Beyond Destiny and Will (Napoleon Bonaparte and the Debate on Historical Agency)
theshreddedsage.substack.com
Do great men shape history and the visible world to their own liking, or are they simply products of their time, inevitably steered hither and thither by the political climate and pandering to the desires of the rabble? These are two very polarizing views of history that seem to constantly contradict one another, leading to endless debate. While neither stance is entirely sound on its own, it is certainly the case that one can be dominant over the other. For instance, how did Alexander the Great, a Macedonian, lead the Greeks to conquer as far as India? To claim that his conquest was subject only to aleatory circumstances is an asinine idea and a very cynical view of man's relationship with history and his ability to shape it. Therefore, only two modes of viewing such men are acceptable: Either their own genius and indomitable will led them to seize power, or deep-rooted forces embedded in the cultures or countries' past enabled such rulers to seize power where it lay. The luck aspect of these men only extends as far as they’re not getting killed before they could command power. In this article, we will explore how Napoleon became such a monumental individual and whether it was because of his genius or opportunities that rose sperate from his will, or perhaps a balance between the two. Additionally, we will examine how moments of his genius and the deep reverence he had for himself proved to be a larger force than the trajectory of history itself and the external forces around him. This argument and way of viewing Napoleon takes a Nietzschean perspective on the man and history in general.
Beyond Destiny and Will (Napoleon Bonaparte and the Debate on Historical Agency)
Beyond Destiny and Will (Napoleon Bonaparte…
Beyond Destiny and Will (Napoleon Bonaparte and the Debate on Historical Agency)
Do great men shape history and the visible world to their own liking, or are they simply products of their time, inevitably steered hither and thither by the political climate and pandering to the desires of the rabble? These are two very polarizing views of history that seem to constantly contradict one another, leading to endless debate. While neither stance is entirely sound on its own, it is certainly the case that one can be dominant over the other. For instance, how did Alexander the Great, a Macedonian, lead the Greeks to conquer as far as India? To claim that his conquest was subject only to aleatory circumstances is an asinine idea and a very cynical view of man's relationship with history and his ability to shape it. Therefore, only two modes of viewing such men are acceptable: Either their own genius and indomitable will led them to seize power, or deep-rooted forces embedded in the cultures or countries' past enabled such rulers to seize power where it lay. The luck aspect of these men only extends as far as they’re not getting killed before they could command power. In this article, we will explore how Napoleon became such a monumental individual and whether it was because of his genius or opportunities that rose sperate from his will, or perhaps a balance between the two. Additionally, we will examine how moments of his genius and the deep reverence he had for himself proved to be a larger force than the trajectory of history itself and the external forces around him. This argument and way of viewing Napoleon takes a Nietzschean perspective on the man and history in general.