The great man theory is a faulty notion of history common in the old paradigm which one often finds in modern histories.
Under this theory, for example, one might erroneously state that Napoleon caused the War of 1812.
Tolstoy debunks the great man theory of history in Chapter 2 of the first epilogue, and elsewhere.
quote from the chapter:
Biographical historians and historians of separate nations understand this force as a power inherent in heroes and rulers. In their narration events occur solely by the will of a Napoleon, and Alexander, or in general of the persons they describe. The answers given by this kind of historian to the question of what force causes events to happen are satisfactory only as long as there is but one historian to each event. As soon as historians of different nationalities and tendencies begin to describe the same event, the replies they give immediately lose all meaning, for this force is understood by them all not only differently but often in quite contradictory ways. One historian says that an event was produced by Napoleon’s power, another that it was produced by Alexander’s, a third that it was due to the power of some other person. Besides this, historians of that kind contradict each other even in their statement as to the force on which the authority of some particular person was based.
Second Epilogue, key concept note 7
The “great man” theory of history.
Summary:
The great man theory is a faulty notion of history common in the old paradigm which one often finds in modern histories.
Under this theory, for example, one might erroneously state that Napoleon caused the War of 1812.
Tolstoy debunks the great man theory of history in Chapter 2 of the first epilogue, and elsewhere.
quote from the chapter:
Biographical historians and historians of separate nations understand this force as a power inherent in heroes and rulers. In their narration events occur solely by the will of a Napoleon, and Alexander, or in general of the persons they describe. The answers given by this kind of historian to the question of what force causes events to happen are satisfactory only as long as there is but one historian to each event. As soon as historians of different nationalities and tendencies begin to describe the same event, the replies they give immediately lose all meaning, for this force is understood by them all not only differently but often in quite contradictory ways. One historian says that an event was produced by Napoleon’s power, another that it was produced by Alexander’s, a third that it was due to the power of some other person. Besides this, historians of that kind contradict each other even in their statement as to the force on which the authority of some particular person was based.
Click here to read full text of this chapter.
Please help improve this shared document by posting your suggested corrections, clarifications, and changes below. Thank you!