Individuals Who Mattered to History

The best case I can make for one person altering the course of history is Joan of Arc. She arrived on the scene fourteen years after the Battle of Agincourt. England had won legal title to the throne of France. It controlled the cathedral at Rheims where all French kings were crowned. It even ruled Paris. French forces had suffered fourteen years of uninterrupted defeats. Orleans, their last city north of the Loire, was about to capitulate under siege. That river formed the only natural boundary defending the bulk of their remaining lands. French loyalists were openly questioning whether their country could continue to exist.

It was precisely because the situation seemed so hopeless that the nobility paid moderate attention to a religious peasant girl. Nothing else was working. Would-be mystics were commonplace. This one might help morale.

What no one expected was that she would lead the most successful campaign of the hundred years’ war, crown the dauphinking of France, and secure the country’s future.

They gave her a suit of armor and put her on parade, then excluded her from serious meetings. She burst in anyway. They went into battle without waking her up. She rode onto the field anyway. Armies were small enough then that a single combatant might inspire victory or defeat. During the final battle for Orleans she sustained a wound that would define her reputation. A crossbow bolt sank six inches into her shoulder. She pulled it out with her own hands and went back to lead the next charge.

Two centuries earlier Richard the Lion Hearted had done the same thing. He died of infection three weeks afterward. Three weeks after Joan of Arc’s wound she was clearing English outposts from the Loire valley and climbing a scaling ladder when a stone cannonball split in two against her helmet and knocked her to the ground. She survived that too and marched on Rheims the next month.

French captains who fought alongside her testified the highest respect for her military skills, especially artillery arrangements, and agreed that she was the driving force behind France’s aggressive advances during the summer of 1429. The next spring she was captured when she insisted on being last to leave the field during a retreat. A French courtier named la Tremoille tried to promote a boy shepherd to take her place as peasant visionary. The English drowned him in the Seine.

French advances continued at a sluggish pace after her death. By then their task was easier: the lands she had reconquered significantly increased the tax base, several key English leaders had died or been captured, and the battle of Patay had essentially dismantled the English army.

It’s too easy to say that if person A didn’t do it, person(s) B and/or C would have eventually.

With that way of thinking in mind, if, for example, Edison didn’t invent the light bulb when he did, sure someone else might have, but how long would it have taken? What could have or would have happened in the mean time? How did the light bulb, being invented when it was, alter the course of events to come, and how would the light bulb being invented 5 years later have changed that?

Impossible to say really.

In that sense, all of the figures named thus far were essential to the moment in time to which they are associated.

If I choose to take a more roundabout walk to the store, and in doing so bump into someone I haven’t seen in 15 years and after talking for a bit relay some bit of information regarding the events in the last 15 years, and this person takes something out of that information and a part of his life changes for the better, thereby altering the lives of all those around him, and all those around them, etc., I was essential to that moment in time that ended up affecting who knows how many people. Surely someone at some point could have had the same effect on him, but who is to say that it would have happened even remotely the same way and with the same results? It’s not like I am all that unique or that there aren’t people that could say the same words with the same intentions, but the fact that it was later rather than sooner could make all the difference.

Granted, that is a minor comparison when held up to events such as a World War or the invention of something used on a daily basis by millions of people, but the principle is the same.

History is full of people like Alexander, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, or Hitler who built short-lived empires. But all of these men failed to leave a legacy; their empires either fell within their own lifetimes or died shortly after their deaths.

In contrast there are men like Augustus Caesar, Muhammad, and Shih-Huang’Ti who built to last. The empires and political systems they built were strong enough to outlive them by centuries. In my opinion, these are the men who you could argue were the true shapers of world history.