Why is there so much opossition to "great man theory"? The majority of history has been objectevly moved by great men not social movements
>>18010486Would Alexander be a great man without daddy's army?Would Hannibal be a great man without daddy's money? Would Caesar be a great man if he had been born as a plebeian?
>>18010536what about any of those makes them ungreat men? they were handed the keys to the kingdom and knew what to do with it. other men gain such keys and do nothing, or waste it on hedonism and pleasure. Alexander was given a great opportunity and made the rewards even greater. great men are born into great positions of power, that shouldnt be a surprise.
>>18010486Because they didn't move history, history was moving towards that direction and they happened to be the face of it. A single dude can produce great feats and maneuvers but they dont produce great changes they just play a part that was also created by the larger machine in a society. They rose the tides of larger movements and forces and utilized their own subjectivity in the best way which contributed to amplifying that movement in a small way and because of the story that people wrote afterwards about them they became legends. How you know how really small they were is when they died everything that was already going to happened happened. Their individual deaths did not create anything.
>>18010486Great men are enabled by the society and conditions around them. Martin Luther undoubtedly had a massive impact on history but that was only possible because there was so much religious strife to begin with. Great Man Theory would frame him as someone who singlehandedly created this religious strife out of thin air where there previously was none, instead of just acknowledging that he became the face of something that was already brewing in society.
>>18010536Probably, yes. 21st century is a lot different. Most people of any caliber have gotten fat and complacent.
>>18010536Why didn't Alexander's dad accomplish what his son did? He had the resources.Why didn't Hannibal's dad accomplish what his son did? He had the resources.Why did Gaius Julius Caesar accomplish what his father couldn't?
>>18010536There were hundreds, thousands of men who had great empires or high positions or wealth or so on and so forth. Only a few made use of them like Caesar, Alexander and Napoleon.
>>18010590>Their individual deaths did not create anything.But it surely destroyed.>Ceasar dies>another civil war breaks out>Alexander III dies>his Empire starts to crumble immediately
>>18010486Alexander the Great became Great because he was handed Macedonia.Hannibal Barca became Great because he led thousands of great men, funded by the work of millions of other men.Julius Ceasar was only Great because he had a rome to lead. Rome was the millions of romans.These men are figureheads, merely memorable representatives of wider civilizational achievements. There is no evidence that they were greater than any other citizen.
>>18010486Socialists and leftists believe everyone is equal so they hate great man theory.
Suggests history would stall without great men, which is unlikely. Social pressures, innovations, and crises tend to produce leaders naturally.
>>18010810Hellenism spread through the Seluicid and Ptolemaic empires though.
>>18010536The Queen of Bythinia was a woman.
>>18010486because great man theory assumes these great men just pop into existence ex nihilo and wave their magic wands to change historypeople go too far and deny that they had any impact due to their uniqueness, but every single one is absolutely dependent on forces outside their control that shaped them in ways they weren't even aware of and conditions that existed for reasons they had no influence overmaterial conditions can raise men to greatness and those great men can influence, but not totally control or direct, future conditions
>>18010595perfect example anon. people are totally unaware of the abortive reformations that had been happening for 350 years before luther. peter waldo was around in the late 12th century preaching a message so similar to luther's that when luther's reformation hit it big, the remaining waldensians joined their local reformation churches without issue. jan hus was around ~100 years before luther and was so influential in bohemia the pope called 5 crusades against the hussites to try and stamp out the movement. again, when the lutheran reformation hit the hussites tended to join with that movement because it was so theologically similar to their own.any number of the proto-reformers could've been the big one, it was only luther because the material conditions of europe and germany in particular in the early 16th century enabled widespread revolt from the roman church
>>18010486If great man theory is incorrect, does that mean Germany would have gone full nazi even without Hitler?
>>18011109probably not exactly nazi, but some form of hard right ultranationalism yes. the freikorps existed well before hitler had any political influence and were the basis for the SA and SS
>he actually believes the only/biggest reason the holocaust happened is because 1 (one) guy didn't like jews
>>18011121So the government a people give themselves is totally determined by outward factors?
>>18011190>totallyfuck off with your stupid gotcha questions. that's such a loaded question its barely worth responding toif your question assumes literally everything else is the same, that the only difference is hitler doesn't exist, then yes the history of this hypothetical world will be almost identical to ours because the two worlds are almost identical
>>18011226idk, we saw the rise of brutal dictators in France too after the fall of the nobility. Or in Russia.
>>18010486Alexander would not have conquered the known world if he had not inherited an expanding warrior Empire from his father. He made excellent use of that expanding Empire, but Macedon was already headed in the direction of being an Empire.Hannibal only fought Rome because a collision between the two largest Med powers was inevitable and many actors on both sides pushed for believing their side had overwhelming superiority. He was placed in a position to do great things because of many Men on both sides pushing for war.Caesar took advantage of a rising inequality and discontent within the Roman masses to capture public fervor, which he then used to catapult himself into stratospheric levels of power. In all cases, Great Men had to use pre-existing social movements and sociological conditions to achieve the things they achieved. The point is that you need BOTH the Great Man AND social movements/circumstances working in concert to achieve monumental shifts in history. It's not a case of one or the other, it is, like most things in reality, a combination of many factors.
>theoryWhat is theoretical about it? These men were indisputable powerful and influential in their own time and the effects of their actions were felt for centuries, and in some cases felt to the current day. Skepticism against great men shaping history simply falls apart when somebody like Julius Caesar exists and did the things he did.
>>18011248Nobody claims Great Men arose from nothing and then changed the world by snapping their fingers. That's an absurd straw man argument. The actual argument is that without these great men and their pivotal actions, history as we know it would not have happened. You could not have substituted these men out for "anyone else", they possessed unique qualities which allowed them to do things nobody else could've achieved.
>>18011250Great men only arise in nations where men are generally great. If a great man arose today he would do nothing, modern men are pathetic cowardly and lazy, if he ordered the conquest of some country his most loyal followers would run away and hide or outright dethrone him.
>>18011254>Great men only arise in nations where men are generally great.What an absolutely inane bit of circular reasoning.
>>18010486Because it's unfalsifiable.GMT claims that if Alexander etc. have not been born, history would have turned out different. Ok, so how do you prove it without a time machine?Ultimately this is not how historical inquiry works. You look at what leaders did, maybe why they did it, but declaring someone a great man who single-handedly shaped history with his greatness is just simping. Nobody denies that personal decisions made by powerful people had massive impact on history but this doesn't just apply to so-called great men, but to any powerful ruler in general.
>>18011258It's absolutely true. Any leader of a nation built of lumps is not remembered as a great man but a villain.
>>18011248>It's not a case of one or the other, it is, like most things in reality, a combination of many factors.no, history needs to be like my marvel sloppa with The Protagonists defeating The Antagonists in a strictly black and white world view and where nobody except the actors on the stage matter in any way
>>18011109>would haveThat's not a question a serious historian would ever ask. Germany did become Nazi and historians try to figure out how it happened, and that's it. And we know it wasn't because Hitler personally convinced everyone to let him be dictator, there was a lot of other actors that took part in it
>>18010486Nigga this isnt dragonball Z, Alexander didnt 1v1 the 8 Heavenly Generals of Persia or whatever before fighting the Emperor in a climactic battle to decide the future of humanity. If his soldiers just decided to rebel halfway through Persia or if some political upheaval got out of hand back at home he wouldve been fucked. There are too many moving parts in human society for individuals to have full power over it.
>>18011251So without Martin Luther there would have been no protestant reformation or similar event? He singlehandedly caused that as opposed to becoming a figurehead of a movement that was already long in the making?
>>18010536Those things only made their achievements “possible”, not inevitable. Others could have lost at Gaugamela/Alesia/Cannae
If i had to pick a country itd be brazil. That country gives me a boner. Sopa de macaco.
>>18011290>If his soldiers just decided to rebel halfway through Persia or if some political upheaval got out of handHis soldiers decided to rebel at Opis, but Alexander whipped them back in line by saying 'I am fucking Alexander'. Brainlet.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlKJDwViNKs
>>18011919This.The reason cuckstorians hate the great man theory, is because they themselves never managed to become great men. It's sour grapes all the way down.
>>18012002Im just saying some places have the right ingredients for one. Others are meh.
>>18012005Yes, but most men would not achieve what Alexander did even with all the ressources he had. Philipp II had access to the same army. He didn't conquer the world. The successor states were arguably as powerful as the OG Macedon. They had the military tech and arguably a higher productive capability. They only went into decline.There were thousands of Romans born into positions of power like Caesar. Even at his lifetime Gracchus had many more ressources at hand. He failed and there was only one Caesar.Maybe the Great Man theory holds less true in our postmodern, hyper industrialized. Maybe. But looking back you can hardly deny that history was changed by exceptional men who were at the place at the right time.
>>18012019Well yes the age of conquest via war is over i think.
>>18010486Materialists do not want to understand that action comes from will, not from the tools laying idle.
>>18010603Philip's achievements were by themselves excellent. He assembled one of the most stack pack of generals every recorded, and was the first "foreigner" to force his supremacy on all the Greek cities.He also would had leaded the anti-persian expedition if not murderedAmilcar Barca was a impressive figure too, that basically turned half of Iberia into his personal kingdom, and trained Hannibal himselfCaesar's father was a bum, yes
>>18011290>Alexander didnt 1v1 the 8 Heavenly Generals of Persia or whatever before fighting the Emperor in a climactic battle to decide the future of humanity.I would read the fuck out of a Mango with this premises, tho
>>18012019Well chance also have a big role.We probably could had multiple great men candidates that faded into obscurity because they died early over some mundane shit like falling off the stairs.
>>18010486>great manit may be possible to be really lucky. but if you look at the paths of these guys there's always some strange goings-on. like there's napolean - leapfrogging through an intensely bureaucratic military for no good reason. net results are usually genocides. but anyway, look at who really benefited most from their "greatness"
>>18010603>Why didn't Alexander's dad accomplish what his son did? He had the resources.Cause he died>Why didn't Hannibal's dad accomplish what his son did? He had the resources.Cause he died>Why did Gaius Julius Caesar accomplish what his father couldn't?Cause he wasnt a raging psychopath with a God complex
>>18011139Shut the fuck up, fed.
>>18010536>Would Alexander be a great man without daddy's army?Would the Macedonian army conquer Persia without Alexander? No >Would Hannibal be a great man without daddy's money? Would Carthage defeat Rome at battle of Cannae without Hannibal? No>Would Caesar be a great man if he had been born as a plebeian?Would Rome transition into the most successful empire in history without Caesar? No
>>18010536Sounds like you could use a daddy then :p
>>18011998[1] according to sources close to Alexander
>It's another "human history = warfare" thread
>>18012823Great men theory applies to more then just warfareLike science art or philosophy
>>18010486Because modern "historians" are just leftist academics who chose the pathetic life choice of being a professional student. Their deep resentment towards successful people who chose a real job is evident which is why they dedicate their lives to "deconstructing" powerful proud men who make them feel inferior.Schumpeter diagnosed this trend among academics back in the 40s.
>>18010536shitskin OP BTFO
