Who was the most important person in history?

[Edric O]

Human history is the end product of the intertwined actions of billions of individuals. Nothing was ever achieved through the efforts of a single person isolated from other people. However, even though every human being contributes some water to the river of history, there are some people who contribute more than others. And there are a few who have contributed a lot, perhaps changing the entire course of that "river of history".

So I was wondering which single person has been the most important in history, and how on Earth could we possibly compare different historical figures according to importance. First of all, notice that the question is not "who did the most good". When we are talking about importance, great evil deeds count as much as good ones (unless they lead a large number of people to hate the evildoer and reject his legacy, thus reducing his influence; see "stigma" below).

I've come up with a number of criteria to judge the importance of historical figures. Some are positive (add to importance), others are negative (detract from importance). Any new suggestions are welcome!

Positive criteria:

Fame: How many people know about this historical figure and what he did?

Followers: How many people follow or agree with this historical figure's main ideas?

Martyrs: Did people die as martyrs in the name of this historical figure? How many?

Power in life: How much territory and population did this historical figure conquer in life?

Power in death: How much territory and population was conquered in the name of this historical figure after his death?

Harbinger of change: How many wars, revolutions, or other violent or peaceful changes on a massive scale were initiated by this historical figure or his ideas?

Founder of civilization: How many of the original ideas of this historical figure are accepted as "common sense" today?

Chain reaction: Did this historical figure's deeds or ideas start a chain reaction that led to important secondary developments? (e.g. Christopher Columbus' discovery of America set off such a chain reaction)

Legendary: Are the deeds of this historical figure a subject of myth and legend?

Resurgent: Did this historical figure's ideas or followers make a comeback after a major defeat?

Negative criteria:

Defeat: Did this historical figure or his ideas suffer a major defeat? (if the defeat was followed by a comeback, add points to "resurgent" above)

Figurehead: Do people claim to follow this historical figure or his ideas without really doing so in practice?

Obsolete: Have this historical figure's ideas been rendered obsolete by recent discoveries, or replaced by the ideas of others? (this mostly applies to scientists)

Stigma: How many people hate this historical figure and his ideas, or consider them evil?

I think it would be fun to create some sort of scoreboard based on these criteria for the 17 historical figures listed in the poll above (and any others that will be suggested).

[Lord J]

  I think you should include Gilgamesh.  Although his exploits are (assumedly) fictional, his character impacted Western Civilization to some great degree.  He was a strong monarchal figure who respected and honored his parents, and formed an incredible alliance with his greatest foil, with whose death sparked one of the greatest questions of Western civilization, is it possible for a man to live forever?

Positive criteria:

Fame: How many people know about this historical figure and what he did? -- Many, though his exploits are not known among the uneducated.

Followers: How many people follow or agree with this historical figure's main ideas? -- Most of Western civilization, although they may not realize it.

Martyrs: Did people die as martyrs in the name of this historical figure? How many? -- I'm not sure, I suppose an argument here is possible, but with such an overreaching impact on civilization... I don't think any argument can be valid.

Power in life: How much territory and population did this historical figure conquer in life? -- Once again, I'm not sure.  He was a mighty king in Mesopotamia, but I'm not sure what his territory included.

Power in death: How much territory and population was conquered in the name of this historical figure after his death?  Half the planet...?  Can this argument be used?  As I said before, the impact of Gilgamesh is recognized only by the educated, though expirienced/applied by many.

Harbinger of change: How many wars, revolutions, or other violent or peaceful changes on a massive scale were initiated by this historical figure or his ideas? -- Once again, not sure.

Founder of civilization: How many of the original ideas of this historical figure are accepted as "common sense" today? -- Many, except of some of the polytheistic religious ideas (exactly how *can* a person be two-thirds a god?), and monarchy to democracy.

Chain reaction: Did this historical figure's deeds or ideas start a chain reaction that led to important secondary developments? (e.g. Christopher Columbus' discovery of America set off such a chain reaction) -- Heh, my point exactly.  Gilgamesh, this strong figure searching for acclaim and immortality, impacted many of the despots of history: Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, etc.

Legendary: Are the deeds of this historical figure a subject of myth and legend? -- Yes.

Resurgent: Did this historical figure's ideas or followers make a comeback after a major defeat? -- Not really, as Western civilization has never truly been defeated.

Negative criteria:

Defeat: Did this historical figure or his ideas suffer a major defeat? (if the defeat was followed by a comeback, add points to "resurgent" above) -- No.

Figurehead: Do people claim to follow this historical figure or his ideas without really doing so in practice? -- Perhaps, though I'm not sure.

Obsolete: Have this historical figure's ideas been rendered obsolete by recent discoveries, or replaced by the ideas of others? (this mostly applies to scientists) -- Certain religious ideas, perhaps.  And I don't think science has ever discovered a flower that produces eternal life, but, over than that, I don't think so.

Stigma: How many people hate this historical figure and his ideas, or consider them evil? -- I don't know. That would probably come down to the divide between Western and Eastern civilization.

[Dante]

Not an easy one to judge. Even without delving into the exact definition of 'importance,' there are still a host of historical figures that have had massive impacts on the shaping of events around them. Choosing just one is impossible. But I'll do my best. ;) I'll take 'important' as 'influential.' And though I would like to set a precedent by choosing a female (I note that there are none on the list), I'll say Socrates. Please note that I admire many other historical figures far more, but for different reasons.

Positive criteria:

Fame: (How many people know about this historical figure and what he did?)

Directly or indirectly, most people will have heard of Socrates, even today. Either by reading his work or by hearing about that Greek guy who drank poison, Socrates is still well known. We have 'the Socratic method.' Whee.

Followers: How many people follow or agree with this historical figure's main ideas?

Well this is hard to say. Socrates' ideas are quite hard to distinguish from Plato's, given that Plato may have attributed some of his own work to Socrates. However, Socrates and his socratic method have survived for centuries. He taught Plato, who in turn taught Aristotle, and these three are regarded as some of the greatest minds in history. Few people take them literally (Plato's Forms and Aristotle's reason for the flight of arrows for example), but their ideas and methods, originating from Socrates, are the basis for much of what we now do and think.

Martyrs: Did people die as martyrs in the name of this historical figure? How many?

Socrates was his own martyr.

Power in life: How much territory and population did this historical figure conquer in life?

Socrates' power was in ideas, not war. It's what killed him in the end, the charges against him including 'corrupting the youth of Athens.' However, he taught Plato. And Plato taught Aristotle. And Aristotle taught Alexander the Great. There's some conquerin' for ya.

Power in death: How much territory and population was conquered in the name of this historical figure after his death?

Well, it was never in his name. But Socrates has had enduring power after his death.

Harbinger of change: How many wars, revolutions, or other violent or peaceful changes on a massive scale were initiated by this historical figure or his ideas?

This may include Alexander's campaigns, but only if you really want it to. One suspects that they would have happened even without Socrates' input. Still, the three philosophers wrote a great deal on the subject of government. Certainly they started some balls rolling (I'm not good with specifics right now, it's been more than a year since I studied Plato).

Founder of civilization: How many of the original ideas of this historical figure are accepted as "common sense" today?

One could argue that the whole concept of 'common sense' was Socrates' with his Socratic method, although there was probably some Pythagorean influence there as well. The ideas themselves are not so important, but the emphasis on reason and logic have inspired hundreds of others. It is no coincidence that the Renaissance happened to contain a great appreciation for the classical style. And the renaissance gave us Da Vanci, Machiavelli, Galileo; politicians, artists, scientists, explorers, monarchs...

Chain reaction: Did this historical figure's deeds or ideas start a chain reaction that led to important secondary developments? (e.g. Christopher Columbus' discovery of America set off such a chain reaction)

See above answers. I suppose I should have read the questions through more thoroughly.

Legendary: Are the deeds of this historical figure a subject of myth and legend?

Erm... No. Unless you count his enforced suicide as a legend of sorts.

Resurgent: Did this historical figure's ideas or followers make a comeback after a major defeat?

Yup. He died, and the ruling body of Athens tried to smoosh his ideas, and they failed.

Negative criteria:

Defeat: Did this historical figure or his ideas suffer a major defeat? (if the defeat was followed by a comeback, add points to "resurgent" above)

He was forced by the government to commit suicide. That probably counts.

Figurehead: Do people claim to follow this historical figure or his ideas without really doing so in practice?

Not really. Some might say they follow Socrates when really the ideas are Plato's, but nobody really says they base their life around Socrates, do they? No, they say that they base their life on reason, and rational thinking. As Socrates did.

Obsolete: Have this historical figure's ideas been rendered obsolete by recent discoveries, or replaced by the ideas of others? (this mostly applies to scientists)

Literally, yes. Philosopher Kings (Plato) and the sun revolving around the Earth (Aristotle) are long gone. In another way though, Socrates' method, the process of logical thinking, has become the basis of modern thought. And it's logic that got Newton and Einstein their places in history.

Stigma: How many people hate this historical figure and his ideas, or consider them evil?

Oo, not many. But some ancient Athenian politicians, for a start.

In closing, I wouldn't say that Socrates was the greatest person that ever lived, nor that his ideas are to be taken literally and followed without question. For that would be to go against Socrates' teachings. Question everything. Think rationally. Don't assume. The influence may be small, but a snowflake in the right place causes an avalanche.

[Caid Ivik]

Isn't this a little bit weird? Not everybody takes history as some linear process of building perfection, with few "masterminds", which put it into a "progress" and then masses of their followers. Person's true "own" importance stretches maximally in a range of few generations, various "great works" are processes of unconscious origin. To set a "leader" is just a hypocrisy of historians, who want to cleanse their blood of responsibility; or trying to mine glory by "descendants".

Important is everyone, who finds his place and makes the life of neighbours better for a while, at a cost of only his own time. Quantitative aspects are irrelevant; hierarchy of "better" and "worse" sinful.

[Dunenewt]

Until I see my name, I'm not entering.  Besides, wouldn't it be easier to divide it up in to categories. Such as centuries.  Or which group is more important, Philosophers, Scientists, Politicians, etc...

[Caid Ivik]

or women?  ::)

[Dunenewt]

Now that's just being stupid.

[Caid Ivik]

Why? It is possible to give birth to humans without a man; but not without a woman. So they are a very important category.

[Lord J]

;)

And, to turn the feminist conflict theory around, the problems experienced by men in dealing with females actually makes men more agressive and more aware of power structures.

In other words, all of those men on the poll would not be there without strong-willed women in their lives.

Women play a much larger role, sociologically, politically, psychologically, philosophically, etc. than men tend to realize.

[Dante]

My thoughts exactly. Women don't have to have overt influence (Catherine the Great, Cleopatra, Elizabeth I) to leave their mark. Many male monarchs were little more than puppets for their wives or mothers.

[Caid Ivik]

Well, everybody is for a while a puppet of his mother. This has nothing with feminism, it's nature.

[Dante]

Yes, but not many go to fight wars when their mother tells them to. Some say that King Stephen of England was only King because his mother and wife bullied him into it.

[Egeides]

I was said once from a female MA philosophy that debates with not a single man included would go very differently, and that woman would then be alot more expressive.

Thus I wonder to which extent this can be true and what a well-organized group could do (the overt being between women).

Besides, Kong Fu Zi (Confucius) isn't in the list but anyway... doesn't need to be a scientific poll.

[Caid Ivik]

Yes, but not many go to fight wars when their mother tells them to. Some say that King Stephen of England was only King because his mother and wife bullied him into it.

Is the war only important thing a man can do?

[Dude_Doc]

I use to tend to think that some people are or have been necessary in the past, in their times. Imagine Hitler being born today, and how much more power he could have wielded with todays technology. Maybe we do need to experience "bad", thus the concentration camps, the "Final Solution", in order to understand that it is bad? Maybe we need the bad in our history so that it can never happen in the future?

[Anathema]

To me, the only character on that list that can be considered a winner is Alexander the Great. Going by Edrics criteria:

Positive criteria:

Fame: How many people know about this historical figure and what he did?

Every fool has at least heard of Alexander the Great.

Power in life: How much territory and population did this historical figure conquer in life?

Alexander conquered the entirety of the Persian empire in his own lifetime, a VAST expanse of land.

Power in death: How much territory and population was conquered in the name of this historical figure after his death?

His successors didn't add much to his original conquests as they battled for centuries over his legacy and aspired to achieve what he had achieved. He cast a shadow over all who came after him.

Harbinger of change: How many wars, revolutions, or other violent or peaceful changes on a massive scale were initiated by this historical figure or his ideas?

More then anybody elses changes, I'd say. Alexander brought Hellenic culture as far as India, where he still has an important place in mythology, for example.

Chain reaction: Did this historical figure's deeds or ideas start a chain reaction that led to important secondary developments? (e.g. Christopher Columbus' discovery of America set off such a chain reaction)

In his wake, the whole territory around the eastern mediteranean sea was hellenized. Another chain reaction, the spread of Christianity, was only possible because the Greek language was so widespread.

Legendary: Are the deeds of this historical figure a subject of myth and legend?

Hell yes!

Resurgent: Did this historical figure's ideas or followers make a comeback after a major defeat?

Just about every conquerer worth his salt liked to compare himself to Alexander the Great. He was the gold standard.

Negative criteria:

Defeat: Did this historical figure or his ideas suffer a major defeat? (if the defeat was followed by a comeback, add points to "resurgent" above)

Alexander was never defeated.

Figurehead: Do people claim to follow this historical figure or his ideas without really doing so in practice?

Alexander was looked upon with deep reverence by the Romans. Before Caesar was the great general we now know him to be, he is said to have wept at a statue of Alexander because his own achievements were nothing compared.

Stigma: How many people hate this historical figure and his ideas, or consider them evil?

I believe he's reviled in Iran, because they see him as the destroyer of their first great empire (Achemenid Persia)

[Anathema]

Jesus has more votes then Alexander?  :O

All he did was preach, get crucified and die! His apostels did the rest. His role in history is mostly passive, being a source of inspiration. Alexander played a very ACTIVE part, ie bringing the entire Persian empire under his iron boot.

[Dante]

Is the war only important thing a man can do?

I chose Socrates, didn't I?

[Mahdi]

Moses:  Definately up there.  Essentially created a new religion, paved the way for two (lets just say two) new religion, and led a rebellion (I said "essentially".  This is only three lines long).  A possible winner.

Plato:  Important philosopher and recorder of an even mroe important philosopher, but I wouldn't put him at the top of the list.

Buddha:  Philosopher, religion-maker, followed by many people, but I'd say less influential than Moses.  So far, anyway.

Alexander the Great:  Conquered north Africa , PErsian empire, parts of india, etc.  Cleared the path for the Roman empire, spread western thought throughout the world.  Still, there have been more influential people.

Augustus:  One of my personal faves, a manipulative clever S.O.B who was the first Roman Emperor, despite his own claims otherwise.  Still, as smart, capable, and otherwise skilled as he was, even if he'd never been born someone else would have done what he did.  It was inevitable.  More a case of being in the right place at the right time than anythign else.

Jesus:  Here's where Moses gets his main competition.  I'd give the edge to Moses because he set the ball rollin for Jesus (as he did for Mohammid) but Jesus does present a clear threat to the M-Mans superiority.  And, of course, as with every religious figure in this list, if the guy is actually telling the truth he is by far number one.

Muhammad:  See Buddha.

Ghengis Khan:  See Alexander the Great, except without the wetern/Roman stuff.

Christopher Columbus:  The bottom of the list.  His trip to the Americas just got more press than anyone elses.  If he hadned done it, five or ten or twenty years later someone else woulda done the well-publicized trip and got all the fame.

Isaac Newton:  An influential guy, sure, but I wouldn't put him near the top.  More middle/lower of the pack than anything else.  Besides, he's only been dead a couple hundred years. 

Napoleon Bonaparte:  See Alenander the Great, although he was so recent that we might not know his full importance for a few hundred years yet.

Karl Marx:  Very important in the modern world, but not up there with the religious figures.  At least not yet.  again, too soon.

Darwin:  Same as Newton.

Einstien:  See Newton.

Lenin:  Too new, but I'd put him somewhere int he middle.

Stalin:  I'd say under Lenin.

Hitler:  Bit above Lenin and Stalin, but like everyone else from the last couple hudnred years, too new to really know.

So in conclusion, I've got to go with Moses, mostly for being the man behind the man behind the man behind two major religions, and also for being the man behind a third of the world major religions, the three of which have probably beena  major part of the lves of billions of people. 

[Anathema]

Jesus:  Here's where Moses gets his main competition.  I'd give the edge to Moses because he set the ball rollin for Jesus (as he did for Mohammid)

I'd like to go in further on that. The problem with determining who was the "greatest" is that the achievements of one man are built on top of that of the other. You can credit Jesus with founding a religion (even that's doubtful, I'd be more inclined to call Petrus and Paul the founders) that spread like a wildfire over all of Europe plus parts of Asia and Africa. But this was made possible because just about everybody on the eastern mediteranean spoke Greek, contributing greatly to its succes. And that's when we get to Alexander, who can simply be said to have built his succeses on those of his father Philip. And so on.

I'd like to nominate Adam, the first human. Without him there wouldn't have been history, and he spawned everybody else ;)

[Edric O]

I don't think you should put such an excessive emphasis on chain reactions, for two reasons: First, chain reactions are largely involuntary, and you can't give a person so much credit for the fact that his actions ultimately resulted in unpredictable consequences that he did not intend. Second, a chain reaction could be started by anyone, and I'm certain that many important events in history happened as the result of chain reactions started by ordinary people. Sure, history would have been completely different without Alexander the Great, but the same could be said about millions of other people (consider just Gavrilo Princip, for example, who started World War I).

Also, we should not place too much importance on spectacular but ultimately not very influential deeds. Hitler, for instance, is often overrated (and the likes of Stalin and Mao are underrated). Sure, Hitler was spectacular, almost winning the greatest war in history, killing millions of people and all that, but what lasting legacy did he leave behind? His empire was crushed mostly due to his own stupidity and arrogance, his capital and part of his country fell to his worst enemy, he died a broken man and his name is universally stigmatized and reviled. He left nothing behind except a whole bunch of chain reactions - and I already explained why those should not be given undue weight.

I'm surprised no one else has voted for my personal choice as the most important person in history: Muhammad.

Muhammad was the most influential religious leader in history. Period. His only serious competition is Jesus, but Jesus loses a lot of points for being a figurehead (most of His followers don't actually take His teachings seriously). Muslims follow the Qur'an much more than Christians follow the Bible. This, I believe, is more than enough to compensate for the fact that Christians have numerical superiority (and besides, at the current rate of growth, Islam will overtake Christianity within the next few decades).

[Caid Ivik]

Main difference was that Jesus simplified the codex of laws by naming its essence; also he called for a differentiation between personal morale and law of state. In this aspect, Muhammad was very anachronistic (calvinists and modern ideologies very same). But still, as sharia isn't the only muslim codex (most of muslim states have own laws, also there is an alternative mystical morale - tariqa). And, primarily, for a christian is Jesus more important than Muhammad for a muslim, as Jesus was God. Or, well, son of God. There was only one comparable person in history, no less than Krishna himself, but his historicity is yet questioned...

Still, I can't be silent when I see quantitative aspects taken as more important than qualitative.

[Davidu]

I'd nominate both Burebista and Decebal ( two of the greatest Dacian kings). And even Zamolxis - the prophet that became the Dacian god. He seemed to be a student of Pitagora or something...

My point is that each of us, each people, each "faction" has it's own historical landmarks and historical figures. Therefore there is no GREATEST.

I voted for Alexander because his achievements were his very own. HE conquered the Persian empire leading his troops in battle.

There is nothing you can discuss in his actions: HE waged war and CONQUERED Persia.

[Edric O]

Of course, the achievements of any one person depend entirely on the actions of others. For one thing, Alexander the Great (or Plato or Einstein or anyone) would never have existed if their parents hadn't met. But that's just the obvious requirement for their existence. In fact, a long list of past events - many of them random - were necessary for the existence of each and every person.

Since we owe our very existence - as well as our education, our knowledge of the world, etc. - to the actions of other people, it is difficult to say that any achievement was the work of one man alone. But some achievements can be said to be mostly the work of one man (or woman).

P.S. Dante, I actually thought of including Socrates when I first wrote my list of important historical figures, but everything we know about him comes from Plato. That's why I chose to include Plato instead. For all we know, the Socrates that is portrayed by Plato may be largely fictional. Fictional characters didn't actually do anything, so they can't really count (that's why Gilgamesh isn't on the list either, Lord J).

[Lord J]

P.S. Dante, I actually thought of including Socrates when I first wrote my list of important historical figures, but everything we know about him comes from Plato. That's why I chose to include Plato instead. For all we know, the Socrates that is portrayed by Plato may be largely fictional. Fictional characters didn't actually do anything, so they can't really count (that's why Gilgamesh isn't on the list either, Lord J).

Well, can't that argument be applied to many of the people on the list?  I mean, there is arguably some evidence that there was once a king in Sumeria/Mesopotamia called Gilgamesh.  And the story (!) of his exploits is what has influenced western civilization to this day.

So how does this apply to others on this list?  There is still some doubt that Jesus Christ ever existed, most people believe he did, and there are some historical artifacts that indicate his existance, but little more than Gilgamesh.  The problem with believing in the existance of Gilgamesh is the somewhat mystical properties of his written experiences-- the gods, giants, and plants of everlasting life.  However, apply the same code of evidential existance to Jesus and you come up against miracles that are unsubtantiated by any scientific evidence.

The accounts of Gilgamesh are written in third-person, by someone telling a story.  However, the same applies to Jesus, who, according to historical accounts never wrote an autobiography-- his story is recounted completely by his disciples, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

In other words, the only difference between Jesus and Gilgamesh is relative fame over time.  Jesus has no more right to be on that list than Gilgamesh.  Perhaps the "Writers of the Gospels" should be the option there, as Socrates is to Plato.