05-24-2013, 03:23 AM
Having read Mr. Davison's short review of Piotr Lecki's The Cavalry of Diocletian: Origin, Organization, Tactics, Weapons, I am now undecided as to whether I should purchase the book, so would appreciate opinions from those who have read it. Don't mind works relying on secondary sources, even if I am familiar with them, provided the author makes a conclusion and doesn't digress for the sake of filler: in this instance space devoted to the change in command of Legiones I – III Parthicae, already covered in Ross Cowan's Osprey title, something I'd associate with Nic Fields' works. Aside from this example, are there any other digressions in 170 pages?
Does the author present his analyses/opinions, or does he simply regurgitate material, as if it were a glorified book report? I'm looking for something that expands on Simon MacDowall's Late Roman Cavalryman AD 236–565, in which the author does offer an opinion about the differences between cataphractii and clibanarii. Is there evidence presented for and against Gallienus' Cavalry Corps or does Lecki accept it as fact? How detailed is the section on arms and equipment? I have Bishop and Coulston's book, along with a few others, but additional information and drawings are always appreciated, as long as the author knows his subject.
Does the author present his analyses/opinions, or does he simply regurgitate material, as if it were a glorified book report? I'm looking for something that expands on Simon MacDowall's Late Roman Cavalryman AD 236–565, in which the author does offer an opinion about the differences between cataphractii and clibanarii. Is there evidence presented for and against Gallienus' Cavalry Corps or does Lecki accept it as fact? How detailed is the section on arms and equipment? I have Bishop and Coulston's book, along with a few others, but additional information and drawings are always appreciated, as long as the author knows his subject.
aka T*O*N*G*A*R
