Prove the Great Man theory of history wrong

>The rise and fall of polities is overwhelmingly determined by technology and geography
Jared Marx pls go

>The rise and fall of polities is overwhelmingly determined by technology and geography, individual merit plays little role

this is demonstrably false. e.g. the fall of jerusalem in 1187 had as much to do with (if not more to do with) the ineptitude of Guy of Lusignan and Raynald of Châtillon and the aptitude and charisma of Saladin than it did with any other material conditions.

i'm not saying history has nothing to do with material conditions like the ones you mentioned (it mainly is). but men act and these actions are material.

geography didn't conquer the world, genghis did

>geography didn't conquer the world, genghis did
Most of the land he conquered was empty.

Does something great in terms of scale. Also Reinhard a shit, Mecklinger will inherit the galaxy.

Yeah sure, a fucking POG supply officer that couldn´t even win a Piano contest and sperged and collapsed when he was in command during the last battle of the war will rule the Reich.

Bittefeld will be the one to inherit such right.

>Trump

>Does everything by himself

He's managed by a campaign staff. He's had people waiting on him hand and foot his whole life. His company was built by his father.

He's hands-down some of the biggest proof that "great men" get a lot of help.

It's like you want to trick yourself.

The only meme here is the Great Man Theory of History.

Oh, and apparently your're a big fan of the Just World hypothesis too.

Give me a fucking break.

Wrong

Explain.

>not an argument

For a quick demonstration, walk into a police department with a spear and hostile intent.

Someone "being a dumbass" or "sucking" or "making poor choices" can be a result of their brain chemistry, body chemistry, and external stimuli coming from their environment.

Even if I decided to streak through my local sports stadium buck ass naked and waving around an empty pistol at security, my "poor decision" is still, demonstrably, an inevitable consequence of countless things beyond anyone's control.

People hate this sort of logic and regard it as not only wrong but dangerous. They think the people bringing it up are just trying to "make excuses" for the "bad people." Maybe some are. But a lot of us simply want you to understand the "bad people" that goes beyond simple attribution of blame followed by ritual punishment (aka The Blame Game).

People who believe in the Just World Hypothesis are culturally and chemically-hard-wired for a world filled with schadenfreude, punishment, credit, and blame.

They want to see good people rewarded for their incidental talents and positive traits. They want to see people punished for their incidental failures and negative traits. It makes the universe *seem* more fair, and guided by some kind of no-bullshit hard-hitting unfathomable intelligence.

In other words, people's hard-wired deterministic evolutionarily-driven psychological urge to believe in credit and blame and free will is a personal need more than it is a hard truth.

The idea that James McCrimeface raped those people just because he sucks ass and is horrible and deserves to die will remain far more appealing than any sort of long-winded and multifaceted analysis of James's brain.

This is because people, by sheer chance, are stupid.

Sure.
It doesnt invalidate that say Alexandre was, by sheer chance, someone driven by inexplicable will for conquest in the face of adversity and even logic. Had another person be king at his place, perhaps he would have stopped at Greece, or even sit on his ass.
That some exterior factors made a conquest of Persia by Macedonia possible, sure. But without the "Great Man", it wont happen.

>posts a white guy who looks nothing like caesar
neck yourself OP

I think you're confused on the meaning of "great" and maybe the other poster is too. Just somebody, alone, with sufficient qualities that without them the world would have been a lot different.

Great Men can only work when in the confines of complex societies, which evolve from simple societies because of the integration of desires from all members of the society.

For a good example, look at Micronesian tribal societies. In such societies, occasionally you will see the rise of what they call a "Big Man", someone who is able to accumulate surpluses, gift it to others, and establish a faction within the primitive society. But because the Big Man must continually expend limited surpluses to acquire larger factions, while at the same time, continually gift his current followers, his ability to take full control over the society is always near impossible. As soon as he dies, that's it - his faction dissipates.

It is only in complex societies where such things can succeed, and complex societies only exist because of the work of all men.

>Trump is unintelligent
>but somehow he was able to convince almost half of the nation and the majority of states to put him in power
You realise you sound like those people who posit that Hitler was completely insane, even though he managed to take over Germany with the support of most Germans? You understand that you can dislike someone and yet acknowledge their talents, right? In fact, it's better to do that, because they you can start planning the means to their downfall.

It doesn't follow that, just because Trump won the election, it means he's intelligent.

The cultural merge of Greece and Persia was inevitable at that point already. Whether it be by extensive trade, by another Persian invasion of Greece, by the appearance of the Romans, or by Alexander conquering everything.
Him going further east to India is a nice note in history books, that might again have influenced a lot of other leaders, but it had no significant impact on the evolution of human society.

>That some exterior factors made a conquest of Persia by Macedonia possible, sure. But without the "Great Man", it wont happen.
You're claiming Great Man determinism for historical particularities. Which is of course right. E.g. without Romulus founding Rome, there wouldn't have been a Roman empire. Well duh. However when you're taking on the task of explaining social evolution, you won't get anywhere with it, because you need to ask the question why, at a particular time and place, a society can form, under what circumstances does it change, and how can or does it affect the greater history of humanity.
>a great man did it LMAO
That's why historians are just that and not social scientists. Might as well say God did it.

>In other words, people's hard-wired deterministic evolutionarily-driven psychological urge to believe in credit and blame and free will is a personal need more than it is a hard truth.
Citation needed. Sounds like ethnocentrism at its finest.

Julius Cesar died and the Republic still fell within a generation.

The general success of democratic republics

Simultaneous discovery of Evolution and Calculus

From the rest of the thread I'm guessing you don't take answer good answers seriously. (This isnt a good answer)

>You realise you sound like those people who posit that Hitler was completely insane, even though he managed to take over Germany with the support of most Germans?
Technically, he didn't. NSDAP never got a majority of votes until he went full dictator.

There is no difference between the Great Man theory of history and any other theory. History is the process of human experience, and great men are "fated" by that process to rise when they're needed, and be hidden when they aren't. At any given period of history there are great men who are, by society, prevented from achieving anything, and there are those who, despite not being the best, through the needs of society, are placed in a position to create the change it desires - good or bad. Great men are needed by the people, and the great men depend on the people.

...

>The cultural merge of Greece and Persia was inevitable at that point already
Well, was it? Romans were still a long time away. Alexander's indian expedition is indeed a footnote, but an interesting one. Nearly 200 hundred years of greco-indian kingdoms that would have never existed in the scenarios you proposed. I'm not defending "Great Man theory" as something of worth scientifically speaking, I'm saying that we also don't need to reverse it by saying it was all in the cards, as if everything was determined and that one man couldn't have an influence, not because he was "great", but because he was at a certain position at a certain time.

>the fall of jerusalem in 1187 had as much to do with (if not more to do with) the ineptitude of Guy of Lusignan and Raynald of Châtillon and the aptitude and charisma of Saladin than it did with any other material conditions.

And how did the fall of Jerusalem affect the general course of human history?

Jerusalem was bound to fall, the Islamic rulers of the area had far too much interest in holding a strategic and wealthy city to let it be controlled by European Christians.

How is a country seizing a city with valuable cultural and revenue resources through a battle not materially driven.

Jerusalem was bound to fall because supply lines to Jerusalem were often long, which limited communication and ability to get men. Saladin won because he had far more troops who had far more efficient and plentiful supply routes.

But muh Deus Vult

Okay.
"Systems theory"
I'm done here.

>One man with intelligence, charisma, and means
I'll give you charisma and means, but
>intelligence
>mfw

"Intelligent" seems to lie in that weird neutral zone between "cunning" and "wise," when it comes to describing someone's positive mental attributes.

I like to say Trump is "cunning," but not necessarily "intelligent," or "wise."

Clever is also a good word. He's clever.

Charismatic, clever, cunning.

Not necessarily intelligent or wise. He has councils of people at his disposal for when he needs to pretend those attributes.

>without the "Great Man," it won't happen.

I think this is where we fundamentally differ. You see the external factors, but you also so a great man.

To me, it is not the man that is extraordinary, but the culminating factors that are. The "Great Man" is just a hypostatic union of the circumstantial properties, which are incidental and not the doing of the "Great Man."

This is why the Great Man, to me is not Great. He is not responsible for himself. He is merely a consequence of the circumstances. To say he is Great, to me, is to imply that he is somehow more responsible for the circumstances than the circumstances are responsible for him. It is a sort of secular equivalent to deifying someone. Maybe I see too much in it. Perhaps I should ask you what you think the word "Great" implies here.

>you also so a great man
you also *see
typ

we pick where to put the cause.
It is based on our inclinations that we decide to stop at napoleon himself or to continue to the driving forces that lead to him being the person he was and to the events that made the person he was the best for the task.
If you want to aggrendize personal achievments emphesize the driving power of the individual you talk of napoleon as a great man and if you dont want to encourage power being invenstes in the hands of the few, or simply pyramidical power structures you talk about the circumctances that created and lifted napoleon to the top.

You can simply realize that an authors work is simply, in this case, a literary menifstation of his personality within his cultural and social context.

It is hihgly likely that successfull politicians are simply great liars as oppose to zealous believers in what they say as of course a zelous belieber will deflate and lose resolve when the thing he believes in is revealed to be false while a liar is always prepared.

Good times create weak man
Weak man create bad times
Bad times create strong man.
Strong man create good times.

It doesn't matter that Napoleon didn't have free will and was a product of his environment, he was objectively more relevant to history than John Doe, farmer that never left his hometown. You attach way to much importance to the word for a personal reason it seems, but I think it distracts you from the fact that an individual can sway history because of his particular inclinations regardless of how "good" or "bad" they were. Surely the circumstances of the french revolution put Napoleon in a position where he could have take command of a military force, but had it be someone else in command, that doesn't mean the battle would have turned the same way.

>There are people on Veeky Forums RIGHT NOW who are so indebted to a uniformitarian view of history they assume that every great man, if he hadn't have existed, would have been replaced by another equally great man.

I'm laffin. History isn't JUST the story of great men, numerous other processes effect the spiel of events, but to say that if Napoleon or Genghis Khan or Alexander hadn't have existed, similar events would have still proceeded is the height of bullshit.

>China and the Middle East were empty.

This also means that europeans couldn't conquer empty lands, remember the crusades or did you already forgot about them?

Strong men and weak men always coexist so this theory is necessarily simplistic.

Strength and weakness coexist in every single person so even the notion of "Strong men and weak men" is simplistic.

I'm sure I don't have to remind you that women come into the picture too. I'm also fairly sure that you were using "Men" to mean the species in general, so I'll drop the point, as it's rather petty.

While we're at it, define strong. Do you mean disciplined, intelligent, clever, wise, or belligerent? Because I've seen all of the above regarded as making individuals "strong" in spite of other character defects.

Same goes for weakness. Weakeness can be a lack of restraint, or a lack of discipline, or a lack of intelligence, or a lack of physical activity.

You're going to have to be more specific.

Unless of course you're just throwing in your two cents and don't care about convincing us.

I attach an importance to the word because it is vague. Vague words are less used as communicatory devices and more as bait. People lay them out rhetorically to see how others interpret and react, whether or not they themselves have a meaning.

"Great" can be used to imply that because someone is influential, they are also better and more important.

However, recognizing this in someone's rhetoric, I might be subsequently be told "Wrong, I merely meant more relevant, or more influential, or more of a focal point."

However because the word is vague, that notion can also be easily backed off of if it is called out in a negative way.

The word "Great" has a lot of political connotation, too. Especially lately.

Great is often used to mean "good" or "better than _____" or what-have-you, but these implications can also be easily denied if rhetorically necessary.

Napoleon is not, to me, better or more important than John Doe, as much as he represents a stronger focal point of interest, resources, etc.

And being a stronger focal point of interest, resources etc. does not reflect one's value (as in the eyes of God, as in the scheme of forever, not here and now) so much as it reflects one's relevance, as you said.

My reasons might be personal, but I've seen what chaos words like "Great" are capable of creating when left open to the interpretation of millions. So I prefer specifics. Words that home in on the results of one's attributes more than the feelings about one's attributes. "Great" reflects, to me at least, the latter.

"Napoleon is a clever man."
"Napoleon is a strategic man."
"Napoleon is an influential man."

not

"Napoleon is a Great Man."

not

"Napoleon is a terrible man."

This. There is no guarantee great men will arise, it's entirely possible for a culture to stagnate and accomplish nothing, or for any potential geniuses and great leaders to go unfulfilled. This idiotic notion of special destiny has corrupted the thinking of so many westerners. They have imposed a narrative onto the chaos of history that makes the ascension of European powers seem inevitable. Is it any wonder that European powers now flounder and fall into decrepitude when the people are possessed of such imbecilic notions? This is a culture which has forgotten how to strive. For anything.

>the fall of jerusalem in 1187 had as much to do with (if not more to do with) the ineptitude of Guy of Lusignan and Raynald of Châtillon and the aptitude and charisma of Saladin than it did with any other material conditions.

And Jerusalem being there in the first place had much to do with that area being suited to support large cities in ancient times.