Great man theory of history

>>2907286
Just because many people probably were as smart and as charismatic as Napoleon doesn't mean they could of filled his role.

Place and time was just as important as his personal characteristics as a individual.

>>2907767
>Place and time was just as important as his personal characteristics as a individual.
Napoleon shared the same time and place with many other officers

Napoleon's place and time was very important to Napoleon, but was it important for French history?

>>2907286
While I think traditional historians overplay the "Great Man" theory, I think modern historians underplay it.

Think of how influential an inventor Leonardo Da Vinci would have been if he had been born in the 18th or 19th centuries, for example.

Conversely, think about how Steve Jobs or Bill Gates would have been "Literally who?"s if they had been born 20 years earlier or later.

>>2907795
Where any of those officers as smart as Napoleon?
Just because Napoleon wasn't unique in France, doesn't mean he wasn't unique in that very very minimal group of people who had that window of opportunity presented to them.

>>2907809
Imagine if the right person had gotten their hands on the steam engine during classical greek times.

"Great man" theory is essentially correct, big changes in history are always caused by minorities, a select few persons working together, or sometimes by just one person alone. Single men often change history in massive ways, i don't really need to name examples because there are so many.

>>2907827
>One person alone

Bit of a stretch, even the greatest of men had at least some help.

File: 1474210241208.jpg (83KB, 520x403px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 520x403px

>>2907809
I think there is validity to a "Great Scientist/Artist" theory of science/art history, but the same can't be said for non-science-art figures of history. Those kinds of historical figures are much more dependent on surrounding conditions. Emily Dickinson can write poems and die relatively unknown then be rediscovered, but that can't be done with historical leaders. My points are artist and scientist can operate in a vacuum. And historical leaders by definition, cannot.

>>2907286
It's one of those dumb concepts that's taught just to give freshmen something to argue over. In the modern educational curriculum it serves no purpose except as a punching bag. There haven't been any serious great men theorists for about a hundred years.

I think it has its place, but its also overplayed.

On one end of the scale is Napoleon and Alexander the great.
On the other end of the scale, you get things like Victorian England, Tycho Brae, any city state coalition. Or even the founding Fathers, which is groupthink taken to good extremes.

>>2907286
Its fascist and racist

>>2907877
>artist and scientist can operate in a vacuum
>

>>2907838
But it was still by their ingenuity, their ambition that the work was completed