Yeah, done before...Here is the link to the 1978 book by Michael H. Hart (the guy, as far as I know, is purported to be a racist...so, yeah, oh the ironing):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_100

I think he got it mostly right. For my money, anybody who does not place Muhammad in the first place (by a landslide) needs his/her head examined.

Cheers

The Churchill inclusion - I believe the man was instrumental and having a massive influence on History because of this: in both keeping Britain solid and defiant despite a terror campaign on a massive scale, but more importantly goading the nutbag Hitler into attacking London rather than the RAF installations. Keeping Britain from invasion made it the spearhead for the Allies to taking Europe back, and without it, the end of the war would have been significantly delayed. And the technological quest the Nazis were on was terrifying in where it was going. Imagine the nazis with atomic weaponry - given their view on what they saw as lesser races. Doesn't bear thinking about.


It may have still been the same without Churchill I guess, tough call.

Lot of Euro-centrism in these lists. Mostly rightfully so, though.

By far the most influential thing would be whoever came up with the scientific method (debates on who created it, but the middle east between the 10th and 14th centuries comes up a lot). So much derives from it that applies to how we live today it's staggering.

Most of the rest of everyone's list is BS. Eventually most of these thoughts would have come into play sooner or later. There are a few things that change the world. Scientific method was the key to start detaching ourselves from the silliness of religion and actually using logic and reason.

I kind of agree with the science beats all argument in many respects (I blame Francis Bacon myself), but there are also military/political drivers.


A small example, the British Empire had a huge influence on the look and feel of the world throughout the 19th century (and from that, the modern world), and whilst much of its progress is about scientific and engineering innovation, it was also about the political will, industrial vigour, and military ability to beat down resistance and drive a lot of the world to be both its provider of raw goods, and market for processed goods.

Science alone did not provide that. However, it's quite hard to pin the political/military thing on individuals. We could say Nelson (I guess what he did at Trafalgar was key to British imperialism really getting going maybe), but it's a sideways argument.

I jumble a lot of things together. When I mean science, I mean the way of thinking, logic, reason, then the things that grow from that - experimentation/explorations/discoveries and then the good stuff - technology.

A prime example is the fascinating thing happening in the Middle East right now. I think it's no small miracle about what is happening - people are clamoring for revolutions - on their OWN. Why? Well, a big reason of that is because of the communal mind, the sharing of ideas, the sharing of frustrations - The Internet.

Technology is bringing down these governments. People realize that they now have a forum and a place to share their ideas - and their discontent. It's one thing to be in a closed society and hate your government. The problem is you don't realize your neighbor may also hate their government because you don't go dare talk about how you do. Notice how China does their best to control the media?

Nothing has, or will, change us like science. Religion, politics, war (except maybe nuclear) pale in comparison to things that sound like science fiction to us now. Prolonging the human lifespan. Accelerating human intelligence. Finding the cure for all disease.

You can go to Church all you want, but personally I'd rather have you work on Cancer research.

or Golda Meir

Friedman is interesting. He was historically significant, and when economies improved, his significance waned, but now he's bang right back up there!

I'm hoping I'msaying something about the transitory nature of 'significance' in the flow of history.

He did lots more than the Marshall Plan. As Army Chief of Staff he was extremely influential in getting the US ready for war and pivotal and influential in virtually every decision made during the war. When he took that position in 1939 the US military was an undermanned, underequiped mess. He was very influential with both congress and Roosevelt. In the tumultuous period of the 1940's and 50's he was the one Americian we would have missed the most had he not been around.

The current great debate in the United States today, and also in other places in the world, is simply whether Friedman was right and capitalism (and individual freedom) is the way to go. We see this in Wisconsin, and we see it in leading European countries that have recently elected more conservative governments.

But we're also seeing it in the Middle East where many people want the individual freedom that Friedman so advocated. He also completely changed the way I thought (when much younger), and we have modeled much of this website on these same ideas.

Best wishes,
Mason

Except the plan was not written by him and he botched his speech hard.

/tilt.

I have always heard that Kennan was the one behind the Marshall Plan and Truman Doctorine.

Since it is a history forum, I think Thucydides needs to put on the list. While not the "father" of history, he created the elements of chronology and events being human choices, not divine intervention as a requirement of history.

This pretty much says it all. The reason why people frantically try to find reasons to disagree is because they are not willing to put in the necessary work to get good at the subject or they are incapable of thinking well. So they need to believe its not that important.

Jesus Christ is number one hands down.

More major people like Gandhi, Schweitzer, Wesley, Fox, Penn, Luther, Joan of Arc, Cromwell, Lincoln, the Holy Roman Emperors and the Catholic popes claim inspiration from him than from any other world leader.

Also more people claim he directly influences them internally in their beliefs and actions: more than 2 billion to be exact.

So since so many people claim Jesus as their motivational power he has more influence than any other person in all of history. Possibly more influence than all other people combined.

I'm kind of shocked no one mentioned Socrates. Without Socrates, most of the western people listed above wouldn't have existed.

Also, for the person who mentioned Columbus, I would say that I wouldn't have mentioned him specifically. I say this only because it was only a matter of time before one of the Atlantic explorers found the "New World." I would make the same argument about Luther. Both men are simply individuals who have come to represent movements that were much larger than either individual. They were simply the tip of the iceberg of larger historical epochs.

Maybe true. I´d let him in on place 16!

Agree he´s sort of an icon. But remember: how many would have heard about him without Paul? As a team, I agree they probably surpass Muhammad.

But then Muhammad would call his "buddies" Umar Ibn al-Khattab and Ibn Khaldun (Thucydides is a pathetic amateur compared to this guy, he is probably the most important historian who has ever lived) for help, and they would own the tag-team tournament
Cheers

Well you do know don't you that Paul is sort of the clay in Jesus' hand. Just like everyone else is. Paul had to fall down on the Road to Damascus and be picked up by Jesus before he went on his merry way...to shipwreck and other trials....each time being picked up over and over again by Jesus as was Peter with the famous "feed my sheep" incident.

Trial and error is the best way of proving Jesus' influence to oneself. Just like science.

I feel this is sort of missionary speak, probably better suited for RGT.

In fact Jesus may have been "the clay" in Paul´s hand. Paul attributed the things he wanted to Jesus, when he wrote a big part of the New Testament.

As you wish.

But God never writes anything down himself. He always works through people. Besides consider Jesus' nature both human and divine. He was human in that he was tempted yet divine in that he was able to overcome temptation. Maybe he shouldn't even be in this thread because it puts him in a class by himself unless you count all the followers that manage to follow him successfully. But that was sort of my point above. A lot of people like Gandhi, Schweitzer, etc. tried to do as he did. That list is endless as I'm sure you know.

This represents belief, imo. But Ok, religious history is important.

The trio of Confucius (fifth-century BC)/Mencius (fourth-century BC)/Xin Zi (third-century BC) have influenced and continue to influence more people than any other set of ‘teachers’ or ‘masters’ in History. Confucianism (which also assimilated some Taoist teachings and thought) became official in China in 200 BC and lasted into the twentieth century. Confucian thought still underlies not just Chinese culture but all cultures and countries in Southeast Asia and in Japan to this day. The cumulative number of people that have been influenced by Confucianism is rather staggering to contemplate; especially when you consider that this portion of Asia has been the most densely populated area on earth for the entire 2,200 years that Confucian thought has had uninterrupted influence.

One excellent purpose of a History forum is to remove the provincialism and inherent bias that many have about the world. History is not just western history, or eastern history, but a history of all humans that have inhabited the planet.

-Zeno

This may point to one of the greatest flaws on my original list. Don´t know enough about the guys you mention. I only have Buddha there on the list, but is that even a real person?

In terms of religious influence (in regards to Christianity anyway), I would argue that:

Saul/Paul > Jesus
Theodosius > Constantine

Most of what we know about Christianity was circulated and popularized by Paul, not Jesus. There were several, perhaps dozens of Christian sects in the First Century, but it is Pauline Christianity that proved most influential with the middling sort of the trading class of the Roman world.

Most people mistakenly attribute Constantine with making Christianity the "official" religion of the Roman Empire. Strictly speaking, this is not correct. Constantine merely legalized the religion and offered the Christian bishops some patronage. Other religions still prevailed during his reign. It was Theodosius who turned Christianity into a state cult and began the more aggressive purges of Hellenistic and "pagan" religions.

Agree with Zeno. Confucius, Mencius, and Lao Tzu arguably had a larger influence over Chinese and classical "Eastern" society than any comparable figure in the West. Even Maoism relied (and Communist China still relies) on Confucian tropes, themes, and symbols.

Jeremy Bentham and JS Mill need more love in this thread. Almost all Western European politics, be they conservative, liberal, Social-Democrat, whatever owe a good chunk of their arguments and heritage to these thinkers.

Columbus is almost certainly the most overrated figure mentioned ITT. There was almost nothing particularly outstanding about him. He is simply the greatest example of "right place, right time" we currently have. He wasn't even particularly popular in American History until the 20th century.