Are we overly fixated on heads of state and government?

Louis XXIV said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Traitorfish said:
A contemporary history of the American Revolution would address the participation of non-elite colonists, of women, of African-Americans and of Native Americans.
Click to expand...

Can you recommend any books on the participation of women, African and native Americans in the American Revolution? That might be interesting.
 
Tovergieter said:
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.
Click to expand...
One thing I don't think anyone has mentioned is that "Great Men" tend to either write autobiographies, or have biographies written about them, which tend to survive. Winston Churchill famously quipped; "History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it!" He was hardly the only great man to think this way.

It is undoubtable that Caesar's publication of the Gallic Wars was intended as a public relations exercise while he was absent from Rome. It has become almost a requirement for many ambitious politicians in Australia to release an autobiography before becoming the leader of their party. Tony Abbott released his ridiculous autobiography in 2006, when it was becoming apparent that John Howard would lose the 2007 election, and Abbott was a possible successor. Unusually, this is more common for Liberal politicians, when the first Australian politician to do so, Bob Hawke, was a leading Labor figure.

These are hardly the only examples. This leads to a natural bias towards the "Great Man" narrative.
 
Most great conquerors don't tend to write autobiographies yet they are very famous, like Napoleon, Alexander, etc.
 
Tolni said:
Most great conquerors don't tend to write autobiographies yet they are very famous, like Napoleon, Alexander, etc.
Click to expand...
Plenty of people were writing about them though. Often within their lifetimes. Napoleon did write memoirs, did he not?
 
Agent327 said:
Can you recommend any books on the participation of women, African and native Americans in the American Revolution? That might be interesting.
Click to expand...
Women and African-Americans aren't my wheelhouse, I'm afraid, but the "standard" text on Native American participation is probably Colin G. Calloway's The American Revolution in Indian Country. Edging towards dated now, but still the best single book on the subject.
 
Agent327 said:
This is starting to make no sense at all. For one, economic history isn't about 'dudes' at all.
Click to expand...
....And then Henry Ford invented the assembly line and...
 
Traitorfish said:
Women and African-Americans aren't my wheelhouse, I'm afraid, but the "standard" text on Native American participation is probably Colin G. Calloway's The American Revolution in Indian Country. Edging towards dated now, but still the best single book on the subject.
Click to expand...


"Wheelhouse"? Seriously? You call yourself an anarchist and you've gone that far into establishment-speak?:crazyeye:
 
Well, I can't quite think of the right word to describe it. But 'wheelhouse' is kind of a marketing weeny type of thing to say. Not a thinking person's. I hate the phrase.
 
I've never heard the term before.
 
Hygro said:
....And then Henry Ford invented the assembly line and...
Click to expand...
I think you'll find he invented the automated assembly line. That's what you get for skimming your economic history. Also, Adam Smith invented capitalism.
 
Future PM said:
I think you'll find he invented the automated assembly line. That's what you get for skimming your economic history. Also, Adam Smith invented capitalism.
Click to expand...

Wikipedia describes a production line used at the Arsenal in Venice to construct ships. Not automated, though. It dated to at least the 16th Century, and was probably older than that, since Venice provided fleets for the Crusades. And they hint the Chinese probably had production lines before that. Anybody know whether ancient Athens and Corinth had them?
 
sydhe said:
Wikipedia describes a production line used at the Arsenal in Venice to construct ships. Not automated, though. It dated to at least the 16th Century, and was probably older than that, since Venice provided fleets for the Crusades. And they hint the Chinese probably had production lines before that. Anybody know whether ancient Athens and Corinth had them?
Click to expand...
They're not 'Murkin, so they don't count.

In all seriousness, it's quite well known that Carthage had a system of flat-packed ready-to-assemble ships that may have been put together on a production line. The Romans essentially reverse-engineered a Carthaginian shipwreck to build their own fleet, due to the uniformity of the Carthaginian design. I'm willing to bet the idea of assembly lines developed independently in almost every culture that grew to an industrial level. Rome definitely had production lines to produce its legions' armour.
 
Future PM said:
I think you'll find he invented the automated assembly line. That's what you get for skimming your economic history. Also, Adam Smith invented capitalism.
Click to expand...
:lol: I was so about to start arguing but then you had that last sentence :hatsoff:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

pokiehl
Thoughts on the state of the game since New Frontier Pass
5 6 7
Replies
129
Views
12K
The_goggles_do_nothing
T
W
My Domination Victory Strategy (RT) - potentially Multiplayer friendly
Replies
5
Views
2K
War-mongering_Child
W
N
Blood on the Field of Lilies
3 4 5
Replies
88
Views
13K
Nuka-sama
N
AlpsStranger
Dentistry, inequality, and how we help people
Replies
16
Views
726
AlpsStranger
AlpsStranger
Thunderbrd
v38 Changelog
Replies
2
Views
2K
alberts8
A
Top Bottom