The history of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is typically formulated as the history of great doctors and scientists in the past making great discoveries that are in turn taken up by great doctors and scientists in the present – all sharing the aim of unraveling the mysteries of the disease and discovering how it can be prevented or cured. While it can certainly be edifying to study the “great men” and how their contributions laid the foundation for current work, there are problems with this approach to history. First, it oversimplifies the actual historical development of science. Second, using history to legitimate the present can keep us from asking critical questions about the aims and limits of contemporary research. This chapter urges a broader view of the history of AD, one that recognizes that context is as important as the great doctors to the historical development of the concept of AD. Thought of this way, I argue that it is useful to divide of the history of AD into three periods. First there was the period in which Alzheimer and Kraepelin laid the clinical and pathological foundations of the disease concept. Then there is our own period, which began in the late 1970s and has emphasized the biological mechanisms of dementia. In between, there is the period – almost completely ignored in most histories of AD – that conceptualized dementia in psychodynamic terms. It is true that the psychodynamic model of dementia did not directly contribute to the concepts and theories that dominate AD research today. But it did change the context of aging and dementia in important ways, without which AD could not have emerged as a major disease worthy of a massive, publicly supported research initiative.