The Great Man Theory

5 Pages 1127 Words

The Great Man Theory: How Great Is It?

In 1840, British historian Thomas Carlyle delivered a string of lectures “On Heroes, Hero Worship and the Heroic in History”. Here Carlyle submitted his “Great Man” theory—that exceptional individuals are responsible for instigating momentous change. The theory states that most ages are unable to achieve their full potential because of some kind of political or cultural gridlock. It is only when a great man—a charismatic, powerful leader—enters that the gridlock can be broken and the potential can be realized. To evaluate the theory’s usefulness, its components can be analyzed and applied to two examples of “great men” of history: Alexander of Macedon, and Gaius Julius Caesar. From these examples, it can be concluded that the “Great Man” Theory is seriously flawed: it oversimplifies by placing all responsibility in one person.
When addressing whether a “Great Man” intended to do what he did, the theory is helpful in identifying important actors. After resolving disturbances and revolts within Macedonia and Greece, Alexander the Great thrust into Asia Minor in a campaign that would eventually level the Persian Empire. He pushed through Persia on to the frontiers of India, and his conquest was halted only by the grumbling of his own soldiers. Alexander’s vision of “one world” was one in which Greek colonies would be spread throughout the conquered lands and serve as cultural melting pots; however, it was not to be. His death left a power vacuum, and the “one world” was left divided. Yet, the eastward emigration that Alexander initiated left Greece as an internationally dominant nation.
Alexander definitely intended to achieve his conquest. Even before assuming the throne, Alexander’s ambition and lust for conquest was legendary. As illustrated in The Life of Alexander by Plutarch, he once ridiculed his father for drunkenness and displayed h...