Now our history is moving towards the common people, that is, the broad masses of people.
History is also moving towards diversification.
Your question is, is history created by heroes or by people? But don't heroes belong to people? Obviously heroes belong to the people! In fact, what you may want to ask is: Is history created by heroes or by civilians? From my understanding, I think the creation of history is related to everyone, and history is undoubtedly created by them! But heroes are also human beings, but their influence on the historical process may be greater and more vigorous than ordinary people.
There is a saying that history is not created by heroes, but by history.
The usual example is that if Corsica didn't give birth to a Napoleon, then history will certainly create another Napoleon elsewhere.
I feel that this statement is not absolute. Although this statement affirms the inevitability of historical development, it greatly ignores the role played by individuals in the historical process.
If you have read the vigorous history, you will see that as "heroes", some of their personal qualities, qualities and other very personal things have played a huge role in the development of history! In this way, you won't say such an opinion so absolutely.
Why do you ask such a question? I think it has something to do with the heroic historical view I started talking about.
Because our history is used to describing the role of heroes in history, it gives people the illusion that history is created by heroes.
Therefore, with the development of historical diversification, such a view will be self-defeating.
Finally, to sum up, I think history is created by the people, and heroes are part of the people.
Compared with ordinary people, heroes have played a more prominent role in the historical process, but not all.