Rating: 
Summary: Interesting...
Review: This is a book of ambitious scope and its thesis is very thought-provoking and controversial. While I certainly cannot agree with many of the entries, the rankings of many people over others and several notable omissions, I do not feel my personal preferences should detract from the quality of the book. In fact, the author should be applauded for his ambition, and the amount of research he must have conducted (though, the research was fairly shallow).
The book also serves as a good reference tool, with which to get a basic background in many important historical figures of great importance.
Reccommended.
Rating: 
Summary: Hello, I'd like to start an argument.
Review: Yes, I admit it, I stole my title for this review from Monty Python's priceless "Argument Clinic" comedy sketch. One can't help but think of that sketch while reading this book, however -- why else would someone attempt such a captivating creation of chutzpah, if not to start arguments?!Hart has taken it upon himself not only to select, but actually to RANK the one hundred most influential people in human history. Leave aside, for a moment, whether such an activity can be considered meaningful. One can't help but cheer the author on as he makes his selections, and defends his choices and rankings. Be warned, he eschews normative assessments of the people he proposes for his list. What I mean by this is that he doesn't take into account whether they were good or evil, just whether they had an impact on a lot of people. Hitler, for example, is included. So you may need to forgive Hart for even calling attention to such evil people. This is not a trivial quibble. Still, overall, you will find youself fascinated by this overall attempt to come to grips with some significant figures from the past. You might expect, for example, to find Jesus Christ, Buddha, Isaac Newton, Thomas Edison, Mohammed, and Confucious placed pretty high on the list. You would be right. But in what ORDER are they ranked? And WHY? How does the author defend his choices? And to what extent, if any, do you agree with him? If you think he's totally out to lunch, do you have a better suggestion to make? This is the kind of thought-process this book engenders, and whether you agree with the writer or not, you will enjoy following his reasoning, tremendously. My only caveat is that some consideration might have been given, (maybe a place of honor near or at the top of the list), to the unsung people from history. After all, a lot of people on this list (not all of them, but many) simply hungered after fame, in one way or another, and rode roughshod over all kinds of people in their stampede for a place in the history books. A lot of the people who have always had the most favorable influence on humanity, I increasingly suspect, are the ones that no one ever finds out about, behind the scenes, leading good and honorable lives. It might have been nice if the author set aside a place for such people, instead of being quite so relentlessly Nietzschean in his selections. At any rate, this is one of the most provocative books I've ever owned. Definitely two thumbs up.
Rating:
Summary: Incredible reading and a serious reference tool
Review: Incredible reading and a serious reference tool
Rating:
Summary: culture succumbs to politics and science
Review: A great, readable book. A page turner, succinct. the arguments as to why someone was selected are very thought out, cogent and clear. The bias against cultural figures is stunning though. Other than codified cultural systems, i.e., religions, the author obtusely dismisses artists as people who only influence other artists. While I disagree with this point, if it is a litmus test, fine, but then the inclusion of Bach? Ugh. An updated version with the inclusion of the dude who invented email needs to be released.
Rating: 
Summary: Wonderful Concept. Poor Execution
Review: Several years ago I had my first opportunity to read "The 100" while needing bedtime reading while visiting friends, so it was with much anticipation that I received the latest version of Michael Hart's collection of essays on the 100 most influential persons in world history. First, I'd like to point out that the premise of the book is quite compelling. The bottom line is, however, that this book is at par with a poorly-written junior high history or world cultures textbook. The book provides is prey to frequent use of cliche, and it's delivery and argumentation are not compelling. If you're at all familiar with any of the individuals in any detail, you will be disappointed by the lack of important or compelling discussions about some of them (for example, there is nothing spoken in Jenner (#70) regarding the ethical implications of his innoculation experiments on farm children, and their's no mention of "Mein Kampf" in Hitler (#39). Understanding that the nature of trying to present the individual highlights of 5500 years of human civilizations is daunting, particularly the biographies of 100 individauls covering nearly the entire spectrum of western civilization. Things is, I've seen just such a well-produce "summary" in the two-volume Anchor Atlas of World History. "The 100," at best, should serve as a reference for those interested in history in interested in the relative importance of each of the individuals and to draw your own conclusions. In this respect it is a success. I generally do not have significant problems with the choices as they are well-reasoned given the author's decision-making framework, save for the heavy emphasis on Anglo-American civilization, his singular obsession with referring to William Shakespeare (#31) as Edward de Vere, and including John F. Kennedy (#81) in the list because of his inspiration to the space program. The latter no doubt has much to do with Dr. Hart's field of work (physics, astronomy, space program). It is humorous also that Henry Ford (#91) did not appear in the book until the 1992 edition and at such a low point on the list given the import of the automobile to 20th Century society. Lastly, Dr. Hart's obviously sentimental choice of Mikhail Gorbachev at #95 is just plain weak. As for the missing, it's unclear why Aquinas and Charles Babbage are not listed, but relegated to the "near miss" bin. Where's John Deere who revolutionized farming? Where's Louis Sullivan who promoted/predicted modern architecture? His identification of Mary and Neil Armstrong as "near misses" should tell you something.
Rating:
Summary: Influential People, Interesting Read
Review: My namesake, Dr. Michael Hart, has written a wonderful book. It is an interesting compilation of biographies of influential people and at the same time an anthology of world-transforming human achievements. It makes for an intriguing and pleasant read. The author is a superbly trained scientist; he knows about methods and methodolgy--I am certain he does not take his "ranking" too seriously. By the way, what happened to Edwin Hubble? He was, after all, a fellow astronomer. Hubble discovered first, that galaxies other than our own exist and second, that generally galaxies are moving apart from each other--the more distant they are the faster they move. Even Harlow Shapley seems to me more influential than some of the people described in the book. (He was the first to make a good approximation of the size of our own galaxy in 1917.)I think the omission of Alan Turing is curious, since he conceptualized the first computer (what Babbage and Hollerith had in mind were essentially arithmetic machines, not computers). I also think that Pythagoras should have been on the list or at least should have gotten an honorary mention. Although less influential than Euclid as a mathematician, Pythagoras was an important influence on Plato. He was also the main reason for the philosophical faith in numbers and in mathematics in general. More recent candidates would be: Tim Berners-Lee (inventor of the World Wide Web, 1990); Larry Roberts (chief designers of the Internet, completed 1969); Bob Kahn and Vint Cerf (TCP/IP, 1974); Friedrich Nietzsche (great deal of influence on Freud, and N. influenced more writers, philosophers and artists in the last one hundred years than any other single individual). I dare to suggest that not enough credit was given to Napoleon. For example, the importance of Code Napoleon is not primarily in its brevity and outstanding lucidity, but that it means something crucial in human history--the rise of the rule of law in modern continetal Europe. Prior to that time, it was the largely arbitrary will of the feudal lord or the king that determined outcomes of human conflicts. With Code Napoleon law becomes much more general, knowable, and, at least in principle, applied equally to all. In Britain, a different legal tradition of judge-made law (common law) has evolved, but the impact of Napoleon's legal reform on coninental Europe is difficult to overestimate. His use of the citizen army (as opposed to mercenaries) with devastating effects for his enemies, led them to adopt the same practice. Serfdom was abloished in much of continental Europe as a result of Napoleon's invasions. Artillery gained an even greater importance in military strategy because of Napoleon, who made it light and capable of keeping pace with infantry, allowing to wheel those guns to the front line very rapidly and to decimate the opponent's frontline of infantry. Napoleon's invasion sparked German nationalism, which lead to the German desire for revenge and the three subsequent major wars with France in a span of two generations (Franco-Prussian War 1970; WW I 1914-1918; WW II 1939-1945). Also, as far as political leaders are concerned, Trotsky is probably more important than Lenin, since without Trotsky there would have been no Bolshevik Revolution, but I don't think the same can be said about Lenin. That said, Lenin was enormously influential, too. I highly recommend this book. I believe that individuals are important in history, but probably less important than actual events and discoveries they help to bring about. The ranking in terms of "influence" on something as big as human history, is almost completely (and just as necessarily) arbitrary. But what any intelligent reader can clearly get out of this book, is the importance of various events and the kind of persons needed to make them real.
Rating:
Summary: One the 100 best books in history
Review: The author not only has the audacity to put together a ranking "the most influential persons in history", but he provides a solid, thoughtful rationale in each case. The book is very informative, and is an easy read, it may be of particular interest to the armchair historian. ***** Excellent.
Rating:
Summary: The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in Histor
Review: Thie is one of the best in the book with this category. I read the first edition several years ago and was very impressed. Since then, I have read many similar books and magazines such as Time & Life as the new millennium approached near 2000 AD. As of today, I still think this book is the top of the heap. The uniqueness of this book is the author states the reason why he rates the person in this order. Most reader take a look at the contents and immediately raise a lot of questions. But after reading the author's argument at the end of each biography, they tend to agree what he says. This book is thought provoking, it makes you think, forces you to see the history from different angle. In the course of learning, if you do the exercise of rating on the subject you study, you tend to gain a lot of insight of the subject. For instance, rate Top 10 Greatest Symphonies. I did just that and really satisfied what I learned. Most of similar books only lump persons together without really rating them in order or state the reason. Lately I got a copy of the second edition. The author did some changes on the rating, especially persons related to communism. I think the most recent 10 years is really a very small window of our human history and is really hard to measure the impact based on it. I do agree he replaces Antoine Becquerel with E. Rutherford. I bet the author is a scientist and not a historian. He tends to put more weight on science and technology. You have to be a physicist or an electrical engineer to appreciate the way he put Michael Faraday and James Maxwell in the very high and consecutive spots in the top 100. I found some changes in the Honorable Mentioned that author never bother to explain. For example, Ronald Reagan and Boris Yeltsin somehow sneak in to replace Tang Tai Tsung and Han Wu Ti. I think Reagan & Yeltsin are just too recent to rate their influence. It will be really hard to convince someone who is familiar with Chinese history that Boris Yeltsin has more influences than Tang Tai Tsung. Tai Tsung reigned the Tang dynasty from 626AD to 649AD. During that 23 years of time, he had profound influence on not only China but also Japan. It is also interesting to see the author spent 18 pages on Edware de Vere and 13 pages on Gorbachev. Since most persons get 5 pages average, this gives you a feeling of inconsistency in treating them equally. My final comment, it is not a good idea to rate a person still alive. This is not because he or she is not influential. It is simply too emotional or bias to rate the people still alive. Otherwise, a lot of people will rate Bill Gate over Boris Yeltsin in the list of Honorable Mentions.
Rating:
Summary: The Great Man theory of History
Review: This book, a book all school children should use as one of their history textbooks, is a wonderful way to plot the course of history while learning about individuals to which one might never be exposed in the normal course of schooling as it exists today. The book boosts the Ayn Rand concept that all great accomplishments have been a function of individual effort and not of the government collective. Previous reviewers have noted that while they might not agree with Michael Hart's ordering of the 100, they certainly appreciate the thoughtfulness of his conclusions. I once sat with 20 or more people as we collectively debated with Dr. Hart and it was no contest. Our limitations were readily apparent. Few among us could write a book such as this which is why it deserves such a "high ranking" for any collector of books interested in the histororical advance of mankind's living standards. While Hart has a degree in everything, and brings a resevoir of knowledge where others can manage only a trickle, he also exhibits a shrewd understanding of the cause and effect of man's inventive capacity on the human condition. This is a must read for anyone with intellectual curiousity.
Rating:
Summary: A great attempt at a hopeless task.
Review: I have owned three copies of this book. One was the old edition, one was lost in a fire, and one I recently purchased to replace my last one. This is one of the few books I ~really~ have a soft-spot for. The rankings are ridiculous any-which-way you cut it. Its almost hopeless to 'rank' people in such a fashion. There are few metrics which can be applied, there are no championships, no rings. And history is a funny thing. The 'thing' about this book is the collective group of people and the perspective Hart presents. Hart doesn't cut people out if they are controversial (Adolf Hitler for example), nor does he give them more 'influence' than they deserve. Each account is as complete as neccesary and well thought out. Some interesting misses and some possible mistakes but a great book to have long conversations over. -Ali
|
