Best history book on swords, axes, maces etc ?

[Benjamin Olson]

It is worth checking out the YouTube channel Schola Gladiatoria. The host, Matt Easton, regularly posts videos engaging in the kind of analysis that you seek.

Definitely the best that "sword YouTube" has to offer. He combines the actual academic and professional background that most such youtubers lack, with the willingness to swing weapons around and see what they'll actually practically do that most credentialed scholars never really engage in.

 

[Bilharzia]

Its a little silly, but has useful info laid out nicely, thanks!

Quite silly, and from what I saw in the preview, factually in error

Such a strange "quote" to pick, since obsidian is indeed used in modern surgery. Almost as if the author knew this detail, then deliberately got it wrong.

 

[Argyle King]

I tried googling and searching Amazon but I know YOU have already figured this out...

One of things I loved about Tunnels and Trolls was reading all the different names of the weapons and seeing the attached attached damage to them (which gives you a sense of how devastating it was). Their list seemed to come from European history, so I am looking for a book that has the history, description, picture of each weapon but hopefully also some kind of commentary on why it was better than (its predecessor).

Not exactly a history book, but it's well-researched: GURPS Low-Tech

 

[Benjamin Olson]

Quite silly, and from what I saw in the preview, factually in error

View attachment 151934

Such a strange "quote" to pick, since obsidian is indeed used in modern surgery. Almost as if the author knew this detail, then deliberately got it wrong.

They are rarely used in modern surgery, and were much rarer to use a few years back I believe. As someone who preps lectures for a high school history class several times a week I can say that when preparing informative materials for a non-expert audience you often deliberately exclude details that you feel will mislead or distract from the point, and very occasionally you even say things that you know are not 100% true, because even throwing a little ambiguity in would confuse folk more than edify them.

That said, it is probably telling that this is written with about the level of academic rigor, detail and strictness in accuracy I would use for the "additional patter" of a High School lecture, things I say to expand on the materials while they are taking notes on the more carefully phrased points I put up directly on powerpoint slides.

 

[gamerprinter]

Honestly, Stones Encyclopedia of Arms and Armor is the definitive guide on medieval weapons especially for all world cultures, but it's long out of print, I had to go through the library system in my state, just to get access to it, it's very difficult to find. But all subsequent armor and weapons guides are essentially spin-offs of this book - from early 20th century. I used it in an Art History term paper, and I lent it to my teacher so she could check my bibliography, since I had the state's only copy of that book.

When I was in the army, I was in the SCA, and our armorer had a copy and the first time I saw it.

 

[Bilharzia]

They are rarely used in modern surgery,

In other words, they are used.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

In other words, they are used.

Sure. But being technically correct about exceptions to the norm is less important than giving the right impression about the norm when producing informative content for a non-expert audience.

Personally I would have thrown a short parenthetical about how obsidian scalpels are actually a thing used by a small number of surgeons for niche purposes, or at least thrown a qualifier of "generally" when saying they aren't used. But I prefer the sin of omitting an oddball exception to the rule over the sin of making it sound like the oddball exception is typical or important, which is what poorly written informational texts for laypeople often fall into.

 

[Bilharzia]

Sure. But being technically correct about exceptions to the norm is less important than giving the right impression about the norm when producing informative content for a non-expert audience.

Personally I would have thrown a short parenthetical about how obsidian scalpels are actually a thing used by a small number of surgeons for niche purposes, or at least thrown a qualifier of "generally" when saying they aren't used. But I prefer the sin of omitting an oddball exception to the rule over the sin of making it sound like the oddball exception is typical or important, which is what poorly written informational texts for laypeople often fall into.

I would be slightly less "Sam the American Eagle" if I was writing a book called -

"A History of Weapons: Crossbows, Caltrops, Catapults & Lots of Other Things that Can Seriously Mess You Up"​

in this kind of thing, the "oddball" is precisely what I would be looking for.

 

[Thunderfoot]

Sure. But being technically correct about exceptions to the norm is less important than giving the right impression about the norm when producing informative content for a non-expert audience.

Personally I would have thrown a short parenthetical about how obsidian scalpels are actually a thing used by a small number of surgeons for niche purposes, or at least thrown a qualifier of "generally" when saying they aren't used. But I prefer the sin of omitting an oddball exception to the rule over the sin of making it sound like the oddball exception is typical or important, which is what poorly written informational texts for laypeople often fall into.

Or IOW. There are exceptions to every rule....including this one.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

I would be slightly less "Sam the American Eagle" if I was writing a book called -

"A History of Weapons: Crossbows, Caltrops, Catapults & Lots of Other Things that Can Seriously Mess You Up"​

in this kind of thing, the "oddball" is precisely what I would be looking for.

See, I would still want that book to give me a fair overall impression of the things it discusses rather then getting bogged down in the weeds of being technically correct about every trivial ancillary detail. I'd just expect it with a goofy editorial voice.

Fundamentally any informative text without reams of citations has given up on trying to be completely technically accurate on details in favor of readability and, at best, giving non-experts a good overall impression of things, and not trying to distract them with minutia. If you are going to get irked by every missing obsidian scalpel you'd best steer clear of anything not published by a proper academic press.

I think the cited snippet on obsidian does an effective job of using the general rule that medical scalpels are not made of obsidian to illustrate the limitations of obsidian as a material in a limited number of words, without a lot of confusing details, while maintaining the expected editorial voice the cited title implies. Maybe you can do it better while also mentioning that obsidian scalpels do actually exist and are kind of cool, but without leading readers to think they are typical or common, while not sacrificing readability or distracting too much from the overall point, but it's not as easy as it seems from the wings just complaining that the thing you know about wasn't mentioned, so I'd recommend cutting the author some slack.