wit>trope
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2004
- Messages
- 2,871
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?
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?