The Heretic

 My latest bedtime reading is The Heretic by David Pilling. It is another grim story, and after Vlad, I really must review my choice of bedtime reading! This is a fictional account of an English mercenary who ends up in Bohemia during the Hussite wars.

The Hussite Wars (1419–1436) were a series of religious and political conflicts in the Kingdom of Bohemia that followed the execution of the Czech reformer Jan Hus in 1415. His teachings, which criticised corruption in the Catholic Church and called for reform, inspired a strong movement among his followers known as the Hussites. After Hus’s death, tensions between reformers and Catholic authorities escalated into open warfare. The Hussites successfully resisted several crusades launched against them by forces loyal to the Holy Roman Empire and the papacy, using innovative tactics such as war wagons and disciplined infantry formations. They were led in the first stage by the outstanding tactician Jan Zizka, who was blinded in combat. The wars ended with a compromise that allowed moderate Hussite practices in Bohemia, marking one of the earliest major challenges to the authority of the medieval Catholic Church and foreshadowing later movements like the Protestant Reformation.

The story is told through an English mercenary, John Page. His narrative covers the years 1421-24. This is book two in the series, and he arrives in Bohemia after serving in the English army in France under Henry V. He witnesses the blinding of Zizka and takes part in some of the most famous battles, such as Kutná Hora and Malesov. His tale provides a brief snapshot of conditions in Bohemia at this time: the ever-present threat of war and invasion, the relentless fanaticism of splinter groups such as the Táborites, and the desperate battles, in which armies of peasants roared hymns as they drove the flower of European knighthood from the field. Above all, Page highlights the military genius of one man, Jan Zizka, still celebrated in the Czech Republic today as a national hero.

I didn't know much about the Hussite Wars, so this is a good introduction. It is fast-paced and well-written, with a hero that is just flawed enough to be credible. It readily served as inspiration for our midweek game. I found enough war wagons and generic 15mm figures to field a Hussite and German army in a game of DBA. The German army was led by Sigismund, the Holy Roman Emperor. This is a character I am familiar with, as in 1396, Sigismund led the Crusade of Nicopolis but was decisively defeated by the Ottoman Empire. Pilling is pretty dismissive of him as a ruler and battlefield commander, which may be justified. However, his major failures (such as his handling of the Hussite movement) are now generally considered by most scholars to be the result of a lack of financial resources and other constraints, rather than personal failings.

I was playing the Hussites, and I had little idea of how to use war wagons, which make up half the army. So, I chose the best available terrain and formed them into a line, as they appear to have done historically. I used the remaining troops on the flanks or in reserve.

My opponent shifted his main strike force of German knights to attack my left flank and brought a bombard forward to shoot at the war wagons.

As you can see from the above, his bombard blew a hole in my line. In fact, he destroyed all five war wagons with just five shots. I did reinforce the left flank and succeeded in killing Sigismund and all his knights, but it wasn't enough. Even allowing for the dice, I should have got out and attacked the bombard. It outranged the war wagons, and artillery destroys them fairly easily under DBA rules. I think it is known as a learning experience!

Bolton Castle

 I thought I had visited almost all of the castles in this part of North Yorkshire, but looking for a stop on our way home, I realised I hadn't visited Bolton Castle. I did walk to it many years ago when staying in Hawes, but it was closed.

The castle was built by Lord Scrope in 1379, although it took 20 years to finish. The Scrope (pronounced "scroop") family were originally Norman and became a powerful dynasty in the north. One was Henry V's Treasurer (a thankless task that one), and another fought at Towton. The castle was set on fire by Henry VIII when the 8th Baron reluctantly supported the Pilgrimage of Grace. It was also one of the castles used to imprison Mary Queen of Scots. The major damage was done by a Parliamentary siege during the civil wars, and it never properly recovered before restoration work in the modern era.

The castle is a mix of intact and partially intact rooms. There is a decent cafe, and a living history event was starting when we arrived. Bird of Prey displays are also held.

During the Napoleonic Wars, volunteer regiments were raised for home defence. The local version was the Dales Volunteers, and one of their cannons is on display.

We stopped off at Richmond on the way. My wife had interior design shops in mind, but that meant I could make a return visit to the excellent Green Howards Regimental Museum and the impressive Richmond Castle.

Of course, there is always a Balkan link, if you look closely enough 😂.

Bosniaks and the Austro-Hungarian Empire

 This is Dževada Šuśko's study of how Bosniaks adapted to the Austro-Hungarian Empire's occupation of Bosnia in 1878 and its formal annexation in 1908.

Bosnia and Herzegovina fell under Austro-Hungarian rule in 1878, when the Congress of Berlin approved the occupation of the Bosnia Vilayet, which officially remained part of the Ottoman Empire. Three decades later, in 1908, Austria-Hungary provoked the Bosnian crisis by formally annexing the occupied zone, establishing the Condominium of Bosnia and Herzegovina under the joint control of Austria and Hungary.

Bosnia was different to other parts of the Balkans occupied by the Ottoman Empire in that it had a large Muslim population, known as Bosniaks, who formed an effective border community against Austrian expansion in the Balkans for centuries. As they looked to the Ottoman caliphate, they were not driven by the nationalism that gripped many other Balkan states in the 19th century. This study examines how the shift in power from Ottoman to Austro-Hungarian rule in 1878 affected the Bosnian people, who suddenly found themselves under European rather than Islamic authority, and how they navigated this transition in terms of faith and loyalty. Of course, not everyone did, and there were waves of emigration.

The Austrians had historically made a mess of their Balkan invasions, and the Catholic state had a mixed record in dealing with parts of the empire that professed a different faith. However, Bosnia was given the status of a separate entity within the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Despite initial mistrust, a rapport of sorts with the Austria-Hungary occupiers was reached to the extent that Bosniaks even began enlisting in the Empire’s military following their religious demands of halal food, Friday prayers (Jumu‘ah), Ramadan, etc., being accommodated. This led to a complex interaction, with a degree of loyalty engendered toward the Austrian state, as well as toward the Islamic faith and its cultural heritage.

This book developed out of a PhD thesis, so there is a lengthy discussion of the theoretical framework and sources that the general reader may want to skip. There is a chapter that covers who the Bosniaks were and their development since the Ottoman invasion. There are lots of myths about this, and the chapter outlines the key developments. With the conquest of Bosnia by the Ottoman Empire, adherents of the Bosnian Church and a part of the Catholic and Orthodox population converted to Islam. Bosniaks are not left behind Turks, as some persist in arguing. The impact of developments in the surrounding states is equally important, as Bosnia did not exist in isolation, despite the mountainous terrain.

The Bosniaks were torn between showing loyalty to the Ottoman Empire, to an autonomous state of Bosnia, or to Austria-Hungary. Their main fear was losing their religious identity. The meat of this study is how the Bosniaks accommodated to the new rule and adopted Central European standards. The first conscription law was promulgated in 1881, and the author outlines how the Austrians imposed very different conditions of service on Bosniaks. The Ottoman state did not object to conscription, and Islamic scholars approved of the conditions of service. This took the steam out of possible revolts. During WW1, Bosnian Serbs took sides with Serbia, whereas Bosniaks and Croats sided with the Austro-Hungarian military. Austria, being allied with the Ottoman Empire, obviously helped. The Shaykh al- Islam issued a fatwa to proclaim a jihad, arguing that Russia had proven itself to be the enemy of Islam and Muslims. Its politics were supported by England and France and aimed at destroying the Ottoman Empire as well as the Muslim populations in the Balkans. 

Bosniak soldiers not only protected the borders of their home country, but they were also deployed to the Russian and Italian fronts. Some Austrian officers argued that the Bosniaks were a military elite within the Austro-Hungarian army. They were praised because they were the youngest, described as the most courageous, cooperative, cordial, and persistent of men, extremely loyal to their task and work. 

This might appear to be a rather specialist study, but there is plenty of material of wider interest that explains the role of Bosniaks in later conflicts, including WW2 and the Balkan wars of the 1990s. As the author concludes, "History bears witness that as long as their religious identity and practice, as well as the territorial integrity of their home country Bosnia and Herzegovina, and mother tongue has not been endangered, Bosniaks have adapted to new political, social and educational systems." It is also available as a free ebook, so no risk in giving it a go.

I do have some WW2 Bosniaks as Warlord do head conversions, but not for WW1. I can't see a range, so it looks like another conversion.

I do have Austrians of the period.

We shouldn't forget that the 'spark' for WW1 happened in Sarajevo. This is in the museum at the site of the assassination. Lovely city to visit.

Moldavia and Wallachia in the Phanariot Era

 My holiday reading has been Claudiu-Ion Neagoe's new book for Helion on the military organisation of Moldavia and Wallachia in the Phanariot Era, which he defines as 1709-1821.

The Phanariots were a class of wealthy Greek merchants (of mostly noble Byzantine descent), influential in the administration of the Ottoman Empire's Balkan domains in the 18th century. They usually built their houses in the Phanar quarter of Constantinople to be near the court of the Patriarch, who (under the Ottoman millet system) was recognised as the spiritual and secular head (millet-bashi) of the Orthodox subjects. Moldavia and Wallachia were vassal states of the Ottoman Empire, rather than being fully incorporated into the Ottoman system. The Ottomans had traditionally appointed a local prince as the ruler of both states. However, the policy changed due to the rebellion of local princes associated with the rise of Imperial Russia's power under Peter the Great and the presence of the Habsburg Empire on the Carpathian border with the principalities. This led to the appointment of Phanariots, who were regarded as more loyal and were regularly changed. Eleven different princes served in Wallachia alone during this period.

This book focuses on the military organisation, and the author has undertaken an impressive search of the primary sources to identify the units involved. The Ottomans never really trusted the Wallachians and Moldavians, so the overall size of the armed forces was modest, mostly for internal security and tax collecting. Larger forces could be raised during wartime. For example, during the 1737 war, 6,000 troops were raised to defend Wallachia, in support of the Ottoman units based there.

There was a bewildering variety of troop types, although each unit was fairly small. There was a similar approach in both principalities, with a heavy reliance on mercenaries. The traditional troop types declined during this period. For example, the 6,000 troops raised in Moldavia for the 1737 war included Tatars and Turks as well as Moldavians. Tatars were used as couriers, and Cossacks were also recruited, although this may refer to how they were dressed rather than to recruitment from Cossack lands. Serbian infantry (Seymen) were musket-armed foot, and Turkish cavalry (Besli) were prized over the traditional Moldavian and Wallachian horse. There are excellent colour plates of the main troop types.

The traditional view is that Ottomans insisted on a small military because they didn't trust local recruitment. However, this study found no evidence to support that assertion. The constraints were primarily financial, as the Phanariot princes had to refund the cost of their appointment. 

This is a reference book for those interested in the period, rather than a narrative history for the general reader. Very useful for me, though, even if they didn't play a significant role in the fighting. For the wargamer, there are some exotic troop types that will at least look good on the tabletop. The mercenaries can come from Ottoman forces of the period. The locals can fairly easily be converted from the Greek and Aldanian figure ranges. I have a few leftover Old Glory Albanians, which should work out fine.

Helmsley Castle

We are down in North Yorkshire, and stopped off at the very pleasant market town of Helmsley on the way down. While my wife toured the shops, I made for the excellent castle, one of the largest in the area. I haven't visited it for more than 15 years.

The castle was constructed of wood around 1120. In 1186, Robert de Ros began work on converting the castle to stone. It was to stay with the family throughout the Middle Ages. It was sold in the Tudor period, and a mansion was built within the walls.

The castle was built on an outcrop of rock on the north bank of the River Rye. The main ward, roughly rectangular, was surrounded by high curtain walls with towers at the corners. The castle keep, known as the East Tower, lay about halfway along the east wall. The castle was surrounded by two deep, steep-sided ditches separated by a bank. The main gate to the castle was in the south-east corner of the curtain wall. This gate was protected by the massive Southern Barbican, which stood on an enlarged section of the bank between the two ditches.

Southern barbican 

It was a Royalist stronghold in North Yorkshire during the First English Civil War. It was besieged by Parliamentarian forces in September 1644 and surrendered on 22 November after a two- to three-month siege. The damage you can see today is largely a result of the deliberate slighting of the castle after the siege. It was later sold to the Duncombe family, who built a nearby mansion, and the castle was allowed to deteriorate, with locals helping themselves to much of the stonework.

Despite that, there is still plenty to see, including the keep and Tudor mansion. You can also get a good impression of how strong this castle was. This is good farming country that, in the Middle Ages, could have supported a large castle. Well worth a look.

Vlad

 This is C.C. Humphreys' fictional take on the life of Vlad Tepes, better known as 'The Impaler' or Dracula. This was my bedtime reading, although perhaps not the wisest choice for that time of night.

Vlad was a 15th-century ruler of Wallachia (in present-day Romania). Born in 1431 into the noble Drăculești family, he spent part of his youth as a hostage in the Ottoman Empire, an experience that shaped his later hostility toward Ottoman expansion and, in particular, Mehmet the Conqueror. Vlad ruled Wallachia during several turbulent reigns, most notably from 1456 to 1462, when he sought to consolidate power, enforce strict order, and defend his territory against the Ottomans. He became infamous for his preferred method of punishment, impalement, which he used on enemies, criminals, and political rivals, earning a fearsome reputation across Europe. Despite his cruelty, which was far from unique, he was an effective ruler who brought stability and resisted foreign domination. Wallachia suffered throughout its history under a nobility (boyars) who rarely looked beyond their own self-interest. His reputation also suffered as a result of a medieval spin doctor campaign against him. 

When I first visited Romania, as a Brit brought up reading Bram Stoker's fictional vampire Count Dracula, I was surprised to discover that Vlad was a national hero. Stoker did very little research on the real Dracula; it was more a case of finding a suitable character and setting. You can ignore the tourist attraction of Dracula's Castle, which he almost certainly didn't even visit. But his birthplace and other sites in Transylvania are worth a visit.

Humphreys broadly follows what we know of Vlad's life, although his being present at the death of Mehmet the Conqueror is a bit of a stretch! He largely adds the dialogue you would expect to see in historical fiction. He uses the format of a historical look back, in the form of an inquisition interrogating those closest to him. It is a reasonably sympathetic view of his life, which I think is justified. It is also a great read, one of those examples of how history can be stranger and often better than fiction. It was a truly remarkable life, well told.

I visited his alleged burial place last year. Probably a myth, but a lovely spot.

And some of my 15mm Wallachian army of the period, with a tasteless but unavoidable camp!

1956: The Year That Changed Britain

 1956, The Year That Changed Britain by Francis Beckett and Tony Russell was my library pick for the month. A bit self-indulgent, as it is the year of my birth, but as I understandably recall nothing, I thought it might be interesting. 

In the first chapter, there was something I did recall, albeit from later childhood. The most-watched TV series in January 1956 (78% audience share) was ITV's The Adventures of Robin Hood, starring Richard Greene, the very best in the genre. The song "Robin Hood, Robin Hood, riding through the glen, Robin Hood, Robin Hood, with his band of men," stuck with me all these years. Was there a political message about the redistribution of wealth to undermine McCarthyism in the USA? At the other extreme, 1956 was the end of communist idealism for a generation with the Soviet invasion of Hungary. A historical event that the current pro-Putin Hungarian leader has forgotten. And on the subject of great political causes, the last Prime Minister of Republican Spain died in Paris in 1956.

On a more practical note, it was the year that double yellow lines appeared on our streets. Cursed by us all sometimes, but essential to keep our roads clear with ever-increasing car use. And on the subject of law enforcement, it was the first year that no life was taken by the judicial system. Parliament voted in favour of abolishing the death penalty in a motion, but it wasn't abolished in legislation until 1965. The Clean Air Act was passed as a response to the 1952 London smog, which killed 4,000 people. A reminder for climate change deniers that environmental legislation is both necessary and not new.

A special interest of mine, Cyprus, kicked off in 1956 with a bomb discovered under the bed of the governor, and Makarios was arrested for fostering terrorism. Shootings and other acts followed, led by EOKA. However, the big military event of 1956 was the Suez Crisis. Very topical today, given that it had to be abandoned because of US pressure. Trump doesn't read anything, certainly not history, but he has been reminded of it today. At the time 100 Tory MPs tabled a motion, 'deploring the attitude of the United states', hard to imagine that today either. When Eden resigned, and Macmillan took over, he was supposed to have telegraphed Ike saying, 'Over to you!', by which he meant the Middle East was now the US's responsibility.

The Lancaster bomber made its last operational flight in 1956. Britain also took its first steps toward energy security in 1956, another topical issue, when Calder Hall nuclear power station was switched on.

In culture, 1956 was the year when the theatre moved out of its comfortable middle-class blanket with plays like Look Back in Anger. Theatre critics like Kenneth Tynan (an obscure relative of mine) reflected the new mood of radical theatre productions. Granada TV was the first ITV franchise in northern England, and I can remember its distinctive logo from growing up in Liverpool. Tommy Trinder got sacked for offensive jokes, which were pretty inoffensive by later standards, and many were about my football team, Fulham, which he part-owned and later chaired.

In sport, this was the year of Jim Laker's still-standing record wicket tally: 19 wickets for 90 runs against Australia. Oh, for another Jim Laker today! Premium Bonds were launched in 1956, and I do remember being given one for my birthday. Not impressed, as I would rather have had the cash for comics. However, some £47 billion has been invested in them. 

I am now convinced that I was born in the year that changed Britain 😆. The author concluded that the lasting legacy of 1956 is the decline of deference. He may be right about that at least.

I have never gamed Suez, but here is an early Turkish intervention in the Cyprus conflict. My favourite jet aircraft is the F-100 Super Sabre.