Reddit reviews The Pursuit of Power: Technology, Armed Force, and Society since A.D. 1000

Lacertoss makes a good point about just how long it took Russia to overcome the various steppe peoples they had to contend with and the continued military utility of horse archers. Chinese history is punctuated with periods of nomadic military ascendancy, and gradual colonization of the steppe with fortified settlements was one of the only effective ways to deal with them there as well.

The military effectiveness of nomads vis-a-vis 'pre-modern' settled peoples cannot be over-stated, and is made obvious by how often the ruling dynasties in settled areas surrounding the Eurasian steppes where in part or entirely descended from nomadic conquerors. In China alone the most notable examples include the Han, Tang, Song, and Ming intermarrying with nomadic elites at times, and the Jin, Yuan (Mongol), and Qing dynasties established by nomads, just to name a few.

From the first domestication of livestock in pre-history pastoralist groups broke off from agrarian societies, and on the whole lived a far better life than farmers through most of pre-modernity. The mobility this lifestyle gave them - especially with the domestication of horses between 3500-2000BCE in what now is the Ukraine - distinct offensive advantages over settled populations, in that they could simply ride in, take what they wanted, and then disappear. Although these advantages were ameliorated over time by the development of fortifications and state structures which provided better defences for settles populations (including the employment of their own cavalry forces, often recruited from pastoralist groups), border zones remained subject to nomad raids and periodic invasions. Over time technological advances (some indigenous, and some simply taken from agrarians) increased the military effectiveness of nomads including more powerful composite bows and (successively) the chariot and stirrups. This was compounded by developments in horse breeding, which - contrary to the development of large, powerful warhorses for shock cavalry in settled societies - often focused on speed and stamina.

The Eurocentrism of Western historical traditions has placed an emphasis on the dominance of shock cavalry like knights in the Middle Ages, but in the majority of Eurasia during this period it was horse archer that dominated wherever possible. Western Europe was an exception to the norm partly due to its geography, as it was relatively shielded from the steppes by rivers, mountains, and forests in which horse archers were less effective, and there was limited pasturage for the mass of horses which accompanied a nomad army. In any place exposed to steppes, desserts, or other semi-arid zones, nomadic cavalry played a prominent - if not always dominant - military role in pre-modern times.

Another exception to the norm was the eclipse of heavy cavalry by gun-armed infantry in the so-called Military Revolution in early modern Europe. Although a similar revolution in tactics stressing the combined use of early cannons and massed, drilled infantry had occurred in late medieval China it had not been effective enough against nomads for a variety of reasons (including supply issues) and had not sustained itself. Again, European geography played a role in sustaining the Military Revolution in its early days, with similar developments flourishing only in Sengoku Era Japan, which was also sheltered from the steppes.

Even with the development of effective gunpowder weapons and drill the horse archer remained a superior offensive soldier, who could ride in, fire multiple arrows, and then withdraw all during the time it took to reload and fire a matchlock gun. Indeed, the development of gunpowder even helped nomadic armies at times, with the combination of massed horse archers and artillery, as demonstrated by the Mughals at the First Battle of Panipat allowing them to fight even more effectively against settled populations and leading to the establishment of early modern Gunpowder Empires in the Islamic World.

Western-style infantry-centric armies were only able to engage with and defeat numerically superior cavalry-centric Asian armies on a regular basis after subsequent technological and tactical advances and only did so on a large scale from the 18th Century onward. The developments included flintlock guns, bayonets, advanced in artillery, and combined armed tactics which incorporated units of light cavalry (often - as with the armies of the East India Company - recruited locally).

If you're interested in the military effectiveness of steppe cavalry vis-a-vis infantry or the Military Revolution in an Asian context more broadly good places to start reading are the classic The Pursuit of Power by William H. MacNeill, The Asian Military Revolution by Peter Lorge, and any of the anthology texts relating to the Military Revolution debate among historians like Geoffrey Parker and Clifford J. Rogers in the 1990s. Jeremy Black also has some good stuff on the delayed development and/or effectiveness of the Military Revolution as exported to Asia by the British.

This is the book that i have found the most information of how the world works and what led to it that i have read. Concise and sweeping at the same time.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Pursuit-Power-Technology-Society/dp/0226561585

A good book that gets a bit into Chinese industry is "The Pursuit of Power "
https://www.amazon.com/Pursuit-Power-Technology-Society-D/dp/0226561585