I am talking about the kinda folks you choose as a leader when playing Civilization.
The idea of another Napoleon, Julius Ceaser, Hitler, Mao, etc. arising seems bizarre in this world.
Sure there could be important, powerful and well remembered folks, but I am talking about the kind of person whos life and actions take on mythic proportions.
I guess I am just wondering if we really have reached the “end of history” as some folks have claimed.
Dunno, Russia seems to be flirting with Authoritarianism lately. I don’t think Putin is quite up to the level of Stalin, but I could imagine that one of his successors might give up on the remaining pretenses of democracy in that state and create a more militant, authoritarian Russia.
First of all, we’ll see more of those. Bet on it.
Second of all, what about Lincoln, Churchill or FDR? All of them were authoritarians by nature - you can’t amass that amount of power without being one - but they all worked within a more-or-less democratc system. Don’t you think that people like that will appear again in times of crisis? Sooner or later, they will.
I don’t think it’s enough just to be a big country’s dictator. To rank with Napoleon, etc., you have to be an aggressive empire-builder who makes the whole Earth shake.
Mao was alive in my lifetime - I hardly think any era that included him has been consigned to history yet.
From a historical standpoint, I’d say the period from 1945 to around 1995 was the breathing space after WWII. The same way 1815 to 1848 was the calm after the Napoleonic Wars and 1918 to around 1935 was the calm after WWI.
Interesting point.
I believe that: ‘the moment makes the man’
eg: they are there, but they only turn up when conditions are right
Which rather slants the question into something like: ‘are we likely to have a major upheaval that would cause the emergence of another great leader ?’
To some extent, Putin falls into that category, like him or not, Russia was slipping into chaos, and he seems to be pulling it back together - and appears to have quite a lot of popular support from people who have tasted the alternative.
Predicting upheavals is not that easy, but if we had a major one, I would lay my money on someone talented popping out of the woodwork.
Comes the hour, comes the man (or woman).
As noted above, a major crisis often gives an ambitious leader the chance to emerge, for good or ill. Given how pathetic the international community’s initial response was to such problems as the massacres in Rwanda, the ongoing problems in Darfur, or North Korea and now Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, I think it’s quite possible that an empire-building guy (or gal) might aspire to be the next Napoleon or Hitler, and get away with it for at least awhile.
Just keep checking the headlines for that Khan Noonien Singh fella…
Suggesting what we’ve been dealing with in 9/11 is only the beginning . . .
You beat me to it.
I think future powerful leaders are possible, but they will come out of the chaos of future wars that many current rulers think will “solve” all their problems.
Somehow, wars of that kind often seem to redound to the benefit, not of the leaders who started them, but of others totally obscure before that particular period of conflict started. If Louis XVI had not overstretched France’s resources by intervening in the American Revolution, who would ever have heard of Napoleon Bonaparte?
Don’t think those quite count. None of those people operated on an authoritarian basis. They all had to answer, or at least work with, an elected body. It’s true that during war time they were given tremendous power, but all that power was taken away after the war was over. Not to mention the fact that Churchill was voted out of power after WWII.
I am not so sure, I’ve been re-listening to tapes of ‘This Sceptred Isle’ (a history of Britain loosely based on Churchhill’s writings) and it sounds as if France and Spain did not put much into the American Revolution.
They supplied 5,000 troops and sent about 40 warships which cut up the British supply lines and blockaded the Southern States (destroying a second army) - their assistance might have been pivotal, but I’m not that sure, the revolutionaries had discovered the art of guerrilla warefare and had destroyed one large British army.
My guess is that the French assistance shortened the American Revolution, but was no major drain on France.
The French Revolution was something that was bound to happen, just as the English Civil War was inevitable - however in England it was just a change of leadership, the governing structure remained intact, while in France the governing structure was destroyed.
The English Civil War was more of a Middle Class rebellion, while the French Revolution was a Peasant’s Revolt. And revolting peasants are a lot more dangerous than rebellious land owners and merchants.
France’s resources had been drained, but that was by the prior Seven Year War.
Also France was rather unstable because the Church/Government situation was similar to that of England when Henry VIII got on the throne.
Surprised no one has mentioned the source of this phrase, Francis Fukuyama’s 1992 book “The End of History and the Last Man”. My understanding is that this historical philosophy has been seriously undermined by the events of the 21st century, and that Fukuyama himself has conceded the incompleteness of his theory. So yes, I believe we will see dramamtically powerful world leaders again at some point in the future.
The OP didn’t specify authoritarian or absolutist leaders; his exact words were “the kind of person whose life and actions take on mythic proportions.” That covers democratic leaders, too, as well as leaders without any actual power at all, such as Dr. Martin Luther King.
Besides, dictators are politicians too. While they don’t have to deal with courts and legislators, they have be able to handle rebellions, mutinous generals, back-strabbing allies, assasins, corruption, popular revolts… in fact, I’d say most absolute rulers have a much less stable hold on power than democaratic ones. You say Churchill was removed from power? So was Julius Caeser. Only difference is, Churchill came back.