Rawne1980 said:
Me .... because I have an ego the size of a small country.
That's dreadfully modest of you!
Tanakh said:
Saint Paul on the other hand, he shaped almost alone the most important organization in the history of mankind. He also feels from his writings like a badass politician you don't want to mess around.
To the current chistian based organized religions he is more important than Jesus, but whatev.
I don't want to argue, but IMO excessive (and inadvertent) reverence of St Paul is what's wrong with mainstream Christianity (and I speak as a Christian).
OT: It really does depend on context, and how you define 'great'. Is it contribution to social evolution? Scientific impact? Peace-making? Warcraft? Philanthropy? Extent of legacy?
Each has influence upon the shaping of history in their own ways, but it is difficult, if not impossible, to impartially judge and compare their effects. Thus we are left to the subjective decisions of individuals and attempt to decide just how much they were made by their own volition, whether or not circumstances forced such a decision to be made. Also, ambition restricts the greatness of an individual because it turns necessary introspection of the servant to hubris in superiority. This discounts a great many commonly considered 'great' men as 'greatness' should encompass 'greatness of mind' in the context of character, where act is committed without the expectation of either reward or recognition.
thespyisdead said:
anyone who was able to decimate a roman legion will be there... it takes some doing to kill a lean mean roman war machine
Now this, on the other hand, I am willing to argue, and will do for as long as you wish. I continue to contend that Scipio was superior to Hannibal in virtually all ways except as a tactician. COME AT ME BRAH!!