Great Men of History

Sometimes in history, it seems like there are people so blessed by their respective god(s) with talent and resources it's funny. Alexander and Temujin are the prime examples. Now, I have two lines of inquiry. One, are these great men (and at least one woman) really responsible for their success, or is mere circumstance at fault? Two, who are others who belong in this category? I will list some that might:
Napoleon, Cyrus, Joan, Abu Bakr, Timur, Augustus, Justinian, Shi Huangdi, Newton, Washington, Bolivar
 
Sometimes in history, it seems like there are people so blessed by their respective god(s) with talent and resources it's funny. Alexander and Temujin are the prime examples. Now, I have two lines of inquiry. One, are these great men (and at least one woman) really responsible for their success, or is mere circumstance at fault? Two, who are others who belong in this category? I will list some that might:
Napoleon, Cyrus, Joan, Abu Bakr, Timur, Augustus, Justinian, Shi Huangdi, Newton, Washington, Bolivar

There are so many disparate factors affecting the different people you list. Generally speaking, in many cases it's a matter of being in the right place at the right time, surrounded by the right circle of the right people, and supported by the right interests.

Quite often, later scholarship, more dispassionate than these figures' contemporaries, reveals their feet of clay.

Newton stands out among the people you list as having made an enduring contribution to our understanding of the Universe and launched a pronounced acceleration in the Scientific Revolution.

The rest are military/political leaders whose actual achievements were often quite ephemeral.
For these latter, I don't subscribe to the "Great Man" theory of History.
 
There are so many disparate factors affecting the different people you list. Generally speaking, in many cases it's a matter of being in the right place at the right time, surrounded by the right circle of the right people, and supported by the right interests.

Quite often, later scholarship, more dispassionate than these figures' contemporaries, reveals their feet of clay.

Newton stands out among the people you list as having made an enduring contribution to our understanding of the Universe and launched a pronounced acceleration in the Scientific Revolution.

The rest are military/political leaders whose actual achievements were often quite ephemeral.
For these latter, I don't subscribe to the "Great Man" theory of History.
Right then, I want it explained what the conditions were that allowed Temujin to simply fall into a nearly pan-Asian empire.
Edit; that sounds ridiculing and demanding, sorry.
 
Last edited:
Newton stands out among the people you list as having made an enduring contribution to our understanding of the Universe and launched a pronounced acceleration in the Scientific Revolution.

How do you define "Great Man"? I personally would rank Newton's contemporary and rival Leibniz as being more talented, in a greater range of fields, than Newton. And a case can be made that the sum of his contributions match those of Newton in importance, and certainly exceed them in volume.

I suspect that a portion of Newton's reputation stems from his being one of the few British intellectuals of his time capable of standing up to the best of the Continentals. In other words, there's an element of British nationalism involved in the inflation of his historical reputation (not that he did not make important contributions to mathematics and physics, but he was far from alone in this).
 
Now, I have two lines of inquiry. One, are these great men (and at least one woman) really responsible for their success, or is mere circumstance at fault?

I think there's a dialectic relation between "right time and right place" and proper talents.
If circumstances allowed for the right men to appear, you would have far less historical crisis happening as it would allow saviors to appear.
While historical situation allows the appearance of important figures that use it to growth, inner talents and work aren't contradictory to an opposition of "Great Men" history.

Summarizing it : masses do History, but important figures are conscious of History.

Two, who are others who belong in this category? I will list some that might:
It really depending on what you're think is important in history. All you could have, short of quoting everyone, is having personal tastes issued list.

Quoting Lamartine :
If greatness of intent, the smallness of means, the immensity of the result are the three measures of human genius, who would dare humanly compare a great man of modern history to Muhammad?
 
How do you define "Great Man"? I personally would rank Newton's contemporary and rival Leibniz as being more talented, in a greater range of fields, than Newton. And a case can be made that the sum of his contributions match those of Newton in importance, and certainly exceed them in volume.

I suspect that a portion of Newton's reputation stems from his being one of the few British intellectuals of his time capable of standing up to the best of the Continentals. In other words, there's an element of British nationalism involved in the inflation of his historical reputation (not that he did not make important contributions to mathematics and physics, but he was far from alone in this).

And I would agree with everything you said about Leibnitz.
 
Why does everyone think Alexander was so great? Fascinating period of history and he was certainly an interesting dude. But fundamentally he was just a Bronze Age crime lord who made the largest protection racket in history at that point, which collapsed soon after his death. Pretty much the same thing with Temujin. Even by the standards of their time these two men were exceptionally violent. I guess the best thing I can say about both of them is their extortion and militarism created some trade which created more cultural links between the east and west.

I don't subscribe to the great man theory of history. This isn't a novel, this is real life. There are no protagonists. There are no "good guys" and "bad guys."

I think biographical study has obvious merit but celebrating "great men" (because no women did anything ever) seems like pointless hero worship. I think the life story of Narcis Monturriol i Estarriol is to me far more interesting than any of the people mentioned in the initial post.

I think great men are used by the ruling class of today to justify their bad behavior (or rather, to reinforce the social myth that their bad behavior is actually good behavior) and are widely taught for that reason.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
The Great Man Theory of History is frowned upon these days, apparently being somehow politically incorrect. But that doesn't make it any less true. There simply is no denying that exceptional individuals frequently burst onto the historical scene at the right time and place and fundamentally impact the course of history, making it completely different than it would have been had they never lived.

That being said, there is no denying that the masses have an equal and perhaps greater impact on the course of history than the "Great Men" (and women, of course). No single individual caused the French Revolution, which was caused by long-standing social and cultural factors that literally millions of people contributed to. Had there been no French Revolution, there could never have been a Napoleon.

It's not one or the other: either the Great Men or the masses. It's both.
 
Why does everyone think Alexander was so great? Fascinating period of history and he was certainly an interesting dude. But fundamentally he was just a Bronze Age crime lord who made the largest protection racket in history at that point, which collapsed soon after his death.
"Bronze Age"?

I think his greatness come from his model : conquering, questing for glory itself rather than other goals. Forging a new society from Persian and Greek (Hellenistic society is largely due to his actions) is probably his most important legacy.
So, whatever we like or not his actions (that weren't much different from other rulers at this time. I can't say for Temujin, but he balanced between moderation and harsh treatmant), he's a great figure.
An history without Darius III would have less consequences than an history without Alexander.

(because no women did anything ever)
Men is generally used for a gender-blind definition. Of course, the same word goes for both gender-blind and masculine gender, but short of inventing a new language on the spot, we would have to deal with one that was influenced by masculine dominated culture.
 
Top