What do you think?
Rate this book
Cassell History of Warfare
Mongols, Huns and Vikings: Nomads at War
They were history's most famous and ferocious warriors. From the Huns to the Mongols, successive waves of nomadic horsemen swept out of the great steppes of Central Asia and wreaked havoc on the static civilizations of Europe, India, and China. How were they so successful? And, what were the limits of their powers? An esteemed professor--who specializes in Arabic and medieval studies--reveals just how "underdeveloped" societies spawned such great generals, from Attila to Genghis Khan; how nomadic Arabs swarmed from the desert in the 7th century to carve out an empire that stretched from Spain to the Chinese frontier; why the Mongols failed to conquer Europe; and where those unique, seaborne raiders, the Vikings, fit into this story.
224 pages, Hardcover
First published April 28, 2002
4 people are currently reading
297 people want to read
About the author
Hugh Kennedy
33 books125 followersNOTE: There is more than one author with this name on Goodreads.
Hugh^Kennedy
Has studies Arabic at the Middle East Centre for Arabic Studies. Went on to read Arabic, Persian & History at Cambridge. Taught in the Department of Medieval History at St Andrews since 1972, and was elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (2000).
Hugh^Kennedy
Has studies Arabic at the Middle East Centre for Arabic Studies. Went on to read Arabic, Persian & History at Cambridge. Taught in the Department of Medieval History at St Andrews since 1972, and was elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (2000).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
Read
February 27, 2013This should actually be titled "Mongols, Huns, Arabs, Turks & Vikings". To be even more accurate, it should be titled "Random Dudes in History Who Were Like Totally Badass, Fuck Yeah".
I'm not quite sure who this books is meant for. It almost (but not quite) a children's book, with nice, simply told stories about said invasions - theres really more information on the Wikipedia page - and told in a rather romantic way. Much "...as they were driven by the iron bonds of the camaraderie of the fighting men..." or "...being the embodiment of the lone horseman, alone, in the desert, with only his camel..." (really.) There is much recounting of stories and anecdotes then admitted, "sadly", to be untrue. (Including Viking horned helmets,) thought the focus is more on military tactics, organization and technology, and less on historical narrative.
It's also very lavishly and pretty randomly illustrated. Pretty landscape photos of Russian snow, Mongolia grass, Arabian sand, etc. Attila the Hun looking hideous on a 19th c. German meat-extract advertisement. Attila the Hun looking like a total cutie in some 18th C. portrait. Clunky 3D diagrams of various battles. Maps with lots and lots of arrows. Pictures of rusty swords, ruined castles, old armour. Treasure troves, longships, horses, camels, elephants and a cheetah. Diagrams of composite bows and trebuchets. What more do you need, really?
Theres some kind of thesis about the exceptionality of nomadism, or something, but really exists for about four sentences in the pro- and epilogue. At first I wasn't really sure why I was reading this, but then I realized that it was really speaking to that piece of my soul which is a gleefully savage grubby twelve year old boy who would really like to be falling out of trees and getting into fights and breaking things and setting them on fire just to see what would happen, and if you have no such corner in your soul, then I can't help you. By the time I was done, I was only sorry there was no chapter on Ninjas, and possibly cowboys.
I'm not quite sure who this books is meant for. It almost (but not quite) a children's book, with nice, simply told stories about said invasions - theres really more information on the Wikipedia page - and told in a rather romantic way. Much "...as they were driven by the iron bonds of the camaraderie of the fighting men..." or "...being the embodiment of the lone horseman, alone, in the desert, with only his camel..." (really.) There is much recounting of stories and anecdotes then admitted, "sadly", to be untrue. (Including Viking horned helmets,) thought the focus is more on military tactics, organization and technology, and less on historical narrative.
It's also very lavishly and pretty randomly illustrated. Pretty landscape photos of Russian snow, Mongolia grass, Arabian sand, etc. Attila the Hun looking hideous on a 19th c. German meat-extract advertisement. Attila the Hun looking like a total cutie in some 18th C. portrait. Clunky 3D diagrams of various battles. Maps with lots and lots of arrows. Pictures of rusty swords, ruined castles, old armour. Treasure troves, longships, horses, camels, elephants and a cheetah. Diagrams of composite bows and trebuchets. What more do you need, really?
Theres some kind of thesis about the exceptionality of nomadism, or something, but really exists for about four sentences in the pro- and epilogue. At first I wasn't really sure why I was reading this, but then I realized that it was really speaking to that piece of my soul which is a gleefully savage grubby twelve year old boy who would really like to be falling out of trees and getting into fights and breaking things and setting them on fire just to see what would happen, and if you have no such corner in your soul, then I can't help you. By the time I was done, I was only sorry there was no chapter on Ninjas, and possibly cowboys.
Currently reading
June 3, 2011Maps and photos of armor! I am geeking out!!!
April 24, 2020
I reread this original, which I received as a gift as a teenager. While it lacks some precision in content, the disposition on the Huns is particularly interesting.
This is more of an introductory exposé for the complete beginner, so it suffers from a paucity of information and someone with historical interest will know most of the fact inventory. It also is brief concerning to the attitudes/cultural practices of the historical civilizations within. Honestly, a crafefully corroborated wikipedia read will probably get you the same depth, but this was published before that service became popular. It has good information about the cultural practices of the Huns, from first hand accounts by Roman historians.
There is minimal archaeological and sociological data for the cultural conclusions, brief in some areas and overly detailed in others. For example, the details of the Arab invasion of Syria: there was a decision to flank the Byzantines by reinforcing across the Arabian desert (unconventional movement). Then, there was the actual battle that was fought thereafter with some genius flanking maneuvers that cut off and surrounded the Byzantine army. It was an absolute strategic and tactical victory. Why were the Arabs able to do this?
The author would like to assume that it was not conscious decisions that lead to their military prowess, but that it was an intuitive nature cultivated in the deserts of the Arabian Peninsula. Porque no los dos? Why couldn't it be that decades (if not centuries) of cultural warfare gave them conscious insight into desert fighting? It is confusing to quote the Bedouin poetry at the start of this section and then to deny their own cognizance of their strategic advantage, especially with the bold claim about the beasts of the wastes coming to their aid. His claim that the morale of the Arabs was also more distinct because of brotherhood and nomadicism is tenuously stated ad hoc, without contemporary sources. It is too minimal for a legitimate view into the actual circumstances.
I do believe the author had the best intents to portray the unconventional nature of nomadicism and attribution of their successes to that, but it is often done by a non-inclusive binary of an "established civilization" vs "them". While he admits that the Arab Bedouins sometimes flouted the non-sedentary nature of nomads, he potentially falls short at convincing amateurs of the real story - the lines between civilizations were not that distinct, and that is the actual success story of the Arab conquests.
Anyways, that's my rant for this book.
This is more of an introductory exposé for the complete beginner, so it suffers from a paucity of information and someone with historical interest will know most of the fact inventory. It also is brief concerning to the attitudes/cultural practices of the historical civilizations within. Honestly, a crafefully corroborated wikipedia read will probably get you the same depth, but this was published before that service became popular. It has good information about the cultural practices of the Huns, from first hand accounts by Roman historians.
There is minimal archaeological and sociological data for the cultural conclusions, brief in some areas and overly detailed in others. For example, the details of the Arab invasion of Syria: there was a decision to flank the Byzantines by reinforcing across the Arabian desert (unconventional movement). Then, there was the actual battle that was fought thereafter with some genius flanking maneuvers that cut off and surrounded the Byzantine army. It was an absolute strategic and tactical victory. Why were the Arabs able to do this?
The author would like to assume that it was not conscious decisions that lead to their military prowess, but that it was an intuitive nature cultivated in the deserts of the Arabian Peninsula. Porque no los dos? Why couldn't it be that decades (if not centuries) of cultural warfare gave them conscious insight into desert fighting? It is confusing to quote the Bedouin poetry at the start of this section and then to deny their own cognizance of their strategic advantage, especially with the bold claim about the beasts of the wastes coming to their aid. His claim that the morale of the Arabs was also more distinct because of brotherhood and nomadicism is tenuously stated ad hoc, without contemporary sources. It is too minimal for a legitimate view into the actual circumstances.
I do believe the author had the best intents to portray the unconventional nature of nomadicism and attribution of their successes to that, but it is often done by a non-inclusive binary of an "established civilization" vs "them". While he admits that the Arab Bedouins sometimes flouted the non-sedentary nature of nomads, he potentially falls short at convincing amateurs of the real story - the lines between civilizations were not that distinct, and that is the actual success story of the Arab conquests.
Anyways, that's my rant for this book.
October 19, 2024
This is a survey of the various nomad peoples who have made an impact on world history, and as well as those in the title, it has chapters on Arabs and Turks. The presentation is great, the prose style is appealing and the maps are pretty good, though they still manage to omit some of the places mentioned in the text, which is one of the big irritations of history books. Also, one of the maps seems to put Vienna in the east of France, a major mistake I think, unless of course there used to be a Vienna in the east of France.
There are a few fun battle diagrams, but somehow the text doesn't quite dig down into the mechanics of these peoples' military success, which is odd for a book in a military history series. Simply talking about mobility isn't enough. Storm From the East is much better in that respect. Contributing to this feeling is the sense that some of these tribes' superiority, the Arabs' and the Vikings', is tenuous and short-lived, while even the identity of "the Turks" seems elusive.
Nonetheless, an enjoyable read.
There are a few fun battle diagrams, but somehow the text doesn't quite dig down into the mechanics of these peoples' military success, which is odd for a book in a military history series. Simply talking about mobility isn't enough. Storm From the East is much better in that respect. Contributing to this feeling is the sense that some of these tribes' superiority, the Arabs' and the Vikings', is tenuous and short-lived, while even the identity of "the Turks" seems elusive.
Nonetheless, an enjoyable read.
May 12, 2022
I did not enjoy this book by Hugh Kennedy as much as I have other books by him. The book came across as outdated and some anecdotes felt unnecessary. The picture of the Mongol hunting scene actually depicts a snow leopard not a cheetah, which would have not been found in Mongolia or anywhere the Mongols conquerored. Not sure why Hugh Kennedy thought that the Viking helmets should have horns nor why it was necessary to highlight the possible, though not likely documented, that the Bedouin mostly subsisted on lizards.
September 19, 2016
One might not immediately see the contemporary relevance of exploring the history of the Huns, Arabs & Turks, Mongols, and Vikings, of which only the non-Muslim groups are included in the book's title, likely because of contemporary hostility between the Muslims and the West. However, the author makes a pretty strong historical case for the declining viability of nomad powers through a judicious use of a case study approach that shows both how nomads managed to gain victories against more settled nations over and over again and, for the most part, failed to consolidate their gains for any considerable length of time--the notable exceptions of course being the Arabs, Turks, and Vikings, who all managed to develop a strong religious identity and settle areas and acculturate other areas under their rule, something the Huns and Mongols were distinctly unable to do because of the personal and transient nature of their empires and their failures to provide any sort of cultural tie to keep their areas together once departing from the areas they knew best and were able to move around in most effectively.
In roughly 200 pages or so the author discusses in six chapters the Huns, Arabs, Turks, Mongols in Asia & Europe, and Vikings in the context of the Nomad paradox [1]. The paradox is that generally it is economic and demographic strength that leads to success in geopolitical competition but that over time various nomadic empires were able to rise up and defeat their more settled neighbors despite being poor and not particularly advanced from a cultural or technological perspective. Beginning with the Huns in their European, and not their Chinese guise--the author chooses not to discuss the White Huns that invaded India or the Hsing-Nu that the Chinese battled with for centuries in Central Asia--nor does the author spend much time talking about the Scythians of ancient history, which demonstrate the nomad paradox in an earlier time, the author shows attention to both specific contexts as well as larger overall patterns. Among the more interesting parallels is the need for leadership to unite together disparate and disunited nomads and then harness their energies that were previously spent in internecine conflict into exterior expansion in order to develop empires. The author then closes, after having given an account that includes archeology and lovely and informative maps, with a conclusion that the age of nomads ended when they no longer had a safe base and when technology reached the point that nomads no longer had advantages of mobility as well as firepower due to their prowess as archers.
Despite the fact that the author does not believe that a nomadic empire like those discussed in his book will rise again given present conditions, it is clear that there are at least some parallels that the author discusses that are of contemporary relevance. For one, settled nations can be at a disadvantage in war when their opponents have much lower logistical demands, have a higher degree of commitment and participation in military conflict, and when those enemies have a secure base free from conquest to return to and draw strength from. In fact, the nomad paradox that the author discusses is not that different from the classic anti-guerrilla problem that so troubles contemporary military planners and strategists in the United States and other nations. Likewise, the author's downplaying of the Arabs and Turks in the title of the book is likely a move meant to avoid having the book receive harsh judgment from those who fear the contemporary danger of Muslim terrorists acting in like fashion to their predecessors. Indeed, this book gives the strongest possible encouragement to keep contemporary threats, like that of radical Muslim, from getting to be too serious through the encouragement and promotion of dividing those states and peoples that are potentially threatening rather than allowing them to be easily united together against the settled and civilized peoples of the world.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
In roughly 200 pages or so the author discusses in six chapters the Huns, Arabs, Turks, Mongols in Asia & Europe, and Vikings in the context of the Nomad paradox [1]. The paradox is that generally it is economic and demographic strength that leads to success in geopolitical competition but that over time various nomadic empires were able to rise up and defeat their more settled neighbors despite being poor and not particularly advanced from a cultural or technological perspective. Beginning with the Huns in their European, and not their Chinese guise--the author chooses not to discuss the White Huns that invaded India or the Hsing-Nu that the Chinese battled with for centuries in Central Asia--nor does the author spend much time talking about the Scythians of ancient history, which demonstrate the nomad paradox in an earlier time, the author shows attention to both specific contexts as well as larger overall patterns. Among the more interesting parallels is the need for leadership to unite together disparate and disunited nomads and then harness their energies that were previously spent in internecine conflict into exterior expansion in order to develop empires. The author then closes, after having given an account that includes archeology and lovely and informative maps, with a conclusion that the age of nomads ended when they no longer had a safe base and when technology reached the point that nomads no longer had advantages of mobility as well as firepower due to their prowess as archers.
Despite the fact that the author does not believe that a nomadic empire like those discussed in his book will rise again given present conditions, it is clear that there are at least some parallels that the author discusses that are of contemporary relevance. For one, settled nations can be at a disadvantage in war when their opponents have much lower logistical demands, have a higher degree of commitment and participation in military conflict, and when those enemies have a secure base free from conquest to return to and draw strength from. In fact, the nomad paradox that the author discusses is not that different from the classic anti-guerrilla problem that so troubles contemporary military planners and strategists in the United States and other nations. Likewise, the author's downplaying of the Arabs and Turks in the title of the book is likely a move meant to avoid having the book receive harsh judgment from those who fear the contemporary danger of Muslim terrorists acting in like fashion to their predecessors. Indeed, this book gives the strongest possible encouragement to keep contemporary threats, like that of radical Muslim, from getting to be too serious through the encouragement and promotion of dividing those states and peoples that are potentially threatening rather than allowing them to be easily united together against the settled and civilized peoples of the world.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
January 2, 2026
A fun little book for kids to get into these groups, but more of a picture book with fun anecdotes than any deeper historical analysis, though the value to attempt to compare the strategies and reasons for the success of these nomadic groups must be recognized.
Read
July 30, 2011Les premiers chapitres étaient intéressants, mais sur la fin ça s'essoufle un peu, la partie sur les Vikings m'a semblée avoir été traitée un peu trop rapidement. La conclusion est quand à elle torchée en 3-4 pages. Dans l'ensemble c'est un bouquin intéressant mais qui ne constitue qu'une première approche.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews