All historians compare. They compare an earlier event to a later one, a general feature to a specific one; they look comparatively at different geographic areas, at different epochs. Without comparison, almost no historical study can move forward. However, while this kind of comparison is mostly implicit, guided by common sense, it is not integrated in a conscious, methodological operation. Comparative history is more demanding and self-reflective: it is based on a clear, methodological

more »

... , the logic of comparison and a reflection about the goals and the units of comparison. 1 This approach is of recent origin in historiography. In comparison with other disciplines, such as comparative literature, comparative law or comparative religious science, history is a latecomer. The other comparative disciplines developed and began expanding in the nineteenth century, and today they have their place in the canon of literature, law and religious science. 2 It was only after the catastrophe of World War I that historians became aware that history written in a national framework had to be overcome. This kind of historical writing, as well as the engagement of historians in their countries , was perceived in some parts of the international academic community as being responsible for the antagonism among peoples, the outburst of military conflicts and the deaths of millions of soldiers. The Belgian historian Henri Pirenne first formulated this opinion, arguing in favor of comparisoin as a way of overcoming narrow, nationalist historiography. Marc Bloch took