A few years ago A&E aired "Biography of the Millenium," celebrating the 100 most influential human figures, from 1000AD to 2000AD. Just thought I'd share with you. (Note: The link starts with #1, so for dramatical affect scroll down to the bottom before reading, and read upwards.) Here's the link. (http://www.falls.igs.net/~dphillips/biography3.htm)

Thoughts, questions, comments, opinions? If you wanna share, who would be in your list (not necessarily top 100; maybe top 10, top 25, etc.)? And sorry if this has been posted before.

i think shakespease a bit high up, and bill gates too low--love or hate micro soft, he put a computer in every home

Originally posted by pawpaw
i think shakespease a bit high up, and bill gates too low--love or hate micro soft, he put a computer in every home Shakespeare doesn't seem too high up to me, considering that everyone's heard of him, we often associate certain things with him (example: two lovers: Romeo and Juliet), and he has probably changed the face of literature more than anyone else. While he hasn't helped people all that much (literature doesn't really improve life), he's certainly influenced people. Just ask any high school student who hates required reading. :)

As for Bill Gates, you might be right about that. My biggest complaint is that Princess Diana is on the list. Ronald Reagan probably shouldn't be on it either.

Originally posted by WillJ
Shakespeare doesn't seem too high up to me, considering that everyone's heard of him, he's certainly influenced people. Just ask any high school student who hates required reading. :)


i had british lit in college-i know mr shakespeare:( its just his influence of boring kids 2-3 hours a week isn't quite up there with hilter and some of the others around him-imho

Originally posted by pawpaw
i had british lit in college-i know mr shakespeare:( its just his influence of boring kids 2-3 hours a week isn't quite up there with hilter and some of the others around him-imho Maybe you're right. But am I not mistaken that most people consider him the greatest writer of all time? (Or rather, if you tally up people's "scores" for different writers, he'd be the highest.) The fact that 99% of educated people have heard of him and know of his plays means he's pretty darn influential. Comparing him to Hitler, Galileo, Darwin, Copernicus, Da Vinci, etc. is pretty much impossible, because they did such different things and what you consider more important/influential is a matter of opinion. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. :)

i don't doudt he wrote good material and millions of young people became writers, poets,ect.. because of him, but the influence of a hitler or stalin while bad influence nations and history--p.s. its o.k. to disagree, thats why we are here:D

Denise Richards, for two very very large reasons :)
http://www.theplace.ru/archive/denise_richards/img/denise_richards07_s.jpg
She turned me completely into a breast man.

Who or what the **** is "patient zero"?!?!?

Anyway, I found it interresting that Stalin was only at the 79th place on this list, I would have put him closer to the top.

And like someone already noted; princess Di didn't really have that much "influence" on anything. She was a feast to keep the beast of media happy while people with REAL power made important decisions. Sure, she did a lot of nice things to people, visited poor and sick people and stuff... but mother Theresa does that too.

Actually I would rather see mother Theresa on that list than Di.

The influence of Shakespeare in today's world is great. Will Hitler's and Stalin's actions have such a big influence in 500 years? Propably not, he will only be remembered as yet another crazy world leader. They changed the history a bit and though it might seem big to us as it's not so far away... my quess is that they really didn't create that big of a change in history on a long term. 500 years from now they will propably be mentioned in the history classes but not really discussed about. Unlike Shakespeare, who is STILL after all these hundreds of years making a big, boring difference in the lives of HS students.

An interresting note I made: out of the "100 most influental people of the millenium", 47 lived during the 20th century. What an influental century that was eh! :)

This list is crap. Ronald Reagan*? Lady Di? Walt Disney? Steven Spielberg?
Aside from that, you'd figure that more than 36 people who influenced this millenium greatly lived outside of the 19th/20th century. Where's James Cook on the list? Cecil Rhodes? Kemal Atatürk? Mahmud of Ghazni? Tamerlane? Philipp II of Spain? Charles V/II? Hernan Cortes? Francisco Pizarro? etc? Does anybody even know how many people's lives were influenced by them?
Man I hate these kinds of lists.

Apart from that, you'd think they'd spell Hitler's first name right. It was Adolf. He was never spelled differently, there is no different spelling of his first name.

*The guy who made this list was obviously a Republican American who believes he knows something about history, which he quite obviously doesn't.

I found out who patient zero is or was (from wikipedia):

Patient Zero refers to the central or initial patient in the population sample of an epidemiological investigation.

In particular, it refers to Gaëtan Dugas (d. 1984), a Canadian airline steward who was Patient Zero for an early epidemiological study on HIV by the Centers for Disease Control. His sexual partners were surveyed for the disease in order to demonstrate that it was sexually transmitted. Several of them were among the first few hundred to be diagnosed with AIDS.

Let's hope that guy on the list refers not only to HIV patient zero, but also to the Black Death patient zero (in a way).

Originally posted by Stefan Haertel
This list is crap. Ronald Reagan*? Lady Di? Walt Disney? Steven Spielberg?
Aside from that, you'd figure that more than 36 people who influenced this millenium greatly lived outside of the 19th/20th century. Where's James Cook on the list? Cecil Rhodes? Kemal Atatürk? Mahmud of Ghazni? Tamerlane? Philipp II of Spain? Charles V/II? Hernan Cortes? Francisco Pizarro? etc? Does anybody even know how many people's lives were influenced by them?
Man I hate these kinds of lists.

Apart from that, you'd think they'd spell Hitler's first name right. It was Adolf. He was never spelled differently, there is no different spelling of his first name.

*The guy who made this list was obviously a Republican American who believes he knows something about history, which he quite obviously doesn't.
I agree with that, the very concept of such lists is pretty stupid.
Shakespeare for example is laughable, from a worldwide perspective. Also Marx is completely overrated, being just one of many political and economical philosophers that led to the political leanings of today.
Besides that the definition of influence is a problem. Sure Columbus lead the expedition that "discovered" America (and didn't even get it!), but that doesn't make him that influential.

Elvis Presley!!! How'd he get on the list!

Let's hope that guy on the list refers not only to HIV patient zero, but also to the Black Death patient zero (in a way).

The Plague had no "human" patient zero. It was transmited by flees living on rats. It's 100 most influential "people"...

Originally posted by Finmaster
Who or what the **** is "patient zero"?!?!?It represents the first person to ever get HIV. He was an African male, who later died (from AIDs, of course). Probably in the 80's.

If you want to find out information about the people, just click on them. The fact that you couldn't figure that out means that you shouldn't be commenting on this list. :p (j/k) Edit: Just now realized that a bunch of the links don't work...Originally posted by Finmaster
Anyway, I found it interresting that Stalin was only at the 79th place on this list, I would have put him closer to the top.He killed a bunch of people and led his country in WWII. Unless I've forgotten something that he did, he wasn't extremely influential. He seems about right on this list, IMO. Originally posted by Finmaster
And like someone already noted; princess Di didn't really have that much "influence" on anything. She was a feast to keep the beast of media happy while people with REAL power made important decisions. Sure, she did a lot of nice things to people, visited poor and sick people and stuff... but mother Theresa does that too.

Actually I would rather see mother Theresa on that list than Di.

The influence of Shakespeare in today's world is great. Will Hitler's and Stalin's actions have such a big influence in 500 years? Propably not, he will only be remembered as yet another crazy world leader. They changed the history a bit and though it might seem big to us as it's not so far away... my quess is that they really didn't create that big of a change in history on a long term. 500 years from now they will propably be mentioned in the history classes but not really discussed about. Unlike Shakespeare, who is STILL after all these hundreds of years making a big, boring difference in the lives of HS students. Yep, agreed.Originally posted by Stefan Haertel
*The guy who made this list was obviously a Republican American who believes he knows something about history, which he quite obviously doesn't. Eh-hem, more than one guy works at A&E. :p The list was decided on by a panel of historical experts, and there was also an online vote.Originally posted by Stefan Haertel
This list is crap. Ronald Reagan*? Lady Di? Walt Disney? Steven Spielberg?
Aside from that, you'd figure that more than 36 people who influenced this millenium greatly lived outside of the 19th/20th century. Where's James Cook on the list? Cecil Rhodes? Kemal Atatürk? Mahmud of Ghazni? Tamerlane? Philipp II of Spain? Charles V/II? Hernan Cortes? Francisco Pizarro? etc? Does anybody even know how many people's lives were influenced by them?
Man I hate these kinds of lists.I agree that Spielberg shouldn't be on this list, but Walt Disney should. Maybe a bit lower, though. And most of the people on your list I've never heard of. :p So obviously they're not influential to American public school students... ;)Originally posted by trumpeteer
Elvis Presley!!! How'd he get on the list! He pretty much invented rock and roll. Technically he didn't invent it (I forgot the name of the first rock record ever made and its artist--used to know, though), but he was the first to make it popular. I'd say that's pretty influential.

Originally posted by Stefan Haertel
This list is crap. Ronald Reagan*? Lady Di? Walt Disney? Steven Spielberg?
Aside from that, you'd figure that more than 36 people who influenced this millenium greatly lived outside of the 19th/20th century. Where's James Cook on the list? Cecil Rhodes? Kemal Atatürk? Mahmud of Ghazni? Tamerlane? Philipp II of Spain? Charles V/II? Hernan Cortes? Francisco Pizarro? etc? Does anybody even know how many people's lives were influenced by them?
Man I hate these kinds of lists.

Apart from that, you'd think they'd spell Hitler's first name right. It was Adolf. He was never spelled differently, there is no different spelling of his first name.

*The guy who made this list was obviously a Republican American who believes he knows something about history, which he quite obviously doesn't. I tend to disagree. Your points are valid, to a point, but only a point. As near as it is defined, this is the list of people who have had significant impact on the world of the year 2000, which makes it western dominated, and leaning toward the last generation. With that as given the lists make more sense. Princess Di is perhaps the most significant pop icon of the last 50 years, for example. Her long term effects will be minimal, but in the life of the year 2000 she signifies.

I would also pick nits with some of your selections. The Reformation period is embodied in Luther, hence the omission of Charles V. Cortes and Pizarro are essentially the same influence, which is repressented in the list by Columbus. Timur-Links I give you, but who not among the scholars and military buffs know of him. The same might be said of Tesla, who invented radio, but did not get credit for it in the public mind.

There is at least an attempt to represent the largest artistic/literary/cultural movements, as well as the principle military/political ones. That much I applaud. As an outline, one could do worse.

J

PS Where do you get Republican? Canadian site if I read correctly. Other than that there is a nonRepublican emphasis on the arts.

He killed a bunch of people and led his country in WWII. Unless I've forgotten something that he did, he wasn't extremely influential.[/B]You have indeed forgotten a lot of things.

Stalin was the man whose accomplishment it was why communism started spreading outside USSR. He also created the totalitarian form of communism that existed in basically all communist countries, and still does in those that are communist.

In that way, I think he was more influental than Lenin; Lenin started the first succesful communist revolution, but the form of communism he was planning to create was completely different from what it ended up being. Stalin was the true creator of "modern-day" communism.

He also started huge economical reformation which allowed USSR become a superpower (with the expense of people's happyness). This, combined with the fact that Stalin was ambitiously trying to expand communism (or his form of it) led to the start of the Cold War.

@jay: Well, if it's influential as in influencing the year 2000, that's a little silly IMO. If this were made in the year 2001, the terrorists of 9-11 would probably be named #1. George Bush possibly higher than FDR. etc. etc. I think you can see why that shouldn't be. I'm pretty sure it should (and was, although of course somewhat flawed) based on "total influence" of the entire millenium, not the date it was decided on.

@Finmaster: Hmm, I guess you're right.

This list is very subjective.

Princess Di...honestly, how could anyone pretend she was one of the "millenium's 100 most influential people"? She was a pretty woman who married and divorced some guy with big ears. In 50 years, will anyone remember her? I sincerely doubt it.

Originally posted by WillJ
@jay: Well, if it's influential as in influencing the year 2000, that's a little silly IMO. If this were made in the year 2001, the terrorists of 9-11 would probably be named #1. George Bush possibly higher than FDR. etc. etc. I think you can see why that shouldn't be. I'm pretty sure it should (and was, although of course somewhat flawed) based on "total influence" of the entire millenium, not the date it was decided on. I didnt say that it was a good criteria, just that it appeared to be the one in use. Still, even in 2000 FDR was more influential that GB. RR on the other hand may be more influential than FDR for the rest of history, though in 1000, neither will be remembered except by historians.

Here is a question. Was Hitler really influential? In retrospect he left Europe largely as it was before WW I, allowing for the changes due to technology etc. There are those that view time as a river. A river can be rechanneled easily where the banks are shallow, but only with difficulty where they are deep. Luther would be an example of a man rechanneling a shallow banked river. Or Queen Elizabeth I. To my way of thinking, Hitler and Stalin were just more of the same in their respective places.

J

Lady Di :lol:

The last list of this kind I seen posted was at least respectable. I'm not going to comment on either the other silly inclusions or the laughable exclusions. That would give that list more trouble than it deserves. ;)

Who are A&E BTW? :mischief:

A&E are -generally- well regarded channel focusing on historicle people here in the states I think, but I dont watch them...

Originally posted by calgacus
The last list of this kind I seen posted was at least respectable.I'm assuming you're talking about that one with the 100 most influential people of all time? I don't think this list is all that bad... Here's what I think is wrong with it:

1. Louis Armstrong is too low.
2. Spielberg shouldn't be on this list.
3. Isabella is a bit too high.
4. The Beatles are too high. Maybe they shouldn't even be on it at all.
5. Princess Di shouldn't be on this list.
6. Jane Austen might be a bit too high; not sure.
7. Joan of Arc is too high. She was an amazing person, but not very influential AFAIK. It's possible that she shouldn't be on this list at all.
8. Elvis is too high.
9. Da Vinci is too high. He was a scientific and artistic genius, but wasn't very influential.
10. That person that influenced Freud (forgot his name) should be on the list.
11. Hitler is too high.
12. Antony van Leeuwenhoek isn't on the list.
13. Gandhi might be slightly too high.

Beyond that, the list seems pretty solid. In other words, it's not great, but I don't think it's horrible. What specific problems did you have in mind, Cal (if you don't mind me asking)?

Didn't "this millenium" start in 2000. In which case most of the people on the list don't belong on it.

Rather less sarcastically:
This kind of list is about as valid as all those "top 50 pop stars" lists that comprise 45 "made the charts this year, will never be heard of again" teeny bands and a few oldies who happen to be in fashion right now.
It's polluted by both the tendency to assume everything NOW is important and everything HERE is important. So surprise, surprise, it looks like a list of important American (or Western-ish) persons of the 20th century.

I suspect any corresponding list in 1000AD would be a list of early medieval kings, emperors and popes, with a few classicists thrown in to make it look all encompassing. Anyone even know who the Pope was in 1000AD???

Sylvester II. Had to cheat though, so your point is valid ;)

Originally posted by MadScot
Didn't "this millenium" start in 2000. In which case most of the people on the list don't belong on it.Not if it were made in 1999. Actually, this millenium started on January 1, 2001. :pOriginally posted by MadScot
Rather less sarcastically:
This kind of list is about as valid as all those "top 50 pop stars" lists that comprise 45 "made the charts this year, will never be heard of again" teeny bands and a few oldies who happen to be in fashion right now.
It's polluted by both the tendency to assume everything NOW is important and everything HERE is important. So surprise, surprise, it looks like a list of important American (or Western-ish) persons of the 20th century.

I suspect any corresponding list in 1000AD would be a list of early medieval kings, emperors and popes, with a few classicists thrown in to make it look all encompassing. Anyone even know who the Pope was in 1000AD??? Okay, well could you be more specific? Who are some Asians, Africans, and/or Australians who were left out? Saladin, maybe? Who else? And who were some people before 1800 that you feel were cheated by not being included?

Also, anyone care to make their own little list? It could be interesting.

Here's my top 25 most influential people of all time.

1.)Mario Andretti
2.)Bob Villa
3.)Fred Savage
4.)Wesley Willis
5.)Ron Jeremy
6.)Ronnie James Dio
7.)Christopher Walken
8.)Michael Strahan
9.)Christopher Lowell
10.)Jackie Chan
11.)Jesus
12.)Mark McGwire
13.)Harry Potter
14.)Thomas Jefferson
15.)Jose Canseco
16.)Gary Coleman
17.)Steve Buscemi
18.)William Shakespeare
19.)Mary Kate Olson
20.)Ashley Olson
21.)Donny Osman
22.)Alexander the Great
23.)Carmen Electra
25.)Mohammed

Originally posted by WillJ
Actually, this millenium started on January 1, 2001. :p

What?

Oh, wait. I think I remember a lot of people saying around new millenium time and at the start of 2001 that this was the real new millenium; not at the beginning of the year 2000...

:crazyeye:

OK, here are my top ten (of ALL times):

10. Jimmy Page
9. Ritchie Blackmore
8. Freddie Mercury
7. Indiana Jones
6. Mahatma Gandhi
5. The first guy who smacked his club on another one's head
4. The guy who invented paper (I think Kafka2 had him mentioned in his eunuchs thread)
3. The guy who invented the wheel
2. King Kong
And the most influental person in history is....
1. The first monkey to climb off his tree!

Beat that! :p ;)

Originally posted by Kubz
Here's my top 25 most influential people of all time.

10.)Jackie Chan
11.)JesusMan, Jackie Chan's gotta be proud. :DOriginally posted by phoenix_night
What?

Oh, wait. I think I remember a lot of people saying around new millenium time and at the start of 2001 that this was the real new millenium; not at the beginning of the year 2000...

:crazyeye: Yep, because the first year was year 1, not year 0.

@Stefan: Hmm, I think this is how it should be:

10. Will Wright
9. Homer Simpson
8. The man who decided that his species would have a better chance of surviving if he reproduced
7. Isaac Newton
6. Chris Rock
5. Pope Gregory VII
4. Discoverer of the duck-billed platupus
3. Sid Meier
2. WillJ
1. Thunderfall

:D But seriously, I'd have to say this is the top 10 for the millenium:

1. Johann Gutenberg
2. Isaac Newton
3. Martin Luther
4. Charles Darwin
5. William Shakespeare
6. Albert Einstein
7. Christopher Columbus
8. Karl Marx
9. Copernicus
10. Louis Pasteur

Originally posted by WillJ
:DYep, because the first year was year 1, not year 0.


No, the first year was year 0, not 1. :p

Who was "Patient Zero"?

Originally posted by calgacus
No, the first year was year 0, not 1. :p Considering that people at the time of Jesus's birth didn't even know of the concept of 0, that's not too likely. :pOriginally posted by Godwynn
Who was "Patient Zero"? Holy crap, you've never heard of Patient Zero? GREATEST BAND EVER!!!

Just kidding... It was the first person to get AIDS.

Stalin escalated the Cold War. He could've had cordial or friendly relations with the West even if he wanted that. Imagine where we would be without the Cold War....

Louis Pasteur at 13? I don't even need to see the rest of the list after seeing that. If Pasteur hadn't discovered penicillin, I'm sure about a quarter of that list would be no more being that bacteria probably would've killed them before their discovery or accomplishment. Does A&E not realize that an infection almost inevitably led to death before Pasteur?

Originally posted by Sodfather
If Pasteur hadn't discovered penicillin....
Penicillin was discovered by Alexander Fleming.

Pasteur determined the validity of the Germ Theory of Disease.

Originally posted by WillJ
Considering that people at the time of Jesus's birth didn't even know of the concept of 0, that's not too likely.

What are you on, WillJ? The christian year calender was backdated centuries after 0 BC/AD! :lol: :p

thats just sad that hitler edged out Ghandi

Originally posted by YNCS

Penicillin was discovered by Alexander Fleming.

Pasteur determined the validity of the Germ Theory of Disease.
Ummm...Oops. :vomit: It's not even funny how much of an embarassment my post was then; my bad.

Originally posted by calgacus


What are you on, WillJ? The christian year calender was backdated centuries after 0 BC/AD! :lol: :p

However, the first year was 1. Civ should have taught you that!

The starting year is 0 AD/BC. 1AD is one year after Christ, not the year of his birth (actually, his real birth year was probably neither - but that hasn't led anyone to change the calender :nono: ), just as 1BC was 1 year beforeChrist's birth. What some of you guys are saying is that 0BC/AD nevertook place :eek:

:jesus: Born on December 25, 1 B.C. (Might have been four years earlier, that's a subject for a different debate.)

1 B.C. was the last year that started before Christ was born, 1 A.D was the first year that started after he was born.

There was no year 0 B.C/A.D.

EDIT: Felt the need to point out that I'm not a Christian, this is not support for or against the religion.

Frigg...you appear to be correct! :) That means I was wrong - well, I hope everyone will accept my apologies. :goodjob: But I'm still right, because 2000 is the 2000nth year in the calender. There is still a theoretical year "0", which is the actual year 1 BC.....I think (and hope :eek: )

Of course 2000 is the 2000nth year in the calendar: 1-2000 is 2000 numbers.
You could say 0 BC/AD is the moment Jesus was born, but from the moment he was on the world, the year 1 AD (Anno Domini) started, the first year of Jesus' life.
But let's end this discussion, it's very off-topic.

Most of the list was pop culture people. Very unimportant.

Absolutely not 'most of the list' is pop culture people, they are only a very small part of the list.

And why are they unimportant? Pop culture has been the dominant culture in (at least) the last 50 years. Do you think culture or pop culture doesn't have a huge impact on history?

william the conquer should be higher.

without him i wonder what would have happened on the tiny british isle.

Originally posted by WillJ


He pretty much invented rock and roll. Technically he didn't invent it (I forgot the name of the first rock record ever made and its artist--used to know, though), but he was the first to make it popular. I'd say that's pretty influential.

Elvis made it popular because he was white.

And why are they unimportant? Pop culture has been the dominant culture in (at least) the last 50 years. Do you
think culture or pop culture doesn't have a huge impact on history?

Yes, but the list asked for the top 100 of the last 1000 years.

And why are they unimportant? Pop culture has been the dominant culture in (at least) the last 50 years. Do you
think culture or pop culture doesn't have a huge impact on history?

Yes, but the list asked for the top 100 of the last 1000 years.

I know, but still, a few pop/rock artists on the list isn't strange then. Not more than 5 or so of course, so the list is OK in that respect (I only miss Dylan).

That's true, if they've got Lady Di then Dylan deserves to be on the list as well.