Greek historians focused on politics and wars, whereas Roman historiographers expanded the domain of history by including imperial activities in their narratives. During the medieval period, history writing was related to both politics and religion. A major change occurred during the Renaissance, when scholars turned their attention away from the Greco-Roman past and liberated history from theology.

Despite its popularity, history was not a part of the curriculum in educational institutions of Europe until 1770, when for the first time the Gottingen University awarded a degree in history.

The universities of Europe and the US followed suit and established departments of history that produced professional historians. They developed an elaborate system of research methodology for writing history analytically and critically — the important elements for writing history being accessibility to original sources, knowledge of classical languages and the ability to interpret events theoretically.

In 1806, when Germany was defeated by Napoleon, a wave of nationalism rose throughout Germany. Philosophers, historians and literary people started to create a historical consciousness among people in order to achieve liberation from French domination and to achieve political unity. The State of Prussia became a model that inspired the intellectuals to strengthen the German state by using its institutions for unification.

Different schools of thought have influenced history writing in Germany, yet nearly half a century later, the Third Reich remains a significant reference point

To German intellectuals, the state became a sacred institution which would accomplish great things for the individual as well as the nation.

The discipline of history hence became a tool for materialising the dream of German unity.

The historical revolution was led by German historians under the leadership of Leopold von Ranke (d.1886), a professor of history at the University of Berlin. He set up rules and regulations for a new historiography which would be completely objective. According to him, based on the principle of wie es eigentlich gewesen, historians should report exactly what happened in the past. Ranke relied completely on state documents for writing history as he believed that other sources were not reliable. The result of this writing was that historical narratives began to represent the state point of view, focusing more on foreign relations rather than domestic issues. Ranke, being anti-democratic and anti-people, believed that the state was the only institution which could achieve and solve all problems.

Another historian, Johann Gustav Droysen wrote an exhaustive biography of Alexander, drawing upon the story of both Philip and Alexander and attributing to them the fall of Greek City states and the unification of Greece.

He also admired Alexander for his conquest which spread Greek culture to Asia. This interpretation expressed his desire for the small State of Germany to be united as one country under a great leader.

When the Prussian Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck (d.1898), united Germany after fighting three wars, he was fully supported by the historians. They also favoured him during the Kulturkampf or ‘culture struggle' which was state resistance against the authority of the church. Later, historians enthusiastically supported the efforts of the state to become a military power in Europe.

When Bismarck followed a policy of colonialism and established a German colony in South West Africa, it was upheld by the historians.

Later, when the colonial officers brutally crushed a rebellion, it was not opposed by the intellectuals who remained silent at the inhumane treatment of the local population.

In 1914, when the World War 1 was declared, Friedrich Meinecke (d.1954), a leading historian, was overwhelmed by the nationalist sentiment and welcomed it. He was happy that at this point, all political parties including the socialists supported the war efforts of the country. To him, it was a momentous sign of unity when people with different political ideologies were integrated as one nation. Germany's defeat in the war was not interpreted as its weakness, but instead attributed to a conspiracy that forced it to surrender.

Again, the historians supported Hitler and his Nazi Party when political stability was restored and Germany actively pursued expansion.

However, the guilt over the atrocities committed by the Nazis made it difficult for the historians to document that period. In the 1980s, the issue became controversial and is known as Historikerstreit or ‘historians' quarrel'.

While one group of the historians argued that Hitler and the Nazi Party's rise to power was a continuation of German history, the other believed it to be an aberration of the German historical process.

After this debate, the approach of young German historians changed from Ranke's interpretation of history and they began to concentrate on writing the social and cultural history of the society. They became influenced by the views of the Annales School of France, which emphasised the history of mentalities and sensibilities.

They were also inspired by the Marxist point of view and interpreted history of the marginalised groups.

Consequently, social and cultural aspects of society changed the historical outlook from the state to people and the discipline of history became more inspiring and popular than it was earlier.

Published in Dawn, Sunday Magazine, November 16th, 2014