Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
Talleyrand gets a lot of attention regarding the Congress of Vienna, as does Metternich. And Otto von Bismark gets way more attention than Wilhelm I. So, if the complaint is just that we're focusing on heads of state over influential ministers, I think that's misplaced. But Tsar Alexander I deserves the credit he gets. So I think credit is given where it is due.
Well, the complaint is that those who are not heads of state OR heads of goverment are being shoved under. Talleyrand isn't as well known as Napoleon. Nor is Metternich. Bismarck was a head of government, yet we rarely hear about Leo von Caprivi, who was extremely influential in the Bismarckian era too. So the problem isn't really great men historiography, it is that not all the great men receive credit where due.
Thing is, a certain degree of great men historiography is a necessary antidote to oversystematisation of history. Individuals are capable of producing unexpected events (Black Swans) from time to time. Attempting to negate the history of great men will thus make us blind to fulcrum points where things could have gone different from that point onward. Cautious as I am in order to avoid creating false dilemma's, I do fear that being opposed to Great Men theories restricts one to Historicism. Of course, you may argue away if that's your cup of tea of course.