an exposition of Lord Bragg's great man theory of history is on full display. Suffice it to say that without the legions at his back Gaius Julius would have been just another bridge crosser. Those legions made him the dictator he became, and also, arguably, led to his early demise.
So then a military democracy as in the later declining empire is commensurate with Caesar? What of the state of the French army before Napoleon took charge? Or the course of the Punic wars before Cornelius Scipio gained command? Is there no discernable difference between the position of Britain during the regime of Baldwin and Chamberlain as opposed to Churchill? A history based purely of the feats of "great men " as you put it may be fallacious. But equally fallacious is the history which says that individuals play not part in the course of history
It's a mix of things. In the hands of other men, the Legions wouldn't have done what they did. But at the same time, without them, Caesar would have achieved nothing. Everything is connected. A great leader is hugely important for organising and directing large groups towards a goal. You can see that in countless examples of good leadership overcoming numbers in many battles. But at the same time, had Caesar lived in a different time and place his life would have been very different. Many other impressive figures may have achieved so much more, were it not for their circumstances.
The Mob would never accomplish anything without the leadership of Great Men . Countless examples. Vox Populi : Vox Rindvieh. As Bismarck so eloquently phrased it.
Ave Caesar.
Melvyn in light hearted mood this morning ? I wonder if he'll
squeeze in his usual mention of Herodotus ?
He was one of the best leader & greatest of them.
an exposition of Lord Bragg's great man theory of history is on full display.
Suffice it to say that without the legions at his back Gaius Julius would have been just another
bridge crosser.
Those legions made him the dictator he became, and also, arguably, led to his early demise.
So then a military democracy as in the later declining empire is commensurate with Caesar? What of the state of the French army before Napoleon took charge? Or the course of the Punic wars before Cornelius Scipio gained command? Is there no discernable difference between the position of Britain during the regime of Baldwin and Chamberlain as opposed to Churchill?
A history based purely of the feats of "great men " as you put it may be fallacious. But equally fallacious is the history which says that individuals play not part in the course of history
It's a mix of things. In the hands of other men, the Legions wouldn't have done what they did. But at the same time, without them, Caesar would have achieved nothing. Everything is connected. A great leader is hugely important for organising and directing large groups towards a goal. You can see that in countless examples of good leadership overcoming numbers in many battles.
But at the same time, had Caesar lived in a different time and place his life would have been very different. Many other impressive figures may have achieved so much more, were it not for their circumstances.
The Mob would never accomplish anything without the leadership of
Great Men . Countless examples.
Vox Populi : Vox Rindvieh.
As Bismarck so eloquently phrased it.