Over at Times & Seasons, Adam Greenwood has a post in which he discusses his admiration for George Washington.
That reminded me of this essay I wrote back in 1999, so I figured now was a good time to recycle it:
The English have picked William Shakespeare as England’s “Man of the Millennium.” That started me thinking about who should be picked as “Man of the Millennium” for the entire world?
I decided against scientists and inventors on the basis that, for the most part, if they hadn’t come up with the theory or invention, someone else would have within a relatively short period of time. Support for this assumption comes from the fact that, very often, two people working independently have almost simultaneously discovered the same thing — calculus, for instance. Some people are ahead of their time, but rarely by more than 25-50 years. (Similar reasoning eliminates Columbus — the Portuguese would probably have discovered the Americas before 1550.)
In measuring the significance of the Man of the Millennium’s achievements, the influence on future events must be fairly direct. While it is true that we would probably not have microchips had Gutenberg not printed the Bible, the inventors of the microchip most likely did not look to Gutenberg as their inspiration. And while Bill Gates would probably never have been born had William of Normandy lost the Battle of Hastings, we cannot give credit for the wonders of Windows 98 to William the Conqueror. On the other hand, the influence of Shakespeare in modern American cinema is still fairly direct–not only does he get credit for “William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet” starring Leonardo DiCaprio, but he also gets partial credit for “West Side Story.”
Now, this may be the result of my Eurocentric bias, but I believe that in this millennium, Europe (and later, European America) was the prime mover of history. As far as I can tell, the native cultures in Africa, Asia, Australia, and the Americas were fairly stagnant for most of the millennium. Sure, there were wars, and great works of art, philosophers, etc., in those places, but Europe started off the millennium in the Dark Ages, possibly less culturally and technologically advanced than China or India, and before the millennium was over had conquered most of the world, spread its culture almost everywhere, and touched the lives of almost every human being. So maybe I’m slighting other cultures, but I’m eliminating from contention all people from non-European cultures.
The achievements of the Man of the Millennium must, to some extent, differ in nature from the achievements of others, not just in size. Despite its lopsided nature, Henry V’s victory at Agincourt was little different in its essentials from any other military victory in the wars between various kingdoms in Europe.
Losers need not apply. There have been people who have made a tremendous impact on history but who were ultimately defeated in their purpose — Napoleon and Hitler, for example. The Man of the Millennium must have a continuing legacy — and one that he intended. King John signed the Magna Carta, a key event in the development of political liberty, but it was not something he really wanted.
I also reject the Time “Man of the Year” standard of “influenced for good or ill.” (Not that I think it makes a difference in my final selection. I just wanted to reject that standard.) I think the Man of the Millennium should have made a positive impact on human history. So Marx is out. (Karl, not Groucho.)
What we are left with is artists, philosophers, and political or military leaders.
I cannot think of another artist who has had as much influence as Shakespeare. So England may have made the proper choice–for England. But I believe that looking beyond England, there are philosophers and leaders who are of more significance than Shakespeare. So we leave the artists aside.
In the significant turning points of history, sometimes there are indispensable men, and sometimes there are not. The Industrial Revolution has no indispensable man — it was the confluence of a great many factors and the actions (or inactions) of any one person made little difference in the ultimate flow of events. But there were two other major revolutions in thought during this millennium, each of which had someone who I believe was indispensible.
The Protestant Reformation broke the dominance of the Catholic Church over the course of Europe’s (and the world’s) history. It led to a freedom of thought which brought about much of what we see in the world around us today. And Martin Luther was indispensible to the Reformation. The Catholic Church had seen its share of schisms in the past, and had survived as the only major religion in Europe. Had Luther not succeeded in breaking the Catholic monopoly on religion, it cannot be said with any certainty that someone else would have succeeded at any time in the future — there are still many countries where the Catholic Church is monolithic.
But much of Luther’s legacy is unintended or indirect. The Lutheran Church itself is hardly a rival to the Catholic Church in size or power. He may have started the Reformation, but he did not do much to set the course it took later.
The other major revolution of the millennium is the American Revolution. Had the American Revolution failed, either during the war or by the failure to establish a workable national government (which would have allowed the British to win the War of 1812 and reconquer the colonies), I think it highly likely that we would be living in a world still dominated by European monarchies. The American Revolution was the wellspring for all other revolutions, good or bad.
Some might say that political philosopher John Locke was the man behind the American Revolution. Maybe without Locke there would have been no American Revolution, or it might have been of a different nature. But while Locke gets at least partial credit for creating the philosophical framework which inspired the American Revolution, he does not get any credit for the success of that revolution.
Filmmaker Ken Burns, who made a biography of Thomas Jefferson, calls Jefferson the “Man of the Millennium.” I disagree. Jefferson was very influential in the first part of the American Revolution, but many people will agree that the true American Revolution was the Constitution of 1789, over which Jefferson had little influence.
There is one man who was indispensable to the American Revolution as a whole. A man without whom the colonies might well have lost the war. A man whose imprimatur was essential for the success of the Constitutional Convention. A man who, had his character been less noble, could have been King George I of the United States of America.
He is my choice for Man of the Millennium: George Washington.