Agh, the book I'm reading for class, while otherwise well-written, has the worst battle maps I have ever seen in my life. And I read a lot of military history; I know from battle maps. Like, I understand that trying to reconstruct where everyone was at any given time is hard, okay? Cornell has made it very clear that the evidence is scanty and uncertain. But he also explains the most likely scenarios in words, and I am this close to getting out graph paper and trying to map it out myself, except this would be very hard, because the maps that are in the book, all three of them, are not that great. (Again, probably due to the fact that the evidence is scanty, etc.)
I do understand that coming off The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire, all other military maps will quail in fear and run and hide, but still. I just want one map that is reasonably well-illustrated and easy to understand, and which makes sense when put up against what Cornell describes. My preference would be several maps showing different stages of the battle, but clearly this is not something I am going to get in my life.
Also, see above re: military history reading habits, I have never before run across the term "middle-guard." Googling gets me a football position and a unit in Napoleon's imperial guard, not a tactical position. Rearguard I know, vanguard I know, but middle-guard? I've never heard of it. I can more or less surmise what Cornell means by it because it seems pretty self-explanatory, but you know what would really help? MAPS JESUS CHRIST.
So that's irritating me about the book. On the bright side, I found out that Luttwak, as well as writing The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire, has also written The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire. JOY. At least this is a sign I'm studying the right field?
ETA: I am becoming steadily less convinced that this is a good book. The build-up is much better than the actual battle, at least so far. I can tell this is Cornell's first book, but he's an academic, I feel like I shouldn't be able to tell that! Not to mention he's contradicting himself; if he's going to mention alternate theories about locations, he should at least be consistent, otherwise it just leaves the reader (casual or otherwise) going, "Wait, what? Isn't that supposed to be in the other wood? If it is in the other wood, how does it change the events? I AM SO CONFUSED." Again, you know what would help? MOTHERFUCKING MAPS.
ETA 2: I do not think I would describe Edward II as the "most bemusing of English kings." I really don't think that's an accurate description.
It's not that the book is bad, but as I said to![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
aella_irene, it could have used another few rounds of edits, at the very least. On the bright side, I am convinced that if this guy could get a PhD in medieval military history, then I damn well can. So that's encouraging.
I do understand that coming off The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire, all other military maps will quail in fear and run and hide, but still. I just want one map that is reasonably well-illustrated and easy to understand, and which makes sense when put up against what Cornell describes. My preference would be several maps showing different stages of the battle, but clearly this is not something I am going to get in my life.
Also, see above re: military history reading habits, I have never before run across the term "middle-guard." Googling gets me a football position and a unit in Napoleon's imperial guard, not a tactical position. Rearguard I know, vanguard I know, but middle-guard? I've never heard of it. I can more or less surmise what Cornell means by it because it seems pretty self-explanatory, but you know what would really help? MAPS JESUS CHRIST.
So that's irritating me about the book. On the bright side, I found out that Luttwak, as well as writing The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire, has also written The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire. JOY. At least this is a sign I'm studying the right field?
ETA: I am becoming steadily less convinced that this is a good book. The build-up is much better than the actual battle, at least so far. I can tell this is Cornell's first book, but he's an academic, I feel like I shouldn't be able to tell that! Not to mention he's contradicting himself; if he's going to mention alternate theories about locations, he should at least be consistent, otherwise it just leaves the reader (casual or otherwise) going, "Wait, what? Isn't that supposed to be in the other wood? If it is in the other wood, how does it change the events? I AM SO CONFUSED." Again, you know what would help? MOTHERFUCKING MAPS.
ETA 2: I do not think I would describe Edward II as the "most bemusing of English kings." I really don't think that's an accurate description.
It's not that the book is bad, but as I said to
aella_irene, it could have used another few rounds of edits, at the very least. On the bright side, I am convinced that if this guy could get a PhD in medieval military history, then I damn well can. So that's encouraging.