To be fair, back then there were no Turks there, so he was probably a GreekWhat really takes the prize though is Oden! IF he ever was king in Uppsala, and I hope he was, he migrated here from what today is Turkey (according to the only historical evidence provided by Icelander Snorri Sturluson). A Turk who might not have existed is one of the greats of a country who will not form for over a thousand years after his passing. Sweet list.
5 most important/influential persons in the history of your nation
- Thread starter Loppan Torkel
- Start date
privatehudson
The Ultimate Badass
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Messages
- 4,821
I think any list of famous people from a certain country is almost certain to include people born elsewhere, but that example of Oden is going a little far.
I think Snorri wrote something like "Thyrkland" but it was probably Greek at the time Odin packed his bags, I wouldn't know.
I agree about people born in other countries, well, birthplace is not always tied to nationality. Very few on that list though. I happened to pick on both, I'm such a rasist! Poor Rutger was probably born in Sweden and he sweded up his last name to Macklean and everything.
I agree about people born in other countries, well, birthplace is not always tied to nationality. Very few on that list though. I happened to pick on both, I'm such a rasist! Poor Rutger was probably born in Sweden and he sweded up his last name to Macklean and everything.
privatehudson
The Ultimate Badass
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Messages
- 4,821
I think for most historical people it would come down to a combination of factors including but not limited to where they lived most of their life, where they associated themselves with, and where they are generally associated with now.
Wellington for example was born in Dublin but is generally associated with Britain rather than Ireland. On the other hand some of those associated closely with Irish history like Connolly, Larkin, De Valera and Clarke were born outside of Ireland (Edinburgh, Liverpool, New York and the Isle of Wight respectively). In that sense I think each has to be judged on its own merits.
Wellington for example was born in Dublin but is generally associated with Britain rather than Ireland. On the other hand some of those associated closely with Irish history like Connolly, Larkin, De Valera and Clarke were born outside of Ireland (Edinburgh, Liverpool, New York and the Isle of Wight respectively). In that sense I think each has to be judged on its own merits.
Kahran Ramsus
Warlord
Canada, in chronological order.
1. Samuel de Champlain
2. James Wolfe
3. Guy Carleton
4. John A. Macdonald
5. Robert Borden
1. Samuel de Champlain
2. James Wolfe
3. Guy Carleton
4. John A. Macdonald
5. Robert Borden
Wolfe, I wouldn't include. I don't see the war going much different without him.
Carleton, I know little about, can you explain what put him above his predecessors, who were key in supporting the French population rather than pushing Anglicization (namely to counter the stirring Americans rather than for any support of the French people).
No question about Sir John A. But I want to repeat again the credit deserved to George-Etienne Cartier, his (eventually) Quebec lieutenant.
Borden I would put mainly for his actions with conscription, not great for Canada, but hugely influential in pushing the division of English and French.
Around him, I would rate King as far more important, and Laurier at least a challenge.
King presided over much of Canada's push for independence, pushing the Halibut Treaty and making a fool of Lloyd George on Chanak. In addition to his role in WWII and presiding over significant advances towards a welfare state. Heck, he governed for 15% of our country's existence. No PM has been as important and as influential as King.
Which brings up his Grandfather and Panineau and later on Riel. Mackenzie is probably secondary to Papineau, but him and Riel should be considered for a spot.
And the man who brought responsible government to the Canadas (as a result of the Rebellions of 1837), the Earl of Elgin, who despite enormous opposition from English Canadians many of the political elite, followed the wishes of the legislature over his own preference. Even though he was in no way required to. Essentially establishing responsible government in the Canadas (and elected officials took precidence over those who were appointed).
Carleton, I know little about, can you explain what put him above his predecessors, who were key in supporting the French population rather than pushing Anglicization (namely to counter the stirring Americans rather than for any support of the French people).
No question about Sir John A. But I want to repeat again the credit deserved to George-Etienne Cartier, his (eventually) Quebec lieutenant.
Borden I would put mainly for his actions with conscription, not great for Canada, but hugely influential in pushing the division of English and French.
Around him, I would rate King as far more important, and Laurier at least a challenge.
King presided over much of Canada's push for independence, pushing the Halibut Treaty and making a fool of Lloyd George on Chanak. In addition to his role in WWII and presiding over significant advances towards a welfare state. Heck, he governed for 15% of our country's existence. No PM has been as important and as influential as King.
Which brings up his Grandfather and Panineau and later on Riel. Mackenzie is probably secondary to Papineau, but him and Riel should be considered for a spot.
And the man who brought responsible government to the Canadas (as a result of the Rebellions of 1837), the Earl of Elgin, who despite enormous opposition from English Canadians many of the political elite, followed the wishes of the legislature over his own preference. Even though he was in no way required to. Essentially establishing responsible government in the Canadas (and elected officials took precidence over those who were appointed).
holy king
Deity
1. hitler
2. gregor mendel
3. freud
4. schrödinger
5. kurt gödel
wittgenstein, karl popper, bertha von suttner, viktor frankl, ferdinand porsche, ignaz semmelweis, mozart, ernst happel and the guy who designed the suez channel didnt make it for i decided so.
2. gregor mendel
3. freud
4. schrödinger
5. kurt gödel
wittgenstein, karl popper, bertha von suttner, viktor frankl, ferdinand porsche, ignaz semmelweis, mozart, ernst happel and the guy who designed the suez channel didnt make it for i decided so.
Yared
That Guy
@Sveon
Alfred Nobel deserves a high place. The Nobel award is widely recognized as one of the highest and most honourable awards a person can get, He has brought a little prestige to Sweden.
So at least, on the international front, he's kind of important/influential.
I agree with you on those other people though.
Alfred Nobel deserves a high place. The Nobel award is widely recognized as one of the highest and most honourable awards a person can get, He has brought a little prestige to Sweden.
So at least, on the international front, he's kind of important/influential.
I agree with you on those other people though.
holy king
Deity
he also, you know, invented dynamite.
Yared
That Guy
That too.
I agree, Nobel was a very interesting person, but 4th? I guess you would have to define important because it's a term wide open for interpretations.
Fun facts about Nobel is he only left less than a percent of his fortunes to his family because means are to be used in the interests of mankind and not wasted "sitting in a sofa" or something to that extent. He also said that TNT and explosives would lead to a golden age of peace because people would never waste armies by "blowing them up". Not a very accurate prediction, but nice in a naive sort of way.
Fun facts about Nobel is he only left less than a percent of his fortunes to his family because means are to be used in the interests of mankind and not wasted "sitting in a sofa" or something to that extent. He also said that TNT and explosives would lead to a golden age of peace because people would never waste armies by "blowing them up". Not a very accurate prediction, but nice in a naive sort of way.
Yared
That Guy
Nice in the "ignorance is bliss" way 
LightSpectra
me autem minui
That's a theory, not established fact. It could also be that the allied powers of the Cold War were so huge that total war was no longer a viable or desirable option.
As opposed to the allied powers in 1914?
Sure, there is no way to prove it, but I personally believe MAD is effective.
Wars since 1945 have generally been limited, either internal conflicts or regional in nature. No two major powers have been at war with each other since 1953.
It was far from ending war, and by not being major I don't mean unimportant or not brutal, it is just scale.
That's a silly way to think of it. Why should "scale" matter compared to "number of war deaths" if you're talking about a "golden age of peace"? The Congo conflicts have killed millions, far greater in scope than any war fought before Nobel died.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
At the risk of challenging Dachs, are you sure about that any war part?
Bast
Protector of Cats
I don't know about 5 but the most important is Queen Victoria because she allowed Federation to happen in 1900.
Similar threads
