Is history really just the deeds of great men? Or is this inaccurate?

by derpysnake24

I've been into history for a while now, and I've heard the phrase "history is just the deeds of great men" thrown around a lot. Is there any truth to that? Or is it just a bunch of baloney? I read a little into Thomas Carlyle and Herbert Spencer, but I can see both sides. I know it's a very general question, but I thought it couldn't to ask Reddit anyway.

lord_mayor_of_reddit

A lot of pop history tends to be that way, but no, history is not just the deeds of "great men".

For instance, here is a book on the history of part of Brooklyn. Much of the information in it relates the actions of average, ordinary people whose "fame" didn't rise outside their local community.

Likewise, New York historians rely on books like this one to piece together early information about the colony. That book is filled with court minutes, with local, ordinary people as plaintiffs and defendants, arguing over mostly mundane stuff. But it's certainly history and helps us understand what went on in the early years of New York City.

There are millions of local history books like this. Pick a town, a county, a church, a structure, or even a food and there's probably been a history book written about it.

But unless you have a specific interest in the subject at hand, these sorts of history books usually get overlooked. So a lot of people just look at history as the tales of presidents, wars, and large-scale events. Those are certainly important to study, but they don't at all make up the totality of history.