GunsmithKitten
Plata Plomo y Sangre
That's a statement couched in ignorance of pretty much all world history.
So do tell how Genghis Khan, Napoleon Bonaparte, Julius Caesar, Hannibal Barca, Joshua, Hatshepsut, Alexander, and George S. Patton earned their place in history?
As Senator Armstrong pointed out, Alexander was born a king, and his place in history was won by that alone. To take it further, he'd've never had a chance for the Glorious Psychopathy that you seem to want to believe "manhood" has always meant had he not been, and he's kinda an argument against earning status through violence, as his violence was only possible due to the status he'd inherited.
Patton was born to a wealthy military family and designed the standard-issue 1913 Army Sabre, as well as wrote the manual on how to use it in combat, before he'd ever seen action ( His first actual deployment wasn't until 1916 ). I'd say he had an excess of clout even before he became the infamous "General Patton."
Julius Caesar was born into the Patracian class, meaning that his family was of the ruling elite. His military service was largely ceremonial rather than practical, and awarded for the status of his birth rather than his ability. Without the noble birth, his march across the Rubicon wouldn't've had the support of even a full centuria, yet alone the legion he led.
Napoleon was the son of the Corsican representative to the court of Louis XVI. His noble lineage guaranteed him his commission in the military ( Remember: Soldiers are poor, but officers were historically only drawn from the children of the wealthy ), which made his little rebellion possible.
Hannibal was the son of the Carthaginian general who commanded the entire military in the First Punic War. Said father also raised his army, trained them up and made him swear an oath to fight Rome. So, honestly, Hannibal seems to have taken the least active role out of all of these choices.
Assuming you mean the Biblical Joshua ( Joshua the Apprentice of Moses, as opposed to Joshua of Nazareth ), he served as a military leader, but that was almost a footnote. His fame was won off of his devotion as Moses's apprentice and servant ( It's said that the line in Proverbs "he that waits on his master shall be honored" was a direct reference to him ). This might very well be the biggest swing and a miss in the whole post. He wasn't a war hero, he was what you might call "Moses's personal b***h," and that's where his renown came from. Submission.
Oops, Spoke too soon. Hatshepsut was apparently the first famous woman that history felt was worthy of recording, and her accomplishments include improving trade, building Egypt's wealth through trade and diplomacy, and a truly ridiculous amount of architectural projects. She's known for the long era of peace she presided over, and her history includes no named conflicts I can find.
Now, Temujin, I'll give you. I mean, he also founded the Mongol Empire, and would have been seen as quite the hero had he stopped there without the massive world invasions, but honestly, you need him as a War Monster who won his fame at the point of a sword, or your entire post will have been just an unmitigated, total failure.
But, still, these people weren't awarded glory for being violent, their violence was justified by their status as glorious rich folk ( or, in one case, for being a really, really excellent servant, and in another, for ruling over a peaceful era ). Their places in history were assigned early, and they only added violence to them, if at all, once it was already assured their names would be remembered.
