 |
|
|
|
| History: Influenced And Shaped By Great Men Or Social And Economic Factors. |
| Throughout time we have seen great and powerful men and woman change the shape of history, Henry VIII, Alexander the Great, Otto Von Bismarck, Winston Churchill, Martin Luther King. But at the same time we have the general populous rallying to change the course of history, woman getting the vote, fight for general equality etc. But what is more important the way great individuals change history or the social and economic factors that beyond individuals control, what do you think. Great men for, social against. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Charlemagne Shaped Europe and Christianized us. The brave men at Rorke's Drift, turned certain
defeat into victory over the ZULU.
I can't for the life of me see what the general populous had to do with it. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't believe that great men are able to act alone when it comes to doing "great" things. For
example if not for the state of Prussia's economy, natural resources, military and other factors
Bismarck could probably never have made the massive strives forward that he made. 19th century
Germany became one of the most powerful countries in Europe so much so that it swept aside France in
the 1871 war in style. But at the same time this may not have been achieved at such a fast rate if
Bismarck had not been in charge. Maybe it's a mix of the two but social factors seem the more
likely. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
"Great" men? I think not.
More like men born into a sense of entitlement, motivated by greed or reacting to the greedy
motivations of other "great" men, that tried to define social and economic factors, by spilling the
blood of their comrades, and their enemies, therefore shaping social and economic "history".
I realize that there were some women involved also, but they don't call history "his story" for
nothing! |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
First of all, thanks for posting a great topic.
I wish I did not have to choose in this debate, because many factors effect history. However, if
"great men" and "social" were on a scale, I would choose social above great men as having the most
weight.
Again, great topic! |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
No way! There are women who are great as well, Elizabeth I, queen Victoria, Anne frank and hundreds
more just like men. But it wasn't men who unfolded history, history unfolded them if something in
history never happened they probably wouldn't be important. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Surely a combination of the two, you are cruel for making me choose!
I agree with Kirsty though, conditions allow men to act, Hitler achieved what he did because of the
level of poverty in Germany at the time, Churchill because of the War and Stalin because of the
previous war (to an extent, obviously). None the less we cannot underestimate the amount of impact
an individual can have, even if they can only shape events within the grander forces of social and
economic changes. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
This is a very good debate topic.
I think that economic and social conditions allow great men to shine. If there was prefect peace and
no conflict at all then great men would never be recognised.
For example Bismarck, is recognised for uniting Germany. Popular consensus along with optimism about
the economic prosperity it would bring produced the demand for German unification. However it took a
great man like Bismarck to complete the unification in such a short period of time.
Also, Winston Churchill is recognised for getting the UK through the war, not surrendering when it
seemed hopeless. He was a great man, but it took the war to bring it out of him and allow him to be
recognised.
So while I think that great men play a large part in the shaping of history, it is ultimately the
economic and social situations that are guiding those men, that have the largest impact on the
course of history. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 For and Against Recent Activity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18 Sep 2008 15:41
Sign In
