/u/DanKengsington, /u/jelvinjs7, /u/kugelfang52 and myself have discussed great man theory before while Dan, as ever helpful, provided links to other discussions at the start of that thread

The ending of the great man theory is important in giving historical figures their due. It isn't that historians are now denying that there were great men (or women, part of the moving away from great man theory is allowing light to be shined on others), that there were people of talent and skill who accomplished great things, taking advantage of opportunities granted them and situations of their time. Or people who made some idiotic self-destructive choices. Praise where praise is due and nobody would deny that decisions people made mattered, that they were able to have an influence on their time.

Most of the books I use about the three kingdoms or Latter Han, in some way, give praise to the people it is discussing for their talents and what they did. I dearly hope that people would consider that we gave our due to some fantastic women when we did the AskHistorians Woman's History Month Collection.

The Great Man theory tells us little of the figures who are discussed as the great men, instead, it warps them into something more than human, an almighty figure whose sheer force of personality and skill made things happen by itself. It tells us little about the eras because it warps our understanding of power, of culture, of sheer luck, of the realities on the ground by insisting we look at this powerful man or these two powerful men who are then deemed to have shaped the world around them. Forgetting the world around them shapes the person in their attitudes, knowledge and what they could or couldn't do.

Going away from the great man theory allows us to understand those powerful figures better. No man is an island, we are all influenced by many things: the time and the place they lived in, the influences from the generations before and from those around them, their understanding of the world and situations they were in, the powers they had but also the limitations of that power, the challenges they faced, the information they had. It can also give us a better understanding of their influence and legacy on those that came before them, for better and for worse.

Knowing these things can help us better understand decisions they took or the path they didn't take, it can help us assess if something they did was really a mistake or a failure or if the fundamentals were simply against them. The great man theory acts as if one or two figures in an era are of such stature and talent that they break free of the constraints of that era, like social attitudes or resources or geography, and stand above it but they couldn't.

A common mistake is that those at the top, via being on the top, could do almost anything. That with their titles (and in the great man theory, their personality and abilities) allowed them to kill their opponents/abolish the harem/implement whatever belief and style they wanted. First one has to consider if, someone shaped by their experience and teachings from those before them, would consider the idea. Then, if said leader decided to do something, there was no guarantee it would happen. Protests, refusal to obey orders, political pressure from within and without, reputation, counter-measures including threats to the life of the great one. The great ones had structures around them that influenced them, that they relied on but also could prevent them from doing certain things because the cost of pushing it through would be too high or even lead to deadly failure.

By moving away from the great man theory, we are better able to understand "the great man" as a better-rounded human being. Their strengths, their flaws, their better side and their worst, the successes and their failures while putting all this in the contexts of their time, of what they knew and didn't know, what was realistic.

The great man theory also shafts everyone else. After all, if the great man could change the world by their sheer talent and will, what excuses could the others have for their "failures"? This again isn't to deny that a person sometimes made bad decisions, that they might simply have been an inferior commander/ruler (no shame in that) or what have you but we move away from the incompetent loser, of moral failings must be why they lost and look in the round.

Was their opponent or a failed ruler so incompetent or where they make the best decisions they could with the information they had at the time? Was their situation a case of bad option A or bad option B because of the realities and limitations of power, of the structures and resources they had at their disposal vs those against them?

Why didn't the heirs do as well as their great man predecessor? Was it lack of talent in comparison or that the situation they took power in was rather different from their predecessor including different challenges and different possibilities? Maybe we need to judge them unless by what the great man achieved but instead by what they faced and what was possible at that time?

By focusing on one or two men, we ignore the others. I have touched upon those who get compared badly simply for not being "a great man" but it also, when not inadvertently insulting them, downplays those around them. If history warps around the great man, those outside that sphere risk being ignored whatever their achievements because the focus is placed so much on this being and not those "little figures" who drove through new ways of thinking, invented, education or other things.

Even those in the sphere get downplayed for the glory of the one: People who provided emotional support when things were down, those who drove through policy and implemented it (which risks being credited too much to the great man), those who led separate armies, those on the ground who carried out (or ignored) the orders, those who advised and guided, those who opposed, those who fought under the great commander. They all mattered, they all influenced what happened in their time, and they influenced the great one. The great man could not be everywhere (and may well have had limited authority in some areas) and needed to rely on others, even during battles they fought they relied on planners, bodyguards, loyal officers to hold the men together and to try to make the breakthrough. The great man belief underplays that for its lead figure.

Also great man. By being born a certain gender, was a considerable advantage in becoming the dominating figure. Being born into the right family, the right time, the right resources, that time an arrow bounced off rather than killed the leader, all can and does play its part in the rise of a figure. Someone equally as talented and driven but born the wrong gender, the wrong time for their talents, dies of an epidemic when another survives never gets that chance. Sometimes, fortune and unfairness play their part and we have to acknowledge that. Credit to the figures who took full advantage and became figures of greatness, of influence but a level playing field history was not and we can shine a light on those in the margins but whose actions and choices still mattered.

Historians do discuss the great figures of their time, their talents, their mistakes, their personality but historians know it isn't just about that one person, as powerful and as influential as they might have been. We know the world around them, the people around them mattered and shaped events, that people were a part of something and shaped by everything around them, not single handily shaping the world around their desires and whims. Such figures that get turned into great men did matter and get discussed, they did influence way things happened but it is more the focus is moved away to put them in their proper context, to understand them and their choices better and to understand history better.