Telling history through geography is quite different from the history I'm used to. Throughout my student days, I've been learning about people and events with little regard to places. Places are tricky because, like events, they don't tell a whole story by themselves, but, paired with other forms and ways of telling history, can be a wonderful guide to learning about the relationship between events, people, and space. Maps can also be a great way to tell history because of its interactive nature; users are actively making an effort to explore an area. They are, in a way, participants, which is quite different to reading an article or essay. This is not to denigrate writing. I think that writing offers a completely different type of immersion that is valuable and enriching, but maps allow you to see history visualized, and that experience can change your perspective on history. You might realize, for instance, the distance that an army travelled to get to a battlefield. You might start to get an idea of the difficulty of fighting in an army (even before the fighting starts).
In the future, I think that it's possible that historians could use mapping tools in their papers, or at least as a companion to their papers. The mapping tools, paired with a traditional essay, can be an effective way of presenting history, and it's also a way of marrying digital technology with history. History as a field might be behind the times technologically, but I can see a future where digital tools can become a part of historical research, although I would certainly like to hear any dissenting voices on this issue. It's important to consider the points-of-view of older or more traditional historians who might be wary of using digital tools in their work.