More and more historians, from diverse political viewpoints, are now expressing concern at the fragmentation of history, especially in the schools curriculum. The fragmentation of the subject has followed upon the collapse of sundry Grand Narratives, such as the ‘March of Progress', which once swept all of history into a single story. And it is good to have escaped simplistic accounts, whether triumphal or cataclysmic.

Yet there are welcome signs of a counter-swing back to the ‘Big Picture', not as dogma, but as debate. Depth in historical studies, as now provided, needs to be matched with length. After all, the study of the past demands a long-term perspective. That is its special strength. Hence, at appropriate places within existing courses, students can debate questions such as: Is history a story of progress? or Do things always revolve in cycles? or Does history advance by means of successive revolutions? In their answers, students often reveal that they have hazy and unexamined assumptions, and they enjoy exploring their ideas in a structured context. Moreover, the absence of one right answer makes for great discussions.

Despite the importance of history's big picture, there are  surprisingly...