“The historian must choose between generalizations which are never quite true in any specific instance and an incomprehensible anarchy of individual cases.”
Prof. Normal Hampson, quoted in “The History of Christianity”, which I was browsing through this morning.
But that’s the trouble all right – this is where arguments come in, because situations are always too complex to really sum up properly. So you get one guy saying “the Battle of Britain was a comprehensive victory” and another saying “they didn’t destroy the German Air Force”, both have valid points, but the first is more true.
For example, Jordan‘s latest post could well be true, but it just reeks of bollocks!
For starters, would Cromwell even be worried about Brash with Clark about???