Summary
Tolstoy steps back from his story to tackle a big question: what really makes history happen? He examines three types of historians and finds them all lacking. First are the 'great man' historians who say everything happens because of powerful leaders like Napoleon or Alexander. But Tolstoy points out that French historians credit Napoleon while Russian historians credit Alexander for the same events—they can't both be right. Second are the 'universal' historians who try to account for multiple forces, but they contradict themselves constantly, sometimes saying leaders are products of their time, other times saying those same leaders shaped their time. Third are the 'cultural' historians who blame everything on ideas and books, but Tolstoy notes that peaceful philosophies somehow led to violent revolutions, which makes no sense. Each group tries to reduce the movement of millions of people to simple causes, but none can actually explain how their proposed forces connect to mass human behavior. Tolstoy uses the analogy of peasants explaining weather—they blame the wind for both bringing and removing clouds, depending on what fits their current needs. Historians do the same thing with power and causation. This chapter reveals Tolstoy's frustration with how history gets written and explained, setting up his own theory about what really drives human events. It's a masterclass in critical thinking about expertise and the stories we tell ourselves about cause and effect.
Coming Up in Chapter 356
Having demolished the conventional explanations for historical events, Tolstoy is ready to present his own revolutionary theory about what actually moves the masses and shapes human destiny.
Share it with friends
An excerpt from the original text.(~500 words)
hat force moves the nations? Biographical historians and historians of separate nations understand this force as a power inherent in heroes and rulers. In their narration events occur solely by the will of a Napoleon, and Alexander, or in general of the persons they describe. The answers given by this kind of historian to the question of what force causes events to happen are satisfactory only as long as there is but one historian to each event. As soon as historians of different nationalities and tendencies begin to describe the same event, the replies they give immediately lose all meaning, for this force is understood by them all not only differently but often in quite contradictory ways. One historian says that an event was produced by Napoleon’s power, another that it was produced by Alexander’s, a third that it was due to the power of some other person. Besides this, historians of that kind contradict each other even in their statement as to the force on which the authority of some particular person was based. Thiers, a Bonapartist, says that Napoleon’s power was based on his virtue and genius. Lanfrey, a Republican, says it was based on his trickery and deception of the people. So the historians of this class, by mutually destroying one another’s positions, destroy the understanding of the force which produces events, and furnish no reply to history’s essential question. Writers of universal history who deal with all the nations seem to recognize how erroneous is the specialist historians’ view of the force which produces events. They do not recognize it as a power inherent in heroes and rulers, but as the resultant of a multiplicity of variously directed forces. In describing a war or the subjugation of a people, a general historian looks for the cause of the event not in the power of one man, but in the interaction of many persons connected with the event. According to this view the power of historical personages, represented as the product of many forces, can no longer, it would seem, be regarded as a force that itself produces events. Yet in most cases universal historians still employ the conception of power as a force that itself produces events, and treat it as their cause. In their exposition, an historic character is first the product of his time, and his power only the resultant of various forces, and then his power is itself a force producing events. Gervinus, Schlosser, and others, for instance, at one time prove Napoleon to be a product of the Revolution, of the ideas of 1789 and so forth, and at another plainly say that the campaign of 1812 and other things they do not like were simply the product of Napoleon’s misdirected will, and that the very ideas of 1789 were arrested in their development by Napoleon’s caprice. The ideas of the Revolution and the general temper of the age produced Napoleon’s power. But Napoleon’s power suppressed the ideas of the Revolution and...
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 Expert Trap - When Authority Replaces Truth
The tendency for people in authority positions to offer confident explanations rather than admit uncertainty, leading to contradictory or oversimplified theories.
Why This Matters
Connect literature to life
This chapter teaches how to spot when someone claims expertise to avoid admitting uncertainty or complexity.
Practice This Today
This week, notice when experts give confident explanations for complicated problems—ask yourself what inconvenient facts they might be ignoring.
Now let's explore the literary elements.
Terms to Know
Great Man Theory
The idea that history is shaped primarily by extraordinary individuals - kings, generals, heroes - who single-handedly change the course of events. Tolstoy argues this oversimplifies how history actually works.
Modern Usage:
We still see this when people credit CEOs for entire company successes or blame presidents for complex economic problems.
Biographical Historians
Historians who explain events by focusing on the personalities and decisions of famous leaders. They write as if Napoleon or Alexander personally caused major historical changes through their individual will.
Modern Usage:
Like political commentators who explain everything through the lens of what Trump or Biden personally decided to do.
Universal Historians
Historians who try to account for multiple nations and forces at once, but end up contradicting themselves. They can't decide if leaders create their times or if times create their leaders.
Modern Usage:
Similar to news analysts who flip-flop between saying 'the market drives politics' and 'politics drives the market' depending on the story.
Cultural Historians
Historians who blame major events on ideas, books, and intellectual movements. Tolstoy points out the absurdity of peaceful philosophers somehow causing violent revolutions.
Modern Usage:
Like blaming video games for violence or saying social media caused political polarization - connecting ideas to actions isn't that simple.
Historical Causation
The question of what actually makes big events happen - what connects individual decisions to mass movements of millions of people. Tolstoy argues most explanations are too simple.
Modern Usage:
We struggle with this today when trying to explain why movements like #MeToo or cryptocurrency suddenly exploded into mainstream consciousness.
Contradictory Evidence
When different experts use the same facts to reach opposite conclusions. French historians credit Napoleon while Russian historians credit Alexander for identical outcomes.
Modern Usage:
Like how Republican and Democratic economists can look at the same unemployment numbers and reach completely different conclusions about policy success.
Characters in This Chapter
Napoleon
Historical figure used as example
Tolstoy uses Napoleon to show how different historians explain the same person's power in contradictory ways - some say genius, others say trickery. He represents the problem with 'great man' thinking.
Modern Equivalent:
The controversial CEO everyone either loves or hates
Alexander
Historical figure used as example
Russian Emperor who fought Napoleon. Tolstoy points out that Russian historians credit him with victories that French historians credit to Napoleon - same events, different heroes.
Modern Equivalent:
The rival leader who gets credit from his own side
Thiers
Example historian
A Bonapartist historian who attributed Napoleon's power to virtue and genius. Tolstoy uses him to show how historians' political biases shape their explanations of events.
Modern Equivalent:
The partisan pundit who only sees the good in their side
Lanfrey
Example historian
A Republican historian who said Napoleon's power came from trickery and deception. Tolstoy contrasts him with Thiers to show how bias creates opposite explanations for identical facts.
Modern Equivalent:
The opposing pundit who sees only corruption in the other side
Key Quotes & Analysis
"What force moves the nations?"
Context: Tolstoy opens his philosophical examination of how history really works
This simple question cuts to the heart of human behavior and social change. Tolstoy is challenging readers to think beyond simple explanations about power and causation.
In Today's Words:
What actually makes millions of people do things together?
"The answers given by this kind of historian to the question of what force causes events to happen are satisfactory only as long as there is but one historian to each event."
Context: Explaining why 'great man' theories fall apart under scrutiny
Tolstoy reveals how expert explanations often only work in isolation. When multiple experts examine the same events, their contradictions expose the weakness of their theories.
In Today's Words:
These explanations only sound good until you hear what the other experts are saying.
"So the historians of this class, by mutually destroying one another's positions, destroy the understanding of the force which produces events."
Context: Describing how conflicting historical accounts cancel each other out
This shows how expert disagreement can actually make us less informed rather than more informed. When authorities contradict each other, we lose confidence in any explanation.
In Today's Words:
When the experts keep contradicting each other, we end up more confused than when we started.
Thematic Threads
Authority
In This Chapter
Tolstoy challenges the authority of historians who claim to understand what drives historical events
Development
Builds on earlier questioning of military and social authority figures
In Your Life:
You might see this when managers give confident explanations for company problems they don't really understand
Truth vs Narrative
In This Chapter
Different historians create completely different stories about the same events to fit their theories
Development
Extends the theme of how people construct self-serving narratives about reality
In Your Life:
You might notice this when family members tell very different versions of the same family conflict
Complexity
In This Chapter
Tolstoy argues that historical events are too complex to be reduced to simple causes
Development
Reflects the novel's consistent theme that human behavior and social change resist simple explanations
In Your Life:
You might recognize this when trying to understand why workplace relationships are difficult or family dynamics are complicated
Critical Thinking
In This Chapter
Tolstoy systematically examines and dismantles different approaches to understanding history
Development
Demonstrates the analytical skills he's been modeling throughout the novel
In Your Life:
You might apply this when evaluating conflicting advice from different sources about important life decisions
You now have the context. Time to form your own thoughts.
Discussion Questions
- 1
Tolstoy identifies three types of historians who all claim to explain the same events. What are these three types, and how do their explanations contradict each other?
analysis • surface - 2
Why does Tolstoy compare historians to peasants explaining weather? What does this analogy reveal about how experts handle uncertainty?
analysis • medium - 3
Think about a recent news event that different experts explained in completely different ways. What does this tell you about expert opinions?
application • medium - 4
When have you felt pressure to have an answer even when you weren't sure? How did you handle it, and what would you do differently now?
application • deep - 5
What does this chapter suggest about the difference between real knowledge and the performance of expertise?
reflection • deep
Critical Thinking Exercise
Spot the Expert Performance
Choose a topic you've heard experts disagree about recently (politics, health, finances, parenting). Write down three different expert explanations you've encountered. For each explanation, identify what evidence they ignore or what contradictions they avoid addressing. Notice how each expert sounds confident despite the disagreement.
Consider:
- •Look for experts who admit uncertainty versus those who claim absolute knowledge
- •Notice whether experts change their explanations when proven wrong or double down
- •Pay attention to whether the expert's confidence matches the complexity of the topic
Journaling Prompt
Write about a time when you realized an expert you trusted was wrong. How did that change how you evaluate expert advice? What questions do you now ask before accepting expert opinions?
Coming Up Next...
Chapter 356: The Forces That Move History
Having demolished the conventional explanations for historical events, Tolstoy is ready to present his own revolutionary theory about what actually moves the masses and shapes human destiny.
