Tonight I'm meeting Past President to discuss the Great Man Theory of History at Chocolate Bar on Hudson Street. Or, at least, the Great Man Theory of GMSMA. Past Prez pointed to Alexander the Great as an example of a great man that altered the course of history. Napoleon is the usual example, and presents more of a challenge in arguing against the Great Man theory. Alexander is more easily dismissed. The Mediterranean Sea provided the people who lived around it with easy contact with one another as it was so readily navigable. Because of the climate, however, there really wasn't a way for any sizeable population to support itself from agriculture. Thus, there were always expansionist wars and battles. Warfare leads to arms races (however primitive), and arms races have the result of improving science and technology. Thus, if Alexander hadn't united the various factions and peoples of the Aegean and the Hellenic penninsula, someone else would have. And, sooner or later, someone would hit upon a technological innovation that would allow hm and his nation to jump ahead of his rivals. At that point, the world would be your oyster. At least, until some rivals or subjugated people dreamed up some new technological innovation. I can never remember if Bellerophon was the name of Alexander's lover or his horse.

---