5 Comments

Sharman’s book on Company States is much better and more interesting than his MR book. He is also quite a mediocre and repetitive writer.

Also, I find it weird and disappointing how little theories of Military Revolution interact with the growing dominance of early-modern navies. Navies were one area where Europeans achieved unambiguous global domination and vital to military conflicts of the period. They also played a much larger role in colonialism than pike-and-shotte formations

Expand full comment

Might the recent article by Deborah Boucoyannis titled “The More War, The Less State: The Inverse Relationship between War, State Size, and “Stateness,” warrant a mention in this context?

Expand full comment

I realize you already have a lot on your plate, but I'd love to see a discussion of the relationship between the (mostly European) "military revolution" debates and the (mostly not European) "gunpowder empire" literature.

Expand full comment

This is fascinating, thank you.

Expand full comment

what relationship did Europe's brutal past have with its subsequent rise to 'greatness'?

The same relationship Rome's rise to 'greatness' had to its brutal past, I'm guessing.

That's what makes China such a fascinating outlier.

Expand full comment