A theory of history predicts past and future events. Among major theories of history, we have materialist determinism and Great man theory.
They are mutually at odds. Great man theory claims that individual men ultimately determine the path of history.
Materialist determinism claims that men are only tools determined by greater circumstancial forces. According to this theory, if Napoleon was killed, another man would have taken his place.
To examine the validity of these claims, we must first define great men. They need a high impact capacity. No man can exert such a capacity alone. Therefore, they need an institution as an extension of themselves to execute their actions.
We define a Great man as such: a man who climbed the ranks of an institution until he became its head. Instead of acting as an individual in the particular circumstances of the leadership of an institution, he transcends the institution. He seeks the interests of the institution and the institution obeys as one body.
Now, let us looks at the requirements for the emergence of Great men.
- They need a crisis in which the can show their potential. In a regular situation, outcomes are predictable and a bureaucratic procedure can handle them.
It is not sufficient. We are in critical need of Great men, but there are none. So, let us look at the institutions.
Great men arise in circumstances of great selective pressure. According to our institutional power capture theory, most current Great men will emerge from the corporate world in our society.
They do not come alone. Napoleon, a figure who emerged in the aftermath of the French revolution, worked with very high-quality generals. In the event of his death, one of his subordinates would probably have taken his place.
In conclusion: material circumstances favours functional institutions which are a fertile ground for the production of Great men.