Comparative History: What is it, and why is it useful?

History does not just write itself. Individuals across the centuries have sought to understand their circumstances by looking both to current events near and far (both geographically and temporally). Below is a summary of how I have understood the comparative method. 

Marc Bloch was a pioneer of the Annales school and a critical thinker of the benefits of comparison for historians. In an article from 1963, he argues that it is “one of the most pressing needs of present-day historical science.”[1] He is, in some ways, right. Historians need to take comparison as essential for exposing questions which would not otherwise have become visible. To Bloch, sources would not expose their answers without careful questioning. Comparison, as such, enables this. We can take a period, time or place and compare how similar elements (e.g., governance or slavery) were conducted. Yet, as my class has illuminated, we must also take into consideration the context of these different societies in explaining our comparisons and outcomes.

Yet, it is not just for the purpose of similarities between societies. To Bloch, too much attention has been paid to this, and not to differences.[2] For Siegel, comparative history has been particularly effective for the superpower of the United States. Here, they argue that American scholars interest in Brazil is because of the social progress the nation illustrates.[3] This is something abolitionists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries also wished to highlight.[4] So, to the likes of Gregg, comparative history is used by American scholars to highlight a sense of “exceptionalism”.[5] Ideologically reinforcing the idea of American ‘greatness’ through the lens of other countries and their socio-political structures. Comparative history, thus, enables both the illumination of similarities and differences, yet both must be considered – as Bloch suggests – through careful questioning.

Establishing these questions can be quite difficult. Haupt and Kocka have asserted that the correct style of questioning depends on the category being addressed.[6] Historians must compare societies carefully. It is no good comparing oranges and apples when the subject matter is ‘what is the best orange’, instead we must look at comparing ‘fruit’.[7] 

While some may view comparative history as clutching at straws, that is, making distinctions where they do not exist, the more open-minded historian views the possibility it invites.[8] One such example is Janina Rameriz who uses comparison for the benefit of explaining the myths and legends of those in her works (i.e., "Femina"). She also employs it for the benefit of modern readers in understanding the past. Thus, it transcends time, space and geographical constraints to present historical events in a more understandable matter.

However, comparative history does have methodological issues. Wickham – a medievalist – cites that archival differences present problems for historians.[9] The way one country may keep its archives may drastically differ from another. As such, piecing together evidence for comparison may be harder. It forces historians to look at different questions as a way to complete their studies. Wickham is not alone in this observation; Cohen has also commented on the material issues too.[10] In class, we discussed an example of the National Health Service and how British hospital records were better kept than those of their German counterpart. This material is central to historical study, and access to it is imperative for these studies to exist. Without them, historians would struggle to go about their business.

Conrad’s “What Time is Japan? Problems of Comparative (Intercultural) Historiography”, successfully explores the influence of cross-border historiography.[11] In the late 19^th century, Japan’s Tokyo Imperial University established its history department at the direction of Ludwig Reiss, bringing history to Japan through the German perspective. No doubt this had an impact on how Japanese students learnt to write history.[12] Yet, with the arrival of the Americans in 1945, the way Japanese history was written began to change. Nationalist narratives were discounted.[13] Instead, they were displaced by a Western idealised view. The 20^th century and its historians, like Otsuka, viewed the past as a way to map the future for growth.[14] It appears they should strive for the exceptionalism brought by Western entities like Europe and its revolutionary growth. Japan demonstrates the adoption of how one nation writes history to another. Therefore, highlighting how it can break past borders and influence changes in perception of issues.

To summarise, the comparative method, in spite of archival issues, does provide an overwhelming positive for the historian. It allows us to undertake research on questions which otherwise would not emerge. Forcing us to look further to the past to understand the world, and also as a way to understand its present.  

See:

Ramirez, Janina, Legenda: The Real Women Behind the Myths that Shaped Europe (2025)

Ramirez, Janina, Femina: A New History of the Middle Ages, Through the Women Written Out of It (2022)

______________________________________

[1] M. Bloch, ‘A contribution to a comparative history of European societies’ in Land and Work in Medieval Europe, tr. J. E. Anderson (1967); originally, ‘Pour une histoire compare des societies europeennes,’ Melanges Historiques (1963), vol 1. Enterprise and Secular Change: Readings in Economic History, Frederic C. Lane ed. (1953), p.495.

[2] Ibid, p.507.

[3] M. Siegel, ‘Beyond Compare: Comparative Method after the Transnational Turn’, RADICAL History Review 91 (2005), p.67.

[4] Ibid.

[5] I. Tyrrell, review of R. Gregg, Inside Out, Outside in – Essays in Comparative History (2000), in, The Journal of American History, Vol 89, No 4 (Mar. 2003), pp.1625-1625.

[6] H. G. Haupt, and J. Kocka (eds.), Comparative and Transnational History: Central European Approaches and New Perspectives, (2010), pp.15

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid., p.20.

[9] C. Wickham, “Problems in Doing Comparative History”, (2005), p.8.

[10] D. Cohen, “Comparative History: Buyer Beware”, (2001), p.25.

[11] S. Conrad, “What Time is Japan? Problems of Comparative (Intercultural) Historiography”, History and Theory, 38 (1999), pp.67-83.

[12] Ibid., p.67.

[13] Ibid., p.70.

[14] Ibid., p.71-72.