Maybe war is studied more as anomalies in diplomatic history? Add bit of geopolitics and economic history and you probably can get lot closer to the underlying

Maybe war is studied more as anomalies in diplomatic history? Add bit of geopolitics and economic history and you probably can get lot closer to the underlying reasons. Why did the winnig party win? Why did they use their wictory the way they did? These are the actually interesting questions. Studying individual generals, weapons and tactics gets you only so far. And even then such details average out in the long run. For example long running concentration to logistics at West Point probably explain more about current U.S. military hegemony than battlefield performance of any one general.