The debate "Bill Gates was the most successful men in history" was started by
October 25, 2015, 7:23 pm.
By the way, stevenchen is disagreeing with this statement.
3 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 26 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
stevenchen posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
Alex posted 9 arguments to the disagreers part.
invincible_01, AlenaMaisel and 1 visitor agree.
stevenchen, Alex, PsychDave, wmd, ADrunkenRobot, SweetAngel, juliette_os, rajarshimaiti, Anas, Yuki_Amayane, AndRea, KicknRush, xbulletwithbutterflywingsx, AstroSpace, windu2420, liberalssuck, zoeclare7, Nury, WaspToxin and 7 visitors disagree.
if you are interested in history you should look at the Mongol empire. it is interesting. it was larger, richer, and more powerful than the Roman empire but most Westerners know very little about it.
ok, you win, if your right, I don't know much about khan
Genghis Khan conquered more. he set up a system that lasted (Caesar didn't). he overcame more adversity. he defeated more enemies on 2 continents. I don't see how Caesar was more successful by any measure.
yes, it definitely is not gates, Ceasar I think is.
I'm not saying anyone is the most successful person in history. it certainly isn't bill gates. I would argue it isn't Caesar either.
yes, but neither is bill gates, or anyone today.
not in the same league as creating the largest contiguous empire the world has ever known.
They are rich, have a tv show, are famous. they have a different kind of success. their success is not the kind that helps anyone, but they are, in a way, very successful.
at the time he was famous. but he is Asian and isn't Christian. so Europeans gloss over it in their histories. it's not surprising less people would have heard of him. also, the kardashians are more famous than both. I wouldn't say they are more successful.
I believe part of being successful is getting super famous. Ceasar certainly did this.
success is not a popularity contest. Julius Caesar is more famous. but that's because there are plays and stories about him in our culture. he was a European. he was from the empire which is the forerunner of European empires. of course he is better known. that doesn't mean he is less successful
go to a random person on the street say have you herd of ... ask Ceasar and khan.
I bet the number of people who heard of Ceasar is like 10x the number of people who heard of khan. in my experience successfull people are more well known.
another great example is Genghis Khan. he went from an orphan all alone to the ruler of the largest contiguous empire in human history. he united the disparate steppe peoples into a single nation which was the most powerful on the planet. he was the single greatest threat to Christian Europe. he was extremely successful. he conquered hundreds of times the amount of land Caesar did and left a lasting empire in his wake.
he did not start the Roman empire. that is a fact. he was dictator for life. he did not create the empire. he did not create the position of emperor. Augustus did that. he did not organize the empire. Augustus did that. Caesar is a successful dictator. but Sulla accomplished the same thing. Caesar just followed his example. it was Augustus that forged the empire.
well I think it is hard to hold power when your DEAD. he started the Roman Empire, that is a fact. the empire was one of the biggest in history, and lasted hundreds of years.
it is impossible to say if he was popular. all the histories were written by Caesar himself or by his heir, emperor Augustus. Augustus had him named a god and wrote lots of great things about him to make himself look good (as his heir) while still looking humble. Caesar was undoubtedly a great general. but he was a poor statesman. he didn't create a lasting system of government. he didn't solidify his power. he smashed his enemies but couldn't hold power. Augustus defeated his enemies politically as well as militarily. Augustus set up the basis of Roman government for the next few hundred years.
Caesar was loved by 90% of rome. Brutus and others who killed him got chased out of rome, hunted down and killed. Caesar had 100% control of Rome, had he not shown that a monarchy can be successful, Augustus would not have became emperor. the rebublic would have continued. Caesar also conquered more then augustus.
caesar was not an emperor. he did not have formalized control of the state. the power he did have did not survive him. everything he did just pissed people off and got him killed. it took Augustus years and another civil war to establish the empire and become the first emperor. he certainly built on what Caesar did, but he accomplished much more. he established a stable (ish) empire. he took power and was thanked and loved for it instead of hated and murdered. Augustus is the first emperor because he was smarter than his uncle was.
the legacy of Alexander the great did not last long, Caesar created an empire that lasted hundreds of years. Caesar started the empire, Augustus just kept it going, Ceasars is better because he started one of the greatest empires in history.
why Caesar? I'm curious why you think he accomplished more than Alexander the great. Caesar's nephew emperor Augustus accomplished much more in my opinion. there are lots of great men of history, why that one?
Ya i guess.
in recent history, yes, but in all history, no.
Caesar, Alexander the Great, they were more successful. Caesar was the most successful man in all of history and no one will ever come close.
sorry i meant man