ITT: the most significant people for each century starting with

I felt a little disappointed with the 21st century when I saw Obama there.

>>2875014
Paul should be way ahead of Jesus for the 1st century.

>>2875119
Putin is probably a better choice.

Also put James Watt instead of Washington

>>2875119
we only have less than 1/5th of a century to work with.

Still, I'd choose some fat cat, Gates or Jobs or Zuckerberg or someone like that. Presidents are figureheads, fat cats are the modern actors on the world stage with the most influence on the future of the world.

>>2875014
>20th century isn't Lenin or Stalin
Epic.

constantine the great on 4

>>2875162
WW2 is more important than the soviet union imo. Marx could be on 19 tho.

I would put Paul over Jesus for 01.

>>2875175
"no"
how could you even begin to justify that, communism was THE catalyst for the ultra right to rise in the first place
And also Communist China, the bastard child of the USSR and Japan

21st Century so far is honestly probably Osama bin Laden. We're still feeling the effects of 9/11 and al-Qaeda.

>>2875200
The main reason for the natsoc upswing in the 20th century was WW1, more specifically the peace treaty. It was the rest of the world contra germany. The nazis are not significant, its just a continuation of the nationalist ideas of the 19th century. Its the world war that is more important, and the world war was a direct consequence of Hitler. It would maybe be more accurate to simply put germany there, but OP is asking for persons.

>>2875249
>natsoc
Please stop using this term.

>>2875014
>18-> Washington

Washington wasn't really a driving force of anything. I'd say John Locke.

>>2875218
I agree with this, but I also think it's too soon to make a call.
It wouldn't even be appropriate for /his/.
Maybe Henry II for the 12th century?

>>2875255
Why tho?
Natsoc kind of includes Mussolini, Hirohito and Franco. Nazi is just Hitler.

>>2875273
Because it was invented by neonazis/other racist trash in an attempt to legitimize Nazism and imply that it has ideological weight. It doesn't.

Call it Nazism. 'Natsoc' is not used to refer to the other regimes you mentioned by any serious academic whatsoever.

>>2875268
Yeah that's a fair point on the 21st Century, "so far" feels almost like a copout.

Also 13th really should be Genghis Khan. It's hard to understate how huge of an impact he had both short and long-term.

>>2875014
>16 da Vinci
The guy was impressively intelligent and a visionary, but he didn't really contribute much.

Most of your list is shitty too. I mean, Odoacer? What about fucking Atilla? Theodoric the Great? St. Augustine?

>>2875285
Its just a version of national socialism.
Im not an academic tho, so what youre saying might be true.

>>2875285
>the term national socialism was invented by neonazis
Are you retarded?

>>2875315
I didn't type that, retard.

>>2875249
No that was their rhetoric, the upswing was caused by economic downturn and governmental incompetencrle in dealing with social strife which usually caused by, drumroll please, clashes between communists and brownshirts

>>2875321
Natsoc is just a shorter way of writing national socialism.

>>2875331
>economic downturn
Yes. Economic downturn because of the 12.5 billion dollars that germany had to pay as reparation for ww1.

>>2875345
Nazism is an even shorter way of writing national socialism, since it refers to exactly the same thing. Why don't you use that?

>>2875359
To clarify: referring to something as 'Nazi' is shorter than referring to something as 'natsoc'.

>>2875014
>18-> Washington
>15-> Columbus
>16-> da Vinci
This is why Americans shouldn't be allowed computers.

>>2875014
I'd have Constantine for 4th century, Urban II for 11th century, and change 16th century to Martin Luther.

>>2875359
Because nazi makes people think Hitler.
As I said one could also consider Mussolini and Hirohito to be natsoc.

>>2875260
>>2875285
But German national socialists never called themselves "Nazis", just like communists never called themselves "commies". Why do "serious" academics often refer to national socialists as "Nazis" but rarely refer to communists as "commies". You see the Third Reich being called "Nazi Germany" more often than you see the Soviet Union being called "Commie Russia" in academic textbooks

>>2875429
>As I said one could also consider Mussolini and Hirohito to be natsoc.
My point is that 'natsoc' is a meaningless term, and even if used to refer to 'national socialism' and not Nazism, in no way describes Mussolini's regime (fascist) or that of Japan.

File: 1494181668829.jpg (188KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 1024x1024px

>>2875435
I love when /pol/yps pretend to understand what they're writing about. You idiots give yourselves away every time.

'National Socialism' is not a serious ideology. There was nothing even remotely socialist about Nazism, that's why the 'real' term is not used. But you would know this if you had any idea what socialism was.

That you even need to ask the question reveals how little you know.

only political/religious figures, not inventors or the like, who might have deserved it more
.
.
-5: Buddha
-4: Alexander the Great
-3: Qin Shi Huangdi
-2: Wu Han
-1: Augustus
1: Saint Paul
2: no idea, Trajan or Marcus Aurelius maybe?
3: Shapur I
4: Constantine
5: Atilla
6: Khosrau
7: Muhammad
8: Xuanzhong
9: Charlemagne
10: Otto I
11: Mahmud of Ghazni
12: Saladin
13: Genghis Khan
14: Timur
15: Babur
16: Charles V
17: Louis XIV
18: not really sure, Peter the Great or Frederick the Great maybe
19: Napoleon
20: Stalin
21: Putin

>>2875285

Are you a fucking idiot?

>Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei

Use your brain and you can derive "nazi" from that. It's not the original term.

File: Screenshot_1.png (29KB, 1402x168px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 1402x168px

>>2875285
>>2875255

File: Screenshot_2.png (17KB, 709x165px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 709x165px

>>2875645

>>2875636
>>2875645
>>2875648
Imbecile.

Read my posts again. You have terrible reading comprehension.

>>2875657

>Because it was invented by neonazis/other racist trash in an attempt to legitimize Nazism and imply that it has ideological weight.

patently and demonstrably false, goebbels yourself.

File: 1486710418755.jpg (161KB, 499x632px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 499x632px

>>2875657

>Imbecile.

>it's another retard trying to act smart while spewing falsehood thread

You can think the nazis are bad without having to lie through your teeth, my friend.

>>2875622
This.

>>2875175
Hitler was a kid who wanted a rematch. Stalin put a grave on the idea of communism forever.

For 20th century should be Gavrilo Princip.

>>2875687
>>2875695
>samefagging this blatantly
Leave /pol/yp.

>patently and demonstrably false, goebbels yourself.
Wrong. As a term used to signify an ideological doctrine, it's a complete and total fabrication made by neonazi scum such as yourself.

File: f80.jpg (21KB, 600x330px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 600x330px

>>2875636
>yfw Nazi stands for National Zionism

>>2875175
And who won WW2? Stalin.

>>2875714
Wrong. WW2 was won by the American People.

>>2875622
-5 should be Socrates or maybe more deservedly, Plato

>>2875014
As far as the 20th Century goes, my first guess was Einstein. But, Hitler's a heavyweight candiate himself. But, thinking about it more, I gotta say Archduke Franz Ferdinand. The simple act of his assassination completely changed everything so badly, that the effects could be argued are still being felt today.

If not him, then at least the clumsy bastard that bumbled his way like a retard all the way until he lucked out & got close enough to do Ferdy in.

>>2875702
That little rematch costed the lives of about 60 million people, caused the birth of the UN and the EU, made nuclear weapons into a thing, gave USA the title of Official World Police™, gave birth to the computer, decolonized Africa, created israel including all the middle eastern wars, etc.

>>2875622
Replace Putin with >>2875218 and that's a pretty solid list.

>>2875711

Nazi is literally just a short form for national socialist you aspie, I don't need to support the nazis to understand this.

>>2875622
>no idea, Trajan or Marcus Aurelius maybe?
Or Commodus if we're talking turning points

>>2875285
>post
I am pretty sure nazis ate bread. Are we gonna ban bread, too? Contemplate an early death, please.

Otherwise you have idiots in the future who think "nazi" is a sovereign word and not just an abbreviation. Natsoc is more reasonable to use and doesn't give much room to misinterpret. And if neonazis invented it then that's one good thing they did, if not to say wtf i love neonazies now.

>>2875941
>Nazi is literally just a short form for national socialist you aspie, I don't need to support the nazis to understand this.
I wasn't referring to the word Nazi. This is why I mocked you for having awful reading comprehension; this is the third time you've made this mistake. Stop replying to my posts.

>>2876014
Once again you fail to blend in.
>>>/pol/