The Life Millenium says it is as fallows: Thomas Edision, Christopher Columbus, Martin Luther, Galileo Galilei, Leonardo Da Vinci. What is you oppinion on the issue?
From 1006 up until now, and covering the entire world, and not just Western Civ? Do I only get 5 choices? That Willy the Conquerer fellow might be worth a mention. I'll have to disagree with Edison and Luther though. While the contributions that they made were very influencial I believe that they were inevitable. If the church paid off Luther, another person would have sparked the Reformation. Leonardo now, he was a genius.
William the Conquerer is (acording to Life magazine anyway) is #61. I personaly do not have a strong oppinion on him. As for Luther, I agree that his contribution was inevitable. I am not sure why Edision was #1.
[quote:5b0af8cce5="QuothTheRaven"]I am not sure why Edision was #1.[/quote:5b0af8cce5] Remember those words during your next power outage . Particularly if it's region-wide, so as to affect the neighborhood stores, schools, gas pumps, banks, hospitals etc. DaVinci is one of my personal heroes and I feel like crap saying it, but how many of his inventions were actually PUBLISHED during his lifetime? In other words, how many people did he actually influence? (For example, I know he invented a flying machine, but unless I'm way off target, the Wright brothers came up with their plane independently ). If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and will apologize amidst a hail of thrown fish. If I'm right, however, I'd probably replace poor Leonardo with everyone's favorite punchingbag, Herr Karl Marx . I hold no special love for the guy, but he did inspire Lenin, who DID create the USSR, and it seems that almost everything that went on in history over the past 100 years or so - yes, I know that it's only been century, but WHAT a century! - has been a result, one way or the other, of the Soviet Union vs. the rest of the world edited to add banks and hospitals
what, no gutenburg? publication of the bible in non-latin languages is often regarded as the most upheaving event to hit europe since the black death. if luther's on the list (and unlike our uneducated yanqui llama, i agree that he was one of the most influental people) then gutenburg ought to be as well. what about voltaire, or thomas jefferson, or john locke, or henry ford, or, and lets face it this guy changed the world all on his own, herr hitler? remember that influence comes in both good and bad.
Of course you'd think that, you disloyal Protestant. And Mowgli, I think that Edison's contributions were also an inevitability.
Hmmm 5 people let me think: 1. Otto Von Bismark the Person who United Germany in 1871 after being in office for only 9 years, 2. Hittler, shoued the world how bad a country can go, 3. Sir Joseph Swan, The Person who invented the lightbulb in the UK before Edison came over 4. King James, first english translation of the bible, KJV. 5. and Terry Pratchett, he made me love reading again.
maybe in thirty years time we can say if pratchett was influential on a global scale, but with utmost disrespect to the fanboys (and girls), get real. authors of fantasy or sci-fi have depressingly little impact. authors of fiction in general almost never 'change the world' beyond the shortest and narrowest of fads. however, if you consider that arthur c clarke is almost single handedly responsible for the concept of the communications satelite, and his ideas and theories in a sci-fi story were directly inspirational to the egg heads who actually built the first ones, and that modern global telecommunications depend critically on these satelites, and that this modern age of bluetooth and telephony and ip phones and everything between has already been dubbed 'the information age' based on the key facet of the free and fluid transfer of information... sure, let the republicans rant on that al gore claimed he invented the internet (which he never did, but oh well, it's what people believe that matters), but no one single person can usually be given the credit for the 'information age'. who should get it, if any? Samuel Moris? Alexander Bell? hell, why NOT add Clarke, a sci-fi author, to the list for his contribution?
I wonder If Hitler got a mention. After all he was a retty damn amazing leader. He united all of Germany after the treaty of Versi and still managed to get the reasources to take over the majority of Europe and Very nearly the rest of it too. Although he was a genocidal maniac he was still a damn impressive leader. Plus he wasn't even German (Sorry about the spelling)
[quote:0ac45b3d34="Dane"]I wonder If Hitler got a mention. After all he was a retty damn amazing leader. He united all of Germany after the treaty of Versi and still managed to get the reasources to take over the majority of Europe and Very nearly the rest of it too. Although he was a genocidal maniac he was still a damn impressive leader. Plus he wasn't even German (Sorry about the spelling)[/quote:0ac45b3d34] Just two things: He didn't unite Germany. It wasn't, er, split at the time; Austria had a history of it own despite its owners speaking German, and Poland, Tschechia and all the countries invaded and partly annected during the years after him gaining power in 1933 weren't German to start with. There did live groups of Germans in lots of those countries, as national minorities, often for centuries. That was why he called it "untiting Germany". That is his vocabulary though, and it would be just as logical, if the Government of China annected the USA in a 100 years from now on on the base that a lot of Chinese have been living there for generations. The thing with the treaty of Versailles... well, the important countries revised it quite willingly, or the parts that counted, in 1934. Hitler was still planning to force them to do so and might have been surprised; its hard to say if it was anything they did or if they just decided they couldn't afford an almshouse in the midst of Europe. Make of that what you want. That put aside, the important question I thought of when reading your post was: What makes one an impressive leader -obviously the extend of damage still "impresses". Brecht was right after all. Influence, as in "what he did had consequences on world history" - of course. But "impressive leader" implies a historical gratification, doesn't it?
It's not so much what Hitler did as a military/political leader, but how he influenced our thoughts: The idea that "just following orders" is wrong. The idea that you can't just look on and do nothing when someone else is being hurt. ("First they came for the communists. . .") The idea that even good people are capable of doing evil. (The Milliken experiment.)
OK I evidentally don't know as much as you (Or can spell as well as you ) but i know that he was deffinately a devoted leader... well untill the end that is. I'm not 100% on this part but my cousin (He kinda likes the Nazi's and so on and did a lot on Hitler for his GCSE history) told me that he was planning eveything almost down to the letter when he was in prison. I don't know if thats right or not but he said that his notes told of everything he planned from his rise to power in Germany to the gas chambers for the jews! I thought that the gas chambers were thought up by the generals throught the war due to a lack of resources for the bullets to kill them with so I'm not to sure about that bit (although I may be mistaken). Either way he was certainly detrmined to succed.
Were Einstein, Mark Twain and Oscar Wilde in there? Hitler hated the Jews, but unlike Himmler, he couldn't face seeing the endless dead bodies of them. When he saw one of the death camps, with Jewish bodies waiting to be burnt (or whatever it is they did to them), he quite literally threw up.
Actually, Ray Kroc did change the face of the western world There is also Henry David Thoreau, whose "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience" influenced such people as Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King.
Jefferson was #10, Hitler #13. Einstin #21. Freud #16 Darwin #9 Marx #18 Locke #47 Bismark #60 Ford #15 Tesla #57 Guttenburg was not on the list of the most influential people, but the same book declared his invention of the printing press to be the most important event of the last millenium. I am not sure why he was excluded. Bill Gates was left off the list. I agree that he does not warrent mention. He just saw an opertunity to make a LOT of money, and took it. I personally think that when future generations discuss OS designers, Linus Torvalds will be mentioned first. Also, Walt Disney and P. T. Barnum (#90 and 81, respectivly) were included on the list, so if it is revised in the future, I think pTerry has a Fighting chance. Edit: I think Einstein was more influential than Freud. were it not for Einstien, we would not have nuclear energy; think that time is constant and that gravity is universial. All Freud gave us is Psychobabble. Edit2: I think Charles-Louis de Montesquieu(sp?) should have been included. His theories about seperation of power form the basis of the US consitution.
If Martin Luther is on there, Gutenberg definitely should be- the Theses were spread by being printed and sent out to a number of influential people (as well as being nailed on the church door). How quickly do you think he'd have been able to rewrite all 95 however many times and post them out? He would have been supressed much more quickly.
[quote:0d6d9f66f7="QuothTheRaven"]. All Freud gave us is Psychobabble. .[/quote:0d6d9f66f7] No. He gave us the idea that civilisation creates unhappiness because people give up personal freedom in exchange for security. And the idea that dreams aren't messages from God or the supernatural. [quote:0d6d9f66f7="QuothTheRaven"] . were it not for Einstien, we would not have nuclear energy; [/quote:0d6d9f66f7] We would not have nuclear energy if it were not for Marie Curie. By the way, where is Shakespeare?
[quote:29ab27103f="Garner"]maybe in thirty years time we can say if pratchett was influential on a global scale, but with utmost disrespect to the fanboys (and girls), get real. [/quote:29ab27103f] Dammit, I forgot that "I am being ironical" smiley again, didn't I ?
For any of these people to be influential took people helping, raising, guiding, and teaching them. Are they not as influential as the people that are famous? Without the teachers what would have happened to them? The parents of the influential had no small part in the success of that individual. For us to try to pinpoint these influential people would require a vacuum and societies don't opperate within a vacuum. No man is an individual unto himself, but a composite of his surroundings. Therefore these "most influential people" are only figure heads to those supporting them that never made it to the limelight. *steals the thunder from the mighty* :badgrin:
I don't know though, every now and again a genius is born - someone who is a natural at their chosen profession/hobby/obssession, like Mozart.
[quote:54c8a6adc4="Marcia"][quote:54c8a6adc4="QuothTheRaven"]. All Freud gave us is Psychobabble. .[/quote:54c8a6adc4] No. He gave us the idea that civilisation creates unhappiness because people give up personal freedom in exchange for security. [/quote:54c8a6adc4] That wasn't Freud's invention- I've read variations on that idea from Rousseau and a few others- MUCH earlier. I agree with you on the dreams point.
[quote:c076135c0b="Maljonic"]I don't know though, every now and again a genius is born - someone who is a natural at their chosen profession/hobby/obssession, like Mozart.[/quote:c076135c0b] Mozart would not have become the person he was without his father. His father drove him like a slave, even at the age of three. True, he was a genious musician, but what would have happened had his father been a tanner? Maybe we would have had Burkenstocks in the late 1800s. I think of this often. Children are born every day that are potentially great minds, but are born to poverty, oppression, or die an early death. If they had been given the chance they would have been able to change the world. I wonder about myself sometimes. If I had been given a different chance as a child, what would I have become? Would some of my menial talents have been honed to a fine point that would have risen me above my peers? The answers are far too complex for my mind.
That's a good perspective redneck is bringing into this, I think. There is an actual discussion going on - well, has probably always been going on- about how history is, after a short break, going back to being perceived as the history of great men and women, insted of a multilayered, highly complex development within societies and interacting societies. Back to Hitler, for another point this time - would he have been possible without the fascist movement running through Europe, without the elites that thought they could run the Democratic parties out of government with him as a tool and too late found they couldn't get rid of him anymore, without the weak democratic spirit of the young Weimar democracy, without his peers, without Social Darwinism combining with antisemitism in more than one head, and so on, and so on? In a parallel universe, he might have remained the bad painter he was. Same about the great minds, too. Noone risis out of nothing and re-shapes the world completely.
Or you could say that [i:519ad84a31]everyone[/i:519ad84a31] rises out of nothing and re-shapes the world completely - the world of human beings that is.
Pardon my ignorance but hasn't much of Freud's theorys been debunked? I know that many of them (And certainly the ones up for discussion) are still active and eer... bunked? Personally I think that his obsession over sexual frustration cast him in a bad light. I know that he was a great psychologist and is widely known as the father of modern psychology, but come on! not being breast fed doesn't account for most of men's psychological problems.
[quote:3049713509="Dane"]Pardon my ignorance but hasn't much of Freud's theorys been debunked? ...[/quote:3049713509]Even if this was true it wouldn't mean he didn't have a huge influence on society.
[quote:d376198686="Maljonic"][quote:d376198686="Dane"]Pardon my ignorance but hasn't much of Freud's theorys been debunked? ...[/quote:d376198686]Even if this was true it wouldn't mean he didn't have a huge influence on society.[/quote:d376198686] I didn't say that, or didn't mean that. I was simply stateing that many of his theorys have been debunked, I don't know a lot about him but i know that he had a huge impact on society and psychology as a subject.
It's true that many, if not most of Freud's theories are defunct. However, he started the world off on the road towards psychiatric medicine. He was wrong, but at least he was wrong in the right direction. He provided a foundation for later minds to work from. If it was a flawed foundation, it was because of the tools he had to work with.
[quote:cb9ebe974b="Dane"][quote:cb9ebe974b="Maljonic"][quote:cb9ebe974b="Dane"]Pardon my ignorance but hasn't much of Freud's theorys been debunked? ...[/quote:cb9ebe974b]Even if this was true it wouldn't mean he didn't have a huge influence on society.[/quote:cb9ebe974b] I didn't say that, or didn't mean that. I was simply stateing that many of his theorys have been debunked, I don't know a lot about him but i know that he had a huge impact on society and psychology as a subject.[/quote:cb9ebe974b] Even if some of his theories have been debunked the underlying principles behind his view of psycho-analysis has shaped the way psychologists and the general public understand personality and mental illness since. He may have been wrong but the theories created to replace them are still based on the Freudian perspective of [i:cb9ebe974b]how[/i:cb9ebe974b] we understand psychology. A person who has been influential (but I want to shoot) is Maslow, the guy that created Maslow's hierarchy of needs, its never been proven but is taught as if it was an inalienable truth to students... There is a whole generation of people out there thinking that 'self-actualisation' is the top of the pyramid but don't understand what that means. Besides that, how about some Eastern influentials? Mao Tze Tung? Who ever was leading Japan when they said "Gee whiz lets invade Asia that sounds like a damn fine way to spend a generation". (Lenin or Marx whose perspectives on civilisation still exist and inform research and study of societies today... Not eastern but still important) And Ghengiz Khan that friendly Mongol invader?
[quote:a6d60509fe="Marcia"] By the way, where is Shakespeare?[/quote:a6d60509fe] Shakespere is #11. Also: [quote:a6d60509fe="spiky"] Besides that, how about some Eastern influentials? Mao Tze Tung? Who ever was leading Japan when they said "Gee whiz lets invade Asia that sounds like a damn fine way to spend a generation". (Lenin or Marx whose perspectives on civilisation still exist and inform research and study of societies today... Not eastern but still important) And Ghengiz Khan that friendly Mongol invader?[/quote:a6d60509fe] Zheng He is #14 Marx #18 Mao Zedong #28 Vladamir llyich Ulyanoc AKA Lenin #29 Zhu Xi #44 Akbar #48 Fan Kuan #59 Cao Xuen #67 Hokusai #86 Ghengiz Khan is not mentioned, but his grandson Kublai is #23.
[quote:354b477297="spiky"][quote:354b477297="Dane"][quote:354b477297="Maljonic"][quote:354b477297="Dane"]Pardon my ignorance but hasn't much of Freud's theorys been debunked? ...[/quote:354b477297]Even if this was true it wouldn't mean he didn't have a huge influence on society.[/quote:354b477297] I didn't say that, or didn't mean that. I was simply stateing that many of his theorys have been debunked, I don't know a lot about him but i know that he had a huge impact on society and psychology as a subject.[/quote:354b477297] Even if some of his theories have been debunked the underlying principles behind his view of psycho-analysis has shaped the way psychologists and the general public understand personality and mental illness since. He may have been wrong but the theories created to replace them are still based on the Freudian perspective of [i:354b477297]how[/i:354b477297] we understand psychology. A person who has been influential (but I want to shoot) is Maslow, the guy that created Maslow's hierarchy of needs, its never been proven but is taught as if it was an inalienable truth to students... There is a whole generation of people out there thinking that 'self-actualisation' is the top of the pyramid but don't understand what that means. Besides that, how about some Eastern influentials? Mao Tze Tung? Who ever was leading Japan when they said "Gee whiz lets invade Asia that sounds like a damn fine way to spend a generation". (Lenin or Marx whose perspectives on civilisation still exist and inform research and study of societies today... Not eastern but still important) And Ghengiz Khan that friendly Mongol invader?[/quote:354b477297] Maslows Hierarchy of needs? I was one of those bored students * bloody Maslow* We also were taught about Michael Porters 5 forces of competiton *bloody Porter* I bet he's not even on the list...
[quote:223487af26="Perdita"]Maslows Hierarchy of needs? I was one of those bored students * bloody Maslow* We also were taught about Michael Porters 5 forces of competiton *bloody Porter* I bet he's not even on the list...[/quote:223487af26] i'M SO SORRY. (even with the capslock on)... I've been the student and the teacher and I agree *bloody Maslow* I forgot about Porter... Some bloody smartarse made it the 16 forces but still *bloody porter* Sorry to make this a gripe fest for anyone who's ever studied business but *bloody all business theory*
im going to say my gretest hero's are Chirchill, Einsine and Edison. they are not conected in any way exept that they where all Dislexic just like me and they showed the world what a person with a lerning dificulty could do. Chirchill stoped World War Two (there are no winners in war only losers) Einstine came up with E=MC2, and Edison invented the lightbuld in the USA. most Dislexics are treated as second class citisens but these 3 people showed a negative world what someone with a positve attatude could do no mater there disablity or problem. everyone can be great if they are given the chance.
Peapod, very, very few people are given chances. Edison was kicked out of school for being "unteachable". Everyone has a hard row to hoe. Some people's are a little easier, or at least appear to be, but one is rarely "given" the chance to be great.
[quote:9cc422ec04="Dane"]I thought that the gas chambers were thought up by the generals throught the war due to a lack of resources for the bullets to kill them with so I'm not to sure about that bit (although I may be mistaken). Either way he was certainly detrmined to succed.[/quote:9cc422ec04] I believe it was the head of the SS, Himmler, that came up with the idea of the gas chambers
There were several people involved; Eichmann amongst others was another one coming up with the idea of making genocide an industrial process, it all got officially planned and decided at the Wannsee conference in 1942 where practically the entire Nazi elite took part in.
[quote:2a2978ca05="Hsing"] coming up with the idea of making genocide an industrial process, [/quote:2a2978ca05] Ah the world gone mad... I just had this vision of Mr Ford standing next to the production line of genocide saying: "you can have any colour as long as its black." *goes off to try and purge black humour from soul*
Heck, they had concentration camps as far back as the Assyrians. Didn't get their name, though, until the Second Boer War. The British had to call the camps something.
[quote:ec4f199691="Ba"]Heck, they had concentration camps as far back as the Assyrians. Didn't get their name, though, until the Second Boer War. The British had to call the camps something.[/quote:ec4f199691] Even then, the name was rather more innocent - it meant concentrating all the people you wanted to lock up in a limited number of locations - a touch of efficiency - it took the Nazis to add the extra bit of Germanic efficiency to the whole thing and add extra meaning to the phrase with mass industrial-level slaughter (soap and lampshades?)
[quote:a5d21fafe7="Hsing"]There were several people involved; Eichmann amongst others was another one coming up with the idea of making genocide an industrial process, it all got officially planned and decided at the Wannsee conference in 1942 where practically the entire Nazi elite took part in.[/quote:a5d21fafe7] thats what i thought (well not in as much detail with the name and such), I saw a BBC documentory on it a wile ago. Basically all the elites sat in a board room discussing the boundries of persecution as far as the jews were concerned and leading onto the idea of gas chambers. I thought it was quite boreing at the time but thinking about it i think I'd like to see it again.
[quote:3d1fb9f43e="Pixel"][quote:3d1fb9f43e="Ba"]Heck, they had concentration camps as far back as the Assyrians. Didn't get their name, though, until the Second Boer War. The British had to call the camps something.[/quote:3d1fb9f43e] Even then, the name was rather more innocent - it meant concentrating all the people you wanted to lock up in a limited number of locations - a touch of efficiency - it took the Nazis to add the extra bit of Germanic efficiency to the whole thing and add extra meaning to the phrase with mass industrial-level slaughter (soap and lampshades?)[/quote:3d1fb9f43e]Actually I believe that the British concentration camps of the Boer War were not all that innocent. They used to capture the people they wanted to catch by setting up a massive perimeter around them and gradually decreasing its size, killing anyone who tried to escape, until they were all confined to a concentrated area where they would be fenced in.
[quote:b4adfc9f09="Maljonic"][quote:b4adfc9f09="Pixel"][quote:b4adfc9f09="Ba"]Heck, they had concentration camps as far back as the Assyrians. Didn't get their name, though, until the Second Boer War. The British had to call the camps something.[/quote:b4adfc9f09] Even then, the name was rather more innocent - it meant concentrating all the people you wanted to lock up in a limited number of locations - a touch of efficiency - it took the Nazis to add the extra bit of Germanic efficiency to the whole thing and add extra meaning to the phrase with mass industrial-level slaughter (soap and lampshades?)[/quote:b4adfc9f09]Actually I believe that the British concentration camps of the Boer War were not all that innocent. They used to capture the people they wanted to catch by setting up a massive perimeter around them and gradually decreasing its size, killing anyone who tried to escape, until they were all confined to a concentrated area where they would be fenced in.[/quote:b4adfc9f09] OK, but I did say "rather more" innocent, not "totally" innocent - there is a difference between rounding people up to get them into a confined area, even if you do kill the ones trying to escape, and rounding them up and then running them through wholesale slaughter facilities.
