Who was the greatest historian of the 20th century?

[RedCap123]

Questions like these are always going to be subjective...but usually in many fields their is somewhat of a consensus

for Physics the greatest of the 20th century is Einstein....for mathematics its a few like Hilbert, Grothendieck, Von Neumann

for Chemsitry its Pauling, of course these are the natural sciences


History being a field with many specialties (similar to sciences in a way).....what historian do you think had the most impact on methodology or just overall influence on the field?

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

I have a problem doing it only for the 20th century because most of them started their careers in the late 19th century. Although not a primary historian i think for example of Max Weber

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Weber

who is in terms of methodology very interesting.

Although living only 3 years in to the 20th century i would consider Theodor Mommsen

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Mommsen

of imminent importance. If you do something about ancient Rome you always find something of him. I have the feeling he wrote about everything, although he made a lot of mistakes. No surprise since he was often the first to wrote about something. His work of the roman constitution is vastly responsible for our view on the roman institutions. He founded for example the CIL something every one working with Inscriptions is still using on a daily basis. His legacy in Germany is huge, however i have the feeling in other countries less. The quote in Wiki from Mark Twain is quite interesting to understand his relevance back than.

For the time after the war probably:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Mommsen

who was the greatgrandson of Mommsen and participated one of the biggest historical debates of the post-war era.

As for methodology of modern history of course Leopold von Ranke although 19th century

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_von_Ranke

. Most people probably don't know but he influenced the majority of the later historians in Europe and America.

That was a strictly german list. I would be interesting to hear candidates of other countries, especially since it don't think about them and when i read the name will probably think why i didn't came up with that name myself.

I really like the idea of this thread because the same way the most people will not now much about the relevance of the names i through in to the room, i will react on further suggestions.

[Dick Cheney.]

Hands down, Winston Churchill.

In addition to winning the Nobel Prize for his 6 volume work on World War II, Churchill wrote A History of the English Speaking Peoples, a biography on the Duke of Marlborough, and a six volume history of World War I.

No historian of the 20th century can match Churchill for prose, historical thought, or the obvious insider authenticity.

[IronBrig4]

I think this is too broad. There are ancient historians, military historians, economic historians, and many other focuses.

[athanaric]

In addition to what IronBrig said, I think it might actually still be a bit early to judge.

No historian of the 20th century can match Churchill for prose, historical thought, or the obvious insider authenticity.

How do you know this? Have you read them all?

[RedCap123]

So i did some research after I posted this...I should mention that when asking this question to other forums around the internet a common answer i get is


Ferdinand Braudel...the "Dean" of Mediterranean studies

the reason he is considered by many because of his influence on histography, world-systems and the Annales school

[Cyclops]

I just ordered an English translation of Braudel's "Mediterranean in the Classical world". He is one of very few 20th century LOTE historians who got a regular mention when I was studying history, and a very widely respected one.

For technical clarity I found Ernst Badian a compelling writer on Classical history. Out of left field Umberto Eco's historical fiction Name of the Rose is about as comprehensive a summary of 12-13th century ecclesiastical history as you will find.

Marcus rightly mentions Weber Mommsen and Von Ranke whose shadows are cast long over 20th century history. For various reasons they are perhaps not credited with their due importance on English history writing, even though properly they are mid-late 19th century historians and historiographers. They are very important as far as history writing in the 20th century is concerned.

I found Norman Davies a bizarrely attractive writer eg his history of the British Isles (called "the Isles") uses bizarre non standard nomenclature (the British Isles are called the Midnight Isles, the South Coast is called the Noontime Riviera" etc.) I think as a protest against revisionist history and especially the Whig version of events. Similarly he wrote a history of Poland Heart of Europe with the usual division into broad periods, but arranged in reverse order (so "1945-Solidarity" is the first chapter, then "1920-1945" and so on). He is an imaginative popular historian capable of introducing complex subjects interestingly. His history of Europe was scatterbrained but a grand effort.

We don't really have influential or important titans back home. The best Australians are Max Crawford (who fostered a wonderful history faculty at Melbourne University) and Geoffrey Blainey who presented complex subject matter imaginatively yet accessibly. in his later years Blainey has become a duchessed servitor of the establishment, but his earlier works eg Triumph of the Nomad turned Australian history in its head as much by viewing material from an Australian rather than a British viewpoint.

Our great could-have-been is Manning Clarke who penned an initially brilliant history of Australia but spoiled it by finished the series badly. Initially he placed Australia in its Asian as well as British context through epic comprehensive and multilingual research (nods to the Annales school and Weber here), and (like early Blainey) gave multiple POVs but later he fell over by botching points of fact eg attributing 2 Melbourne Cup victories to Phar Lap, who only won one. If you think that's an unimportant detail let me assure you in an Australian context it is.

Hands down, Winston Churchill.

In addition to winning the Nobel Prize for his 6 volume work on World War II, Churchill wrote A History of the English Speaking Peoples, a biography on the Duke of Marlborough, and a six volume history of World War I.

No historian of the 20th century can match Churchill for prose, historical thought, or the obvious insider authenticity.

...or for being an absolute bigoted, racist, biased, lying, inaccurate, self serving, dishonourable . Not an historian. Barely a man.

[RedCap123]

I just ordered an English translation of Braudel's "Mediterranean in the Classical world". He is one of very few 20th century LOTE historians who got a regular mention when I was studying history, and a very widely respected one.

For technical clarity I found Ernst Badian a compelling writer on Classical history. Out of left field Umberto Eco's historical fiction Name of the Rose is about as comprehensive a summary of 12-13th century ecclesiastical history as you will find.

Marcus rightly mentions Weber Mommsen and Von Ranke whose shadows are cast long over 20th century history. For various reasons they are perhaps not credited with their due importance on English history writing, even though properly they are mid-late 19th century historians and historiographers. They are very important as far as history writing in the 20th century is concerned.

I found Norman Davies a bizarrely attractive writer eg his history of the British Isles (called "the Isles") uses bizarre non standard nomenclature (the British Isles are called the Midnight Isles, the South Coast is called the Noontime Riviera" etc.) I think as a protest against revisionist history and especially the Whig version of events. Similarly he wrote a history of Poland Heart of Europe with the usual division into broad periods, but arranged in reverse order (so "1945-Solidarity" is the first chapter, then "1920-1945" and so on). He is an imaginative popular historian capable of introducing complex subjects interestingly. His history of Europe was scatterbrained but a grand effort.

We don't really have influential or important titans back home. The best Australians are Max Crawford (who fostered a wonderful history faculty at Melbourne University) and Geoffrey Blainey who presented complex subject matter imaginatively yet accessibly. in his later years Blainey has become a duchessed servitor of the establishment, but his earlier works eg Triumph of the Nomad turned Australian history in its head as much by viewing material from an Australian rather than a British viewpoint.

Our great could-have-been is Manning Clarke who penned an initially brilliant history of Australia but spoiled it by finished the series badly. Initially he placed Australia in its Asian as well as British context through epic comprehensive and multilingual research (nods to the Annales school and Weber here), and (like early Blainey) gave multiple POVs but later he fell over by botching points of fact eg attributing 2 Melbourne Cup victories to Phar Lap, who only won one. If you think that's an unimportant detail let me assure you in an Australian context it is.



...or for being an absolute bigoted, racist, biased, lying, inaccurate, self serving, dishonourable . Not an historian. Barely a man.

I mean...if you limit yourself on great works of literature, history, art etc. on the views of individual (unless its explicitly part of their work) then your missing out on alot of great stuff


I would of never listened to Richard Wagner's Ring Cycle (he was a fervent antisemite) or read the great works of Lovecraft (he was a racist, sexist etc.) if I had your similar view

Now i don't know if you have that view, but i just always found it odd that people judge great works on the author's personal views (again unless its explicit in their work)

[Cyclops]

I mean...if you limit yourself on great works of literature, history, art etc. on the views of individual (unless its explicitly part of their work) then your missing out on alot of great stuff


I would of never listened to Richard Wagner's Ring Cycle (he was a fervent antisemite) or read the great works of Lovecraft (he was a racist, sexist etc.) if I had your similar view

You raise an extremely good point.

I do enjoy Wagner's works. I enjoy Lovecraft's twee imagination too, though I revile the cruel racism they adhered too. I praise Churchill himself for his determined opposition to Hitler, and the sound strategies he propounded as First lord of the Admiralty in WWI. Some of his speeches during WWII rival Goering and Hitler's for their power to inspire their followers.

I have read very little of the History of the English Speaking Peoples so I can't judge with great accuracy, but the tone was a mixture of brain-dead Whig nonsense and the sort of rambling gibberish one would expect from someone with little or no formal education and lying tongue dedicated to his own political objectives.

Now i don't know if you have that view, but i just always found it odd that people judge great works on the author's personal views (again unless its explicit in their work)

Churchill's rabid self-serving dishonesty is a matter of public record. The commander of the British forces (I think it was Buller) in South Africa (on which Churchill "reported") was asked his opinion of Churchill's memoir and stated (after initial hesitation, not wanting to become embroiled I politics) that he had difficulty recognising a single incident".

I think it helps if an historian has formal training in the calculated use of source material (which Churchill did not), but it is absolutely necessary that they not be a self serving liar (which Churchill was). The other epithets I added to my description were extraneous and thank you for picking me up on that, it was undisciplined and off topic of me.

[RedCap123]

You raise an extremely good point.

I do enjoy Wagner's works. I enjoy Lovecraft's twee imagination too, though I revile the cruel racism they adhered too. I praise Churchill himself for his determined opposition to Hitler, and the sound strategies he propounded as First lord of the Admiralty in WWI. Some of his speeches during WWII rival Goering and Hitler's for their power to inspire their followers.

I have read very little of the History of the English Speaking Peoples so I can't judge with great accuracy, but the tone was a mixture of brain-dead Whig nonsense and the sort of rambling gibberish one would expect from someone with little or no formal education and lying tongue dedicated to his own political objectives.



Churchill's rabid self-serving dishonesty is a matter of public record. The commander of the British forces (I think it was Buller) in South Africa (on which Churchill "reported") was asked his opinion of Churchill's memoir and stated (after initial hesitation, not wanting to become embroiled I politics) that he had difficulty recognising a single incident".

I think it helps if an historian has formal training in the calculated use of source material (which Churchill did not), but it is absolutely necessary that they not be a self serving liar (which Churchill was). The other epithets I added to my description were extraneous and thank you for picking me up on that, it was undisciplined and off topic of me.

fair enough...sorry if it sounded like I was attacking you, that wasn't my intention

[Dick Cheney.]

I'm still sticking with my pick.

World War II was inarguably the most important human event of the 20th century, whereas Churchill's histories provides us the only firsthand written account of that war by any of its primary participants. Definitely worthy of the Nobel Prize in my view, if nothing else but for its intrinsic value to historians as an insider's source to one of history's greatest conflicts. Churchill's volumes and contributions should thus rank alongsides those of Caesar and Grant - a primary perspective and source that is utterly irreplaceable.

Unlike the works of 99% of other historians, Churchill's writings themselves are a part of history.

[Roma_Victrix]

I am surprised that none of you have put forth Ronald Syme, considering his landmark and groundbreaking Roman Revolution (1939). If not Syme, I'd nominate Joseph Needham, perhaps the greatest and most well known sinologist (even if his work is a bit outdated and partly overturned).

[Cyclops]

fair enough...sorry if it sounded like I was attacking you, that wasn't my intention

Not sat all, very happy to be corrected when I'm wrong and happy to be questioned when I've expressed myself poorly. I come here to learn, and am prepared to play Devil's Advocate to further a discussion.

I'm still sticking with my pick.

World War II was inarguably the most important human event of the 20th century, whereas Churchill's histories provides us the only firsthand written account of that war by any of its primary participants. Definitely worthy of the Nobel Prize in my view, if nothing else but for its intrinsic value to historians as an insider's source to one of history's greatest conflicts. Churchill's volumes and contributions should thus rank alongsides those of Caesar and Grant - a primary perspective and source that is utterly irreplaceable.

Unlike the works of 99% of other historians, Churchill's writings themselves are a part of history.

A primary sources is not history in itself anymore than flour is bread.

That said Churchill's works masquerade as history but largely are not as they infamously ignore great swathes of primary and secondary material (he is frankly ignorant on much of English and US history).

Of course with specific regard to WWII his confections are of interest to a student of Churchill the historical figure but his widely attested problem with honesty damages their value as memoir (as his prejudices and dishonesty devalue them as history). Much of his work served for all intents and purposes as electioneering material in a period with a less rigorous approach to integrity in such matters.

[RedCap123]

I am surprised that none of you have put forth Ronald Syme, considering his landmark and groundbreaking Roman Revolution (1939). If not Syme, I'd nominate Joseph Needham, perhaps the greatest and most well known sinologist (even if his work is a bit outdated and partly overturned).

Syme is generally considered the greatest roman historian of the 20th century

[Abdülmecid I]

Eric Hobsbawm. His desruction of nationalism is both funny and informative. But seriously, his skills as a historian, his ability to cite hundreds of small details to support his arguments is simply unmatched.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

To throw a french name in to the round Louis Robert:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Robert_(historian)

The man published over 500 articles and books and had a lot of really good ideas. The most people i read from earlier than the 1950s are wrong in so many cases, simply because they less access to all sources as we do, but his works are just great.

As for Ronald Syme. He is undeniable extremely important, but is a an good example of an english writing author who used methods developed at the end of the 19th century. He used for example famously the method of prosopography developed by Friedrich Münzer

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_M%C3%BCnzer

in Germany.

[RedCap123]

Eric Hobsbawm. His desruction of nationalism is both funny and informative. But seriously, his skills as a historian, his ability to cite hundreds of small details to support his arguments is simply unmatched.

Hobsbawm is good...but I think i would put Braudel before him

[Cyclops]

[furiously writing down names to order more books]

Thank you all, I will have a lot on my plate to read when my little boy wakes me up at 4 am (as has all this last week).

[VINC.XXIII]

I just ordered an English translation of Braudel's "Mediterranean in the Classical world". He is one of very few 20th century LOTE historians who got a regular mention when I was studying history, and a very widely respected one.

"La Méditerranée et le monde méditerranéen à l'époque de Philippe II", I've read that one, a major book for french readership at least. One of my favorite book(in fact its in two volumes).

My other favorite french historian is René Grousset. History of Crusades(three volumes), History of Armenia, and a quite surprising The Empire of the Steppes.

[Publius Clodius Pulcher]

The minds behind the Annales school are the ones that immediately spring to mind, specifically Braudel and Marc Bloch. They took the foundations left by Ranke, Mommsen and others to help evolve the field. Needless to say there are plenty of others, but they are the ones who impacted historiography the most. If your interested in the topic, an excellent read is In Defense of History by Richard Evans.

I seriously disagree with the assertion that Churchill is an impactful history writer. The study of history tries to achieve a level of impartiality and objective distance that Churchill inherently lacks. He is intimately connected to every one of his works in a way that disqualifies him. This isn't to say he wasn't a fine writer, but the people who make history aren't necessarily the best historians.

Now with its all that said, my favorite historian of the 20th century is John Julius Norwich, as his works hit the perfect tone of studious and playful. In all his writings there is a joy in the topic that is infectious, that makes you want to learn more. I might not be a historian today without his seminal work on Byzantium, even if it isn't quite as scholarly as writers like Ostrogovsky.