The idea that it is great leaders or individuals who drive history, rather than the circumstances of large groups of people interacting as the main mechanism that drives history, is wrong. No individual is strong enough to “change history”, so to speak, without the correct circumstances being in place for whatever that historical event is to occur.
In the study of history, there are a few different schools of analyzing and understanding the context of history. In America, for example, American history is taught broadly in three (possibly four nowadays) epochs: The Colonial/Revolutionary Period (Mid 17th century to the end of the 18th century), the Civil War era (subdivided into the antebellum period, the war itself, and reconstruction), and finally the Industrial period (the end of the 19th century to the present day). Within that contextual analysis, presidential administrations are used as a measuring tool as a timeline within the historiography. The basis of this assessment is due to the idea that the American President is “the most powerful man in the world”, and therefore, who the President is, is important to understanding whatever was occurring in those contemporary times. This is a form of The Great Man of History theory.
The general overview of this theory is that it is great men who push their societies a certain direction. If it weren’t for Hitler, Germany would never have fallen to Nazism, and World War 2 would not have occurred. Even within the other schools, which focus on other aspects of history such as geography or economics, there is still an emphasis on studying how leaders came about, and the impact they had on whatever the focus of historical study is. Almost all studies of history have some amount of leader/great man study within them.
Obviously few would ever agree that it is only great men who move history, and most reasonable people understand, again with the example of Nazi era Germany, that Hitler arose due to the circumstances of the time. However, many still believe that Hitler, or other leaders at other times, did indeed act as some amount of driving force of history. If history is to bee seen as a snowball rolling down a hill, while the leader cannot necessarily move that snowball back up the hill, they can guide the snowball a certain direction. Even this assessment of history gives far too much credit to leaders, and how they actually impact history.
As a caveat, this is not to say that history is fate. We are not bound to a certain direction solely due to the circumstances. I believe, however, that history is impacted by groups of people with common ideals, and while leaders may overall have a certain impact on the direction that group takes, a leader themselves is seldom, if ever, strong enough on their own to move history.
As stated in my previous musing about Christianity, I made a quick reference to generally why messianic religions occurred so frequently in the Holy Land. To reiterate that point, it was commonly conquered by larger, foreign empires, and their subjugation more or less eventually to the belief that a messiah would arise, and force out the invaders, or make the invaders pay for the subjugation of the subjects land. In the Bible alone, there are dozens upon dozens of people referenced in the messianic figures, and generally speaking, the Abrahamic faiths can be understood as messianic worship religions. These messiah’s are always believed to be a leader figure who would arise, and as stated, bring an end to their bondage.
And many a messiah did arise from this area, and many did have a great impact on the region. This was not due to them personally, however. Rather, because the people of the area were looking for their messiah, they eventually found someone willing to take up the mantle, and do what they were prophecized.
A similar situation occurred with Alexander the Great, who only became great because of his father Phillip II of Macedon, and the overall structure of Macedonian society. In an even great understanding of history and geography, why European cultures are so different from say, Middle Eastern, Asian, or even pre-Columbian American cultures is solely due to the geography in which these civilizations arose from, rather than the “great men” of their societies. There is no historical timeline where a city state anything like the Maya would have arisen in Europe, because Mayan culture could have only come about in the Yucatan region of Mexico. Early Chinese history was rife with civil wars and dynastic conflict because of the geography of China. Even the modern term of “Balkanization” is only understood in the syncretic understanding of culture and geography, and how that impacts the relationship between groups of people. The World Wars were centered on Europe not because of feuding European leaders trying to gain power over one another, but because nation-states were trapped together in a tight arena, and more or less forced to fight.
The list of analysis is definitely not exhaustive, but rather a short overview as to why looking at any history, and framing it on individual people, is silly. The only way to have a comprehensive view of history is to look at a variety of macro-factors, and focus less on the individual drama of whatever a leader was doing. And if you still don’t agree with me, I urge you to read any royal dynasty’s history, and broadly see the same events and actions undertaken over and over again. Very few leaders are truly original.