I would argue that a study of history which neglects "the physics" is hardly an education of history at all. World War 1 would not have been the same without m

I would argue that a study of history which neglects "the physics" is hardly an education of history at all. World War 1 would not have been the same without machine guns and chemical weapons. How was it that these manufacturing processes scaled up to meet the needs of major national warfare? What was it about mustard gas that made it such an effective tool? Why was it not used more widely? Why was it used just as much as it was? Why use that and not a different kind of gas? How did they acquire the resources for, process, and send this deadly substance miles and miles to the front lines where it could be used without erupting and killing one's own troops? To truly understand these kinds of questions, a scholar must take into account the entire scope of history, not just the narrative. History is everything.