Luttwaks "Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire" is derided by some, yet I've seen some support. I personally liked his theory, I thought it was well thought out and fairly supported. Thoughts from anyone else?

I got my degree in studying US-Cuba diplomatic relations while in Cuba, but I read a few volumes of Wallerstein's World System-Theory in the process, especially those pertaining to the early modern period. I'm curious: Among specialists in early modern Europe, how seriously are Wallerstein's theories taken?

I had a legal history professor in grad school who, in his first lecture, described the shift in German historiography before and after the Second World War. The first school of thought held that the "inexorable march" to German unification was indicative of a kind of Hegelian historical inevitability. But after World War Two, the narrative changed to regard the track from German unification up to the Holocaust as another kind of historically predetermined series of events. He pointed up the fact that the narrative, in essence, was unchanged- only emphasis and value judgments had changed.

He cited two authors in particular regarding this transition, but I've forgotten them. Am I completely misremembering this? Or is there support for his argument?

I'm interested in the history of American foreign policy, and in this case specifically its historiography. Can anyone recommend relevant publications?

Can somone who has read Emanuel Mayer, The Ancient Middle Classes: Urban Life and Aesthetics in the Roman Empire, 100 BCE-250 CE. Tell me what they think of it.