The Codex | Rebel Thinkers PublishingReviews of rebel-thinkers.com

I have mixed opinions when it comes to The Codex. I ordered both about the inventions and the warfare and when Inventions has impressed me, the Warfare - disappointed. I'm certain that the authors do a great work of popularising history and their intentions are pure, and thanks to their work history is further preserved and the ancestors are given justice and their achievements are hightlighted. I have a lot to say, but both books are mostly accurate. I will state it now (in case someone read my review and thought it too long in the middle) and expand on my critical review further. Codex of Inventions has great level of historical accuracy and beautiful art. I haven't found critical mistakes in either. I like the form of leading the reader chronologically through the ideas of humankind. Codex of Warfare was a little bit like hitting the ground. My four main problems were: misleading (and somewhat critical) mistakes, questionable choices about either given information or art, poor organisation of space and inconsistent art style. One sentence I could use to sum it up would be: "On one hand it's great, historically accurate, attractive form, interesting. On the other we have a Mongol triceratops, historically inaccurate hidden blade of hashashins and epic DnD knights in immobile armors." Lack of crucial people or formations for the history of warfare, like Normandy or Prussia, but given space for the legendary King Arthur (which had an impact on Europeans, yes, but in the book itself it's not even pointed out what the impact was and it looks like a whim of telling a liked legend). Or the part about Romans was very deeply disappointing: there is an absolute lack of telling how the Roman army was actually organised and what exactly made them be the conquerors of their world. Lack of information about Greco-Persian wars. No information that hoplons were a form of identification and made psychological impact aside from being practical - basic information. There is much more, unfortunately. And even if it's treated more like a "fun fact" book it also has a lack of fun facts - for example, why no information about female gladiators? Why so little about the Cossacks or the pirates? Why no information about the espionage before 20th century? Also, in some cases I had the impression that the political history was more pointed out than the military history. Yes, politics and war are intertwined, BUT political history and military history are two different types and on some pages it felt like the political history was more important and military history only supported it. Also I think it would be better if it was organised chronologically and by historical eras. It is not (I think the part about the medievals is the worst in this case) and it makes one confused. About the art, it's not bad, but the inconsistency is striking. Some images are disastrously incorrect ("Ancient Siege"). I'm not going to say a word about AI, but I will say the word that if we're working with multiple artists with different art styles - it's better to put their work next to each other, rather than have one art style on page, let's say, 20, strikingly different art style on page 30 and then back to the first art style on page 40. It just doesn't look good. And also, it's not about the images with stylised recreation of historical work - it's about the images that were drawn by the artist from their own project. It's worth noting that I am a professional in the field and passionate about art and history of warfare, so I was able to notice the big and small mistakes. I'm a little concerned about people who aren't able to notice on their own something's wrong (or determine if something's just a meme and not an actual fact) and the books would mislead them and spread misinformation. It just looks to me that with Codex or Warfare there was no advice from professionals or the professionals were unprofessional - I imagine no actual professional would give thumbs up and think that giving an image of naval battle with canons in the middle of medieval times, giving an image of ancient Greeks for pages about Greek fire (used by the Byzantines) or dividing Knight Orders and the Crusades by well 10+ pages was a great or even good idea. Not to mention the misinformation I've pointed out earlier. To sum up, Codex of Inventions is great, but I expected more and better from the Codex of Warfare (maybe a re-relase in the future with fixed mistakes AND art choices?). Keep up the good work, dear Rebel Thinkers. You have a lot to offer and some mistakes must be done to get better. I'll gladly follow and support your further work.