"From Small Causes, Great Events" Topic

"Everyone should understand and appreciate the significance of great events and great men upon history. Had either Darius or Xerxes emerged victorious in any of the Graeco-Persian wars, Greek and, as a result, Western civilization would have been terminated in its infancy, completely changing the world as we know it. Had Islam triumphed at Chalons (451), Poitiers (732), Lepanto (1571) or Vienna (1529 & 1683) Mohamed's vision of a worldwide caliphate might now be a reality. Had the Battle of the Virginia Capes (1781) followed the usual course of events in English versus French encounters during the period when the Royal Navy ruled the waves, the American Revolution might have ended in defeat rather than victory at Yorktown.

Everyone should also understand the relationship of cause and effect upon history. Everyone should appreciate that in the interplay of the myriad details that bring history into being everything is connected, yet nothing about the chronicle is inevitable, nothing about the saga is fixed. Few, however, do. Indeed some experts would have us believe there are no great events, that history is the inexorable result of wide spread trends, mass movements, the realm of ideas; that individuals do not matter, there are no great men; that details are inconsequential, minutiae swept up in the vast and overwhelming tide of human actions. Nothing could be further from the truth. Events balance precariously on the fulcrum of human interaction and the smallest details can tip the outcome of those events one way or another. Great men can rise or fall due as much to random chance as to their own abilities. Great events sometimes hinge on the most trivial, even absurd things. When the present becomes the past and scribes put pen to paper the details are lost in the broad sweep of their musings. In time the element of chance is forgotten. Only then do scholars speak of destiny or inevitability.

In his treatise, Bellum Gallicum, no less a history maker than Julius Caesar observed, "In Bello Parvis Momentis Magni Casus Intercedunt." (In war great events are the results of small causes.) Caesar had the truth of it. Undeniably, there are cycles and trends to history. As the stories that follow demonstrate however, the details are just as crucial to the account of great events and great men that is history. Follow the connections, for that is what makes history truly fascinating; study the small causes, for they are the genesis of great events…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Er, wasn't Chalons 150 years before the creation of the Moslem religion and against the Huns?

A basic error like that makes you wonder what else is incorrect and puts me off reading the article..

Glup!…

Amicalement
Armand

Historical "what ifs" usually restrict themselves to what if the other side won. Not often considered is how history might have been different if the same side had won, but had won a much bigger (or smaller) victory than they did.

Example, the Battle of the Chesapeake or the Battle of the Capes. This wasn't a fluke. The French navy of 1781 was quite good relative to the British. The historical outcome was DeGrasse winning a small tactical victory that had huge strategic effects. However consider what could have happened if the French had been more aggressive, pushed their advantages and inflicted major damage on Graves' fleet. Now Graves is hundreds of miles from a safe port having to make a run for it. De Grasse could leave Barras to handle the Siege of Yorktown and instead run down the fleeing British. One possible prize could have been the capture of Hood. With Hood out of the picture there likely is no Battle of the Saintes, and France and Spain might have managed to capture Jamaica in 1782. Jamaica wasn't a prize the Franco-Spanish would surrender without some compensation. In addition if Hood isn't available in 1782 he doesn't have a chance to make the acquaintance of and influence Horatio Nelson.

Er, wasn't Chalons 150 years before the creation of the Moslem religion and against the Huns?

Glad you caught that. If they are that wrong that early on, you can bet on finding additional egregious errors as you dig deeper.

Thanks!.

Amicalement
Armand