Has anybody read "The 100 most Influential People"? The author compiled a list of who he thinks are the 100 most influential people in history. What did people think?

I'd be interested to hear more about that too! :hmm:

If the book you speak of is by Michael Hart, then the list can be found below:

http://www.mind.net/dlmark/hundred.htm

EDIT: 5 of them are Scots :goodjob::goodjob::goodjob:

ome would think the inventors of democratic thought, such as Cleistenes, and Lucius Iunius Brutus(the grat initiator of the Roman republic) would be included as well....

I noticed there was plenty of scientists included in that list. Being a scientist myself, I don't really mind ;)
However, although science has obviously had an enormous impact on the world, I feel slightly uncomfortable with putting individual scientists on a list like this. Since science in general is competitive and many scientists work together as teams on the same problem, the individual scientist usually doesn't make that big difference, someone else would make the same revolutionary discovery a few years later anyway.

Instead of just considering who made the biggest impact, I think more about the impact it would have if the person had never existed. From that point of view, I think that people like Hitler and Muhammed should definitively stay but several of the scientists would probably have to go :(

Besides, am I the only one to find this list euro-centric? :p

And where the heck is Alfred Nobel, inventor of new ingenious ways to blow up people and stuff? :spank:

This list is a bit dated now. I can't see Gorby or JFK being on current list given that roosevelt and churchill are not on that one. I mean love him or hate him but Bill Gates has to be on it now.

The book has some analysis on what categories the 100 come from.

Scientists and Inventors: 36
Political and Military leaders: 31
Secular Philosophers 14
Religious leaders: 11
Artistic and literary figures 5
Explorers 2
Industrialists: 1

*Pizzaro and Cortez are military leaders not explorers
Freud is counted as a scientist not philosopher
Confusius, Lao Tzu, Descartes and Aristotle are counted as philosophers




Where are they from?

Great Britain 18
Germany and Austria 15
France 9
Italy 8
Greece 5
Spain 3
Russia 4
Other Europe 7

Total Europe 69

US 8

South America 1
New Zealand 1
Africa 3

China 7
India 3
Mongolia 1
Western Asia 7

Total Asia 18

The top ten are:


1. Muhammad
2. Isaac Newton
3. Jesus Christ
4. Budda
5. Confusious
6. St. Paul
7.Ts'ai Lun
8. Johan Guttenburg
9. Christopher Columbus
10. Albert Einstein

I beleive that his thinking is that military acheivements are won and lost and nothing really changes that much exept for massive loss of life though i seriously disagree with many of his picks.

I fail to see how most of them could be considered greater than others... :hmm: Great European bias though.

Only 4 of the top 10 are European, MC. Not that bad really. :hmm:

Am I the only one who found strange that Kennedy and Gorbachev are considered more influential than Da Vinci and Babbage?

Originally posted by SGI Butch

Freud is counted as a scientist not philosopher



Freud is classed as a scientist!? :confused: :crazyeye: :lol:

[edit: spelling]

Calgacus: "Only 4 of the top 10 are European, MC. Not that bad really. :hmm: "

69 are European! And as Europe was a backwater for a thousand years or more, it is astounding that one could find so many there. It would take almost little research to find more deserving from elsewhere.

Originally posted by Mongoloid Cow
Calgacus: "Only 4 of the top 10 are European, MC. Not that bad really. :hmm: "

69 are European! And as Europe was a backwater for a thousand years or more, it is astounding that one could find so many there. It would take almost little research to find more deserving from elsewhere.

It probably would have stretched the writer's education too far to be that balanced.


But, he seems to give priority to recent history, in terms of scientific advance and politics. For the former, non-Europeans are quite negligable. So, in that respect, it is understandable. :D

But it is strange that there are only 3 Indians, 3 Africans and 7 Chinese - but 5 Scotsmen! ;)

Is it surprising there are so many Europeans?

Especially when you compare them to the young countries of the new world. They obviously won't have so many.

I read a book called in this name, although I don't know if it's the same one (there are probably dozens of such books). The main problem in such a book is to decide between the effects people make at their time and the historical effects. The older a character is it'll become more important because it's influences will increase, etc. Whoever invented the first weapon in every area are probably more influencial than any of these people...

I think one came out a couple of years ago from TIME and Guttenberg was number one, which I thought wasn't right. In this case, Jesus should be higher than Mohammed.

I agree that Jesus should be higher than Mohammed. Christianity was part of what fueled Europe's ascension, and therefore had a much larger part in shaping the current world.

Martin Luthor should be in the top ten.

I can't believe JFK is on there. Freud, either. Where is John The Baptist?

I don't see it as too eurocentric, but I do disagree with several of the Europeans on there. Locke? Isabella AND Columbus? Fermi?

Originally posted by tonberry
Am I the only one who found strange that Kennedy and Gorbachev are considered more influential than Da Vinci and Babbage?

How about the fact that Kennedy is up there and Lincoln only made "runner up?"

Let's see...Lincoln's accomplishments: abolished slavery, reunified country.

Kennedy's accomplishments: installing fundamentalist dictator in South Vietnam, failing to invade Cuba, almost getting us wiped off the planet...

Yeah...Kennedy's a great guy...sheesh!

Originally posted by rmsharpe


How about the fact that Kennedy is up there and Lincoln only made "runner up?"

Let's see...Lincoln's accomplishments: abolished slavery, reunified country.

Kennedy's accomplishments: installing fundamentalist dictator in South Vietnam, failing to invade Cuba, almost getting us wiped off the planet...

Yeah...Kennedy's a great guy...sheesh!

Your opinion is too low of Kennedy, however, you are right in that Lincoln should be way higher and Kennedy shouldn't be on the list.

I'm always very cautious with this kind of lists. You should never believe them. Read the reasons for inclusions and include your own ones. Trying to collect the top-any-number of "most influental personalities in history" is absolutely pointless, as you'd always have to leave someone out you would like to include yourself. It will only make your head hurt.

The probable reason for the number of Europeans (especially recent ones) is that as the world has shrunk, it has become easier for individuals to impact a lot of people, and Europe (and N. America more recently) has been the leader of most of this. The list is certainly flawed in many ways, but it would be nearly impossible to compare certain people, especially in different fields.

I beleive that JFK is on there because had he been too rash and started the apocolypse the world could be gone or humans extinct.

Also I believe the reason for the europe bias is that thats where 1 we know more about as they kept better records then some. 2 Most major events happened in Europe. Europe ruled the world in the 17th 18th 19th and most of the 20th century. They were the center of all events and thoughts. Sure if somebody changed culture in africa very seriously and influenced millions what does it matter. Western culture is the pre-dominant one now so what ever changes happend in western culture matter more then those of other lesser important nations.

I suggest people read this book before you speak too criticaly of his rankings. I at first wondered why people like Benjamin Franklin, the most talented all-around man in history, and DaVinci, an artist who imagined and designed many modern machines hundreds of years ahead of their time, were not included on the list but as honorable mentions, but as I read I began to change my opinion at least on DeVinci.

Though Leonardo designed many machines he never built one of them. And most of his ideas stayed in his note-books not revealed until after his inventions were made by other people. Also as an artist he very rarely finished a piece as he got bored with them and so he has very little effect on art.

The author incudes Abraham only as an 'honorable mention.' As the founder of Judaism, the father of Ishmael (the first ancestor of all muslims), and an ancestor of Jesus, he's seen as an extremely important person in 3 of the worlds biggest religions.

As for JFK/ Lincoln- Hart says of Lincoln that he doesn't deserve a place on the list because the world was turning away from slavery anyways and the USA would still be the 4th most populous country and the leading industrial power today. I still don't buy this...

JFK greatest accomplishment was probably motovating the US to land a man on the moon in the 60's, but he was killed before he could really prove himself.

Interesting to compare this list with this one (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=62061).

IMO, this should be the top 6:

1. Jesus
2. Muhammad
3. Guttenberg
4. Buddha
5. Newton
6. Confucius

Also, I think Darwin should be higher than Galileo, and maybe Pasteur. And maybe Einstein. (I won't bother comparing them to the non-scientists around them; that'll just give me a headache.) And of course JFK definitely should not be on the list.

Beyond that, not a bad list.

Edit: Oh yeah, and Bill Gates should be on the list, as already said.