5 people from history

[fuzzyoctopus]

So this essay question is part of the final in my history class.  
"Scientists have recently discovered that the Earth is about to be destroyed.  Because of your vast knowledge of history and creativity, you and your spouse have been selected to be the leader of a small group of 100 people that will be sent to restart humanity on  a distant planet.  However, besides the 100 "average people" that you will be taking with you, a new scientific breakthrough has allowed manking the ability topull any five people out of time and bring them to the modern world.  Your assignment, as commander of this vital mission, is to choose the five historical figures that will be pulled from history and taken with you.  Thus, you should write your report stating which five people you will bring, why you chose them, and what role they will play in your society."

Edit:  You are not allowed to pick Jesus as one of your people.

Now of course I'm expected to ignore the dramatic effects on the timeline that removing famous people would have, and believe that ancient Greeks can communicate with ancient Chinese.... whatever.

Regardless, I've done mine, so I'm curious who everyone else would pick.

Archimedes, Albert Einstein (I think the two of them would get along), Lao Tse, Pallestrina, and Charles Dickens.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Genghis Kahn, Napolean, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and Hannibal.

Because wherever we land may be inhabited, and we'll need to kick some serious butt.

(potentially more thoughtful answer coming later)

[fuzzyoctopus]

Which of course begs the question, which of the 5 would win in a fight?  I'm thinking Genghis Khan.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

depends on if it was one on one or with armies. I"m thinking actually Alex or Napolean if armies. Genghis Kahn if it was just the leaders.

[42]

Jesus Christ (spiritual leader), Madame Curie, Albert Einstein (scientific leaders), Teddy Roosevelt (political leader), and Leonardo deVinci (artist, architect, writer and scientist).

A good finacial leader might be nice, but I couldn't think of any that wasn't evil.

[Mistress of Darkness]

Alan Greenspan?

[fuzzyoctopus]

Jesus Christ (spiritual leader), Madame Curie, Albert Einstein (scientific leaders), Teddy Roosevelt (political leader), and Leonardo deVinci (artist, architect, writer and scientist).

A good finacial leader might be nice, but I couldn't think of any that wasn't evil.

Sorry Jeff, I forgot to post that we're not allowed to pick Jesus.

[42]

Then Joseph Smith or Brigham Young.

I can see why you instructor forbaid you choosing Jesus, but I find it to be lame, especially if you are allowed to pick Muhommad or Buddha. My reasoning is that there need to be a spiritual leader for the new colony. Course picking any spiritual leader is going to be controversal, but for some reason athiest have never made good pioneers. Perhaps it has to do with them almost always getting drunk and killing themselves off.

[fuzzyoctopus]

Because if it's allowed, people will feel if they don't pick him they'll be graded against (this IS BYU) and so it basically eliminates one of the choices.

[42]

Actually, I think it would be more interesting if your instructor stated that Jesus was already selected, so choose 5 other people.

[fuzzyoctopus]

I think it's a little presumptuous to decide that Jesus is going to be anywhere without His deciding to be there.

Who's to say He wouldn't just show up on his own?

[42]

Yes, well there are a lot of theological problems with this scenario. But if Jesus is going to be there, selected Ceaser Augustus or Herod or even Alexander the Great  as one fo the 5 people form history, may not be such a good idea.

[House of Mustard]

So here's my thought.  If you're heading off to restart civilization, then people like Einstein and Curie and Dickens -- even Roosevelt to some extent -- would be a little too specialized to help much.  Da Vinci, on the other hand would be helpful, because he was really a jack of all trades.

What you would need is not a specialist, but someone with a very broad practical knowledge.  

First, I would take someone who was a Secretary of Agriculture -- Ezra Taft Benson would be a good idea, because that fills the spiritual leader role as well.
Second, I would need a builder.  Not an architect, because that's not as important as just getting some decent buildings up.  I would take a structural engineer. I don't know any famous ones.
Third, I would take a doctor, but not a specialist.  Probably a surgeon, because they could take care of most things (both medical and surgical).  Once again, I don't know of any famous surgeons--I'm sure there are some out there.
Fourth, I would take Thomas Jefferson, who is both a philosopher and a politician.  He also has experience starting a democracy from virtually nothing.
Fifth, I don't know maybe Vince Lombardi?  (I'm out of time).

[42]

Teddy Roosevelt, was not specialized. He successfully ran several businesses, had a lot of military experiences, was good at economics, was a philisopher, writer, environmentalist and journalist. His political career actually only encompassed a small part of his total life.

Also, most architects have studied structural engineering. daVinci definitely studied a lot of engineering principles. Plus, with only a hundred and five people, large structures aren't going to be too feasible.

What I would think would be the most important would be people with strong agricultural backgrounds.

Also, Madame Currie attended medical school for a while, so she has some background in medicine. Does that count.

So the structural engineer and the medical doctor would be part of the nameless 100.

[House of Mustard]

See, if we get to specify the 100, then I think we're fine.  We can take farmers and engineers and city planners and doctors.  But if we have to assume that the 5 are responsible to teach everything to the 100, then there's some problems.

Yeah, Roosevelt isn't too specialized -- he just wouldn't be my choice.  I do still think that a theoretical physicist and the radium discovered are a little too unpractical to earn a spot in the five.  And I don't know why on earth we're taking Dickens.  All he can offer is culture, which seems secondary to survival (and culture can be offered by others--Jefferson or Da Vinci or whoever).