The most of them are incapable of reasoning without using as a help here and there some shreds of scientific military theory.

The smallest of these fragments, consisting in mere scientific words and metaphors, are often nothing more than ornamental flourishes of critical narration.

Now it is in the nature of things that all technical and scientific expressions which belong to a system lose their propriety, if they ever had any, as soon as they are distorted, and used as general axioms, or as small crystalline talismans, which have more power of demonstration than simple speech.
Thus it has come to pass that our theoretical and critical books, instead of being straightforward, intelligible dissertations, in which the author always knows at least what he says and the reader what he reads, are brimful of these technical terms, which form dark points of interference where author and reader part company.

But frequently they are something worse, being nothing but hollow shells without any kernel.
The author himself has no clear perception of what he means, contents himself with vague ideas, which if expressed in plain language would be unsatisfactory even to himself.
A third fault in criticism is the MISUSE of HISTORICAL EXAMPLES, and a display of great reading or learning.

What the history of the Art of War is we have already said, and we shall further explain our views on examples and on military history in general in special chapters.