Vaclav Havel comes to mind for greatness, not really in accomplishment, but in his demeanor and ideology.
20th century - Hitler and Churchill
19th century - Napoleon and Grant
18th century - Duke of Marlborough and Prince Eugene of Savoy
17th century - Oliver and Gustavus Adolphus
16th century - Hernan Cortez and maybe John Calvin
Etc
I think some of you have a misguided idea of the great man theory of history
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
…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]
Francis Drake easily satisfies “the genius, cunning, skill, courage, daring etc of exceptional men” requirement.[/quote]
What a coincidence. I was about to include him in the list below but decided against it because he didn’t significantly change world history.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
…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]
Francis Drake easily satisfies “the genius, cunning, skill, courage, daring etc of exceptional men” requirement.[/quote]
What a coincidence. I was about to include him in the list below but decided against it because he didn’t significantly change world history.
[/quote]
You must not know of the real Sir Francis Drake.
He did significantly change world history. Without a doubt. Like no other of his time.[/quote]
The REAL one? His raids on the Spanish and the Armada were not really world changing events. Portugal had declined, Spain was in decline and Holland and England in ascendancy.
Factoid: Churchill was a descendant of Drake and a direct descendant of Marlborough.
BTW It’s not my theory. That’s why I encouraged posters to read about it before suggesting. Vaclav Havel or Ron Paul or Arnold Schwarzenegger.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
BTW It’s not my theory. That’s why I encouraged posters to read about it before suggesting. Vaclav Havel or Ron Paul or Arnold Schwarzenegger.[/quote]
Read my post about Havel (“not in accomplishment”) and you will see that it entails absolutely no misunderstanding of the Great Man Theory–which, by the way, is neither new nor complicated. My point was in fact similar to what you’ve been alluding to–that great men are often not good men, and good men are often not great men, and accomplishment is often not something to be lauded.
As in, “wouldn’t it be nice if people like Havel were the important ones.”
As for your list, Stalin and FDR would certainly be included for the 20th century.
As for my thoughts on the theory itself, I’ll take your definition:
“Basically the idea is that all significant events in history are a result of the genius, cunning, skill, courage, daring etc of exceptional men.”
Of course, the Great Man plays a prominent role in our history books. But take the example of Late Antiquity. Justinian launches, under the generalship of one of history’s great military minds, an irredentist campaign to remake the Roman Empire of old. It fails because the wrong flea boarded the wrong ship in an Egyptian port city, bringing plague from Ireland to China and demographic and financial ruin to the Roman Empire.
And then, just a short while later (in historical terms), the armies of Islam came out of the Arabian peninsula–which had almost completely avoided brushes with disease, because of its sparsely populated and very hot natural desert buffer.
The point being that one could speculate endlessly. Would Europe have atomized if it hadn’t been for that flea? Maybe, maybe not. But the flea undoubtedly did far, far more than its proportional share to alter the course of world history. As do many other carriers of disease, as do economic trends that no man controls or understands, as do droughts, as do the inventions of otherwise ordinary men.
[quote]smh_23
Read my post about Havel (“not in accomplishment”) and you will see that it entails absolutely no misunderstanding of the Great Man Theory–which, by the way, is neither new nor complicated. My point was in fact similar to what you’ve been alluding to–that great men are often not good men, and good men are often not great men, and accomplishment is often not something to be lauded.
As in, “wouldn’t it be nice if people like Havel were the important ones.”
As for your list, Stalin and FDR would certainly be included for the 20th century.[/quote]
Firstly, I was just joking. Secondly, I am well aware the great man theory is not new or complex. I stated it was the norm in Greco -Roman times and written about by Hobbes and Machiavelli amongst others . Lastly, I’d include Stalin but not FDR.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
As for my thoughts on the theory itself, I’ll take your definition:
“Basically the idea is that all significant events in history are a result of the genius, cunning, skill, courage, daring etc of exceptional men.”
Of course, the Great Man plays a prominent role in our history books. But take the example of Late Antiquity. Justinian launches, under the generalship of one of history’s great military minds, an irredentist campaign to remake the Roman Empire of old. It fails because the wrong flea boarded the wrong ship in an Egyptian port city, bringing plague from Ireland to China and demographic and financial ruin to the Roman Empire.
And then, just a short while later (in historical terms), the armies of Islam came out of the Arabian peninsula–which had almost completely avoided brushes with disease, because of its sparsely populated and very hot natural desert buffer.
The point being that one could speculate endlessly. Would Europe have atomized if it hadn’t been for that flea? Maybe, maybe not. But the flea undoubtedly did far, far more than its proportional share to alter the course of world history. As do many other carriers of disease, as do economic trends that no man controls or understands, as do droughts, as do the inventions of otherwise ordinary men.[/quote]
One could speculate endlessly if one was interested in fruitless futility. Disease always follows war for some reason. If the arch duke Ferdinand was not killed would the Spanish flu have killed 100 million people? If the Germans hadn’t sent Lenin to Russia would the revolution have occurred? Pure speculation with no meaningful answers.
And yes I am aware of the criticism of Carlyle’s endorsement of the theory which I assume you are making reference to. However great men often create the necessary conditions.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
As for my thoughts on the theory itself, I’ll take your definition:
“Basically the idea is that all significant events in history are a result of the genius, cunning, skill, courage, daring etc of exceptional men.”
Of course, the Great Man plays a prominent role in our history books. But take the example of Late Antiquity. Justinian launches, under the generalship of one of history’s great military minds, an irredentist campaign to remake the Roman Empire of old. It fails because the wrong flea boarded the wrong ship in an Egyptian port city, bringing plague from Ireland to China and demographic and financial ruin to the Roman Empire.
And then, just a short while later (in historical terms), the armies of Islam came out of the Arabian peninsula–which had almost completely avoided brushes with disease, because of its sparsely populated and very hot natural desert buffer.
The point being that one could speculate endlessly. Would Europe have atomized if it hadn’t been for that flea? Maybe, maybe not. But the flea undoubtedly did far, far more than its proportional share to alter the course of world history. As do many other carriers of disease, as do economic trends that no man controls or understands, as do droughts, as do the inventions of otherwise ordinary men.[/quote]
One could speculate endlessly if one was interested in fruitless futility. Disease always follows war for some reason. If the arch duke Ferdinand was not killed would the Spanish flu have killed 100 million people? If the Germans hadn’t sent Lenin to Russia would the revolution have occurred? Pure speculation with no meaningful answers.
And yes I am aware of the criticism of Carlyle’s endorsement of the theory which I assume you are making reference to. However great men often create the necessary conditions.
[/quote]
And necessary conditions are created for them: by disease, technological advance, natural disaster.
The GMT is a lens–a good one, but not sufficient on its own.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23
Read my post about Havel (“not in accomplishment”) and you will see that it entails absolutely no misunderstanding of the Great Man Theory–which, by the way, is neither new nor complicated. My point was in fact similar to what you’ve been alluding to–that great men are often not good men, and good men are often not great men, and accomplishment is often not something to be lauded.
As in, “wouldn’t it be nice if people like Havel were the important ones.”
As for your list, Stalin and FDR would certainly be included for the 20th century.[/quote]
Firstly, I was just joking. Secondly, I am well aware the great man theory is not new or complex. I stated it was the norm in Greco -Roman times and written about by Hobbes and Machiavelli amongst others . Lastly, I’d include Stalin but not FDR.
[/quote]
I think it or a version of it is probably the most natural approach to history. When someone mentions medieval history, we think of kings, not peasants and not monks, who changed Western thought more than Charlemagne ever did.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
The GMT is a lens–a good one, but not sufficient on its own.
[/quote]
Agreed. But it’s certainly a very sharp lens.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
The GMT is a lens–a good one, but not sufficient on its own.
[/quote]
Agreed. But it’s certainly a very sharp lens.[/quote]
Yes, I agree. And I think that, though we needed to trend away from it some, the trend has gone too far.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
One could speculate endlessly if one was interested in fruitless futility.
[/quote]
All is vanity, after all, is it not?
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
One could speculate endlessly if one was interested in fruitless futility.
[/quote]
All is vanity, after all, is it not?[/quote]
Ecclesiastes. The Tanakh uses the term ‘futile’ from the Hebrew ‘hevel’ meaning something fleeting and is often used in conjunction with the phrase ‘pursuit of wind’ i.e. Something that cannot be explained in any rational way; like faith for instance.