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.

Strategies of Ukrainian War

 This is a new book by the Russian historian Vladimir Shirogorov that examines the conflict among Russia, Poland, and the Ottoman Empire over the steppe from 1500 to 1800.

He starts by describing the seat of the conflict, Ukraine, sadly, a region all too familiar to modern readers. Although he rightly draws in a much larger territory than the modern country. Poland, the Balkans and the Caucasus all played a part, a region I called the Pontic Steppe in my recent book. The combatants' strategies did not recognise it as an integral entity and fought over what the author, interestingly, calls the Wild Fields. It may have been 'wild', but it was occupied by Tatars and Cossacks, as well as the Ottomans on the fringes and was increasingly subject to Russian colonisation. He argues that Poland adopted the ideology of Sarmatism, reflecting the ideals of that race of warriors, and also as justification for the right to possess Slavic peasant serfs.

While there is a narrative history of the numerous conflicts, strategy is the lens that runs through the book. The problem with this approach is a tendency to fit the historical narrative into these strategies, when history can be messy. While I, of all people, agree that this is a fascinating region, I fear the author goes too far in arguing, 'The dynamic south of eastern Europe seized the subcontinent's strategic agenda while its stagnant north shrank.' He certainly overstates the impact on Western European states, whose primary focus was not on the Wild Fields. Even Russia, at least since Peter the Great, started to look West, although I accept that the Wild Fields became the driving strategy as the period progressed. The Ottomans certainly had more on their plate than simply this territory. What I agree with in the author's analysis is the absence of ethnicity as the underlying ideology and the importance of local interests in driving their empire's strategy.

There is a lot of detail in the narrative history, and that is this book's strength. It covers a broad sweep of history that has been covered in parts, but rarely in the context it deserves. The Cossack raids on Constantinople and the early Azov campaigns are good examples of this. He also does not ignore the importance of economic factors, including food supply and slave trading. Wallachia and Moldavia were vital suppliers of food for Constantinople, and the interruption of these supplies during the Long War in 1595-1606 led the Ottomans to seek a replacement in Ukraine's fertile soil. The fortress at Ochakov was not built there by accident.

I am always grateful to Russian historians who pass their knowledge on in English, having just spent days painfully translating some older Russian texts. However, this book could have done with more editorial assistance. The text is incorrect in places and often clunky and hard to comprehend. I thought it was a case of using too much jargon, but it is often just the wrong word choice. That is a shame, because there is much to learn in this book if you are interested in the region. I fear the general reader might give up.

Ukraine. It has to be Cossacks!

Putin's Mercenaries

 This is the story of Russian private security companies that gave Putin a flexible and deniable military arm as he began to intervene, not just in states on Russia's borders, but further afield in Syria and Africa. These most famously included the Wagner Group and its leader, Yevgeny Prigozhin, who launched a botched mutiny against Putin's regime in 2023. It is written by the prolific Mark Galeotti, who is always worth reading on Russia.

He starts by reminding us that mercenaries are nothing new in Russian military history. The Cossacks are probably the most famous, but Russia recruited from tribes like the Kalmyks to help fight their wars in the 18th and 19th centuries. British, including many Scots, also found their way into Russian service. I suspect soldiers like Lacy, Gordon and Grieg would bristle at the mercenary tag. Soldier of fortune, or for the Jacobites, necessity, may be more accurate.

As serving as a mercenary or establishing such an organisation is banned under the Russian constitution and Criminal Code, Putin came up with a new concept, a commercial company with close links to his regime. The 'Little green men' were a key element of the invasion of Crimea and the Donbas. They were judged more reliable than the various militia warlords that sprang up during these and earlier conflicts. The author takes us through the development of these companies and the key players. In the Donbas, they all proved unable to achieve the breakthrough Putin sought, so regular Russian troops and their heavy equipment were deployed to the battle. After the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, they returned to the battlefield as Putin desperately needed more troops as his 'special operation' ground to a halt. Wagner recruited criminals, neo-Nazis, and pagans, amongst others, to send into the meat grinder.

In Syria, they were sent to prop up the regime of Bashar al-Assad, which, despite the support of Hezbollah and lots of Russian equipment, was losing the civil war. By 2016, Wagner had more than 1500 troops on the ground with support weapons. They fought against ISIS in the strategically important Palmyra area, scouting and then leading the attack, supported by Russian air power. This didn't come cheap. The Russians provided Wagner with some of the latest equipment, including T90 tanks. Wagner received around $170m dollars from the Russian state budget alone in 2016. This was unsustainable, so Wagner established a range of money-making schemes to defray costs. The first sign of tensions between Putin and Prigozhin came at Kasham, when the US brought enormous firepower down on Wagner forces (with up to 300 casualties) after being told by the Russians that none of their troops was involved.

Wagner had largely left Syria in 2018, but had already established itself in Africa, including Sudan, Libya, and the Central African Republic. They found a string of dictators, happy to pay for troops and other political services in return for gold and diamond concessions.

It all came to a sticky end when Prigozhin and his arch-enemy, Defence Minister Shoigu, clashed again in June 2023. Shoigu persuaded Putin to call up 300,000 conscripts, thereby making Wagner no longer essential and allowing its contracts to be ended. This led to a botched coup of sorts, with around 12,000 Wagner troops marching on Moscow (March of Justice). A sort of deal was negotiated, but Putin later decided to eliminate Prigozhin and incorporate the remnants of his forces into the Russian military. Prigozhin must have wisely kept away from windows, so his business jet was shot down and he was killed.

This is an interesting, if grim, story, well told, with lovely colour plates by Johnny Shumate. 

Some of my 20mm Russians

Borderlines

 I have always been interested in borders. The history of the Balkans is littered with examples of border disputes, revisions and the associated conflict. This book by Lewis Baston examines the history of Europe through 29 borders, and it's a fascinating read, not least because he visited most of them. 

Like most UK readers, I think of borders as our internal ones, even though they were once international. In my case, the Scottish Borders, which before the Union of the Crowns was a region of almost regulated conflict. The Welsh Marches were different, but the conflict was just as real. This book is about international borders across Europe, though I was more interested in those in Eastern Europe.

Borders can be a bridge between countries, but also a door keeping people out. A good example is Estonia, which is keeping its Russian border shut, while you can travel freely across the southern border into Latvia. Borders can also describe territorial revisionism, not simply the current political map of Europe. Nationalists in the Balkans are always drawing maps of 'greater' this or that, which purport to include ethnic groups that are in other countries. The Hungarian-Romanian border is an example of this. Historically, borders were not as fixed as they are today. Border communities could be areas of conflict, but also of cooperation. The Militargrenze and Bosnia are such areas.

The core of this book is the author's visits to famous and not-so-famous borders. In the north, he visits the barbed wire and tank traps that Estonia has built to deter Putin's expansionist Russia, and the Russia-Finland border, which stretches for 1,340km. Central Europe has some ironies. Hungary was the first to dismantle barriers and seek to join the EU, but now Orban has decided that barbed wire and division are a good thing. A detour to Cachtice on the Austria-Czechia-Slovakia border was a good opportunity to examine the myths and reality of the infamous Elisabeth Bathory. Today, visitors are positively encouraged to visit the castle!

The Ukraine-Russia boundary is a good example of states claiming 'historic' boundaries, when in reality their claims are simply a snapshot of history. If you look hard enough, almost any border claim can be justified. As Baston puts it, 'Old boundaries layer over each other like scar tissue.' In the periods I am currently writing about, the Cossacks and Tatars roamed over vast spaces between their empire masters, with little consideration of fixed borders. Catherine the Great had no concept of legal or even natural borders; she just expanded her empire in every direction possible. 

The best chapter in the book covers Galicia and Bukovina, which is today on the borders of Poland, Ukraine and Romania. In 1919, after the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the line was arbitrarily drawn by Lord Curzon. In the book's best line, 'There are few geopolitical situations that cannot be worsened by an Englishman brandishing a map and a pen.' On my visit to the Romania-Ukraine border last year, I didn't have time to get as far north as Chernivtsi, which looks like a fascinating place to visit. Its history is borderland par excellence.

The author concludes that 'Revising borders, even without evil intent, is a fool's errand. There is no ideal state of national borders.' Being obsessed with old borders, stirring up grievances, as Putin and Orban are, just makes everyone sadder, angrier and poorer. If there is one message from this brilliant book, it is to leave well alone.

Some of my Early Modern Croats who fought along a shifting border for centuries.

Ottoman

 My bedtime reading has been another historical fiction book I saved from my wife's paperback bookshelf cull on the understanding I would reread and donate. This is Alan Savage's take on the Ottomans from Mehmed the Conqueror to Lepanto.

The vehicle he uses is the Hawkwood family. This is a clever hook because most of us will know of Sir John Hawkwood (1320 – 1394), an English soldier who served as a mercenary leader or condottiero in Italy. He did have an illegitimate son named John, but sadly, he didn't arrive in Constantinople before the great siege. Savage has Hawkwood as a gunner, who comes to Constantinople to serve the Byzantines. However, he falls out with a powerful faction and has to flee the capital, with another of his sons being executed. His ship is forced to beach in Ottoman territory, and he is taken into Ottoman service. 

There is a tenuous link to history here, as the Ottomans had a renegade gunner who had originally offered his services to the Byzantines. He was a Hungarian (possibly Wallachian) named Orban. The sultan provided him with funds and materials to build a giant gun. He built it within three months at Adrianople, using sixty oxen to drag it to Constantinople. Orban also produced other, smaller cannons used by the Ottoman siege forces. It played an important, but not decisive role, in the successful 1453 siege. Orban died soon after and didn't create a dynasty.

Savage develops the Hawkwood family into an important Ottoman dynasty, leading armies on land and later on sea. They have a palace in Galata, and can benefit and fall foul of Ottoman politics across four generations of sultans. I won't spoil the story because, although it was first published in 1991, you can get a copy at a reasonable price. And I recommend you do because this is a cracking read. Historical fiction at its very best.

My 1453 renegade gunner in 28mm