We had some time ago a thread opened by Phrossack in which he pondered whether history, and military history in particular, are useless. I honestly think this may not be the case. Weapons and military tactics - or the lack thereof- may actually be of massive importance of macrohistorical scholarship. Consider Machine Guns: These effectively made horse cavalry obsolete. The result was trench warfare, followed by the usage of tanks and airplanes, in part to counter machine guns as a tactical challenge to an offensive. This mobilised warfare to the point that by WWII, nations could be overrun in months if not days. Then came nukes - perhaps worth noting oceans seperate the United States from Germany, Japan and the USSR. We see nukes as a unique threat to humanity which they very possibly are, though ultimately a result of a process that has been in the making since wars have been fought among humans. The infantry revolution in around the 1300s may have prepared the seeds for the modern concept of the nation-state, in the same vein. Is military history really that useless?