I think we both agree and disagree at the same time, if such a ting is possible.

The accumlatiuon of knowlege for its own sake is fruitless. Yes. Both there are two kinds of knowledge - one is positivistic factual: How many, where, what year. This is what many mistake the discipline of History to be. The other is more holistic: Why did it happen, what does this tell us about the society, what does this tell us about human existance at the time.

The two go hand in hand, but it is clearly the latter (which cannot exist without the former) that holds meaning for mankind. This is really what "History" can contribute to the greater society. This is where we learn.

So you need someone to engage in the Polip. war in detail to extract the motives and hopes and fears of the contemporary people. This is hard work, and can easily take a lifetime of research. But you are lost "in your subject" if you do not put it into a greater perspective and shows your audience the impact of the events you uncover from the mists of time.

So I think you are right, the grudge I hold angainst popular history is that it mostly builds on some facts combined with guesswork, and does not show routes into understanding the topic. I would be the first, however, to admit that there are some who can do quite an outstanding job in portraying the past.

Oh, I ramble...

/KotR