The transition to farming was rough and did not offer all the advantages we might think. The only victims who escaped death were the divinely protected and the women who were carried off to bear their captors' children. In the wee hours a squad of warriors would creep into an enemy camp and start hacking their hapless enemy. Not very many deaths and injuries, it was the time to size up your adversary and tell them to go look elsewhere. Show battles could occur at 'borders' such as they existed back then (e.g., across a river) where there would be hooting, hollering, spear throwing, and sometimes duels of champions. There is some disagreement about its nature, but it often fell in two types, raids and show battles. Their lives could be brutish, but it depended on the density of populations: where competition existed for hunting grounds, herds, and such, war ensued. For example, before sedentary living, hunter gatherers and pastoralists defined humanity. The book goes light on the moral dimension, choosing to largely look at why war is chosen in different times, by different peoples, whatever their reasons. Human interaction occurs in a decision matrix, where war is but one option among many in considerations of food, shelter, water, and belief. It's a tome attempting to describe war, from pre-civilization to now.

War in Human Civilization is the one I keep returning to.

It got me thinking about what I look for in a work and about books which changed my perspective. There's a cool thread about originality going on.

Azar gat war in human civilization