The article discusses the three major types of comparative history: Parallel comparative history, Contrast-oriented comparative history, and Macro-analytic comparative history. Each type has distinct purposes, methods, and strengths. Parallel comparative history is used to demonstrate the validity of a theory by showing that it applies to multiple cases. Contrast-oriented comparative history focuses on highlighting the unique features of individual cases and their contexts. Macro-analytic comparative history aims to make causal inferences about macro-level structures and processes by comparing cases to identify patterns and differences. The article also discusses the Triangle of Comparative History, which represents the three types of comparative history and how they can be combined. The Triangle shows that each type has different characteristics and that works of comparative history sometimes combine different logics. The article highlights the strengths and limitations of each type, noting that while Parallel comparative history is useful for validating theories, it can be repetitive. Contrast-oriented comparative history provides rich, descriptive accounts but lacks explanatory power. Macro-analytic comparative history is valuable for testing causal hypotheses but is limited by the difficulty of achieving controlled comparisons. The article concludes that each type of comparative history has its own distinct integrity and reality, and that understanding these differences is essential for effective use of comparative history in macrosocial inquiry.The article discusses the three major types of comparative history: Parallel comparative history, Contrast-oriented comparative history, and Macro-analytic comparative history. Each type has distinct purposes, methods, and strengths. Parallel comparative history is used to demonstrate the validity of a theory by showing that it applies to multiple cases. Contrast-oriented comparative history focuses on highlighting the unique features of individual cases and their contexts. Macro-analytic comparative history aims to make causal inferences about macro-level structures and processes by comparing cases to identify patterns and differences. The article also discusses the Triangle of Comparative History, which represents the three types of comparative history and how they can be combined. The Triangle shows that each type has different characteristics and that works of comparative history sometimes combine different logics. The article highlights the strengths and limitations of each type, noting that while Parallel comparative history is useful for validating theories, it can be repetitive. Contrast-oriented comparative history provides rich, descriptive accounts but lacks explanatory power. Macro-analytic comparative history is valuable for testing causal hypotheses but is limited by the difficulty of achieving controlled comparisons. The article concludes that each type of comparative history has its own distinct integrity and reality, and that understanding these differences is essential for effective use of comparative history in macrosocial inquiry.