Do 'Great Men' Drive History ?

1. In November 2022, I was reading The 18^th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte and the following famous sentence from near the beginning struck me forcefully:

 

"Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past."

 

You may say - so what ? That's blindingly obvious. But, having thought about the process of History through many specific historical sequences of events over the years, the endless controversy over whether history is primarily driven by 1) Great Individuals or primarily by 2) underlying technological, economic, ideological and social forces, bothered me. Because of course, it's a blend of both. I think a lot of modern historians incline to the second view, because the first view held sway for so long, but also because they are frightened of seeming naive, or of being regarded as power-worshippers. Conversely, some historians such as Andrew Roberts proudly incline to the first view, partly because they genuinely believe it, & partly because they take an impish delight in being deliberately old-fashioned & going against the current trend. Whereas, as I have said, it becomes obvious when you study history that it is a blend of both. I could illustrate this endlessly.

'Bonaparte, First Consul' by Antoine-Jean Gros, 1802

 

Camillo Benso, Count of Cavour

Otto von Bismarck

One example: what if there had been no Napoleon ? What course would the French Revolution have taken ? Without Napoleon's campaigns and conquests, would German unification or Italian unification have happened in the way that they did ? or happened at all ? Possibly not. The implications of either are staggering. The underlying technological, economic, ideological and social forces enabled Napoleon, but he focussed them and pointed them in a certain direction which had specific consequences, and not other potential consequences which could have happened. History is a constant series of potential branches: one is actually taken, which rules out/nullifies the other possibilities, and generates a new set of possible branches; one of those is taken, and so on ad infinitum. This process operates in the lives of all individuals as well. All the acts and decisions of everyone interact constantly. That makes up the sum total of the world. That is what history is made of. 

 

You can see that in trying to explain my observation that the historical process is a blend of both the will of great individuals and underlying social forces, I'm having to go somewhat around the houses. That is what is so exciting to me about Marx' dictum, quoted above. It is a succinct, elegant and unanswerable distillation of the point I'm trying to make. In other words, this issue is now

 

and there is no need to reinvent the wheel, and no point in trying*. The wheel has been invented, it's a perfectly good wheel, and works very well. This is one great advantage of having a culture. Certain controversies have actually been solved. If anyone ever raises the debate to me, or I read the issue being questioned - is it great individuals or the ineluctable underlying forces that drive history ? - all I have to do is point them at The 18^th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon. (written 22.11.2022)

2. Barbara Cottman once asked me "Do you see history as linear or circular ?" These are my thoughts on that subject.

Evidently it depends what you mean by the terms 'linear' and 'circular'. What I think you mean is: 'linear' means political and economic progress in their broadest sense is inevitable and always advancing overall despite setbacks; 'circular' means we take two steps forward and one back, or two steps forward and two back, or even two steps forward and three back.

History is linear in the sense that time advances irretrievably, there is no going back, one thing happens after another. It is not linear in the sense that progress overall is inevitable. Nor is regression inevitable. Nothing is inevitable except our individual death, pace Benjamin Franklin. History does not have intention, or any inner purpose. It is not heading anywhere. History in the sense of a thing that has intention does not exist, and anyone who thinks it does exist in that sense is in my opinion mistaking metaphors, figures of speech and mental shortcuts for reality: which is a very common error. Speaking technically, history is not teleological. There are many teleological accounts of how history works, where it is heading. For instance, fundamental to Christianity is a claim about the nature of history: that there is an inevitable progression from Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, the Fall; to the possibility of redemption provided by Christ's death and resurrection; closing inevitably with the Last Judgement. Marx regards the victory of the proletariat in the class struggle as inevitable. Other commentators have regarded the expansion and ultimate triumph of liberal democracy as inevitable. The attraction of such accounts is clear: they give the individual structure, purpose and comfort. However they are in my view illusions.

Which is not to say that there is no such thing as progress. There is progress, but it is neither inevitable nor irreversible. (Written 13.3.2023).

 

*Of course the issue is not solved, nor ever can be, and of course this is an absurdly cursory treatment of it. I propose to look at this issue in much greater detail by examining the extreme positions on either side: first with a critique of Carlyle's 'On Heroes'; then with a critique of Tolstoy's views on history at the end of 'War and Peace'. Stay tuned.

 

History is written by the winners ?

 'History is written by the winners' is an observation so old that it has no known origin and is simply proverbial; though it feels like one of those precise, intensely quotable sayings by a Roman historian such as Tacitus.

One thinks of Alexander setting off to conquer Persia with a tame historian on his staff, Callisthenes: because what is the point of doing epochal deeds if no one knows about them ? Particularly when you are a hero in the mould of Achilles. One thinks likewise of Julius Caesar being his own historian for the same reason, in 'De Bello Gallico' and elsewhere: but surely very few people take Caesar at his own estimation or uncritically today. Napoleon did not have a director of propaganda, characteristically he was his own: though perhaps we could see the savants he took with him to Egypt as so many Callistheneses. One thinks of Churchill's often repeated joke "History will be kind to me - for I am going to write it." 

But is history really kind to Churchill nowadays ? What about Gallipoli, as one instance among several ?

Chinua Achebe

Last February on Twitter, William Dalrymple tweeted a marvellous quote by Chinua Achebe:

"Until the lions have their own historians, the history of the hunt will always glorify the hunter."

It stuck with me because it's just so true. Also, because it reminds me of one of my favourite fables by Aesop, 'The Man and the Lion.'  Aesop - let's say it is him - puts his finger on something profound and fundamental. I would retell it like this:

The Man and the Lion

A man and a lion were walking together. They were arguing about which is better and stronger, men or lions. It so happened that they came upon a statue of a man killing a lion.

"You see ?" said the man, indicating the statue.

"Yeah" said the lion, "but if lions could make statues . . ."

Here is another version of that story, from the Library of Congress' Aesop for Children: 

The Man & the Lion

A Lion and a Man chanced to travel in company through the forest. They soon began to quarrel, for each of them boasted that he and his kind were far superior to the other both in strength and mind.

Now they reached a clearing in the forest and there stood a statue. It was a representation of Heracles in the act of tearing the jaws of the Nemean Lion.

"See," said the man, "that's how strong we are! The King of Beasts is like wax in our hands!"

"Ho!" laughed the Lion, "a Man made that statue. It would have been quite a different scene had a Lion made it!"

It all depends on the point of view, and who tells the story.

(You can find that version here: Library of Congress Aesop Fables (read.gov) )

 

Aesop's insight I think is that history is not so much written by the winners as by those who have the ability and the power to represent; a broader group which can include the winners. This fable always makes me think of the marginalisation and exclusion of women from history, which we are slowly beginning to correct, because those with the power to represent were almost always men. Hence the persistent ugly misogynistic streak in our culture, from the Garden of Eden story onwards.

I don't know why the lion is looking frightened in this version. Illustrations of this story are however surprisingly rare.