Summary
Tolstoy takes a philosophical hammer to one of history's biggest myths: that great events happen because of great individuals. Using Napoleon's cold at the Battle of Borodinó as his starting point, he argues that historians who claim Russia would have fallen if Napoleon hadn't been sick are missing the point entirely. The real story isn't about one man's sniffles—it's about hundreds of thousands of people making individual choices that collectively shaped history. Napoleon didn't personally shoot anyone at Borodinó. His soldiers fought not because he commanded them to, but because they were hungry, exhausted, and saw Moscow as their only hope for food and rest. They would have fought regardless of his orders. Even his famous battle plans weren't actually better or worse than usual—they just look terrible in hindsight because he lost. Tolstoy argues that Napoleon was essentially performing the role of a commander rather than actually commanding. He appeared calm and dignified, made reasonable-sounding decisions, but the real battle unfolded according to the collective will of everyone involved, not his personal genius. This chapter challenges our tendency to credit individual leaders with outcomes that result from complex social forces. It's a reminder that behind every 'great man' are countless ordinary people whose choices and actions actually drive events. Whether in war, business, or daily life, the person at the top often gets too much credit for success and too much blame for failure.
Coming Up in Chapter 219
Having demolished the myth of Napoleon's individual control over Borodinó, Tolstoy will continue exploring how historical forces really work, revealing the gap between how events appear to unfold and how they actually happen.
Share it with friends
An excerpt from the original text.(~500 words)
any historians say that the French did not win the battle of Borodinó because Napoleon had a cold, and that if he had not had a cold the orders he gave before and during the battle would have been still more full of genius and Russia would have been lost and the face of the world have been changed. To historians who believe that Russia was shaped by the will of one man—Peter the Great—and that France from a republic became an empire and French armies went to Russia at the will of one man—Napoleon—to say that Russia remained a power because Napoleon had a bad cold on the twenty-fourth of August may seem logical and convincing. If it had depended on Napoleon’s will to fight or not to fight the battle of Borodinó, and if this or that other arrangement depended on his will, then evidently a cold affecting the manifestation of his will might have saved Russia, and consequently the valet who omitted to bring Napoleon his waterproof boots on the twenty-fourth would have been the savior of Russia. Along that line of thought such a deduction is indubitable, as indubitable as the deduction Voltaire made in jest (without knowing what he was jesting at) when he saw that the Massacre of St. Bartholomew was due to Charles IX’s stomach being deranged. But to men who do not admit that Russia was formed by the will of one man, Peter I, or that the French Empire was formed and the war with Russia begun by the will of one man, Napoleon, that argument seems not merely untrue and irrational, but contrary to all human reality. To the question of what causes historic events another answer presents itself, namely, that the course of human events is predetermined from on high—depends on the coincidence of the wills of all who take part in the events, and that a Napoleon’s influence on the course of these events is purely external and fictitious. Strange as at first glance it may seem to suppose that the Massacre of St. Bartholomew was not due to Charles IX’s will, though he gave the order for it and thought it was done as a result of that order; and strange as it may seem to suppose that the slaughter of eighty thousand men at Borodinó was not due to Napoleon’s will, though he ordered the commencement and conduct of the battle and thought it was done because he ordered it; strange as these suppositions appear, yet human dignity—which tells me that each of us is, if not more at least not less a man than the great Napoleon—demands the acceptance of that solution of the question, and historic investigation abundantly confirms it. At the battle of Borodinó Napoleon shot at no one and killed no one. That was all done by the soldiers. Therefore it was not he who killed people. The French soldiers went to kill and be killed at the battle of Borodinó not...
Master this chapter. Complete your experience
Purchase the complete book to access all chapters and support classic literature
As an Amazon Associate, we earn a small commission from qualifying purchases at no additional cost to you.
Available in paperback, hardcover, and e-book formats
Intelligence Amplifier™ Analysis
The Great Man Illusion - Why We Credit the Wrong People
We systematically overestimate individual influence while ignoring the collective forces that actually drive outcomes.
Why This Matters
Connect literature to life
This chapter teaches how to distinguish between leaders who perform authority and those who actually create change.
Practice This Today
This week, notice when someone takes credit for group success—ask yourself who really did the work and what conditions made the outcome possible.
Now let's explore the literary elements.
Terms to Know
Great Man Theory
The belief that history is shaped by exceptional individuals making key decisions. This theory suggests that without certain leaders, major events wouldn't have happened the same way.
Modern Usage:
We still do this when we credit CEOs for company success or blame presidents for economic problems that have deeper causes.
Historical Determinism
The idea that events happen because of larger forces and conditions, not individual choices. What seems like personal decision-making is actually the result of social, economic, and cultural pressures.
Modern Usage:
Like when we realize a viral trend wasn't started by one person but emerged because conditions were right for it to spread.
Battle of Borodinó
A massive 1812 battle between Napoleon's army and Russian forces outside Moscow. Though technically a French victory, it was so costly it helped doom Napoleon's invasion.
Modern Usage:
We use 'pyrrhic victory' for wins that cost so much they're actually losses, like this battle was for Napoleon.
Collective Will
Tolstoy's concept that historical events result from millions of individual decisions and actions, not from leaders' commands. The sum of everyone's choices drives what actually happens.
Modern Usage:
Like how social media movements spread through individual shares and likes, not because one influencer commanded it.
Performative Leadership
When leaders go through the motions of commanding but aren't actually controlling events. They appear to be in charge while larger forces determine outcomes.
Modern Usage:
Politicians taking credit for economic trends they didn't cause, or managers claiming responsibility for team successes they barely influenced.
Hindsight Bias
The tendency to judge past decisions based on their outcomes rather than the information available at the time. Bad results make earlier choices look stupid, even if they were reasonable then.
Modern Usage:
Like calling a coach's strategy terrible only after the team loses, when the same strategy would look brilliant if they'd won.
Characters in This Chapter
Napoleon
Central figure being analyzed
Tolstoy uses him as the prime example of how we overestimate individual influence on history. His cold becomes a symbol of how we blame personal factors for massive historical outcomes.
Modern Equivalent:
The celebrity CEO who gets all the credit and blame for company performance
Peter the Great
Historical comparison
Tolstoy mentions him as another leader historians wrongly credit with single-handedly shaping Russia. He represents the 'great man' myth Tolstoy is debunking.
Modern Equivalent:
The founder who supposedly built their company from nothing through pure vision
Charles IX
Historical example
Referenced through Voltaire's joke about his stomach problems causing a massacre. Shows how absurd it is to blame major events on leaders' personal issues.
Modern Equivalent:
The boss whose bad mood supposedly ruins everyone's day
The valet
Hypothetical figure
Tolstoy imagines Napoleon's servant as the 'savior of Russia' for not bringing waterproof boots. Illustrates how ridiculous the great man theory becomes when taken to its logical conclusion.
Modern Equivalent:
The assistant who 'saved the company' by forgetting to schedule the CEO's bad meeting
Key Quotes & Analysis
"If it had depended on Napoleon's will to fight or not to fight the battle of Borodinó, and if this or that other arrangement depended on his will, then evidently a cold affecting the manifestation of his will might have saved Russia"
Context: Tolstoy is setting up his argument against the great man theory
This quote shows the absurdity of crediting individual leaders with massive historical outcomes. If Napoleon's personal health could change world history, then history isn't really about grand strategy or deep causes.
In Today's Words:
If one person's bad day could change everything, then maybe that person wasn't really in control to begin with.
"the valet who omitted to bring Napoleon his waterproof boots on the twenty-fourth would have been the savior of Russia"
Context: Taking the great man theory to its logical extreme
Tolstoy pushes the individual-focused view of history to show how ridiculous it becomes. A servant's forgetfulness becomes more important than the decisions of millions of people.
In Today's Words:
By this logic, the intern who forgot to charge the CEO's phone saved the company from a bad deal.
"But to men who do not admit that Russia was formed by the will of one man, Peter I, or that the French Empire was formed by the will of one man, Napoleon"
Context: Introducing the alternative view that collective forces shape history
Tolstoy is setting up his main argument that nations and empires arise from complex social forces, not individual genius. He's challenging readers to think beyond the great man narrative.
In Today's Words:
But if you don't buy into the idea that one person can single-handedly build or destroy entire countries...
Thematic Threads
Power
In This Chapter
Napoleon's authority is revealed as performance rather than actual control over events
Development
Evolved from earlier depictions of aristocratic power to show even military command is largely illusion
In Your Life:
You might mistake your boss's authority for actual control when systemic issues affect your workplace
Class
In This Chapter
Common soldiers' individual choices collectively shape history more than aristocratic commanders
Development
Continues theme of working people's hidden influence on major events
In Your Life:
Your daily work decisions have more collective impact than you realize, even if you get no credit
Identity
In This Chapter
Napoleon performs the role of great leader while actual leadership happens elsewhere
Development
Builds on theme of people playing expected social roles rather than authentic selves
In Your Life:
You might be performing competence or authority at work while feeling uncertain inside
Social Expectations
In This Chapter
Society needs to believe in great men, so it creates myths about individual influence
Development
Extends earlier themes about society's need for simple explanations and clear hierarchies
In Your Life:
Others expect you to have more control over outcomes than you actually do
You now have the context. Time to form your own thoughts.
Discussion Questions
- 1
According to Tolstoy, why does Napoleon's cold at Borodinó prove that individual leaders don't control historical events as much as we think?
analysis • surface - 2
Why did Napoleon's soldiers fight at Borodinó - because of his orders, or because of their own desperate circumstances?
analysis • medium - 3
Think about your workplace or family. Who gets credit for success, and who actually does the daily work that makes things function?
application • medium - 4
When something goes wrong in your life, how do you decide whether to blame an individual person or examine the larger circumstances that created the problem?
application • deep - 5
What does this chapter suggest about why we prefer simple explanations (like 'Napoleon had a cold') over complex ones (like analyzing supply chains and troop morale)?
reflection • deep
Critical Thinking Exercise
Map the Invisible Power Structure
Choose a situation where you've seen someone get praised or blamed for an outcome. Draw two columns: 'Visible Leader' and 'Hidden Forces.' In the first column, list what the obvious person did. In the second, list all the behind-the-scenes people, circumstances, and systems that actually created the result. Look for patterns in who gets credit versus who does the work.
Consider:
- •Consider both positive outcomes (who really deserved the credit?) and negative ones (what forces beyond individual control contributed?)
- •Think about your own invisible contributions - where do you do essential work that goes unrecognized?
- •Notice whether the 'leader' was performing authority (looking decisive, staying calm) rather than actually controlling the outcome
Journaling Prompt
Write about a time when you were either blamed for something beyond your control, or when your essential work went unrecognized while someone else got credit. How did that experience shape how you view leadership and responsibility?
Coming Up Next...
Chapter 219: The Night Before Battle
Having demolished the myth of Napoleon's individual control over Borodinó, Tolstoy will continue exploring how historical forces really work, revealing the gap between how events appear to unfold and how they actually happen.
