Good sources for iron age/middle ages tactics and strategy?

[Cycloneman]

I'm interested in different weapons, strategies, and tactics that came in and out of fashion, as well as where and why, in the pre-Gunpowder era. Their counters, what they countered, how terrain/climate effected tactics, what social developments effected conscript versus volunteer armies, etc. It would be much appreciated.

[Setzer]

http://www.amazon.com/Warfare-Classical ... 0806127945

I'd give this a strong recommendation. It's not very indepth, but it's got a little bit of everything from Homeric hoplites to the fall of Rome.

[Steve]

That's a wide swath of history. As for pre-gunpowder battle, the work I'm most acquainted with is Victor D. Hanson's The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece, which uses source material from Greek-era writing to explore and elaborate upon the elements of hoplite warfare. He also wrote A War Like No Other to examine the elements of the Peloponnesian War in particular.

[Thanas]

Hanson is not somebody you should trust, ever.

[Zinegata]

I'd go for Keegan's Face of Battle - particularly the first third which covers Agincourt.

[Thanas]

Keegan is also problematic. To be honest, the book the OP is searching for does not exist. And it cannot exist, for it is too much to ask.

[Elheru Aran]

Best thing to do would be to research the individual civilizations/nations you're looking at.

For example, there are a number of books that cover 'ancient' warfare-- from Phoenicia through Egypt to the Assyrians and sometimes including the Greeks and Romans.

Then you have books that focus more on the Romans, Greeks, Celts, and what not individually as well as together ("warriors of the classic world", blah blah). There aren't many outside of this for the regular person though-- for example, I honestly haven't seen much about the Chinese military throughout history.

After that during the Dark Ages, you're looking at reading about the early Muslims, the Franks and Merovingians, Byzantines. Not many books on these, honestly.

Entering the Middle Ages there will be a number of books that cover the period, frequently they'll focus on the Hundred Years' War (Agincourt, Crecy, etc) but you might also see the Welsh and Scottish conflicts, as well as the Swiss. Italy and Germany were largely split up into small principalities or nations at this point.

Really I think the best thing for you to do is perhaps pick up a few Osprey books-- they have a series that cover battles in particular, and that might show you some strategy and tactics. Then dive into the bibliography in the back of those books, and that'll give you a more educated perspective.

[FTeik]

Anything by Hans Delbruck, if it has been translated into english.

[Thanas]

Oh yeah. Delbrück is far better than any Osprey book. However, keep in mind that he is from the early 20th century.

[Steve]

Hanson is not somebody you should trust, ever.

Well, I mostly trust him on issues of his field of study: classical Greece.

*looks around, hides copies of Carnage and Culture and Soul of Battle in closet*

[Thanas]

Hanson is not somebody you should trust, ever.

Well, I mostly trust him on issues of his field of study: classical Greece.

...and not even on that, seeing as how his main theory has not really been that accepted.

[MarxII]

I got about a third of the way through Soul of Battle. Can't say I cared for it, much.

But having just read through Tacitus' Annals and Histories, I did enjoy the descriptions of ancient Germanic warfare, which might be a rather specific example of what you're looking for.

[Zinegata]

Keegan has some "Rent Was Due!" books, but Face of Battle has near-universal acclaim and does give a fair amount of coverage of medieval tactics in the first section.

[Steve]

Hanson is not somebody you should trust, ever.

Well, I mostly trust him on issues of his field of study: classical Greece.

...and not even on that, seeing as how his main theory has not really been that accepted.

Oh? I'm curious, what particularly hasn't been accepted by scholars?

[Thanas]

Oh? I'm curious, what particularly hasn't been accepted by scholars?

His thesis that the Greek were made somewhat special soldiers due to the specific farming and philosophies of them. His books are not really used, or at least were not used whenever a specialist taught me about Greek warfare.

But then again, when a guy starts spouting stuff like "Athens = USA", then it is save to say that this calls his whole research into question.

Keegan, on the other hand, is a good scholar. The problem with him is that he often writes or comments about stuff that is not his specialty, which can lead to some eye-rolling moments. However, in general, his book is a great introduction, though I would still argue Dehlbrück is the better of the two as he has a way of criticising sources which some modern historians would benefit greatly from.

[Big Orange]

Dr. Adrian Goldsworthy's many popular books on Roman warfare are recommended and they're fairly easy to come by at bookstore outlets and on Amazon.

Osprey books are really glorified pamphlets, but Vienna 1683 (Simon Millar) cites German texts like Leonard Korth's Markgraf Ludwig Wilhelm von Baden, der Turkenlouis and Karl Toifel's Die Turken vor Wien im Jahre 1683 in its bibliography section.

[Elheru Aran]

The main reason I threw Ospreys out there is many of their books have at least a bit commenting on the various battles with maps and such, and they even have a series specifically about battles and what not. From that, if that's just the sort of thing the OP is looking for ("ooh, so THAT's how they did that, nice map"), that'll suit him for a fairly inexpensive price. However, if he wants to go deeper for a better understanding of the subject matter, the books generally do have a fair list of reference sources in their bibliographies, as I noted, and he can go after those in their turn.

I will second Goldsworthy, I have his 'The Complete Roman Army' and I'm enjoying it currently. Was surprised to find it at the library.

[LaCroix]

I got myself a copy of the Tactica of Emperor Leo VI the Wise. You can't get closer to the horse's mouth...
Much nice things about why they placed troops in this and that formations against a certain enemy, and a lot about how an army was organized - which is actually the main reason for what this book was written - teach a new commander how to lead his forces.

quick overview over chapters

[Big Orange]

I will second Goldsworthy, I have his 'The Complete Roman Army' and I'm enjoying it currently. Was surprised to find it at the library.

That comes under Thames and Hudson publishing, Thames and Hudson also published Legionary: The Roman Soldier's Manual (Philip Matyszak) which is specifically about the Roman military at the turn of the 1st/2nd century AD and Gladiator: The Roman Fighter's Manual (Phillip Matyszak) which is very similar, only it's about gladiators.

Osprey has some good historical artists like Peter Dennis and the much missed Angus McBride, but I also like the Roman illustrations done by Peter Connolly (many of which were included in Legionary: TRSM) and I'm also impressed by artwork done by José Daniel Cabrera Peña (which military/historical publisher commissions him?).

[Companion Cube]

I'm also impressed by artwork done by José Daniel Cabrera Peña (which military/historical publisher commissions him?).

He's definately got some nice stuff, but the publications his work is in (Desperta Ferro and Guerreros y Batallas don't seem readily available through english sources.

[Big Orange]

Fascinating and the war artwork looks beautiful, thanks for the link. Also the logo for the Desparto Ferro company seems to be a Celtiberian warrior from Antiquity.

Also Adrian Goldsworthy's The Complete Roman Army features an image of and reference to the Cohors V Gallorum and re-enactment group who depict 3rd AD century Roman soldiers, when Roman soldiery started to evolve past what they looked like on Trajan's Column, the "classic" legionaries lazily depicted by Hollywood, what ever the century (like in 2004's King Arthur).