What do you think?
Rate this book
Of Arms and Men: A History of War, Weapons, and Aggression
The appearance of the crossbow on the European battle field in A.D. 1100 as the weapon of choice for shooting down knights threatened the status quo of medieval chivalric fighting techniques. By 1139 the Church had intervened, outlawing the use of the crossbow among Christians. With this edict, arms control was born.
As Robert L. O'Connell reveals in this vividly written history of weapons in Western culture, that first attempt at an arms control measure characterizes the complex and often paradoxical relationship between men and arms throughout the centuries. In a sweeping narrative that ranges from prehistoric times to the nuclear age, O'Connell demonstrates how social and economic conditions determine the types of weapons and the tactics used in warfare and how, in turn, innovations in weapons technology often undercut social values. He describes, for instance, how the invention of the gun required a redefinition of courage from aggressive ferocity to calmness under fire; and how the machine gun in World War I so overthrew traditional notions of combat that Lord Kitchener exclaimed, "This isn't war!" The technology unleashed during the Great War radically altered our perceptions of ourselves, as these new weapons made human qualities almost irrelevant in combat. With the invention of
the atomic bomb, humanity itself became subservient to the weapons it had produced.
Of Arms and Men brilliantly integrates the evolution of politics, weapons, strategy, and tactics into a coherent narrative, one spiced with striking portraits of men in combat and penetrating insights into why men go to war.
As Robert L. O'Connell reveals in this vividly written history of weapons in Western culture, that first attempt at an arms control measure characterizes the complex and often paradoxical relationship between men and arms throughout the centuries. In a sweeping narrative that ranges from prehistoric times to the nuclear age, O'Connell demonstrates how social and economic conditions determine the types of weapons and the tactics used in warfare and how, in turn, innovations in weapons technology often undercut social values. He describes, for instance, how the invention of the gun required a redefinition of courage from aggressive ferocity to calmness under fire; and how the machine gun in World War I so overthrew traditional notions of combat that Lord Kitchener exclaimed, "This isn't war!" The technology unleashed during the Great War radically altered our perceptions of ourselves, as these new weapons made human qualities almost irrelevant in combat. With the invention of
the atomic bomb, humanity itself became subservient to the weapons it had produced.
Of Arms and Men brilliantly integrates the evolution of politics, weapons, strategy, and tactics into a coherent narrative, one spiced with striking portraits of men in combat and penetrating insights into why men go to war.
345 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1989
12 people are currently reading
229 people want to read
About the author
Robert L. O'Connell
17 books69 followersRobert L. O'Connell is an American historian, intelligence analyst, and author known for his thought-provoking works on war, weaponry, and human aggression. With a career spanning both public service and academia, he spent three decades as an intelligence analyst at the National Ground Intelligence Center and later served as a visiting professor of defense analysis at the Naval Postgraduate School.
O'Connell's books blend historical insight with philosophical inquiry. His acclaimed works include Of Arms and Men, Sacred Vessels, and Ride of the Second Horseman, each exploring the evolution of warfare and its roots in human behavior. He also authored the illustrated volume Soul of the Sword and ventured into fiction with Fast Eddie: A Novel in Many Voices.
Driven by a lifelong passion for storytelling, O'Connell has described his writing process as a trance-like state where ideas seem to flow from an external source. Whether writing history or fiction, his work reflects a deep engagement with the human condition through the lens of conflict and creativity.
O'Connell's books blend historical insight with philosophical inquiry. His acclaimed works include Of Arms and Men, Sacred Vessels, and Ride of the Second Horseman, each exploring the evolution of warfare and its roots in human behavior. He also authored the illustrated volume Soul of the Sword and ventured into fiction with Fast Eddie: A Novel in Many Voices.
Driven by a lifelong passion for storytelling, O'Connell has described his writing process as a trance-like state where ideas seem to flow from an external source. Whether writing history or fiction, his work reflects a deep engagement with the human condition through the lens of conflict and creativity.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
November 6, 2007
Of Arms and Men is better in its' parts than as a whole. The individual chapters are informative and usually carry some new, inventive argument. O'Connell makes three arguments, which vaguely fit together. Prior to 1400 AD the history weaponry was cyclical and generally controlled by cultural factors. After that time period, weapons quickly developed, but that development was driven by private inventors, and usually not by the military which tended to be very conservative towards new ideas. Currently, our nuclear arsenals make most wars unfightable and unwinnable, but that the history of weapons shows that societies can enforce arms control when they want.
What's missing (from O'Connell at least) is any sort of strongly worded argument that moves from a circular development cycle to upward spiral of weapons technology.
I feel like I'm knocking the book too much. It's a very good read, and there are some very valuable pieces to it.
O'Connell argues that the Roman style of combat, with short swords, face-to-face, brought a new level of violence to combat. The gladius, made as much for hacking as piercing, made hideous wounds (especially to those who had before only seen spear and arrow wounds). What I had never considered is that the sensation of violence is not a steady measure through human experience, but has its' own ups and downs.
What's missing (from O'Connell at least) is any sort of strongly worded argument that moves from a circular development cycle to upward spiral of weapons technology.
I feel like I'm knocking the book too much. It's a very good read, and there are some very valuable pieces to it.
O'Connell argues that the Roman style of combat, with short swords, face-to-face, brought a new level of violence to combat. The gladius, made as much for hacking as piercing, made hideous wounds (especially to those who had before only seen spear and arrow wounds). What I had never considered is that the sensation of violence is not a steady measure through human experience, but has its' own ups and downs.
August 2, 2019
Ignore the boring title and cover, this book is an ancient history must read. Robert O'Connell - intelligence anaylyst for the US Army, phD in history, super genius, humble yet authoritative. favorite thing about this book is not his anthropological insights on the warlike nature of humans, but rather the historical progress of weaponry from early social civilizations on and their impact on social evolution. If you are interested in the Bible, Egypt, Sumer, cradle of 'civilization', Rome, Greece, Asia Minor, barbarian hordes......you will like it
May 9, 2009
Why do humans make war? Is it genetically pre-determined? What lessons of early warfare can we apply to present day conditions?
Robert O'Connell attempts to answer these and many other questions
0' Connell argues that man's creation of weapons is biologically defensible. Most animals developed some form of self-defense mechanism, be it fangs, claws or, in the case of crustaceans, body armor. Intraspecies combat is characterized by symmetrically balanced weaponry and battle follows a specific set of rules. Man's history of weaponry is an attempt to overcome symmetry in battle: the ever-increasing search for the ultimate, or better weapon which will provide the edge in combat. Deterrence itself has biological parallels in the increased ritualization of battle and the insertion of bluff, i.e. animals who try to appear larger than life when faced with aggression. This parallels a country's desire to appear (if not actually be) stronger than the opponent to prevent attack, at least in theory.
War, itself, began some 7000-9000 years ago largely as a result of changes in the nomadic lifestyle, the development of agriculture and a more village-oriented society. O'Connell postulates that about this time the concept of property arose as people had more food than they needed. Control implied ownership. Thus politics and property became the keys to societal conflict.
Ironically many of the civilizations we now admire for their cultural achievements (Greece, Rome, etc.) were acclaimed by their contemporaries for their war-making abilities. It was not until the 17th century that dominance by one state over another was achieved by some means other than war (economics and commercial trade.) Despite O'Connell's overemphasis on biological comparisons, the book makes intriguing parallels between ancient war and that of today; the desire for bigger and better weapons for example. Ptolemy V built a gargantuan warship which totally outclassed anything at the time. It was 450 feet in length, had a 57 foot beam, carried 4000 oarsmen, 400 deckhands, and 2800 marines but was worthless militarily. It reminds one of the nuclear airplane of the 50's or perhaps the Stealth bomber.
Another interesting parallel is the 1139 Edict of the 2nd Ecumenical Lateran Council which outlawed the use of the crossbow, (except in its use against Muslims, of course,) perhaps the first attempt at arms control. The crossbow was an extremely effective weapon, strong enough to penetrate the armor of a mounted knight. As it was relatively inexpensive, it enabled the lowly foot soldier to destroy the mounted aristocracy threatening the power structure supported by the church. The current attempts to prevent small nations from obtaining nuclear weapons raises similar issues.
Revised 5/9/09
Robert O'Connell attempts to answer these and many other questions
0' Connell argues that man's creation of weapons is biologically defensible. Most animals developed some form of self-defense mechanism, be it fangs, claws or, in the case of crustaceans, body armor. Intraspecies combat is characterized by symmetrically balanced weaponry and battle follows a specific set of rules. Man's history of weaponry is an attempt to overcome symmetry in battle: the ever-increasing search for the ultimate, or better weapon which will provide the edge in combat. Deterrence itself has biological parallels in the increased ritualization of battle and the insertion of bluff, i.e. animals who try to appear larger than life when faced with aggression. This parallels a country's desire to appear (if not actually be) stronger than the opponent to prevent attack, at least in theory.
War, itself, began some 7000-9000 years ago largely as a result of changes in the nomadic lifestyle, the development of agriculture and a more village-oriented society. O'Connell postulates that about this time the concept of property arose as people had more food than they needed. Control implied ownership. Thus politics and property became the keys to societal conflict.
Ironically many of the civilizations we now admire for their cultural achievements (Greece, Rome, etc.) were acclaimed by their contemporaries for their war-making abilities. It was not until the 17th century that dominance by one state over another was achieved by some means other than war (economics and commercial trade.) Despite O'Connell's overemphasis on biological comparisons, the book makes intriguing parallels between ancient war and that of today; the desire for bigger and better weapons for example. Ptolemy V built a gargantuan warship which totally outclassed anything at the time. It was 450 feet in length, had a 57 foot beam, carried 4000 oarsmen, 400 deckhands, and 2800 marines but was worthless militarily. It reminds one of the nuclear airplane of the 50's or perhaps the Stealth bomber.
Another interesting parallel is the 1139 Edict of the 2nd Ecumenical Lateran Council which outlawed the use of the crossbow, (except in its use against Muslims, of course,) perhaps the first attempt at arms control. The crossbow was an extremely effective weapon, strong enough to penetrate the armor of a mounted knight. As it was relatively inexpensive, it enabled the lowly foot soldier to destroy the mounted aristocracy threatening the power structure supported by the church. The current attempts to prevent small nations from obtaining nuclear weapons raises similar issues.
Revised 5/9/09
March 14, 2016
I have sought after this book for some time. After reading O'Connell's 'Ghosts of Cannae' a few years ago, I decided this was an author who warranted further reading. Cannae was written with great flair and alacrity while being historically informatively and just a pleasurable read, in short what all history books should aspire to.
Naturally I was disappointed to see this author who I quickly developed admiration for had only 1 other writing credit to his name, and since 'Of Arms and Men' had been written 20+ years before Cannae, I questioned whether it was even the same author.
Still I dutifully added it to my 'Books to Read' list and there it remained for years as I searched through various used book store history sections in vain. While not something I just had to have, a broad overview of the history of arms innovation certainly appealed to me.
Then last summer my wife and I were vacationing in NYC and I found myself in the legendary labyrinth of used books that is The Strand. On this one single journey I managed to secure quite a few books that had been languishing on my list for years. Before we left I decided to make my usual rote trip to the military history section, and decided at that moment that I was tired of making this trip to search for one book which I wasn't certain I'd ever find. I decided as I wandered to the section that afterwards I'd remove Of Arms from my list.
And there it was. I was ecstatic, moreso from the discovery than actual excitement for the book. I ran to find my wife like a young child, squealing look what I found!
So how was the actual book?
Ehhh, pretty good. It's certainly not squeel worthy, and I wouldn't beat your brains out trying to find it. It's closer to a technical manual than an engaging history book, and it's clear that O'Connell made huge strides in his prose between this and Cannae. O'Connell was not a writer by trade but a military policy analyst and it reads as such.
That being said, if the subject is interesting to you at all then it is certainly worth a read. While the prose may not be exciting or griping, it is exhaustive and I feel much more educated on both the history of arms and how they have effected political history. The book gets stronger as it goes along, and ends with a stirring segment about the realities of nuclear disarmament and future arms control. My main complaint is that this book would have been greatly served by more graphics and diagrams depicting the weapons he is describing. I often had to put the book down and go to Wikipedia just to get a visual of a specific weapon.
Naturally I was disappointed to see this author who I quickly developed admiration for had only 1 other writing credit to his name, and since 'Of Arms and Men' had been written 20+ years before Cannae, I questioned whether it was even the same author.
Still I dutifully added it to my 'Books to Read' list and there it remained for years as I searched through various used book store history sections in vain. While not something I just had to have, a broad overview of the history of arms innovation certainly appealed to me.
Then last summer my wife and I were vacationing in NYC and I found myself in the legendary labyrinth of used books that is The Strand. On this one single journey I managed to secure quite a few books that had been languishing on my list for years. Before we left I decided to make my usual rote trip to the military history section, and decided at that moment that I was tired of making this trip to search for one book which I wasn't certain I'd ever find. I decided as I wandered to the section that afterwards I'd remove Of Arms from my list.
And there it was. I was ecstatic, moreso from the discovery than actual excitement for the book. I ran to find my wife like a young child, squealing look what I found!
So how was the actual book?
Ehhh, pretty good. It's certainly not squeel worthy, and I wouldn't beat your brains out trying to find it. It's closer to a technical manual than an engaging history book, and it's clear that O'Connell made huge strides in his prose between this and Cannae. O'Connell was not a writer by trade but a military policy analyst and it reads as such.
That being said, if the subject is interesting to you at all then it is certainly worth a read. While the prose may not be exciting or griping, it is exhaustive and I feel much more educated on both the history of arms and how they have effected political history. The book gets stronger as it goes along, and ends with a stirring segment about the realities of nuclear disarmament and future arms control. My main complaint is that this book would have been greatly served by more graphics and diagrams depicting the weapons he is describing. I often had to put the book down and go to Wikipedia just to get a visual of a specific weapon.
July 22, 2012
Very informative book on the history of arms and mankind's progress to higher levels of destruction. In general, a very strong book on the topic. Histories of violence are often written with political aims in mind, and I think O'Connell does a good job of trying to stay away from that.
New research into both history and biology have probably made a few assertions outdated, but for the most part this is a very strong account. For most people, the more interesting developments are the twentieth century, but I feel like the book is light on early history through the renaissance and could have benefited from more material in those areas.
Actual causes of events in history are muddled and complex, stemming from technology, cultural, political and monetary considerations. O'Connell at least recognizes that, if not always fully exploring those aspects. Recommended as a good single book history of war.
New research into both history and biology have probably made a few assertions outdated, but for the most part this is a very strong account. For most people, the more interesting developments are the twentieth century, but I feel like the book is light on early history through the renaissance and could have benefited from more material in those areas.
Actual causes of events in history are muddled and complex, stemming from technology, cultural, political and monetary considerations. O'Connell at least recognizes that, if not always fully exploring those aspects. Recommended as a good single book history of war.
August 28, 2016
Fascinating book on the impact of weapons technology on the conduct of war and politics. Fascinating book. I found his take on how new weapons affect, not only the conduct of war, but the ambition of those who lead warriors. Like children, mankind seems to lack the ability to have some destructive thing and not use it at least once to see what will happen. In that way, new weapons seem to have something of, if not a life, then a seductive lure of their own that humans find devilishly hard to resist.
Read
September 18, 2015MEMERS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE WAY TECHNOLOGY AND WAR AND SOCIETY GO HAND IN HAND SHOULD READ "OF ARMS AND MEN" BY ROBERT O'CONNELL.
I'D STRONGLY SUGGEST THIS TO THE MEMERS WHO THINK MUSTARD GAS WAS AN EFFECTIVE WEAPON AND WHO THINK IT IS A NERVE GAS. JFC ENGLISH MAJORS.
I'D STRONGLY SUGGEST THIS TO THE MEMERS WHO THINK MUSTARD GAS WAS AN EFFECTIVE WEAPON AND WHO THINK IT IS A NERVE GAS. JFC ENGLISH MAJORS.
October 18, 2008
Still gives me great hope that mankind will survive the nuclear age.
April 2, 2012
While a serious bit of reading, this is as concise an explanation of human aggression and warfare as I've read. Excellent!
November 26, 2014
This is a very good analysis of human warfare and weaponry. There are well supported postulations. It's a fascinating, holistic view of the subject, and it's highly informative.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews