A particular person may be not the unique one to try and achieve something. But there should exist some number of "candidate great men", else there'd be nobody to take advantage of the circumstances. It looks like this number is not very large in any particular area. If not Einstein, maybe a handful other physicists could come up with, say, special relativity, but likely not hundreds, and maybe not even dozens.
The natural conclusion of what you're describing is that there's some sort of continuum or spectrum of people who might take up some opportunity.
Those people are also generated by dice rolls: some have genuinely better brain chemistry, some are nurtured well by family, some find a mentor who puts a lot of effort into them, some grow up next to a training ground.
If you look at any kind of excellence, there's a bunch of sliding doors moments. What if Michael Jordan dropped basketball after getting cut from the team? What if the scout decides Messi is too small? On the science side, just about anyone can not get along with their prospective supervisor, or they don't find funding, or they get offered a job doing something else.
The way to think about a few people being within reach of SR is not to just scroll back a few years before it happened. There were a bunch of kids born in that generation who were interested in physics, and chances are a re-do of their lives would have turned up some different outcomes individually, but why would we think that SR wouldn't have come out eventually? It's clear people were thinking about it, and it's clear people got it once the discovery was published.
The other thing to look at is cases of where the great man is lost. Does all progress grind to a halt once the guy dies? Do we have a lot of examples of that?
After alexander the great, greek kingdoms were left scattered along the path he went, some lasting for 100s of years. IMO he spread a system of logistics and trade required to sustain armies over that many thousands of miles, which was also could be used as the basis of a society. That system of logistics came from his father but also thousands of years of greek society before that.
No offense to them, but I wouldn't say Michael Jordan or Messi have significantly impacted history. They impacted the trajectory of their sports teams, and I would think it's pretty easy for an individual to have an influence on something over that scale, but for a "great man" to be given credit for significantly shaping borders for hundreds or thousands of years, or for certain innovations that were funded by institutions that could have just as easily paid someone else... I think there's something else going on.
Not sure I understand you. If the idea that Alexander was one of these great men, without whom things would be vastly different?
What's so special about him, other than him being the guy who did what he did? Sounds a bit dismissive and that's not the impression I want to make, but aren't there loads of people with forceful characters, most of whom do not get to sit at the steering wheel?
I'm responding to what you said here: "does all progress grind to a halt once the guy dies? Do we have a lot of examples of that?" with a pretty glaring example of what you're saying (which provides counter-evidence to the view we both share).
Then the rest of my comment is an attempt to show that it wasn't just Alexander the great being a "great man" that causes his expansion, but instead it was a system of logistics that the Greeks happened upon.
I'm saying: because they needed the logistics, they developed the logistics. Because they had the logistics, they had the ability to expand. Because they had the ability to expand, someone did. That person happened to be the son of a king (Philip II of Macedon) whose logistics enabled him to expand through Greece. I'd venture to guess his father was probably involved in some politics and warfare logistics as well... indicating that this was a capacity developed over generations due to an environmental requirement
Maybe everyone realizes this these days, but I didn't realize until a few years ago that ancient armies traveling for months were like traveling cities, and in a way they could be like caravans as well, trading. Perhaps Philip II's big innovation was a systematic method of trading instead of pillaging with the surrounding cities, which would allow establishing continuing political relationships, which explains the kingdoms lasting for 100s of years more. Expansion by brute force was certainly going on with neo-Assyria 500 years or so earlier, but with Alexander the great, from what I can gather, there was lots of communication with surrounding towns. It appears an army would plop down for a month and regroup. They'd buy food and weapons. They'd probably find some people unhappy with their current emperor and do some recruiting. Expansion by brute force requires even more massive amounts of logistics than the sort of military caravan thing Alexander may have had going on and I find it really difficult to believe he could have gotten as far as he did with that strategy.
If Alexander inherited such an army as well as a new form of logistics that allowed him to travel further, it would make him more of an avatar of a larger force behind him. That's more how I believe things tend to happen versus him just being some genius tactician who won because he was smarter than all the barbarians... even if that's what he believed was the cause of his success.
> Maybe everyone realizes this these days, but I didn't realize that ancient armies traveling for months were like traveling cities, and in a way they could be like caravans as well, trading.
The acoup guy does a great job of explaining this kind of thing.
But this is simply due to government policy limiting the amount of money they were throwing at the project. So you're advocating for "great incentives theory"
