been found in places like New Mexico and New Jersey (not 100% sure about the latter).

Hmmmmmm i neverr heard of Romans but I know that Vikings made colonys in Greenland but were destroyed by the Natives. The natives didnt think it needed discovery? yes they didint but the "Old World" peoples were the ones who wanted to.

[Kralizec]

I agree that noone except the arabic conquerors had little or no affect on the Egyptian peoples. They hated Persians. They crowned Alexander their pharaoh in the traditional ways. Greek culture never really changed their lifes. Ptolemys actually used egyptian customs such as marrying their sister.
When i said largest empire I meant in his time sorry for the typo. Yes he is revered because without him Greece would be under Persian rule and probably wouldve been enslaved. I know in his time he was foreign to Greece yet he loved Greek culture and adopted many customs of Greeks and Persians. To me thats good enough to be a Greek.

The fact that the Egyptians took on so little of Greek culture is mostly due to the fact that the Greeks thought very lowly of them, and weren't interested in spreading their culture to other peoples.

[The Spartan (Returns)]

Well if it was people than defintely the Romans. but person perhaps Charlemenge? (im not an expert in Medieval history only an intermediate.)

[Avicenna]

The fact that the Egyptians took on so little of Greek culture is mostly due to the fact that the Greeks thought very lowly of them, and weren't interested in spreading their culture to other peoples.

There are far more factors, like the Egyptian culture. They were easily the most advanced in the area and had an incredibly high population density around the Nile, making any major change quite difficult. Also, as a budding Egyptologist you should know far more about Egypt. The Egyptian religion of a god-pharaoh was important for its stability, whose power was derived from the gods and had to be used righteously. These points also helped the preservation of Chinese for so many millenia. If you look at it, you can't think that the Greeks made a mistake. Fine, pretend they did. What about the Hyksos kings, Libyan Pharaohs, Kushite Pharaohs, Saite Pharaohs, Persian rule, Ptolemaic (Greek) Pharaohs and Roman Emperors? All these could not have made the same mistake so many times, and yet it was only until the next conquest of Egypt, the Arabic takeover, which radically changed Egyptians' spoken language and customs. So Alexander has never really made a lasting impact on a social scale, perhaps a bit on the political but not anything that earns him the title of most influential historical figure.


I agree that noone except the arabic conquerors had little or no affect on the Egyptian peoples. They hated Persians. They crowned Alexander their pharaoh in the traditional ways. Greek culture never really changed their lifes. Ptolemys actually used egyptian customs such as marrying their sister.

Same points as above.


without him Greece would be under Persian rule and probably wouldve been enslaved. I know in his time he was foreign to Greece yet he loved Greek culture and adopted many customs of Greeks and Persians. To me thats good enough to be a Greek.

If the Macedonians and Greeks managed to defeat the Persians so easily, I doubt that the Persians could conquer them.

[Mithrandir]

I would have to say the Buddah for bringing enlightment to human thought.

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

the Macedonians and Greeks managed to defeat the Persians so easily, I doubt that the Persians could conquer them.

They already had sacked Athens, defeated the Spartans and probably wouldve gained controll of Greece

[cunctator]

Roman vessels (or any design used by contemporary mediteranean powers) were not suitable for ocean crossing.


Graeco-roman merchants regularly crossed the indian ocean during the principate, sailing from egyptian ports. The warships, or any galley weren't suited for ocean crossing due to their short range, but the merchantships were very seaworthy, especially the oversized ships especially constructed for the indin trade.

B.t.w, you can cross the ocean with almost everything afloat that isn't falling apart from itself. Remember Thor Heyerdal has done with a papyrus boat.

[Avicenna]

They already had sacked Athens, defeated the Spartans and probably wouldve gained controll of Greece

You do realise that this was decades before Alexander came in, right? By that stage, the Hellenes had far more specialised equipment, more advanced tactics, incredible generals and were united with the Macedonians as well as amongst themselves. The Persian empire couldn't even win a defensive battle when outnumbering Alexander's forces by what, 10:1? They also obviously didn't gain control of Greece: after the battle of Salamis, Xerxes just withdrew his forces from Greece, after suffering a few humiliating defeats, considering that a few little city states had bested the might Persians.

[Kralizec]

There are far more factors, like the Egyptian culture. They were easily the most advanced in the area

From the little I know about Egyptian history, I understand that the Nubians were on par with them as far as cultural advancement goes.
I'm not saying they were culturally inferior, just that the Greeks viewed them as such, and so they did not actively encourage hellenization of the Egyptians, and why most rulers tried actively preserve Greek culture from Egyptian influences (wich, of course, is bound not to succed 100%)
The Arabs as far as I know didn't have the same superiority complex as the Greeks, they were also larger in numbers, and in fact considered it their sacred mission to spread their faith (and consequently, language, as Arabic was the language of Islam)
So as I meant to say, there were other factors, but the Greeks' disinterest in spreading hellenism and their aversion to accepting other custums is why they didn't make much of an impact in the strict cultural sense.


So Alexander has never really made a lasting impact on a social scale

Alexander desposed of Persia, an effective cap on Greek influence and a buffer from India and cultures further east. He personally nailed the coffin of the classical poleis culture, as old Greece was practicly depopulated and stripped of any real geopolitical meaning. Large territorial monarchies would from now on dominate the political scene, leading to huge economical changes. Trade flourished like never before, particulary through the docks of Alexandria (wich made Athens' trading docks look pathetic) and farming increased on a great scale (it was practicly maxed out in Egypt already though) On the whole, the meditereanean experienced a huge increase in economical productivity.
After Alexander, the world had in effect gotten a whole lot bigger for the Greeks. It brought the Greeks into contact with India where they probably influenced Buddhism. The fact that Buddha is frequently represented by sculpture is wholly of Greek origin. Did you know that Greek artistic influences can be found as far as Japan, from the time forward that they got into contact with Buddhism? To say his conquests were a detail in history ("Alexander has never really made a lasting impact on a social scale") is...a bit silly. :sweatdrop:

You mentioned Confucius. How far was he relevant outside of eastern Asia? Then again, Alexander's main relevance lies in western history, not outside it. In the end I fear we'll have to settle for that each region has its own most historicly important figure...but that would be defeatist :wall:


edit


Also, as a budding Egyptologist you should know far more about Egypt. The Egyptian religion of a god-pharaoh was important for its stability, whose power was derived from the gods and had to be used righteously.

The pharaoh's divine authority was certainly a cohesive force for the Egyptians. And when there would be no more native pharaohs, religious unity started falling apart. Serfs turned to local practices of magicians, fortune tellers and animal cults. The concept of a god-pharaoh would actually have helped the Ptolemies spread their culture (if they had the interest to do so) if they were widely acknowledged as being legitimate pharaohs. Most were not, and enjoyed little respect outside Alexandria.

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

[QUOTE=Kralizec]From the little I know about Egyptian history, I understand that the Nubians were on par with them as far as cultural advancement goes.
I'm not saying they were culturally inferior, just that the Greeks viewed them as such, and so they did not actively encourage hellenization of the Egyptians, and why most rulers tried actively preserve Greek culture from Egyptian influences (wich, of course, is bound not to succed 100%)
The Arabs as far as I know didn't have the same superiority complex as the Greeks, they were also larger in numbers, and in fact considered it their sacred mission to spread their faith (and consequently, language, as Arabic was the language of Islam)
So as I meant to say, there were other factors, but the Greeks' disinterest in spreading hellenism and their aversion to accepting other custums is why they didn't make much of an impact in the strict cultural sense.{QUOTE]

Nubia was very advanced in culture. They had learned how to make iron and had rich mines. Remember iron was almost impossible to make with the tools of ancient times. The only civilizations i remember that made iron at the time was the Nok and Phillistines (Sea Peoples). They had burials for their royalty almost exactly like Egyptian ones. Nubia was also a very rich kingdom. Gold mines were the main product of Nubians. It was what helped it become more cultural then alot of African civilizations.

actually as far as I know Islamic Arabs were a new group of religion. They were pretty much going on their own crusade and egypt happened to be part of it.

greek culture was not widespread with Alexanders conquests. I doubt he meant to even try to spread hellenism. He even adopted many Persian customs. Alexandria was pretty much the only egyptian city that still had greek culture.

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

Quote:
Also, as a budding Egyptologist you should know far more about Egypt. The Egyptian religion of a god-pharaoh was important for its stability, whose power was derived from the gods and had to be used righteously.


Yes the divinity of the Pharaoh was important not only to Egyptian religion but to government. In times of stress or war egypt was entirely in the hands of the Pharaoh. If he was saw as an unfit ruler they thought the he (the pharaoh was, to egyptians, Re on earth and Osiris in the afterlife) was not Re reborn. Remember Re gave life to earth in egyptian religion. The pharaoh gave life to egypt. His decision would determen how egypt would change.

[thrashaholic]

How about Gavrilo Princip? Pretty bloody important in shaping the modern world. His action single-handedly started the war that made 20th century history, bringing about the end of one world. He indirectly destroyed numerous empires, ushered in a new world order economically, socially and politically, and his actions were responsible for the deaths of millions of people around the globe...

[Kralizec]

Gavrillo Princep was the trigger, but there were other underlying causes. The hostile situation in Europe in general, countries making treaties that garantued carte blanche support (wich ironicly, they thought would avoid war), etc
The situation explosive. If Franz Ferdinand wasn't murdered, there probably would have been another incident to spark WW1.

For a 20th century candidate, what about Oppenheimer?

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

Who? i never heard of him

[Aenlic]

Who? i never heard of him

Princip was the Bosnian Serb who assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand, nephew of the emperor, and Franz's wife in Sarajevo, which led to Austria attacking Serbia and a chain of events which ignited WWI, brought 4 empires to their end and resulted in the deaths of millions, and ultimately the conditions which led to WWII and the deaths of many more millions. Princip's killing of the Austrian emperor's nephew was the spark which ignited a powder keg in Europe; but I suspect, as Kralizec pointed out too, that the governments involved would have found some other way to engage in the war they'd been building toward for a couple of decades.

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

I meant Oppenhiemer

[Conqueror]

Oppenheimer was one of the scientists who developed the nuclear bomb.

[Avicenna]

From the little I know about Egyptian history, I understand that the Nubians were on par with them as far as cultural advancement goes.
I'm not saying they were culturally inferior, just that the Greeks viewed them as such, and so they did not actively encourage hellenization of the Egyptians, and why most rulers tried actively preserve Greek culture from Egyptian influences (wich, of course, is bound not to succed 100%)
The Arabs as far as I know didn't have the same superiority complex as the Greeks, they were also larger in numbers, and in fact considered it their sacred mission to spread their faith (and consequently, language, as Arabic was the language of Islam)
So as I meant to say, there were other factors, but the Greeks' disinterest in spreading hellenism and their aversion to accepting other custums is why they didn't make much of an impact in the strict cultural sense.

I'm not saying that you said they were less cultured and civilised, I'm just saying that the Egyptians did the influencing, not the other way 'round. Their advanced culture and incredible population density just ensured the survival of Egyptian culture, and in the end the Greek pharaohs became Egyptian, not the Egyptians becoming Greek. Also, if they did believed the Egyptians to be inferior, why are there so many Greek accounts about how great the Pyramids are, and also so many Greeks visiting Egypt even before Alexander?

I know about the Arabs, no need to be patronising. I'm just saying it was the religious factor that enabled Egypt to stay Egyptian, and so Islam changed a lot of that, with the Qu'ran having to be read in Arabic and all.


Alexander desposed of Persia, an effective cap on Greek influence and a buffer from India and cultures further east. He personally nailed the coffin of the classical poleis culture, as old Greece was practicly depopulated and stripped of any real geopolitical meaning. Large territorial monarchies would from now on dominate the political scene, leading to huge economical changes. Trade flourished like never before, particulary through the docks of Alexandria (wich made Athens' trading docks look pathetic) and farming increased on a great scale (it was practicly maxed out in Egypt already though) On the whole, the meditereanean experienced a huge increase in economical productivity.

All for a short time in history, a little blip. The Greek culture never made any incredibly long lasting influence on Alexander's empire if you look at it. Where do Greek customs and languages remain now? Greece, and the classroom.


After Alexander, the world had in effect gotten a whole lot bigger for the Greeks. It brought the Greeks into contact with India where they probably influenced Buddhism. The fact that Buddha is frequently represented by sculpture is wholly of Greek origin. Did you know that Greek artistic influences can be found as far as Japan, from the time forward that they got into contact with Buddhism? To say his conquests were a detail in history ("Alexander has never really made a lasting impact on a social scale") is...a bit silly. :sweatdrop:

They already knew about these places, and they had a map of the world stretching to even China before Alexander, so they world did not increase for them. The Buddha's physical representation in statues wasn't Greek, as far as I know. The Indians spread it over the Himalayas, and the Chinese did that. Then, in turn, Chinese culture influenced Japanese greatly, which explains why Japan has them as well.


You mentioned Confucius. How far was he relevant outside of eastern Asia? Then again, Alexander's main relevance lies in western history, not outside it. In the end I fear we'll have to settle for that each region has its own most historicly important figure...but that would be defeatist :wall:

Exactly.


The pharaoh's divine authority was certainly a cohesive force for the Egyptians. And when there would be no more native pharaohs, religious unity started falling apart. Serfs turned to local practices of magicians, fortune tellers and animal cults. The concept of a god-pharaoh would actually have helped the Ptolemies spread their culture (if they had the interest to do so) if they were widely acknowledged as being legitimate pharaohs. Most were not, and enjoyed little respect outside Alexandria.

The Egyptians practiced their religion until many of them began to convert to Christianity.

:juggle2:

The Ptolemaics would never have succeeded. Look at the Manchus trying to make the whole of China speak Manchurian. Then, look at how many Manchurians know how to speak Manchrian now. None. My earlier points about the religion and cultural prosperity combined with a very high population density makes it practically impossible for a few Greeks here and there to 'convert' Egyptians to Greek, if you like.

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

Well when native pharaohs ceased to rule normally a priest had authority. Until a new king was identified as Re reborn did they officially bacome king. The egyptian customs lasted until conquests by arabs. Their life pretty much changed forever. New language, beliefs, customs etc. Ptolemys never and woud never suceed in spreading greek culture in egypt. Like tiberius said the dense population and lasting kingdom would stick to egypt no matter what rules it. Except the Arabs. Not even roman rule woud change culture. Pharaohs were still divine and had all authority.

[The Stranger]

Laughable :laugh4:

thought so too

[The Stranger]

They already had sacked Athens, defeated the Spartans and probably wouldve gained controll of Greece

but they were defeated at Salamis and later their land army also got defeated...

[Mithrandir]

funny thing is, it's also possible that it's a complete stranger...

suppose someone killed a child a decade, 3 decades or a few centuries back, and that child could've been an absolute brilliant leader of men, uniting everyone and turning earth into the paradise it could be when all people joined forces to accomplish it. Creating a utopia which would've lasted for centuries...


funny thing, we'll never know.

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

The only greek influence in egypt as i see it was military. They used the classic hellenestic phalanx and heavy cav.

[KukriKhan]

I was thinking 'impact' and thought of fire, wheel, etc. But the topic is 'on history', so we're limited to about 4,000 years, yes? Maybe the tech-guys (telegraph, telephone & radio) should get a nod, since their products enabled the broader dissemination religious, political and military ideas. So: Marconi, Tesla, Bell... those guys?

Or maybe the sculpter of the Rosetta Stone.

[IrishArmenian]

Now this is a difficult question.

My vote goes to Jesus Christ. He has easily the most amount of followers ever (me included:2thumbsup:).

What do you think?
I would have to agree and same with me!:idea2: But also in the far east there are many candidates, such as: Genghis Khan, or I don't know his name, but the first Emperor of China. But yes, diablodelmar, I ahve to agree with you, especially in the long run!
Or Mithrandir, some guy/woman got married and had to help watch over/have kids instead of conquering nations. Just thought I'd put that out there for you married men/women.

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

[QUOTE=IrishArmenian]I don't know his name, but the first Emperor of China.{QUOTE]

That would be Emperor Shi Huangdi of the Qin Empire which actually means "first emporer of china"

[Somebody Else]

Now, I know all these scientific developments are wonderful etc. But they are there to be discovered - if one person doesn't, another will. Take Newton and Liebnitz for example.

Artists on the other hand are unique in their talents. So, I'm going to say Shakespeare. It's all in The Science of the Discworld II: The Globe

[Subedei]

How about Socrates & Aristoteles? They influenced both, the Islamic and the Christian world in their thinking...Right?!?

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

How about Socrates & Aristoteles? They influenced both, the Islamic and the Christian world in their thinking...Right?!?
You do realiza both of these philosophers lived more than 300(or further im tired and woke up) years before Christianity right?

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

double post

[Avicenna]

I doubt it was any major impact. Even if influenced, the influence would be largely gone by the time Christianity became a major religion.

[IrishArmenian]

Modern world could possibly be different. I still think Jesus had the most impact on the world, but politically, and in the 'modern' world, I'd say it was a tie between Gaus and Marx. They developed Socialism which spawned Communism, and now the big 'free' nations ar obsessing over Communists and Socialists.

[Aenlic]

Modern world could possibly be different. I still think Jesus had the most impact on the world, but politically, and in the 'modern' world, I'd say it was a tie between Gaus and Marx. They developed Socialism which spawned Communism, and now the big 'free' nations ar obsessing over Communists and Socialists.

That obsessing is just the death throes of the outdated and obsolete theories of capitalism as it morphs into corporate consumerism, which is something entirely different trying to use the same old symbology; proving in the end that Bakunin and Kropotkin and others since were, in fact, right. :laugh4:

[Somebody Else]

Hmm... I forgot about the philosophers. They might well be in the running.

An example of Greek philosophers influencing Christian thinking: St Thomas Aquinas drew heavily on Aristotle's thinking when arguing for the existence of God. I'll leave it to Sjak or someone to flesh this out if necessary - I'm done with my philosphy course.

[Reverend Joe]

The man with the most impact on history? Why, that would be this man:

http://img421.imageshack.us/img421/6753/turban7l7md.png

To find out why, click below:
He is over 2,000 years old, but does not technically have a name, having been born to a whore who dropped him on the street at age 3 without having named him, so he just calls himself Jonas. He was and still is a pagan, a follower of Baal, and he once had no respect for the graves of Jews, or for that matter, Christians. It was because of this that, in a drunken stupor, he once urinated upon the very fresh grave of one Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus then promptly awoke from the dead (much to the suprise of the drunken Jonas) and curtly informed him that, because of this insult, he would not be returning at any point to save humanity, and that "you will all have to just make do without me." Jesus then departed for heaven, never to return. Jonas, on the other hand, slunk away, quite embarrassed, and never informed anyone (until recently) of what had transpired that night. The following morning, the former followers of Jesus returned to the grave and, upon finding it empty, assumed that Jesus had resurrected in another form in order that he should one day return to save humanity, and the Christians have remained on this particular misguided course ever since. As for Jonas, he was cursed with an unending life filled with, at the most, mild interest, and at the worst, severe boredom. He has, however, made the most of it, having many mundane but still rather interesting adventures along the way; but he has never done anything with quite as much impact as that one night so many years ago. He has also never drunk since (though he has become an avid opium smoker, and user of Morning Glory seeds.)

[Rosacrux redux]

Stating that Aristotle and Plato did not influence Christianity because they lived 400 years before Christ is... well... not really commentable.

Both philosophers had a Humangous impact on Christianity. The latter - despite what most people seem to think about it - was originally a fusion of the Judaism with Hellenistic thinking (mostly Platonic and Aristotelian, although there seems to be an awful lot of stoicism in the root of the gospels, as well as some pythagorean mysticism). Later on, especially after Nicae with all the "corrections" and "official-izations" of the gospels and official dogma, the Aristotelian element became prevalent.

Further down the road, one should recognize even more Aristotle in the Protestant movement.

Aristotle is the most influental philosopher in the history of mankind, bar none. His thoughts, ideas and writings have practically shaped the world as we know it and I would regard him as the single most influental person in recorded history.

[Mithrandir]

The man with the most impact on history? Why, that would be this man:

http://img421.imageshack.us/img421/6753/turban7l7md.png

To find out why, click below:
He is over 2,000 years old, but does not technically have a name, having been born to a whore who dropped him on the street at age 3 without having named him, so he just calls himself Jonas. He was and still is a pagan, a follower of Baal, and he once had no respect for the graves of Jews, or for that matter, Christians. It was because of this that, in a drunken stupor, he once urinated upon the very fresh grave of one Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus then promptly awoke from the dead (much to the suprise of the drunken Jonas) and curtly informed him that, because of this insult, he would not be returning at any point to save humanity, and that "you will all have to just make do without me." Jesus then departed for heaven, never to return. Jonas, on the other hand, slunk away, quite embarrassed, and never informed anyone (until recently) of what had transpired that night. The following morning, the former followers of Jesus returned to the grave and, upon finding it empty, assumed that Jesus had resurrected in another form in order that he should one day return to save humanity, and the Christians have remained on this particular misguided course ever since. As for Jonas, he was cursed with an unending life filled with, at the most, mild interest, and at the worst, severe boredom. He has, however, made the most of it, having many mundane but still rather interesting adventures along the way; but he has never done anything with quite as much impact as that one night so many years ago. He has also never drunk since (though he has become an avid opium smoker, and user of Morning Glory seeds.)


:laugh4::laugh4: :2thumbsup:

I still vote for the buddah, for bringing enlightenment.

[Lorenzo_H]

@Zorba, do you believe that bullcrap?

@mithrandir, buddah??? er...

[Subedei]

You do realiza both of these philosophers lived more than 300(or further im tired and woke up) years before Christianity right?


Yep i do, but still. Both religions revered to the writings of Aristotle (Socrates) and Plato (whom i left out...shame on me). Islamic scolars rediscovered Aristotle`s writings in Constantinople & they were re-imported to Westerner`s minds through the court of Frederic II. 4 more info please read above.... (Rosacrux redux, somebody else)

[Avicenna]

Buddha, Siddartha, Indian prince who achieved enlightenment as the Buddhists believe it long before your hero Jesus Christ got born and then proceeded to get himself killed.

[RickFGS]

The most influencial was..let me think....ha...yes.....ME! :)

[Reverend Joe]

@Zorba, do you believe that bullcrap?
joke: (n) 1. a thing said to cause amusement.

Seriously, I don't even know who that's a picture of. It's just some random wrinkly old guy I found a picure of; and everything I typed just came off the top of my head.

[Aenlic]

Yep i do, but still. Both religions revered to the writings of Aristotle (Socrates) and Plato (whom i left out...shame on me). Islamic scolars rediscovered Aristotle`s writings in Constantinople & they were re-imported to Westerner`s minds through the court of Frederic II. 4 more info please read above.... (Rosacrux redux, somebody else)

Islamic scholars had access to Aristotle's writings much earlier than Constantinople and were the major source of the spread of such teachings into Europe - not Constantinople, which had lost much of the knowledge just as the remnants of the western Roman empire had. Look into the influence of and Avicenna and even more... Averroës . His commentaries on Aristotle in the mid-12th century in Cordoba and while he was Qadi of Seville were very important in spreading Aristotelian philosophy into Europe, particularly Christian and Jewish philosophy. Averroës commentaries on Aristotle were taught at the University of Paris by Siger of Brabant. Averroës was so influential on St. Thomas Aquinas, that he simply called him "The Commentator" and Aristotle "the Philosopher". Dante included him in his Divine Comedy. And Averroës was most certainly the source of Aristotle's writings entering into the court of Frederick II. The first translation of the Averroës commentaries on Aristotle into Hebrew was done by Jacob Anatoli. The first translation of Averroës commentaries on Aristotle into Latin was done by Michael Scot. Both of these men were employed in the court of Frederick II in Naples as translators and advisors to Frederick on scholarly matters. :wink:

[Avicenna]

You do realiza both of these philosophers lived more than 300(or further im tired and woke up) years before Christianity right?

Confucius lived over 2000 years ago, yet he influences Chinese culture up till now. Sun Tzu, if he existed, lived at roughly the same period, and The Art of War is still studied by many generals today.

[Mithrandir]

@Zorba, do you believe that bullcrap?

@mithrandir, buddah??? er...

Yes why not ?

I could've chosen a character from a book like Jezus, or Gandalf or dracula as well. I chose Buddah for bringing a way of thinking which could create a utopia.:2thumbsup:

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

my vote goes to Ramses the Great. Led important military campaigns to help egypt and also built the most monuments ever. I also vote for Constantine IX for even though outnumbered fought bravely in the midst of combat.

[Kralizec]

I also vote for Constantine IX for even though outnumbered fought bravely in the midst of combat.

A nice show, but how did that affect history?

I think it would be a good idea to pick persons for different eras. From some people like Plato and arguably JC we can still notice their influence, and there'd be no room for competitors.

[Leet Eriksson]

I'd like to say Mohammed and Jesus, becuase they caused such a whirlwind that their legacy still exists to this day.

But I say Isaac Newton for one reason, the moment he discovered gravity, he also discovered COMMON SENSE from that point on people began to take things more logically. If it weren't for him, people would think everything is going on by MAGIC!

THANKS TO YOU ISAAC SCHOOL BECAME ALOT HARDER :wall:

[Avicenna]

Newton wasn't the first scientist, though. :inquisitive:

[Subedei]

Islamic scholars had access to Aristotle's writings much earlier than Constantinople and were the major source of the spread of such teachings into Europe - not Constantinople, which had lost much of the knowledge just as the remnants of the western Roman empire had. Look into the influence of and Avicenna and even more... Averroës . His commentaries on Aristotle in the mid-12th century in Cordoba and while he was Qadi of Seville were very important in spreading Aristotelian philosophy into Europe, particularly Christian and Jewish philosophy. Averroës commentaries on Aristotle were taught at the University of Paris by Siger of Brabant. Averroës was so influential on St. Thomas Aquinas, that he simply called him "The Commentator" and Aristotle "the Philosopher". Dante included him in his Divine Comedy. And Averroës was most certainly the source of Aristotle's writings entering into the court of Frederick II. The first translation of the Averroës commentaries on Aristotle into Hebrew was done by Jacob Anatoli. The first translation of Averroës commentaries on Aristotle into Latin was done by Michael Scot. Both of these men were employed in the court of Frederick II in Naples as translators and advisors to Frederick on scholarly matters. :wink:

Wow, thanks Aenlic, :2thumbsup: you know your way around in philosophy/history. Averroës, did not`t know about him.
I just studied some Islamic history during my year in the US at Colorado University and the prof there said, Islamic scholars bought Aristotle`s scripts in Constantinople & translated them.

[Rosacrux redux]

Ah, yes, Aristotle was re-introduced into the "west" by the Arabs, mostly. Although I am quite puzzled as to where the thousands of manuscripts the "crusaders" looted from Constantinople in 1204 end up? I mean... they literally emptied the University. What did they do with those? Boild water in the Thermes? ~D

There is one ancient Philosopher of the same calibre that was brought to the west from byzantium though, and that's Plato. In the 1400s Georgios Gemistos ("Plethon") run his school in Moreas and almost each and every young Florentine aristocrat studied there! It was "hip" to study at the neoplatonic "academy" of Gemistos for the Florentine youth, you see. Via Gemistos Plato was brought to Florence and from there on it became widespread in "the west".

Ah, and Arab scholars definitely did not bring Aristotle's writings to Constantinople, that's innacurate. Aristotle was the most beloved of the ancient thinkers to the highest ranks of the Orthodox clergy and Aristotelian study was widespread in the "Greek" world from the 400s, as evident by the Aristotelian aura of the Nicaen "reforms". The Arabs discovered Aristotle a few centuries later ;)

[AntiochusIII]

@Zorba, do you believe that bullcrap?

@mithrandir, buddah??? er...Actually, what Zorba said is true. It has been proven, since the man readily agreed to scrap out some of his skin and let the scientists do their carbon-dating procedure, the result being that he truly is older than 2000 years old. Of course, we can't forget that this individual, in some of his mildly interesting adventures, had been responsible for bringing the Black Death to Europe, inspired Niccolo Machiavelli, in his exile, to write The Prince, was the true person behind the Mona Lisa, when he sat down and let Da Vinci drew him, after which the same evening he went to a sculpture's studio and let his likeness be carved in the form of the David, talked Christopher Columbus to sail Westward, accidentally convinced Napolean Bonaparte to assume the mantle of Emperor, taught a delinquent young Mohantas Ghandi on the issue of peace and civility, saved Hitler's life one dark night on the Austrian Front, recently, which means two decades ago, talked a young rich Saudi Arabian in a Beirut brothel to do something worthwhile instead of wasting his time like that, resulting in that individual going on a Jihad instead, and did I say he shot John F. Kennedy?

That was the man. :balloon2:

And Buddha, what's wrong with him as a choice? Do you have any particular hatred with the individual figure or the religion, or are you unfamiliar with that particular religion's influence on the development of the Asian cultures?

Aenlic indeed is truly knowledgable. I find it particularly interesting that Frederick II would be indirectly influential in the preservation of Medieval learning by his actions as a "patron" thanks to his quirky (by a Medieval lord's standard) character.

[Mithradates]

If hes not mentioned earlier I would say Herodotus. I mean if he didnt exist we wouldnt have history it would be called something else. His work itself is probably what inspired many others to write histories and write down what people did in a non objective way.

[Avicenna]

People wrote history down before Herodotus. He's just the first Westerner to write down history. Also, his can hardly be called completely objective. After all, how could you even find the true facts about the Persian War? They'd be twisted by the Greek victors, and the Persians would probably be depicted a little worse than he thinks they are, since he did live through the war. It's hard to be totally objective when writing about the people who threatened to destroy your entire civilisation and cast you into slavery.

Also, history hasn't changed history. That was sure a strange thing to say. :inquisitive:

Islam had mainly preserved old texts, translating them and keeping the knowledge for mankind. Christianity had condemned science, and medicine as well, so it was due to Islamic scholars that we still have that work today. They also contributed to the knowledge, adding their own in.

[Mithradates]

He may not be the first historian but i think the contributions of historians are notable. Imagine if some of the most famous historian were not around wouldnt this effectively change history. Because in the end history is what we read. If the only history of alexander the great showed him as a despoticalt tyrant then would we call him the great? So in some ways history does change history but i concede your point as to the whole thing not exactly being the intention of the thread.

[Perplexed]

Uhm, homo habilis?

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

[QUOTE=AntiochusIII]Actually, what Zorba said is true. It has been proven, since the man readily agreed to scrap out some of his skin and let the scientists do their carbon-dating procedure, the result being that he truly is older than 2000 years old. Of course, we can't forget that this individual, in some of his mildly interesting adventures, had been responsible for bringing the Black Death to Europe, inspired Niccolo Machiavelli, in his exile, to write The Prince, was the true person behind the Mona Lisa, when he sat down and let Da Vinci drew him, after which the same evening he went to a sculpture's studio and let his likeness be carved in the form of the David, talked Christopher Columbus to sail Westward, accidentally convinced Napolean Bonaparte to assume the mantle of Emperor, taught a delinquent young Mohantas Ghandi on the issue of peace and civility, saved Hitler's life one dark night on the Austrian Front, recently, which means two decades ago, talked a young rich Saudi Arabian in a Beirut brothel to do something worthwhile instead of wasting his time like that, resulting in that individual going on a Jihad instead, and did I say he shot John F. Kennedy?

That was the man. :balloon2: {/QUOTE]

:inquisitive: :inquisitive: :inquisitive: Wow either its some joke or that man sucks. now were dead:skull: :skull: :skull:

[Reverend Joe]

Actually, what Zorba said is true. It has been proven, since the man readily agreed to scrap out some of his skin and let the scientists do their carbon-dating procedure, the result being that he truly is older than 2000 years old. Of course, we can't forget that this individual, in some of his mildly interesting adventures, had been responsible for bringing the Black Death to Europe, inspired Niccolo Machiavelli, in his exile, to write The Prince, was the true person behind the Mona Lisa, when he sat down and let Da Vinci drew him, after which the same evening he went to a sculpture's studio and let his likeness be carved in the form of the David, talked Christopher Columbus to sail Westward, accidentally convinced Napolean Bonaparte to assume the mantle of Emperor, taught a delinquent young Mohantas Ghandi on the issue of peace and civility, saved Hitler's life one dark night on the Austrian Front, recently, which means two decades ago, talked a young rich Saudi Arabian in a Beirut brothel to do something worthwhile instead of wasting his time like that, resulting in that individual going on a Jihad instead, and did I say he shot John F. Kennedy?

That was the man. :balloon2:

:inquisitive: :inquisitive: :inquisitive: Wow either its some joke or that man sucks. now were dead:skull: :skull: :skull:
Yeah... it just goes to show that you should be careful where you step (or, in his case, piss.)