Why is this egregious nonsense? The facts are right and so are the dates
and the names, yet it makes one blush for Oxford history. Why? Because
the all-important element of _distance_ is omitted. The very first
question a plain man would ask about the case would be, "What were the
distances involved?" The academic historian doesn't know, or, at least,
doesn't say; yet without an appreciation of the distances the statement
has no value. As a fact the distances were such that in the first case
(supposing Moore had been at Valladolid) Napoleon would have had to
cover nearly three miles to Moore's one to intercept him--an almost
superhuman task. In the second case (Moore being as a fact at Sahagun)
he would have had to go over _four miles_ to his opponent's one--an
absolutely impossible feat.

To march _three_ miles to the enemy's _one_ is what Mr. Oman
calls "a comparatively easy task"; to march four to his one is what Mr.
Oman calls a "much harder" task; and to write like that is what an
informed critic calls bad history.

The other two factors in an historical judgment can be more easily
measured.

The non-human elements which, as I have said, are irremovable (save to
miracle), are topography, climate, season, local physical conditions,
and so forth. They have two valuable characters in aid of history; the
first is that they correct the errors of human memory and support the
accuracy of details; the second is that they enable us to complete a
picture. We can by their aid "see" the physical framework in which an
action took place, and such a landscape helps the judgment of things
past as it does of things contemporary. Thus the map, the date, the
soil, the contours of Crecy field make the traditional spot at which the