Thomas Carlyle On Heroic Vitalism

history is nothing more than an account of the deeds of exceptional individuals.

It isn't though, is it? If you only look at how individuals shape the world, and refuse to acknowledge how the world shaped them, you might as well argue these people were sent from god to guide us forward. There's nothing wrong with studying the significant figures of history, but to suggest they alone forged our world is patently absurd. Folk movement, economics, popular belief, famine, climate, natural disasters, disease, not to mention the inaction or misdeeds of incompetent individuals - have these not contributed to our history? The kind of history you study is entirely up to you, but dismissing other fields is just wilful ignorance.

Open your mind. There are plenty of amazing social histories and microhistories I can recommend you, if you're willing to broaden your horizons.

Social history...ew. Sounds Marxist. And boring. Unless it's about some interesting topics like the history of Christendom, rather than, say, gender roles in Sub-Saharan Africa.

And society is shaped by individuals. Individuals may also be shaped by society, but those societies had to be shaped by exceptional individuals to be the way they were. Christendom emerged because a charismatic fanatic in the Middle East was able to gain a following which then spread far and wide, and because a Roman Emperor decided to adopt it as the religion of the empire.

Well, quite. It's a symbiotic relationship. No historian in their right mind would deny the role of personalities in shaping history, but nor would they wilfully ignore broader context in which they operated. All great men were products of their time. Christendom may have a had a 'great man' at the centre of its belief system, but it was shaped by innumerable factors.

Social history is a huge field. It's the history of experience. I'd be very surprised if you can't find something that interests you. My favourite topic is the witch craze in Early Modern Europe precisely because of the interaction between popular experience/folk belief, and elite mentalities and institutions. For a history of a 'Not So Great Man', I'd recommend picking up a copy of Carlo Ginzburg's The Cheese and the Worms. It recounts the life of an Italian miller whose extraordinary views on the universe led to multiple run-ins with the Inquisition. It's considered one of the great works of history. Or, since you're into the whole anti-Christianity thing, you can hold your nose and read Christopher Hill's World Turned Upside Down, which tells the story of the many dissenting, sometimes even atheistic, religious groups that operated in England under Cromwell's rule. Whatever you do just don't close yourself off to topics like this. There's more to history than great men.

Edit: I've got it. William Miller's Bloodtaking and Peacemaking: Feud, Law, and Society in Saga Iceland

The doctrine of the Great Men is a doctrine for our time, and an inspiration to us to also be Great Men.

I'd say one of the issues with Great Man history is that it's very heavily biased. History is usually written by the victors & therefore the victor himself or their supporters/followers are very likely to bend the truth in order to been seen in a positive light.