I guess the article is ego. No hint of actually studying military history deeply enough to be more than a Wellington fan boy. Don't get me wrong, Wellington was

I guess the article is ego. No hint of actually studying military history deeply enough to be more than a Wellington fan boy. Don't get me wrong, Wellington was brilliant commander. But covering the Battle of Waterloo in one short paragraph, saying it was Wellington who defeated Napoleon, without even hinting at the Prussian contribution and some command and control issues on the French side (parts of Napoleons army came late) is, well, sad for someone who actually studied history. But well, how else would you be able to write about your Wellington-style chess game? Edit: Oh dear, Agincourt. Famously, the ground was so muddy that day that French armored knights had to fight on foot... No, English longbow men did not defeat armoured cavalery, said cavalery fought as armored infantry. One could imagine how it would have went if French could have fought indeed on horse back...