Is burckhardt a good historian?

>>3271538
Influential? Yes. Good? No.

His conception of 'the renaissance' is highly disputed and outdated. His definition is quite restrictive both geographically and chronologically. He also failed to include the reality that the legacy of Greco-Roman cultures dominated the history of the West (from the 5th century AD until at least the 19th century), and caused many cultural revivals. The history of Europe is not a black-and-white story of a cultural superior empire and a later cultural revival/emulation, with a 'dark age' with no culture in between.

>>3272034
Should I read "The Age of Constantine" for historiographical reasons?

>>3272126
>historiographical
Not really. He doesn't delve deeply into methodology or epistemology. It is far better to read works of Leopold von Ranke, Pirenne, Huizinga or any Annales historian (Braudel, Febvre, Boch, etc). These works are a lot more significant regarding historiography.