How true is the Great Man fallacy/theory?

[scholar]

Then again, what William the Conqueror did is still felt today, so....

Not to mention his "Greatness" came about because he prevented conquest of England, a consequence that may well have had a greater influence on England than good old William's Conquest did.

And Hitler's legacy was actively dismantled right after his death as well

It is impossible to dismantle Hitler's legacy. The mountains of dead cannot be restored. The defining character World War II instilled in Europe, Asia, and in the rest of the World is likewise firmly established. While we may have actively tried to dismantle his legacy, we only are finding a way to frame it.

 

[Derek Pullem]

It's strange that a relatively obscure concept gets so much airtime.

In my opinion it is most often used as a "straw man" argument by marxist historians who wish to make the theory of historical study a binary choice between the so called "Great Man" theory and Marxist theory.

If the great man theory is wrong ergo Marxism must be right

To say that Great Men are the product of their societies is so obvious that no-one can challenge it. It does not mean, however, that absent the peculiar combination of genes and experience a similarly influential man / woman would arise to implement the same changes.

The consequences of Trotsky leading the Soviet Union rather than Lenin would be significant. True both would lead a monolithic Communistic state but the impact of that state on World History may be quite different.

 

[aktarian]

Not to mention his "Greatness" came about because he prevented conquest of England, a consequence that may well have had a greater influence on England than good old William's Conquest did.

It is impossible to dismantle Hitler's legacy. The mountains of dead cannot be restored. The defining character World War II instilled in Europe, Asia, and in the rest of the World is likewise firmly established. While we may have actively tried to dismantle his legacy, we only are finding a way to frame it.

The argument was that changes Napoleon brought are still around today (Napoleonic code etc), in some form or another. changes Hitler brought were dismantled when Germany lsot the war, which was couple of days after Hitler died. So his legacy was dismantled while NApoleon's wasn't.

 

[scholar]

The argument was that changes Napoleon brought are still around today (Napoleonic code etc), in some form or another. changes Hitler brought were dismantled when Germany lsot the war, which was couple of days after Hitler died. So his legacy was dismantled while NApoleon's wasn't.

Yeah, I fully understood that. You did not understand me.

In order for Hitler's legacy to be completely dismantled, no long term impact could have resulted from the Third Reich and the European theater of the War.

 

[Tanc49]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aktarian
The argument was that changes Napoleon brought are still around today (Napoleonic code etc), in some form or another. changes Hitler brought were dismantled when Germany lsot the war, which was couple of days after Hitler died. So his legacy was dismantled while NApoleon's wasn't.

Yeah, I fully understood that. You did not understand me.

In order for Hitler's legacy to be completely dismantled, no long term impact could have resulted from the Third Reich and the European theater of the War.

Agreed, just look at Germany reluctance to go in external operations or their lack of funding for their army

 

[aktarian]

Yeah, I fully understood that. You did not understand me.

In order for Hitler's legacy to be completely dismantled, no long term impact could have resulted from the Third Reich and the European theater of the War.

I was responding to changes in laws Napoleon brought which are still around. Hitler's laws were dismantled so they don't have same type of legacy.

As was pointed out Napoleonic code is still basis for a lot of legal systems. Nuremberg laws not so much.

 

[Dave Howery]

when it comes to the 'great man' theory, there is one guy I always think of:

Alexander. Would some other Greek general do what he did, conquering everything from Anatolia to Egypt to the Indus, all in the space of a rather short lifetime?