I've been reading Volume 3 of Delbrück's The History of the Art of War. Initially it was just to mine his sources and to point and laugh at how outdated it was, but Delbrück has been surprisingly good considering that he was writing more than a hundred years ago. While he doesn't understand why medieval warfare was more about sieges than warfare and so focuses on battles, his section on the Anglo-Saxons entirely useless, his belief in the martial superiority of the all warrior barbarian masks the truth of their successes and his refusal to believe in a Carolingian cash economy are an unfortunate mark against him, Delbrück also does a lot right.

For instance, he stresses the role of the mercenary and how they gradually (and quite early on) replaced the "feudal levy", as it were, and I think he may be a lot closer to the truth when it comes to the question of the discipline of medieval armies than he is given credit for. Even 19th century armies struggled to keep their cavalry in check and to reform them after a charge, but to read Verbruggen, you'd think that medieval cavalry were far superior in this regard. Certainly experienced knights and men-at-arms would be more likely to rally quickly after a charge, but less experienced or less cohesive cavalry would be far more likely to flee or pursue than rally. Similarly, while there are plenty of examples of experienced footsoldiers or footsoldiers with dismounted men-at-arms mixed in with them winning battles, there are just as many examples of inexperienced footsoldiers fleeing with little provocation or being entirely ineffective.

Another worthwhile position Delbrück takes is that of the use and effectiveness of English archery. He doesn't fall into the trap of seeing longbows as some revolutionary new weapon, nor does he see them as being the absolute key to English victories. Instead, he views them as one part of the whole, with the defensive strategy used by the English, the dismounted men-at-arms and the disorder (Crécy) or small size (Agincourt) of the French being the other elements of the English success. Anne Curry has shown that, while the French at Agincourt were fewer in number than the traditional Anglo narrative credits, they still likely had an extra 2-3000 troops over the English, but it was still surprising to see such a modern revisionist view on the longbow so far in the past. Delbrück even stresses the continuity of military archery from the Norman conquest to Crécy, identifies Dupplin Moor and Halidon Hill as tactical precursors to Crécy, and his interpretation of "herce" and how the English archers were deployed is more akin to that found in The Battle of Crécy, 1346.

Finally, Delbrück also pays attention to the issue of logistics, albeit not in any great depth (this may be because he addressed the subject in his prior volumes). The issue of how big an army an area can sustain, and moving supplies by land and by water are both addressed, as is the subject of the size of baggage trains.

Of course, this leads me to wonder whether my prior knowledge of medieval warfare, such as it is, is making me interpert Delbrück more kindly than he really deserves. It also makes me wonder whether we'd see some better battles if I sent a copy to the producers of Game of Thrones.

I was asked

any good biographies/historical works about Nixon and his administration? Particularly stuff about his personal life and detailed accounts of the period between the Postal Reorganization Act and his return from China (Fall 1970 - Spring 1972).

Does anybody know a title that fits?

So, 2016 has finished. What was the best popular or scholarly book you've read this year?

I read a very interesting article which I though I would share with as it concerns an aspect of history often set aside, the relation between humans and animals (in this case wild animals, wolves) :

The Wolf Threat in France from the Middle Ages to the Twentieth Century by Jean-Marc Moriceau.

A good part of the article is to the way the author created his database of wolf attacks on humans, which is very interesting. There are also references to other similar works for Spain, Italy and Russia.

Jesus Through the Centuries, by Jaroslav Pelikan, in preparation for an undergrad TA thing in an interdisciplinary Jesus in American culture kinda course. Great read!

This week I've finished two books.

• Doctrine and Power: Theological Controversy and Christian Leadership in the Late Roman Empire by Carlos R. Galvão-Sobrinho. This book makes the case that the Arian controversy was the first church-wide controversy because of the growing need of Christian theologians to be precise with their language, whereas before this wasn't the case and there was a more "live and let live" approach to theological doctrine. With the growing precision and the intervention of the Imperial court, however, theological controversy becomes a vehicle in which bishops are able to state their claim to legitimacy and, therefore, the growing resources of the Church and the power located therein. Galvão-Sobrinho's narrative style is fantastic, and I think his analysis of the Arian controversy is spot-on, but a reading of Eusebius seems to contest his claim that pre-Arian controversies were more laisse-faire.
• Religions of the Constantinian Empire by Mark J. Edwards is an interesting book that describes the religious and philosophical context that Christianity both argued against and was baptized in. Edwards is a historian who does not shy away from theology, and his command of the Neoplatonic authors and the more esoteric writers whom he treats is truly excellent. However, sometimes he begins rambling asides on the theology of the writers whom he is discussing that does not add to the overall thesis of the chapter (where there is a thesis) and the frequent typos found in almost every chapter mars the enjoyment, and is surprising from an OUP book.

Reading and researching discrimination in the US during WWII. Have read through a few articles on Native Americans, the LGBTQ community, and African Americans.

I am now on an article on Jewish name changing in NYC during the war. A few more anti-Semitism articles and then I move to conscientious objectors, Japanese Americans, Italian Americans, and general articles.

Does anyone know the differences between the various editions of Spence's The Search for Modern China? I ask because there is a large price differential between them.

Any good books on the history of Cambodia?

I don't work in anything related to history, and so I'm more of a dilettante. But last week, I finally started on Siemann's biography of Metternich [1] (sadly, I don't think there's an English translation, at least not yet). Enjoying it very much (even though I'm generally not even much of a biography person) and finding it very insightful to read in-depth about a man a lot of people have an image or maybe even an opinion of, but not that much knowledge.

Only thing I'm wary about is, since I'm not an expert in the field, I'll probably lack the critical depth to form a well-founded opinion about it. I've mostly seen very positive reviews about it, though, so it has that going for it.

[1] Siemann, Wolfram: Metternich, Stratege und Visionär, Eine Biographie; C.H. Beck, 2016.

Can anyone recommend me books on the history of Mexico between 1800 and the mid-20th century that would be interesting to a lay reader?