alternatehistory.com

Now, I know that this is, at best, an unhelpful question. At worst it is completely meaningless. What I really want to do is cause a discussion on what exactly are the qualities of a so-called 'Great Man', an individual who is able to change history through the force directed by their own will, an important discussion to have on a forum that is all about changing history. (Regardless of the validity of the actual Great Man theory of history, one can't get away from the fact that history has often produced individuals of exceptional talents, who have often acted to steer history away from the absolute most likely proceeding steps).

Phillip II created an army and united Greece under his banner. His son Alexander used that army, and Greece, to conquer the largest empire on Earth at the time. Many contest that neither man could've done quite what the other had achieved if their places had been swapped. Again, this might be used as evidence to show that a comparison between the two is pointless, but to me this makes them a good example to test one's own conceptions on what makes a capable, history-changing leader, either those who create advantages for themselves, or those who exploit the advantages they have.

So, who was the superior leader? Why were they superior? If the question is meaningless, why is it meaningless?
Top