> it is not fair to criticise it for not discussing prior scientific hubs I don’t see why that’s unfair. By narrowing its focus to a specific time and place, a

> it is not fair to criticise it for not discussing prior scientific hubs I don’t see why that’s unfair. By narrowing its focus to a specific time and place, and ignoring parallels with other times and places, it seems so easy to draw false conclusions or just tell a chronology of events rather than do the interpretive work expected of a historian. I see this as a trend in historical works—the study of historical writing is called “historiography”, and if you pull up an article on historiography you can see the trends that I am talking about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_the_United_K... There’s even a name for this kind of puff piece about UK history. It’s called “Whig history”, and Whigh history has its own history (or historiography), which is fascinating in its own right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history I don’t see how it’s possible to say with confidence what the Victorians gave us without understanding what it’s like to not have a Victorian history.