@Tr - Alexander hellenized everything that's the modern Middle East. The result was the fact that the New Testament was written in Greek. We may all speak English but we've been vastly influenced by a Greek text which was translated into English.

Yeah but who was the New Testament about? Not Alexander

Shakespeare...because I'm biased. ;)

If Alex wins or goes all the way, that's fine too.

But after such a disappointing showing in the Author tourney to topping all artists and being so close now...come on...ONCE MORE UNTO THE BREACH, DEAR FRIENDS! ;)

@Thucy - I'm trying to set up my argument for Jesus for the finals!

There is absolutely no story in Shakey oeuvre that could ahve existed without Al. By necessity, Shakey is no stand alone thing, while Al is.

This is close... but Shakespeare

Shakespeare.

Aleksandar

Maher: I was joking.

On any forum where Krellin is a regular participant, who knows what kinds of ideas are circulating?

By my count, this is Alexander 10, Shakespeare 9.

I just recounted.

Final score: Alexander the Great 10, Shakespeare 9

Remaining Historical Figures:

Leaders & Artists Bracket Winner:
24. Alexander the Great

Scientists/Inventors and Wildcard Bracket:
6. Aristotle
10. Jesus

Next Semifinal: Aristotle vs. Jesus

Jesus.

Aristotle was largely forgotten during the European Middle Ages until Muslim thinkers advanced his work and had it rediscovered in the west. Jesus' influence has been continuous and wider ranging.

I vote Jesús- I've never met anyone whose actions were made better or in fact changed at all as a result of aristotle.

Aristotle

It's a simple choice for me. I can vote for a man whose work and legacy are based on logic, and a scientific method, observation and evidence, the beginning of a chain of understanding that has created our modern world. Or I can vote for faith, for a view of the universe that is unsupported.

Aristotle

[And I fully expect Jesus to win]

I vote Jesus, as the most widely known moral teacher of all time.

However, I fully expect Aristotle to win, and will not be entirely pissed off because I think people are being biased. Aristotle is a worthy opponent.

never met Jesus. never met Aristoteles neither. Still the last guy had a much greater impact on me and my life than the first. –> vote Aristoteles.

Aristotle

I vote Aristotle for the same reason Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz votes Jesus. The European Middle Ages just weren't that great, even with Jesus' continuous influence. Seems like things got a lot better once Aristotle was rediscovered (thanks to Muslim thought at the time).

Aristotle

Jesus

Jesus

I still contend that until you find some body else whose life is what all of time is based on there is no real debate. Since it is 2015 a.d. (since Jesus birth), I vote Jesus.

@AFatCat
Jesus' birth is just an arbitrary point in time from which the gregorian calendar counts forwards- some point in time had to be chosen, since no one knew about the big bang (the literal start of time) back then. Christianity was the most common religion and so they chose jesus. We still use that calendar because of colonization, which is due to leaders of large empires, not jesus himself. If the mayan calender were the norm, who would you vote for?

@Arborinus - I think you're missing the point. The fact that a sufficient part of society found Jesus' life to be the seminal point that divided history indicates the vast influence of Jesus. The Mayan religion and corresponding calendar had no such influence. That disparity explains why a vote for Jesus is highly merited.

Incidentally, Jesus was likely born in 5 or 4 BC.

It doesn't indicate the influence of Jesus, it indicates that the empire the adopted his teachings happened to be the one the was in the same approximate location as later imperialist empires. If the Ottomans had swept entirely through Europe some 1400 or so years later, we would not be using Jesus's birth as anything relevant for our calendar.

Not that we do anyway, really, since he wasn't born either on 25/12 nor in 1 A.D

Is it really fair to advance Aristotle as the "scientific method" candidate? His writing proceeds logically, but it's not like he adopted the party platform of enlightenment empirical rationalism. If you tend to vote against "faith" or "unscientific religion," I request the formality of a bias check. Are you biased against Jesus because he doesn't look scienc-ey enough?

The Aristotle vs. Jesus question is a worthy match, and it'd be wrong to dismiss either. Both shaped the growth of western civilization in irreversible ways. Scholastic theologians in the middle ages worked pretty hard to reconcile the teaching and worldviews of both, and the results weren't as biased towards the son of God as you'd think--it has to do with the subject matter of their teaching. Are you interested learning to be a statesman or writing laws? Read Aristotle. Interested in God, the afterlife, what to do when you're not perfect? Read the scriptures (i.e., the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the gospels).

How are we measuring greatness?

If we're talking about each's influence on civilization ...whoof. It's pretty hard to tell. Is it fair to credit Jesus with everything that Christianity did for western civilization? Inasmuch as Christianity is "Christian" and based on what Jesus said, I think so, but it's a really broad category. Aristotle's influence is somewhat as far reaching in terms of the preservation and study of his writing, but the Alexandrine school of philosophy hasn't had the same sort of lasting institutional durability. If you're conversant in Aristotle's ideas, that tends to be the result of higher education, rather than a cultural osmosis.

If it's in terms of "numbers of followers," I'd hazard a guess that more people alive today think that Jesus is the incarnate son of God than can name three things that Aristotle wrote without having to google it. Use a different metric (one which categorically excludes any sort of religious claim before starting), and of course Aristotle is the attractive choice. But that's cheating.

Here's one contribution Jesus gave to western civ: Monotheism. One God for everyone. The jews were monotheists before the Jesus walked the earth, sure, but Yahweh tended to only be the god of the Jews. Jesus consistently taught that the promises of God, from the time of the old testament to his own time to after his time... all of these could be applied to all people. You didn't have to be born jewish, get circumcised, or live in Israel to have Jesus as your God. That's one of the reasons the greco-roman world COULD unite behind christianity--Jesus' life and teaching (and death and resurrection, mind) gave an understanding of the relationship between god and man which transcended race or tribe or nationality.

TL;DR: Jesus, because the west united in his name for 1900+ years.

I'm kind of amused by these "would've/could've/should've" arguments. "If the Ottomans had..." or "If the Mayans had..."

They didn't. You may wish for a world in which Christianity had failed in its infancy. That's not the world that actually exists. History happened. Waving our hands dismissively and pretending that past events really had no impact merely because we wish they hadn't or could conceive of hypothetical worlds that do not correspond to what actually happened is no way to vote in this tournament.