What is "Theoretical History"?

I have the impression that the term theoretical history sometimes serves as a synonym for studying alternative paths of history in the past (i.e. alternative history) or in the future (i.e. futurology).

Consider e.g. this amateur historian: His YouTube video World War Three: thoughts on the coming hegemonic war investigates a possible future sequence of events, and he calls himself "a student of theoretical history" (in one of the comments) also with reference to this contribution.

Theoretical History and Historiography are essentially, the same fields. Both attempt to understand History as a causal and meaningful process and not simply to interpret History as a series of explainable events.

The field of Theoretical History has its roots in the Modern era-(though perhaps one could date the origins of Theoretical History or Historiography to an earlier time). Philosophers, such as George Hegel and Karl Marx were interested in understanding the cyclical-(or Dialectical) nature of Historical time and reality.

For both Hegel and Marx, History, had a deeper, more esoteric meaning that was (apparently) evident in the process of reconciled opposites. An event would appear or unfold, though such an event had an inherent opposite-(almost like an alter ego), that was inseparable. This opposite or "antithesis", (despite its inseparability), would also exist as an independent event. However, as time progressed, both of these opposing events would join together, thereby creating, yet, another independent event and thus, the historical process continues.

Over the last half century, the post-modern theory has both transitioned from and greatly transformed contemporary western historiography and the philosophy of history. The post-modern approach is unconcerned with cyclical, exotic processes, but rather, more concerned with the radical "deconstruction" of knowledge and absolute truths-(Even Hegelian and Marxian Dialectics, are not exempt from the post-modernist's deconstructionist agenda). Post-Modern has and continues to approach knowledge and truth from a relativistic perspective.

If, for example, Culture A believes something to be true and Culture B believes something to be true, then under the logic of post-modernism, both the belief systems of Cultures A and B are equally and unquestionably true. Ordinarily and from a common sense perspective, such a narrative-(including, a historical narrative) would appear to be absurd and contradictory. Yet, for nearly 50 years, the radical philosophy of post-modernism-(including contemporary historiography), has become, "the opiate"-(to borrow an old famous phrase) of the academic intelligentsia and currently shows no signs of decline or disappearance.

There are other types of theoretical history and historiography, however, the ones mentioned, are some of the more well known and well regarded in the academy-(and related institutions).

Theory of history is so closely related to "historiography" or the practice of writing and criticising history that we may as well consider them to be basically coaligned. Therefore you will want to read EH Carr's "What is History?" and a textbook aimed at honours / post-graduate coursework students on historiography.

Ranke started modern history with the observation, "But it is not for the past as a part of the present, but for the past as the past, that man is properly concerned" (Diaries, 1814)—the purpose of history is not the whiggish informing of the present on the basis of the attitudes and mores of moderns, but to understand the past in the terms of the past itself.

All modern history reacts to this theoretical assertion. Some, such as Marxist history believes that the purpose of history is to serve the needs for self-empowerment (primarily) of the proletariat and its achievement of the beginning of history in human freedom. But they still use Ranke's methodological tools and avoid inserting modernity into the past.

Similarly Ranke pushed for archival research, or research direct from the sources of the past. He also pushed for the vigorous critique of writings about the past.

We can probably get a little bit into Hegel and Lukacs on the nature of history as a teleology, but to be honest, these theories of history are philosophical in nature, and not historical in nature. Your answer should properly be answered in relation to historians by examining the theories of history of historians themselves. For example, Marxists commonly put the changes in the mode of production and the balance of class forces (and the transformations of classes themselves) at the centre of history because Marxist historians privilege an understanding of society as a system of production and reproduction of cultural and material reality.

In comparisons, Liberal historians view the contingency of man's consciousness as central to history as they tend to view political institutions or market agents as determinate.