Gordian

I've noticed that many try to put modern conventions into the ancients and that's wrong. Also, military strategists obsession with Cannae hasn't been a boon to my line of work; especailly in the 20th century. Think Germany before WWI and the Schlieffen plan. But considering history as completely academic feels empty to me on a personal level. I consider Plutarch to be a great man because he was willing to try to find virtues and vices from great historical figures. In this way, he could inspire people to try to aspire to the virtues of great leaders while tying to avoid their vices. This makes sense to me.

Greetings! I recently read, "Rubicon" by Holland. I enjoyed the book but disagreed with some of his comparisons to comtemporary times through the lense of the fall of the republic. Shortly after, I myself started to write a paper using the conflict between Milo and Clodius as a comparison with today's current political climate in America. Nothing like the pot calling the kettle black. I'm in the US military and I'm in the OCS (Officer Candidate School) program. Military history is part of the ciriculum so this topic has again come up. I'd like to hear some opinions from you concering this topic. Is historical comparison worth it? Does history give blue prints you can mimic? Is history something practical you can use for grand strategy, especially militarily? I'm new to posting so please excuse me if this topic has already been done. Thanks!