ABSTRACT
It is not surprising that military historians devote relatively little attention to how their subject is done. The kind of scholar who works in the field generally seeks a more ‘hands on’ approach, and the minority of a more theoretical disposition prefer to address the issue of the development of military thought. As a consequence, the historiography of military history, both as academic subject and as a more popular field of literature, is underwritten. This is a pity from the perspective of historiography, but also has consequences from that of military history as it encourages any one generation of writers to write with insufficient reference to the contours of the subject. If all history inevitably addresses present concerns it is important to appreciate that these concerns will change.
