How true is the Great Man Theory?
>The Great Man theory is a 19th-century idea according to which history can be largely explained by the impact of "great men", or heroes; highly influential individuals who, due to either their personal charisma, intelligence, wisdom, or political skill utilized their power in a way that had a decisive historical impact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Man_theory
It seems to have been the case throughout history and yet these days it's gone, no one man in the current world can make much of a difference, mostly due to democracy.
>>1151406
Sounds like a method to oversimplify History by explaining nearly every event occuring because of famous historical figures.
Of course the most important wars which shaped current countries were largely due to leaders, because you can't have a war with durable consequences without a leader. However, History is made more of a succession of people inspiring other people and relying over the majority of the population to see their goals reached (even in dictatorships you can't do shit without a good part of the population following you) than of the fifty superheroes you learnt about at school
>no one man in the current world can make much of a difference
This has never happened. You cannot have just one man changing the world alone, he always needs popular support, money, and the right time for his ideas to be brought publicly
>>1151406
Any theory that explains history by saying that history is caused by a single factor is always incomplete. There were some cases where individuals shaped the course of history, but those weren't the only major events in history
People do stuff and then become famous later. Seems a bit backwards.
>>1151406
so in other words the ubermensch?
>>1151406
>How true is the Great Man Theory?
For every Great Man there is a retinue of extremely capable advisers and administrators who make things happen. Ghenghis Khan would never have made such an impact if not for Subutai and his other generals. for example.
>>1151406
The Great Man Theory fell out of favor with the rise of the Annales school, which is more environmentally deterministic. That entire philosophy of history places significant individuals at the lowest tier of significance, with environment, contigencies and economy all taking higher priority.
As for how true the Great Man Theory is, it's hard to say how true anything is in history. A lot of history is simply subjective interpretation and theory. Yes there are some definite facts in history, but the rest is analysis and exegesis.
>>1151988
The arguable flaw with this perspective is that it is just an extended great man theory. It still examines history entirely in terms of a few specific individuals' agency at the upper strata of power.
>>1151988
>Genghis Khan wouldn't have succeeded if the horses weren't domesticated thousand years earlier or if the peasants in the army hadn't obeyed orders.
> The horses and peasant are at least as important as Genghis Khan himself
Great analays
It's nonsense. It appeals because humans like personal stories, and seems plausible only because narratives get simplified over time.
Tolstoy described "great men" as the sheep that happened to be at the front of the flock. If not them, then another would serve as well.
>>1152001
Not only that but the great men theory goes against the laws of social and cultural evolution as well. The fact of parallel evolution alone disproves it.
>>1152016
To be fair, "great society" or "great cabal" is more believable than "great man."
>>1151406
The thing about Caesar is that he was a great man, but there were great men before him (Marius and Sulla) and there were great men after him (Augustus and Marc Antony). The situation in the Roman Republic was ripe for civil war, and one man winning out over the rest, only for the whole scenario to repeat when that man died.
This man pretty much proved it's bullshit.
>>1152084
I agree with that. For the record, I'm not actually arguing against the theory itself. I'm just stating what I think would be the criticism or flaw to it.
I wasn't arguing against the great man theory above either. I was just talking about historiography and how the perspectives of history have changed a little bit. As I stated above, a lot of history is just theoretical interpretation. I'm sure there are strong arguments you can make in favor of why a certain individual or group was particularly important and a game changer too.
Great men are at most catalysts, and more often than not simply names that historians and people at large latch on to in order to get a grip of larger events.
>A Great Autist has been born in /his/!
It's silly in that couldnt it then be passed to the men who influenced the said great men? And the matters which shaped the great men, influenced by other men?
It sounds like an over simplification of history, attempting you attribute and generalize dozens of factors to just one great man.
Great individuals leave their mark in history, but it's not the only mark present or worth accounting for.
>>1151406
>is a 19th-century idea
About as credible as phrenology.
>>1152124
How? I don't really know what Tolstoy ever said about the matter so I'm curious.
>>1152192
kek
>>1152274
Read War and Peace my man. Even if you don't like literature, it's incredible if you are interested in Napoleon or philosophy of history.
>>1152016
>Actually arguing that those at the top of society were the ones who made history and thinking its a revolutionary theory
>>1152339
>be me
>read 70 pages of that shit
>remember 2/92385804680296840 names
>be bored as shit
tv series was nice though
>>1151406
Yes and no.
Had Hitler not been born or had he died in WW1 or whatever, would the world be exactly the same as it is now? Of course not. However, there probably still would've been a fascist rise in Germany, there probably still would've been a WW2 involving Germany against the USSR and/or the Allies, and Germany still probably would've lost the conflict. The conditions in a post-WW1 Germany were simply ripe for a regime like Hitler's to come to power. That's not to say that everything would be the same though. Perhaps, for example, this alternate-reality post WW2 Germany would pursue an alliance with China rather than Japan, something that could significantly alter certain outcomes of the war. Would the US still get involved in WW2 with no Pear Harbour? Even if the US did join, would they have been able to subdue China the same way they did Japan? Would the Soviets subdue them instead, vastly changing the dynamic of the Cold War?
Or, to look at it from another perspective, if Hitler had been born in 5th century India rather than 19th century Europe, would his attributes still have allowed him to be so influential? Probably not. Without the environment supporting him, he would not have been a "great man of history" at all.
Essentially, while the Great Man Theory doesn't explain all of or even the majority of history, neither does pure environmental determinism. History is determined by both factors - great men and the environment around them.
Not at all, and this board's fascination with Great Man is an indictment of it
