Having said that though, his methods were "the beginning of history" essentially. Peter Burke says in "New Perspectives on Historical Writing" that the Copernican Revolution in historiography which was led by Ranke was actually somewhat of a counter-revolution, because it brought events back to the centre stage"4.
The shortcomings of the methods of Von Ranke:.
At the time Von Rankes teachings, it would seem, were successful and widely received. E.H. Carr says in "What is history?",.
"When Von Ranke in the 1830's, remarked that the task of the historian was simply to show how it really was, this less than profound aphorism had astonished success"5. .
He goes on to talk about how generations of European historians took this to heart, the magic words, "Wie et eighethich gewesen"6. This, according to Carr, saved them from "the tiresome obligation to think for themselves". It could be said that Ranke, as well as having created a positive revolution in historiography, might have paved the way for "lazy mans" history. Obtaining facts alone is not overly difficult. Also, Rankes history was, as the evidence suggests, very one-dimensional. In his quest for relevance, he may have overused the trademark catchphrase applied to him, because all he ever did was tell things "as they really were". His basic mood was nationalistic and conservative7, there was no room for cultural or socio-economic history. As Collingwood said in The Idea of History, "positivistic historiography bogged itself in the old error of identifying history with political history, and ignored the history of art, religion, science etc, because these were subjects with which it was incapable of dealing"8. These ignorances were a major drawback of Von Rankes idea of historiography. His history was not inclusive, it was facts only, an obvious shortcoming. Often, it is difficult to tell a true story with facts alone; there is a need for some form of commentary.