>>18577836Because nobody was EVER great, chud!
>>18577836Because modern research shows history is a collision of different social, economic, technological, etc. systems
>>18577852How does that refute Great Man theory? If there are no great men why do some men have sex? Why were there kids who had sex already in high school while I'm still a virgin?? Why why why why why WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY?????
>>18577852and how does a collision of social, economic, technological, systems explain figures like a muhammed?
because it is not great transwomen of color theory /thread
>>18577852Modern? You mean like 1920's. Old, outdated theories about socioeconomics, that's all I see. Ancient frameworks beloved by 80 years old professors who refuse to retire.
>>18577836Because it's giving racism and sexism.
>>18577909If Rome and Persia weren't skullfucking each other for centuries, either could have crushed Mohammed.
>>18577836>why do modern academics despise the great man theory?BECAUSE THIS IS THE AVERAGE ACADEMIC.
>>18577836Because it's not really useful if you think about it for a minute. Almost all so-called great men were able to achieve things because they were in important positions of power, and most of them were born into it. And, in positions of immens power, the decisions of completely unremarkable or actually shitty people also matter a lot. So, what is the theory, that competent and ambitious people in important positions of power are going to be more successfull? No shit.Sure, you get the occasional Napoleon and Ghenghis Khan who rise from powerty to power but they are the exception, not the rule, and I have yet to see a theory that can identify who is going to be the next great men. If there was some kind of checklist that you can look at currently mid-level politicians, and very rarely determine that "shit, this guy checks enough boxes, he is most likely a Great Man who will rise to power", then it would make some sense. Otherwise, Great Man Theory is basically just writing biographies of leaders you think were cool.
I can understand why people might be critical of the great man theory since it’s rare for someone to truly alter the course of history in such a radical way. Unfortunately I think people have gone too far in the other direction as there are many who now unironically insist that these historic individuals actually left no real impact and that history would have gone the exact same without them which is obviously wrong. No, Mark Antony wouldn’t have governed Rome in the exact same manner as Augustus and I think the Ptolemaic dynasty surviving would actually change a lot.
>>18578031>it’s rare for someone to truly alter the course of history in such a radical way.It's not, every leader's every decision impacts history massively, you don't have to be an exceptional genius to have a huge impact if you are already in power.>No, Mark Antony wouldn’t have governed Rome in the exact same manner as AugustusThat's not history, that's speculative fiction. History is using sources to research how Augustus governed and why he did what he did (i.e. what sociopolitical pressures was he influenced by). You cannot research something that never happened.
Hitler scared everyone from espousing any ideas in public that might imply some people are better or more gifted than others.
>>18577836Ideology
>>18578031I think Genghis Khan and Napoleon are also exceptional individuals, it's genuinely mindboggling what they achieved in moments of pure human decision.
>>18577836Meiji was a figurehead emperor.The real great men in the Meji period are the Satsuma and Choshu oligarchs.
>>18577836Because of inherited stances from classical Marxism and a kneejerk post-WW2 reaction against anything that smacks of Hitlerite idealism.But the Great Man Theory, whether it's "true" or not, is practically useless in historiography because of what this anon said: >>18578010It lacks predictive power and doesn't amount to anything besides: "wow, that guy from history sure did things"
>>18577836Because its a larpy desire to have superheroes in real life.Most "great men" were just decently capable politicians/generals/intellectuals with a healthy dose of luck. They thought and did the same things as 'non-great' men but due to a bunch of circumstances were able to succeed whereas others failed. Believing that they had some transcendent visions and superhuman planning abilities is a wishful application of 20/20 hindsight. If great men existed society wouldn't converge on generic systems like democracy, capitalism, socialism etc. Great men would use nations to execute their grand metaphysical designs. Instead they seemingly only want to steal money and fuck children on private islands.
>>185779091. Roman policies of persecuting heretic meant heretical christians flourished in the periphery of the Empire, like Arabia, likely influencing Muhammad2. Quasi momotheistic religions were all the rage in antiquity 3. Rome and Persia kept suffering disaster and wars weakening them4. Jewish influence paired with Arab's Allah already being the supreme God made Monotheism conceivabls Now, that's not to say a Muhammad figure was inevitable, but Muhammad depended on centuries of the past.
I take a middle ground position on Great Man. It’s important to have a strong stable society supporting Napoleon, he needs millions of soldiers, masons, and smiths to conquer Europe. You also need Napoleon however, both are equally important.
>>18577836ps2 rock band guitar hero algorithm
>>18577852doesn't stop them from embracing the Terrible Man theory
