Eric Balkan wrote:
>
>
> In reference to the sentence I quoted above, there was virtually
> nothing about 12th century Mongolian social structure that would have
> led anyone to think that a leader would arise who could unite fractious
> pastoral nomad clans and conquer most of the civilized world with them.
All sorts of "psychological types," all sort of rich concrete individuals, are _always_ present in _any_ social order. See Miles on greed. Hell. Thomas Gray noted that over two hundred years ago:
Perhaps in this neglected spot is laid Some heart once pregnant with celestial fire; Hands, that the rod of empire might have sway'd, Or wak'd to ecstasy the living lyre.
But Knowledge to their eyes her ample page Rich with the spoils of time did ne'er unroll; Chill Penury repress'd their noble rage, And froze the genial current of the soul.
Full many a gem of purest ray serene, The dark unfathom'd caves of ocean bear: Full many a flow'r is born to blush unseen, And waste its sweetness on the desert air.
Some village-Hampden, that with dauntless breast The little tyrant of his fields withstood; Some mute inglorious Milton here may rest, Some Cromwell guiltless of his country's blood.
----
Genghis or Lenin or Darwin are contingencies, and of course not predictable (nor for that manner very describable, even after the fact). But what could Darwin have done had he been born in 910 in Saxony? The question is absurd. And you don't seriously maintain, do you, that Genghis could have united fractiousd nomadic tribes had he been born in Harlem in 1920?
Your example simply demonstrates vividly what Miles has been arguing.
Carrol