Do great men change the course of history?

Ekancone

Hi, i have a short assignment based on this question and i am wondering what peoples thoughts are on this topic. Are there any books/papers/articles you would recommend reading? I have to relate this discussion to Gorbachev. I am having no problems doing the assignment but i am trying to see if there are any angles i havent thought of yet.

Cheers.

Riamfada

What about looking at historians and how their views on history and their interpretations have changed the course of history after the event took place.

Cant think of any off hand but it might be a nice angle.

Aedh Baclamh

I don't understand why the word 'great' is used before the word 'men'.

Riamfada

i dont understand that post

Aedh Baclamh

Well did Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and co change the course of history?

Riamfada

Yes but so did William Gladstone , John Kennedy and Leonardo Da Vinci . The word great is tied to their own perspectives and orders so, to some, Hitler and Stalin could be classed as great men.

Fratton Fred

"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it" - Churchill.

Great men don't change the course of history, they create it.

Did Nelson Mandela and Lech Walenska change the course of history of did they create history by changing regimes?

Aedh Baclamh

Yeah, I forgot to mention Churchill when I was typing Hitler and Stalin.

silverharp

the only dimension i would add is the random nature of events. Had Hitler been born 10 years later or in another country 99 times out of a hundred he would not have amounted to anything.

brianthebard

One of my lecturers had this to say on the subject; think about history as the movements of the sea. Politics, politicans, and these "great men" are what you see on the surface. Society and social change is what happens at the bottom of the ocean. Although you don't see this movement, it is what actually forces the sea forward. So really although people like Hitler or mandela or JFK are the people history is most often written about, it is the social movements that really define history. For instance, was Oliver Cromwell the reason Britain became a puritan country for a few decades, or was the puritan movement in general the reason? Prior to the twentieth century historians tended to skirt around questions like that, because it generally meant more work for them.

guinnessdrinker

brianthebard wrote: »

One of my lecturers had this to say on the subject; think about history as the movements of the sea. Politics, politicans, and these "great men" are what you see on the surface. Society and social change is what happens at the bottom of the ocean. Although you don't see this movement, it is what actually forces the sea forward. So really although people like Hitler or mandela or JFK are the people history is most often written about, it is the social movements that really define history. For instance, was Oliver Cromwell the reason Britain became a puritan country for a few decades, or was the puritan movement in general the reason?

Good post, a very intersting way of thinking about history.

Fratton Fred

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

Good post, a very intersting way of thinking about history.

It is, although i think sometimes people like Mahatma Gandhi and Lech Walesa are needed as a catalyst for change. Kind of focusing the tide rather than directing it.

guinnessdrinker

Thats true too Fred. I do think that charismatic leaders can be highly influencintual to the masses and also as you say focus the tide. And adding to your two examples, Ho Chi Minh and Martin Luther King.

Ekancone

I managed to finish the essay anyway, i pretty much sat on the fence with the whole argument, saying that great men and events are reciprocal in nature. Thanks for the brainstorming anyway!