I'd say Alan Turing should be pretty high.

For those who vote military importance: He was integral in cracking German codes in WWII

For those who vote science: He is the reason computer science exists and was so far ahead of his time it is ridiculous.

for those who vote philosophy: the Turing Test is an extremely elegant framing of many of the modern questions regarding philosophy of mind, particularly when discussion dualism.

There are very few people on the list that directly affected such a variety of fields. In a similar vein an argument could be made for Napoleon. In addition to all the military influence he also had a huge influence on the sciences in how he was a fierce supporter and proponent of the sciences. He was personally friends with many of the great French mathematicians (Lapalce, Lagrange, Fourier, etc) and made them all important government figures (for better or for worse).

This was especially important because of the anti-intellecutal/aristocracy sentiment directly after the war. The French Revolution was one of the few revolutions in which the sciences didn't suffer because of its association with the aristocracy, largely due to Napoleon's attitude.

I'm not super up on French Revolution, just what I know from biographies of mathematicians so correct me if I made a stupid error.

I've got a problem with Turing because whilst what he did was pretty magnificent, cracking the German codes did not change the course of the war. The turing test is also, as philosophical discussion go, pretty minor. When it comes to debates of philosophical influence, i'd say, SHOCK HORROR, and to more than my great distaste, Ayn Rand might be the most influential of the century (though obviously their are many other candidates.)

Napoleon is a pretty good shout. Also gotta remember how his wars reshaped Europe, and arguably allowed for the unification of Italy and Germany (would be interested in hearing how Dalebrok see's this)

Can you justify that at all? I'd argue the reverse is true with the information obtained used, and frequently vital, to just about every allied operation.

Nothing against Turing, but the Poles don't get enough credit IMO.

From what i've studied and read; it was more or less the failed Russian invasion and a starving of resources that won the war for the Allies. As the Axis powers lacked control of the seas, in Europe especially, they lacked the ability to import and trade alot of necessary resources that they couldn't produce themselves. The allies on the other hand had most of the world to trade with.
By invading Russia Hitler was forced to fight a war on three fronts, and it would have required an intense war machine which they didn't posses to win from this position. Whilst they may have been able to win a few more battles, save more men etc. if we didn't posses their codes; in the end their lack of resources and border bombardment were killing the German populations appetite for war in too grand a scale to carry on fighting with hungry appetites.
I'm no expert on this by the way; A level history and keen interest being my main research, and an intuition that whilst battles can kill or save armies, resources win or lose wars.

This wikipedia article is pretty good at showing this-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar...g_World_War_II
But it is wikipedia after all...
This discussion could maybe use its own thread, or we just bow to Dalebrok's opinion if he cares to offer it

The key to win the war was multifactorial. One of the important pieces was cracking the code.

Its not clear Britain would have lasted long enough for the war to get that far without cracking enigma or that Hitler would have taken the russian invasion option without the frustration in part caused by it (just its use during the battle of Britain may have been enough). The battle vs the U-boat was also vital.

Plus so much more.

ok so bearing all this mind, i'd have trouble saying his influence can count as much, militarily, as decisions to invade Russia, bomb Pearl Harbour, and Ike's western front plans.
As such, to put him as militarily one of the most influential people in history is a bit of a stretch.
The internet, computer science, etc., are obviously hugely important, but he was just an actor (admittedly a huge one) in a play already set in motion by others. His influence can be seen everywhere, but i don't think its enough to put him in a top 10 or even top 50.
Saying this he will be more influential, and better for humanity than I can ever dream of- i just think that there are bigger dogs out there

I agree in that I wouldn't put Turing anywhere near the top.

Breaking the enigma code however probably had more influence on the war than any other single factor. There's just not nice simple moments that can be pointed at. We can't know the battle of Britain would have been lost of what difference that made but it might have been lost without Ultra and it night have made all the difference etc etc

If i'm allowed to have resources as a singe factor I'd have that. Seconded by Hitler invading Russia. Third getting USA involved in the War at Pearl Harbour (though this could be said to be a bit inevitable.)
If its just an individual's influence in the result of WWII (as opposed to it in itself; which would have to be Hitler,) there is probably alot to be said for Turing

THIS MAN may have been the most influential person of the 20th Century. Not of all time. But just for the last century.

Really, from his wiki page it appears he is just a management consultant, albeit a very successful one. Perhaps he is influential in his field, but in what way has he had more influence than Hitler/Stalin/Einstein? Seems a big stretch based on the info on that wiki page (I confess I have never heard of him...)

Maybe, "sooner or later". My tendency is towards "later". We have found the Archimedes Palimpsests and it's clear that he "predated" a lot of Newton's work by almost 2,000 years. Heron's ball is a nice experiment, but an automotive (not in the style of Da Vinci's inventions, but a real, steam-powered "car") was created by the Jesuits in the 17th century in order to impress the Chinese rulers. Locomotives took centuries to appear on the "field".

So the "public" became the center of some invention years, most of the time, centuries after the actual "invention" of the technology.

If we put religious figures and warlords aside (them being "instruments of their time" or later epochs), I think without any doubt, Nicola Tesla will be remembered as the biggest influence on the world.

And in his case, he was a century ahead of his time, as were his inventions. He was the living "quantum leap". Alternating current and blade-less turbines, so basically all of which can be associated with electricity and its generation, radio-communication were his inventions. He foresaw a future in which his inventions would be used to "transport sound, pictures, text and movies" around the globe.
Electricity as well. He did it all for US, not for HIMSELF.

None of his inventions were created to kill people more efficiently, so that's a big plus as well (so he was different in that aspect than say Da Vinci, who did everything for money).

And you don't get his ideology or humorous quotes shoved down your throat (as in the case of Einstein), so only his work speaks for him.

Edison and Einstein are completely overrated and compared to Tesla, schoolboys. And we are just beginning to understand the depth of his genius.

I really really really really don't think you have a good understanding of what Einstein did if you are making a statement like this.

Tesla was an incredible thinker, but to say that anyone in the history of science dwarfed Einstein other than maybe Newton is a bit ridiculous.

His philosophy (as well as Deming's) was adopted by the Japanese right after WW2 and helped Japan go from rock bottom to the second (just recently third) biggest economy with a total lack of natural resources.

On a larger scale, we have become a "society of organizations". That is, all big results come from organizations not individuals. He laid out the principles and philosophies of how to make organizations effective. He was a behind the scenes strategy and policy level consultant for the Red Cross, the Girl Scouts, the Salvation Army, GE (Jack Welch consulted with him one day before serving as CEO), Sears, Toyota, Honda, Sony, Ryder, Intel and many others.

These organizations have generated RESULTS in the economy and society. Not rhetoric with no results. Gingrich, Bush, Clinton. They have all been influenced by him.

Again, we are ultimately a "society of organization" and Drucker is THE "philosopher of organizations".

I really really really really do know what he did and do know the work of those before him, this is why I made such a "ridiculous" statement.
It's comparable to people accepting the view that Da Vinci invented parachutes.

While Einstein's theory of relativity is nice and elegant, not much of it is either original or "revolutionary".

Albert Einstein was a great scientist, but his popularity is also based on him being a social figure and popstar/idol. Now the work he got the Noble Prize for, that's a different pair of shoes.

Please tell me who was even close to developing a general theory of relativity other than maybe Hilbert, whose work was largely inspired by Einstein but never got anywhere because Einstein finished first. It is reasonable to argue that Maxwell was on the right track to special relativity before he died but no one was even close to having the math and physical intuition ready for GR except maybe Hilbert who didn't quite make it and it seemed was really just playing around with tensors and hoping he got something that fit the physical world.

Also proof that atoms exist, photoelectric effect, explanation of Brownian motion in particles, mass-energy equivalence. He revolutionized and was largely the originator of pretty much everything in modern physics.

I feel like older people have to have had more influence just because their ripples have had longer to disperse. Julius Caesar and Alexander both deserve way more credit.

Genghis Khan > (Julius Caesar + Alexander the Great) 2

Yup. It is important not to understate Einstein's influence on quantum mechanics. The first "pure" quantum mechanics paper (as opposed to Bohr's semi-classical phenomenology, or Plancks mathematical result) was probably the Heisenberg matrix mechanics paper and he was deeply influenced by Einstein and special relativity. Einstein basically invented the notion of basing reality on what is measured rather than saying there exists some reality and then some things that can be measured. This idea what so revolutionary that Einstein himself seemed to abandon it and Heisenberg was quite surprised that Einstein viewed quantum mechanics as just measurements of some deeper unknown reality.

My only problem with this is that the dark ages etc. severely removed lots of the developments made by these men. Also their relative effect- in strength and breadth, on the total population of the world doesn't seem that huge.
Nowadays, or at least since the renaissance etc., the effects are much more widespread especially in big technological developments etc., and end up reaching alot further.
As such the influence of the innovators, leaders, etc., is much more localized; as opposed to earlier when huge amounts of people were required to spread knowledge, power, etc..

Depends if you count James VI in 1603.

While I really don't want to derail or stink up a really interesting thread, I have to point out that, in a LOT of cases, you (and many others) really should start referring to "England" as Britain.

It may be a trivial matter but it tilts the absolute sh*t out of me and probably numerous other non-English Brits, not to mention the fact that it is incorrect.

Great Britain as a nation didn't exist* until 1707, so everything referring to England up to that date is correct. /nit

It's nothing to do with being a nit.

When, for example, WWII is spoken about in terms of England where it should be Great Britain, it is really insulting to me. My grandfather was a proud Scotsman who fought in the British army, not as part of the English army, nor for England or the English king.

It's not much to ask seemingly educated and well read people to use a correct term like Britain, instead of insulting the non-English part by referring to them as English, when they are not.

I agree. it was the British empire, not the English empire. Lot of good Scots and Welsh did their part.