[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’m sure most of you are familiar with this philosophy of history. I won’t bother posting a link to an article but you can google it. Wikipedia is wrong on account of who first popularised the concept in modern times. It was Thomas Hobbes and Machiavelli.
In the ancient world it was considered the norm with Achilles, Hector and Alexander being the models to emulate. Xenophon also popularised Cyrus and Augustus eulogised Julius Caesar.
The concept gained popularity in the 19th century but it went out of fashion during WWII for obvious reasons.
Basically the idea is that all significant events in history are a result of the genius, cunning, skill, courage, daring etc of exceptional men. In the 20th century Churchill comes to mind.
Anyone want to add their thoughts?[/quote]
I’d love to get heavily involved in this discussion since I wholeheartedly agree with the premise (although I do think that exceptional GROUPS of men should be included).
However, how is it that Hector AND Achilles are models to be emulated? Achilles is the antithesis of Hector, and in The Odyssey we see Achilles’ own regret in choosing eternal glory over life. To me, it’s Homer’s long-delayed way of pointing out that life, above all else, is a virtue. Achilles regret and longing for life, any life, seems to be at odds with the Achilles that we see in The Iliad.
Achilles is no hero. He fights only for glory and for material possessions; all it takes is the confiscation of his mistress (a woman he himself confiscated) to turn him into a petulant, whining quitter who sits out a great portion of the war. Achilles foolishly and ignorantly sends his best friend Patroclus into battle in while wearing his armor, which instantly makes him the target of Hector and an intensified Trojan Army. Thinking that Patroclus is Achilles, Hector attacks and kills him. Only after being engulfed with rage at the death of his best friend, a death he himself brought on, does Achilles return to battle.
Odysseus is the truly exceptional man of Homeric Greece, along with Hector. [/quote]
I’m impressed. Delbert is familiar with the Iliad. Hector and Achilles are the two principle warriors of the siege(yes it was in fact a siege). Despite Achilles failings he was considered the most formidable warrior of the Greeks as Hector was of the Trojans(despite being killed and having his corpse dragged around by a chariot).
Odysseus would qualify too. To the Greeks personal glory was a worthy reason for battle. I think I probably made the wrong choice choosing these men as examples of the great man theory.
The great man changes the course of history. He is a man of destiny. Alexander would qualify more than any other man from the ancient world.[/quote]
Just wanted to point that out about Achilles. And of course I’m familiar with the Iliad. What self-respecting man raised in western civilization isn’t it?
I don’t think you made the wrong choice with anyone other than Achilles. I think there is a reason why Homer shows Achilles with such deep regret for his decision in the Iliad. He seems to be saying that, yes, personal glory is important, but it is not the be-all, end-all that many who have read the Iliad but perhaps missed the significance of Achilles’ remorse make it out to be.
Remember, the Greeks above all valued those who prolonged their lives. Victory meant to avoid death, and therefore victory affirmed life and was without virtue if said life were then wasted.
But enough of that.
I really don’t think there are a whole lot of current great men around, if any. I suppose it reminds me of the famous quote from Zhou Enlai upon meeting Henry Kissinger. Kissinger asked Enlai of his opinion regarding the French Revolution. Enlai responded that it was much too early to tell.
I think the same could be said about many today who might lay claim to the title of Great Man in a historical sense. It is simply too early to tell.