I was originally interested, like many others, in 20th century military history. When I was actually exposed to academic history I started thinking: "what's something new and original that I could do with this subject? How can I be innovative if I continue to pursue military history in WWII?" I simply couldn't think of an answer that satisfied me. So I started studying other subjects that interested me on my own time, and went from reading about vikings to early medieval Irish history.

My interests became more and more narrow thanks to the influence of professors that I had and seminars that I took. By now I guess I'd say I'm most interested in cultural history/the history of mentalities in early medieval Ireland which I sort of stumbled into by accident. What I love about this specialty is that it answers the questions I asked myself when I started my undergrad; there is so much potential for innovative use of sources, so many interesting theoretical models to work with, so many ways I can approach any project I think up. I appreciate the creativity that this subject allots me, plus I get to read about witches, insane bird-men and people drinking holy poop water. Enjoying the sources that you have to interpret is always a bonus.

I studied something that I was kind of bored with in graduate school. My advice: Don't study things that you are bored with.

In your particular case, I think it makes sense to start with a general topic and then move toward the specific -- many historians do that. It's part of the process and it's completely natural, because part of what researchers (at whatever level) do is to create new knowledge, and narrowing in on a topic is one of the major ways they do that. I think you're progressing on a great track.

I second what /u/jschooltiger said. Go in with something general, and then you will probably find that, as you get exposed to more and more different topics and approaches, you might specialise in something very different to what you came in for.

In your case, too, it doesn't seem like you are seeing a drastic change - you are still in the same geographical area, you are working with historiographies which you are at least somewhat familiar with. This is great - it means you won't start from scratch. But definitely avoid boredom - at PhD level you will be researching a topic that will become your life for a few years. You will have days that you will want to just pack it in for a variety of reasons - if it is a topic that is still inherently interesting to you, though, you will find it much easier to get through these low points.

From personal experience, I also went into my PhD with a specific topic that evolved from my Master's: nationalism, so much more social and cultural history angles. In the course of my first couple of years, and exploring the literature on my subject, I realised I found something else more interesting. I am now on my research year, for example, but literally didn't have even a broad definition of my new topic until October 2013 (my 3rd year of the PhD!). And while staying in the same geographical area, my study branched out massively. It now concerns historiographies that are new to me - history of science and technology; industry; intelligence services. Archives from countries as far as Russia and India have also popped up on my research agenda (which is otherwise focused on a small Balkan state). But these things are exciting and I think you will find it so too!

I did my MA in Medieval Studies, specially Medievalism. It's very common to go down the rabbit hole and just keep finding/pulling things to research/read. There's tons of periods/subjects that interest me, but more on a spectator/reader level than actually doing any serious academic work in said field.

Now that I'm out of school (I'll start my Ph.D in 2016), I've bugged fellow historians that aren't Medievalists for books/articles to read.

I started out with the intention of focusing on material culture in Renaissance England, and now I'm firmly entrenched in 18th century American material culture.

The impetus for the change was pretty simple: the only school I had the opportunity to attend did not offer any depth in my chosen field. After casting about for a semester, I finally decided to make the best of the situation. Honestly, I'm very glad that I switched. When I found my niche, new opportunities seemed to pour out of the woodwork.

Specialization in my case will more than likely be a pet project rather than an occupational hazard. This is mainly due to location and the available pool of jobs.

It's very common for individuals to change topics or broaden theirs to include other things. Look at a historian like Richard White. He was trained as a Western historian but his book The Middle Ground became a seminal volume for Colonial era Native American/Anglo-American relations.

As a kid, I liked reading about military history, like I suppose a lot about military history, mostly 19th century I think. Then in High School I enjoyed history class because I was good at learning and recalling events and patterns, which is sort of what a lot of HS history is about.

In high school I really enjoyed learning about Judaism (I went to religious high school, where we had that as school subjects). I especially liked when reading, say, a question and answer written to a Rabbi provided an insight into what life was like for the Jewish community, what struggles they faced, what values they seem to have had, etc.

Eventually I figured out that I was really being interested by Jewish history, not just generic Jewish stuff. So eventually I came to AH, and started reading more professional historian sorts of books, and here I am.

When I was applying for MA programs last year, my intention was to do something related to early 20th century Central/Eastern Europe (namely Poland or Ukraine in the interwar period). Then I went and taught English in Georgia for a bit, and after coming back home decided I would base my MA on there instead.

It was a pragmatic choice really; while there is some stuff on interwar Poland and Ukraine (though definitely room for more), there are probably five scholars who write about Georgia in English (this is only slightly hyperbolic). Thus I felt I could do a lot more in that area, be able to contribute and get my name out there, than if I stayed in my original choice.

Now, I'm looking at the separatist regions in Georgia and their role regarding the 2008 war, and just gave a presentation on my topic today to my classmates to get feedback on how to pursue it. I couldn't be happier with my choice: there is some stuff written on it, enough to gain some research material, but there is so much to expand on, to contribute to.

I've done research on extremely diverse subjects. I've graduated some time ago, I've done some research for private organizations and currently -barely- working towards a PhD in my spare time. That being said, increased specialization is indeed the most common trend and for my thesis I also continued earlier research to increase the quality of my work. Still, you shouldn't stick with a subject you don't particularly care for. I love the fact I've done multiple papers and subjects which aren't related in the slightest. Interdisciplinary research is very up and coming, so it can also be a boon if you are well-versed in more than one subject.

That being said, my most obvious specialization is sort of an overarching one (historiography and the theoretical side of history).