World's Greatest Draft (2 Viewers)

[Mixlflick1]

2.07 - Abraham Lincoln - Leader

Too tired to write, will post more in the morning.

C'mon guys, Lincoln is a MUCH worse pick than Tesla..... throw some abuse this guys way.

Tesla wasn't a bad pick. But if you think that this pick was bad, please let us know why. I know of a few reasons why, but I still think that his positives outweigh his negatives.

I don't think it's a bad pick, but I'm having trouble personally weighing the US Presidents against other historical leaders. Typically they have a much shorter span of influence, and, as I mentioned before, had less direct authority over the events happening during their time. Whoever the judge is for that category is going to have to weigh all that out, which is going to be a tough job.

Good point about being limited to a short span of time in which to lead the country. I just feel that the liberation of slaves was an instrumental part in his success.

The United States was not really relevant on the world stage at the time. England, the greatest superpower until WWII, had long since abolished slavery. That was far more important than Lincoln's emancipation of slaves being held in states that had seceded from the union. The US civil war was a blip on the world radar. The end of slavery in the US only meant that the slave traders had to find new buyers.Other presidents before and after had far greater direct impact on the world stage. And yes, the US doesn't become a superpower if the south wins, etc., but there's too much that happened later to credit that to Lincoln.

 

[Ozymandias]

2.07 - Abraham Lincoln - Leader

Too tired to write, will post more in the morning.

C'mon guys, Lincoln is a MUCH worse pick than Tesla..... throw some abuse this guys way.

Tesla wasn't a bad pick. But if you think that this pick was bad, please let us know why. I know of a few reasons why, but I still think that his positives outweigh his negatives.

I don't think it's a bad pick, but I'm having trouble personally weighing the US Presidents against other historical leaders. Typically they have a much shorter span of influence, and, as I mentioned before, had less direct authority over the events happening during their time. Whoever the judge is for that category is going to have to weigh all that out, which is going to be a tough job.

Good point about being limited to a short span of time in which to lead the country. I just feel that the liberation of slaves was an instrumental part in his success.

I think we do not realize what an effect the freeing of the slaves had on the rest of the world. When the world saw that the USA was willing to go to war over slavery, it had an knock on effect. Less than 25 years later, Brazil and Cuba had outlawed slavery (the largest holders of slaves).

 

[FUBAR]

On Lincoln, I have to agree. He won't rank too high on my leaders list. Great man, doesn't really meet my stated criteria.

 

[Ozymandias]

The United States was not really relevant on the world stage at the time. England, the greatest superpower until WWII, had long since abolished slavery. That was far more important than Lincoln's emancipation of slaves being held in states that had seceded from the union. The US civil war was a blip on the world radar. The end of slavery in the US only meant that the slave traders had to find new buyers.Other presidents before and after had far greater direct impact on the world stage. And yes, the US doesn't become a superpower if the south wins, etc., but there's too much that happened later to credit that to Lincoln.

I think you are underestimating the position of the USA. In 1860, the population of the USA was 32 million, compared to 27 million in Great Britain, and 36 million in France. It was already making its mark on the world stage. And it was Matthew Perry, in 1854, who sailed into Tokyo Bay and made the Japanese come into the modern world. Yes, it wasn't a Great Britain or France, but it WAS relevant.P.S. By the way, if the quotes are ascribed incorrectly, it is because of that stupid "you are posting more than the allowed number of quotes", and my inability to figure out how to live by that moronic rule.

 

[AcerFC]

I'm home with a sick kid. I need to take care of her so I will be gone for a bit. I am not even sure how long til it gets to me. I think 6 or 7 more.

 

[DCThunder]

Slavery in the British Empire wasn't abolished until 1833, only 30 years prior to the Emancipation Proclaimation.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Obviously I consider Abraham Lincoln worthy of this draft. It seems to me in reading these posts that there is a feeling that a Greatest World draft such as this should somehow not include America, or at least, anyone that values America too high is simply not looking into history with an open eye towards greatness.

My American biases aside, it will be foolish to simply discount Americans because they are Americans and instead turn all focus to the empires of antiquity. There are several Americans that can be drafted in each category. Someone mentioned that they don't want to see white Europe overrepresented here. Let's not fall for the ideal that American has no history and therefore no greatness that matches the empires of the past.

 

[Mixlflick1]

Slavery in the British Empire wasn't abolished until 1833, only 30 years prior to the Emancipation Proclaimation.

Average life expectancy in the US at the time was about 40 years, so it is fair to say that it had been a abolished in Britain for a generation prior to the E.P.Population of the British Empire was a couple hundred million at the time.

 

[Thorn]

Obviously I consider Abraham Lincoln worthy of this draft. It seems to me in reading these posts that there is a feeling that a Greatest World draft such as this should somehow not include America, or at least, anyone that values America too high is simply not looking into history with an open eye towards greatness.My American biases aside, it will be foolish to simply discount Americans because they are Americans and instead turn all focus to the empires of antiquity. There are several Americans that can be drafted in each category. Someone mentioned that they don't want to see white Europe overrepresented here. Let's not fall for the ideal that American has no history and therefore no greatness that matches the empires of the past.

Fair points, but I think it's true that American presidents are, by and large, going to have a hard time measuring up against those who ruled for much longer periods of time and had much more authoritarian control over their empires.

 

[timschochet]

Good morning, everyone, a few points:

1. In answer to Higgins, there will be a playoff after the judges seeding, exactly like the Great American Draft.

2. In answer to various questions, now that the Beatles have been taken, Paul McCartney, John Lennon, Ringo Starr, and George Harrison can no longer be drafted (neither can Pete Best, should you be so inclined.)

Some comments about recent picks:

1. Last night, I poised the question about what Abe Lincoln meant to the rest of the world. The truth is, I don't know. But I don't believe the theory that he caused the end of slavery around the world; England's 1830 action had a much greater effect on this, from what I have read. Slavery was dying because the industrial revolution eliminated it's need, except for the cotton belt of the southern United States. This is to take nothing away from Lincoln's accomplishment, but I'm not sure what it means globally.

Gandhi, for example, we know what it means. Because his movement was an inspiration everywhere in the Third World, causing a worldwide revolt against colonialism, his influence is rightly huge, one of the greatest ever. Lincoln I don't think had the same effect. In the history of the world there are so many great and important leaders of nations; I think that when it's said and done Abe may find himself way down the list. But we'll see.

2. The Beatles are a tremendous choice, and of course they were who I was thinking of first when I made the group rule for musicians. However, are they the clear #1 musician/performer? I'm not fully convinced of this.

3. I'm not a fan of Mother Teresa, based on what I have read about her by Christopher Hitchens, who I enjoy. Again, throughout the centuries, there are many, many, people worthy of being taken in this category, some of them incredible heroes and heroines who stories are beyond unbelievable. I don't belive Teresa will end up anywhere near the top tier here (though I am not the judge.)

 

[timschochet]

Obviously I consider Abraham Lincoln worthy of this draft. It seems to me in reading these posts that there is a feeling that a Greatest World draft such as this should somehow not include America, or at least, anyone that values America too high is simply not looking into history with an open eye towards greatness.My American biases aside, it will be foolish to simply discount Americans because they are Americans and instead turn all focus to the empires of antiquity. There are several Americans that can be drafted in each category. Someone mentioned that they don't want to see white Europe overrepresented here. Let's not fall for the ideal that American has no history and therefore no greatness that matches the empires of the past.

I agree with this sentiment. But it's also important to look at this draft from a global perspective. Is Abraham Lincoln one of the 20 greatest hears of state of all time? Quite possibly he is, though we'll know more once we see a list. Is he in the top tier of greatest heads of state of all time? I have my doubts about this.

 

[Abrantes]

I think we do not realize what an effect the freeing of the slaves had on the rest of the world. When the world saw that the USA was willing to go to war over slavery, it had an knock on effect. Less than 25 years later, Brazil and Cuba had outlawed slavery (the largest holders of slaves).

I don't mean to nitpick, since this is clearly just a minor part of the discussion, but nothing I've read on the subject indicates that the emancipation of slaves in the US had anything to do with Brazil's case, specifically.PS. Stupid quotes.

 

[DCThunder]

Good morning, everyone, a few points:

1. In answer to Higgins, there will be a playoff after the judges seeding, exactly like the Great American Draft.

2. In answer to various questions, now that the Beatles have been taken, Paul McCartney, John Lennon, Ringo Starr, and George Harrison can no longer be drafted (neither can Pete Best, should you be so inclined.)

Some comments about recent picks:

1. Last night, I poised the question about what Abe Lincoln meant to the rest of the world. The truth is, I don't know. But I don't believe the theory that he caused the end of slavery around the world; England's 1830 action had a much greater effect on this, from what I have read. Slavery was dying because the industrial revolution eliminated it's need, except for the cotton belt of the southern United States and the sugar plantations of Jamaica and Cuba and other agricultural regions of Brasil. This is to take nothing away from Lincoln's accomplishment, but I'm not sure what it means globally.

Gandhi, for example, we know what it means. Because his movement was an inspiration everywhere in the Third World, causing a worldwide revolt against colonialism, his influence is rightly huge, one of the greatest ever. Lincoln I don't think had the same effect. In the history of the world there are so many great and important leaders of nations; I think that when it's said and done Abe may find himself way down the list. But we'll see.

2. The Beatles are a tremendous choice, and of course they were who I was thinking of first when I made the group rule for musicians. However, are they the clear #1 musician/performer? I'm not fully convinced of this.

3. I'm not a fan of Mother Teresa, based on what I have read about her by Christopher Hitchens, who I enjoy. Again, throughout the centuries, there are many, many, people worthy of being taken in this category, some of them incredible heroes and heroines who stories are beyond unbelievable. I don't belive Teresa will end up anywhere near the top tier here (though I am not the judge.)

 

[Mixlflick1]

Obviously I consider Abraham Lincoln worthy of this draft. It seems to me in reading these posts that there is a feeling that a Greatest World draft such as this should somehow not include America, or at least, anyone that values America too high is simply not looking into history with an open eye towards greatness.My American biases aside, it will be foolish to simply discount Americans because they are Americans and instead turn all focus to the empires of antiquity. There are several Americans that can be drafted in each category. Someone mentioned that they don't want to see white Europe overrepresented here. Let's not fall for the ideal that American has no history and therefore no greatness that matches the empires of the past.

Not at all. The issue with the US is that has only existed for just over 200 years out of about 5,000 of recorded history. It has only been relevant on the world stage for 1/2 of those 200+ years. Heck, the American Revolution wasn't even the most significant revolution going on around the same time, the French Revolution was. For the last 100-150 years, the US almost dominates the rest of the world (except for the top 2 villians -- whew!). For instance, the US should dominate in inventors considering the breadth of inventions in the past 100 years.The problems with the US in the leader category, as was mentioned earlier, is that our Presidents are limited in terms and are limited as co-equal with two other branches of the government. In the military category, war has been the favorite activity of countries for 5,000 years before the US came along (although we've done well perfecting it).Simply put, the US should dominate in the categories that have seen the most innovation, growth and application in the last 100 years. In categories that apply equally to 5,000 years, we haven't had as much time to accumulate significant players.From a world perspective, Lincoln is not the top U.S. president. Is Lincoln draftable? Maybe top 20 in world history but probably not. Second round? No.

 

[dparker713]

Obviously I consider Abraham Lincoln worthy of this draft. It seems to me in reading these posts that there is a feeling that a Greatest World draft such as this should somehow not include America, or at least, anyone that values America too high is simply not looking into history with an open eye towards greatness.My American biases aside, it will be foolish to simply discount Americans because they are Americans and instead turn all focus to the empires of antiquity. There are several Americans that can be drafted in each category. Someone mentioned that they don't want to see white Europe overrepresented here. Let's not fall for the ideal that American has no history and therefore no greatness that matches the empires of the past.

But what makes Lincoln so significant to US history doesnt necessarily make him significant to world history. Foreign policy of the Presidents would seem to be more significant. As such, while I can see the argument within the US for Lincoln to be the top President, I don't think he's the best option out of Presidents for this draft.

 

[John Maddens Lunchbox]

2.05 - Genghis Khan was the founder, Khan (ruler) and Khagan (emperor) of the Mongol Empire, the largest contiguous empire in history.

The last of the people I considered at 1.03... a total steal at this point, and should be the #1a Military person (with Alexander at 1b). I think he'll be a little lower on leaders, but strong there as well. Outstanding pick!

EXACTLY RIGHT! Genghis Khan at 1a and Alexander at 1b. Why?Well, Alexander was born with a silver sword in his mouth, and got a running start. Genghis Khan started with nothing, an orphan abandoned by his clan. He gradually built up, subduing or allying himself with others, and gradually gaining the ascendancy. He unified the Mongols under his reign, and then he established an empire, conquered most of China, and spread westward until he had the largest contiguous empire in the history of the world. He was a brilliant battlefield tactician, knew how do use cavalry and infantry, and developed an army where merit and not family considerations were the means of advancement. To my knowledge he never lost a battle, and his armies came to the gates of Europe, defeating the Hungarians and the Poles.BRILLIANT PICK!

Genghis is currently Andy's Leader

 

[The Real Hipster Doofus]

To add on to the Lincoln debate. I frequent a couple message boards dealing with history and I can assure you that Lincoln is well thought of by people outside of this country. In fact I think other people rank U.S. leaders very highly in comparison. While the U.S. may have only been around for 200+ years, the rapid rise of the country from beginning to world superpower was very fast when looked at in historical terms. I agree that I think a lot of people in this draft will be hesitant to draft Americans, thinking there has to be other people out there who were greater. I think a lot of people will miss some big time picks following that strategy.

 

[Ozymandias]

2.05 - Genghis Khan was the founder, Khan (ruler) and Khagan (emperor) of the Mongol Empire, the largest contiguous empire in history.

The last of the people I considered at 1.03... a total steal at this point, and should be the #1a Military person (with Alexander at 1b). I think he'll be a little lower on leaders, but strong there as well. Outstanding pick!

EXACTLY RIGHT! Genghis Khan at 1a and Alexander at 1b. Why?Well, Alexander was born with a silver sword in his mouth, and got a running start. Genghis Khan started with nothing, an orphan abandoned by his clan. He gradually built up, subduing or allying himself with others, and gradually gaining the ascendancy. He unified the Mongols under his reign, and then he established an empire, conquered most of China, and spread westward until he had the largest contiguous empire in the history of the world. He was a brilliant battlefield tactician, knew how do use cavalry and infantry, and developed an army where merit and not family considerations were the means of advancement. To my knowledge he never lost a battle, and his armies came to the gates of Europe, defeating the Hungarians and the Poles.BRILLIANT PICK!

Genghis is currently Andy's Leader

True, but since he has the option to change, GK needs to be viewed as a potential military figure, too. In any case, he's been drafted, from either list.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Obviously I consider Abraham Lincoln worthy of this draft. It seems to me in reading these posts that there is a feeling that a Greatest World draft such as this should somehow not include America, or at least, anyone that values America too high is simply not looking into history with an open eye towards greatness.My American biases aside, it will be foolish to simply discount Americans because they are Americans and instead turn all focus to the empires of antiquity. There are several Americans that can be drafted in each category. Someone mentioned that they don't want to see white Europe overrepresented here. Let's not fall for the ideal that American has no history and therefore no greatness that matches the empires of the past.

Not at all. The issue with the US is that has only existed for just over 200 years out of about 5,000 of recorded history. It has only been relevant on the world stage for 1/2 of those 200+ years. Heck, the American Revolution wasn't even the most significant revolution going on around the same time, the French Revolution was. For the last 100-150 years, the US almost dominates the rest of the world (except for the top 2 villians -- whew!). For instance, the US should dominate in inventors considering the breadth of inventions in the past 100 years.The problems with the US in the leader category, as was mentioned earlier, is that our Presidents are limited in terms and are limited as co-equal with two other branches of the government. In the military category, war has been the favorite activity of countries for 5,000 years before the US came along (although we've done well perfecting it).Simply put, the US should dominate in the categories that have seen the most innovation, growth and application in the last 100 years. In categories that apply equally to 5,000 years, we haven't had as much time to accumulate significant players.From a world perspective, Lincoln is not the top U.S. president. Is Lincoln draftable? Maybe top 20 in world history but probably not. Second round? No.

One thing that offsets the term limit problem in my mind is the greater degree of compression in history in the last two centuries. Advances in travel and communication have allowed more to happen in a shorter amount of time, so 8 or 10 years in 2000 AD might be reasonably compared to 40 or 50 years in 1500 AD. Of course Lincoln doesn't get the full benefit of that, but the 1860s was still well ahead of earlier periods.

 

[The Real Hipster Doofus]

2.05 - Genghis Khan was the founder, Khan (ruler) and Khagan (emperor) of the Mongol Empire, the largest contiguous empire in history.

The last of the people I considered at 1.03... a total steal at this point, and should be the #1a Military person (with Alexander at 1b). I think he'll be a little lower on leaders, but strong there as well. Outstanding pick!

EXACTLY RIGHT! Genghis Khan at 1a and Alexander at 1b. Why?Well, Alexander was born with a silver sword in his mouth, and got a running start. Genghis Khan started with nothing, an orphan abandoned by his clan. He gradually built up, subduing or allying himself with others, and gradually gaining the ascendancy. He unified the Mongols under his reign, and then he established an empire, conquered most of China, and spread westward until he had the largest contiguous empire in the history of the world. He was a brilliant battlefield tactician, knew how do use cavalry and infantry, and developed an army where merit and not family considerations were the means of advancement. To my knowledge he never lost a battle, and his armies came to the gates of Europe, defeating the Hungarians and the Poles.BRILLIANT PICK!

Genghis is currently Andy's Leader

Khan is an easy 1a or 1b at military, top 5 overall at leader.

 

[timschochet]

I know this has been done before, but my top ten Beatles Albums:

1. Abbey Road

2. Revolver

3. The White Album

4. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band

5. Rubber Soul

6. Let It Be

7. Magical Mystery Tour

8. A Hard Day's Night

9. Beatles For Sale

10. Meet The Beatles

Really, the top 5 are interchangeable for me. As far as songs:

1. While My Guitar Gently Weeps

2. She Said, She Said

3. Mother Nature's Son

4. The Fool On The Hill

5. Something

6. She Loves You

7. For No One

8. And Your Bird Can Sing

9. Let It Be

10. With A Little Help From My Friends

 

[Abrantes]

Wow, people really like their Temujin 'round here.

 

[timschochet]

Wow, people really like their Temujin 'round here.

I'm just afraid of him.

 

[Ozymandias]

Wow, people really like their Temujin 'round here.

Well, according to DNA studies, he has descendants in the tens of millions. Maybe we're all his kids.http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...14_genghis.html

 

[BobbyLayne]

Just a friendly reminder...

Please vote in Matchup #2 of the Greatest American Draft (#14 seed v. #19).

Very close match and the polling reflects that so far.

FUBAR v. Stevegamer

TIA

 

[Andy Dufresne]

On Lincoln:

I would say he's extraordinarily important to world history. How different would the world be if there were a United States AND a Confederate States of America?

 

[Doug B]

One thing that offsets the term limit problem in my mind is the greater degree of compression in history in the last two centuries. Advances in travel and communication have allowed more to happen in a shorter amount of time, so 8 or 10 years in 2000 AD might be reasonably compared to 40 or 50 years in 1500 AD. Of course Lincoln doesn't get the full benefit of that, but the 1860s was still well ahead of earlier periods.

Merely the availability of the telegraph, photography, and the steam engine (both on water and on rails) made a big difference in Lincoln's time compared to, say, classical antiquity.

 

[The Real Hipster Doofus]

Wow, people really like their Temujin 'round here.

Well when you consider what Ozymandias pointed out, how can you not. He banded together a disconnected groups of Mongol clans and transformed that into arguably the greatest empire in history.

 

[BobbyLayne]

On Lincoln:

I would say he's extraordinarily important to world history. How different would the world be if there were a United States AND a Confederate States of America?

WWI, WWII, Cold War...head is getting dizzy thinking about it...

 

[timschochet]

On Lincoln:

I would say he's extraordinarily important to world history. How different would the world be if there were a United States AND a Confederate States of America?

In your viewpoint, Andy, is a permanent Confederate States of America inevitable without the existence of an Abraham Lincoln? I'm not at all convinced that this is the case.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

On Lincoln:

I would say he's extraordinarily important to world history. How different would the world be if there were a United States AND a Confederate States of America?

In your viewpoint, Andy, is a permanent Confederate States of America inevitable without the existence of an Abraham Lincoln? I'm not at all convinced that this is the case.

Impossible to say. All I know is that he did keep the Union together.

 

[Uncle Humuna]

Question concerning the categories. I'm unclear on the judging parameters for the Musician/Performer category. Are the chosen figures in this category being judged purely on their performance? Say Band X has terrible songwriting skills, but puts on one of the greatest live acts of all time. Is that what this category is looking for? Pure performance? Or is the whole package taken into account?

Whole package. I did not mean live performances, per se. Recordings are fine too. I'm just separating this from the writers of the music, (though even that you can take into account.)It's basically a means to include popular music in the mix.

I probably should have posted before the 1st musician/performer was selected, but this needs further clarification.Firstly, Tim, could you claifiy what you mean by musician/performer.Does this include singers?How about other forms of entertainment (e.g. dancers? comedians? general entertainers?)On first glance, separating out composing/song-writing should make this category easier, but it some ways, it muddies the water.Many modern day musicians' song-writing capabilities are included when judging their merits as musicians.As stated, for this category, this will not be included at all in the judging.What will be factored in are the following (in order of importance):1) Artistic expertice - the ability to emote with an instrument (further definition to come later).2) Technical mastery of one's instrument.3) Innovativeness/importance in musical history4) Popularity (which is almost an intrinsic requirement, since an artist needs to be known, to be selected).More to come . . .

 

[timschochet]

And even if Andy is right and only the presence of a Lincoln prevents a permanent Confederacy, I could list over a dozen heads of state throughout history who either invaded or prevented invasions which, had they taken place or not taken place, would have completely altered the course of human civilization as we know it. This is 5,000 years of recorded human action we're talking about, and we need to come up with the 20 greatest leaders. Even under the qualification that Andy makes, I STILL don't know if Lincoln is anywhere close to the top of this category.

 

[Big Rocks]

Still pondering my next pick. Stand by

 

[Andy Dufresne]

And even if Andy is right and only the presence of a Lincoln prevents a permanent Confederacy, I could list over a dozen heads of state throughout history who either invaded or prevented invasions which, had they taken place or not taken place, would have completely altered the course of human civilization as we know it. This is 5,000 years of recorded human action we're talking about, and we need to come up with the 20 greatest leaders. Even under the qualification that Andy makes, I STILL don't know if Lincoln is anywhere close to the top of this category.

Possibly true, but then I'd ask you if those people were heads of states as important as the USA.

 

[larry_boy_44]

2.07 - Abraham Lincoln - Leader

Too tired to write, will post more in the morning.

C'mon guys, Lincoln is a MUCH worse pick than Tesla..... throw some abuse this guys way.

the only way that Lincoln is remotely a good pick here is if America was the first nation on earth to abolish slavery...

 

[timschochet]

Firstly, Tim, could you claifiy what you mean by musician/performer.Does this include singers?How about other forms of entertainment (e.g. dancers? comedians? general entertainers?)

I apologize that this continues to be so confusing. I guess I didn't define it well enough. This category, like the composer category, is limited to music. That's first. In the American draft, when the first rock and roll star was selected, an immediate complaint rose up that he did not compose his own material, and therefore he was not as important as those who had done so. The argument for him was that he translated the material of others for the masses, and that he himself was just as important as the material he was translating.I actually agreed with both sides of this argument. That's why I decided to divide it up for this draft. And another factor: I wanted popular music, which means recorded music. Any list of composers is going to be heavily weighted by classical music, as it should be. I wanted a list of rock/jazz/blues and other popular forms as well.So yes, it does include singers. Basically, includes anyone who has chosen to record music rather than those who have chosen to simply write it down for others to record. In this respect, a Mozart could not be in this category. The Beatles could be in either category. A jazz singer who covers standards written for her would only be eligible for this category, as would a famous violinist who is intepreting the classics.Does this make sense?

 

[Abrantes]

Wow, people really like their Temujin 'round here.

Well when you consider what Ozymandias pointed out, how can you not. He banded together a disconnected groups of Mongol clans and transformed that into arguably the greatest empire in history.

Don't get me wrong - I think Genghis Khan is amazing too. He's certainly top 3 or top 4 at worst. I'm just surprised at people making a case for him as 1a or 1b military guy.

 

[thecatch]

And even if Andy is right and only the presence of a Lincoln prevents a permanent Confederacy, I could list over a dozen heads of state throughout history who either invaded or prevented invasions which, had they taken place or not taken place, would have completely altered the course of human civilization as we know it. This is 5,000 years of recorded human action we're talking about, and we need to come up with the 20 greatest leaders. Even under the qualification that Andy makes, I STILL don't know if Lincoln is anywhere close to the top of this category.

Possibly true, but then I'd ask you if those people were heads of states as important as the USA.

This brings up an interesting question: where does the USA rank in terms of important states in world history?I don't know if there's "over a dozen" more important states than the US, but the (undrafted) person I would rank #1 in the leader category was certainly head of one of them.

 

[timschochet]

And even if Andy is right and only the presence of a Lincoln prevents a permanent Confederacy, I could list over a dozen heads of state throughout history who either invaded or prevented invasions which, had they taken place or not taken place, would have completely altered the course of human civilization as we know it. This is 5,000 years of recorded human action we're talking about, and we need to come up with the 20 greatest leaders. Even under the qualification that Andy makes, I STILL don't know if Lincoln is anywhere close to the top of this category.

Possibly true, but then I'd ask you if those people were heads of states as important as the USA.

Not as important, but the results of their actions may have been as important or more important than the results of Lincoln's actions. Can't say more without spotlighting.

 

[BobbyLayne]

BTW - The Gutenberg pick is a great one as it was between he and Plato that I was choosing.

I don't know who is greater, Plato or Aristotle, but I do know that all we know about the teacher comes from his student. Suffice to say that there obviously wouldn't be the one without the other.

Andy- why Plato over Aristotle?

I actually had it backward. I thought we were debating whether it was Socrates or Plato at #1. Aristotle is a clear #3 to me, primarily because of his views on government.I just personally think either are more influential than Aristotle.

All three are timeless. They are the obvious triumvirate of Western philosophy, much the same as another category. However, this:
Plato
Socrates
Aristotle...seems inverse to the way most would rank them.

The Socratic method is taught by many law schools in the United States, and universally used to develop critical thinking.

Of the three, Aristotle is the true polymath: physics, metaphysics, poetry, theater, music, logic, rhetoric, politics, government, ethics, biology and zoology.

From Wiki:

Aristotle

He was the first to create a comprehensive system of Western philosophy, encompassing morality and aesthetics, logic and science, politics and metaphysics. Aristotle's views on the physical sciences profoundly shaped medieval scholarship, and their influence extended well into the Renaissance, although they were ultimately replaced by modern physics. In the biological sciences, some of his observations were confirmed to be accurate only in the nineteenth century. His works contain the earliest known formal study of logic, which were incorporated in the late nineteenth century into modern formal logic. In metaphysics, Aristotelianism had a profound influence on philosophical and theological thinking in the Islamic and Jewish traditions in the Middle Ages, and it continues to influence Christian theology, especially Eastern Orthodox theology, and the scholastic tradition of the Roman Catholic Church. All aspects of Aristotle's philosophy continue to be the object of active academic study today.

Given that, what about Platonism makes it superior to Aristotelianism?In my predraft mind, I had them ranked Socrates/Aristotle/Plato; but as I pondered who had the greatest impact over the last 2,400 years, it became clear to me Aristotle's sphere of influence is far greater.

Anyone else care to weigh in?

 

[Thorn]

And even if Andy is right and only the presence of a Lincoln prevents a permanent Confederacy, I could list over a dozen heads of state throughout history who either invaded or prevented invasions which, had they taken place or not taken place, would have completely altered the course of human civilization as we know it. This is 5,000 years of recorded human action we're talking about, and we need to come up with the 20 greatest leaders. Even under the qualification that Andy makes, I STILL don't know if Lincoln is anywhere close to the top of this category.

Possibly true, but then I'd ask you if those people were heads of states as important as the USA.

Not as important, but the results of their actions may have been as important or more important than the results of Lincoln's actions. Can't say more without spotlighting.

May I suggest you change your sig to "without spotlighting"? Probably save you loads of time.

 

[timschochet]

May I suggest you change your sig to "without spotlighting"? Probably save you loads of time.

Do you know who you remind me of? I can't tell you right now; it would be spotlighting.

 

[Doug B]

Given that, what about Platonism makes it superior to Aristotelianism?

In my predraft mind, I had them ranked Socrates/Aristotle/Plato; but as I pondered who had the greatest impact over the last 2,400 years, it became clear to me Aristotle's sphere of influence is far greater.

Anyone else care to weigh in?

Your reservations are exactly why I (barely) passed on Plato at 1.09. Now then ... the judge could still put Plato at #1. But I thought there was too much room for debate between Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates.

 

[Uncle Humuna]

When I made my pick of Alexander in R1 I was choosing between 4 people.

Alexander

Genghis Khan

Charles Darwin

The above 2 I’d put in a different categories to what they’ve been drafted under, but that’s another story.

My other choice is still here and I’m going to take it.

Tremendous value at this point and a phenomenon the likes of which we’ll probably never see again.

Their impact is still enormous now and will be in future.

They were the first singer/songwriters to go mega huge.

Each new release was a major event and they were Biiiiiig all over the world.

2:08 – The Beatles

Musicians/Performers

The Beatles were a rock and pop band from Liverpool, England that formed in 1960. During their career, the group primarily consisted of **** ******(rhythm guitar, vocals), **** *********(bass guitar, vocals), ****** ******** (lead guitar, vocals) and ***** ***** (drums, vocals). Although their initial musical style was rooted in 1950s rock and roll and skiffle, the group worked with different musical genres, ranging from Tin Pan Alley to psychedelic rock. Their clothes, style and statements made them trend-setters, while their growing social awareness saw their influence extend into the social and cultural revolutions of the 1960s. After the band broke up in 1970, all four members embarked upon successful solo careers.

The Beatles are one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed bands in the history of popular music, selling over one billion records internationally.[1] In the United Kingdom, The Beatles released more than 40 different singles, albums, and EPs that reached number one, earning more number one albums (15) than any other group in UK chart history. This commercial success was repeated in many other countries; their record company, EMI, estimated that by 1985 they had sold over one billion records worldwide.[2] According to the Recording Industry Association of America, The Beatles have sold more albums in the United States than any other band.[3] In 2004, Rolling Stone magazine ranked The Beatles number one on its list of 100 Greatest Artists of All Time.[4] According to that same magazine, The Beatles' innovative music and cultural impact helped define the 1960s, and their influence on pop culture is still evident today. In 2008, Billboard magazine released a list of top-selling Hot 100 artists to celebrate the chart's fiftieth anniversary; The Beatles topped it.[5]

At first glance, this may seem like an obvious pick, but with the song-writing element removed, it's a little harder to judge.Going by the previously listed criteria, let's see how they stack up.

1) Artistic expertice - the ability to emote with an instrument.

The Beatles obviously had an exceptional knack for expressing emotions and feelings throug their music. This is where things get muddied - is this a result of the songwriting, or their performance? Obviously, both play a major factor. I would say as a group, that the Beatles did in fact excel in musical expression. Their harmonies were innovative and beautiful. McCartney was an excellent musician, but once again, I'm not sure how much of this was a result of the parts he wrote, vs. how he played them. I'm not sure how to separate these. Not even sure if I should or not. As a group they had an amazing sound that elicits strong emotions.

2) Technical mastery of one's instrument.

Once again, vocally, The Beatles were exceptional. Masters? I'm not sure. Other instruments, once again, McCartney would be the only one that could even be included in the conversation.

3) Innovativeness/importance in musical history

The Beatles were hugely influential in many different areas. Not many come close in the last 50 years.

4) Popularity (which is almost an intrinsic requirement, since an artist needs to be known, to be selected).

Obviously, unparalled across all genres.

By breaking it down by these criteria (and excluding song-writing), not sure The Beatles belong at the top of this category. They definitely have place near the top, and IMHO, are definitely the top for their genre.

Interesting aside.

A very strong argument could be made that Lennon & McCartney would be an excellent pick in the composer category - except for the fact that groups aren't allowed there!

 

[John Maddens Lunchbox]

Lincoln is obviously one of the greatest of American heroes, (and in my opinion, our greatest President, though Andy ranked him #3), but I'm wondering what the rest of the world thinks of him. The United States is such a new country compared to most of the world. If you're a student in Italy or Japan, do you think Lincoln is a name you learn about? Just wondering...

As a student in the Australian education system we learnt very little if anything on US presidents outside XXXXXXXXXXX and Presidents during WWI & WWII. Once History became a choice rather than a necessity, students could choose to do things like the American revolution or the Civil War, but most students in Australia will know the name, but little else.I learnt a lot on my own time, but it would scratch the surface of what you're fed.We got Europe up the ### in History, but little else (Even Australia, which has less history than the US)

 

[timschochet]

Uncle Humuna, you needn't necessarily remove songwriting from your criteria. In fact, if the performers wrote their own songs, then I think it's something you can consider, if you want to. I would prefer you examine the entire package; of course it's up to you.

This is as opposed to the composer category, where musical composition is clearly the primary and overwhelming element that should be considered. But in the case of your category, it's not either-or.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Given that, what about Platonism makes it superior to Aristotelianism?

In my predraft mind, I had them ranked Socrates/Aristotle/Plato; but as I pondered who had the greatest impact over the last 2,400 years, it became clear to me Aristotle's sphere of influence is far greater.

Anyone else care to weigh in?

Your reservations are exactly why I (barely) passed on Plato at 1.09. Now then ... the judge could still put Plato at #1. But I thought there was too much room for debate between Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates.

Well a guy that was once head of the Aristotelian Society is quoted as saying that "The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato."So there.

 

[timschochet]

Lincoln is obviously one of the greatest of American heroes, (and in my opinion, our greatest President, though Andy ranked him #3), but I'm wondering what the rest of the world thinks of him. The United States is such a new country compared to most of the world. If you're a student in Italy or Japan, do you think Lincoln is a name you learn about? Just wondering...

As a student in the Australian education system we learnt very little if anything on US presidents outside xxxxxxxxx and Presidents during WWI & WWII. Once History became a choice rather than a necessity, students could choose to do things like the American revolution or the Civil War, but most students in Australia will know the name, but little else.I learnt a lot on my own time, but it would scratch the surface of what you're fed.We got Europe up the ### in History, but little else (Even Australia, which has less history than the US)

Please be careful, JML. Thanks.

 

[Uncle Humuna]

I wanted popular music, which means recorded music. Basically, includes anyone who has chosen to record music rather than those who have chosen to simply write it down for

I wouldn't limit this to just recorded music, as some of the greatest musicians in history were never recorded.(I have at least a few in mind).Also, another can of worms - recording is an art form unto itself.Kind of like the difference between acting and making movies.Not sure how much specific records should play into the judging.