system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Is there a difference in the way the History of Philosophy is taught by analytic and continental philosophers?

I’m just curious, if there a difference in the way they see/examine/teach the history, like do Russell and Wittgenstein view the ancient Greeks any differently than a Hegelian or a phenomenologist? Or do the major differences just start when the history gets to the early 20th century?
gpt
Russell and Wittgenstein are not particularly influential on the history of philosophy. Hegel is very influential, but he predates the analytic/continental split. Some phenomenology, particularly via Heidegger, is very influential on the history of philosophy. Other phenomenology is much less invested in the history of philosophy. So you've got some very different comparisons there.

In general, "analytic" and "continental" philosophy are such broad categories that it's difficult to make generalizations. Within each category one finds extensive diversity on both how central history of philosophy is and how history of philosophy is approached.

It's often said that continental philosophy, speaking in general terms, more often has a central concern with history of philosophy. This is probably true, but not so much that it overcomes the breadth of positions within "analytic" and within "continental" philosophy.