“More than most professions, the military is forced to depend on an intelligent interpretation of the past for directions that chart the future.... Facts come from analysis historical that he [the soldier] applies to the conditions of the present and near future, thus developing a synthesis of adequate method, organization and doctrine... These principles know no time limits. As a result, the Army extends its analytical interest to accounts buried in the dust of past wars as well as those that still reek of the odor of battle. It is the object of research that dictates the field for its pursuit. short parameters of the year, so the task of fitting in an extra week of reading for this assignment was quite daunting. Unfortunately this answer is not sufficient and I am forced to continue. I am an avid follower of military history, so I decided that this form of history could certainly be a viable topic for the course syllabus and crucial to understanding historiography. An all-encompassing definition of military history is that it is a special historical subject. discipline that “deals with military phenomena” and “covers the entire spectrum of different manifestations and interconnections”. It qualifies as a science as long as it retains its “historical-critical method,” and neglecting this method would compromise its attempt to achieve “scientific-scholarly status.” principles that govern the methodology. However... half the paper...", but the reality test must be passed for the fact to be considered scientifically acceptable. They should be able to answer these pertinent questions: "Is it possible, and at the same time credible, that did a certain event really happen, or could it really have been as the sources make it out to be?” “The correctives available in this process are provided by (1) the 'laws' (condensed historical experience) of the theory of war, by 2) historically unchanged topogeographic conditions, and by (3) what we know to be physiologically or technically possible.” It was thanks to Delbruck's Sachkritik that he “altered several 'established truths' about major battles or features of classical and medieval warfare,” and this method of factual criticism became a “conscious part of the normal approach of war historians to their objects of study”..”15