History books are usually fun. Not all books, but most of them who tell stories well, and who tell them right. The more interesting books are about the history of history or the science of history, if I can call them that. And then there are books about the writing of history.
In a nutshell, the book argues that historians have lost their public relevance by writing histories of the ‘short term’ — essentially ‘micro-scale’ histories — when they could be writing bigger, deeper histories, covering longer periods of time, that help readers put our world into perspective. What Guldi and Armitage are calling for is a return to long, meaningful narratives and big-picture thinking — the kind of thinking that could perhaps pull the historical profession out of crisis. As someone who got his PhD in History during the ‘micro-scale’ era, all I can say is — amen to that.”
I believe the short-term or the micro-history is interesting because of the specifics in the story. The big-picture histories are loftier, abstract to an extent, and perhaps not-so-interesting. It does not however mean that “big-picture histories aren’t important. The context of a micro-scale histories are equally important as the specific in it.
In my study of the Maratha Confederacy I’ve been studying the histories of various confederacies around the world, and have been curious about the nature of how confederacies come in to existence, their character, and their eventual demise.
While I don’t intend to write a book on history, it seems that the book may help me find a better direction to the manner in which I study history. I am looking forward to reading this book.