Who is the most influential person in history?

[Philjia]

Meh, Napoleon's policies were a big mix of liberal and reactionary elements.

Sure, but with all that it's entirely inaccurate to call Napoleon the "father of liberalism". That'd be like, Locke.

Although Bentham and Mill were much more influential in moulding liberal philosophy into a recognisable form and several ancient Greek philosophers had similar ideas.

[Jumalariik]

A few that come to mind quickly, from most to least influential:

Genghis Khan
Adolf Hitler
Alexander the Great
Joseph Stalin
Napoleon Bonaparte
Francis Bacon
Aristotle
Abraham Lincoln
Ferdinand and Isabella (might as well have them together)
Plato
Queen Elizabeth I
Charles Darwin
Johannes Gutenburg
Peter the Great
Mahatma Gandhi

It's really hard to answer a question like this. The farther back in history you go, the more influential certain individuals are, even if their achievements wouldn't shape up to much today.

Napoleon and not Jesus?

[Nilla Wayfarers]

Meh, Napoleon's policies were a big mix of liberal and reactionary elements.

Sure, but with all that it's entirely inaccurate to call Napoleon the "father of liberalism". That'd be like, Locke.

Adam Smith, actually - if you want to be technical about it.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

A few that come to mind quickly, from most to least influential:

Genghis Khan
Adolf Hitler
Alexander the Great
Joseph Stalin
Napoleon Bonaparte
Francis Bacon
Aristotle
Abraham Lincoln
Ferdinand and Isabella (might as well have them together)
Plato
Queen Elizabeth I
Charles Darwin
Johannes Gutenburg
Peter the Great
Mahatma Gandhi

It's really hard to answer a question like this. The farther back in history you go, the more influential certain individuals are, even if their achievements wouldn't shape up to much today.

Napoleon and not Jesus?

Napoleon virtually controlled Europe.
Jesus did not.

[USS Monitor]

Hitler.

Hands down.

Do you know there is more history than just the last 100 years?

[Collatis]

Hitler.

Hands down.

Killing lots of people does not make one the most influential person. Not even close.

When TIME Magazine chose Albert Einstein as the Person of the Century, many people argued that they should have chosen Hitler. I think TIME had a very good explanation why he did not deserve it. "[Hitler and Mussolini] were simply the latest in a long line of murderous figures, stretching back to before Genghis Khan. The only difference was technology: Both Hitler and Mussolini went about their cynical carnage with all the efficiency that modern industry had perfected" and present several rhetorical questions such as "Evil may be a powerful force, a seductive idea, but is it more powerful than genius, creativity, courage or generosity?""

Hitler is no different than every other mass murderer and oppressor throughout history, and he certainly isn't close to being the most influential human being in history.

[Jumalariik]

Napoleon and not Jesus?

Napoleon virtually controlled Europe.
Jesus did not.

No, he literally controlled it.

[Philjia]

A few that come to mind quickly, from most to least influential:

Genghis Khan
Adolf Hitler
Alexander the Great
Joseph Stalin
Napoleon Bonaparte
Francis Bacon
Aristotle
Abraham Lincoln
Ferdinand and Isabella (might as well have them together)
Plato
Queen Elizabeth I
Charles Darwin
Johannes Gutenburg
Peter the Great
Mahatma Gandhi

It's really hard to answer a question like this. The farther back in history you go, the more influential certain individuals are, even if their achievements wouldn't shape up to much today.

Napoleon and not Jesus?

The anonymous persons who wrote the various elements of the Bible are the ones with the influence.

[New Scario]

Hitler.

Hands down.

Killing lots of people does not make one the most influential person. Not even close.

When TIME Magazine chose Albert Einstein as the Person of the Century, many people argued that they should have chosen Hitler. I think TIME had a very good explanation why he did not deserve it. "[Hitler and Mussolini] were simply the latest in a long line of murderous figures, stretching back to before Genghis Khan. The only difference was technology: Both Hitler and Mussolini went about their cynical carnage with all the efficiency that modern industry had perfected" and present several rhetorical questions such as "Evil may be a powerful force, a seductive idea, but is it more powerful than genius, creativity, courage or generosity?""

Hitler is no different than every other mass murderer and oppressor throughout history, and he certainly isn't close to being the most influential human being in history.

You act as if all he did was kill a bunch of people.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

Napoleon virtually controlled Europe.
Jesus did not.

No, he literally controlled it.

Well, um... Russia?

[Grand Proletaria]

Killing lots of people does not make one the most influential person. Not even close.

When TIME Magazine chose Albert Einstein as the Person of the Century, many people argued that they should have chosen Hitler. I think TIME had a very good explanation why he did not deserve it. "[Hitler and Mussolini] were simply the latest in a long line of murderous figures, stretching back to before Genghis Khan. The only difference was technology: Both Hitler and Mussolini went about their cynical carnage with all the efficiency that modern industry had perfected" and present several rhetorical questions such as "Evil may be a powerful force, a seductive idea, but is it more powerful than genius, creativity, courage or generosity?""

Hitler is no different than every other mass murderer and oppressor throughout history, and he certainly isn't close to being the most influential human being in history.

You act as if all he did was kill a bunch of people.

What else did he do?

[New Scario]

Hitler.

Hands down.

Do you know there is more history than just the last 100 years?

We have had more technological advances and population booms in the last 100 than the prior 2000.

He was born in the right place at the right time.

[MERIZoC]

Sure, but with all that it's entirely inaccurate to call Napoleon the "father of liberalism". That'd be like, Locke.

Adam Smith, actually - if you want to be technical about it.

Technical about it? Locke was earlier than Smith and is literally known as the Father of Liberalism, for good reason.

[Jumalariik]

No, he literally controlled it.

Well, um... Russia?

Christianity dominated European culture for 1.5 thousand years, and it is the biggest religion in the world. The ideas of the modern Western World come from Christianity to some degree even.

[Uxupox]

Napoleon and not Jesus?

Napoleon virtually controlled Europe.
Jesus did not.

Jesus is virtually known anywhere. Napoleon while very influential is not.

[Asarabanda Lavanda]

Edward Jenner.

[New Scario]

You act as if all he did was kill a bunch of people.

What else did he do?

First and foremost, without him, we may not be in space quite yet. Second, he changed the landscape of Europe and put Fascism and Populism FIRMLY on the map. The Nazis numerous tech advances, although for the wrong reasons, helped shoot us forward by many many many decades. The man killed millions, polarized the world.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

Adam Smith, actually - if you want to be technical about it.

Technical about it? Locke was earlier than Smith and is literally known as the Father of Liberalism, for good reason.

*Google*
Oh.
I guess I was thinking economic liberalism.

[FORMER HATOOTELAND]

Robbie Rotten.

sporticus

[Nilla Wayfarers]

Well, um... Russia?

Christianity dominated European culture for 1.5 thousand years, and it is the biggest religion in the world. The ideas of the modern Western World come from Christianity to some degree even.

That's great. Christianity is not a person.

[The Portland Territory]

Abraham in the Bible. Father of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. That's kinda influential

[Grand Proletaria]

What else did he do?

First and foremost, without him, we may not be in space quite yet. Second, he changed the landscape of Europe and put Fascism and Populism FIRMLY on the map. The Nazis numerous tech advances, although for the wrong reasons, helped shoot us forward by many many many decades. The man killed millions, polarized the world.

Hitler would've had a job doing all that by himself...

[Philjia]

Technical about it? Locke was earlier than Smith and is literally known as the Father of Liberalism, for good reason.

*Google*
Oh.
I guess I was thinking economic liberalism.

I'd argue that was actually Nicholas If-Jesus-Christ-Had-Not-Died-For-Thee-Thou-Hadst-Been-Damned Barbon, who also invented the modern mortgage.

[The Twelve Isles]

I think Ceaser. He inadvertently set in motion the events that would lead to the fall of the Roman Empire, even if it wouldn't be for many many more years. With the fall of the Romans, it lead to the power vacuum that set off the way Europe interacted with itself, the rest of the world, and the way that these interactions would forever shape the way people viewed and interacted with one another.

[USS Monitor]

The random guy that figured out how to cultivate fire, although since that was before the invention of writing it's technically not history. In human history (i.e., after the invention of writing) there's probably a tie between many important individuals; Muhammad, Qin Shi Huang, Genghis Khan, Constantine, Julius Caesar, Attila the Hun, etc. In modern times, I'd say Napoleon, Marx, Hitler, Mussolini and Lenin. Eduard Bernstein and Gavrilo Princip are also important but their actions in particular are so tied to others that I don't think that they on their own can be considered to be one of the most influential people in history. Of course, no one individual's actions can be held to be incredibly influential on their own, we're all ultimately influenced by others and our own time periods.

I hadn't thought of him off the top of my head, but Qin Shi Huang should be getting more attention in this thread. His influence on China was huge, and a lot of other cultures have been affected by contact with China. He did things like standardizing writing and measurements, and those standards stuck around long after he was gone and his political institutions were replaced.