Reading an unpublished manuscript by a brilliant young historian who will definitely rise to stardom. Makes me think: what are the ingredients that make brilliant historians? Here's my list, from an experience of interacting with several such eminent personalities over the years.

First. The willingness to put forward bold ideas. I often hide behind nuance. Don't get me wrong, I think nuance is extremely important. But if it's all nuance, then it becomes difficult to say what's important and what's not. Having bold ideas puts you on the map.

Second. Unpretentiousness. Some of the brightest historians I know don't think of themselves as particularly bright, or at least come across as very modest. But modesty is not the same as deferrence. Good historians don't defer but nor do they attack others for no reason.

Third. An ability to write. History is a craft, and a big part of this craft is writing. If you can't write, don't write history. Makes for painful reading. You can improve as long as you set this as a key goal in its own right. Speaking from experience. I'm a rubbish writer.

Fourth. A good education. This means at least a nominal grasp of other disciplines and a taste for literature, music, the fine arts. I don't know why it's important but it is. I guess it gives you a broader understanding of the human experience, which is an asset for a historian.

This is also the most controversial point because it is inevitably elitist. I grew up in the backwaters of the USSR and had no access to ballet or art galleries. No matter how I try to catch up as an adult, I'll always be playing catch up. I've resigned myself to this.

Fifth. You have to be crazy, to the point of obsession, about what it is you are writing about. If you are not, if you see your research as an actual "job," then you are in the wrong business. You don't have to look like a mad scientist. But yeah you have to be a mad scientist.

OK enough moralising from me. I am a "decent" historian myself. But I know brilliance when I see it.