I would appreciate correction, "W=hen studying the past, which is most important - famous or ordinary people?"

History is formed not only by a large number of significant celebrities and events, but also by every single human being that has, in a certain measure, an impact on that. Whose stories are key to understanding history could be argued, but I believe that we cannot forget the general population in that regard.

It is undeniably true that famous people should be included when studying critical, historical milestones due to their importance. Most of them are linked to paramount events, historical facts and discoveries. Therefore, knowing about them is important. To illustrate, it is well-known that Einstein was a particular man who had a cognitive disorder called “Asperger Syndrome -" this led him to have different thoughts. As a result, he postulated “Law of Relativity”. If we had not known this, it would have been more difficult to understand such a prodigious discovery.

Nevertheless, the general population also provides us with great information with which to interpret society, economics and politics during a particular time. This is because celebrities do not reflect that reality. For instance, during the Roman Era low social classes were slaves as a whole. With this in mind, we are aware that there was a hierarchy in the society where the leader was rich, and powerful, and the population vulnerable and poor .

To sum things up, there is no doubt that famous characters should be analyzed when studying history. However, from my point of view, common people also provide significant details for a deep understanding of history.