Great Man Theory

[wit>trope]

What do you think of this traditional theory of history? It says that the course of history is mainly shaped by peculiar individuals who wield great influence (Hitler, Washington, Jesus, Stalin, Einstein, Helen of Troy, etc).

The alternative theory is that there's nothing special about these individuals in their influencing history; that if those particular individuals hadn't arisen some other individual would have taken their place at around the same place and time. So for example, if Einstein hadn't made his theories, someone else likely would have around the same time and place and history would not be majorly different -- so the theory says. Or to use Helen of Troy (assuming historicity) -- if she wouldn't have been fought over, then some other fair and beautiful woman would have been fought over by roughly the same people at roughly the same time and place and nothing major would have changed.

The alternative theory also says, positively, that it is not peculiar great individuals "Great Men" but rather larger societal, cultural factors that shape the course of history. So for instance, Germany would have been belligerent and WWII would still have happened, even if Hitler had died of a childhood illness -- so some other political leader with roughly the same extreme nationalism would have inspired the Germans to a fascist undertaking similiar to WWII at around the same time.

I think the traditional Great Man Theory has more going for it. I actually favor a third kind of theory but since it is not mainstream among historians, I'll leave it out. What do you all think?

 

[Stefan Haertel]

The problem is that history is too often reduced to single events. History is an ongoing process and should be regarded as such.

 

[Xen]

I very much think its an interplay between the two; yes, indivuals DO have a large effect on events and happenings; but, on the otherhand, thier have been a many a popular movement that has arisen at about the same time, under the same conditions in the same area, but with no real interplay between each other (though often eventually converging to form one larger front, in which a particuler individual woudl take lead)

 

[Verbose]

Put it like this: Great Men are the outcome of a process, not their cause.

As a history of theory it's most likely a question of mistaking the effect for the cause. (And quite a bit is due to the application of narrative logic.)

But that isn't to say that individuals in no way shape history, just that they are part of a more complex interplay of superindividual factors, and that "Greatness" (whatever that is) isn't inherent or essential.

 

[sydhe]

Really, it's somewhere between the two. Some movements such as the Industrial an French revolutions would have happened anyway, but it's hard to believe someone else would have created the Mongol Empire without Genghis Khan, or that something like Islam would have happened without Mohammed.

 

[mitsho]

individuals are the product of the society, i'm all with Marx here. They are shaped by the society they life in. Hitler wasn't a particular intelligent man, he was just the 'right' (or rather wrong) man at the right time. Same with Luther, Mohammed and so on.
I really prefer the materialistic theory on that topic...

 

[Adler17]

The situations come and the men act. So men are shaped by the time they live indeed. So an Arminius fought only against the Romans because of their invading. Luther and his 95 thesis because of the lack of reformation in the catholic church. Washington because of the American revolution. Hitler because of the lost war and the rising of anitsemitism in Vienna. Each of that men, although I wouldn´t count Hitler as great, were shaped by the time and only time gave them the opportunity to grow. That means they used certain moments to become what they were. Today Hitler would not be elected, but a good comedian perhaps. I mean he would not know how to put his legs in a TV talk show. He would then perhaps take a career as comedian or he would be in a booby hatch or in prison or just a small painter in Munich. But hardly the "Führer".
Men, or also women, in power use their situation. But they are only remembered if they do something great, be it good or bad. So in all I agree with Mitsho.

Adler

 

[wit>trope]

Each of that men, although I wouldn´t count Hitler as great, were shaped by the time and only time gave them the opportunity to grow.

"Great" in Great Man Theory doesn't mean morally great. It means like in TIME's Man of the Year (which had Hitler as Man of the Year and there was talk of Osama being Man of the Year and criticism against TIME for being politically correct by not having Osama as Man of the Year). TIME's Man of the Year names the most influential person, whether morally great or not. Same thing with Great Man Theory. It's like when we call an empire "great" like the great Roman empire or the great Mongol empire or the great Japanese empire -- we don't mean these empires were morally great ... so when we say Hitler was a Great Man, we don't mean that he was, necessarily, a morally great man. To deny that Hitler was a Great Man, i.e. a man of great influence on the course of history, is silly IMHO.

 

[Willowmound]

Very interesting poll, I must say. I was just thinking about this! If Edison hadn't invented the lightbulb, would I have been typing this to candle light? I think not.

I voted "20% true". Some bright spark can probably influence history by being early or extreme, but they are all ultimately products of history and if it hadn't been them it would have been someone else.

Btw, the people in the know say Helen wasn't the real reason for the battle at Troy...

 

[Xen]

The situations come and the men act. So men are shaped by the time they live indeed. So an Arminius fought only against the Romans because of their invading.

rather an iffy example, cosniderign his father and brother were both staunchlly on the Roman side.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

History books have too much emphasis on "great men", reign of emperors/ kings and not enough on socio-economic backgrounds. If you look at the pre-WWII period the great depression caused mass poverty which lead to a radicalisation of politics with strengthened fascistm and communism as results (fascism winning in Western Europe). The great depression made the rise of fascism (and of these "great leaders") possible.
The germanic invasion of the Roman Empire was for instance caused by a small ice age with decreased harvests and more migration pressure towards western Europe.

I would say 30% great men 70% social and economic reasons.

 

[Shaihulud]

I think of history as a cumulation and accretion of many small events and person, the Hitlers and Napoleons are built up from this urges. I voted 0% because I believe that it is too complicated to burden single individual or event.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

Cierdan: I only partially agree with your presumption about if Einstein hadn't come up with his theories someone else would have at the same. I do believe that it is inevitable that they would have come up with the theories, though not at roughly the same time Einstein did. I believe that they would have come up with the theories in the 50's or maybe during the Space Race.

As it pertains to Jesus, I do suppose others would have come up with a similar monotheistic religion, it might have been nobody until Mohammed. But Christianity is the pretext for many things in history, the Crusades, Jihad and I suppose some of today's terrorism, etc.

Helen of Troy: well I think Troy would have eventually met its maker, even if she had stayed in Sparta. I view Troy to be the Alexandria, Rome, Constantinople, or even Jerusalem of its day, all of which were conquered regularly throughout history.

Hitler: I don't think it would have happened exactly as the first C&C Red Alert portrayed it, but I do believe with Hitler out of the picture, a conflict between the West and the USSR would have been inevitable. I do believe that someone would have sent Germany into battle one more time, because I am led to believe that Germans did not only dislike the Treaty of Versailles, they despised it with a hatred similar to that shown by terrorists towards the US today.

Stalin: the early part of the USSR is, I believe, characterized by charismatic, paranoid (which is understandable, though not to Stalin's extent), and a little crazy leaders. Though if Stalin hadn't butchered his officer corps before WW2, I think that the Nazi's wouldn't have had nearly the success they did.

George Washington: I think he did play a major role in the Revolution, there were a FEW other competent commanders that COULD have won the war, or at least prolonged it, but I believe that George was the best man for the job. That only because he was a member of the British Army in the Seven Years War and had learned their tactics. Benedict Arnold, I believe, could have won the war for us, had he not been a traitor. He was a good, or at least decent, commander. If we didn't have him, I do think we could have won if we just kept harassing the Brit's with guerilla warfare (remember Vietnam?).

There. If anyone reads this they will learn my thoughts on the matter. Well, tthe ones that I can think of at this moment, anyway .

 

[Plotinus]

I believe it was Emerson (that great fraud!) who stated the opposite to the Great Man theory, to the effect that if Napoleon had never been born someone else would have done exactly the same things as him. It seems to me that this is just obviously stupid. Surely it is obvious that there *are* great individuals who have changed history for better or worse, and that if they had not existed, things would have turned out differently.

At the same time, of course, it is equally true that events depend upon wider circumstances. There are two reasons for this: first, circumstances produce these great individuals, and second, circumstances provide them with the opportunity to shine. So Napoleon would not have been around at all (or as he was) had his parents not met. But even if he had existed, he would not have become a great general had the political and military situation in France not been as it was.

It seems to me that those who take Emerson's stance here fail to see that something can be both a cause and an effect. They point out that Great Men are effects (for the reasons just given) and so they deny that they have any causal power in history. Obviously this is wrong. A Great Man is the effect of many causes, but he can also be the cause of many effects. And the outcome does depend on what the Great Man does, in addition to many other things.

 

[Adler17]

Xen, Arminius hated the Roman invaders very much. I know about his brother Flavius, who was Roman soldier and stayed it later. But IIRC his father was in no way a big friend of the Romans, but his uncle, Segestes. Arminius hatred was very big. I suppose he only served the Romans to learn the enemy and to wait for a chance, which eventually came in 9 AD.

Adler

 

[Eli]

I voted 60% true.

Societal, economical and cultural factors set people on a certain general direction, but the "Great Men" have a lot of room to maneuver and still stay on more or less the right course.

A good example would be Nazi Germany. After WWI it was obvious that Germany will turn aggressive again in light of the post-war agreements and the great depression but Adolf Hitler was a singular personality.
It was Adolf Hitler and Adolf Hitler alone who is responsible for turning an expected rise in anti-semitism with the accompanying discrimination and small scale pogroms into The Holocaust.
It was Hitler and Hitler alone who is responsible for the invasion of the Soviet Union and it's consequences.

History before 1930 did not dictate the rise of Hitler. At least IMO, if Germany in 1925 had a "great man" who is simply a German nationalist who wanted to kill the Versailles treaty and unite all Germans under one rule, the Nazi party would've never been more than a radical wing of his party.

 

[HalfBadger]

Instead of Great Man it should maybe be Influencial Person?

Eitherway I voted for 60%, because I think it's partially being in the right time and place, but it's those specific ppl that took the reigns so to say.

I recently heard of Rosa Parks passing today, so using her as an example, if she had not refused to move from that seat on the bus, the civil rights movement, probably still would have happend. However it may not have had the cencentrated event to organise/focus on which can be huge. Aswell it spend things up a bit. If by doing what Rosa did saved dozens/hundreds/thousands of ppl from being supressed, I call that great/influential.

 

[Adler17]

HalfBadger, Mrs. Parks was a woman with courage and with all rights on her side to start to destroy the racism. However she only acted because she felt it was injustice. She was the first to sit to stay up. But she was indeed made by the environment. If she didn´t do it, another would have done it.
However one thing is to say for the Great Man theory: The great man can shape the history when in the position. An example: Hitler was only made because of the time and the locations (especially Vienna) he lived in. But in position he alone was responsible for starting the Holocaust. That is true. But he only go so far because of the position. And the position he only got because of the circumstances.
Eli, in the Weimar Republic there was such a man: Stresemann. Under him as chancellor and later foreign minister, Germany was flourishing. He could integrate all democratic parties into the Republic. From the right wing DNVP to the SPD. When he suddenly died nobody was there to integrate the different wings. Eventually the SPD terminated the government because of a small affair, the upgoing of the costs of the Public Unemployment Insurance by 0.5 %, and because of Stresemann dead nobody stopped this. With a strong government, Hindenburg would never be forced to rule with emergency laws and the NSDAP would have still been a (growing) party, but at least in the end of 1933 bancrupt without any chances.
No Hitler, and Germany would have eventually rearmed and got rid of the reparations in mid 1930s. WW2 would not have happen, at least not in the kind. Perhaps Stalin would have attacked...
So all in all the theories are both not really true. Only together but with a majority of the alternative theory. So the Great Man theory is only true to 40 % since the Great man has to get the position until they can act.

Adler

 

[Adler17]

Erm, another question? How can something be propable under 0% and over 100%?

Adler

 

[Evil Tyrant]

I think it is a little bit of both, men are shaped by their enviroment, but are not entirely reliant on their upbringing. Booker T. Washington was born a slave and could have been expected to remain an ignorant laborer, but he ended up founding a school. Archimedes was the product of Hellenism, but he was clearly greater than other Hellenistic mathmaticians(sp?). Millions of Mongols have lived on the Steppe, but there was only one Gengis Khan.