Can anyone argue against any of these? which one would you remove and who would you replace him with? Listed in order of influence:
1. Nebuchadnezzar
2. Karl Marx
3. Paul of Tarsus
4. Julius Caeser
5. Charlemagne
6. Mohammad
7. Confucius
8. William the Conqueror
9. Adolf Hitler
10. Alexander the Great
Bonus pick: Albert Einstein
>No Napoleon
>No Mao Zedong
>No Jesus
Dropped
Where is fooking Jesus?
Jesus was of minor importance compard to Paul
Napoloean was a second string player compared to Charlemagne
Mao was just a dirty prole revolutionary. Marx was the prime mover and his influence extended far beyond china
>no Newton
1: Some random person who began cultivating wheat in Mesopotamia/Anatolia/Levant
2: Tang Taizong
3: Oliver Cromwell
4: Charles II
5: Isaac Newton
6: Richard Arkwright
7: Michael Faraday
8: Henry Bessemer
9: James Maxwell
10: Isambard Kingdom Brunel
>No Stalin
>Mao was just a dirty prole revolutionary
Nope. He was a dirty peasant revolutionary.
Which is why Maoism was the one communists in non-industrial ex-colony countries tended to follow because Soviet Style Communism with its bases on industrial proletariats seemed unrelatable to agrarian-peasant economy based communists in Asia/Africa.
Which, in turn, was one of the reasons why the Sino-Soviet Split was a big deal. Because China took many communist countries with them when they split camp.
>implying Jesus founded Christianity and not Paul of Tarsus
>Implying Cromwell had a greater influence on the course of English history that William the fucking Conqueror
We are talking about world history here. A scuffle between an upstart earl and the successor designated by Edward the Confessor to help England get up to speed with continental technology and agricultural practices is not all that important in the grand scheme of things. The technology would have sprread eventually anyway. The 17th century is when things started to pick up.
Seeing as how the Arabic world does not have much influence, Mohammad has no place. I wouldn't even call him the most influential Arab. That would be Zarathustra who is the grandfather of ethical monotheism in general.
>We are talking about world history here.
Cromwell is completely irrelevant for most of the world. Just like most of the others on your list.
The most important religious figures are Zarathustra, Paul, and Martin Luther.
Zarathustra created the central idea of monotheism and ethics being the most important thing. Paul created the most prominent religion. Luther set forth it's most importaint evolution.
The most important philosophers are Nietzsche, Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Spinoza, Hegel, Heraclitus, and Marx: Nietzsche is the most influential thinker to this day (even if you only consider one concept, morality as a factor of culture rather than metaphysical truths, his influence is profound). Marx is the most influential political/economic thinker. Heraclitus is the starting point for philosophy. The other big 3 Greeks all had centuary long moments of dominating thought. Spinoza created modern political thought.
The non-Western world does not have much influence. I think Buddah is the strongest of all them as his reach exstends to not only all of Asia but parts of India and minor influence in the West. The other Eastern thinkers have much smaller geographic influence. In addiiton the Buddah's is the thinker with the most influence in Japan, the most influential Eastern country.
>Japan, the most influential Eastern country.
Literally what. China is far more influential, nevermind fucking paper and gunpowder
I'm talking about the present day. The scientific and technology advances that come out of Japan exceed all the rest of Asia combined.
It's the same logic that says even though the ancient Greeks invented all sorts of cool shit, modern Greece isn't worth talking about.
I think looking at the present day and what led up to it is the only useful metric. You'd give points to ancient China for inventing paper but ultimately it's the countries that make the important books that really make use of the invention of paper (and the most important books are almost all Western).
You better say "in history" because otherwise you'd have some semi-known ancient and modern scientists and inventors all over the Top 10 like Alexander Fleming
Cromwell strengthened parliament permanently and laid the foundations for a state which supported early capitalism.
Why do you think random warlords like William the conqerueror are more influential? So someone kills a bunch of people so they can wear the big hat. Whoopdidoo. What does this change besides which meatbag sits on the throne? Only those that cultivated the sciences and made pivotal changes were of great influence, besides them it would be the scientists and entrepreneurs themselves.
>Zarathustra
>Arab
To the boats you go
1. The guys who started farming wheat, barley, and rice. All of these were the foundation of civilizations.
2. Simmelweis. It's a weird pick but the only thing that has ever had an impact on par with agriculture on world population is hygiene and medicine. This guy started modern hygiene and instantly improved medicine practice, gave great support to germ theory, and indirectly contributed to the rise in global population.
3. Socrates. All of our philosophical knowledge is built on his shoulders. Had a major impact in culture because of this.
4. Confucius. See Socrates, but for East Asia
5. Genghis Khan. Safer connection of East and West. Also set back Islam and many other cultures back centuries. Influential, but in a bad way.
Not really sure who goes after this. Alexander for sure fits somewhere. I'd argue Hammurabi, Charlemagne, and Sargon of Akkad all are important enough.
>No Constantine I
He's top five material for all the arguments that have already been given for either Jesus or Paul. Legitimizing Christianity as "okay by me, lads" for the Empire went a long way toward shaping the world as we see it now.
To say nothing about as monumental a decision of moving the capital to Byzantium, and founding Constantinople as we know it. If he had gone with practically any other spot for location of the empire's capital (especially anywhere east of the Bosporus), then it's likely the eastern empire/Byzantines would have fallen much MUCH sooner than they actually did (thought of course, a change as large as moving the geopolitical hub of the empire somewhere else might butterfly away something like the birth of Mohammed).
Fact is, dude merits a spot
Sorry, meant
No one from the 19th or 20th century should be in this list, except maybe Bismarck.
Socrates/Plato should be.
Charlemagne.
>No Otton Von Bismark
>No Sun Tzu
>No Thomas Aquinas
>No Carl Von Clausewitz
>Nobechudnazzor
Why?
>No Otton Von Bismark
germany would have risen with or without him
>No Sun Tzu
>No Thomas Aquinas
>No Carl Von Clausewitz
just spread a few irrelevant memes around, didn't invent anything significant
Where are Euler, Newton, Leibniz and von Neumann?
>Irrelevant Memes
Please expand?
This is absolutely a wonderful thread. We need more like this on Veeky Forums.
Thanks OP! :)
no, he implyied that zarathustra had more influence in history than mohammed
>All these philosophers, Greeks, Generals and theoretical scientists.
Literally bar trivia in terms of actual influence. Socrates might be the least influential person that tends to be on most people's lists. Here's my list in no order
Henry Ford
Salk
Copernicus (introduction of Hindu numerals to Europe)
Richard Trevithick (commercial steam engine)
Benjamin Franklin
Stephen Langton
Aryabhata (place holder number system and zero)
Al Khwarezmi (aggregation of Eastern mathematical knowledge)
Bardeen, Brattain, and Shockley (inventors of transistors)
Genghis Khan (attributing the invention of an effective cavalry to him)
>I wouldn't even call him (Mohammed) the most influential Arab
>That (the most influential Arab) would be Zarathustra
>quantifying "influence"
>not a single Chinese person
lel. what a shitty, subjective thread.
Now that I read it for the second time I notice it
Sure mate, but why Nebuchadnezzar? What makes him so special and distinctly important amongst all the other countless middle eastern ancient kings and emperors?
>including Paul but not Jesus
"I wouldn't even call him the most influential Arab. That would be Zarathustra"
Where was he unclear in saying that Zoroaster was an Arab?
Whoops, I posted this and realize my mistake.
I had this page open for the last twenty minutes and didn't bother to check for new replies.
>grandfather of ethical monotheism in general.
That was Akhenaten.
I am the guy that posted that. I used a bad word choice with Arab. I meant "middle-easterner" but didn't convey that properly.
So to restate I think Zarathustra is the most influential middle easterner and definitely one of the 2 most influential religious thinkers, the other being Paul.
1. Jesus
2. Qin Shi Huangdi
3. Confucius
4. Muhammad
5. Constantine
6. Buddha
7. Augustus Caesar
8. Simon Bolivar
9. Asoka
10. Charles Quint
If Muhammad is on here why isn't Jesus? Can some one prove he wasn't a real person? I know Muhammad came 740 years after Jesus.
Jesus's influence on the types of Christianity that are practiced are trivial compared to Paul who significantly altered the religion, wrote half the New Testament, and had his disciples write the other half.
>Jesus Christ's influence on Christianity was trivial
1. Hegel
the rest are irrelevant
I would argue against a few of these
>Karl Marx
He didn't do anything, he's just an idea guy. Anybody could come up with the ideas of communism, it is an incredibly simple concept just hard to implement. If you're going to include Marx, you better at least include Moses and Jesus for creating ideas that took over the world in much more universal ways. As for replacement, I would put Lenin instead, for actually acting on the ideas.
>Julius Caesar
Only relevant to the inevitable slide of the Roman Republic into Dictatorship/Monarchism. Is he famous? Yea definitely, but I would argue much of that is thanks to Shakespeare. Does it make him influential to human history? Not really. Rome's instability in the late republic would very likely have led to some form of one-man rule no matter what. Remember that Caesar was part of a Triumvirate, Pompey or Crassus could have easily taken his place. My suggestion would be to replace this slot with George Washington or another influential enlightenment era early revolutionary. The decline of absolutism started with the American and French revolutions.
>William the Conqueror
Just because he made English culture more Francophonie for many years doesn't really make him influential to the world. It just means he was the last in a long line of invaders to be successful in conquering the backwater of the time that was Britain. With him I would substitute Genghis Khan for being the man responsible for the prominence of the Mongols, the wonderful lot that set back most parts of the world 100s of years creating the impetus for Europe's advantage in the Renaissance.
Op here
Nebuchadnezzar was responsible for the Babylonian captivity of the Israelites. Judaism (in a monotheistic sense and associated creation theologies) was forged during this period. In this sense Nebuchadnezzar was the anvil against which all Abraham is religions were forged.
>who is Confucius
user what are you doing on the history board?
Marx is definitely a top 10 contender in my view and probably the least appreciated person on the list
His philosophy shaped the c20th and continues to be the central dialectic around which modern discourse is framed (all over the world)
Our ancestors will study him in the centuries and millenia to come
Jesus is Paul's tulpa.
How you have Paul and not Jesus is ponderous.
How you do not have Jesus is ponderous.
Jesus: Created the universe.
Paul: Told people what Jesus had told him.
Having a bit of a piss, mate?
Thank you for proving OP is always a faggot.
The only way to have a list at all is to not agree to include mythology. If we did we would just argue about which particular god created the universe and never get anywhere.
Hell I don't even think the universe HAS a creation in science in modern science.
Paul was inspired by Jesus. Without Jesus, Paul would have had nothing to say and write about. Paul is replaceable.
Obviously Jesus and Paul were both important in the development of Christianity. But I would argue Paul' contribution was far more important. As a short lived apocalyptic prophet with a small following Jesus was neither important nor remarkable. Paul reframed his teachings into a form that was more attuned to the Hellenic mind and took the message to Rome where the seed was planted.