[quote]DBCooper wrote:
This is probably a stretch at best at this point, but twenty years from now we might be putting Elon Musk on this list.[/quote]
It may be a stretch now, but who has already and has the potential to be a revolutionary figure more than him right now? It blows me away that he has already accomplished so much and has 5 kids. Making the rest of us men look bad with his plethora of accomplishments.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
This is probably a stretch at best at this point, but twenty years from now we might be putting Elon Musk on this list.[/quote]
Quite a stretch indeed.[/quote]
Not quite the stretch that calling Achilles a Great Man of history is, considering that Achilles has had about the same impact on history as the Cookie Monster. [/quote]
You’re right. Miltiades then . There would be no western civilisation if the Persians had conquered Greece.
Great men are almost always military men.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
SM (and Bert), I was assuming you were looking for great men in the 20th century. That’s why I quoted that part of your post.
Churchill fit the bill for the first half of the century; only one came to mind for the second. Only one.[/quote]
Henry Kissinger surpasses Reagan by leaps and bounds.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
SM (and Bert), I was assuming you were looking for great men in the 20th century. That’s why I quoted that part of your post.
Churchill fit the bill for the first half of the century; only one came to mind for the second. Only one.[/quote]
No way would Reagan count. Churchill was a first class historian publishing dozens of books, he fought in four wars then presided over the Second World War and he was a strategic thinker of the highest order. Great men are military leaders not politicians.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
SM (and Bert), I was assuming you were looking for great men in the 20th century. That’s why I quoted that part of your post.
Churchill fit the bill for the first half of the century; only one came to mind for the second. Only one.[/quote]
Henry Kissinger surpasses Reagan by leaps and bounds. [/quote]
As a strategic thinker yes . Doesn’t 't fit the great man mould though.
Jinnah (who forced the creation of Pakistan) and Ben-Gurion (who forced the creation of Israel) are probably the two ‘great men’ of the 20th century. Both lastingly changed the course of history, both of their creations had a massive global (arguably negative) impact, both were a triumph of the minority over the majority, both countries are an enduring source of conflict in the world, and are the two countries who have come closest to deploying nuclear weapons since the Cuban Missile Crisis.
The American and South African civil rights leaders could qualify, but in a way their triumphs were inevitable in a way the above weren’t.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
SM (and Bert), I was assuming you were looking for great men in the 20th century. That’s why I quoted that part of your post.
Churchill fit the bill for the first half of the century; only one came to mind for the second. Only one.[/quote]
No way would Reagan count. Churchill was a first class historian publishing dozens of books, he fought in four wars then presided over the Second World War and he was a strategic thinker of the highest order. Great men are military leaders not politicians.[/quote]
You keep missing the point. I wasn’t comparing Churchill to Reagan.
I will say it again: no man in the second half of the 20th century effected as much positive change in a leadership position as RR. No one. If you disagree you’re welcome to slap up your Man of the Years 1951 - 2000.
To cite Gorbachev is ludicrous considering the fact that Gorbachev’s effective changes were a direct result of Reagan’s influence.[/quote]
It wasn’t me who cited Gorbachev. And yes RR brought down the Soviet Union. Doesn’t fit the great man mould though.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
SM (and Bert), I was assuming you were looking for great men in the 20th century. That’s why I quoted that part of your post.
Churchill fit the bill for the first half of the century; only one came to mind for the second. Only one.[/quote]
No way would Reagan count. Churchill was a first class historian publishing dozens of books, he fought in four wars then presided over the Second World War and he was a strategic thinker of the highest order. Great men are military leaders not politicians.[/quote]
You keep missing the point. I wasn’t comparing Churchill to Reagan.
I will say it again: no man in the second half of the 20th century effected as much positive change in a leadership position as RR. No one. If you disagree you’re welcome to slap up your Man of the Years 1951 - 2000.
To cite Gorbachev is ludicrous considering the fact that Gorbachev’s effective changes were a direct result of Reagan’s influence.[/quote]
Gorbachev took unilateral steps to mitigate the security dilemma between the US and USSR. He initiated the process. He engaged in costly signaling to communicate the defensive intentions of the Warsaw Pact and the USSR. Recall the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. Reagan II deserves praise for meeting him in he middle. His reputation as a Cold War warrior staring down the East is more conservative folktale than history.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[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. [/quote]
You are trying so hard to be a contrarian you completely misread Achilles. If you really paid attention when you read the Iliad you’d see that Hector and Achilles have a lot more in common than you think. Something else to consider is that Achilles would never have gone along with the Trojan Horse ruse. Also, Patroclus was attacked by Apollo before getting finished off by Hector.
[quote]squatbenchhench wrote:
Jinnah (who forced the creation of Pakistan) and Ben-Gurion (who forced the creation of Israel) are probably the two ‘great men’ of the 20th century. Both lastingly changed the course of history, both of their creations had a massive global (arguably negative) impact, both were a triumph of the minority over the majority, both countries are an enduring source of conflict in the world, and are the two countries who have come closest to deploying nuclear weapons since the Cuban Missile Crisis.
The American and South African civil rights leaders could qualify, but in a way their triumphs were inevitable in a way the above weren’t. [/quote]
One could argue Lord Curzon had more influence on partition than Jinnah.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]squatbenchhench wrote:
Jinnah (who forced the creation of Pakistan) and Ben-Gurion (who forced the creation of Israel) are probably the two ‘great men’ of the 20th century. Both lastingly changed the course of history, both of their creations had a massive global (arguably negative) impact, both were a triumph of the minority over the majority, both countries are an enduring source of conflict in the world, and are the two countries who have come closest to deploying nuclear weapons since the Cuban Missile Crisis.
The American and South African civil rights leaders could qualify, but in a way their triumphs were inevitable in a way the above weren’t. [/quote]
One could argue Lord Curzon had more influence on partition than Jinnah.
[/quote]
Really? Partition wasn’t even considered that likely till 1946 when Jinnah’s party got its powerbase. And Curzon was long gone from India by then.
Partition had already began in 1905 with Bengal.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Partition had already began in 1905 with Bengal.[/quote]
It certainly hadn’t. Don’t know of any reputable historian who takes that position?
[quote]DBCooper
If we’re going to count being a great warrior as a possible quality, then why not put Ghengis Khan on the list? He established an empire that rivaled, perhaps even surpassed, anything Alexander ruled over. He was also said to be a simple, humble man who ate simple meals in a simple fashion while providing decadent luxuries for those loyal to him.
He wasn’t the cultural diffuser that Alexander was, but that’s sort of like condemning Kobe Bryant because he wasn’t quite the scorer that Michael Jordan was.[/quote]
I would count Ghengis Khan as a great man.
[quote]squatbenchhench wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Partition had already began in 1905 with Bengal.[/quote]
It certainly hadn’t. Don’t know of any reputable historian who takes that position?[/quote]
The idea of Pakistan as a nation did not develop until the 1930’s. However Britain had partition plans dating back to the beginning of the 20th century. Jinnah’s party merely inflamed nationalist tensions and forced a recognised partition . Neither Jinnah or Ben-Gurion fit the criteria of great men. Read the Wikipedia article on the concept. I think some here are misunderstanding its meaning.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
SM (and Bert), I was assuming you were looking for great men in the 20th century. That’s why I quoted that part of your post.
Churchill fit the bill for the first half of the century; only one came to mind for the second. Only one.[/quote]
No way would Reagan count. Churchill was a first class historian publishing dozens of books, he fought in four wars then presided over the Second World War and he was a strategic thinker of the highest order. Great men are military leaders not politicians.[/quote]
You keep missing the point. I wasn’t comparing Churchill to Reagan.
I will say it again: no man in the second half of the 20th century effected as much positive change in a leadership position as RR. No one. If you disagree you’re welcome to slap up your Man of the Years 1951 - 2000.
To cite Gorbachev is ludicrous considering the fact that Gorbachev’s effective changes were a direct result of Reagan’s influence.[/quote]
Gorbachev took unilateral steps to mitigate the security dilemma between the US and USSR. He initiated the process. He engaged in costly signaling to communicate the defensive intentions of the Warsaw Pact and the USSR. Recall the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. Reagan II deserves praise for meeting him in he middle. His reputation as a Cold War warrior staring down the East is more conservative folktale than history.[/quote]
Like I said, Gorbachev did these things in response to Reagan.
And this folktale claim sounds like it comes from a young sprout, one who didn’t live as an adult in those days.
[/quote]
It was unilateral action on his part. It wouldn’t have mattered who was in office as long as they reciprocated the mitigating efforts by Gorbachev. You’re less familiar with the history of Cold War relations than you are of your preconceived beliefs of what transpired.