Great Man History

>>266751
I still guess that without Napoleon, the world wouldn't have been the same...
Sorry OP, you're a faggot

>>266751
Great inventions are also delivered by great men.

>"Durr i'll make a round object! It will roll on the ground! XDDD"

Seriously the wheel shouldn't count as an invention. If it does then walking and breathing are inventions as well.

>>266751
It's an interplay, bru.

People in charge react to social forces by taking certain decisions, and fostering certain policies. These decisions and policies have an impact on those social forces.

repeat ad infinitum ad nauseum

>>266776
The significance of Napoleon Bonaparte pales in comparison to the development of machined interchangeable parts developed in the 19th century first attempted by Eli Whitney and latter put to practical use by the Federal Armories.
>>266807
Great inventions are generally the result of considerable experimentation and refinement. James Watt did not invent the steam engine, he invented the Watt steam engine. Before him there was the Newcommon Engine used to pump water out of mines and the Aeolipile before that. There were other people looking into steam engines at the time such as Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot. Moreover while the Watt steam engine worked and played some role, it was soon superseded by more powerful, efficient and safe designs.

William the Conqueror changed the history of England.
Akechi Mitsuhide changed the history of the whole Eastern Asia.
Genghis Khan changed the history of the world by uniting the Mongol tribes.

>>266864
Oh, so you like oily machinery and pistons ?
Guess what Freud would have said .
Faggot confirmed

File: Genghis-Khan.jpg (181KB, 1500x2153px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 1500x2153px

>>266751

One man force for climate change coming through.

OP, your attitude is as stupid as the strawman you choose to prosecute and a form of historical determinism. I wholeheartedly disapprove.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2D6nJ2d1Sw&feature=youtu.be

There is also the case of Alexander the Great. Get a weak ruler instead of him and history would be very different.

Or Bismarck.

>>266751
But potatos are not fun xd

>>266751
Yeah right, without Mohammed surely the arabian tribes would've still united and conquered half of the world, it was fated to be :-DDD

You marxists (because let's be honest, most of you are marxist) faggots should take your marxist historiography and shove it up your ass.

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

>>266969
The egg, because a shitload of species layed eggs begore chickens were even a thing.

>>266751
a perspective that is probably closer to truth:

everyone wants to ruin everything. given power over it, most people will cause the destruction of anything precious and useful. except heroes. they have an ability to tolerate one or two useful things. not all of them get recognized as such and not all who get recognized are heroes, but mostly they're doing the same as anyone else, just without ruining everything useful they have before starting.

this useful thing gone unruined increases human agency until the point where it is so increased someone has the power to ruin it. this is 'progress'.

>>266967
Somehow I doubt Marxists like great man criticism given how it's named after a communist great man.

>>266967
The social conditions of the time were conducive to a man like Muhammad. Chances are it would've been someone else eventually.

>>266989
How is this theory falsifiable?

>>266967
But marixsm is one of the ideologies more prone to cult of personality to ever exist? They reject traditional heros, but that's because they have a mythology of their own. Nothing to do with rigurous historiographical work and the nuancing of super hero tales.

Though I agree that some people here overreacts too much against outstanding historical characters and pop history in general.

>>266885
And in the end it meant that some people got killed, the imaginary lines on the map drawn by monkeys changed around a bit and the surviving peasants and artisans had to pay taxes to another set of assholes. Their Games of Thrones are nothing more than children squabbling over pennies.

In contrast new technologies, from printing to gunpowder to improve metallurgy to ocean going ships change the nature of the game: how wars are fought, what is profitable and what is not, how countries operate and how people live their lives.

>>266989
And those social conditions were caused by other men, and those men were affected by social conditions, etc.

How are the 2 theories not one and the same? It's just a matter of how much information is available

>>267023
Are you:

a) trolling
b) ignorant of the effect those men had in history
c) blinded by ideology

>>266942
Alexander the Great's impact on world history is overshadowed by the development of paper during the Han dynasty

>>267001
How is falsifiability a valid concern (Lakatos, Feyerabend).

File: 1404516373911.jpg (46KB, 400x600px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 400x600px

>>266751
>because great men didn't create everything and were byproducts of their environment we shouldn't recognize the contributions of any single person

>>266989
>chances
>in the study of history and past events
>because someone else might have done it that means we should disregard the one who actually did do it

>>266751
Great men invite great inventions.

>>267098
Technological progress is a step by step process, building on what came before which was built on what came before that. New technologies become possible and practical when refinements in other fields make it so. Revolvers existed since the 1500s at least, but only became practical in the 19th century due to breakthroughs in machining. At the same time there are often multiple people working on the same basic idea at once. The "great man" who manages to get his version complete was most likely just in the right place at the right time while his rivals had setbacks.

>>267087
Tell me, oh Marxist scholar, do you really think Alexander the Great didn't have a huge impact on World History? That Hellenization was not something that changed the world?

That if instead of Alexander, Phillip II's kid was some weak ass character the history of the world would be very different?

>>267292
Are you seriously trying to suggest that people who don't follow the great man school (which hasn't been a thing since the 19th century) are all Marxists

>>267315
The large majority of historical materialists I have met are Marxists.

Are you going to suggest that Alexander didn't have a huge effect on history?

File: Black_Powder_Close_Up.jpg (154KB, 467x396px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 467x396px

>>267292
If some guy in Italy around 350bce had worked out basic gunpowder or distillation would it would have had a much more pronounced effect on world history than if Alexander existed or did not.

This discussion is so goddamn pointless
Obviously neither is right, one is dependant on the other. Without social development, certain circumstances that may give rise to the 'great' man will never happen, on the other hand it's redicolous to argue that history is entirely independant of certain personalities and and 'someone else would've filled the exact same role with the exact same consequences'.
Take for example the crusades: Without Urban II. it's unlikely that a pope would've called for such drastic measures but without the slight overpopulation in Europe (2nd born unlanded sons etc.) noone would've picked up the calls.

>>267351
>(2nd born unlanded sons etc.)

This is bullshit though.

>>267180
That's playing semantics. Sure the environment must have been right for the invention, but people shape their environment. It takes great men with which to shape said environment.

>>267351
The crusades achieved little in the long run, they further destabilized an unstable reason and propped up the Byzantine Empire for a bit before smashing what was left of it to ensure it's eventual conquest.

>>267347
Not exactly. It would have taken the spread of certain cultural elements, and the individuals with knowledge on how to effectively use gunpowder with which to use it. The Chinese invented gunpowder years before Europe got it, yet they stalled in terms of progress for quite awhile, while Europeans skyrocketed forward unto their world pedestal.

>>267347
If cows could fly, I would always wear a hat.

I repeat the question: would you really, really say Alexander didn't have a huge impact on history?

>>267094
How would you know if this theory is wrong?

File: il_570xN.538640835_tvu6.jpg (140KB, 500x647px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 500x647px

>>267292
>That Hellenization was not something that changed the world?
Hellenization is grossly overstated. People latch onto any anecdote of greek-like activity in central asia as proof of it being a huge thing, but where is any of that influence today? Even areas that had greek culture prior to Alexander's birth, like Anatolia, are no longer greek today.

Perhaps he made large changes, but they've all been swept away by the march of history, leaving nothing but the occasional greek coin in Afghanistan.

>>267382
Europe did not develop gunpowder, they got it from the Arabs, who got it from the mongols who got it from the Chinese.

>>267393
His advancement is western civilization itself. He laid the cornerstone of a society which would shape world events for what could be thousands of years. He spread, and allowed the explosion of thinkers, artist, and other great man, which would build on his cornerstone, the cornerstone of the great man .

>>267330
Historical materialism is Marxism. You don't know what you're talking about if you're suggesting that the only two choices are great man and materialism.

Alexander's effect on history was contingent on large scale structural factors that eclipsed just his sheer force of will .

>>267411
>Said specifically in my post that Europe GOT it.
Reading comprehension. Should not, by your line of reasoning, gunpowder was more advanced towards the source as it slowly trekked across the world? If history is the literal building off of societies, why were the Chinese not at the forefront of technologies of the sort? They used coal, gunpowder, and other devices years before the Europeans caught on. What is your explanation for such a change?

>>267416
He did that by marching to India...?

>>267393
If you truly believe in this materialist mumbo jumbo, then his impact on the broader culture, economy and politics of the region would carry on to it's next 'states'.
That is, you're trying to mininze his inpact to fit your narrative, while advocating that the exact same kind of changes he (and others) made are the most important.

>>267426
>why were the Chinese not at the forefront of technology?
>describes how the Chinese were at the forefront of technology

Also re: great man:
"[Y]ou must admit that the genesis of a great man depends on the long series of complex influences which has produced the race in which he appears, and the social state into which that race has slowly grown.... Before he can remake his society, his society must make him."
It hasn't been a thing since 1860

>>267426
The problems which occured in China which resulted in technological stagnation through the late Ming and Qing Dynasties are the result of social issues which deterred Chinese interest in physical scientists, maritime developments and exploration.

>>267434
By spreading the seeds of his culture. His march sowed the grounds of those societies to ferment great thinkers, writers, scientist, and generals, to be harvested for years. Even to this day, we look back at the Romans and Greeks as a source of inspiration for modern society.

>>267441
>If you truly believe in this materialist mumbo jumbo
I don't and seeing how that was my first post in the thread, it looks like you're just trying to apply that label to everyone who disagrees with you.

>>267441
I really don't think you know what historical materialism is

>>267442
I never doubted that great men were a thing of their time, but you cannot deny, by making that accusation, that great men shape their time. One must take their society and use it to build off of it, it does not do so naturally by itself.

>>267446
If that guy knows his Chinese history, you are about to get culturally enriched...

>>267449
So... He was a great man to the extent he impacted society as a whole, setting the conditions for more great men? You have just directly contradicted yourself

>>267446
But what caused said social issues? They must have had a source, and if they are the result of warlords, or court officials, does that not reflect the turning of history by men?

>>267434
Answer me quickly. Had the romans chosen a more apt man that Quintilius for their german funhouse of fun, that is perhaps a man who didn't fall for Arminius' bs and actually beat the Germanics, would the world be much different?

>muh autism lines
>geopolitics don't impact culture, economy, and by recursion future geopolitics
>hurr durr military conquests never brought any changes
>hurr durr all great men ever did was military conquests
>introducing new ideas, inventions and organization schemes is all liiiieees
>all scholars are ultimately meaningless too
>everyone is meaningless because I'm meaningless, if I'm shit nobody can be not-shit!

>>267385
>I repeat the question: would you really, really say Alexander didn't have a huge impact on history?
Insignificant compared to technological improvements.

>>267465
I never denied that society had a way in which to shape great men. Great men are borne from great societies. These men then go on to shape their society themselves. It's a check and balance game, it is not completely once sided one way or the other.

>>267424
>Historical materialism is Marxism. You don't know what you're talking about if you're suggesting that the only two choices are great man and materialism.

There are non-Marxists materialists.
And most of the opposition to Great man comes from marxists.

>Alexander's effect on history was contingent on large scale structural factors that eclipsed just his sheer force of will .

Suppose Alexander died at childbirth. There is no way to know how the West would have developed or even when. We wouldn't even have Christianity as we know it.

>>267474
Are you feeling okay?
We were talking about Alexander's conquest of Persia allegedly being the foundation of western civilization.

>>267459
That is a nonsense statement. What differentiates the great man from his society, aside from your arbitrary elevation of him?

>>267451
>muh means of production define everything
>that is why societies with the exact same means organized in different ways
Derp

>>267483
Who the fuck are these materialist non-marxists? Marx literally started materialism. I have absolutely no idea how you can be a materialist and not a Marxist.
What the fuck are you talking about? The entire historical profession ditched the great man theory nearly 150 years ago. You're talking entirely out of your ass.

>>267361
Yeah lad people travalling thousands of miles to their potential deaths because of 'Muh faith' is much more likely. People only ever do shit when they can gain from itor when there's no alternative.

>>267371
Could've taken any other example. To take Alexander as an example: He wouldn't have conquered shit if his father didn't leave him his army, and said army wouldn't have been there if it wasn't for good agriculture etc. Not even denying that certain man have great impact on history but either extremes of this debate are pants on head retarded.

>>267470
>They must have had a source, and if they are the result of warlords, or court officials, does that not reflect the turning of history by men?
Men, plural. Not the product of one mastermind but of general attitudes common among the ruling classes of china at the time.

>>267486
I was actually partially replying to an earlier post which I forgot to link kek
">>266885 #
And in the end it meant that some people got killed, the imaginary lines on the map drawn by monkeys changed around a bit and the surviving peasants and artisans had to pay taxes to another set of assholes. "


>I swear I'm just a tad tipsy, mey
Me

>>267510
Probably*
I don't even know anymore.

Protip: don't ever drink cheap booze sold by russiansm.

If Akechi Mitsuhide didn't kill Nobunaga, Japan would have developed much sooner and would succeed at conquering a large chunk of Asia. World history would be vastly different with China being ruled from a strong Japan since the 1600's and with a vast amount of cultural interchange between the East and the West.

As it turns out, Nobunaga died and the eventual conqueror of Japan isolated it from the rest of the world.

>>267486
Both of you are arguing from the same side.

>>267510
I guess I'd might as well reply to you anyway.

We're talking about great man theory, but you cited a non-great man. Like, if one guy had been another guy, maybe history would've been much different. If some runner had run a little faster or a little slower, some general might've achieved a stunning victory, or failed to do so.

History is filled with billions of little 'what ifs' like that. That's not Great Man theory, though.

Since you're drunk, try this one out:

A butterfly beating its wings doesn't just cause a hurricane. That hurricane changes weather patterns, subtly altering biological processes. Different sperm start reaching different eggs and soon, an entire different generation of humans is born compared with OTL.

>>267508
>Yeah lad people travalling thousands of miles to their potential deaths because of 'Muh faith' is much more likely. People only ever do shit when they can gain from itor when there's no alternative.

Most of the Crusaders were not 2nd sons, but nobles. This is well documented.

The Crusaders didn't have the same kind of culture and mindset as yours. The Crusades were very expensive and unprofitable. Not to mention dangerous. If Crusaders wanted to get more monetary gain, there were better targets closer to them.

>>267541
What?
>great men refers only to the grandest
Actually it is the belief that individuals actions can change history and are worthy of study.
It doesn't mean just Napoleon, it includes the little guys too, well little great men.
Meanwhile materialism only thinks of it in a nearly deterministic term where everything is defined by our means of production and the actions of individuals are essenrially worthless. Humans only act as parts of a group/class. Muh individualist bourgeois is bad mmkay.

Saying that Quintilius, or Augustus, even if on different scales, did not impact history be it through their failures or successes... Is bullshit.

>>267522
>Glorious Zhongguo beeing toppled at the height of it's power by filthy pirates
Take a look at this barbarian

>>266751
Alexander was an innovator in the area of logistics. Meaning, he didn't bother conquering cities that would cost too many resources, and focused on ones that would be easy to get supplies to. And how many military leaders up until present have been influenced by him?

I'm not saying that learning about how many bushels of grain each province of a country produced in a year or how high the tariffs on cheese were is irrelevant, but it's interesting to read about the great men of history as well.

>>267393
>but where is any of that influence today?

The lingua franca of the Levant used to be Greek thanks to Alexander, Jesus likely spoke Greek (albeit not as first language) and the early texts we have of the New Testament are in Greek. So, hellenization was determinant for the most popular religion in the world to be what it is.

>>267563
>>267541
Oh and I'm not saying we need to focus on great men.
We shouldn't just be autists talking about butterflies, but we shouldn't just be autists talking about economical models either. In the end if you accept that a singular model will be the cause for every single event you study, then you'll make a field of bullshit.

>>267581
Aand now I'm gonna go down that bottle
I am takig it surprisingly well considering im just a fake slav :)

>>267544
People here like Paradox Games.
Every playable character in CK2 is more or less one of the greatest magnates of Europe at the time.

If you compare the main Crusaders, with CK2...

The Crusader leaders of the First Crusade were the Count of Flanders (in game, the Duke of Flanders), the Duke of Normandy, the Count of Toulose (in game, the Duke of Toulouse), the Count of Blois (in game, the Duke of Champagne), the Duke of Lower Lorraine, the Count of Vermandois and the Count of Taranto.

>>267544
>2nd sons, but nobles
That's exactly what I mean, 2nd sons of nobles that wouldn't get land and are thus encouraged to get it elsewhere.
>The Crusades were very expensive and unprofitable. Not to mention dangerous. If Crusaders wanted to get more monetary gain
I get that they have a different mindset than we have now and I admit that faith definitly played a roll but no fuckig way you spend loads of money and travel hundreds of miles to your potential death (as we both agree) only to be promised a place in heaven. You do it because of spititual AND monetary gains.

>>267577
Even Rome would be very different without Alexander.

>>267563
"In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or — this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms — with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure. In studying such transformations it is always necessary to distinguish between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, artistic or philosophic — in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as one does not judge an individual by what he thinks about himself, so one cannot judge such a period of transformation by its consciousness, but, on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained from the contradictions of material life, from the conflict existing between the social forces of production and the relations of production."

>>267603
>That's exactly what I mean, 2nd sons of nobles that wouldn't get land and are thus encouraged to get it elsewhere.

No, it was the really powerful nobles that went to Crusade. The Count of Flanders was the richest man on France, maybe of all Europe. The Count of Toulouse was likely the 3rd richest man on France.


>I get that they have a different mindset than we have now and I admit that faith definitly played a roll but no fuckig way you spend loads of money and travel hundreds of miles to your potential death (as we both agree) only to be promised a place in heaven. You do it because of spititual AND monetary gains.

Do you know why the Crusades eventually fell? Because most of the Crusaders decided to go back to Europe after conquering whatever they wanted to conquer. They knew how hard it would be.

The father of the first Habsburg King of Germany died this way (but in a Crusade in Spain, iirc). He basically sold a lot of his possessions, said his farewells and literally went to fight to his death. He also told his son to not be very ambitious and to be a good Christian, content with life, before going to his Crusade. His son, obviously did not listen to him and conquered a lot of lands in Europe.

>>267604
And what if Alexander happened to NOT be the son of a king who had painstakingly created the most effective army in the region?

>>267522
>Both of you are arguing from the same side.
Don't think so hard about what individual anons might be thinking behind their keyboard. Reply to what people write in their posts. If that's insufficient, say "X theory is wrong and Y theory is right" rather than attributing beliefs to posters you can't even identify.

Maybe this would work more smoothly if we had IDs, but we don't.

>>267660
But he was. And he affected greatly history.

>all those conquerers, inventors, and politicians didn't do anything!

It was the FUCKING POTATO that changed history!!

>>266751
>There are some people who hold to an old view of history: that it is driven by "Great Men".
No historian holds that view. It's like reducing music to people like Michael Jackson and The Beatles. Influential and symbolic, sure, but nobody who gets serious about music and its history will think in those terms.

They're simply memes.

File: Ireland_(MODIS)[1].jpg (532KB, 1600x2200px) Image search: [Google]

532KB, 1600x2200px

>>268144
>It was the FUCKING POTATO that changed history!!
Can't it be both?

>implying the potato didn't change history.

>>268144


Actually, the famine was largely man made. Potatoes were the only crop that wasn't considered worth exporting. Ireland was a net exporter of food crops during the famine. The British demanded that export contracts be fulfilled at all costs. This left nothing for the domestic market when the potato crop failed.

Many times I have heard people say, "why didn't the Irish grow things other than potatoes?" The answer is they did indeed grow other crops, they just weren't allowed to eat them.

File: Tesla_circa_1890.jpg (474KB, 940x1260px) Image search: [Google]

474KB, 940x1260px

>>266751
scientists are great men too.

>>268985
Science is a collective process. It involves not only making discoveries and coming up with theories but releasing them to be scrutinized by peer review so they may be cross confirmed.

>>268985
>scientists are great men too
>posts a picture of tesla
>tesla
>great man

Well hello there reddit

File: 1418280308292.jpg (52KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 1280x720px

>>270400
>reddit likes him so he can't be great

You know who would love the idea of great man history to evaporate?

The men currently pulling the strings

>>266820
hindsight bias fallacy

>>271293
>hindsight

It's not even that, wheels have AXLES. That's what made them an improvement over roller logs, which you had to cycle from back to front. Then even with the roller log, that requires placing several cylindrical objects next to each other, and putting a flat object on top.

File: Fascist_Headquarters___1934_0824_575017_answer_2_xlarge_7375.jpg (27KB, 350x276px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 350x276px

>>266751
Italy only got involved in World War II out of the decision of a singular man - Benito Mussolini, who waited until France was on the ropes before declaring war in the hopes of grabbing a few colonies quickly. In his own words, "I only need a few thousand dead so that I can sit at the table as a man who has fought."

That's it. Mussolini's own advisors were telling him that Italy would not be ready for a general European war until 1943 at the earliest, but he chose to go in three years early anyway.

Remove this decision - have Mussolini remain neutral - and WWII massively changes. Suddenly there is no African front nor Balkans front. Germany does not bleed men and materiel into supporting the Italians. Thousands of more planes, tanks, trucks, and men are available for the German invasion of Russia. On the other side of things, a neutral Italy means that Britain does not need to waste a large portion of its own fleet on contesting the Mediterranean against the Regia Marina. Britain now has dozens more ships available for the Battle of the Atlantic, and even now has ships to spare to contest the Japanese better in the Pacific if/when they start things up.

>>266820
Two points. First, no New World culture - Aztec, Inca, Iroquois, whatever - ever invented it.

Second, the wheel is just as useful for its role in pottery as it is for its usage for transport.

>>266751
But that shit is boring as fuck.

>>270309
And yet very few scientists actually invent stuff or create epistemologic ruptures. Most scientists just work at reinforcing existing models.

File: Wheeled toy mesoamerican.jpg (257KB, 1600x1240px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 1600x1240px

>>271318
>Two points. First, no New World culture - Aztec, Inca, Iroquois, whatever - ever invented it.
Ahem...

>>272624
There's a difference between using it for toys and using it for transportation.

>>266885
With regard to Akechi Mitsuhide, I don't know. Nobunaga is often presented as an iconoclast but I don't think he really was one. He was just a more successful Sengoku daimyo than his rivals. The real iconoclasts would have been Christian daimyo or the Ikko (and even the Ikko are more conservative than many people realize). Mitsuhide killing Nobunaga did not seem to change all that much, imo. Hideyoshi simply built upon the foundation that Nobunaga laid and finished the job. Many of the things that Nobunaga would have done, Hideyoshi actually did do, like invading Shikoku.

I also question whether it would have been much different if another samurai clan (aside from the Oda/toyotomi) united Japan.

>>272734
Oh, caveat to this though that I just realized.

Hideyoshi had to unify the land by building a confederation and allying with the tozama. Nobunaga probably would have just destroyed the tozama and put his cronies in power over their fallen houses.

But is that really a big difference? Like somebody else said, that just changes who the monkey powerholders are and makes little difference for the majority of people or for how the society functions. I don't think that what Hideyoshi did is very different from what Nobunaga would have done, so I am not sure if Akechi Mitsuhide really greatly affected the net outcome of history. He just killed one notable leader to be replaced by somebody else.

Actually, I wonder if you could make a similar argument with Alexander the Great's father. I think he was assassinated as well. Did that make a huge dent in history or would Philip be able to accomplish his son'ss feats seeing as he was also a very accomplished general?

>>266864
(In response to your first point) but how does the significance of the one thing diminish the significance of the other?
The claim was that without Napoleon, the world wouldn't be the same, and your rebuttal is that another thing changed the world more. That does not refute the original claim.

>>272734
>>272803
Oda Nobunaga would have opened Japan. Ieyasu closed Japan.

Other than "Conquer Japan and then conquer China", Nobunaga and Hideyoshi were not very much alike in terms of policy. And Nobunaga would probably be more successful in the "conquer China" part than Hideyoshi.

He also had a strong heir in Nobutada, that was also killed by Mitsuhide.

I think it's very plausible that great men made more of an impact in smaller and simpler times and that their influence has declined very sharply and very recently as the scale and scope of human operations exceeded the reach of individual minds.

>>273540
> And Nobunaga would probably be more successful in the "conquer China" part than Hideyoshi.
Pretty sure this. Nobunaga was a better conqueror, although not so great at politics. Hideyoshi was either batshit insane at the time of the invasion of the continent, or he was intentionally sending people to their deaths.

File: Flintlock.jpg (17KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 640x427px

>>273453
The implications of Napoleon's activities was a destructive war which ended with a few social changes being made and some shifts in political powers. In contrast the introduction of interchangeable parts made it possible and practical to cheaply mass produce complex machines. There were some complicated machinery beforehand, but these were rare and could only be made slowly by the most skilled artisans. This had widespread consequences in every walk of life. Think of almost anything in your life more mechanically complicated than a flintlock musket, the reason you have that is because of assembly line production, powered machine tools and interchangeable parts.

>>271318
the Inca had no real use for the wheel because of their incredibly mountainous environment. they just used llamas for transportation instead.

>>266751
But all the things in the picture were created by great Men!
Always a single mind that brought on those revolutions

>>273877
Wrong: a person who was in the right place at the right time applied existing knowledge in a new way and/or refined existing methods which are in turn further refined. Screw presses and engraved text existed before Gutenberg.