1.) What person is most influential in the history of mankind, why?

2.) Would you like to meet this person. If so, what would you ask him? If not, why?


To answer the questions myself.

1.) Maybe Copernicus (1473 - 1543) should be somewhere at the top of influential persons. His theory that the sun is at the center of our solarsystem and not the earth shattered a paradigm that has lasted for centuries. It changed the way we perceive the world and everything around us.

2.) I would like to meet him and ask him what drove him to these conclusions. Why he dared to put forward a theory that was so dangerous for himself and for the views of the Katholic Church. But on the other hand, if I, with my twenty-first century mentality, would talk to him, he probably would find me a very strange person and would probably look at me as a heretic.

If I must pick just one, I would pick a person who has contributed more to language, history and theater than any other person. Of course I am talking about William Shakespeare. He gave birth to countless words and revolutionized the way theaters are run and how shows are put on.




Who his greatest inspiration was and who he thought the most influential person in history was.

1. One would have to pick Jesus of Nazareth. I can't even really think of a second place. Perhaps Mohammed?

2. Sure. I'd ask if he really thought through what he was preaching. After all, I'd ask him, you DID die as a result of your pacifism and many others did following your example. Was that REALLY the best way to make your point?

Of course, I couldn't ask him that because he DID die. And he didn't come back from the dead contrary to what the faithful believe.

1.) What person is most influential in the history of mankind, why?

2.) Would you like to meet this person. If so, what would you ask him? If not, why?


1. Definitely without a doubt... Jesus Christ. Consider the idea that most of western society was formed as we know it in the midst of Christianity. Consider the fact that the church was most often the centerpiece of government as we knew it until very recent history.

The teachings of Jesus, regardless of your religious values, are often the focal point of what western society views as "morality". Consider the ideas of nuclear families, decency, judicial prudence, etc.

2. Well, being a christian I hope to meet him... But that being said, if a conversation were to be arranged, I'd like to hear what he has to say about the American political machine, Islam's role in contemporary history, and how he feels on the middle east falling to the Muslim faith (lest we not forget that the largest portion of the ME was originally Judeo-Christian).

1.) What person is most influential in the history of mankind, why?
No suprise here: Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam. "What!?!?!?" you cry. "How could an obscure 16th century theologian and scholar be the most influential person in history??!?!?"
Well, I suppose that there were more destructively influential people. Adolph Hitler killed at least 50 million people, destroyed much of Europe, and dramatically altered the geopolitical environment. But I will apply my own additional criterion of "most beneficially influential". That's what brings me to Erasmus.

Working behind the scenes, Erasmus quietly laid the groundwork for most of what we now call modernism. He concentrated his energies on planting seeds in European civilization, and a surprising number of those seeds grew into trees that bore fruit. For example, Erasmus pretty much single-handedly changed European notions of education. In his time, education was done by punishing students who erred. Erasmus pushed the notion that education should be fun. He wrote books that taught Latin in an entertaining way. Those books continued in use for more than 300 years. He fulminated against punishment of students; the idea took root and finally bloomed in the 19th century; those who promulgated the idea openly quoted Erasmus on the matter.

Erasmus set the stage for the Protestant Reformation; indeed, Luther owed his life to Erasmus, who intervened at critical moments to insure that Luther would not be executed. At the same time, Erasmus tried to reduce the animosities that the Reformation spawned. He predicted the wars of religion that culminated in the Thirty Years War, but obviously he was unable to stop them; in this he failed.

He redirected Christianity away from superstition and towards reason. He was the first to emphasize the importance of every person reading the Bible for himself. He produced his own version of the New Testament to facilitate this process. (By the way, his work on this ultimately led to the King James Version of the Bible in English).

Erasmus was a champion of rationalism and irenicism. Over and over he pushed the notion that people should sit down and reason things out to iron out their differences. He was also an early proponent of universal education, and an early feminist; he proposed the radical idea that women should be educated, too.

I'll mention one of his smaller contributions, but one that is ever-present. You may not know it, but you speak Erasmus' words all the time. When was the last time you used the aphorism "alligator tears"? Or "to start from scratch", "to call a spade a spade", "stem to stern", "head to toe", "one on one", "a point in time", "wolf at the door", "many hands make light work", "forget one's own name", "where there's life, there's hope"? All these and many more all come from the Adages, a huge book Erasmus wrote that revived all sorts of old Greek and Roman sayings and made them commonplace in Western Civilization.

Lastly, Erasmus was the world's first media superstar, and man who made a popular reputation solely from his writings.

2.) Would you like to meet this person. If so, what would you ask him? If not, why?
I'd ask him what he was doing in Italy during 1506-1509.

Good question. Never heard of him. Neither did most anyone else.

The question was "what person is most influential in the history of mankind", not which unknown nobody created a cult of marginalized "scholars" who have lower name recognition than the individuals broadcasting on "Air America".

And reality is after all, a "rational" ideal.

In reality I have to agree with this, but had the (Apostle?) Paul not tooted his horn, I doubt it would be true.

To answer the second question, I don't think meeting someone outside their natural time frame would be interesting. To take someone out of context of their world would be like multiplying Rip van Winkle's 40 year sleep times a factor of X. I would rather meet Tom DeLay, Karl Rove or Tick, I mean Rick Perry (that typo was just too good to run the cursor over and erase. Can one make a Freudian slip on a keyboard? ) just for the opportunity to tell them in what low regard I hold all of them.

Good job with the biblical reference, but I would have to venture to guess that most biblical theologians would pose an argument. Paul was a preacher for the most part that took "Jesus's message" abroad. I'll leave it there, as I think there would've been others without Paul. Guess that would be a religous debate.

Secondly, I agree with the idea that meeting people that you despise would be interesting. However, I don't believe that I could ever get the chance to meet Jesse Jackson, Bill or Hillary Clinton, or any other 20th Century Liberal icon that has effectively aided in the demise of American society as we know it... ooops... I meant been the flag-holder for the DNC. Ok- I'm joking, as Bill Clinton is good at the things that I loved (prior to marraige) to do the most... drinkin', smokin', and chasin' women. Sounds like Bill would win the Honky-Tonk Olympics here in TX...I just wouldn't vote for Hank Williams or Jerry Jeff Walker for President either.

If you're out there Bill, call me. I know of this awesome little place....

You never heard about Erasmus of Rotterdam!! He was chosen as one of the most influential persons in Holland and probably is one of the greatest thinkers the world has known and is in my top 5 of influential people in history. He should certaintly be seen as one of the people who influenced the way we think an act today.

As for Jesus ... I think he himself wasn't one of the greatest persons, he was made really important during later centuries thanks to some influential followers.
If one would argue for Jesus, one can argue also that Abraham, Mohammed and Buddha were as influential as he was.

Nope. Never heard of him. Even his namesake in this forum called him "obscure". That means, "hardly anyone ever heard of him".

That includes me.

I suppose you could argue that Abraham, Mohammed, and Buddha were as influential.

But, you'd be incorrect. Jesus of Nazareth impacted modern civilization in ways much larger than the other three combined.

If you choose to limit your view of "modern civilization" to Europe and the Americas then that would be true. However, the modern civilizations throughout Asia don't really owe a whole lot to JC as the impact of Christianity in that part of the world never even came close to the impact felt elsewhere. It was the Chinese that gave us many civilization changing inventions such as gun powder. This without the oppressive regimes who claimed to operate in the name of Christ. Now, the impact of Budda / Buddhism in eastern cultures is massive. So, when looking at the world as a whole we really should take into account regions / cultures if we are going to try to weigh one religious icon vs. another. As for Muhammad, well that becomes more complicated since there are direct ties from the Jewish faiths, to the Christian faiths, and on to the Muslim faiths.

I chose to limit my view of "modern civilization" to what was... well, "modern".

With respect to pure numbers of people, you have a point. The Chinese were great inventors for sure. But their cultural isolation (as was also the case in Japan and Korea) limited their progress toward becoming "modern".

To date, China is still a "developing" country that is far from being "modern". So is much of Asia with the exception of places like Japan and Singapore and the former UK controlled Hong Kong.

Therefore, when one looks at influence of an individual, one has to look at the cultures influenced by them and THEIR impact on the world's history. That is how I made my conclusion that Jesus of Nazareth had the most impact.

I would have to go with lordhelmet's second choice: Muhammad. I can think of no other leader who has had as profound an impact in the religious sphere, the political sphere, and the military sphere during his lifetime - and major geopolitical ramifications ever since.

I can't really count Jesus (indeed, I would probably put Paul ahead of him in a ranking). After all, the mission of Jesus was an abject failure - maybe one in a hundred of those identifying themselves as followers of his teachings even know what his teachings were - and maybe one in a thousand of them who actually follow his teachings. It was Paul who turned a minor Jewish cult into a religion with a broader appeal, largely through bastardizing the intent of Christ, adding a lot of popular prejudices (mostly his own), and coopting rites from several competing religions. Jesus himself was a fairly minor - and still largely disregarded - figure in the general scheme of things.

I would be equally dubious of Copernicus as having had much impact in reviving the heliocentric notion of the universe that had been put forward by Aristarchus, Hermes Trismegistus, and Aryabhata. Further, his De Revolutionibus was published immediately before his death, was dedicated to Pope Paul III, and was well-received by many in the Church (with the exception of the Dominicans), so his theory was hardly "dangerous for himself" nor for the views of the Church. Indeed, the first person to raise any sort of alarm about Copernicus was Martin Luther. It wasn't for another fifty years that, under the influence of the Dominicans, the Ptolemaic system became the "authorized" theory. It was Galileo who was eventually put under house arrest for expanding on the heliocentric theory, contrary to the ambitions of Cardinal Bellarmine - and he recanted.

Copernicus, by the way, was quite wrong. He believed that the Sun was the center of the universe and that everything revolved around it - including all of the other stars. If anyone comes close to single-handedly changing the way we perceive the world, it would have to be Johannes Kepler, who vastly improved on Copernicus' faulty speculations.

Erasmus would maybe be a contender (I'm astonished that anyone has never heard of him ), but, like Jesus himself, his opposition to formalism (respect for dogma without consideration for the actual teachings of Christ) has proved to be a failed mission. His greater influence was probably in his popularization of texts by Aristotle, St. Augustine, Cicero, St. John Chrysostom, and dozens of others through his prolific translation and publication of their work.

Shakespeare? As one of the first and most popular of the pre-Enlightenment humanists - and as a dramatist - he has had some influence. But in terms of revolutionizing "the way theaters are run and how shows are put on", I'm afraid he can't be given much credit. The Elizabethan theatre system was well in place by the time Shakespeare came on the scene and, while that tradition may have influenced some nineteenth century actor-managers, it has hardly had a lasting impact. As to "how shows are put on", apart from giving characters considerably more motivation and depth, there's little evidence that Shakespeare himself would have had much impact at all on staging. If there was much innovation, it was more likely due to the efforts of Richard Burbage.

Nah, I'm going to have to go with the consummate secular leader, the effective preacher, the outstanding and humane military strategist, the unifier of Arabia, the founder of a powerful dynasty (or two), the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad.

1.) What person is most influential in the history of mankind, why?

I am actually surprised no one has said Leonardo da Vinci as one of the most influential people of all time. All you have to do is look at all the different inventions he created to see he was before his time.

Leonardo's machines

With over 6000 pieces which he created way before his time to really be realized and this is amazing from war machines, flying machines, work machines, water and land machines and architecture. Let alone his masterpieces in sculptors and paintings.

Leonardo da Vinci



2.) Would you like to meet this person. If so, what would you ask him? If not, why?

It would be hard to figure out what to ask him cause he studied so many different fields on a grand scale that few people ever could comprehend.

Ha! I've got both Jesus, Paul, and Peter beat for that matter! Because if it were not for the Byzantine Emperor Constantine the Great, Christianity would have never survived, and the Catholic Church would not have existed, especially to rise to it's enormous power. Had Constintine not converted (and I use that term loosely, he actually did not convert until he was on his death bed decades later) before the battle of Milvian Bridge, and install Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, kiss all that goodbye.

That point being established, there would be no Reformation. No Jesuits begining trade in Japan. No Anglican Church of Henry VIII. No Inquisition. No Hundred Years War. No St. Valentine's Day massacre. No Northern Ireland. No Maryland Colony. No California Missions. No Pope John Paul II or Benedict XVI . (and then where would the Pet Shop Boys get the inspiration for the song It's a Sin?! )

The moment Constantine saw the vision of the chi rho and instructed his soldiers to put that image on their shields, the world as we knew it took a huge turn. Now was it for the worse or better?

Of course, to play Devil's Advocate for a moment, what if he had lost that battle anyway? Perhaps it's Maxentian, by losing that battle who may have had the most influence.

I do not agree with the fact that Copernicus wasn't that important in history. The fact that in later times his theory proved wrong doesn't mean that his views on the organisation of the spheres can be dismissed that easily. Even though he didn't mean to attack the then existing views of the world, his new insights revolutionised the way people saw the world and themselves. Up to then people believed that mankind living on earth was the center of the whole universe. God created the world, the fauna and flora and the human race. This doctrine has been at the core of what Christians thought for a long time and formed the paradigm in which everything else was viewed. So in putting his theory out in public, Copernicus unintentionately gave a severe blow to Christian (and western) thought and doctrine in general.

That is also why a lot of philosophers of science give him a prominent place in their works. The Copernican Turn is one of the most important events in the process of thought and changed the way we think even today!

BTW: if people are interested in Erasmus, his most famous book is known by the name "The Praise of Folly". Interesting material. (did I mention he was Dutch?!?!? )

Interesting. First, the question of the topic was:

1.) What person is most influential in the history of mankind, why?

History of mankind. Sorry, don't see anything about "modern civilization". And for a HUGE portion of the history of mankind, the Chinese as well as many Asian cultures where light years more advanced then Europe. Many factors worked together to stifle some of these societies in modern times. But in the age when Christianity has the greatest impact on the world (with some of that impact being negative (I.E. the Crusades, the Inquisition)), the Chinese where vastly more advanced then Europe, without the benefit of every knowing anything about JC. The ancient Chinese invented paper, gunpowder, matches, the compass, a seismograph to measure earthquakes, the umbrella, spaghetti and more.

As for China being a developing country, outside of the rural areas they are not exactly rubes. China is the largest conventional threat the US has in the world and Taiwan is an issue that could possibly spark a war between the two that would make Iraq look like a tether ball game. And we would be VERY hard pressed to win such a conflict (as would the Chinese).

Certainly a major historical figure. But "the most significant"? I disagree. Of course to people like Bin Laden who desire an Islamist world, he's right up there. But to the rest of the civilized world? I don't think so.



Well, snide comments aside, the religion that most dominated the western world for the past 2,000 years of recorded history was known as "Christianity", not "Paulanity".

Jesus deserves credit for creating a movement that swept through most of Europe, parts of Asia and Africa, and dominates North and South America today.

snip



Your astonished that Erasmus isn't as well known as Tom Cruise? lol.

Your comment reminds me of quotes I read from New Yorkers who were astonished the Bush won the election last November. After all, they claimed, they "didn't know anyone" who voted for him!

Perhaps I don't know about Erasmus because (1) I attended a public school system that was dominated by the National Educational Association and the Michigan Educational Association? This union in my district went on strike for significant periods of time during my 6th, 8th, 9th, and 12th grades of schooling. Perhaps the portion of the curriculum covering Erasmus would have taken place when the teachers were standing outside of the school with their signs while illegally refusing to work?......

or (2) because he's a minor and obscure figure within history who is only known by people who take an interest in minor and obscure historical figures?

It's anyone's guess. But, I'll have you know that I can name the members of the Detroit Red Wing's "production line" and also my personal favorite team, the 1977 Montreal Canadiens.

I'll be astounded if you can't do that.

Attempting to not sound like a religious zealot, let's consider the scope and breath of Christianity in terms of numbers, geographical scope, and world changing political use. The teachings of Jesus are found in many parts of Africa, most of Central and S. America, all of N America, and nearly all of Europe. These teachings were a part of the political structure, organization, and government of all of these nations in large form until as recently as the past 50 or 60 years. Muslims, Buddhists, and Jews don't share this geography or size... to make it simple.

Secondly, consider the Vatican and its political impact on western society. Just in the past 100 years the Catholic church (by the way... I'm not catholic) has helped to bring down Hitler, aided in the solidarity movement in Poland, assisted in the Geneva peace accords, etc. Where were the Muslims?? (*tongue in cheek... they were riding camels and building bombs!!...ok- no more jokes*)

The bible can be found on nearly every corner of the earth, has been a cornerstone of the development of Western civilization, and continues to influence the decisions of many world super powers.

Let's not turn this into a religion debate, but yet consider the fact that the Koran and the teachings of Mohammed have not been so influential; as haven't the teachings of really any other world leader.

If we moved away from religious leaders... has anyone considered Alexander Fleming, the inventor of penicillin?? Anti-biotics changed the fight of infection and the medical establishment permanently.

Nifty thread...

1.) What person is most influential in the history of mankind, why?
MOST infuential? Hmm. Given the flow of the debate is moving in a religious direction, I think I might plump for Zoroaster who came up with most of the ideas that make Christianity different from Judaism, but did it some centuries before the birth of Christ.

What's more, there is rather more contemporaneous evidence for the existence of Zoroaster than there is for Christ. I emphasise that not to say I don't believe the was such a man, just to say that the non-biblical evidence for him is at best sketchy. Plus I tend to agree that Saul of Tarsus has had at least as much impact on the shape and direction of Christianity than Christ himself (who said He was the New Covenant, "the way the truth and the life" which by implication means that maybe we don't need to pay much attention to the old "covenant" - i.e. the Old Testament - at all. But then my religious instruction came from Church in Wales liberals. Given the forum rules, it's best to challenge any of these concepts via PM if you feel you must.)

But actually, I would rather look at people who've made tangible differences to the world around them. Perhaps someone like Roger Bacon whose philosophy and ideas laid the foundations for what we now call science and technology, which have more mundane practical influence over the way we live our lives form day to day than any number of spiritual or religious role models.

I'd bet cash money that 80% or more of the worlds population spend little or no time thinking about spiritual matters more often than the once a week they attend a formal service (if indeed as much as 80% of people ever do attend), but I bet rather more than 80% use machined tools (a decent carbon steel blade, a soft drinks can, a tyred vehicles) at least once per day, even in the developing world. And all those tools and manufactured goods owe a lot more to men like Roger Bacon than they do to men like Mohammed or Jesus, and so such men are (by this measure) more influential.

2.) Would you like to meet this person. If so, what would you ask him? If not, why?

Actually, I would like to meet all three of the people I've mentioned - Jesus, Mohammed, AND Roger Bacon - if only to see if they really were all they are now cracked up to be. For one thing, I have always suspected that Jesus and Mohammed would be very similar, not only in opinions, but in looks, and it'd be fun to find out first hand.

I'm inclined to agree with Titus. It could be argued quite convincingly that without his support for Christianity as a movement, history would likely be quite different. Just as an extension of "what if's", if England had not engaged in such persecution of religious diversity, would the United States have ever been created? I'd be reluctant to tug on that thread of the sweater, as I'm sure my own existence would fray with it.

Sadly, I don't really know that I'd want to converse with him all that much. For that I would look to Jesus or Mohammed. I'd be very curious to get their perspective on how the world views their teachings today vs. what they actually meant.

For a tongue in cheek runner up, I'd vote for God, as portrayed in person by George Burns. I guess that conversation will have to wait, hopefully for a bit.

I don't want to promote the birth of a religious discussion on but I had to respond to this.

Yes Christianity is in all of those places. However, we must remember that for many if not most of them it was brought in from the outside and FORCED on the local populations. Celts were converted by the sword, Arab peoples were converted by the sword, native peoples of Africa and the Americas were converted by the sword.

Yes this most certainly had an impact on the world. However, where in "the teachings of Jesus" do we find his preaching support for the killing, torturing and maiming entire peoples if they would not swear a faith in him? Where in "the teachings of Jesus" do we find support for the crusades, the inquisition, etc?

Was the Church a MAJOR force in human history? Absolutely. However, "the teachings of Jesus" had nothing to do with it.

I would say maybe Karl Marx. Whether you revile him or worship him, he was a brilliant thinker whose political ideology changed the fabric of every society. The idea that the workers have the power was both new in its form, and incredibly democratic in nature. Whether his ideas ended up being misused, or helped democracies become more participatory (depending on which countries one looks at), we are all living today in societies shaped in large part by Marx's writings - even the US, the most virulently anti-Communist country in the world.

As to the Christ controversy, it should be obvious to anyone who reads and tries to follow the actual teachings of Jesus, that what was most influential was not the man, but the dogma which rose concerning him. If Christ as a teacher and philosopher were truly the most influential person in history, there is no way the so-called Christian countries would engage in warfare. Indeed they would be more likely to reflect Bhutan than the USA. Christ didn't tell us that when we want to justify violence to turn to the Torah (or now the Old Testament). Indeed, he told us to forgive our tresspassers. To return no one evil for evil. His words were simple, but they were not relativist. So while Christianity may be one of the most influential dogmas, Christ himself, unfortunately, is not very influential beyond a small core of peaceful, forgiving followers.



I thought a core part of conservative belief was self-responsibility. Why do you blame schools for your lack of knowledge? Why is it someone else's fault? I'm willing to bet that those of us who do know about Erasmus also attended public schools, for the most part. We have also, perhaps, used our own initiative to learn more about our world and its history. As opposed to knowing the line-up of a sports team, learning about the thinkers who helped form the various views of the world is actually important if we want to be knowledgeable and informed people.

What I wonder about, is your motivation with this dismissal of Erasmus. Since you don't know who he is, why wasn't your response more like, "well I never heard of him, so maybe he isn't the most influential person in history - I'll have to read more about him." Disagree, but show some dignity... instead, you immediately attack, and dismiss Erasmus entirely - though you admit you don't even know who he is! Do you really base your opinion about someone's historical importance on whether or not you've personally heard of them? I don't get it.

That said, I must also take issue with Wertz's somewhat glib statement that he couldn't believe someone hadn't ever heard of Erasmus. It is well known here that Wertz is very well-read, but I can't believe he is genuinely surprised that someone doesn't know who Erasmus was. While Erasmus' ideas may have been incredibly influential, they are far enough back on the chain to escape most peoples' direct knowledge. Many more people will be familiar with some of Erasmus' ideas, than with the man's name.

I accept your criticism graciously. I was being somewhat glib. In fact, I'm not surprised that anyone wouldn't know of Erasmus, but I am mildly surprised that those interested enough in political discourse to be regular contributors to America's Debate would never even have heard of the man. And, in my opinion, some people's apparent pride in their ignorance accounts for much.

You are quite right that I attended public school and I don't recall Erasmus ever being mentioned there. For that matter, I don't think Muhammad got much of a look in, either. Nor do I recall coming across Erasmus in any of the college courses I attended during the five or so years years of my "higher education". But I do believe that it is an individual's personal responsibility to know as much about our world and its history as possible - especially those who are interested in our country, its politics, and its future.

Indeed, I have always subscribed to Goethe's dictum from the Westöstlicher Diwan:

He whose vision cannot cover
History's three thousand years,
Must in outer darkness hover,
Live within the day's frontiers.

I hope y'all have heard of Goethe.

Hmmm- Erasmus is hard to top- but I may have it- Hammurabi- in many ways he may have started the rule of law for every culture in the world following him. I know probably other civilisations after and before him probably thought of it or improved upon it- but he is pretty much the recongnized person in human civilization for bringing us consistant and equally (for it's time) applied law for certain crimes and such.

Would I like to meet him (assuming, in this magic time machine, I would know his language)- probably not- I don't think he is probably that interesting of a character.

Leonardo Da Vinci or Erasumus or Aristotle or Socrates or Buhda or Confucious or Mayamoto Musashi or others would be far more interestig to meet in person I believe.

Jesus seems a little to sickly syrupy hippy love sweet to me (I respect them, but I wouldn't want to hang with them) though who knows what his personality was like. Paul on the other hand, I really wish was killed much earlier- an evil man in history as has ever lived- and Peter- well, he was probably a man's man and wouldn't be any different than hanging out with one of my bike/race car building buddies that is too overtly religious, likable, but annoying with all the god stuff all the time.

Muhamed is too royal type- probably all stuck up and full of himself- though attempting to be benevolantly regal and fair LOL.

I would genuinely like to meet Thomas Jefforson, John Locke and Benjamin Franklin.

All history is built on other history- so naming one person is so difficult, it is like that show "connections" that shows how a styrofoam cup and the atom bomb are so neccesary to one another LOL- they are too entertwined to be seperated.

Getting way from religion for a moment:

Henry Ford : The father of the modern automobile (transcends all religious lines)

Bill Gates : Whether you love him or hate him, you use his products every day.

More people use Microsoft products and cars than follow any religion you can name. These two transcend any theological boundaries, and are a part of our every day lives...