Summary
Tolstoy steps back from the story to tackle one of history's biggest myths: that great events happen because powerful individuals will them into existence. He argues that historians who claim Napoleon or any leader single-handedly caused massive historical changes are essentially telling fairy tales. Using the analogy of a cattle herd, he shows how we mistakenly assume the animal at the front is leading when really the whole herd is moving based on factors like where the good grass is or where the herder is pushing them. The 'leader' is often just the one who happened to be walking in the direction everyone was already heading. Tolstoy points out the circular logic in traditional explanations of power: we say leaders have power because people follow them, and people follow them because they have power. But when you look closely, many royal decrees go ignored, and sometimes the opposite of what leaders command actually happens. Real power, he suggests, isn't about one person's will controlling millions—it's about the complex relationship between someone expressing a desire and others choosing to act on it. This isn't just academic theorizing; it's about understanding how change really works in families, workplaces, and communities. The chapter challenges us to look beyond the obvious figureheads to understand the deeper currents that actually drive human events.
Coming Up in Chapter 359
Having dismantled the myth of great man leadership, Tolstoy will now explore what actually does drive historical events—and why understanding these hidden forces matters for how we live our own lives.
Share it with friends
An excerpt from the original text.(~500 words)
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 an hypothesis unconfirmed by the experience of history. The theory of the transference of the collective will of the people to historic persons may perhaps explain much in the domain of jurisprudence and be essential for its purposes, but in its application to history, as soon as revolutions, conquests, or civil wars occur—that is, as soon as history begins—that theory explains nothing. The theory seems irrefutable just because the act of transference of the people’s will cannot be verified, for it never occurred. Whatever happens and whoever may stand at the head of affairs, the theory can always say that such and such a person took the lead because the collective will was transferred to him. The replies this theory gives to historical questions are like the replies of a man who, watching the movements of a herd of cattle and paying no attention to the varying quality of the pasturage in different parts of the field, or to the driving of the herdsman, should attribute the direction the herd takes to what animal happens to be at its head. “The herd goes in that direction because the animal in front leads it and the collective will of all the other animals is vested in that leader.” This is what historians of the first class say—those who assume the unconditional transference of the people’s will. “If the animals leading the herd change, this happens because the collective will of all the animals is transferred from one leader to another, according to whether the animal is or is not leading them in the direction selected by the whole herd.” Such is the reply historians who assume that the collective will of the people is delegated to rulers under conditions which they regard as known. (With this method of observation it often happens that the observer, influenced by the direction he himself prefers, regards those as leaders who, owing to the people’s change of direction, are no longer in front, but on one side, or even in the rear.) “If the animals in front are continually changing and the direction of the whole herd is constantly altered, this is because in order to follow a given direction the animals transfer their will to the animals that have attracted our attention, and to study the movements of the herd we must watch the movements of all the prominent animals moving on all sides of the herd.” So say the third class of historians who regard all historical persons, from monarchs to journalists, as the expression of their age. The theory of the transference of the will of the people to historic persons is merely a paraphrase—a restatement of the question in other words....
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 Road of False Leadership - Why the Person in Front Isn't Always Leading
The tendency to attribute complex changes to visible individuals rather than understanding the deeper forces that actually drive events.
Why This Matters
Connect literature to life
This chapter teaches you to distinguish between visible authority and actual influence by examining who really makes things happen.
Practice This Today
This week, notice when someone gets credit for group efforts—ask yourself what forces were already in motion before they appeared.
Now let's explore the literary elements.
Terms to Know
Collective will
The idea that groups of people share a common desire or intention that can be transferred to leaders. Tolstoy argues this is a myth - that there's no magical moment when millions of people decide to give their power to one person.
Modern Usage:
We see this myth when people say things like 'Americans chose this president' when really only some voted, others stayed home, and many voted against other options rather than for anything specific.
Historical determinism
The belief that events in history were inevitable and caused by great individuals making decisive choices. Tolstoy rejects this, arguing that events have multiple complex causes that we oversimplify.
Modern Usage:
This shows up when we credit CEOs for company success or blame politicians for economic problems, ignoring all the other factors involved.
Great man theory
The idea that history is shaped primarily by exceptional individuals - kings, generals, heroes - rather than by broader social forces. Tolstoy systematically dismantles this popular but flawed way of understanding change.
Modern Usage:
We still do this when we act like Steve Jobs single-handedly created the smartphone revolution, ignoring thousands of engineers, market conditions, and technological developments.
Circular reasoning
A logical fallacy where the conclusion is used to prove the premise. Tolstoy points out that historians say leaders have power because people obey them, then explain obedience by saying the leader has power.
Modern Usage:
This happens when people say someone is popular because they're famous, and famous because they're popular - it explains nothing.
Power dynamics
The complex relationship between those who command and those who obey. Tolstoy argues real power isn't about one person's will dominating others, but about the mysterious process of how desires become actions.
Modern Usage:
We see this in workplaces where the official boss isn't always the person with the most influence, or in families where children sometimes drive major decisions.
Historical narrative
The stories we tell about past events to make sense of them. Tolstoy argues that traditional narratives focusing on great leaders are oversimplified fairy tales that miss the real complexity.
Modern Usage:
This shows up in how we remember events like 9/11 or the 2008 financial crisis - we create simple stories with clear villains and heroes when reality was much messier.
Characters in This Chapter
Napoleon
Historical example
Used by Tolstoy as the prime example of how we wrongly attribute massive historical changes to individual will. He represents the myth of the all-powerful leader who single-handedly shapes events.
Modern Equivalent:
The celebrity CEO who gets credit for everything their company does
Key Quotes & Analysis
"The theory of the transference of the collective will of the people to historic persons may perhaps explain much in the domain of jurisprudence and be essential for its purposes, but in its application to history, as soon as revolutions, conquests, or civil wars occur—that is, as soon as history begins—that theory explains nothing."
Context: Tolstoy is explaining why the common theory of leadership fails when applied to real historical events
This quote cuts to the heart of Tolstoy's argument - that our legal and political theories about how power works break down completely when we try to use them to understand actual historical change. The moment real conflict begins, these neat theories become useless.
In Today's Words:
Sure, we can pretend people vote their power away to politicians, but when things actually go sideways, that explanation doesn't help us understand what's really happening.
"The replies this theory gives to historical questions are like the replies of a man who, watching the movements of a herd of cattle and paying no attention to the varying quality of the pasturage in different parts of the field, or to the driving of the herdsman, should attribute the direction the herd takes to what animal happens to be at its head."
Context: Tolstoy uses this analogy to show how historians wrongly focus on leaders while ignoring the real forces driving events
This powerful analogy reveals how we mistake correlation for causation. The cow at the front isn't leading - it's just walking in the direction the whole herd is already moving based on where the grass is good or where they're being driven.
In Today's Words:
Saying the president caused economic growth is like saying the car in front is causing traffic to move - you're ignoring all the actual reasons people are going that direction.
"Whatever happens and whoever may stand at the head of affairs, the theory can always say that such and such a person took the lead because the collective will was transferred to him."
Context: Tolstoy is pointing out the unfalsifiable nature of traditional theories of leadership
This exposes how convenient but meaningless these explanations are. No matter what happens, we can always say 'well, people must have wanted this leader' after the fact. It's like saying everything happens for a reason - it sounds wise but explains nothing.
In Today's Words:
It's like saying 'everything happens for a reason' - you can use it to explain anything, which means it actually explains nothing.
Thematic Threads
Power
In This Chapter
Tolstoy reveals that apparent power is often an illusion—leaders seem to control events but are actually carried along by forces beyond their influence
Development
Deepens the book's ongoing examination of how social hierarchies mask the real sources of change and influence
In Your Life:
You might recognize this when blaming your boss for decisions that actually come from higher up, or assuming someone has more control over a situation than they really do
Truth
In This Chapter
Historical narratives that credit individual leaders with causing major events are revealed as comforting fictions that obscure complex realities
Development
Continues the theme of questioning accepted explanations and looking beneath surface appearances
In Your Life:
You see this when family stories about 'who decided' something don't match the messy reality of how decisions actually evolved
Social Expectations
In This Chapter
Society expects clear leadership and simple explanations, creating pressure to identify figureheads even when collective forces are actually at work
Development
Expands on how social structures shape our understanding of events and relationships
In Your Life:
You experience this pressure when people expect you to 'take charge' of situations that are actually beyond any individual's control
Human Relationships
In This Chapter
The relationship between leaders and followers is shown to be far more complex than simple command and obedience
Development
Builds on the book's exploration of how people actually influence each other in families and communities
In Your Life:
You might notice this in how family dynamics work—the 'head of household' often has less real influence than quieter family members
You now have the context. Time to form your own thoughts.
Discussion Questions
- 1
According to Tolstoy, why is it wrong to say that Napoleon caused the major events of history?
analysis • surface - 2
How does the cattle herd analogy explain the difference between appearing to lead and actually leading?
analysis • medium - 3
Think about a recent change at your workplace or in your family. Who got credit for making it happen, and what forces were really driving that change?
application • medium - 4
When you're facing a problem with someone in authority, how might understanding the difference between visible power and real power change your approach?
application • deep - 5
Why do humans prefer to believe that individual leaders control major events rather than accepting that complex forces shape our world?
reflection • deep
Critical Thinking Exercise
Map the Real Power Structure
Think of a recent decision that affected your life - a policy change at work, a family rule, or a community issue. Draw two diagrams: one showing who appears to be in charge, and another showing the real forces and pressures that drove the decision. Include things like budget constraints, unspoken expectations, outside pressures, or timing factors.
Consider:
- •Look beyond the person who announced the decision to the circumstances that made it inevitable
- •Consider what would have happened if that visible leader had said no or wasn't there
- •Think about who benefits from the current power structure and who has incentive to maintain the myth
Journaling Prompt
Write about a time when you were blamed or credited for something that was really driven by forces beyond your control. How did it feel to be seen as more powerful than you actually were?
Coming Up Next...
Chapter 359: The Cone of Command
Moving forward, we'll examine orders only work when they match what's already happening, and understand power structures naturally form pyramid shapes in all organizations. These insights bridge the gap between classic literature and modern experience.