Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Kaiser and a "Mediocre Man" Theory of History

deadcarl.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 86 posts

Re: The Kaiser and a "Mediocre Man" Theory of History

#31

Post by irdc »

nixon_why69 wrote: post #24
matusp wrote: post #8

Of course mediocre and bad leaders make their mark on history. But Carlyle's Great Men theory is more about paradigm shifts that Great Men can will into existence, not just random noise they bring along. The problem with GM theory is that there is only a handful of examples to support it. Napoleon is one such example, and it was undoubtedly the inspiration why the theory was proposed in the first place. People were t…

I think the wrinkle of "men (or maybe women) at a particular hingepoint had their personal foibles that shaped history" is valid. There were structural forces that led to WW2 but Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin, Hitler et al being their particular personalities absolutely shaped how it unfolded.

The same can also be said of e.g. the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Re: The Kaiser and a "Mediocre Man" Theory of History

#32

Post by Joker_vD »

matusp wrote: post #8

Of course mediocre and bad leaders make their mark on history. But Carlyle's Great Men theory is more about paradigm shifts that Great Men can will into existence, not just random noise they bring along. The problem with GM theory is that there is only a handful of examples to support it. Napoleon is one such example, and it was undoubtedly the inspiration why the theory was proposed in the first place. People were t…

The historical setting at the moment of time matters a lot. Had the French Revolution not happened, he would've been yet another artillery lieutenant in the French army. In 1789 Jean Lannes was a dyer, Laurent de Gouvion Saint-Cyr was a paineter, Jean-Baptiste Jourdan worked in a clothing store, Jean-Baptiste Bessières was a barber, Guillaume Marie Anne Brune was a typesetter, Jean-Baptiste Kléber was an architect... et cetera, et cetera. But it happened, and lot of people got an impossible before chance to discover their dormant military talents.

Re: The Kaiser and a "Mediocre Man" Theory of History

#33

Post by nixon_why69 »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #30
_dain_ wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We still speak today of Charlemagne, Muhammed, Caesar, Alexander. Napoleon and Columbus have secured for themselves their seats in the pantheon of history and it will take longer than a thousand years for mankind to forget about them. All these men built our world.

People love to mythologize. The truth is usually much more mundane. Columbus in particular has a combination of Mr. Magoo quality and nastiness that is will lead history to forcefully forget him in short order.

In short order after 500 years? You're not wrong about his qualities but he was still the guy who did it first, and it's still called the Columbian exchange.

Re: The Kaiser and a "Mediocre Man" Theory of History

#34

Post by CuriouslyC »

xg15 wrote: post #12

> If it was the social and political forces of the French Revolution that made Napoleon successful, the logical conclusion is that it would have made no difference to the course of history should he have, say, suffered a fatal stroke in 1801, a premise few would accept. It is clearly untrue when applied to specific cases. Not only who ends up in power, but the specific decisions they make are deeply consequential. Wh…

Just so. People forget that at any time, the people around the "great men" could have decided not to listen to them, and done something else.

Re: The Kaiser and a "Mediocre Man" Theory of History

#35

Post by 9dev »

_dain_ wrote: post #20
rbanffy wrote: post #14

When you look at white noise from up close, you see dramatic changes, periods of calm, and what seems like patterns. Only when you step back, you realise all that drama you read is mostly inconsequential. What will be the impact of Napoleon 1000 years from now? Of Columbus? If instead of Hitler Germany had Rohm? It’s all monkeys and typewriters all the way down. What matters are the structural forces, the natural res…

We still speak today of Charlemagne, Muhammed, Caesar, Alexander. Napoleon and Columbus have secured for themselves their seats in the pantheon of history and it will take longer than a thousand years for mankind to forget about them. All these men built our world.

What are a thousand years other than a couple of generations? What does it matter from further away? We always forget about the past eventually. There are so many great civilisations we only have tiny shreds of knowledge about, and yet in their time, they also had great leaders and epic stories to tell. It’s all inconsequential once enough time has passed.

Re: The Kaiser and a "Mediocre Man" Theory of History

#36

Post by smitty1e »

jleyank wrote: post #17
smitty1e wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"as su," indicates a lack of editing.

LLM? Any verbose, struggling to focus article now looks generated rather than the work of somebody with better ideas than technique. Or they’re being paid by the word. I wonder whether there is a jargon problem with the word “great”…. These’s no way Trump or Cameron would be considered “great” but the world changed through their direct actions. One could argue that they just happen to be there when underlying forces…

The variables in history seem to be technology and population.

There are various repetitions of the Tower of Babel as individuals come and go.

Or, instead of analysis, we could nail Jell-O to the wall.

Re: The Kaiser and a "Mediocre Man" Theory of History

#37

Post by Joker_vD »

> The synthesis position is what I call here the “mediocre man” theory of history. The idea of this mediocre man theory is that history is not just shaped by great men or by mass sociological forces that make individual irrelevant. Instead, while it is shaped by structural forces, it is also shaped by ordinary people who end in positions of extraordinary importance.

This synthesis has already been done as early as at least 1898, see G.V. Plekhanov, "On the Role of the Individual in History" [0].

[0] https://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1898/xx/individua...

Re: The Kaiser and a "Mediocre Man" Theory of History

#38

Post by hdhx8 »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #27

Reminds me a quote I heard recently about wealth inequality and how the very rich can do dumb things without consequences (to them anyway) and it was along the lines of 'we don't have a merit-based system, because our system does not need merit to function'.

More useful less cynical frame is the Theory of Bounded Rationality which tell us everything has limits. Merit included.

Re: The Kaiser and a "Mediocre Man" Theory of History

#39

Post by xenocratus »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #34
xg15 wrote: post #12

> If it was the social and political forces of the French Revolution that made Napoleon successful, the logical conclusion is that it would have made no difference to the course of history should he have, say, suffered a fatal stroke in 1801, a premise few would accept. It is clearly untrue when applied to specific cases. Not only who ends up in power, but the specific decisions they make are deeply consequential. Wh…

Just so. People forget that at any time, the people around the "great men" could have decided not to listen to them, and done something else.

Quite enlightening, I propose one of us writes a novel about it, about how Napoleon just precipitated what was already there, enabled of course by those around him. It should show the impact it had on everyone involved. Oh, and let's make it from a Russian perspective, showing a few intertwined families and the hardship the wars brings to them. Sounds like a great read! Oh, yeah, and make it like 1000 pages long.

Re: The Kaiser and a "Mediocre Man" Theory of History

#40

Post by CuriouslyC »

nixon_why69 wrote: post #33
CuriouslyC wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People love to mythologize. The truth is usually much more mundane. Columbus in particular has a combination of Mr. Magoo quality and nastiness that is will lead history to forcefully forget him in short order.

In short order after 500 years? You're not wrong about his qualities but he was still the guy who did it first, and it's still called the Columbian exchange.

When I was young Columbus was lionized in schools. Now young people I talk to demonize him more and more. He wasn't even first (Viking explorers beat him there by a lot), he was just first to brutally exploit. I'm sure the things that are named after him will be renamed eventually to honor more deserving figures.
Post reply on HN