Whose non-existence would have changed history the most?

AscribedPurpose said:

My first thought was Stalin as a complete no brainer (just because of the amount of his victims). Then again, he could have easily been someone else, considering the fact that it all started before him, with an ideology. Plus, we see examples of the same kind of dictatorship with fewer deaths around the world. So, no Stalin.

I'd probably say someone like Tesla. Basically, someone who affected our way of life, not just through wars. Without pennicilin, soap, electricity and smiliar things, our lives would look a lot different.

Click to expand...

As you say, it did start before him. But Stalin is notable for one primary reason: he was simply a butcher. It is very unlikely he believed anything about the ideology or anything of which he said. As more and more evidence is uncovered, it is looking more and more likely that he was quite simply a mass murdering, power-hungry, talented psychopath. He did mark a distinct change. For all of Lenin's many faults, he at least believed that what he was doing was the right thing. That was not even a concept for Stalin. Just a butcher.

Michael Colton said:

As you say, it did start before him. But Stalin is notable for one primary reason: he was simply a butcher. It is very unlikely he believed anything about the ideology or anything of which he said. As more and more evidence is uncovered, it is looking more and more likely that he was quite simply a mass murdering, power-hungry, talented psychopath. He did mark a distinct change. For all of Lenin's many faults, he at least believed that what he was doing was the right thing. That was not even a concept for Stalin. Just a butcher.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter whether he believed he was right , Lenin monster too. He brought into being the nightmare that was the Soviet Union , Checka precursor to the KGB and the the so called peoples Commissars. He killed his share of people including the Romanov's , and he did bring in Stalin. The consequences of his decisions and actions in no small measure contributed, directly and indirectly to death and suffering of the Russian people . The world would have been a better place had he stayed in exile or never been at all .

When attempting to understand history it can be useful to examine and study the motivations behind events. Doing so does not constitute an endorsement of that which you are examining.

I view history as a number of support systems seeking leaders. Every leader mentioned has had a support system so to find the one most influential you might have to look at the one with the smallest support system, because it's the support system that needs the leader and it takes the one (anyone) that takes the lead. I would agree that each of those mentioned were strong leaders, but which of the strong leaders accomplished everything without a support system and without any other subordinate leadership. It is typical of great pride that one might assume that they are indispensable when in fact everyone can easily be replaced.

One of the largest lessons learned while standing at the grave site is that for the living life goes on. When we die it does effect those nearest us and the ripples can reach far but the earth does not stop nor does time.

That much said and though I would have to do much more study to know the man better and understanding all arguments against Jesus' existence; I would then have to nominate someone such as Ghandi.
But I'm not absolutely certain that that void might not have been filled eventually.

Michael Colton said:

When attempting to understand history it can be useful to examine and study the motivations behind events. Doing so does not constitute an endorsement of that which you are examining.

Click to expand...

Your absolutely correct on that point.

Yes I do know it doesn't constitute an endorsement .

George Washington . Not the best military mind of all time he lost more battle then he won but, but was a great leader. Without him, the American Revolutions chances of success are greatly diminished, even doubtful.

Ulysses S. Grant . Without him the American Civil War has very different out come. Yes he had Sherman was a superb General , But against Robert E Lee Grant had the edge .

Ghengis Khan.

He did quite a lot himself, but even more indirectly - he is supposed to have fathered hundreds of kids. That would have multiplied into millions by now. An ever-increasing number of small nudges over centuries would have to have more effect on history than any single lifetime.

.

steelyglint said:

Ghengis Khan.

He did quite a lot himself, but even more indirectly - he is supposed to have fathered hundreds of kids. That would have multiplied into millions by now. An ever-increasing number of small nudges over centuries would have to have more effect on history than any single lifetime.

.

Click to expand...

Without him there would been no Kubla Khan or Yuan Dynasty Dynasty of China. I wonder how that would have affected Marco Polo?

Not Christ for me, such a movement in middle-east was called for, it was a pot brewing with such ideas. I would Alexander of Macedon, it spread Greek thought and culture out to rest of the world, though Vatican did manage to curb it. Another man would be Descartes, he opened philosophical discussions, and set the process of rational thought in progress. To a degree, I would even add Elizabeth the First to the list

J. Michael Straczynski. Imagine a world with no Babylon 5!!

Historical figure-wise, Julius Caesar had a huge influence on the landscape and politics of the time. Would there have been a Roman Empire at all, or would it have remained a republic?

Michael Colton said:

As you say, it did start before him. But Stalin is notable for one primary reason: he was simply a butcher. It is very unlikely he believed anything about the ideology or anything of which he said. As more and more evidence is uncovered, it is looking more and more likely that he was quite simply a mass murdering, power-hungry, talented psychopath. He did mark a distinct change. For all of Lenin's many faults, he at least believed that what he was doing was the right thing. That was not even a concept for Stalin. Just a butcher.

Click to expand...

That does raise the question of whose worse, people who kill in the name of causes they don’t even believe in or ones who sincerely view what they’re doing is right but follow abhorrent ideologies? Monsters who believe their own propaganda are more often than not worse than ones who are in it just for the glory, power, bikini girls and the swimming pools full of money.

Stalin’s one saving grace was that he was only as bad as he felt he could get away with being. His pragmatism kept him from launching a full scale war on Europe and America which would have likely cost millions of lives and limited his expansionist tendencies to periods when the other powers were occupied. When confronted with the possiblity of conflict with Britain in Iran his self preservation instict kicked in and he made a quick exit.

Contrast that to Mao and Hitler. Both of them earnestly believed every bit rubbish that came out of their mouths. The former was never content to merely sit back and relish the luxuries his position gave him. He was a true believer in the Communist cause who spent decades tinkering with China’s economic and governmental systems to make them fall in line with Marxist theories. The result was a clown car pile-up of incompetence and thick headed mishaps that left 40 million people dead, twice as many as Stalin. It also drove him to expand the Communist cause into Tibet and intervene in the Korean war (which the more pragmatic Stalin was content to sit out), wasting even more lives.

Hitler’s racial bile was to him a glorious crusade, one which he followed zealously even when it was against his own self-interest. In 1944 Germany took control of Hungary when it tried to pull out of the war. By this point Germany was on the retreat with Russia pushing in from the east and the D-Day landings only months away. Despite this Hitler chose to invest vast resources and man power into senselesly murdering the nation’s hundreds of thousands of Jews rather than in fighting the war. This shows that Hitler valued his perverted beliefs above pragmatism as he put his barmy campaign of ethnic cleansing above victory. But anyone with an iota of moral sense can see that doesn’t mitigate the horror of his crimes in the slightest.

On a gut level a dishonest dictator disgusts us but that very self-interest at least means they can be bought, negotiated with and controlled to some extent. Fanatics, whether they’re from Shankhill, The Bogside, The Gaza Strip or a backwater village in Austria will fight to the death for what they believe is right even if that constitutes exterminating any and all human being with the audacity to wear odd socks.

Genghis Khan - despite the carnage changed the face of many social factors and spread his seed somewhat into the gene pool!
Einstein - would have taken some decades more to discover what he found out via this thought experiments.
Hitler - his non existence would be most welcome on several fronts!

Genghis Kahn (and the successors) would be my pick of we are barring to theological (it's hard not to make a case for Jesus otherwise)

The Kahns conquered China and the Middle East. Their impact was so great that a lot of Historians believe Crusader Kings invented invented legends like "Prestor John" (the Christian King in the East) to explain why they were meeting so many diminished and confused armies in the Arab world. It truth, it was the Kahns coming out of the East and kicking the hell out of the Muslims while they were trying to fight the Chrisitians in the West.

The Kahns may be a side note in Western History, but if you snoop deep enough you find they had a tremendous Infulance on a lot of what we have today.

Dulahan said:

Genghis Kahn (and the successors) would be my pick of we are barring to theological (it's hard not to make a case for Jesus otherwise)

The Kahns conquered China and the Middle East. Their impact was so great that a lot of Historians believe Crusader Kings invented invented legends like "Prestor John" (the Christian King in the East) to explain why they were meeting so many diminished and confused armies in the Arab world. It truth, it was the Kahns coming out of the East and kicking the hell out of the Muslims while they were trying to fight the Chrisitians in the West.

The Kahns may be a side note in Western History, but if you snoop deep enough you find they had a tremendous Infulance on a lot of what we have today.

Click to expand...

Under the Khan's China looked outward to the world . When the Ming Dynasty came to power, China closed itself off to the world.

@BAYLOR

Right and, in a round about sort of way, the Kahns established a united China by conquering it. China was broken into a couple nation-states when Genghis left the steps. The Ming over threw the Yun (I believe it was, the previous dynasty) at the tail end of the Mongol empire and that usurpation won a unified China.

Dulahan said:

@BAYLOR

Right and, in a round about sort of way, the Kahns established a united China by conquering it. China was broken into a couple nation-states when Genghis left the steps. The Ming over threw the Yun (I believe it was, the previous dynasty) at the tail end of the Mongol empire and that usurpation won a unified China.

Click to expand...

Looking inward proved be a disastrous decisions for China. Technologically the Chinese were in some ways, more advanced then then Europe . Had they decided they wanted to become world power, they could have done so quite easily and would and could have kept Europe in check.

The Chinese were WAY more advanced than Europe and the Middle East. The Kahns assimilated their conquered, the siege engines and armies they brought into the Middle East and Eastern Europe were Chinese. There was nothing particularly disastrous about looking inward post-Kahn, especially considering the rest of Europe went back to fighting with itself. The Kahns made Hitler and Saddam Hussein look like philanthropists -- with the amount of murder, pillaging and rape the Eastern Armies did it is not surprising they wanted to take a break for a bit.

Having just gotten to this thread, I haven't yet managed to read it all -- but I find myself pondering whether we're incorrectly overlooking Muhammad (i.e., the Prophet of Islam). The movement he founded conquered a larger portion of the world than did Genghiz Khan, and then converted many of the Khan's descendants. And they almost took Europe.
The world might have been very different...

On the other hand: I think a really good argument could be made that the southern fringe of Eurasia was, at the time the Prophet began to preach, ripe for almost galvanizing message -- so was it the Prophet who did it all, or just the people who embraced his message and ran with it?

2DaveWixon said:

Having just gotten to this thread, I haven't yet managed to read it all -- but I find myself pondering whether we're incorrectly overlooking Muhammad (i.e., the Prophet of Islam). The movement he founded conquered a larger portion of the world than did Genghiz Khan, and then converted many of the Khan's descendants. And they almost took Europe.
The world might have been very different...

On the other hand: I think a really good argument could be made that the southern fringe of Eurasia was, at the time the Prophet began to preach, ripe for almost galvanizing message -- so was it the Prophet who did it all, or just the people who embraced his message and ran with it?

Click to expand...

Galvanizing. Well, that's one word for it, I suppose. The message being basically "kill or enslave everyone who disagrees with me."