I think there’s a spectrum between great man theory and structural forces theory and I would classify your view as much closer to the structural forces view, rather than a combination of the two.
The strongest counter-example might be Mao. It seems like one man’s idiosyncratic whims really did set the trajectory for hundreds of millions of people. Although of course as soon as he died most of the power vanished, but surely China and the world would be extremely different today without him.
A synthesis between the structural forces theory and “pulling the rope sideways”.
The economical and other forces determine the main direction, a leader who already wanted to go in that direction gets elected and starts going in that direction, his idiosyncratic whims get implemented as a side effect.
Like, instead of Hitler, there would be another German leader determined to change the post-WW1 world order, but he would probably be less obsessed about the Jews. Also, he might make different alliances.
I think there’s a spectrum between great man theory and structural forces theory and I would classify your view as much closer to the structural forces view, rather than a combination of the two.
The strongest counter-example might be Mao. It seems like one man’s idiosyncratic whims really did set the trajectory for hundreds of millions of people. Although of course as soon as he died most of the power vanished, but surely China and the world would be extremely different today without him.
A synthesis between the structural forces theory and “pulling the rope sideways”.
The economical and other forces determine the main direction, a leader who already wanted to go in that direction gets elected and starts going in that direction, his idiosyncratic whims get implemented as a side effect.
Like, instead of Hitler, there would be another German leader determined to change the post-WW1 world order, but he would probably be less obsessed about the Jews. Also, he might make different alliances.