In the field of medicine we have a lot of experience that suggests finding out causation is really hard. Anecdotal evidence frequently leads people astray. For some reason people think that just because good quality evidence isn't available, they can get by with lower quality evidence when it comes to a domain such as history and still find out about causality.

Assumption on your part which are false. Actually, nutrition levels and environmental effects are huge. It's also worth studying.

If nutrition levels are the main reason for nation for Bismarck's actions, then Napoleon isn't.

The witty quips are lame.

You assumed my intention is "shredding" light when it's much better described as wanting to show that there's darkness.

My concern is not so much about individual points but about the method being wrong.