The Most Important People in History

[Lokasenna]

I was having a chat with some friends the other day, and this became the topic of our conversation: who are the most important and influential figures in human history?

It proved a very engaging discussion, so I thought I'd broach the subject here, particularly because we've had interesting discussions in the past concerning the most influential books and writers. Some of my friends came out with some very interesting suggestions indeed.

To get the ball rolling, I'll say the very first one that came into my head: the historical person of Jesus Christ. Regardless of whether or not you believe the spiritual side of things, his impact on shaping the world for the last 2000 years has been profound. He is the central figure of the world's dominant religion, and for many centuries the papacy exercised near-hegemonic power throught much of the world, all in his name.

[Emil Miller]

If we are talking about Western civilization then Jesus Christ must be a contender and there will obviously be others but, from an oriental perspective, Buddha and Confucius might figure as equally as important in human history. All in all, it's difficult to come up with a single individual who merits being called the most influential but there are certainly those who might be considered as a group.

[JBI]

Hmmm, it is impossible to answer, but I would say, of the last 1000 years, probably Genghis Kahn. He pretty much invented globalization anyway.

[Alexander III]

Actually following from JBI's notion, I would say Alexander The Great. Not for the extent of his conquests but because he reinvented what it mean to conquer. Previously when a city or nation was conquered genocide and slavery where standard practice if they put up a hard fight, but nonetheless the city and nation would be destroyed.

Alexander was the first conqueror who assimilated the conquered nations rather than destroyed them. He told his army officers to take persian wives, so that a generation of half greek half persians would be created removing the animosity between conquered and conqueror. He respected the cultures and traditions of the nations he took and he did not impose the greek way of life.

I think globalization starts with him.

[JBI]

Actually following from JBI's notion, I would say Alexander The Great. Not for the extent of his conquests but because he reinvented what it mean to conquer. Previously when a city or nation was conquered genocide and slavery where standard practice if they put up a hard fight, but nonetheless the city and nation would be destroyed.

Alexander was the first conqueror who assimilated the conquered nations rather than destroyed them. He told his army officers to take persian wives, so that a generation of half greek half persians would be created removing the animosity between conquered and conqueror. He respected the cultures and traditions of the nations he took and he did not impose the greek way of life.

I think globalization starts with him.

Seems too pretty a picture of Alexander. Greek culture became dominant in the areas he conquered, regardless of he forcing it, or not. But he didn't do what the Kahn did, because the world was not ready for it yet - he only made it as far as what was already known - Genghis Kahn is far higher in scale - that being said, this game does not work clearly, as I do not adhere to any great men theory of history, and determinants are much harder to piece together than one thinks. Greatness is an illusion.

[Lokasenna]

Actually following from JBI's notion, I would say Alexander The Great. Not for the extent of his conquests but because he reinvented what it mean to conquer. Previously when a city or nation was conquered genocide and slavery where standard practice if they put up a hard fight, but nonetheless the city and nation would be destroyed.

Alexander was the first conqueror who assimilated the conquered nations rather than destroyed them. He told his army officers to take persian wives, so that a generation of half greek half persians would be created removing the animosity between conquered and conqueror. He respected the cultures and traditions of the nations he took and he did not impose the greek way of life.

I think globalization starts with him.

Now that's interesting.

One of my friends is an expert on Alexander (both his PhD thesis and his latest book are about Old Norse depictions of him), and he suggested him along much the same lines. As he put it, Alexander's cultural unification of Greece and Persia led to the creation of the Hellenistic civilization. It represented the zenith of Greek culture, and thus had a major impact on the fundamental nature of Roman culture, and the succeeding Holy Roman Empire. Furthermore, the specific nature of the hellenistic world formed the backdrop for the creation of both Christianity and Islam, which have had a major impact on world history.

I hadn't thought of him myself, but I'm inclined to agree: Alexander was one of the most important people in history.

For a more modern example, another of my friends suggested Robert Oppenheimer. I'm not too sure about this one - while he is certainly the most identifiable individual from the Manhattan Project, and it is certainly true to say that the Bomb has fundamentally changed the world, I'm not convinced that he can be counted.

[OrphanPip]

I'm gonna go with Louis Pasteur, because Germ Theory and vaccines have actually had a positive effect on the world.

[Lokasenna]

Seems too pretty a picture of Alexander. Greek culture became dominant in the areas he conquered, regardless of he forcing it, or not. But he didn't do what the Kahn did, because the world was not ready for it yet - he only made it as far as what was already known - Genghis Kahn is far higher in scale - that being said, this game does not work clearly, as I do not adhere to any great men theory of history, and determinants are much harder to piece together than one thinks. Greatness is an illusion.

It's an interesting rebuttal, but I think a distinction needs to be made between a person who is important and a person who is great - they are not mutually inclusive.

But Genghis is certainly a contender, I'll give you that.

[prendrelemick]

Tim Berners-Lee. I'm not saying he invented the Internet, and obviously it couldn't exist without a thousand other innovations. But his contribution is having the vision to ensure it is free and open. Thats a huge contribution to world history and is getting huger by the year .

[Dodo25]

I'd go with historical Muhammad and Stanislav Petrov.

[Paulclem]

Seems too pretty a picture of Alexander. Greek culture became dominant in the areas he conquered, regardless of he forcing it, or not. But he didn't do what the Kahn did, because the world was not ready for it yet - he only made it as far as what was already known - Genghis Kahn is far higher in scale - that being said, this game does not work clearly, as I do not adhere to any great men theory of history, and determinants are much harder to piece together than one thinks. Greatness is an illusion.

Apparently, they reckon that there are 18 million descendands of one individual. They also reckon it could only have been Ghengis Khan.

I think Fritz haber is a good contender. There is some controversy about him being the father of chemical warfare, but this pales into insignificance when you see how many people are dependant upon the Haber-Borsch process.

without this knowledge and ability the diet of today's humanity would not be possible. The annual world production of synthesized nitrogen fertilizer is currently more than 100 million tons. The food base of a half of the current world population is based on the Haber-Bosch process
from Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Haber

He would make a brilliant study for a writer wouldn't he?

[Emil Miller]

Apparently, they reckon that there are 18 million descendands of one individual. They also reckon it could only have been Ghengis Khan.

I think Fritz haber is a good contender. There is some controversy about him being the father of chemical warfare, but this pales into insignificance when you see how many people are dependant upon the Haber-Borsch process.

without this knowledge and ability the diet of today's humanity would not be possible. The annual world production of synthesized nitrogen fertilizer is currently more than 100 million tons. The food base of a half of the current world population is based on the Haber-Bosch process
from Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Haber


He would make a brilliant study for a writer wouldn't he?

There was an interesting programme about Haber on Radio 4 yesterday.

[Paulclem]

There was an interesting programme about Haber on Radio 4 yesterday.

I missed that. I came across him as I was planning for a creative writing course I ran a few years ago. I got the students to write about his arrival in Switzerland after fleeing the Nazis and their anti-Jewish discrimination in 1934.

[The Atheist]

Godwin time!

No question that Herr Hitler rates as one of the more important historical figures, if for all the wrong reasons, but the world would be a vastly different place had he not lived.

[Lokasenna]

I caught the thing on the radio about Fritz Haber the other day - and I agree, he certainly ranks up there.

As for Hitler, I wonder... With a lot of the more modern examples, it's hard to guage just how long their impact is going to last. I wonder whether we have a tendency to overestimate Hitler - don't get me wrong, he was unquestionably the individual who made the biggest impact on the 20th century. But beyond that..?

How about Geoffrey Chaucer? Pretty much single-handedly established English as the dominant language of England (instead of French), and thus by historical extension the de facto world language.