Who would you consider to be the quintessential "Great Man" of human history? For me, it would have to be Julius Caesar.
Caesar managed to be one of the most brilliant politicians of his era, a phenomenal writer and orator, and perhaps the greatest general of the Ancient World (if not of all time).
Usually when I hear of great men, they are usually super adept at one main task: warfare. Alexander the Great was an absolutely phenomenal tactician and highly charismatic, but not much else.
You can't even post all the things he is known for, you get that the comment is too long.
>the greatest general of the Ancient World (if not of all time).
He was a lucky hack, there are far more accomplished general, literally the only noteworthy battle he was in was the siege of alecium (and it was still against half starved naked celts with experience legions from the hegiht of the roman era).
The problem with saying the greatest man is taking into account the times, and that even then, there are a fuckload that you'll not know about.
How about sargon? He pretty much invented the conept of imperialism.
Alexander the great steamrolled one of the greatest empires known to man with a bunch of smelly, dirty pedophiles.
Genghis khan did the same but this time the retards fucked horses instead of kids.
Anyway, no, caesar was not even the greatest roman alive at that time, augustus has way more merits as a politician, agrippa too since he was far better a general and architect than caesar ever was.
Pretty hard to beat this. Essentially every other Imperial power at the time allied together FOUR fucking times to take him down. Exiled him to an island with a glorified honor guard.
Motherfucker escapes and gets an army by literally tearing open his shirt and proceeds to wreck Europe again, forcing the the empires to ally yet AGAIN to take him out.
He was outnumbered but still managed to pull off a brilliant victory. Perhaps not the greatest general of the Ancient period, but definitely of the Romans.
He had a goal of stopping the corruption of the Republic and the constant civil wars and did it. With it, he also made many reforms including the Julian calendar. The only other Roman who comes as far as Caesar in that aspect was Marius and Sulla.
>He had a goal of stopping the corruption of the Republic and the constant civil wars and did it
No, he made it worse, the only reason he took power was because the roman senate was going to murder his ass unless he did it. The only roman that ever cared about ending the civil wars and corrution was sulla, the rest were selfish.
>but definitely of the Romans
Wrong there too, romans always fought outnumbered due to the nature of their wars of conquest, ahem, i mean "active defense". What about scypio? He fucked up an actual military genious that was hannibal, who also had 80 war elephants.
Genghis Khan. What he did fundamentally changed the outcome of history.
Regardless the republic had to go as it was damaging Rome itself despite the effort of others like Sulla trying to maintain it. Caesar had to do what he did, and made Rome better as a result.
True the Romans did fought outnumbered, but did you forget how Hannibal was at a disadvantage?
First define 'Great'.
You mean by influence? If so Attila.
He is essentially responsible for the collapse of the Western empire and driving the Germanic Migrations. So he is directly responsible for the Germanic ancestry of most of Britain and all of western Europe. This would in turn lead to the status quo that would remain for over a thousand years (ie Franks in France, Angles, Saxons and Jutes in England, Visigoths in Spain etc)
His failed attack on the Sassanids and subsequent war on the Eastern Empire, allowed the Sassanids to rebuild their weak military and weakened the Roman legions. This basically put them on equal footing so that (even long after he died) the Romans and Sassanids would fight themselves into a stalemate, leaving both weakened. THAT would then allow a bunch of Arabs to conquer them later.
You could argue then that the last roman king was even greater because without him causing the republic, there would probably have been no rome, and go knows what would have happened then.
I think a nice definition of great is "actively affecting the course of history"
Reminder that "Great Man" theory is 99% of the time based around who had the best historians and cultivated a cult of personality the most efficiently.
No single man has ever had the power or influence that you'd like to think they had.
Western civilization is a direct product of him smashing the persian empire to pieces, then leaving a trail of greeks eveywhere and them spreading the culture everywhere too.
He also fits OPs deeply hollywoodian style of great by doing this in an active manner.
>Greatest Roman commander
Woa friend. He was a good strategist, but left a lot to be desired in tactics.
There are far better Roman generals
Gaius Marius, Sulla, Scipio, or even arguably Pompey and these are just Roman emperors who predated Caesar.
After Caesar is still Constantine, Aurelian, and the last great emperor Majorian and this is just sticking to Emperors
The greatest man in history in my opinion. Few men throughout history rise from humble origins to rule over an entire continent.
His battlefield genius is rivaled by no one in my opinion.
Naming the greatest Roman to ever live is too difficult. The Roman Republic and Empire spans too long of a period 700bc-1543AD.
Though he is arguably one of the most influential the only one to rival him is Constantine.
>Western civilization is a direct product of him smashing the persian empire to pieces
Not remotely since the Parthians bounced right back within a couple of centuries. In the West he had no influence since Rome was still there.
Aurelian was pretty based as well
Pretty much just slapped the shit out of anyone who stepped up
Alexander the Great
Qin Shi Huang
There always come interludes of lonely power when the course of humankind, depends upon the relatively simple actions of single individuals.
individuals who through their actions and choices create great tidal waves throughout the future.
Should we really be defining "greatness" as just having a huge effect on history?
In addition to the fact that relatively small things can have massively unprecedented consequence (Jesus and Muhammed), sometimes it just takes an excess to shift history. I'm sure we can all think of at least one ruler who was so incredibly incompetent they altered the path of mankind.