| | [[Comparative history]] looks for similarities and differences between societies or civilizations; [[Arnold J. Toynbee]] made it fashionable in 1940s, but has been in decline ever since as historians prefer specialized research topics | | [[Comparative history]] looks for similarities and differences between societies or civilizations; [[Arnold J. Toynbee]] made it fashionable in 1940s, but has been in decline ever since as historians prefer specialized research topics |
| | [[Political History]]: It is the study of political institutions, voter behavior, legislative behavior, leadership and practical politics. Since the 1980s much of political history in the U.S. has migrated to [[Political Science]]. | | [[Political History]]: It is the study of political institutions, voter behavior, legislative behavior, leadership and practical politics. Since the 1980s much of political history in the U.S. has migrated to [[Political Science]]. |
| | **In 1929 English historian Lewis Namier, in ''The Structure of Politics at the Accession of George III'' (1929), revolutionized the field. He rejected the "Whig interpretation" that said a two-party rivalry of Whig and Tory, underpinned a constitutional monarchy in Britain, which had a modern cabinet system based on a party majority in the House of Commons. Namier, by looking at all the individual MP's, argues the king conducted his role within the limitations of authority permitted by the constitution, while the Whig historians claim that the king fomented turmoil against the constitution.<ref> Peter Thomas, "Reappraisals in History," ''Institute of Historical Research'' (2002) [http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/reapp/lewis.html online edition]</ref> | | **In 1929 English historian Lewis Namier, in ''The Structure of Politics at the Accession of George III'' (1929), revolutionized the field. He rejected the "Whig interpretation" that said a two-party rivalry of Whig and Tory, underpinned a constitutional monarchy in Britain, which had a modern cabinet system based on a party majority in the House of Commons. Namier, by looking at all the individual MP's, argues the king conducted his role within the limitations of authority permitted by the constitution, while the Whig historians claim that the king fomented turmoil against the constitution.<ref> Peter Thomas, "Reappraisals in History," ''Institute of Historical Research'' (2002) [http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/reapp/lewis.html online edition]</ref> |