And there we have the problem Fred. Haig was a good general despite making grotesque errors of judgement, because (some) historians say so.

WWI was a good war and had to be fought despite it resulting in the deaths of 17 million people, because (some) historians say so. They don't all, despite what I said earlier about Andrew Adonis not being an historian, he has a degree and a PhD in modern history, whereas Max Hastings appears not to have completed even his first degree. Adonis is far more of a historian than Hastings.

Historians can research the events of the time, and find out what Haig's grotesque errors were, and what the death toll was, and write it down. It is not for them to then say Haig was a good leader, or the war was worthwhile. They need to wind their necks in, to use an Australianism. Those judgements will be made on moral grounds and by others.