This paper argues that the work of Michael Mann is distinguishable from neoWeberian sociology in four ways. The first is his fusion of structural conceptions of large-scale social change to the empirics of individual action. The second is his fourpart theorisation of social power and its implications for the analysis of the state. The third is his endeavour to find a middle ground between comparativist and linear historiographies. The fourth is his combination of contextual specificity and nomothetic generality. While each of these areas will be approached critically, the paper will conclude that Mann's sociology has significantly contributed to our understanding of macro-historical change.'The object of this paper is to consider three elements of Michael Mann's macro-historical sociology -his use of method, his development of a broadly chronological narrative and his attempt to blend historiographic explication with social and state theory. In the first two volumes of The Sources of Social Power (1986, 1993), in his most recent book Incoherent Empire (2003) and in a series of shorter works, Mann presents an important contribution to our understanding of long-term continuity and change from what he calls 'the beginning' to the contemporary world. Of the wide-ranging response which Mann's writing has provoked, perhaps the most enduring has been focused on his particular use of method, narrative and historiography. This article aims to unpack his contribution in these areas by highlighting four inter-related features which distinguish Mann's work from that of his contemporaries within neo-Weberian sociology. It will, firstly, locate Mann's position within the broad spectrum of macro-historical approaches, before going on to outline some of the debates which it has prompted or of which it is a part. In all, it will argue that Mann's use of method, narrative and historiography has significantly contributed to our understanding of large-scale social change.