I learnt plenty about the functioning of armies -- or rather 'campaign communities', since 'army' gives a wrong impression for the time period. It's an easy read, and as he says, he's a military historian, not a gender studies person. This is evident, but he's well-meaning, and, as advertised, jargon-free. I wasn't aware how large a part the noncombatant community had: essential not just for laundry but in pillage and plunder, which was commonly your only chance of getting paid. Women often handled the goods and cashed them in, which was not too different from civilian life. It's interesting to look at women as present, as participants, in the rough stuff as places were sacked. He tries to deduce their attitudes, for instance, to the rape of the enemy.

The modernisation of armies reduced the need for women's support services. Also, they began to get paid.

Early modern armies were more interesting places than I knew about. His focus is on the ordinary functioning of them, not the extraordinary stories of women who disguised themselves as men. Although, his coverage of the cultural fad that these were in the 17th century, was interesting too.

The women thought chic to dress in cast-off military coats, just like we used to shop at the army disposals store. In which, they did a lot of digging. ( )