It is no real secret that as a discipline, military history is sometimes held in low regard by other historians.
The crux of his argument is that military history needs to be studied so that we can have less wars. He throws shade at other historians for looking down on military history. But as a total outside to this debate, who am I to trust?
It is no real secret that as a discipline, military history is sometimes held in low regard by other historians.
The crux of his argument is that military history needs to be studied so that we can have less wars. He throws shade at other historians for looking down on military history. But as a total outside to this debate, who am I to trust?