The Annales School of History

Iggers and Hunt correctly outline the developments over time of the Annalistes and give concise summaries of their basic constituents and beliefs. The problem with their analysis, especially Hunt’s, is their insistence on formalizing the Annalistes’ diverse conceptions of historical methodology into a school of thought. A school involves specific common doctrines and methodologies, an inherent level of rigidity that certainly the Annalist thinkers never sought to enforce. One can only accuse the Annalist of failing to give institutions a central role in history (Iggers) if one defines them as a particular school of history, such as Marxism or any other. Historical interpretations can only disintegrate under their own weight (Hunt) if they are initially defined as a rigid and cohesive set school of ideas.

For the Annalist, then, we should only view them as a group of disparate historians and scholars who used a particular methodology for historical research as put forth by the likes of Braudel and others before him. A school is by nature constraining; the Annalistes put forth a set of tools that many historical schools can utilize in pursuit of their own interpretations. Therefore, these tools are timeless, beyond the limiting boundaries of any school. This, of course, is best reflected in the historical outputs of the Annalistes themselves. The constant shift over time in the emphasis of different social science disciplines; the variety in the subject matter; the emphasis on methodology; all these should discredit the attempts of the revisionist scholars at collapsing the Annalistes into a predictable school of history.

Herein lies the danger to the profession of History: in our haste to revise and discredit, the useful tools of writing history are lost to us and succeeding generations, until a new batch of enterprising historians learn, that they too, necessitate a new way of thinking in their profession, and the tools to make this happen. Otherwise, history will remain a simple compendium of fact, one that is written by the powerful and victorious.