This contribution shifts the debate on ‘applied history’ from the archetypal question abouts terminology and definition (‘what’s in a name’) to its current context and potential (‘why it is here again, and why it is most probably here to stay’). Those advocating ‘applied history’ in the Netherlands and Flanders by and large agree on a shared endeavour to apply both historical skills and insights to contemporary societal debates. They thereby tend to promote long-term, comparative and out-of-the-box thinking to confront today’s (wicked) problems. In these endeavours they offer an alternative to writing commissioned histories and commercial joint ventures, as well as to the 'public history' initiatives co-created by heritage institutions, museums or media outlets. Changing constellations of ideas and incentives in education, science, and society have certainly helped to create an incubation period for the development of applied history. History curricula now allow students to experience their added value in the workplace, research programmes ask to reflect upon the impact and valorisation of historical research, and most of all, younger generations are eager to merge postmodern approaches with clear societal achievements and are trying to do so on safe ethical and methodological grounds. This contribution argues that applied and fundamental research in the field of history could be mutually beneficial, rather than antithetical or antipathetic, and that both approaches can reinforce each other in future. Deze bijdrage verschuift het debat over ‘toegepaste geschiedenis’ van de archetypische vragen over terminologie en definities (‘what’s in a name?’) naar zijn huidige context en potentieel (‘waarom is het opnieuw hier en waarom zal het hoogstwaarschijnlijk blijven?’). In Nederland en Vlaanderen zijn voorstanders van toegepaste geschiedenis het grotendeels eens over een gezamenlijk streven om zowel historische vaardigheden als inzichten toe te passen op maatschappelijke debatten. Daarbij hebben ze de neiging om ...