In respect to what I have seen and done, I would say no. Marxist historiography has been weakened and in general historical theory isn't as, powerful isn't the right word, but it seems to be less prevalent in historical discussion. I will say that my views of this are influenced by my focus, which is in the French Revolution and the Revolution was once a major ground for Marxist historiography but was dismantled long before, before WW2 even.

So for the Great Man part as well, and this is also influenced by my study of the Napoleonic Era. There's a disconnect that I think many who ask questions don't realize and that's how historical study changes your world view. Great Man theory is a major point of basic historical education (secondary school) and political discourse (talk about presidents and founding figures, regardless of political affiliation). As such, it is going to be important to most that the major players are important but studying history changes that. I could spend my life studying Napoleon, Robespierre, Louis ##, and famous generals but then I would lose the smaller picture of how others are influential but less visible, like women (such as the Madame de Staël being a major player in the French Salon scene and someone you'll never hear her name in high school). And so with deeper study, you learn the importance and effect of the "minor person" compared to the "Great Man". There is nothing wrong with that and I hate anyone that says "please stop asking X question (except Hitler because we have a very well answers catalogue over him) in a Great Man Theory view" because that's the view given by education and culture.

That's how I see it though.

It's not really fair to create a dichotomy where our answers can only be either in support of Great Man Theory or Marxist. What is explained in the thread you mentioned is not Marxist in the slightest; it is much more about awareness of the context and contingent nature of historical events, which as a methodological approach ultimately originates in Rankean historicism (which predates Marxism).

No doubt Marxism has had a lot of influence on the way historians think, but the theory itself has definitely fallen out of favour as a methodological framework. Few people now see history in terms of eternal class struggle. The idea that long-term processes and the behaviour of groups has a great influence on the course of history isn't necessarily Marxist in principle; it is simply a way to arrive at better, more inclusive historical narratives. In the end, most interpretations of history have as their ideologically neutral goal (regardless of what other goals they might have) to make more sense of more of the evidence than previous ones.

This is pretty much the point of the Hitler thread. It wasn't an attempt to claim that individual historical figures have no influence, or that they aren't interesting. The author actually stresses that there is nothing wrong with asking questions about famous historical figures - as long as that is what you want to know. The point is that such questions may ultimately be inspired by a desire to explain historical events through the personalities, quirks, beliefs, upbringing, etc, of prominent individuals. This simply isn't good history, because it ignores all other actors and factors involved. As you say, such questions are not conducive to reaching "a more complete understanding of events".

and some other content on this sub I can't help but think that this sub seems to lean quiet heavily on towards a marxist (with a small m) interpretation and in some cases a "new left" perspective.

I think you're mistaking how historical is research is done for a 'marxist' (lower case m) approach. This is an accusation which is often hurled online from people outside of history itself or who have radically different methodologies or conclusions from the mainstream.

For history, the 19th century was key in that it was the beginning of serious attempts to turn history into a science (an idea that was also evolving at the time).

There were several major approaches that attempted to do this. One is Positivism, which concerned itself with quantifiable data and the imitation of methodology from the natural sciences, although these methods didn't always mesh well with the study of society. Positivism was and is extremely influential. Another very influential approach was inspired by Marx' writings on history and social progress. Marx was very interested in turning history into a science, but it was heavily influenced by Hegelian philosophy and the development of a critical apparatus which could legitimize his criticism of society. While some people may still identify as Marxist or Positivist historians, mainstream historians who prefer a more eclectic approach tend to have simply taken from both approaches the methods and ideas that stood the test of time while simultaneously and unceremoniously chucking the rest.

Both are approaches which pushed back against the tendency to look at a history which was often merely one of big men, big battles, and high politics. They and those they influenced didn't deny that individuals could have a huge influence on history, but merely tried to emphasize that the individual was molded by their circumstances and could only influence society if given certain opportunities by their economic, social, and cultural context. These writings are an attempt to push back against that kind of simplistic view of history which attempts to see everything through the atomized lens of the individual.

While the study of individuals can be very rewarding, they need to always happen within the context of an understanding of the world in which they moved. That's what people are pushing back against; an obsession with the individual at the expense of a greater understanding of the world in which they moved.

If I'm reading your post correctly, the historians' interpretations you're calling "marxist" are actually better described as the "cultural turn." Marxist history is far more specific and focuses on the primacy of class and economic relations as drivers of history (marxists, please excuse the quick and dirty explanation).

The cultural turn is the latest iteration of a series of dramatic shifts in the historical profession since the late 1950s. I won't drag you through all the ebbs and flows that have led us here, but I'll recommend a book that describes them well at the end of my post. In short, the cultural turn has diversified the range of questions and research topics that are considered significant (read: influential and thus worthy of study) by historians. One of the earliest such expansions brought economic class into the fold (sometimes referred to as social history), and race was another early beneficiary (example: if we want to know about American slavery, we need to look at the enslaved African Americans as well we the masters). A great many other subjects, too many to conveniently list, have since entered the fold as well as greatly expanded our understanding of the past. The underlying (correct) assumption of these newcomer topics has simply been than focusing on the "traditional" drivers of history, such as politics/economics/governments and the "great men" who steered them were insufficient at explaining the past. But it's more than that, too, and this is where I think you're having a bit of trouble. It's also about acknowledging that history is not solely, or even primarily, driven by the holders of overt power in a culture.

If you want to understand the British Empire in India, you have to look at the marginalized Indian underclasses and not just the imperial government.

If you want to understand antebellum Southern slaveholders, you have to incorporate gendered forces that governed how they interacted with their wives.

If you want to understand the success of Nixon's domestic economic policies, you need to look at blue collar workers, not just the Nixon administration.

On and on, the cultural turn has vastly opened the realm of historical inquiry and that required shedding the idea of the great man as a driver of history, to the immense benefit of the historical profession and all who encounter its scholarship.

Now hold on, I'm not totally rejecting your point. Just understand that in forging new spaces for historical inquiry, the cultural turners needed to justify why the status quo wasn't sufficient. Political, military, business, and other "traditional" history fields have suffered or fallen out of vogue. But there is a place for the "great man" in historical study. We just need to stop calling them great, IMO. We can go on and on about the agency of freedpeople in the US and how the slaves freed themselves, but we can't deny that Lincoln played a huge role himself either. But instead of discussing Lincoln like some singular ubermensch who grasped the reins of history and tugged, we should properly contextualize him into a world full of its own currents, large and small, powerful and marginalized, and how those currents had influenced everything in Lincoln's life and environment since his birth in 1809. The cultural turn has proved beyond any doubt that history's "great men" were not singularly important in driving history, but now that its place in the profession is secure it might be good to remember that the traditional topics of inquiry still have some significance.

Note: Look up Blouin and Rosenberg's Processing the Past for a great description of the cultural turn in history. About half the book is also devoted to the evolution of the archives profession, but you can skip those chapters if you're not interested (it'll be your loss though, it's fascinating).

I think it's a definite no in terms of Marxist/marxist historiography or theory, if we're talking in terms of historical materialism etc. But I don't really think that's what you're asking. It seems to me that you're talking more about a structuralist approach in contrast to the 'great man' type theories. While marxist historiography is certainly widely associated with structuralism, there were (and are) many prominent structuralists who were not marxist, such as Fernand Braudel.

The key criticism leveled at structuralist approaches to history, and what you seem to be trying to get at here, is that it deprives historical individuals of agency. To avoid a 20 year rule violation, let's take the example of, say, Gorbachev and the fall of the Iron Curtain. If Gorbachev had taken the decision to send in the tanks to shut down the first 'leaks' and anti-communist governments, history would have undoubtedly turned out differently. Under a 'great man' interpretation of history, we can interpret this as Gorbachev sticking to his convictions to the bitter end, stepping aside and allowing the USSR to fall. But, as was said in the first thread against 'great man' history, that view deprives all other actors of agency - the border guards, the refugees, the politicians, the protesters all had individual choices to make which shaped history.

I think you recognise this - you say, after all that you want to put "forward that the idea that all peoples have equal agency in shaping history". Which means, as you rightly say, that the beliefs and actions of those in power are important and do have an impact - but so are the beliefs and actions of the unpowerful. "Why did Hitler love Jews?" or "Why does Merkel love refugees?" make no sense as stand-alone questions: literal answers would be tidbits or factoids. If we really want to understand how these powerful people managed to shape the course of history, they it is imperative that we try to understand the context, the development and the structures which framed and limited their agency.

As a Marxist, I would not characterize this sub as leaning too heavily towards Marxism at all. Marxism has been in decline in historical circles since roughly the 70's I'd estimate. Obviously some historical theories originate in a Marxist framework, such as those coming from Gramsci, but even including them I definitely would not say this sub leans heavily towards Marxist historiography. As for Great Man Theory specifically, its been declining for a very long time in academia, and this sub's (In my opinion justified) disdain for Great Man analysis doesn't make it Marxist.

What does Marxist mean from a historical standpoint? I assume OP isn't actually calling everyone communists.