The article traces the largely forgotten early interactions between medieval historians and computational methods in West Germany during the 1960s and 1970s. Focusing on three key figures – Carl August Lückerath, Herbert Zielinski, and Gerd Althoff – the article examines how medievalists conceived of the computer as a research tool and debated its methodological implications. The study reconstructs the tactics scholars employed to make computation conceivable within the framework of historical inquiry. Rather than relying on the now-ubiquitous and abstract concept of the „digital,“ these scholars conceptualized computers primarily as physical machines. Their engagement with the technology unfolded in an environment where computing was neither commonplace nor intuitive, but rather dependent on knowledge of specific machine operations and technologies such as mainframe computers, information encoding on punched cards, and numerical and nonnumerical data processing. The article argues that the early use of these technologies prompted a series of methodological reflections that have since been overlooked. It elaborates on three aspects of this debate. First, the discussion focused on the computer as a research tool rather than a platform for „digital tools.“ Second, the notion of „digital“ methods was absent. Instead, scholars expected computers to enable faster and more rigorous implementation of „analog“ methods, such as historical statistics and documentation, as well as ancillary disciplines’ tasks, such as heraldry and diplomatics. Medievalists such as Lückerath, Zielinski, and Althoff also envisioned using computers for qualitative inquiries, particularly prosopography. Third, many concerns that are still central to current debates about computational methods – especially the formalization and encoding of uncertainty in historical facts – were already articulated at the time. Even among skeptics, the central metaphor framing this discourse was the card file (Zettelkasten). The computer was seen as an electronic equivalent of the first-order operations typically performed with index cards, such as sorting, indexing, and comparing the results of source criticism. In conclusion, rather than viewing this phase as merely a prelude to the digital era, the article positions it as a period of epistemological experimentation that illuminates the ongoing tension between historical hermeneutics and computational logic. Tracing these early experiments offers insight into the histories of medieval and digital history, as well as current discussions about the intersection of source criticism, historical hermeneutics, and computerized methods in the 21st century.