PhilBowles
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2011
- Messages
- 5,333
There are some tough calls here. As with so many of these discussions it hinges on what's meant by "important". It's perfectly defensible to define importance in terms of their contribution to the modern world - and for all that it goes against popular sensibilities, the modern world is an essentially European creation: nation states worldwide follow a European model of social organisation (and in the case of post-colonial states, often following European-drawn borders), mostly with constitutions based on European law and parliamentary systems of government. The global economy adheres to European capitalist philosophies. Most global institutions, from the United Nations down, are ultimately based on European ideals, many of them enshrined in conventions such as those on human rights, world heritage, and the treatment of enemies in warfare.
With that in mind I think Napoleon has to be no. 1. Arguments can be made for Alexander, not so much for Augustus or Genghis - these latter rulers founded institutions that went on to have massive effects on the development of European society and its modern derivatives, but much of that importance was due to the actions of later rulers building on their work. Rome's major lasting influence is the ubiquity of Christianity, a much later development than Augustus. The Mongol empire reached its zenith under Kublai Khan. And even if one wants to claim Washington's preeminence in the founding of the US - which, as has been pointed out, is contentious - the US would be a minor territory surrounded by the descendants of Spanish and French colonies without the imperial adventures of later presidents.
Napoleon and Alexander are different, as individuals who single-handedly shaped their worlds. And with his fingerprints on everything from legal codes not only within Europe but within the constitutions of most modern states to, as mentioned, military practice, it's hard to identify an individual with more impact on the modern world than Napoleon. Bismarck likewise had a very strong hand in the development of Europe at the time, but he comes a distant second to Napoleon's lasting achievements.
With that in mind I think Napoleon has to be no. 1. Arguments can be made for Alexander, not so much for Augustus or Genghis - these latter rulers founded institutions that went on to have massive effects on the development of European society and its modern derivatives, but much of that importance was due to the actions of later rulers building on their work. Rome's major lasting influence is the ubiquity of Christianity, a much later development than Augustus. The Mongol empire reached its zenith under Kublai Khan. And even if one wants to claim Washington's preeminence in the founding of the US - which, as has been pointed out, is contentious - the US would be a minor territory surrounded by the descendants of Spanish and French colonies without the imperial adventures of later presidents.
Napoleon and Alexander are different, as individuals who single-handedly shaped their worlds. And with his fingerprints on everything from legal codes not only within Europe but within the constitutions of most modern states to, as mentioned, military practice, it's hard to identify an individual with more impact on the modern world than Napoleon. Bismarck likewise had a very strong hand in the development of Europe at the time, but he comes a distant second to Napoleon's lasting achievements.