Thread replies: 5
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: Download.jpg (5KB, 300x168px) Image search:
[Google]
5KB, 300x168px
Are Alexander the Great and Napoleon divine interventions?
There extreme success on the battlefield seems just too ridiculous. Both seemed to just breez over continents winning everything easily despite not having any technological, numeral, or even tactical advantage. The Phalanx formation of Alexander the Great was well known since centuries and didnt cause Persia a lot of troubles. But suddenly, Alexander while technically not doing anything different comes in sweeping persians left and right and conquering almost all of the known world in less than a decade.
For Napoleon, its similar. There was no big technological advancement, no tactical invention, just Napoleon being there that seems to guarantee the french victory.
Now I am thinking this is divine intervention because it seems like an outside force was not perfectly happy with how things are developing. Europe was struggling to get rid of the old power structures of feudalism and monarchy that hindered the development of the Rechtsstaat, that Napoleon established throughout europe and that would become the frame in which industrialisation and democracy would flourish. In ancient times, the eastern mediterranean was stuck politcally and philosophically since centuries, and after Alexander the Great spread Hellenism throughout the known world the ground work was laid for the roman empire to emerge.
What im trying to say is, that these two persons seem just too succesful to be just a product of luck and talent. It seems to me like there is an outside force to history, that is steering it into a certain direction it wants it to be, staying largely passive but still intervening every now and then when the world history by itself is moving too slow or into a wrong direction.
There are also other examples of individuals seemingly being truly godly blessed, like Mohammed, Genghis Khan, or Lenin.
What do you think? Is history being steered by a divine force?
>>
>>3340025
Alexander didn't do anything that his father wouldn't have been able to
>>
>>3340025
>Are Alexander the Great and Napoleon divine interventions?
Really? Those seem more like cases of the candle that burns twice as bright burning for only half as long.
>>
>>3340025
By that logic,, the Huns, the Timurids, and the Nazis were divine intervention. Genghis and Lenin might have done some amazing things, but they were done amid an ocean of blood and misery.
If there's divine intervention, there seems no coherent matter or motive in which it's implemented.
>>
>What im trying to say is, that these two persons seem just too succesful to be just a product of luck and talent.
I do not think it could ever be shown that any individual could be more successful than luck or talent could allow.
When we talk about contingency, the ways thing could be, versus necessity, the way things must be, we cannot even
demonstrate how it is the case that something as simple as a pen has come into existence within the context of can be and must be.
So, I would be hesitant to posit higher intervention on the part of those who seem to be extraordinary individuals.
Also, if you are trying to frame this in a Hegelian way, Hegel did not believe in miracles, great persons steering the course of events, or God
influencing history, culture, and state; the collective set of Spirit, beyond what the inner logic of the constituent concepts were.
Hegel believed things develop in accordance to their own standards and inner dialectic, and not by external a priori standards that posit
events with such and such people, in such and such places, with such and such outcomes must be divinely influenced, for to do so presupposes everything
one would want to investigate and inquire about in history, or in a wider context, spirit, instead of being revealed to us by investigation and inquiry of spirit.
Thread posts: 5
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1