Is Francis Parkman Considered a Great Historian?

I think so.
I have just finished reading his epic work “Montcalm and Wolfe”-his history of the French and Indian Wars.
Even though the book was written over 130 years ago, it is very readable today.
It seems well-researched, with extensive references.
Later historians claimed that Parkman’s work was amateurish, and faulted him for his alleged pro-British/anti-French bias…but I didn’t think that he maligned Montcalm in any way…indeed, he was full of praise for Gen. Montcalm’s gallantry (he personally intervened to prevent several indian masscres of british colonials.)
What do modern historians think of parkman?

I’d be inclined to say he’s generally regarded as an important figure in American historiography, but also a product of his time and thus biased in certain respects and flawed.

For a more modern take on the Seven Years’ War in the U.S., I’d suggest Fred Anderson’s Crucible of War:* The Seven Years’ War and the Fate of Empire in British North America, 1754-1766*. Pretty solid account that not incidentally won the Francis Parkman prize.

I second Tamerlane’s recommendation on Fred Anderson’s excellent history. For a decidedly anti-Parkman view read Francis Jennings The Ambiguous Iroquois Empire.

I always heard he was a great narrative historian and perhaps the icon of narrative history. Given the specific genre of narrative history, I think Parkman is “great” according to many views. In contrast, David Hackett Fischer is (in at least some of his work like Albion’s Seed) iconic of a new breed of quantitative historians (for which there is some special term that I can’t think of).

I finally obtained a copy of Anderson’s book, and read it.
What struck me most was how Anderson copied the format of Parkman’s book (Chapters with brief synopses in the first page, analysis of the player’s motives).
To be frank, I don’t see where Anderson has introduced much new material-he relies upon the same references as Parkman did, all those years ago,