Any video, lecture or book that can outline the evolution of western military tactics and gear?

[PaleBlueDot]

I love to learn about how evolutionary pressure drives change over time in fields such as biology, linguistics and of course warfare. I have come across interesting bits of information here and there, e.g. how chariots were replaced by cavalry as breeding eventually allowed warriors to ride horses into battle, how Scandinavian climates could not easily sustain war horses and vikings used the boar's head formation to break the enemy lines, how pikes and crossbow were used together as an effective counter to armored knights etc.

Is there any documentary series, online lectures or book etc that teaches me all the basics about this evolution, including strength and weaknesses for various weapons, armors, tactics and how these changed from archaic or classical time until gunpowder, either worldwide or in western context? (Books with lots of pictures and illustrations are preferred)

Thank you!

[Linke]

Im sorry. I cant help you but I allsp would be interested in such a book.
European warfare would often be tied in with that in West Asia, the Chariot thing you mentioned for exampe ocured rather there than in Europe.

[conon394]

I love to learn about how evolutionary pressure drives change over time in fields such as biology, linguistics and of course warfare. I have come across interesting bits of information here and there, e.g. how chariots were replaced by cavalry as breeding eventually allowed warriors to ride horses into battle, how Scandinavian climates could not easily sustain war horses and vikings used the boar's head formation to break the enemy lines, how pikes and crossbow were used together as an effective counter to armored knights etc.

Is there any documentary series, online lectures or book etc that teaches me all the basics about this evolution, including strength and weaknesses for various weapons, armors, tactics and how these changed from archaic or classical time until gunpowder, either worldwide or in western context? (Books with lots of pictures and illustrations are preferred)

Thank you!

Depends really there or thousands of Books and lots opinions that disagree...

Warfare in the Classical World by Warry, is a good general introduction to the Classical era

http://www.amazon.com/Warfare-Classi.../dp/0806127945

The Age of Battles: The Quest for Decisive Warfare from Breitenfeld to Waterloo by Weigley is excellent for the period it well covers (in the title).

http://www.amazon.com/Age-Battles-De...0886449&sr=1-6

Guns Sails and Empires by Cipolla is a fine look had how Western pout all the pieces together at the right time dominate all the worlds oceans starting around 1400

Early Riders: The Beginnings of Mounted Warfare in Asia and Europe

is a solid look ant the development of mounted warfare

------------

On the Possibility of Reconstructing Marathon and Other Ancient Battles by N Whatley (a Paper)

Remains a must read since it provides important perspective how much putty and guess work and assumption Historians, Military historians, etc use when they actually try to produce a narrative of a battle or campaign etc.

[PaleBlueDot]

Those books really seem interesting, but I am looking for something that covers a much longer period, looks at the big lines, draws parallels between periods etc and does not go in too much detail about any period, battle, monarch etc. To cover everything I am interested in using such specific titles as "the beginnings of mounted warfare in Asia and Europe" I would have to buy many dozens of books and spend years reading. I just want the big outlines.

On Reddit I was suggested this title:
http://www.amazon.com/Soul-Sword-Ill.../dp/0684844079

It looks just like what I'm looking for but from looking at the amazon preview it contains very few illustrations. I prefer to see lots visual examples. I am sure there are hundreds of books, online university lecture series, youtube documentaries etc on exactly what I am looking for, but there is so much content out there that it is hard to sort through. One of the reviewers of this book even wrote "Do we really need another illustrated history of weaponry?", suggesting there is a lot out there. I would like to find the best.

[conon394]

I just want the big outlines.

Then you get bad history, or rather history so generalized its almost pointless.

From the link:

"Mankind's history has been determined by war"

Really not say fire, or tool making, or agriculture, or social organization, or the industrial revolution, or the odd genius at the right place at the right time, sailing, the printing press, language, religion, epidemics etc...

So you really mean you want a cool coffee table book not history?

[PaleBlueDot]

Then you get bad history, or rather history so generalized its almost pointless.

From the link:

"Mankind's history has been determined by war"

Really not say fire, or tool making, or agriculture, or social organization, or the industrial revolution, or the odd genius at the right place at the right time, sailing, the printing press, language, religion, epidemics etc...

So you really mean you want a cool coffee table book not history?

I agree that the book above does not seem great, which is why I ask for more suggestions.
However I very strongly disagree and I find your response almost disrespectful, not just to me but also to world historians and other generalists. History can be taught at any scale from the specifics in practices of fishermen from the 1720's Bergen to World history. Knowing a lot about a specific subject is not superior to understanding the big outlines, it is just different. One of the best history courses I ever heard was this one http://www.thegreatcourses.com/cours...-humanity.html, which is general to the extreme, yet incredibly fascinating and taught me a lot I could not have learned from other history courses. However what I'm asking for is much more specific: I would like to know, in broad lines, how western military gear and tactics evolved. What advantages the spear or axe had over the sword, why circular shields were replaced by kite shields etc. If you call that a coffee table book then that's what I'm looking for. I am an architect, not a historian, and I don't have enough spare time to learn everything about everything. I am also tired of people (especially engineers) who think that specialists are superior to generalists.

[conon394]

However I very strongly disagree and I find your response almost disrespectful, not just to me but also to world historians and other generalists

Certainly I have no disrespect for you at all but I do have problem with Generalist and over Broad History it is often just wrong.

History can be taught at any scale from the specifics in practices of fishermen from the 1720's Bergen to World history

But at the scale of World history you are getting just broad generalizations that are in fact often bad broad generalizations. Case and Point the Ideal that in the classical people could not read quietly - that is to themselves and not moving their lips - still gets taught, published and repeated now. The original ideal was about 120 years old now but it was completely demolished and debunked about 40-50 years ago. But the ideal having become lodged in Conventional Wisdom remains in General histories.

Knowing a lot about a specific subject is not superior to understanding the big outlines

How do make big outlines w/o knowing the specific subjects? The big outlines can be crafted rather differently depending which source you choose or how you choose to use them.

However what I'm asking for is much more specific: I would like to know, in broad lines, how western military gear and tactics evolved. What advantages the spear or axe had over the sword, why circular shields were replaced by kite shields etc

And you can't really do that with a generalist book because you are looking for absolutes when military history is not some linear progression. Sometimes things just change for style or local reasons or loss of trade. But again I gave you such a source in warry's book and you rejected it. There is no good way to link the Classical World to the Medieval and then to the Age of the Firearm. The development of large 'cold blooded' horses fundamentally changed what heavy cavalry could do, as did advances in steel and also what cheap printed books could do for literacy and its value and the nature of trade in the Mediterranean and religion and well and endless number of the other things.

If you are really interested in in History stay with at minimum more focused general histories of regions and eras so that hopefully the author is aware of both the best and worst of research on the era and can make a coherent judgment about how use them

I am an architect, not a historian, and I don't have enough spare time to learn everything about everything. I am also tired of people (especially engineers) who think that specialists are superior to generalists.

As a generalist myself I can have some sympathy but the fact is why I may have a general understanding and some experience in some kinds of programing If I need to use PERL than I have specific PERL books at my computer side not a programing 201 book. Or I have the experience to say sorry what you need is a specialist because sometime you really do need the Guy with 15 years of SAP experience and not me.

But the History is more pernicious, unlike Architecture or Engineering there is no handbook, no modern set of data produced by rigorous tests and no Google to get you the things need to make yourself and expert in 3 months etc. The data is scattered and biased and almost always open to interpretation. On small scale its profound how much simple differences in emendation and related assumptions and or what you see on a rubbing from stele lost in WW2 can make to a whole narrative. And by scattered I mean only second hand accounts of what somebody said they though they read and wrote down (I hope they were really good) and before more refined methods of say understanding letter spacing came into effect. Or having Heinrich Schliemann bulldoze a ton of history into oblivion just to find his holy grail - maybe. Or how much data is simply sitting around in boxes because no Historian has the resources to send a student to the MET to look or say the time to track down the references in some work. Thus the Myth of Rome salting Carthage is born or the myth of inefficient classical horse harness as well and thus we get the Medieval Renaissance of White with Europe suddenly doing not stupid things like the Greeks and Romans.

But let me provide one last example.

The Ancient economy by Finley. Now it is a very good book you almost certainly be assigned to read as Classical History Major and its powerful well constructed prose and easy reading and an updated appendix made before the author's death and the status of the author and his students in the fullness of their careers means it the easy go to source for a 'Generalist' world history if the question is the Ancient Economy in their lecture/video/book. But the fact is his view has been challenged powerfully by what you might the 'modernist school' of Ancient Economics. Also he lacked a good sense of Statistics so makes many assertions based on data samples that simple would not pass muster for say an Economist or a Geneticist (see Sian Lewis and or Edward Cohan for a forceful rebuttal to the ideal that ancient data can be used with modern statistics and they right the data set is simply not viable). The problem is lacking a good feeling for the deep divide about Classical economics - a generalist history can/could easily fall into the trap of picking the Famous Finley and his Embedded views over the realistically more likely Modernist view.

Same goes with something like Paul Kennedy's Rise and fall of the Great Powers. Its economic determinism is well elucidated - but it fails to say deal with why Athens and later Macedonia failed to loose to Persia. It might well be fine for a limited period of time in some cases in Europe in a restricted era - but even then he ignores much and assumes much.

Thus again I am sorry I don't believe in world history the generalizations are too much, the assumptions too broad the dependance on picking a CW source(s) to often, the data too fragmented.

Thus your question

What advantages the spear or axe had over the sword

Is a nonsensical question What kind of weapon? Made how? When? With what material? Used by whom? On what day? Under what leader? In the hands of what troops? Militia, Hardened Veterans - Loyal or not? Surprised men or ready with a plan (and the right one for the day).

[Linke]

I guess you could get Books comparing first antiquitis warfare and then a book Copernicus the change from that to medieval and then from medieval to European. But not everything in one book.

[Colossus]

I disagree with some of what Conon has said concerning world history. Of course, it cannot be as well researched as specific works can, as the author will not be as familiar with the literature and especially primary sources. However, it can and is still done by people who are respectable historians. For example, Ian Morris, who you are presumably familiar with given mention of ancient economies, has branched out from very specific archeological topics to trying to explain every that has ever happened! Now my personal view is that he rates himself a bit too much, though some of this may related to publishers. Saying that, there are also several scholars who are very much 'world historians'. Misunderstanding and debunking is not confined to 'generalist' history, as history is only as good as the research it is based on. Very specialised fields can also be radically reevaluated, as I am sure you know. To call certain history generalised as a blanket term is unhelpful, as you can always go more or less focused. For example, an excellent book on x country or y century will probably be written by someone who specialises in a much finer part of that topic - yet someone has to take up the task. If they did not, no one else would ever become a specialist, as they cannot first accessibly digest the relevant context. If you want to know about something, read a book at the appropriate level (be it an undergrad degree or reading on the sofa on a Sunday afternoon for fun). If you want more specialism, look in the notes/bibliography and read something more detailed.

Trying to look for long term forces of change (most world histories do this somehow, e.g. in terms of economy such as Kennedy or geography as many others do) can be very rewarding, and if nothing else, very interesting. Given that this has some relation to the Annales tradition, which is extremely in depth and anything but light going, I do not think it is fair to say that world history is less worthwhile. It is a very different approach. Some fields such as environmental history naturally require a long view, depending on what you are seeking to explain. As long as it is academically credible, it is certainly not 'bad history'. I mainly study fairly specific things, but I certainly wouldn't dismiss world history, and find it very interesting.

Academic debates aside, for those who are not historians or are studying history to degree level, world history is interesting and accessible. There is a lot to be said for that. If a synthesis of many more detailed and specific pieces of research can offer that information to a wider audience, that is a good thing. History is not a closed shop.

*

To offer some suggestions to the OP:

William H. McNeill, The Pursuit of Power

John Keegan, A History of Warfare

Richard Overy, A History of War in 100 Battles

The one thing I might say is that it is more difficult to find something as focused on equipment as you might like. In terms of evolution, there are always going to be wider forces involved. Hence why these books will mention discuss things such as politics, society and economy in a wider context. This undeniably necessary for understanding why warfare changed as it did.