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?
Printable View
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 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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
Let this be a warning. Play nice...
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
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.
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.Quote:
Hmm. But Alexander didn't really change the course of history did he.
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)
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
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.
It had been discovered many times before Columbus, but people had the decency to keep quiet about it :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
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"
Persia, defeated? No one told the Romans...Quote:
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
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.
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.
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)Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
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...
edit: merged posts, please delete this.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by macsen rufus
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by macsen rufus
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)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
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.
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:
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.
~;)
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.
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:
Uh, Hitler?
Sir Isaac Newton. Either him or Jesus and Muhammad.
What falls under "greatest impact on history"? There is so many. Jesus, Hannibal, Alexander, Constantine 1, Dioctolean.
[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.
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.
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.
Napoleon had great impact on the lawsystem, i guess he deserves to be mentoined (sp?)
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.
Christopher Columbus did not discover America for the following reasons:Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
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).
hmmm. Napoleon...not really. His law systems really had little influence and the werent controversial. Besides, they weren't particularly original!Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
[QUOTE=Hannibal99]Actually, the Eygptians taught the Greeks math, not the other way round.Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin