I do not find the more traditional historiographical fields appealing, but I do think that they are very important for historians to write about. I would always choose to read about the more contemporary fields, especially cultural historiographies, because they feel more personal than the traditional historiographical fields and I feel that they read a bit easier as well. I find the traditional historiographical fields boring because they read very much like a regurgitation of facts about events when they are not tied into the other contemporary fields. However, the writers who bring in more than just economic, military, political aspects are more appealing to read. When they combine these aspects with the social and cultural aspects that were more central to the lives of citizens, the readings feel more engaging. I feel as if I am emerged in that time and understanding how the citizens dealt with the issues of the traditional fields like wars and economic depression. The importance of these fields is that they tell us about events that helped shape the country into what is it is today.
I think that historians have expanded, complicated, challenged these genres because they were not engaging enough. They brought in the social aspects to bring more interest into their fields. As the historiographic field began to die out, they needed to find a way to re-engage people with their work or they would have been out of a job. The traditional fields tie into, and sometimes cause the cultural shifts in different time periods, so it is helpful to include those in more traditional genres.