There is no right answer when faced with so many great minds. We also have to consider the flux of history: depending on when we ask the question, the response will be different. I'll give an example below. However, we can at least rule out some as being "the most influential".

If we look at spiritual leaders, Jesus seems more influential in today's world than the Buddha or Muhammad because there are more Christians than there are Buddhists or Muslims. But there was a time when Islam had more adherents than Christianity, and a time when Hinduism was more pervasive. So, we should be conscious of the whole span of history.

Figures like Adam and Hercules cannot be reasonably included: they are mythology. One might argue that the Buddha is purely mythological or that Jesus is purely mythological, but these figures are pretty well established historically.

Guttenburg is a great suggestion, and most certainly ranks high on the list. But his was a singular invention: he is the Eli Whitney of books, but not the farmer.

Me? I'd go with Muhammad. Founder of the second most popular religion in the world. The Arab union he created would, over time and great internal change, go on to conquer a great deal of the known world, preserving western classics and bringing eastern thinking to the west. Arabic numerals were originally from India; they were brought to the Muslim world from India and then moved on to Europe. As a result, this system is by far the most widely used in the world for expressing numbers. If you are looking for a man who's absence would be most deeply felt by the most number of people worldwide, Muhammad is your guy.

How about Charlamagne? Modern Europe, its languages, its religion, its literacy, and its political geography begin with him.

Even if they were historical people, the ideas and stories of these two figures have been mythologized, and the downstream philosophies and theologies and practices owe themselves more to other people.

The ultimate phenomenon of modern Christianity owes a lot more to Paul, Constantine, and Augustine than to the historical Jesus.

I would have to say without Emperor Constantine, the world would probably be quiet different than it is today. Thanks to his initiative as emperor the Roman Catholic Church was formed through the indoctrination of key Christian beliefs.

Copernicus was rather influential. By removing the Earth from the center of the solar system, to putting the sun at the center of the solar system radically changed the world. I would also rank Charles Darwin quite high as well, although Alfred Russel Wallace developed a theory of evolution independently at about the same time.

But then there are also good arguments for Aristotle and Thomas Jefferson as well.

I think Constantine's influence extends beyond Christianity. He effectively founded the Byzantine state, which had a nearly 1000 year reign as the heirs to Rome, and was central to the development of the modern Middle East, Turkey, and (via the Crusades) the mercantile states in northern Italy.

Newton was far more influential than Copernicus, and Newton mathematically proved Copernicus' observations.

Aristotle is an interesting one. He's extraordinarily influential, but that's largely because both the Muslims (esp via Averroes and Avicenna) and the Church (via Aquinas) dogmatized and theologized his ideas.

These men were certainly mythologized, and what was made of the teachings of Jesus and of the Buddha necessarily relies upon those who expanded upon their original work.



It's a sticky issue. In a large way I agree with you, but at the same time we have to ask what influence would these men have without Jesus? That's the trouble with this sort of question: how far back do we go?

Muhammad's stature suffers, to a degree, from this same problem, but I think far less than either the Buddha or Jesus. Muhammad wrote Muslim scripture, and is the only one to have written Muslim scripture. Jesus never wrote, and Buddhist scripture is not limited to teachings of the Buddha.

I do agree that Newton was more influential, but Copernicus stimulated further scientific investigation--including Galileo, Newton, etc. Copernicus pretty much jump started the scientific revolution.

Yeah -- didn't Jesus' mother have just as big an impact on history as Jesus did?

Exactly. Which is why, I think, the initial question is meaningless.

But it's still fun to ponder.

It is impossible to nail down the single most influential human. Do you give more credit to an ancient figure like Aristotle? Sure Gutenberg came up with the printing press, but who was behind all of the things that made the printing press? In modern history, the United States is obviously an influence in the world. Does that mean that Thomas Jefferson's work in both the revolution, and holding together the country during his Presidency has less value than say Constantine because he came later in history. Who has more influence, the guy that invented the computer who most people probably do not know (such as myself) or Bill Gates that helped popularize computers into the necessary world of today.

Here is another good one. Who deserves the credit for the Internet? The guys that invented it, or Al Gore and his colleagues in the Senate that passed the legislation turning a military tool into something everyone could use?

is an invention really an influence... i vote for the inventor of the wheel then right... but i really appreciate pillows most of all... and anyone coulda eventually came up with the wheel so should the credit go to something like the person who figured out about painkillers... or soap...

i certainly agree the MOST influential is highly debatable... but who had the most purely positive influence (for example how many have died and killed in the name of jesus) when the values coulda been found a number of other places, without the violence and prejudices tied into it....

and about adam being most influential... not that i mean to sound like im bashing the religion i was raised in, but if adam was most influential, and was influenced by eve, who was influenced by the devil.... isnt satan the most influential then? :devilish: :shifty:

Ah, but Satan is not a human being.

Sure he is! He drives an ice-cream truck down my road every night; music blaring, bells being banged on. The amount of hate this person spreads leads me to no other conclusion. :letme-at-em:

I thought Dick Cheney was Satan.

If Cheney isn't Satan, you can bet the two are great buddies. I bet they get together every Saturday night to drink fresh human blood and boast about their latest atrocities.

Not anyone could have come up with the wheel. The advanced societies of the Aztecs, Maya, and Inca never managed to invent the wheel, but look what they accomplish despite that fact.

Technology changes the ways in which humans interact with their environment. So inventions are often highly influential due to the ways they reorganize society.

I think Sarathustra raises a very good point. We probably have no knowledge of history's greatest genius.

The first person to wear clothing?

The first person to cook food?

The problem seems to me that in choosing a 'most influential person' people tend to choose a magesteria (eg: religion, military, politics), and then just choose their favourite person from a list of those associated with that group.

It says more about the proposer of such a list who they choose rather than history, I think.

So a Christian who believes the Christian religion to be the most important thing about life might choose Jesus, or Adam, or Abraham.

However, such people do not strike me as particularly influential. Firstly I personally doubt they even existed, and secondly what did they matter to most people throughout most of history. Does what Abraham did influence Hindus? It's irrelevant to most of them surely?

I think two things make human experience very different from that of other forms of life as far as I can tell, they are:

1) Invention of tools.
2) Use of language.

So I would propose Archimedes and Shakespeare as the most influential people in history because to me they represent the epitome of what it is to be an inventor or an eloquent user of language.

I suppose if I had to choose one historical figure as a sort of renaissance man it would have to be Mohammed, who is as great a prophet as many others, as great a military commander as many others, as great a politician as many others, and an accomplished poet to boot.

I saw a bumper-sticker a few years back I still chuckle at: Satan/Cheney in '08!

Paul was mentioned. Christianity may never have crossed over to the Gentiles if it weren't for him. Gentile inclusion was the controversy among the first apostles, and Paul was supported very little on his daring mission. Would Christianity have remained a small sect of Judaism if it weren't for him? It certainly seemed to head that direction at first under the appelation of Nazarenes.

How about the first farmer? Things sure tend to take off when one gets to settle in one spot rather than go hunting all day.

The lady at the Delphic Oracle?

The potters at Athens? Wasn't it the olive oil trade that led them to a more mercantile society (as opposed to the Boeotian landowners) laying the groundwork for democracy? A little far-fetched maybe.

An argument could be made for the first guy in 2001: Space Odyssey to use a bone as a weapon.