Firearms: A Global History to 1700 Book

The book starts off with this simple question: how is it that Europeans and others outpaced the Chinese in firearm technology when the Chinese invented firearms in the first place? The author's thesis is that steppe warfare retarded early technological advancements since primitive firearms were at a disadvantage against nomadic hordes. Europeans, Turks, Japenese, etc., on the other hand, made marginal advancements in technology and tactics when fighting themselves and eachother over many years after obtaining the original technology. Many of these groups were also largely shielded from steppe nomads geographically and had no need to respond to their tactics.

Initially, I was intrigued by the author's thesis brought up in the introduction. However, I don't believe he sufficiently answers his own question. He doesn't answer how the technology marginally evolved, except how each military force employed firepower in the centuries since its inception. He mentions some groups having relatively better firepower than others, even though they were both adapted to similar forms of warfare, but never answers why. Who made what improvements on the muskets or mortars? What changed about the musket in 400 years? Why did Europeans have superior muskets, pistols and cannons compared with muslims rulers in the 16th century? These questions are unanswered because the author equates a tactical advantage with technological progress. Even cultural advantages are outright dismissed. The author claims that European culture didn't contribute to technology because he can quote a few Europeans comparing firearms to "Satan."

The book's theme is more consistent with its title than its thesis. It's more of a broad survey of world military history from the 12th century to the 18th century--who defeated who, when and with how many canons, muskets, etc. In this regard, it's well-researched but falls short of providing evidence and I'm not convinced.