The 100: A Ranking Of The Most Influential Persons In History Paperback – June 1, 2000

I often give this book as a gift. There are 100 perfectly sized snippets describing 100 historical figures. It's a great way to get an overview of all of recorded history for almost anyone. I don't know anyone so well-versed in history that they would get nothing out of this book.I'm a physicist (like Hart), but I had never fully appreciated the importance of Euclid until I read this book. I knew nothing about the invention of paper. The most interesting part of the book for me was the discussion about Shakespeare. I had no idea the question about who wrote Shakespeare was legitimate; I had always thought it was just childish nonsense. Hart convinced me otherwise.(This paragraph is a little bit of an aside about Hart's take on the Shakespeare issue.) After reading Hart's description of Edward de Vere as the likely Shakespeare, I read a couple of books arguing for the traditional authorship attribution and was shocked that the mainstream had no coherent argument to support their claim that the authorship question is nonsense. For essentially no reason other than upholding tradition, mainstream scholars simply ignore the very real possibility that Shakspere of Stratford was not Shakespeare. The man born William Shakspere was a wealthy businessman who left two demonstrably illiterate daughters five houses and zero books; Shakspere apparently wrote no letters and apparently had difficulty writing his name; he may have been illiterate himself. The documentary record might be misleading of course but the mainstream's claim that there is nothing to discuss is wildly irrational. I agree with Hart that de Vere, though not proven, is a more likely candidate than an apparently illiterate businessman with a similar name (see the hardthinking blog for 9000 words about this). However, it should be noted here that Shakspere had a number of investments in the London theater scene in addition to his real estate holdings in the country and, though he was not referred to as a writer by anyone who knew him during his lifetime, posthumous evidence clearly identifies him as the author. So the mainstream are not necessarily wrong; they're just stubbornly clinging to the idea that there is no way the posthumous identification could have been purposely designed to shield the identity of the actual author, whoever he was.Aside from Shakespeare, the choices and ordering Hart made are of course highly debatable. I note that the one-star reviews all basically say, "If I wrote this book, I would do it differently." Well of course any thinking person is going to have her or his own opinion about who was influential and what the order should be.Hart makes his criteria clear and you should *expect* to disagree with him on many points and to disagree with other readers as well. I'd put Euclid at number one for example and I'd probably include at least one person responsible for making women in general more powerful and influential in the world as this particular shift in human relations, although moving at what seems to us a glacial pace, may ultimately be as important for humanity as the development of language. I mean we're talking about half of all humans. Gertrude Elion (not on Hart's list) alone may have saved millions of people with her discoveries in biochemistry and her career was almost crushed by sexism. Of course, Hart would argue that the overwhelming importance of the emergence of a new social structure is something that is still in process and so forth.The bottom line is Hart's choices are perfectly reasonable whether you agree with them or not. If one think of his books as the beginning of a conversation as opposed to the end of a conversation, then it is perhaps easier to enjoy it. Making one's own list is of course the obvious next step. Happy reading.This is one of the books I reread most frequently. I know the above sounds like a shameless plug: I don't know Hart, I just love his book. To the author: Thanks!

This book is a very interesting collection of biographies of highly influential people throughout history. Since influence is not a well defined entity and is difficult to measure, the actual rank or inclusion of a person on the list should not be taken seriously. The author clearly states that the book is "his ranking", and not objective science. However, I find his list and the motivations for his ranking quite enlightening and often convincing.This list contained a few people I had never heard of, but clearly were a lot more influential then many of the people I thought were the most influential. Take, for example, "Ts'ai Lun" the inventor of paper (China 105 AD), who is ranked number 7. Largely because of the existence of paper China was able to develop into a powerful and united empire, and when paper reached Europe it had a profound influence on Western Civilization as well. Would there even be a modern Western Civilization without Ts'ai Lun?Because of paper we don't need to use clay tablets, sheep skin, papyrus, or bamboo to write. Printing presses and the mass production of books and newspapers has been made possible because of paper. We also have paper money, toilet paper, and paper products thanks to Ts'ai Lun. Clearly fame and influence are two very different things. Keep this in mind before disagreeing with Hart too quickly.Also note that the book ranks the most influential people in history, not the greatest, not the noblest, not the most outstanding people, and not the most important people in history. The grand father who spends several hours each day to help raise your child, educate him, and spends his money on him, clearly has a large influence on you and your family, but so does the drunk driver who kills your child. It is quite easy to have a negative influence on people, but negative influences are considered in this book. So this is why people like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Genghis Khan, are on the list.36 of the 100 persons in the list are scientists and inventors. Some think this is too many, I think this is rather too few. Because of technology and science the world has been transformed from a planet with abundant misery and death to a planet with just some misery and death. It used to be that more than half of all kids died, the average life span was 30, and almost everyone was dirt poor and ignorant. Today the average lifespan in the third world is 67, infant mortality is way down, starvation relatively less wide spread, and analphabetism is no longer the norm. Just in case someone has missed it, the reason for the population explosion is that people stopped dying like flies.Many have complained that the rank of Shakespeare is too low. Edward de Vere (William Shakespeare) is number 31 and Edward Jenner is number 70. Edward Jenner invented the smallpox vaccine. Smallpox killed more than 300 million people in the 20th century (which is roughly 7-8% of all deaths in the 20th century). Since 1979 no one has died from small pox because vaccination has eradicated it. Shakespeare was a play write that was influential on the English language. I had never read or heard much about Shakespeare until I moved to the U.S. (I am not a native English speaker). It seems to me that the two Edwards should switch rank. In any case Shakespeare's position on the list is not that bad. Whomever you would like to see on this list, everyone has their viewpoint. My list will not look like yours, or Harts, but Harts list is quite enlightening.What makes this a good book is the fact that it makes you think about who the influential people really were and why. It is also a good book to teach children about history and the people who influenced it. It is also a fun biography collection.

The 100 has been a life-changing book for me. It has "unlocked" history for me - allowed me to relate to it and retain information - like no other book I've read.The book is entirely evaluative. It consists of very short chapters, each about one of these hundred figures. Each chapter discusses the person's life, and why Hart has ranked him or her as more or less important than the others. The criteria he seems to use are:* How greatly did this person influence the world, especially our everyday lives?* Would progress have happened without this person? When or how would it have been likely to happen without this person's accomplishment?* Did this person do it alone, or with the help of others?Hart has an amazing overview of world history, and his perspective is often different from the norm, or certainly from what is presented in textbooks. Each person I read about, I've read about elsewhere; but Hart consistently pulls together the information in a way that makes it finally make sense to me. He dispels many common myths about world history along the way.I wish Michael Hart would write another book about his second 100 most influential people!!