To address living in the Anthropocene and to ensure the discipline's future relevance, various historians have called for a history that is grand in scale – whether this be wide, big or deep. Yet, at the same time that transnational, global & pan-indigenous histories gestured towards a more outward looking discipline, inward looking nationalisms appear to be gaining sway. In such an era, what is the role for grand international projects such as the history of capitalism, imperialism, patriarchy or sovereignty? And what are the risks of going ‘big scale’? For example, has big history become an excuse to omit gender, culture – or even the individual? Does macro history scale down the possibilities of political messages and public outcomes? Could big data history and deep history blunt the tools historians know best? Can micro and macro ever join hands? Will AI create far better, bigger histories than we can?