The latter also has led to a lot of the transformation of historical writing by bringing in information/input from non-historical disciplines like archeology, climate studies, economics, sociology, and other sciences and near-sciences (or 'dismal sciences' in the case of economics).
The former was almost the entirety of history written before the late 19th century, the latter has been the dominant 'strain' in the 20th century (and sometimes called 'Marxist' since Karl was one of the first 'analyzers' of social movements). History, and especially history written since the 18th century, has always emphasized one of two characteristics: either it was a history of the Deeds of Great Men, or it was an attempt to identify, explain and analyze the Great Movements of people as a general mass. On the Leader question, let me interject a bit of Historiography here.
0 kommentar(er)
