Historiography: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern

I used this book as part of an undergrad historiography course. It contains literally everything you would ever need to know. The writing is very dry, but what do you expect from a textbook? What else can be said? There is a new edition coming out soon. The professor who taught the course I took has changed texts to one that's not so imposing and having looked at it and it's a poor substitute. This book is the ultimate power in Historiography.

This is, without question, Breisach's magnum opus. From Herodotus to Hegel, and from Bancroft to Collingwood, Breisach offers the student of history a cogent history of historiography. While it is probably best suited for graduate students and advanced undergraduates, it should be required reading for "history buffs", History Channel producers, and David McCullough. The only way Breisach could have made this work better, is by dividing the three eras (Ancient, Medieval, and Modern) into three volumes. As it is, major figures such as Michael Oakeshott get no more than a brief mention on one page.

When I studied for the MA, this book (and John Lukacs' "Historical Consciousness") had the greatest influence on my developed historiography.Breisach shows that the historian is culture's interpreter and that, while there are eternal truths, human history is not yet finished and there is a great importance to continue to record what really happens.Brilliant!

The history of history as a discipline (historiography) tends to be a boring topic. One of my teachers even told me never to take a course in it. Professional historians tend to avoid the subject like the plague. This has left it in the hands of amateurs, even though some of those amateurs have been geniuses in their own disciplines.Breisach has written the most informative book on the topic in English. He covers the whole span from Homer to post-modernism in a very short book. He emphasizes the right topics. Although after reading it, you won't remember much, you know where to look for information if you want it.The book is basic for those that want to know a discipline such as History, which is so important for understanding ourselves and the rest of humanity. How many other displines have their own Muse (Cleo)?Those that complain about the book should try reading other histories of history and they will see what a stupendous job Breisach has accomplished.I used it as a textbook for my undergraduate students in the Historiography course and they did not complain.

I used this book when taking a post-graduate historiography course. Clearly not for novices or history "buffs," the book proved an excellent source for graduate students seeking some understanding of the fundamental beliefs associated with historians and how they interpreted history through various "schools" of thought. As such, it was very helpful for explaining the philosophical underpinnings behind various works. I recommend that history students use the book that way. For example, when reading Thomas B. Macaulay's "History of England" as an example of Whigish History, Breisach's interpretation of the Whig approach came in handy. His portions on Vico, and later the Annales Group or School, also proved very helpful. He certainly spent more time on European approaches although he paid some attention to American ideas. Those looking for deeper American philosophical interpretations should examine Eric Foner's "The New American History" and Peter Novick's "That Noble Dream." Breisach's book makes a great desk reference for its cross-referenced index.