To anyone familiar with the field of military history, the article should come as no surprise. Victor Davis Hanson has an axe to grind with anything vaguely "le

To anyone familiar with the field of military history, the article should come as no surprise. Victor Davis Hanson has an axe to grind with anything vaguely "left" of his own reactionary politics, and frankly embodies some of the worst characteristics of the whole field. Military history is filled with right-wing reactionary cranks. Cynically, you could say that the field attracts (and keeps) those interested in history who either want to ignore social and cultural elements of historical events, or want to explicitly advocate for specific societies and cultures being superior based on their record in the field of battle. It does not help that much of the field is driven by popular history books which must be engaging for lay readers, yet the truly important parts of many military operations are often quite boring (e.g. the essential role of logistics and basic day-to-day intelligence work) or remain unknown to this day (e.g. still classified, or simply weren't documented in the first place).