So this is a thread to talk about great man history and why its objectively the best theory of history, or if you disagree and subscribe to something wrong, you could try and argue something incorrect.
My polls are never biased.Totally not a biased poll, eh?
All too true.Individual men who accomplish great things tend to be catalysts for change. William the Conqueror could never have become 'The Conqueror' if he had not existed in a culture where military prowess and conquest was seen as desireable. He inarguably made an immense amount of mileage out of that, and almost certainly intensified the cultural interest in such, but if he'd been born into a pacifistic society that considered art, preaching, or mercantile success the greater things to be sought after, his life would have been very different.
See that’s what everyone does to argue against it, starts going into the realm of supposing and theorizing about some made up reality that doesn’t even exist. Making up something entirely fake that’s totally and completely irrelevant.Individual men who accomplish great things tend to be catalysts for change. William the Conqueror could never have become 'The Conqueror' if he had not existed in a culture where military prowess and conquest was seen as desireable. He inarguably made an immense amount of mileage out of that, and almost certainly intensified the cultural interest in such, but if he'd been born into a pacifistic society that considered art, preaching, or mercantile success the greater things to be sought after, his life would have been very different.
Well yes, because you won’t. At least, you aren’t likely to be all that noteworthy to history.The 'great man' idea tends to promote the concept and idea that if you aren't of high station, you won't accomplish much. That's the perception people tend to have of it, whether it's fair or not.
thats entirely and completely irrelevant. It doesn’t matter where you started originally. In fact, Napoleon is one of the go tos for great man theory, who started as minor Corsican nobility, and rose to become the terror of Europe through the ranks of the military from the bottom of the officer corps on up. It’s irrelevant whether you are self made or not, I used William the Conqueror because he made his way up as well.In contrast to this, Abraham Lincoln was literally born in a log cabin to a family of no great repute, and he rose to be one of the most pivotal figures in human history. He became a great man, and in a way that supports the theory you have expressed, but it also makes it somewhat moot, because he proved that most anyone can become someone of high social station.
The point is essentially to argue that history largely flows from top to bottom, that leaders are incredibly important to humanity, that we tend to follow hierarchy and that those with high station and impact are the primary drivers of history, and also that human being trend towards hero worship.What's the point of the theory then, if (most) anyone can become the 'great man' that it talks about?
See that’s what everyone does to argue against it, starts going into the realm of supposing and theorizing about some made up reality that doesn’t even exist. Making up something entirely fake that’s totally and completely irrelevant.
Well yes, because you won’t. At least, you aren’t likely to be all that noteworthy to history.
thats entirely and completely irrelevant. It doesn’t matter where you started originally. In fact, Napoleon is one of the go tos for great man theory, who started as minor Corsican nobility, and rose to become the terror of Europe through the ranks of the military from the bottom of the officer corps on up. It’s irrelevant whether you are self made or not, I used William the Conqueror because he made his way up as well.
The point is essentially to argue that history largely flows from top to bottom, that leaders are incredibly important to humanity, that we tend to follow hierarchy and that those with high station and impact are the primary drivers of history, and also that human being trend towards hero worship.
Of course, a social historian might respond right back that without the phalangites, Alexander doesn't matter.Think of history like a mud slab, the more important a person is-the larger their footprint in the slab. That's why Alexander, Napoleon, and Caesar are all so centralized in most history. Because their footprint was bigger than most other people.
Great Man theory doesn't deny that social and economic forces are important, or that there are some things bigger than individuals, it simply says some people have greater impacts than others.
We talk about Alexander, not the Macedonian Phalangite who was on campaign with him all the way from the Hellespont to Babylon. To be sure, we can learn a lot by studying the phalangite-Macedonian society at the lower level, the social life of Alexander's men, their world, hopes, dreams and attitudes, but without Alexander the phalangite doesn't matter really.
The question then, is which matters more? Alexander couldn't conquer the Persian Empire on his own, and the Macedonian Phalangite wasn't going to either. They needed each other. But we must ask, which is more important in the broad scope of history?Of course, a social historian might respond right back that without the phalangites, Alexander doesn't matter.
Everything great man for the face and base for how to achieve it.The question then, is which matters more? Alexander couldn't conquer the Persian Empire on his own, and the Macedonian Phalangite wasn't going to either. They needed each other. But we must ask, which is more important in the broad scope of history?
Clearly Alex since the phaliginetes existed before and after Alex. Yet never manged to do anything approaching Alex's conquests. In fact what they mostly did was get stomped on by Rome. The Macedonia phalanx without Alex is good but not a worldshaker.The question then, is which matters more? Alexander couldn't conquer the Persian Empire on his own, and the Macedonian Phalangite wasn't going to either. They needed each other. But we must ask, which is more important in the broad scope of history?