The least meaningful "Great Man"

[Marc]

There is a natural bias to think of history in terms of individuals - "The history of the world is but the biography of great men." In some cases clearly warranted; for example the singular effects of Alexander the Great on the course of events. However, often those historical figures we think were so important, aren't. They are simply a specific that affect the taste, but not the whole dish. In other words, history will largely end up the same if not closely.

Just a few possibilities to consider:
Abraham Lincoln
George Washington
Aristotle
Thomas Jefferson
Henry VIII of England
Charles Darwin
Elizabeth I of England
Karl Marx
Julius Caesar
Martin Luther
Charlemagne
Plato
Louis XIV of France

 

[TRH]

If anything, I think the tendency to declare individual contributions meaningless and redundant is far more pervasive in the study of history these days. It's simplistic and deterministic to say that a given person's accomplishments not only could, but would be achieved by somebody else if they were erased from the world. Take Washington, for example: not a brilliant tactician by any means, and between people like Nathaniel Greene and Benjamin Lincoln and Daniel Morgan, there were people who could have done just as well as commanding officers if not better than George did. But would any of those people be the most likely to take charge of the Continental Army without Washington? Almost certainly not, the next most likely candidate would have been the unremittingly incompetent Horatio Gates. Would he have been able to extricate his army from Long Island and lead it to safety? Given his conduct at Camden, it seems more likely he'd simply surrender in the same situation.

So although you can argue that a Great Man's record could have been replicated by another, it's not realistic to assume that it would, in which case their presence was still meaningful. In addition, there's the question of timing. Perhaps some discovery or policy direction or ideological movement would have emerged regardless of the absence of the individuals history credits, but if they come about later than OTL, then the gap could still have consequences. And conversely, maybe some well-placed individual determined to push unpopular policy might find themselves powerless pretty quickly, but even a short window of influence can have consequences. Take Peter III of Russia, the unabashed Frederick the Great fanboy whose timely ascent to the throne saved Prussia's bacon in the Seven Years' War. He got couped in less than a year, but the time when he had power was all Frederick needed to put down the Austrians and save his Kingdom. Without Peter's unusual affection towards Prussia, the character of modern Germany could be vastly different.

 

[1687]

I think it's telling you placed Abe Lincoln first. A Confederate victory isn't outright ASB, but it requires a lot of luck to go their way. I think any half-competent Republican could easily have overseen a Union victory in his stead.

 

[Skallagrim]

However, often those historical figures we think were so important, aren't. They are simply a specific that affect the taste, but not the whole dish.

I think this describes all of them, to a great extent. They are important, but precisely because they have great influence on the specifics. The general trend is beyond any one person. I agree with @TRH about a certain deterministic tendency going too far, but there are multiple extremes in the way this issue gets approached. Generally speaking, the more you take "the long view" and look at macro-historical trends, the less relevant individual men become. Their undisputable(!) effect on the specifics increasingly get drowned out in the background noise. Any man can make a wave, and some men make tsunamis, but no man changes the tides.

I think that even a meteoric figure like Alexander is ultimately as much a product of his situation as he is the creator of a situation. What I mean is that people with the theoretical potential to be "Great Men" are always around. But only under the right conditions can their potential typically be (fully) actualised. It's not that Alexander was fully unique. It's that the time was ripe for an Alexander. If he hadn't lived, someone else would have stepped into the vacant position. In fact, suppose Jason of Pherae hadn't been assasinated? Or Philippos II had survived? Someone was going to invade Persia. The candidates were lining up. The hour had come. And cometh the hour, cometh the man...

As such, it's difficult to judge "Great Men" by importance. Some of them, who did things with huge implications, are also examples of very clearly filling a role that was going to be filled no matter what. Famous example: Caesar. Textbook "Great Man", but in the grand scheme of things, his absence changes practically nothing. The Republic was doomed before he was even born. It was only a question of who seized power in the end. So this Great Man with impeccable credentials is acually a good candidate for "least meaningful", seen in that light.

 

[TRH]

As such, it's difficult to judge "Great Men" by importance. Some of them, who did things with huge implications, are also examples of very clearly filling a role that was going to be filled no matter what. Famous example: Caesar. Textbook "Great Man", but in the grand scheme of things, his absence changes practically nothing. The Republic was doomed before he was even born. It was only a question of who seized power in the end. So this Great Man with impeccable credentials is acually a good candidate for "least meaningful", seen in that light.

I want to say Henry V, since his accomplishments weren't even that significant and got squandered so quickly, but without Shakespeare I doubt anyone would even really remember him now, so he may not even count as a Great Man.

 

[Marc]

If anything, I think the tendency to declare individual contributions meaningless and redundant is far more pervasive in the study of history these days. It's simplistic and deterministic to say that a given person's accomplishments not only could, but would be achieved by somebody else if they were erased from the world. Take Washington, for example: not a brilliant tactician by any means, and between people like Nathaniel Greene and Benjamin Lincoln and Daniel Morgan, there were people who could have done just as well as commanding officers if not better than George did. But would any of those people be the most likely to take charge of the Continental Army without Washington? Almost certainly not, the next most likely candidate would have been the unremittingly incompetent Horatio Gates. Would he have been able to extricate his army from Long Island and lead it to safety? Given his conduct at Camden, it seems more likely he'd simply surrender in the same situation.

So although you can argue that a Great Man's record could have been replicated by another, it's not realistic to assume that it would, in which case their presence was still meaningful. In addition, there's the question of timing. Perhaps some discovery or policy direction or ideological movement would have emerged regardless of the absence of the individuals history credits, but if they come about later than OTL, then the gap could still have consequences. And conversely, maybe some well-placed individual determined to push unpopular policy might find themselves powerless pretty quickly, but even a short window of influence can have consequences. Take Peter III of Russia, the unabashed Frederick the Great fanboy whose timely ascent to the throne saved Prussia's bacon in the Seven Years' War. He got couped in less than a year, but the time when he had power was all Frederick needed to put down the Austrians and save his Kingdom. Without Peter's unusual affection towards Prussia, the character of modern Germany could be vastly different.

I very much agree that Carlyle isn't very influential among historians (Neither is Toynbee, but that is a different story), but popularly, as exemplified in this forum, the Great Man theory is still quite predominant.
No professional historian that I know dismisses the details of how one personality impacted the course of events as opposed to another. My general question is about how much we tend to emphasize that in conversations in this forums, to the neglect of other currents. Yes, God, or the Devil is in the details, but we often forget that the trees really aren't the forest. To a great extent it does depend on the time-frame. Will the Roman Republic die and be replaced by some kind of semi- hereditary dictatorship regardless of Julius Caesar? I believe that most scholars would say yes, as certainly as we can reasonably imagine, regardless of the details.

 

[TRH]

I very much agree that Carlyle isn't very influential among historians (Neither is Toynbee, but that is a different story), but popularly, as exemplified in this forum, the Great Man theory is still quite predominant.
No professional historian that I know dismisses the details of how one personality impacted the course of events as opposed to another. My general question is about how much we tend to emphasize that in conversations in this forums, to the neglect of other currents. Yes, God, or the Devil is in the details, but we often forget that the trees really aren't the forest. To a great extent it does depend on the time-frame. Will the Roman Republic die and be replaced by some kind of semi- hereditary dictatorship regardless of Julius Caesar? I believe that most scholars would say yes, as certainly as we can reasonably imagine, regardless of the details.

One could argue that we have to focus on the details and the sorts of things that can be influenced by Great Men, because we have to stick with things that could plausibly change. We know that the Americas would be discovered with or without some Genoan, so we don't have timelines on that, except maybe in ASB.

 

[Workable Goblin]

If he hadn't lived, someone else would have stepped into the vacant position. In fact, suppose Jason of Pherae hadn't been assasinated? Or Philippos II had survived? Someone was going to invade Persia. The candidates were lining up. The hour had come. And cometh the hour, cometh the man...

But, on the other hand, it was hardly obvious that they would have won. You could very well imagine a world where the Great Man unifies Greece and leads an invasion of Persia...only to die in the very first battle against the Persians (even Alexander came close). For that matter, Alexander faced continual unrest from the Hellenes; it's hardly unimaginable that they could have successfully defeated whomever sought to unify them, or that they could have successfully revolted against them after they invaded Persia itself. Combine that with the above, entirely possible scenario of the would-be conqueror promptly dying in battle, and...

So while some kind of invasion of Persia was probably going to happen, it's far from certain that it would have ended up as more than a flash in the pan. This would have significant effects on world history, needless to say. The entire political structure of the Eastern Mediterranean would be radically different than IOTL, and there obviously would not be any Hellenistic spread beyond possibly where Greek traders were influential. Equally, the Greeks would be much less aware of and influenced by the farther east--by India and Bactria and their relatively long-lived outposts there. I think we have to give Alexander a little bit more credit than just being in the right place at the right time.

 

[Marc]

I think this describes all of them, to a great extent. They are important, but precisely because they have great influence on the specifics. The general trend is beyond any one person. I agree with @TRH about a certain deterministic tendency going too far, but there are multiple extremes in the way this issue gets approached. Generally speaking, the more you take "the long view" and look at macro-historical trends, the less relevant individual men become. Their undisputable(!) effect on the specifics increasingly get drowned out in the background noise. Any man can make a wave, and some men make tsunamis, but no man changes the tides.

I think that even a meteoric figure like Alexander is ultimately as much a product of his situation as he is the creator of a situation. What I mean is that people with the theoretical potential to be "Great Men" are always around. But only under the right conditions can their potential typically be (fully) actualised. It's not that Alexander was fully unique. It's that the time was ripe for an Alexander. If he hadn't lived, someone else would have stepped into the vacant position. In fact, suppose Jason of Pherae hadn't been assasinated? Or Philippos II had survived? Someone was going to invade Persia. The candidates were lining up. The hour had come. And cometh the hour, cometh the man...

As such, it's difficult to judge "Great Men" by importance. Some of them, who did things with huge implications, are also examples of very clearly filling a role that was going to be filled no matter what. Famous example: Caesar. Textbook "Great Man", but in the grand scheme of things, his absence changes practically nothing. The Republic was doomed before he was even born. It was only a question of who seized power in the end. So this Great Man with impeccable credentials is acually a good candidate for "least meaningful", seen in that light.

Quite so, as I noted in my response to TRH about Caesar. However, it might be amusing, if not illuminating, and enriching, to parse a little through what important figures, regardless of our personal inclinations (I have a personal fondness for the role that Aristotle played in how Western culture evolved) are over-rated by us.

 

[TheRockofChickamauga]

I'm going to go ahead and say Caesar. Sure, IOTL, Caesar played a major role in history. but in an ATL, I don't think his death or never even being born would make that big of a difference. Setting aside the minor things that might eventually butterfly into something significant (I don't know everything about Caesar), all it would have took to have the same practical effect on history, establishing the Roman Empire through the death of the Roman Republic, would have to be an ambitious and competent general, of which there was no shorting in Rome, to think he had a reason for seizing power and establishing a precedent of being an emperor.

 

[TRH]

I'm going to go ahead and say Caesar. Sure, IOTL, Caesar played a major role in history. but in an ATL, I don't think his death or never even being born would make that big of a difference. Setting aside the minor things that might eventually butterfly into something significant (I don't know everything about Caesar), all it would have took to have the same practical effect on history, establishing the Roman Empire through the death of the Roman Republic, would have to be an ambitious and competent general, of which there was no shorting in Rome, to think he had a reason for seizing power and establishing a precedent of being an emperor.

I mean, to really address this question we need to define the term more clearly. There's probably somebody who accomplished something really important who not only could have been replaced immediately, but wasn't even the best guy for the job at the time.

Columbus springs to mind right off the top of my head.

 

[Skallagrim]

But, on the other hand, it was hardly obvious that they would have won. You could very well imagine a world where the Great Man unifies Greece and leads an invasion of Persia...only to die in the very first battle against the Persians (even Alexander came close). For that matter, Alexander faced continual unrest from the Hellenes; it's hardly unimaginable that they could have successfully defeated whomever sought to unify them, or that they could have successfully revolted against them after they invaded Persia itself. Combine that with the above, entirely possible scenario of the would-be conqueror promptly dying in battle, and...

So while some kind of invasion of Persia was probably going to happen, it's far from certain that it would have ended up as more than a flash in the pan. This would have significant effects on world history, needless to say. The entire political structure of the Eastern Mediterranean would be radically different than IOTL, and there obviously would not be any Hellenistic spread beyond possibly where Greek traders were influential. Equally, the Greeks would be much less aware of and influenced by the farther east--by India and Bactria and their relatively long-lived outposts there. I think we have to give Alexander a little bit more credit than just being in the right place at the right time.

I agree that Alexander certainly deserves credit. For starters, I wouldn't expect many others to push the envelope as he did. But considering the way a lot of Satraps flocked to his banner, I do rate the chances of other would-be "Alexanders" fairly highly. They weren't just going to be random nobodies. Alexander inherited his father's crack forces, which is what set them apart. Jason of Pherae was noted for that exact advantage as well. At the same time, there was considerable dissatisfaction among the local elites of the Persian Empire, which was ripe to be exploited. If one man failed by catching an unlucky spear or arrow, I don't see that stopping the next candidate. I do think that virtually any candidate would very probably be far more limited in what he would or could achieve.

As for the Greeks: the polis was dying. That's actually the larer point. Alexander (or, really, Philippos) just closed the casket with a swift kick. But with or without him, the end of that era was coming. There were going to be despot-kingdoms, such as those we saw in the Hellenistic period of OTL, even without Alexander. A hypothetical alternative who had more limited goal (thus staying closer to Greece) and who wasn't seen as a "northern barbarian" could quite realistically have an easier time keeping the poleis in check than Alexander did.

Of course, that would certainly mean a different course of history! Yet the "Great Man" view, that Alexander killed of the age of the city-state and that he was uniquely equipped to pose a threat to the Akhaimenids, strikes me as highly reductive.

Quite so, as I noted in my response to TRH about Caesar. However, it might be amusing, if not illuminating, and enriching, to parse a little through what important figures, regardless of our personal inclinations (I have a personal fondness for the role that Aristotle played in how Western culture evolved) are over-rated by us.

I certainly share that fondness for Aristotle (to the point that I made my career out of it). Indeed, personal preferences can often cloud our judgement. One reason I tend to be a bit critical about Alexander's true importance, for instance, is that I just find him so captivating. Very easy to get caught up in the myth!

Even when we look at a stand-out figure Aristotle, though, it stands out to me how very close in time and place and even direct relation Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were. Yes, their ideas were highly formative to a lot of things that came after, and if they hadn't existed, things would be very different... but it does seem very likely to me that some kind of influential thinking was going to erupt in that place and that time. These men didn't -- and couldn't -- exist in a vacuüm, after all.

 

[HeX]

Notable "Great Men" that I would exclude from the recent trend of declaring them mostly useless and simply being in the right place at the right time are religious figures: Jesus of Nazareth, Muhammad, and others like them. Without these figures it's highly unlikely any of their exact teachings would arise in the world. Christianity absolutely requires Jesus' presence. Now, could another faith have overtaken the Roman Empire and supplanted Greco-Roman paganism? Yes, I'd say so. Would it be Christianity? No. It most likely wouldn't even be Abrahamic, and likely wouldn't have the same message that Christianity has. The same can be said of Islam, which straight-up wouldn't exist without Muhammad, just the same as Christianity. Would there be another faith resembling Islam? Yes, because Islam incorporates many a pagan Arabian tale in its scripture (and the Kabba has been worshipped for far longer than Islam has been around). Would it be Islam? No.

And that changes literally everything to do with history. In all honesty (and sorry for going in the opposite direction of the prompt here), Jesus of Nazareth was probably the most important person to ever live in the development of the world we see today.

 

[AltoRegnant]

For me, Ceasar is highly overblown. Rome was conquering Gaul- it needed land around hispania and then to protect the Gaelic land from barbarians. And the Republic was a corpse of a plutocracy by the time of Ceasar, other wise Sulla or the Gracchis wouldn't be as successful. Augustus deserves his place in the canons of history, but that his father is considered one of the most important people seems odd to me when he's largely a launch pad for Augustus.

 

[Riain]

I'm a believer in the balance of great man and the environment in which they exist. Certainly some people are more competent than others while some people are straight up gifted, but if those gifts are not given scope then these people can't become great men. For example the US Presidency is only open to people born in the US, so there might be people around the world who could be exceptional POTUS but are ineligible. Thus there are firm limits on what exceptional people can achieve, but with enough scope they can use the tools at their disposal to great effect.

 

[LostInNewDelhi]

The impact of a person relative to the impact of their environment shouldn't be subjected to any sort of Theory at all, because there is no systematic pattern to any of this. I think both Great Man and overly-materialist history both suffer from divorcing their subjects of study from their contexts or not taking important differences into account-- just look at how much of Communist praxis isn't actually from Marx, but had to be devised by Tkachev, Lenin, Mao, etc.

There is no way to approach the problem except through case-by-case analyses centered on a particular person and their environment, which will yield results mostly only relevant to that person.

 

[Puzzle]

I sort of think the baseball analysis concept of WAR, Wins Above Replacement is useful here. 1 WAR is essentially saying a player is better than a nominal random minor leaguer in that they'd give their team one more win over a season. All the people on the list were talented, and I don't think attacking the concept of the Great Man is saying that they weren't individually gifted well above the norm. If Caesar have been replaced by a random general as @TheRockofChickamauga posits how good a general would they have to be to match him? My pick from the list would be Darwin, he only published his book because another scientist was just about to have the same breakthrough. If Darwin had been thrown from a horse or caught a cold we wouldn't know who he was, thus he's replaceable.

 

[TRH]

I sort of think the baseball analysis concept of WAR, Wins Above Replacement is useful here. 1 WAR is essentially saying a player is better than a nominal random minor leaguer in that they'd give their team one more win over a season. All the people on the list were talented, and I don't think attacking the concept of the Great Man is saying that they weren't individually gifted well above the norm. If Caesar have been replaced by a random general as @TheRockofChickamauga posits how good a general would they have to be to match him? My pick from the list would be Darwin, he only published his book because another scientist was just about to have the same breakthrough. If Darwin had been thrown from a horse or caught a cold we wouldn't know who he was, thus he's replaceable.

Whether Alfred Russell Wallace would have the guts to write a Descent of Man analog strikes me as the main question there.

 

[Hominid]

I think the "Great Man theory" sounds outdated because of the name (why does it have to be gendered?) but if you ignore that, there is definitely something to it.

It seems pretty ridiculous to claim that Caesar wasn't that important, especially when you also factor in that he posthumously adopted Octavian (not to mention the rest of the Julio-Claudian dynasty that followed). Sure, the Republic still would have fallen without him, but what would have replaced it? Probably something very different from what we saw IOTL, and the butterflies just multiply from there.

However, this is probably true of lots of people who lived at the same time as Caesar. Caesar's impact on history wasn't entirely because of any unique qualities he had as a person. The problem with the Great Man theory isn't that individual people don't have an impact, it's that having an impact on history is not contingent on "greatness".

 

[TRH]

However, this is probably true of lots of people who lived at the same time as Caesar. Caesar's impact on history wasn't entirely because of any unique qualities he had as a person. The problem with the Great Man theory isn't that individual people don't have an impact, it's that having an impact on history is not contingent on "greatness".

Like my Peter III example, a man impacting history by being an incredible incompetent.