I think we are conflating “whether some great men can leave an imprint on history unlike what one might expect from anyone else at a similar time and place in history” with “can history primarily be understood as a series of actions by great men”.
The latter is the theory of great men, the former is not. The former seems highly likely to be true. some great men profoundly affected history in a way that is unique. even another great men of suitable talents arising at the same time in place of this one is unlikely to affect history in the same ways.
The latter is unlikely to be true, even if great men imprinted history with their unique actions and outlooks the collective power of more ordinary men clearly still shape history to a much higher cumulative degree.
The latter is the theory of great men, the former is not. The former seems highly likely to be true. some great men profoundly affected history in a way that is unique. even another great men of suitable talents arising at the same time in place of this one is unlikely to affect history in the same ways.
The latter is unlikely to be true, even if great men imprinted history with their unique actions and outlooks the collective power of more ordinary men clearly still shape history to a much higher cumulative degree.
