What is comparitive history?

Question

This may seem like a dumb question, I understand the basic concept, comparing events in two or more places/times, but much of the comparative history I have encountered seems to be more sociology or anthropology than history. I understand that academic history sometimes does this, crosses into other disciplines, but comparative history is confusing to me. I know this is a vague question, but any insight you can offer is appreciated, any clearifications or descriptions of what compartive history is/means. Thanks in advance

Answer 1

Comparative history has nothing to do with "comparing events in two or more places/times". Comparative history is an attempt to discover the natural laws that govern the course of history in the long-run. Most of professional historians find the idea of natural law being a driving force of history repulsive and thus consider comparative history a waste of time.

The problem with most of comparative history is that scholars who do it are usually educated in the wrong discipline (history) and thus are unable to support their theories with any sort of verifiable formal model. Most of people who produce convincing comparative history are either mathematicians or life scientists (or, in case of Peter Turchin, whose "Historical Dynamics" I highly recommend, both).

Answer 2

Comparative history is the comparison between different societies at a given time or sharing similar cultural conditions. Proponents of this approach include American historians Barrington Moore and Herbert E. Bolton; British historians Arnold Toynbee and Geoffrey Barraclough; and German historian Oswald Spengler. Several sociologists have tried their hand, including Max Weber, Pitirim Sorokin, S. N. Eisenstadt, Seymour Martin Lipset, and Michael Mann.

Historians generally accept the comparison of particular institutions (banking, women's rights, ethnic identities) in different societies, but since the hostile reaction to Toynbee in the 1950s, generally do not pay much attention to sweeping comparative studies.

Answer 3

Best Answer: Comparative history has nothing to do with "comparing events in two or more places/times". Comparative history is an attempt to discover the natural laws that govern the course of history in the long-run. Most of professional historians find the idea of natural law being a driving force of history repulsive and thus consider comparative history a waste of time.