Which singles person had the greatest impact on history?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diablodelmar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diablodelmar

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

Laughable :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diablodelmar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hannibal99

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hannibal99

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hannibal99

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hannibal99

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius

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.

Quote:

---

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

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.

---

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.

[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.

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.

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...

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?

Who? i never heard of him

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hannibal99

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.

I meant Oppenhiemer

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Laughable :laugh4:

---

thought so too

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hannibal99

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...

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.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diablodelmar

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.

[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"

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