Great Man Theory

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]Jlabs wrote:
There is always a Canadian figuring out something brilliant, anywho I would say Patton he was a bad mofo, you could argue that with the equipment and numbers he had it was easier than previous wars, I really just like his no retreat or backing down from anything. Which I would say defined the American military and embodied their nations spirit.

I will also say that Obama from fucking up Binladen, will always be talked about plus he is the most charismatic president as of late. He is also seeking diplomatic reconciliation with America’s previous sworn enemies Many disagree with him because of the side of the spectrum he is on. I dislike Harper’s dictatorship up here but at least he isn’t a bitch and he’s not afraid to voice his opinion. He’s great for big business but horrid for the poor lol.
I think any strong leader or genius could be argued for.

For peaceful accomplishments I would nominate Gandhi and the Tibetan Dalai dudes. I’m a fan of diplomacy really, but when things go south your leader should be kicking in the door waving a 44.[/quote]

Yeah, Gandhi and ‘the Tibetan Dalai dudes’ and Obama is awesome. This thread has now descended into farce.

83

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

“Retreat Hell! We’re just attacking in another direction.” (Attributed to Major General Oliver P. Smith, USMC, Korea, December 1950.)[/quote]

A close friend of our family, our former pastor and a Marine, was there. I’ve heard the story firsthand many times.[/quote]

That’s a story I’d love to hear first hand.

84

Okay, here’s my list off the top of head:

Moses
Joshua
David
Barak(Deborah’s general)
Gideon
Judas Maccabeus

King Leonidas I
Miltiades
Xenophon
Philip II
Alexander the Great
Epaminondas
King Pyrrhus of Epirus
Themistocles
Hannibal Barca
Mithridates VI of Pontus
Cyrus the Great
Scipio Africanus
Scipio Amelianus
Julius Caesar
Mark Anthony
Quintus Sertorius
Belasarius

Attila the Hun
Ghengis Khan
Khalid Ibn al-Walid
William the Conqueror
Charles V
Oliver Cromwell
Gustavus Adolphus
Frederick the Great
Prince Eugene of Savoy
The Duke of Marlborough
Hernan Cortes
Sir Francis Drake

Napoleon Bonaparte

Ulysses S Grant

Georgy Zukov
Erich Von Manstein
Erwin Rommel
Adolf Hitler
Stalin
Churchill
George S Patton
Douglas MacArthur
Moshe Dayan
Vo Nguyen Giap

That’s all I can think of now

85

Dante
Shakespeare
Cervantes

86

I think that term limits and our political structure in general is not conducive to allowing men who may be great to have enough impact to become known through out history as really great. Not that they should be done away with, but it just isn’t a long enough time for them to develop an entire body of work that would classify as great. There is also no ability to act unilaterally for any amount of time. It prevents catastrophe but it also hinders bringing any great vision to fruition.

87

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
I think that term limits and our political structure in general is not conducive to allowing men who may be great to have enough impact to become known through out history as really great. Not that they should be done away with, but it just isn’t a long enough time for them to develop an entire body of work that would classify as great. There is also no ability to act unilaterally for any amount of time. It prevents catastrophe but it also hinders bringing any great vision to fruition.
[/quote]
Why is greatness being limited to scumbag politicians?

88

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
I think that term limits and our political structure in general is not conducive to allowing men who may be great to have enough impact to become known through out history as really great. Not that they should be done away with, but it just isn’t a long enough time for them to develop an entire body of work that would classify as great. There is also no ability to act unilaterally for any amount of time. It prevents catastrophe but it also hinders bringing any great vision to fruition.
[/quote]
Why is greatness being limited to scumbag politicians? [/quote]

I’m not limiting it to anybody. I was just commenting on the part of the thread that was discussing our presidents.

Also, if you are a great person and leader of men to the extent that you can create history, you are a politician by default, even if reluctantly.

Who would you rather see being accredited with greatness?

89

Julius was really great conquered a lot of lands and people, I would argue that Augustus was the most cunning leader of the empire. Just to get in power He had to essentially politic his way to the top, not get killed by the guy boinking his mom, and then used the agreement of the triumvirate against Antony to claim he was becoming egyptian and didn’t care about Rome. That man is legendary. He wasn’t soldier material but definitely a mastermind of epic proportions.

Also I believe that Caesar’s downfalls were great motivation and hype to help out his own cause. He was a man of the people(Caesar) the people loved him and Antony had alot of the aristocrats involved in his murder killed, or they fled Rome. Being a honorary son of Caesar made it so much easier for him to become the type of leader that Rome was totally against. Cunning very cunning.

90

That’s a good list Sexmachine, though some of them can be questioned vis-a-vis impact on world history. I would add Jesus (and probably Paul), Muhammad, and Siddhartha without doubt.

91

By the way, the theory is touched on (in the context of Tolstoy’s criticism of it) in Berlin’s famous essay, The Hedgehog and the Fox, which I recommend.

93

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
That’s a good list Sexmachine, though some of them can be questioned vis-a-vis impact on world history. I would add Jesus (and probably Paul), Muhammad, and Siddhartha without doubt. [/quote]

I included Muhammad’s best general. No one could argue the impact that Jesus has had, although it was his disciples who spread the religion. Paul of course took a gentile name(didn’t want to be associated with Rabbinical Judaism?) and I suppose Buddha had a great impact too.

94

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
By the way, the theory is touched on (in the context of Tolstoy’s criticism of it) in Berlin’s famous essay, The Hedgehog and the Fox, which I recommend.[/quote]

Yes I just read about it. Sounds interesting.

95

Why does Otto von Bismark get the shaft? He created a new nation-state that would have profound and lasting effects on European and international politics. He dominated German and European affairs for nearly three decades through conquest and the Bismarkian system of diplomacy. The humiliation the French suffered in the Franco-Prussian War set the stage for WWI, and subsequently, WWII.

96

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Why does Otto von Bismark get the shaft? He created a new nation-state that would have profound and lasting effects on European and international politics. He dominated German and European affairs for nearly three decades through conquest and the Bismarkian system of diplomacy. The humiliation the French suffered in the Franco-Prussian War set the stage for WWI, and subsequently, WWII. [/quote]

Well for example the Franco -Prussian War was a short decisive engagement whereby the Prussians utilised superior artillery to knock out French forts. In contradistinction the Seven Years War involved Frederick at the front taking on superior forces and annihilating them again and again via tactical genius. The historian Leopold Von Ranke said of Frederick: ‘he was I immortalised by the raising of the Prussian state to the rank of a power.’

97

Darwin
Marx

98

There was also Nietzsche and his ubermansch ideal.

Aristotle and human virtue ideals. His ideal was pretty much any healthy and able human being, having mastery over some craft or endeavor, on top of being educated, well balanced and political. This one probably pre-dates most of your examples.

99

Krong He-who-make-fire.

100

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]squatbenchhench wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]squatbenchhench wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[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]

You are wrong about Partition and the British having plans for it.

The Great Man Theory suggests that history can be explained by the impact of great men or heroes. Historically, it is undoubtable that Jinnah almost singlehandedly created Pakistan, it is also true that Ben-Gurion had a massive impact on creating Israel. Those two guys certainly changed the course of history.

One of the most expert historians on Partiton says of Jinnah “Few individuals significantly alter the course of history. Fewer still modify the map of the world. Hardly anyone can be credited with creating a nation-state. Mohammad Ali Jinnah did all three” (Stanley Wolpert).

If that isn’t a ‘great man’ in a ‘great mans history’, then pretty much no one else is.

[/quote]

After the uprising of 1857 Britain formulated numerous plans involving partition. There’s even a map of the Punjab proposed and drawn up in the late 19th century. I discount Ben-Gurion because so many others were involved.
[/quote]

Your evidence is ahistorical basically.

If very loose ‘plans’ are the basis for your historical analysis, you can be sure that there will be a ‘plan’ for everything Churchill did and for anything that anyone in history did.

You may as well say Hitler and the Nazi regime were completely unexceptional and normal because killing Jews and disabled people, and waging wars on other countries, have strong historical precedents.

And you may as well say Churchill was unexceptional because he was simply fighting a defensive war which again has many historical precedents.

[/quote]

Whatever you say. Historical precedent disqualifies everyone…?
[/quote]

Well that is why the great man theory is completely discredited in historical circles :rolleyes: