What are the greatest greatest-in-history lists in history?

[Fifty]

Despite the odd thread title, this is a serious thread.

Throughout history, professional historians amateur history enthusiasts* have argued about what the greatest x in history is, where x could be military leader, king, weapon, war, battle, artist, etc.

The question is, which of these "greatest x" questions is the greatest? What greatest question is it most important for us to consider, and which ones are merely frivolous? What misconceptions of the greatest x have lead to problems in the past (i.e. what is something or someone that someone thought was the greatest x in some domain but wasnt, with disterous results!)


*proof:

Spoiler :

 

[Dachs]

[/subforum]

 

[Plotinus]

I suppose the "Seven Wonders of the World" list is the original such list...

I think that the general "greatest" approach reflects a very masculine and rather infantile obsession with "size" (literal or otherwise), not to mention an overly simplistic belief that complex things, events, or people can be categorised on a simple sliding scale. Rather like the excessively mathematical approach to poetry appreciation that Robin Williams' character in Dead poets' society ridicules. So I would say that quite apart from the influence - good or otherwise - of any given "greatest" list, the very mindset behind the making of such lists is intrinsically rather frivolous and one-dimensional, and probably hinders real understanding of history or anything else.

At the same time, one could argue that sometimes asking the question "which was the greatest X" can lead you to understand how complex these things are. For example, if you're asking who the greatest Roman emperor was, you might realise that your answer to that will depend on what criteria you consider more important (eg, is it better to conquer other countries, or to have a good economy), and that will show you that these things really are complex and have no straightforward answer. So in that way, asking the question could be a good thing. But I suspect that anyone who asks such a question more than once isn't going to learn that lesson.

 

[Sharwood]

Clearly it's the greatest US politician to die in a duel. Most important greatest list of all time.

Oh, and come on, seven greatest Frenchmen? It's hard enough finding even one who qualifies as great!

Moderator Action: Infraction for trolling. - KD
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[kulade]

The way I look at it, when posters use time posting on "Greatest X" threads, they are not posting on "What if" threads; so I'm at least happy about that.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Indeed, Kulade. I think one of the problems with historical study is the obsession with the "best" of everything. We learn about the great captains of history, kings and queens, diplomats and ministers and their foreign policy, insurrectionists and their civil wars, but we never learn about the average person, no one cares about how your average Roman citizen lived, or what conditions were like in an ancient Iranian city. Who knows who the Ainu are? Or the Guarani? We know what the biggest churches, mosques, and temples are, but how did small country churches, or far-flung temples get constructed? How did they relate to peoples' lives? How did people between different tribes relate? How did they feel about other peoples in other places? How did they feel about their own economic or social situation, or the events of the world around them? No one asks these questions, and yet they comprise such a greater part of history than the few over whom the many obsess. Perhaps it stems from the old tradition of viewing history as having been shaped by the audacity or lack thereof of individual men, or perhaps people really don't care. Perhaps it has to do with our culture and society, where only the best are desired, only the best succeed, only the best matters. No one remembers Second Place, much less Last Place. Whatever the case, it is the cause of things like these superlative threads we have.

 

[Plotinus]

Historians did not much consider and study those things in the past, but I think they do now in contemporary historical studies. Social history is an important discipline. I think that this is partly because of a greater recognition that history is about ordinary people as well as kings and generals, and also partly because pretty much everything has been said about the Great Men so academics need to find other topics to write their theses on! But at the popular and amateur level, it's all about superlatives, for the reasons already discussed.

 

[philippe]

I blame the long focus of historiografie to focuse on statist-military history.

I think it were poeple like Brodel and Robert Madrou that finally helped history to have an other (and imo moe complete) view, with their work for the annalles as just an aspect.