Does every century have one great man that shapes that century

>>2072847
No, the Great Man view lf historiography is thoroughly ludicrous and has been debunked with many good counterpoints.

I believe that the general gist of it all can be found on wikipedia under Great Men Theory if you want to look in further.

>>2072860
>>2072860

Can we debunk it again? I've read the wikipedia page for it and I remain unconvinced.

Let's take Genghis Khan. On one side of the argument we have the Great Man understanding of history, in which Genghis, the exceptional figure and highest specimen of man, takes the reins of history and ushers in a new era. In the arguments opposing this view we simply point to a myriad of different factors of Mongolian culture, geographical location, social factors, etc. and say that Genghis Khan is simply the product of his environment. But this seems to imply that if Genghis Khan had never been born, the environment would remain essentially the same (as it had for centuries before that) and it also implies that a Genghis Khan figure was inevitable. And that to me seems thoroughly ludicrous.

>>2072916

And what about Mohammed? What about his founding a new, extraordinarily influential faith can be explained by the environment he was raised in? Surely others raised in that same environment were not bound to become the prophet of Islam.

>>2072847
Marx for sure.

File: laughing-royality.jpg (60KB, 550x386px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 550x386px

>Both lost

>>2073731
Its nice to tell yourself that at least

>>2072847
>Does every century have one great man that shapes that century and beyond?
no, just the important ones
>>2073762
jesus also lost as did caesar but they won eventually