The Myth of Great Man Leadership — War and Peace

The life of the nations is not contained in the lives of a few men, for the connection between those men and the nations has not been found. The theory that this connection is based on the transference of the collective will of a people to certain historical personages is a hypothesis unconfirmed by the experience of history. It may explain much in jurisprudence, but as soon as revolutions, conquests, or civil wars occur, that is, as soon as history begins, it explains nothing. The theory seems irrefutable just because the act of transference cannot be verified, for it never occurred. Whatever happens and whoever stands at the head of affairs, the theory can always say that such a person took the lead because the collective will was transferred to him.

The replies are like those of a man who, watching a herd of cattle and paying no attention to the varying quality of the pasturage or to the driving of the herdsman, attributes the direction the herd takes to what animal happens to be at its head. The herd goes that way because the animal in front leads it and the collective will of the others is vested in that leader: so say historians of unconditional transference. If the animals leading change, this happens because the collective will is transferred according to whether the animal is leading in the direction selected by the whole herd: so say those who assume known conditions. With this method the observer, influenced by the direction he prefers, often regards as leaders those who, owing to a change of direction, are no longer in front but on one side or even in the rear. If the animals in front continually change, we must watch all the prominent animals on all sides: so say the third class, who regard all historical persons, from monarchs to journalists, as the expression of their age.

The theory is merely a paraphrase. What causes historical events? Power. What is power? The collective will transferred to one person. Under what condition? On condition that that person expresses the will of the whole people. That is, power is power: a word the meaning of which we do not understand. If human knowledge were confined to abstract reasoning, humanity would conclude that power is merely a word and has no real existence. But man has experience, and experience tells us that power is an actually existing phenomenon. Whenever an event occurs a man appears by whose will it seems to have taken place. Napoleon III issues a decree and the French go to Mexico. Bismarck and the King of Prussia issue decrees and an army enters Bohemia. Experience shows that whatever occurs is always related to the will of one or of several men who have decreed it. Historians, from the old habit of acknowledging divine intervention, want to see the cause in someone endowed with power. Reflection shows that a man's words are only part of the general activity of a war or a revolution; without a miracle one cannot admit that words are the immediate cause of the movements of millions. History shows that commands are often not executed, and sometimes the very opposite occurs. Without admitting divine intervention we cannot regard power as the cause of events. From the standpoint of experience, power is merely the relation between the expression of someone's will and the execution of that will by others.