I think it's a publication bias thing. Because so much was written about these people in their day, they become mascots for the time period. And what they did, while objectionable, is impressive. They had a massive influence on recorded history.

My own theory is that there is so much written in these times because of the massive inequality then. Books, statues, etc are expensive. In times of ecomonic equality, especially before the press, people would be less likely to waste time and resources on such things. Thats money better spent on improving their and their communities lives. But when you have massive inequality and a narcisist in charge, you get books, statues, and massive projects dedicated to the men who can afford them.

What do you mean "objectively studying history", what is objective about History? What you're studying is a narrative, that has been put together by experts, based of what remains from that past. There is nothing "objective" about History, it is an educated guess. Even written records are narratives told from the perspective and culture of the ancient writer.

This is to say that, the reason we don't judge historical figures through a modern lens is that to do so is to ignore history. It doesn't matter what your think about Alexander the Great, it matters what his contemporaries (both friends and enemies) had to say about him (objectively biased narratices). For another example think about what the Greeks wrote about the Persians during their many wars, and vice versa. They are conflicrive accounts. Both biased and political. So again, what history is correct, objective?

Do we glorify them, or do we just learn about them because they had a huge impact on the world?

I don't think I've ever heard of anyone holding Genghis Khan up as a role model.

I don’t think we glorify them, but we consider them significant figures in history. Remembering and talking/studying history and significant figures allows us to learn more about ourselves as well as learn how things can be done better than they once were. But I don’t really see these people glorified. Nobody calls them heroes or people to emulate.

We also glorify horrible people from the present, so why not?

Once they pass out of living memory, they can be whoever you want them to be. Or you could study them I guess, but that sounds like boring nerd stuff to most people.

Genghis Khan is actually an anti-example, since he's vilified. It's not at all clear other kings would have done any different given an unstoppable army, but yet he catches more shit than all his enemies combined.

Because for centuries, western society has valued one thing above pretty all else: winning.

If someone's an asshole, but they've gotten on top in something, people may say, "They're an asshole, but hey you gotta admire that they're so good at [insert subject]."

That's why so many people admire Ray Kroc. Yeah, so what if he brought McDonald's to a position of national and international dominance? That doesn't mean he's worthy of our respect. If anything, the way he rose to the top, being as disgusting as it was, should mean he's anything but worthy of our respect.

Victory in something by itself shouldn't be respected; what you do to get to victory matters equally as much, if not more.

who does that exactly?

You should be more worried about why we glorify horrible contemporary people, or from the more recent past. Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, Donald Trump, Ellen DeGeneres, the list is endless. There are a lot of people that even glorify Hitler himself.

And wrt Alexander the Great, having killed a lot of people does not make a person horrible. My grandfather killed a lot of people, probably hundreds. He never wanted to talk much about it. He was a great guy and a hero. Alexander the great killed a lot of people, but in doing that he eliminated the enemies of his people. He is recorded in history for spreading civilization, arts, education. He founded many cities that flourished, some of them even stand today. He freed a lot of cities that were ruled by his people's enemies. His conquests are one of the major reasons modern western civilization exists. He did all that as a military leader and he killed a lot of people.

The source of this quote is generally attributed to George W. Bush aide Karl Rove:

The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' [...] 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do'.

I fucking loathe how right Rove was and is.

I mean, the hitler comparison falls off with those specific examples, but I get that you're saying.

First, they were successful for the most part.

Second, it is the far past. The distance in time means that most people will only ever know about the biggest brush strokes of their biography and actions. The records of the eras aren't exactly rife with full detail for every bit of their lives. And what is there, most people encounter at the superficial level of a high school world history class.

That kind of class isn't geared towards detail, nuance, or moral judgement. It's about the overview.

Since all of the ones you listed are also pretty damn interesting, and made major impacts to human society (for good or ill, that's not the point of the answer to the question as asked). This in turn means that they're memorable compared to some random king or emperor that was just doing their job and running their nation without trouble.

In other words, they aren't boring. And, tbh, they weren't fascists. They never had that level of complexity to their goals. Fascist != dictator by default. That part means that until and unless you start looking at the horrible things they did, there's no convenient modern label to apply to them in a general history class to point to them not being good people.

Remember, most entry level history classes might have a week to cover the entirety of the Roman Empire; devoting time to Caesar's nastiness just isn't relevant to the goal of that kind of class. The only reason he's worth going into any detail about at all is that he changed Rome to such a degree that it's a pivot point, and cant be entirely skipped like the majority of historical roman leaders.

From there to "glorification" is a matter of fiction. We don't have the kind of detail that allows for interesting documentaries, so what we get outside of advanced history classes (which people won't likely take unless they're intending to be historians) is infotainment and outright fiction using the names of people. Once you start making books and shows and movies, entertainment and profit are the goals, not historical accuracy or even adhering to actual facts at all. Most of what people think of about Caesar is from Shakespeare.

So you then have people with disjointed and filtered ideas about historical figures, mashed together from a few facts and a lot of fiction.

Honestly, even with more recent figures, you run into the same thing. How many people do you think could give a detailed and accurate biography of either president Roosevelt? Or JFK? Or Regan? Man, there's people that couldn't tell you anything about the current world leaders beyond their name.

Who's "we"? I don't glorify these people.

Who is "we"? Many of us go to lengths to point out how important historical figures had dark aspects to their lives. This actually makes history far more interesting and relevant.

Conversely why do we act horrified that someone in the past didn't act according to standards that only exist today and pressures that don't.

Actions we condemn today were often considered acceptable, even heroic, in their era. Many figures are celebrated for their accomplishments in fields like military leadership, politics, philosophy, or art.

Also national pride, these people become symbols of a nation's identity and history, youre always taught they're heroes. They also leave a lasting impact on culture, shaping the art of their era and therefore beyond. Look no further than Napoleon for this one. Or the Mughals.

Power and influence can be awe-inspiring, even if their methods are questionable. These are traits that have throughout history been associated with being morally good in a way. Fame, power, money makes you 'good' in many cultures over history. Kings are looked up to, they are seen as people with noble blood. Their actions are inherently correct. I genuinely believe our morality as a society has grown more stringent over time.

Sometimes, people are presented in a simplified, heroic manner without acknowledging their flaws. That's just the nature of storytelling imo. They aren't being critically analysed because they are stories. And we make art based on the stories and art that survive. We base stories of Alexander the Great on the art he allowed in his time.

This is brief, I have a lot of opinions on this matter lol.

We all exist because of those people’s exploits.

That’s basically where the concept of glory begins.

(side note: freefall is an awesome webcomic, you should read it!)

Imagine it's 7500bce... Most humans are still hunter gatherers but in a few places people have started banding together to form cities. The world is savage, hard, and dangerous. Life is short and cheap, and just like chimpanzees today don't feel any moral qualms about murdering rival troop members, humans hadn't really evolved socially to the point of thinking of all humans as inherently "special" or worthy of life... Some could say we still haven't all evolved to this point.

In that context what we were left with was a bunch of sociopaths. And no wonder. Most people would be somewhat sociopathic if their siblings died in infancy or were carried off to be slaves or eaten by wolves, their parents were murdered in front of them, their village was slaughtered and burned, etc. So these city people, and soon the surrounding people's, saw sociopathic behavior as normal and even something to be worshipped. (Again, some of us still do)

Sociopaths don't hesitate to harm other people to increase their own power and wealth, even when they don't really need anything more to live comfortably. In a world where might makes right, this was a huge advantage and the most horrible and brutal sociopaths rose to become kings of their city states.

There is some evidence that hunter gatherers groups would occasionally get a sociopath among them, but more often than not that person would be shunned and banished from the family. It was only when cities became a thing that there were tons of people from many families, so even if you're family kicked you out, you could just find other sociopaths who had been kicked out, and together you could just kill anyone who denied you.

There's also the fact that as soon as people started settling down and using agriculture to create excess food, the hunter gatherers around them started trying to take that food because hey, free food. So then you need to start defending your food stores, and again sociopaths rise to the top because they are the most ruthless "defenders".

Those sociopathic traits continued in the ruling class throughout all of human pre history and history. Right down to today where people continue to worship the sociopaths like Musk, Trump, or even Hillary. It's a childish thought process of "my dad can beat up your dad", which makes me feel safer, even if sometimes my dad also beats me.

Edit: just to add that the only reason we can even have this conversation is because, for the first time in human history, large swaths of the human population HAVE socially evolved to the point of recognizing innate human value, and thus can also recognize sociopathic behavior

The comparison to the H man is apt. One of the only reasons this is different is because we had the ability to record and see the outcome of those actions. They were just as brutal in the past, but we don’t have photos and videos of them.

People glorify Winston Churchill. He was a piece of shit. He was just like Hitler wrt the countries england colonized. But he's sooooo loved. I hope he's a human centipede in hell.

Mentioning those three names isn't "glorifying" them any more than saying who was in charge of a country during a war was.

Curious to hear from more people on whether any of these were portrayed positively in their schooling. My memory of grade school history was that none of these were praised, just noted that they had a huge impact.

Heck, strongest memory of Genghis Khan from grade school is the factoid that 1 in 200 people are descended from him because he raped so many women as he slaughtered his way around Eurasia.

Julius Caesar? Dictator that became so hated by his own political allies, they assassinated him.

Alexander, titled "the Great" for his military prowess, nothing more. Known in my grade school history curriculum for being way ahead of his peers in military strategy. And the whole probably gay by today's understanding but they probably didn't have the same words and ideas about sexuality back then.

Edit: I also learned that Hitler was a hell of a politician. Lots of people in Germany at the time struggling in a post WWI mess, Hitler out-manuevered all other politicians to get to where he did with a substantial power base supporting him.

The people whose deeds reverberate through history are the powerful. The powerful are almost always evil, it's just how humans work.

Neuroscience shows that as humans get power, our brain's ability to perform empathy is damaged. So as an organism, a human's capacity and willingness to inflict misery on others tend to increase in lock step with each other.

How is simping them any different from calling them "basically Hitler from the past"? If you're talking with your feelings, what you are saying is by definition not-objective, like with simps, but also with haters. I doubt you or OP are any more informed on history than the average Lemmy rando. By starting with the desired conclusion, rather than with arguments, the discussion is already beginning on subjective terms.

Historical materialism perfectly answers your question. Quote from On Dialectical and Historical Materialism by J.V. Stalin:

"It is easy to understand how immensely important is the extension of the principles of the dialectical method to the study of social life and the history of society, and how immensely important is the application of these principles to the history of society and to the practical activities of the party of the proletariat.

If there are no isolated phenomena in the world, if all phenomena are interconnected and interdependent, then it is clear that every social system and every social movement in history must be evaluated not from the standpoint of "eternal justice" or some other preconceived idea, as is not infrequently done by historians, but from the standpoint of the conditions which gave rise to that system or that social movement and with which they are connected.

The slave system would be senseless, stupid and unnatural under modern conditions. But under the conditions of a disintegrating primitive communal system, the slave system is a quite understandable and natural phenomenon, since it represents an advance on the primitive communal system

The demand for a bourgeois-democratic republic when tsardom and bourgeois society existed, as, let us say, in Russia in 1905, was a quite understandable, proper and revolutionary demand; for at that time a bourgeois republic would have meant a step forward. But now, under the conditions of the U.S.S.R., the demand for a bourgeois-democratic republic would be a senseless and counterrevolutionary demand; for a bourgeois republic would be a retrograde step compared with the Soviet republic.

Everything depends on the conditions, time and place.

It is clear that without such a historical approach to social phenomena, the existence and development of the science of history is impossible; for only such an approach saves the science of history from becoming a jumble of accidents and an agglomeration of most absurd mistakes"

Because the powers that be and the systems they have in place (capitalism, Christian white supremacy, patriarchy, cis-heteronormativity) benefit in one way or another.

If they teach us that Julius Caesar was a bad guy and that it's good he was defeated, then we might learn that our current leaders are often bad guys too, and that maybe we should do the same to them.

In the same way that if they teach us that Hitler took his inspiration for the holocaust from already firmly established American racism, we might learn that our own history is just as bad and should be fought against at all cost (which is also what we're taught instead of the reality - the allies fought the Nazis because they threatened their own power, not because of an ideological disagreement).

That's why we're not taught (or only given a palatable token example) about working people fighting the owning class for basic rights, Black brown and Indigenous people fighting the Christian white supremacist establishment and winning, and other oppressed groups standing up to their oppressors (E: nor most of the atrocities they have and continue to commit).

Whitewashing history is always a deliberate act, and is always done in defence of the ruling class.