Realism is one of the most discussed issues in both philosophy of science and philosophy of historiography. However, these two debates about realism have very little in common, strategically and positionally speaking. In this paper, I explain the differences between the two debates and the resulting problems in the debate about realism in the philosophy of historiography. To be more specific, I argue that there are fundamental differences between the debates when it comes to (i) the interpretation of what realism implies, (ii) sources of insights in the arguments, and (iii) the generality of the supposed consequences of the arguments. Together these differences create a situation where the strategies used in the debates differ, that is, the debates differ in what types of arguments are considered reasonable, adequate, and proportional with respect to the questions asked.