Concluding his introduction to the second edition of All or Nothing, Jonathan Steinberg designates the rarity of the comparative approach as the reason not to consign the book to the nothingness of ‘out of print’. Nonetheless, in the characteristic ambivalence of the comparative historian, he affirms the value of comparison only amid multiple cautions:

The comparative historian suffers when compared to the specialist. Career concerns, time and historiographical tradition conspire to hinder the enterprise. Small wonder, as Susan Pederson observed, that so many comparative historians regress to the norm and follow their first project with a second work specialized in national history. Comparative history is idealized more than practiced, and more practiced than theorized. Its claim to importance is proportional to the extent it contradicts traditional historical practice.

This essay seeks to identify the advantages and disadvantages of comparative history, at a moment when the adjective and the approach has ceded its place to the ‘transnational’. Never fully embraced by the historical profession, comparative history now appears positively archaic, a relic from before the rise of transnational histories. However, rather than simply herald the onward march of transnationalism, this essay seeks, via an analysis of the comparative approach, to identify the difficulties and dangers of transnational history.

The Challenges of Comparison

The manifold difficulties of comparative history have long been delineated. The comparative project renders more complex the archival, linguistic, historiographical and narrative demands of historical research and writing. At a minimum, the comparative approach multiplies the typical problems of archival research. All historians must deal with the absences of archival evidence, gaps in the records and the partial nature of historical evidence. Such perils are only exacerbated in comparative history.