Breisach's tome presents a difficult & profound discussion on the subject of historiography. Flawed in some ways but for the most part, there is much to be discovered in this work. One of the flaws is his failure to discuss the Judean historical perspective which he limits to Josephus. He fails to explore this perspective as the early church fathers were deeply indebted to the Judean perspective as well as tapping into the Greek-Roman understanding of looking at history. Still, the work is mainly fixed on both the European & American development of understanding history & the writing of history. His epilogue is a must read for all historians as he cautions that today's historians are now struggling to hold on against the visionaries, zealots, & propagandists who are uninterested in truth but rather to fit whatever narrative they follow. Indeed, he is sadly accurate. ( )

Breisach writes an interesting Historiography book. Its heavily slanted to the European and American schools of History, with an ever-so slight mention of the Historiography of the Far East. The writing style is geared more to the academician than to the casual reader. ( )

A history of history. The writing is uneven but it's a useful comprehensive work. I don't agree with Breisach's decision to class Homer (if he existed) as a historian. In that case, how does one justify excluding Shakespeare from the list? Other than that, I have no issues with the author's decisions. I learned a great deal from the text.