Great man theory and ant hill peasant idk normie whatever the other one is called theory seem like a false dichotomy to me. Someone like Genghis Khan has had just about 10000x the impact on history anyone else has had and nobody else could fill his shoes. Nobody else in history could have been as willful and charismatic as Genghis, nobody else could have united the tribes and singlehandedly summoned Globohomo out of thin air like Genghis. It had to be him.

But Genghis never could have done so if his karma were not so. If it weren’t for his torment and disgrace he would not have had the ferocity it took to do what he did. The might of The Mongol Empire, greatest in history, was only ever as high as Genghis’ worst suffering was low. Out there on the steppe, father’s blood behind him, brother’s blood on his own hands, rising to the top day by day through bloodshed and sacrifice only to lose it all again, his wife and freedom, just to labour for a decade and try again, for a chance, a slim chance to rule and conquer. The world teaches grit with characteristic harshness, and he, and only he, fully accepted its wisdom. And he and only he had the strength and intelligence to teach the world back. Which begs the question: to whom are his deeds owed, who carved his path? Him, or the world?

This is why I only believe in the karmic view of history.