Any of you wanting to know more about the history of Europe in a non biased, open view by a historian (no less an ENGLISH historian), then perhaps you should go read 'Europe, A history by Norman Davis'. It's been out for about 1-2 years, however it is a great read.
Unlike other histories it doesn't just centre on western Europe and all the historically victorious countries and campaigns, which is as it should be. One thing I like about this guy is his description of Eastern European methods of warfare in the 16-17th century with which I agree. Here's a quote:
'.. the military revolution is another sbject where would be theoriests have been tempted to use their localized studies from parts of w. Europe for making unwarranted generalizations about the whole continent.
It is often implied that east European methods of warfare in whihc the cavalry did not cede supremancy to the infantry were somehow retarted. They are not.
The armies of Poland or Muscovy needed no lessons from their w. counterparts. They were soon familiar with the latest tech and organizational developments; but fighting across the vast empty expanses of the east, in a harsh climate, they met logistical problems unknown in the battlegrounds of .n. Italy, or Netherlands.
When Poland's wonderful winged Hussars's met western style infantry as they did against the Swedes at Kircholm in 1605 they wreaked terrible slaughter. They repeated the performance when faced bu hordes of oriental style light horse at Kluszino in 1610 and Chocim in 1621.
At the same time flexible, cell like structure of their units, the towarzysze or hussar comrades were able to forage and skirmish and to sustain themsevles in hostile country where less adaptable armies were devoured.
In their encounters with the Poles, the Russians experienced many decades of failure, often because of ill-concieved Western innovations. But they possessed first vclass artillery from an early date, and it was the Russian artillery which finally broke Swedish supremacy at Poltava.'
A great read.
Sapura
Unlike other histories it doesn't just centre on western Europe and all the historically victorious countries and campaigns, which is as it should be. One thing I like about this guy is his description of Eastern European methods of warfare in the 16-17th century with which I agree. Here's a quote:
'.. the military revolution is another sbject where would be theoriests have been tempted to use their localized studies from parts of w. Europe for making unwarranted generalizations about the whole continent.
It is often implied that east European methods of warfare in whihc the cavalry did not cede supremancy to the infantry were somehow retarted. They are not.
The armies of Poland or Muscovy needed no lessons from their w. counterparts. They were soon familiar with the latest tech and organizational developments; but fighting across the vast empty expanses of the east, in a harsh climate, they met logistical problems unknown in the battlegrounds of .n. Italy, or Netherlands.
When Poland's wonderful winged Hussars's met western style infantry as they did against the Swedes at Kircholm in 1605 they wreaked terrible slaughter. They repeated the performance when faced bu hordes of oriental style light horse at Kluszino in 1610 and Chocim in 1621.
At the same time flexible, cell like structure of their units, the towarzysze or hussar comrades were able to forage and skirmish and to sustain themsevles in hostile country where less adaptable armies were devoured.
In their encounters with the Poles, the Russians experienced many decades of failure, often because of ill-concieved Western innovations. But they possessed first vclass artillery from an early date, and it was the Russian artillery which finally broke Swedish supremacy at Poltava.'
A great read.
Sapura
