Empire And States Are The Chronicles Of Great Men Analysis

When I consider the idea that “empires and states are the chronicles of great men,” a few people come to mind. Among them, Homer and Hesiod. The first told stories about the elite, and created a narrative of Greek culture that revolved around heroes maneuvering through epic events; the latter told stories about the common man, and routine life. It is clear which stories were most in demand: around the time of Herodotus, when we got writing that purported to be historical and that was also colorful, it was stories about the elite that were given the most color. The elites' monopolization of color continued over the centuries, and would be familiar to us in this one; thus, “empires and states are the chronicles of great men.” In this paper, I will talk about a couple reasons for this millennium-spanning trend, and also about the need for a more Hesiodic approach. It might be accurate to claim that 'writing' itself has been biased toward the powerful. It has been concentrated in the hands of the educated and those with leisure, and aimed at the same audience. In part because of this, it

Perhaps it satisfied some universal impulses to oblige them. We are biased toward the idea that men make the times, as opposed to the idea that times make the men. The latter perspective implies less control over our own fates, and requires looking at a spectrum of factors that are more complicated and sometimes less human. A single individual rising to the top of the world, and going on to make their mark on it; this is a much more seductive narrative than one that examines the structural forces driving things, or that places more value on people in the aggregate (e.g., the collection of farmers, merchants, etc. driving economies) as opposed to individual