He knows his stuff, but is so caught up in himself that he cannot even perceive his own weaknesses.

If you want pure military history, of no real applicable importance or depth, he's your man.

Screw Aristotle and Plato and Socrates! Screw Aristophanes! They are of no importance. We must know the troop movements of minimally important tyrants as they fought against their carbon copy enemies.

He gave us a hypothetical question in a history class. If that doesn't fling your head off in a tizzy of epistemological fury, then you'll probably like him. The question itself was profoundly absurd.

It was a bit like saying:
What if the Byzantine Empire still existed? What if India had resisted colonization?
Yes,and?

If you step back, you'll see that it is pure nonsense.

If you're going to give a hypothetical question in a history class, at least label the class as "Rhetoric 101" or rather, "Sophism 101".

He is a good teacher and has a sort of obnoxious charm that only a good looking and confident man can posses.

I am probably being too harsh. He knows he's intelligent, but doesn't even try to masque it in a charmingly aloof or slightly self-deprecating way.

I've had far better and far more erudite professors that don't take themselves so seriously.

Pure military history has been stale for decades. There is nothing to add and nothing to subtract, just slight reformulations of no actual substance.

Does it really matter if X invasion happened in 435 BC or 436 BC? No it doesn't.

Enough of my snot nosed rants!

He is actually a good teacher,pay attention and you'll do just fine. He is a fair grader and a good orator, it is his methodology than I have a problem with.

I have only written this rant knowing that such a conceited man probably checks this site every night, with the same predictable frequency of a Catholic schoolgirl giving thanks to Mary before sleep.