I am sick and tired of people treating the “Great Man Theory of History” as just the idea that heroes or wildly influential people exist. That’s not what it posits!
Rather the GMT posits that the primary cause or even guiding force of historical change is these men, rather than a larger societal shift happening and them just taking an influential role at the forefront
To take an oft quoted favorite and one of the best plausible cases for the GMT: Napoleon. Napoleon didn’t revolutionize France alone, the upheaval of French society and new thought therein predates him, it is completely impossible to deny this - the monarchy was overthrown 7 years before he took power, he had virtually no distinctive role in this massive initial shift.
He certainly had a massive guiding hand later, but he wasn’t the *initial cause* of the wave of change, rather an exceptional man within it- but Napoleon is too exceptional and we don’t have enough of his ilk to justify the GMT applying to all of History, despite it possibly working with him (or a weaker version of it).
As for Homer’s epics, these men were heroes, but also playthings of the Gods. They simply didn’t transform society, rather they’re a mythical retelling of old set tradition, and heroes engaging in adventures and conquest within this tradition.
Funnily enough there’s a better example that Roman Helmet Guy could cite but doesn’t - Aeneas! Virgil’s account of the story much better reflects someone who created a new society and led the future, whereas Hector, Odysseus and Achilles simply… don’t. Your better case would be Agamemnon or Menelaus who actually started the war, but neither of them really made a cultural shift per se.
There’s also the problem that the Greek Gods are truly the manipulators here, whereas the GMT ascribes a much greater sort of self-will and sovereignty of decision to its Great Men.
Update:
I thought about it, and Hector is a GREAT example of someone who people might talk about relating to the GMT but is absolutely not! Many people know of Hector, RHG cites him as a Great Man of History but under the GMT… he doesn’t even come close to qualifying!
His brother steals a woman and he dies in battle. What history changed? None! Rather he’s a great man and amazing hero and popular figure *DESPITE* not having a massive effect on the course of history.
confused 17th century Scottish guy who comes unthawed from permafrost and assumes “we are charlie kirk” is a Royalist chant from the First Bishops’ War
@MissZindzi But what you don't understand is that I'm interested in interesting and important things but the other person is only interested in stupid boring things that don't even matter