What makes history?

What influences history the most?

  • Individual persons

    Votes: 14 24.1%
  • Nations

    Votes: 10 17.2%
  • Geography

    Votes: 7 12.1%
  • Circumstances

    Votes: 17 29.3%
  • Chance

    Votes: 6 10.3%
  • Other (Please explain if I've missed something.)

    Votes: 4 6.9%

  • Total voters
    58

Adso de Fimnu

Prince
Joined
Nov 8, 2003
Messages
373
Location
Iowa
I've been playing Civ 4 a lot lately, and the huge importance it places on great people has got me thinking.

What influences history the most? Persons, nations, circumstances, geography, chance? ...

Please discuss.
 
I would say chance and geography. For an example I will use George Washington. George Washington was a good guy and a decent general. However, the American Revolution would have ended if George Washington and his army hadn't escaped. The reason he escaped was because of the fog. If there was no fog it wouldn't matter how great a general George Washington was or if we were fighting Britain or France at that point. Another example is Napoleon. Had the Russian Winter been less harsh Napoleon may have succeeded in at least getting peace. If the weather had been better then Napoleon would probably remain Emperor for a much longer period of time.
 
Out of that list I'd say "Individual Persons" and you could well argue also that "Geography" plays its part in the shaping of these 'great people'. The other options are secondary to these.

I believe El Justo has some good comments to share on 'great people'.
 
Erm I voted circumstances, it is the interaction of different things togethere that makes history unique. An example if Washington was born in a different time period, he would not have made the impact that he did. I feel that all the above makes history but that circumstances is the ultimate one.
 
i took a class as an under-grad on this exact topic...'great people' in history.

now, this classification can appear a bit ambiguous. however, the gist of the class was that it was individuals who made for this 'great history'.

let's see...the first study was Ulysses S. Grant, the american general and 18th president.

the reasoning for Grant was his humanistic approach in dealing with the south during the closing weeks of the US civil war, specifically, his magnanimity with regard to the surrender of the south and the eventual reconstruction. furthermore, it can be said that grant was the polar opposite of andrew johnson who had taken over for lincoln after the assassination. johnson was a devil really who wanted to punish the south for all of the carnage and destruction and disollution caused by the civil war. there were some in the north who echoed this sentiment as well.

however, once Grant ascended to the presidency in the years following the war, he took a clear and decisive path. retribution against the former confederates was not to be had. amnesty was to be granted to all former confederate soldiers and officers. southerners admired grant greatly for this and the northerners idolized him and credited him with winning the war. despite his sketchy presidency, Grant was truly an american icon who was loved and adored by both northerners and southerners alike.
 
I'll pick geography. People are shaped by the times, rarely vice versa. Sure some people can speed advances, or slow it down, but the march is relentless.
 
I would say a combination of great people, geography, and timing, about equally. It's really quite astonishing how many great conquests went forth simply because the conqueror's were in a good time, and the conquered in a bad time.
 
El Justo: Interesting stuff on a guy I didn't know much about. Thanks for that. I don't know if you caught the Thomas Nast series I posted about Andrew Johnson in the Political Cartoons thread. Good stuff there about the man, if you can call him that!
 
Ram,

that's some neat stuff on johnson and yup, he sure was a grade A rat-fink.

yes, Grant was an interesting man. he was considered an american icon for a long time. still is i guess...

ADDIT: where did you find those harper's weekly pics?
 
I'll just answer El Justo out in the open rather than on PM in case anyone else is interested.

'Harper's Weekly ~ A Journal of Civilisation' was a significant publication in its time. I was fortunate enough to be obliged to go through their work when researching for a programme about racism. Here's the home page:http://www.harpweek.com/

Full list of their prints.

Their mock constitution was very good.

And here's another great organisation I dealt with and still chat to to post those Nast cartoons. Son of the South. Good for more Harper's, US Civil War and of course, Santa Claus!

Sorry to go OT there, but it's good history folks! :D
 
Adso de Fimnu said:
What influences history the most?

the people
useless
 
Plotinus said:
Why, germs and cows, of course. Jared Diamond tells it how it is!
Yes, I had thought of Diamond. Could his argument be summarized as "geography"?
 
*I think it goes like this

Individual persons inspire their people who by circustances and chance beat geography

*but there is no answer really to this question as it differs from history to history
*the history of ancient Egypt was most infleunced by geography (nile) and was little affected by humans Individuals or nations
*on the other hand the history of mongols was most infleunced by Individual man and poor geography which made them greedy for the outer rich world
*the history of the WWII was a group of circumstances and chances

that's all I have in mind ,I didn't vote
 
Geography, obviously. Just read Jared Diamond. While individuals playimportant roles, geography is the route of everything and the driving force behind history. If Eintsein, Napoleon, Julius Caeser, Hitler, and numerous others had been born in the middle of the Congo instead of in Europe, than the world would still be very similar to what it is today, it just would have taken a slightly different course. There have been instances, however, where individual people and indiviual instances have shaped history. What if the early Russians had adopted Judaism from the Khazars instead of Eastern Orthodoxy (there was one king who decided this, but I can't remember the guy's name)? What if Genghis Khan had never been born? What if Jesus wasn't crucified? What if Mohammed was never born? All of these things are examples of when individual people or instances have a major impact on history, but in the overall story, geography has always been the major player. In the future, however, geography will be less important as the world becomes more integrate, but its effects will still be felt until the end of time.
 
Back
Top Bottom