The viability of as a discipline is being threat ened today on several f onts. Members of other social science disciplines condemn traditional research techniques as pass?, some historians have joined them in censuring traditional methodology, while others, dis heartened by current events, incline to suggest surrep titiously that perhaps Henry Ford was right, history is bunk.,, Educationists continually charge that is useless and dull, repetitious and tedious, and should be replaced by courses more concerned with present prob lems. Finally, and in the opinion of the writer most serious, is the growing discontent with among some students who reject it as irrelevant and boresome. They incline to suggest it has no place in the curricula. This paper describes a methodology developed during twenty years as a college professor and suggests that it is indeed possible to devise a successful teaching method, if one gauges success on the basis of positive reaction, scholarly achievement, and absence of the charges of irrelevancy. Many historians violate the methodology of their profession by their acceptance of themselves as authori ties on the subject, rather than as guides to inspire stu dents to both critical thinking and participation in re search activity in a common quest for truth. Too many courses are organized in a sequence of lecture examination, textbook, and an occasional term paper drawn from supplementary readings. This does not instill in the student a feeling of challenge or a desire to pursue the subject at any greater depth on his own; nor does it adequately introduce him to the fact that the study of is in great measure the study of histori ography. Moreover, if an instructor organizes his lectures on a chronological-narrative basis, not only is the broad overview very often lost, but also the student remains unaware of the significance and impact of ideas (both in their abstract sense and as manifested in action), per sonalities, ideologies, and movements that span decades of names, events, and places. On the other hand, if an instructor organizes his lecture on a topical basis, he soon discovers that while his students are intellectually proficient in such concepts as Marxism, Nationalism, and Liberalism, they are sorely deficient in matters of dates, names, events, and places. It goes without saying that neither form of teaching is sufficient in and of itself. The writer believes that the professor's major objectives should be to provide the student with leads to more leads in the study of history, to introduce him to the world of research methodology and historiography, and to teach him to teach himself. The methodology here described appears to be the most conducive to the attain ment of these objectives. It is based upon experiences in a course entitled Europe Since 1815, offered at the Uni versity of Northern Iowa and ones taught at five other institutions. This methodology can be divided into three cate gories. It should be kept in mind that these are never distinct or separate one from the other, either in theory or, hopefully, in practice. The categories include : lectures, examinations, supplementary assignments. The attempt has always been made to consciously and consistently relate each to the other two so as to present not only a unified picture of European history, but also to show the student that the topic can, and must, be viewed from as many different perspectives as possible. It is intended that the student will see that is at one and the same time facts, (names, dates, events, places) as well as ideas, ideologies, forces, philosophies, and movements, and lastly, historiography itself. Effective study of these concepts necessitates that the instructor be highly selective in his lecture offerings, out of the abundance of historical material that must be taken