More generally, focusing on "Great People" [1] obscures actual history and prevents deeper understanding of what actually moves its cogs.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_man_theory

G.K. Chesterton and H.G. Wells seemed to think so in their histories of England (though note that Wells' work is controversial due to an accusation of plagiarism).

Both are available at Project Gutenberg and Librivox:

>"A Short History of England" by G. K. Chesterton is a historical account written in the early 20th century. The book provides a unique perspective on English history, challenging traditional narratives often neglected by popular histories. Chesterton seeks to illuminate the experiences of the average citizen throughout England's past, particularly during the medieval period, arguing that important aspects of the populace’s legacy have been overlooked.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/20897

>"The Outline of History: Being a Plain History of Life and Mankind" by H. G. Wells is a historical account written in the early 20th century. This comprehensive work aims to provide a continuous narrative detailing the story of life and humanity from its origins to the present, emphasizing a universal approach to history that transcends individual nations or periods. The book serves as an exploration of how human civilizations have developed over vast stretches of time and how they relate to broader scientific and societal changes.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/45368

Can't really get to the thrust of the article due to paywall but almost certainly yes.

If nothing else the 1066 effect is real--as someone with a vague interest in questionably accurate period fiction novels I seem to have osmosed more basics about 4th to 10th century Britain than most anyone who grew up there was taught/retained

Like if your read Macaulay's History of England, he does say very much on the King's and Queens, but he's not heaping praise on them, he is very critical of them, sometimes very entertainingly so.

Most of English history as per Macaulay is of conflict between the King and Parliament, with a good amount of religious discord mixed in, between the major groups like the church of England, Catholics and puritans.

before mass literacy, history books were funded by the folks with all the resources to be read by the future owners of those resources.

And that trend continues because this article is behind a paywall!

Howard Zinn wrote A People's History of the United States as a counter to the usual histories of the US that focus on presidents, statesmen, and robber barons of the Gilded Age. He covers things we mostly don't learn about in school, including the rise of the Labor movement, native Americans, slaves and post-Civil War freedman, and women.

I do think that the "big man of history" style narrative has strange effects on the popular perception of things, creating a consensus image of "what a leader should look like". But these stories of great leaders frequently downplay the human costs of their exploits, often rendering their lessers essentially disposable. So our collective historical narrative has a bit of a bias of saying, essentially, "elect someone who would gladly throw you into the fires of combat for personal glory".

This is what a "leader" looks like to many because of that cultural bias.

Of course most people question this narrative strongly today, but I think it has a role in how strong man political figures end up being supported by many despite the obvious risks associated with that.

This is like one of the oldest debates in the history profession.