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

51–60 of 86 posts

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

#51

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

I am uncomfortable with describing folks as "great," or "mediocre." I feel that simplifies people too much. We're all ongoing epic sagas; even the most banal people in the world.

One example is incompetent people with extreme willpower. They can Make Shit Happen; even if it is not good stuff. I think we've all had bosses like that. Some folks will just jam beans into their noses[0], and, for whatever reason, they are in a position to impose this on others. Sometimes, the bad stuff is actually a trigger for growth. I doubt we'd have much of what we have now, if not for a couple of genocidal wars, last century.

Others can be insanely competent, but are never in a position to apply that competence to cause any meaningful change.

Also, never underestimate the power of personal insecurity. This can be a huge driver, and substitute for willpower. People spend millions, trying to salve personal insecurity, and, likely, many tyrants (and great leaders) have been driven by personal insecurity.

[0] https://archive.uie.com/brainsparks/2011/07/08/beans-and-nos...

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

#52

Post by xg15 »

xenocratus wrote: post #39
CuriouslyC wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sounds like a tol-sto-riffic idea!

(I'm sorry)

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

#53

Post by nephihaha »

redhed wrote: post #25
bsenftner wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Na, all it will take is a shift in perspective. As humanity becomes more and more Asian, those names will trigger a "who?"

It'll then just be Confucius, Cao Cao, Oda Nobunaga. Doesn't really refute the point.

Pretty odd to say Mohammed a) isn't Asian, and b) isn't widely known across the continent, because he is, not just in western and central Asia but even in places like China, Jakarta and Mindinao. Islam is expanding rapidly in Japan now.

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

#54

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 »

jocaal wrote: post #50
Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, yes everything has limits. I think the point is that the limit for how much merit is required for our system to run is much much lower then people would intuitively expect. Which is why its surprising when we see very clearly incompetent people thriving at the same time other very clearly competent and talented people are struggling, and wondering how that could possibly happen.

The system is too big and complex for there to be a notion such as merit. We are animals and just like all animals we must fight to survive. Some people get lucky, some get unlucky. Merit is irrelevant. And if you try to create a merit based system, you take away the liberties of the people. Who decides what person deserves more than another? You will create a system ripe for corruption.

> And if you try to create a merit based system, you take away the liberties of the people.

How does a system that rewards people for being good at what they do 'take away liberties'?

> Who decides what person deserves more than another? You will create a system ripe for corruption.

Who decides this now? Its the people who already have more and this has resulted in our existing system being rife with corruption at this very moment.

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

#55

Post by grndn »

"Understandably, there has been much speculation as to [leader]’s mental fitness. It has been marked that [leader] possessed a perpetual immaturity. He had great difficulty in taking matters seriously, and tended to fixate on surface level details that caught his fancy to the neglect of the heart of the matter. He spoke without preparation or consideration, seemingly unaware of the consequences this brought about.

However, the influence of the [leader] on [country] politics made [country]’s isolation inevitable. A byzantine system where promotions were based on the favor of a man who did not have the character to set a consistent policy made for a state that was not a credible partner."

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

#56

Post by bee_rider »

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…

What is a historical theory anyway? These things aren’t for making predictions. So it seems hard to judge them the same way we’d judge a scientific theory, based on their predictive ability (too easy to cheat, since all the experiments you can make using history are concluded already, other than current events, which are only a tiny slice of history and we don’t really know which ones will be deemed memorable by the record).

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

#57

Post by jocaal »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #54
jocaal wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The system is too big and complex for there to be a notion such as merit. We are animals and just like all animals we must fight to survive. Some people get lucky, some get unlucky. Merit is irrelevant. And if you try to create a merit based system, you take away the liberties of the people. Who decides what person deserves more than another? You will create a system ripe for corruption.

> And if you try to create a merit based system, you take away the liberties of the people. How does a system that rewards people for being good at what they do 'take away liberties'? > Who decides what person deserves more than another? You will create a system ripe for corruption. Who decides this now? Its the people who already have more and this has resulted in our existing system being rife with corruption at th…

> How does a system that rewards people for being good at what they do 'take away liberties'?

Define being good at what you do. It's not such an easy thing. IMO the best way we can do such a thing is let markets and trade define what it means to be good at what you do. If you provide value to others and your customers are willing to pay you a premium, that means you are good at what you do.

It's hard to explain my way of thinking to you in a comment on an online forum, if you are willing to look it up, the word to search is libertarian.

> Who decides this now?

The system is currently a democratic one, with a large state. The people decide who gets to control the state. The problem is, the government has so much power, it motivates greedy people to try to control it. So the rich and greedy spent their money on manipulating the democratic vote in order to get control of the government and hopefully make the money they spent back with some extra.

In my opinion, the government should be weaker in terms of its monitary power and stronger in terms of its policy power. Less taxes and more enforcement of competition rules.

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

#58

Post by sofixa »

Joker_vD wrote: post #32
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...…

Yes, but the point about Napoleon is that there was so much more about him than just military talents. The environment in which he flourished wasn't of his making, but he managed to grow in it and ended up impacting the whole world. Either directly by bringing the Napoleonic legal system to them with an army, or indirectly by inspiring or enabling nationalism, democratic ideas (power coming from the people, not deity), allowing the whole of Latin America to break free from the Spanish Empire by keeping the latter busy, etc etc.

Many people became successful militarily and even seized power afterwards during tumultuous times. Very few actually ended having such an impact worldwide.

And before any Brits come in with centuries old grudges, of course he did plenty of bad, most notably how he treated Haiti (which he at least acknowledged later in life).

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

#59

Post by nixon_why69 »

inglor_cz wrote: post #44
CuriouslyC wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is a very US-ian perspective. AFAIK he is still lionized in Latin America, and likely will continue to be, as he is a sorta-kinda the ur-founder of all those nations.

Also, I'm not letting Columbus off the hook but he was on one island for like 3 years and he didn't even kill everyone.

The US and Canada genocided most of a continent over 2-300. We were killing buffalo herds and not even harvesting the meat just to deny them food.

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

#60

Post by Joker_vD »

sofixa wrote: post #58
Joker_vD wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...…

Yes, but the point about Napoleon is that there was so much more about him than just military talents. The environment in which he flourished wasn't of his making, but he managed to grow in it and ended up impacting the whole world. Either directly by bringing the Napoleonic legal system to them with an army, or indirectly by inspiring or enabling nationalism, democratic ideas (power coming from the people, not deity…

Ah, yeah, he almost strangled Britain with his Continental Blockade. Would probably have been his greatest gift to the world, if he actually managed to pull this off. Oh well.
Post reply on HN