Why did modern historians abandon "Great Man History"?.

>>3206796
>But in 1860 Herbert Spencer formulated a counter-argument that has remained influential throughout the 20th century to the present: Spencer said that such great men are the products of their societies, and that their actions would be impossible without the social conditions built before their lifetimes

>>3206796
When marxists took over academia.

>>3206799
Wow, what a great counter argument

>>3206803
if it isn't great, it should be no problem for you to disprove it, right?

Go study some basic complexity theory

>>3206799
>products of their societies

So historical determinism...

>>3206807
Here's my counter counter argument:
>great men act independently of the conditions of their societies, and their actions are not determined by social conditions.
If we can just state our opinions and call them "arguments" it's pretty easy to debate!

>>3206796
>Marxists think that the "economic and social conditions" of 7th century Arabia made it inevitable for a world religion to be created there and spread throughout the world.
Real talk: should marxists be classified as mentally retarded?

>>3206818
so you think the society and upbringing has no influence on the character?

>>3206817
well yeah, when you go down deep enough, you can only have determinism or quantum randomness

>>3206796
(((Marxists))) debase everything to economics and a war for resources. The ambitions talents of exceptional individuals play no role they are just pawns to larger forces that operate outside their realm. This video is the greatest example of that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LsrkWDCvxg

>>3206824
>so you think the society and upbringing has no influence on the character?
No, of course it has some degree of influence. What I'm saying is that it has no causal relationship. Genghis Khan didn't conquer half the world due to some economic conditions of 13th century Mongolia.

>>3206817
...nope and definitly not the Marxist kind

>>3206826
Marxists love great man history when the man in question is african. You should see how John Green drools over Mansa musa.

>>3206830
>Leonid Grinin defines a historical figure (a Great Man) thus:
>"Owing to his personal features, or to a chance, or to his social standing, or to the peculiarity of the epoch, an individual by the very fact of his existence, by his ideas or actions (or inaction) directly or indirectly, during his lifetime or after his death may have such an influence upon his own or another society which can be recognized significant as he left a noticeable mark (positive, negative or unambiguous) in history and in the further development of society."[16]
>So, he concludes that the role of Great Man depends on a number of factors, not none at all.

I don't think that critics of Great Men Theory argue that human decision has no role on history at all. They merely critizise the view of the "divine" role of the Great Men, which was a common view in 19th century

>>3206821
DELET THIS

It was feudalism and the mode of production in 7th century Arabia read a book shitlord!!! There are no exceptional individuals that shape history with inspiring deeds of heroism and ambition that can inspire people to this day. This is dangerous talk stop right now!!!

>>3206796
>Why did modern historians abandon "Great Man History"?

To stop glorifying white males.

>>3206853
Incas were superior to europeans though.

>>3206830
>due to some economic conditions of 13th century Mongolia

Mongols periodically raided their surroundings, sometimes the raids had scale of a world war like they did under Attila, Timur, Kublay or Genghis did. Do you really think it wasn't the steppe, but a few capable chieftaints that molded them this way?

>>3206835
>John Green
>Marxist
???

>>3206796
Because it's retarded and doesn't do anything that history is supposed to do. Fiction, however, is still very much alive, and might be more your thing.

>>3206861
Why did the Genghisid branch have so much more success than others (Kublai and Timur are both descendants Genghis)? Why did the other thousands of chieftains not encounter the same success? Because the stars were aligned in a certain way?

You niggers are worse than astrologers.

>>3206867
He is just an anti white but his critiques are informed by marxism. Besides he didn't even write the script.

>>3206870
>Because it's retarded

Why? I think it's much more retarded to assume that the actions of individuals are entirely informed by their socioeconomic position and "class consciousness" like marxists do.

Dismissing every great deed and attributing it merely to economics or social conditions is alienating and makes history dull and boring.

>>3206875
>Because the stars were aligned in a certain way?
kind of
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/12/4375.abstract

He also had luck on excellent generals.

>>3206880
>informed by marxism
How exactely? I find it more likely that it is just product of American obssesion with race.

>>3206906
>He also had luck on excellent generals.
And those "excellent generals" were excellent because of luck too, or because they were great men? Or maybe they had "excellent lieutenants"? Checkmate nigger.

>>3206911
Because they were highly capable individuals great men, as you would put it.

Which makes Genghis seem less as "The Great man, who moves history solely and only by his will to power", wouldn't you agree?

>>3206906
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/12/4375.abstract

Muh economics ooga booga. So greater agricultural productivity enabled higher population. Big deal...

Doesn't explain how Chinggis Khan conquered half the world. This is so stupid attributing monumental events to simple climate patterns. This is why young people are not interested in history. Who can get inspired by that?

>>3206936
>he wasn't a great man, because these other people were great men!
You're digging yourself into a hole.

>>3206861
>Do you really think it wasn't the steppe, but a few capable chieftaints that molded them this way?

Yes, it was Genghis who united the all the different Mongol tribes under him and forged the fucking Mongol identity before setting them on conquering the world. I think he had something to do with it.

>>3206796
I don't know why modern historians did, but I would argue that Great Man interpretation of history that revolves around traditional Great Man types (political leaders, generals, prophets...) doesn't make sense for at least 500 years now. Maybe in the ancient world, charismatic skilled individuals could create lasting changes on the macro-level, but in our day and age by far the most important driver of history is technological progress. If any Great Men are driving history now, it is scientists.

>>3206959
>doesn't make sense for at least 500 years now
Napoleon and Hitler, off the top of my head. Granted though, that the scope of great men extends to scientists. I do not think anyone would deny Newton or Leibniz being Great Men.

>>3206945
Temujin would have accomplished nowhere near what he did if he had been born, say, in an Inuit community or the Amazon or a million other places that don't have top-tier fighters running around, surrounded by large societies but themselves being nowhere near as stratified. Machiavelli correctly identified that both skill and luck were mandatory for success. You seem to refuse to accept that if, for example, Alexander the Great was born as a crack baby in modern-day Detroit he wouldn't found an empire stretching from Canada to Panama.

>>3206982
And if you were the heir of Philip II you'd be the joke king of history who squandered his father's legacy.

>>3206970
If you consider Newton and Leibniz in the light of Great Men theory, it seems awfully coincidental that they both invented calculus nearly simultaneously.

>>3206996
Not really, concurrent scientific discoveries were not rare before scientific institutions started information sharing on a massive scale with scientific journals.

Anyway, the burden of proof is on you: what were the specific environmental factors which simultaneously affected Newton and Leibniz, and which inevitably led to the creation of calculus? And why did Newton and Leibniz invent calculus, and not some other bloke?

>>3206994
You seem really upset that people find issue with the Great Man theory of history.

>>3207013
You have presented no arguments other than extreme hypotheticals such as "if Alexander the Great was born limbless, blind and deaf in a bushman tribe on the Limpopo river, then he wouldn't have been as successful".

Well no shit nigger, no one denies that the environment influences individual actions. What we are saying is that environmental conditions do not CAUSE individual actions.

>>3207013
If Alexander The Great conquered the East because of the "material forces" the "mode of production" and large scale historical forces why did his Empire collapse after his death?

>>3206970
I don't think that Napoleon and Hitler changed the world that much on a macro level.

>>3207024
Because Alexander had a crack team of generals (assembled by his daddy), not peaceful administrators. After he was done ripping the Persian Empire apart, his successors fought over the spoils.

>>3207040
Napoleon definitely changed a lot

>>3207043
And his crack team of generals were also great because of environmental conditions?

"Great man" is product of the man himself, great opportunity and great advisors. The last grew in importance as time passed.

>>3206945
>Muh economics ooga booga. So greater agricultural productivity enabled higher population. Big deal...
Great argument, lad. Very academic.
>Doesn't explain how Chinggis Khan conquered half the world.
Having lots of horses and well fed manpower doesn't explain why were mongol armies performing better than normally? As opposed to "chieftaint made it happen by his sheer willpower"?

>This is so stupid attributing monumental events to simple climate patterns.
Denying those effects would be even more stupid

>This is why young people are not interested in history. Who can get inspired by that?
Oh, so we should we change our theories so they would be more "engaging"? Then I say let's bring back vitalism, it is far more engaging and spititual than the shitty, boring, inhuman biochemistry! Truth doesn't conform to your feelings.

Also you seem to forgot that less serious (edutainment and elementary school) history is often taught within the framework of Great man theory

>>3206947
Mongol society wasn't a monarchy with rigid succession, it allowed the strong and capable to fight their way up thus producing capable leadership at the cost of frequent civil wars. Genghis was product of Mongol society. An ideal constructed by the culture and fleshed out by physical man.

>>3207043
So his Daddy was a Great Man? He transformed Macedonia from a backwater to the greatest power in Greece. He was also a military reformer and innovator. What kind of material forces and inevitable historical trends made him do all that?

>>3207040
>Hitler didn't change the world that much
you're kidding right

>>3207064
>Very academic.
Academia is a marxist circlejerk. Gimme a break.

>>3207067
>inb4 he had great military advisers

>>3207081
kek

>>3207046
How?
>>3207072
No. What did Hitler change on a macro level? Nukes were going to be invented one way or another. The US and the USSR were almost certainly going to be the top two powers one way or another.

>>3207080
Was that a false flag or are you a legit 'tard?

>>3207085
>What did Hitler change on a macro level?
Israel

>>3206796
Because the overwhelming majority of work is collaborative and builds off of itself.

People often credit Adam Smith as the father of economics not realizing that all he did was compile the work of university priests from the university of Salamanca.

Some may consider Newton a "great man" but he had this to say about himself: "if I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

In primitive societies you get "big men" whose defining characteristic is their ability to self-promote. They're either gangster-tier warlords or skilled showmen, hogging the spotlight, stealing the glory of the kill, and putting giant feasts as a display of their prowess, and most importantly: they receive "magical" visions (aka telling people what they want to hear) which inspires them to raid their neighbors. They're more likely to be an overall detriment to their society than a benefit, for every rare genius there are fifty totally ruthless cunts.

The "great man" theory is simple hero-worship, but in practice it's just people falling for the lies of self-promoting showmen like they have since ancient times.

>>3207085
>How?
Exported the liberal ideas of the FR throughout Europe, destroyed most existing monarchies in Europe, his reforms were copied by most European countries. Also caused a cataclysmic population reduction in France which marked the beginning of it sinking towards being a second rate power for the first time in European history. Confirmed Russia's ascendancy as a Great Power.

Oh wait, are Great Powers also racist nowadays?

>>3207093
Israel is geopolitically irrelevant on the macro level. If the Holocaust had any macro effects, it's mostly because it probably killed a few people who would have ended up being Einsteins. But that just goes back to my idea that scientists are the only great men that really matter nowadays.

>>3207098
>Israel is geopolitically irrelevant on the macro level.
Oh boy

>>3207097
>Exported the liberal ideas of the FR throughout Europe
They exported themselves. If anything, Napoleon hindered their spread by associating them with his own autocratic rule.
>destroyed most existing monarchies in Europe,
He didn't destroy any of the important ones. The English, Prussian, Austro-Hungarian, and Russian monarchies all survived.

>>3207101
What's your argument otherwise?

File: 1406023020821.png (93KB, 203x345px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 203x345px

>>3207098
>Israel is geopolitically irrelevant on the macro level.
>went to war with almost the entire Arab war and won with backing of the west
>even now America is also pushing for Israel's interests
>has nukes and wouldn't hesitate to use them ON THE ENTIRE FUCKING WORLD, see Samson Option
>geopolitically irrelevant

>>3207106
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KMVhb57RqI

File: israel isis.jpg (321KB, 1062x722px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 1062x722px

>>3207098

The 2nd Iraq War the most important geopolitical event of the past 20 years wouldn't happen if it wasn't for Israel

>>3207108
forgot to mention that destabilising countries like Iraq and Syria were also in Israel's interests, along with the fact that terrorist organisations like ISIS exist.

>>3207072
Apart of change in demographics due to genocide, he didn't accomplished much. Everything relevant came from reaction to his actions, not the actions themselves.

>>3207108
None of that is macro level. Relatively minor squabbling in one corner of the world. Samson option is a meme, it's not like Israel would actually nuke Paris or London or Berlin if they were getting overrun. Well, maybe Berlin, kek.

>>3207116
What did the 2nd Iraq War change that was so relevant on the macro scale of world history?

>>3207133
>none of that is macro-level
see>>3207118

>it's not like Israel would actually nuke Paris or London or Berlin if they were getting overrun.
like how Israel didn't sink SS Liberty

>>3207127
>Everything relevant came from reaction to his actions, not the actions themselves.
And? How does that chenge the fact that he was the driving factor for all of this?

>>3207134
Destabilized the ME causing sectarian violence and a resurgence in Islamic extremism and eventually the Arab Spring. But let me guess you think the Syrian civil war was caused by...drought.

>>3207113
How does this show that Hitler was important on the macro level? Jews would have been powerful one way or another, either by getting Israel and Holocaust guilt or by having half of their people survive instead of dying.

>>3207153
How is the Arab Spring important on the macro level of world history?

>>3207158
>>3207159
>the macro level
what the fuck is that even supposed to mean

>>3207159
>macro level of world history

What does that even mean? According to marxists nothing matters and we are inevitably heading towards a classless moneyless society or something

I reject that the Arab Spring was an event that changed the shape of the ME.

>>3207175
>>3207177
Macro level is stuff like the Enlightenment, the rise of modern liberal capitalism, the Industrial revolution, and the development of nuclear weapons.

>>3207195
So you include the progress but not what drives the progress?

>>3207203
Didn't you know? The ideas of the enlightenment just popped out of nowhere!

>>3207203
I did include what drives the progress. I said that the great man theory applies when it comes to scientists. I'm just arguing that the days when politicians, generals, and religious leaders could have macro significance are over, maybe for good.

File: Vladimir_Putin_-_2006.jpg (10KB, 220x316px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 220x316px

>>3207217
>I'm just arguing that the days when politicians, generals, and religious leaders could have macro significance are over
not true

>>3207236
>inb4 he says that Putin's past allegiances made him the inevitable leader of Russia

>>3207236
Hmm... that's actually an interesting example. Ok, I'm going to modify my theory. Politicians can still have impact on the macro level if they go apeshit and launch the nukes. That's true. Other than his finger on the nuke button and the fact that he potentially keeps other less sane fingers from getting on that button, Putin has no macro level significance though.

Cont. Basically politicians now are just custodians of nuclear weapons systems. They no longer have a positive and active role on the macro-scale, just a negative one: their job is to prevent global nuclear warfare.

>>3207260
Go fuck yourself with your shitty made up "macro" theories, you're impressing no one.

>>3207267
I'm being serious. Russia has an economy the size of Italy's. It has no importance on the macro level of history. The only way it could affect the macro level is either by giving birth to some Einsteins and Newtons, or by unleashing nuclear war.

>>3207248
>Politicians can still have impact on the macro level if they go apeshit and launch the nukes.
So according to this logic, no other leader comes close to Ghenghis Khan because he conquered almost the entire Eurasia and macro history only applies on the world as a whole and not to small events that follow each other closely and shape up the world today. Sorry but that's literally erasing history

>Putin has no macro level significance though.
He made Russia strong again and is also helping Assad contain jihadists from taking over Syria and then take over other areas.

>>3207275
Genghis Khan has little or no macro significance. He set up a short lived empire that mostly controlled empty steppe, and he scared Europe for a few decades.
Putin's made Russia have an economy the size of Italy's again, and the Syrian Civil War is only a minor episode in middle eastern history. All the jihadism in the entire Islamic world is just a bit of desperate frenzy that is unlikely to change anything in the long term. Eventually the Islamic world will have to either become secular and catch up to the West scientifically/economically, or give up and stay quiet, maybe just spazzing out fruitlessly every now and then.

>>3207290
By your stringent definitions it seems like no given historical event has any significance.

>>3207295
Well, earlier I listed the Enlightenment, the rise of modern liberal capitalism, the Industrial revolution, and the development of nuclear weapons.

>>3207290
>Genghis Khan has little or no macro significance
Tell that to Arabs, Chinks or Russians

>>3207301
Those are not events, those were movements. I'm talking about specific events. Was the Turkish defeat at the gates of Vienna irrelevant?

>>3207308
It was relevant, but would you say that great men were primarily responsible for it, or was it deeper factors that decided the limits of Turkish penetration into Europe?

>>3207326
What deeper factors?

>>3207331
Overall European vs Turkish geopolitical/economic power.

>>3207338
That's too easy an answer, you could substitute "geopolitical/economic power" with "God". I want specifics.

>>3207346
But my whole point is that the specifics aren't that important.

>>3207387
So you have literally no idea what you're talking about. Just a vague feeling that "social factors" are important without being able to name any of them.

You're the equivalent of people who believe in astrology or "in the will of Allah".

>>3207398
Whichever side won the Battle of Vienna, don't you think that ultimately the larger struggle between the West and Islam was decided by economic/logistical factors?

>>3207402
I think that if Turks had advanced up to the borders of France history might have turned out a bit different.

To take an ever more extreme example, what if the Greeks had not defeated the Persians. Do you think "social factors" would have caused the world to turn out exactly as it has turned out?

>>3207408
But are great men the main reason why they didn't advance up to the borders of France?
>what if the Greeks had not defeated the Persians. Do you think "social factors" would have caused the world to turn out exactly as it has turned out?
No, but my argument is that it's only in the last 500 years or so that technology has become more important than great men as a driver of macro-scale changes.

>>3207432
>But are great men the main reason why they didn't advance up to the borders of France?
The burden of proof is on you to prove what environmental factors prevented their advance. But you have none, therefore you've ousted yourself as a retard who indulges in pure speculation.

>>3206796
Look at any great man and realize that they are limited in their scope ans ambitions by the society that they are raised in and the situation that they find themselves in.

Good exmaples of this are scientific discoveries such Calculus and Evolution through natural selection . These theories were reached simultaneously and independently. This seems to be evidence that greater societal changes and sharing of information are just as and maybe more important than the indicidual researchers.

>Great men are great but their are limits set on them by their situation.

>>3206899
>I defend a theory because it's fun

You're worst than Marxists with their class autism.

>>3206946
If a time and place produces such an amount of "great men", isn't it more sensible to accept that the background they were born in was the optimal one to produce those men and events? Or would you prefer to say that amount of men existed because of magic while at the same time atacking determinists for similar reasons?

>>3206796
basically every argument against great-man theory is hypothetical and unprovable.

>>3206796
What people fails to understand is that denying Great Man History is not denying that great men existed. The point of the theory is that history is mainly decided by the actions of a very few amount of charismatic individuals. Denying it doesn't mean to deny that those individuals existed and it certainly doesn't mean to deny that they were influential.

The thing is, most scholars today have moved away from the Great Man theory while at the same time rejecting the overreaction that are the marxist deterministic histories that seek an exclusively economic explanation for literally every single event. Only a few old ass teachers and people without any history-related background defend those simplistic theories. But 4chan anons need enemies so they take a side in an outdated debate so they can be angry at someone.

Do we consider Mao and Stalin great men? It seems they dragged their country kicking and screaming to where they wanted it through sheer insane will. Literally, there is a good harvest because I declare it - reality irrelevant.

>>3207116
Benjamin wasn't wrong; all his neighbours are destabilised; which is good for Israel. Divide & conquer.

>>3206796
Most of the time, times make the man. But sometimes, man makes the times. This man is the great man.

>>3206803
OP asked for an explanation, not an argument

>>3207528
This. Great Man theory and Marxist dogma are not the only two possible positions.