All Great Men Studied History the Same Way and Here’s How
The Great Man Theory of History
Your choice of heroes is one of the most important decisions
you will ever make. Napoleon spent his life trying to be Caesar,
Caesar idolized Alexander the Great,
and Alexander imagined himself as the next Achilles.
This sequence is the core of the “Great Man Theory”
of history, a controversial idea proposed
by 19th-century Scottish historian and philosopher Thomas Carlyle.
In his 1840 lectures, later published as On Heroes, Hero-Worship,
and the Heroic in History,
Carlyle argued that the history of the world is essentially the biography
of great men.
He believed that history is not shaped by the masses,
but by the will of elite figures who possess inherent genius
and should be revered and followed.
Where Do Great Men Come From?
Carlyle based his theory on two primary assumptions:
- Great leaders are born, not made: Carlyle emphasized nature over nurture. Heroes inherently possess the traits that enable them to rise to the occasion and lead on instinct.
- They require a unique set of circumstances: Great men do not emerge in a vacuum. While every aspect of history is not entirely dependent on them, they are the decisive weight that tips the scale in solving societal problems.
The hero is unquantifiable. No amount of raw manpower can make up for a Julius Caesar, and no number of minor poets will equal a Shakespeare.
The Flawed but Imitable Hero
Carlyle’s hero is similar to Aristotle’s concept of the
“magnanimous man”—a person of action who possesses
archetypal human virtue and acts upon
the world rather than just contemplating it.
Crucially, the hero is not perfect.
The world is filled with contradictions, making all heroes flawed.
However, it is precisely because they aren’t perfect that they
can serve as a pattern for others to imitate.
This cycle of imitation moves history forward.
For example, Alexander the Great set the template for ancient warfare,
and centuries later,
Napoleon used artillery in ways that future generals eagerly copied.
Six Types of Heroes
Carlyle identified six types of heroes,
encompassing all facets of human life,
meaning there is a hero for every interest:
- The Divine Hero (e.g., Odin)
- The Prophet (e.g., Muhammad, Jesus)
- The Poet (e.g., Shakespeare)
- The Priest (e.g., Martin Luther)
- The Man of Letters (e.g., Rousseau)
- The King (e.g., Napoleon)
Why Studying Heroes Matters
By examining the lives of great figures, we develop courage, vision,
and unique insights into our own nature.
Long before Carlyle, the historian Plutarch wrote Parallel Lives,
examining 23 great figures to answer what made them influential
so readers could copy their virtues and avoid their vices.
Similarly, Niccolò Machiavelli advised that learning from great men
had practical, real-world applications.
He urged rulers to study the strategies, victories,
and defeats of historical leaders.
Machiavelli noted that while most people act via imitation,
no one can tread another’s path exactly.
However, if you aim high and follow a trailblazer,
even if you fall short, you will still land higher than you were before.
The Modern Shift: History from Below
It is highly likely you were
not taught the Great Man approach in school.
Today, a competing theory known as “history from below”
or “social history” is far more popular.
English philosopher Herbert Spencer heavily criticized Carlyle,
arguing that heroes are merely products
of their social environment, stating:
“Before the great man can remake his society, his society must make him.”
This lens focuses on the common people
and views social movements as stemming from the ground up,
with leaders acting merely as reactionary figureheads.
In social history, great figures are often framed as oppressors
who reached the top not through worthiness,
but through ruthlessness.
This view can be considered depressing
because it removes aspirational figures
and insists that great men must be knocked off their pedestals.
Emulating Impact, Not Perfection
While Carlyle sometimes spoke of great men in almost religious terms,
we do not need to look toward them because they are inherently
“good” or worthy of emulation in every single aspect.
Instead, we should study them for the specific
qualities that made them impactful.
A man can be a great orator but use his skill for a devious purpose;
we should strive to emulate the skill of great speaking,
but use it for good.
We can learn from the technical skillsets and logical genius
of flawed figures, using those lessons to lift others up.
Great men teach us deep lessons about human nature
and mastery over our craft.
As Carlyle noted, we cannot look upon a great man
without gaining something from him.
