ABSTRACT
History is both the past and how we produce accounts of the past. Each can be understood in part in terms of the other, and military history is no exception. However, 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 long-term contours of the subject. In particular, whereas all history inevitably addresses present concerns, it is important to appreciate that these concerns will change.
