Think about it Naz. There's two kinds or historians, those that were there to experience the things they write about, and those that rewrite the things they've read in other history books. Take Troy for instance, it's history was recounted by soldiers who fought in that war, which in turn was recounted by a Greek poet, which in turn was rewritten by a Roman historian, which in turn was kept by an Arab scholar, which in turn was translated by a Roman Catholic priest, and so on and so on... It has been transformed over the centuries and turned into this great epic with magic and heroism, so that it's now called a myth. But when the city was finally found, there lay in the ruins evidence of the events that were written of in the story we have today.
Did those people who rewrote that story over and over really know what they were talking about? They weren't there to witness those events. But they think that because they've read two or three books offering different points of view that they have the big picture and they can interpret history correctly.
Events either took place or they didn't, there's no room for interpretation. But war historians who have fought in their own wars have shared similar experiences with the people they write about, so they have a unique point of view. They may not have been there to see it for themselves, but they understand the thoughts and feelings of the people who were there.
It's true, Multi, that some historians focus on the battles and the tactics that were used in a war, but others focus on the events leading up to the war, and the events following. Those are the books worth reading. They don't engrain their readers with warlike ideas, they teach about the failures and triumphs of civilization. The battles themselves may become bizzare pieces of history, but the events in between must not be forgotten along with them.