>>212341260you seem to imply genius is a mythical cathegory that only 12 people on history has archieved.
He displayed many genius traits, like high intelligence and a interest in becoming a polymath.
He also displayed skills in both the arts and the sciences, having skills in both painting, music, as well interest in research in botanics and agronomy.
He's still on the same cathegory as renaissance polymaths, because he displays the same characteristics of a quatrocento vitrivius male.
Also, there's not an easy way to rank geniuses, simply because each one is so diferent from another, that even trying to rank or compare them, across some diferent fields is an intelectual ego masturbation.
Shakespeare by example, had not contributions besides writing.
Meanwhile Da vince had not proper contributions in engineering, and mostly hist archievements are in painting.
Beethoven had also no major contribution outside music composition.
So how do you rank them when their body of work is literally on diferent skills.
Likewise, carver archievements stem mostly in his own field of agronomy and soil preservation, and the research of the peanut.
So how do you rank Netwon againts carver, when newton has no contributions to agronomy?
Man, chuds are fucking iliiterate subhumans.