Kolubara 1914

 One of the reasons I chose western Serbia for my recent trip, apart from the stunning scenery, was to visit the sites of the early WW1 battles. These were the opening clashes of the war in the east, fought between the Serbian and Austro-Hungarian armies. I based myself at Valjavo, which was a key point in the Serbian defences.

The battle is not forgotten in Valjevo today, with a statue in the city centre of General Misic, commander of the 1st Army

By November 1914, the Serbian armies were in retreat, despite their achievements in pushing the Austrian's back twice. On 16 November 1914, the Austrian armies commanded by Oskar Potiorek had pushed the Serbs out of Valjevo and had reached the Kolubara River west of Lazarevac. Belgrade, to the north, would fall on 29 November, and this was the last decent defensive line the Serbian army under Radomir Putnik could reasonably hope to hold. While it was wintertime and the 'Serbian mud' was at its worst, the four Serbian armies were understrength and short of supplies and ammunition. Putnik was advising his government to seek a peace treaty. However, the Serbian army received additional supplies from France and pulled off one of the most remarkable battles of the war.

The Austrian offensive started at Lazarevac, which would have given them access to the Mladenovac railway line and the ability to outflank the Serbian forces holding the road to Belgrade. Further south, the Austro-Hungarians attacked the Serbian 1st Army. After fierce fighting, the Serbian forces withdrew in reasonable order, while the increasingly exhausted Austrians were dragged further into Serbia, without adequate support. Potiorek was so confident that he appointed a governor for Serbia.

The Kolubara River near Lazarevac

Having received fresh artillery supplies, the Serbian armies counterattacked on 2 December, catching the overextended Austrians by surprise and leaving them too far from their heavy guns. By 6 December, the Austrians were in full retreat, reaching Valjevo on 8 December. While this shortened their lines of supply, the surprise attack meant they had not built sufficient defences, particularly on the hills surrounding Valjevo. A huge sweep around the town resulted in the Austrians losing 20,000 troops. The remaining Austrian forces headed back to Bosnia. The Serbian command said, "The recapture of Belgrade marks the successful end of a great and magnificent period in our operations. The enemy is beaten, dispersed, defeated and expelled from our territory once and for all." 

The Austrians then had to abandon Belgrade, and Potiorek was dismissed. The Austro-Hungarians suffered about 225,000 casualties, including 30,000 killed, 173,000 wounded and 70,000 taken prisoner. The Serbs also suffered heavy casualties, with 22,000 killed, 91,000 wounded, and 19,000 missing or captured. If you want to read more, I recommend Dusan Babac's The Serbian Army in the Great War 1914-1918, published by Helion.

Misic's HQ, reproduced in the National Museum in Valjevo.

So, for the tabletop this week, we decided to play a representative action within this massive battle. We will be using Chris Pringle's Bloody Big Battles rules in 15mm. While I have these armies in 28mm, these rules are great for smaller scales in big battles. A base size of BBB represents between 1,000 and 1,500 infantry.

Here is the initial setup, with the Serbians in the hills as the Austrians advance.

The New History of Orkney

My library pick this month was William Thomson's history of Orkney. It is the full version (500 pages), so probably a bit much if you just want some pre-holiday reading before visiting the islands. My family comes from the west coast, but Orkney is my favourite island chain within Scotland. I covered it for a while while working my career job and loved every visit. Even though the wind was so strong on my first visit, I could lean into it.

If you are not familiar with Scotland, it is the closest island chain off the northern coast. Shetland is the next one. Orkney is 10 miles (16 km) north of Caithness and has about 70 islands, of which 20 are inhabited. The largest island, the Mainland, has an area of 523 square kilometres and includes the capital, Kirkwall.

The author has written a broadly chronological history of Orkney. He starts with the Picts, although the Romans knew them, and earlier Iron Age sites can be visited today, particularly the brochs. At this time, Orkney was very much part of Scotland, with the local ruler (Regulus) reporting to the king, although, as ever, Orkney's geography meant they generally operated fairly independently. Orkney was a successful fishing and farming community, with a warrior elite.

Then came the Vikings, led originally by King Harold Fairhair, or at least we believe so, depending on how much weight you place on Viking sagas. Then a series of wonderfully named Vikings, such as Eric Blood-axe, and Thorfinn Skull-splitter. They calmed down a bit in the early 11th century after they converted to Christianity. However, this was always a robust version. The Orkneyinga Saga suggests the Norwegian king stopped at Orkney and summoned the jarl Sigurd the Stout and said, "I order you and all your subjects to be baptised. If you refuse, I'll have you killed on the spot and I swear I will ravage every island with fire and steel." I'm not quite sure that was what Jesus had in mind! The author covers the Viking period in some depth, including the various ways they got involved in mainland politics and wars. For example, Hardrada's 1066 invasion called in at Orkney. 

If Thorfinn the Mighty (1014-65) was the greatest military power Orkney achieved, it was Earl Rognvald who got the cultural vote. Not least because he started the very attractive St Magnus Cathedral in Kirkwall. A century later, Orkney had strengthened its links with Scotland as well as Norway. Both sought to tie Orkney's rulers into their sphere of influence. King Hakon's failed attack at Largs (1263) highlighted the geographical reality that Norway was a long distance away. This was built upon when Scottish mainland landowners gained property on Orkney, including the Sinclairs, who came from the Lothians. This developed into the formal transfer to Scotland in 1468, largely because the Norwegians needed the cash. 

The Reformation reached Orkney in the 16th century, though with little enthusiasm. In my work experience, I always found the political leaders to be fairly practical and mostly independent.  There was a short-lived Dukedom of Orkney, awarded in 1567 by Mary, Queen of Scots, to her notorious third husband, James Hepburn, 4th Earl of Bothwell. He was followed by Earl Robert Stewart, the illegitimate son of James V. However, the real baddie was his son, Earl Patrick Stewart (1593-1615), whose financial mismanagement and brutality against the local population led to court proceedings. He was later executed for treason.

In 1652, even a few of Cromwell's soldiers were based in Kirkwall, rebuilding defences. This demonstrates the importance of Orkney. These defences were crucial in both world wars, when the Home Fleet was based in Orkney, and the German High Seas Fleet was sunk there. There is a new museum I haven't been to yet, but I highly recommend Scapa whisky, distilled nearby. The museum in Kirkwall is also worth a look.

If we are discussing Orkney on the tabletop, then it just has to be Vikings.

Some of my 28mm figures.

Clash of Empires in the Balkans

 My latest book, Clash of Empires in the Balkans: Ottoman-Russia-Austria War of 1736-1739, is now on sale. It is always good to get to the end game of a book I have spent a lot of time on over the past year. My eighth history book since I moved into semi-retirement in 2018.

In the 1730s, the allied Russian and Austrian Empires viewed the weakening Ottoman Empire as an opportunity to expand into the Balkans and along the Black Sea coast. However, the Ottomans proved to be far more resilient than expected. Russian armies paid a high price for every mile gained in Ukraine, while Ottoman forces successfully defeated the Austrians in Bosnia and Serbia. This book recounts the significant conflict, detailing the leaders, soldiers, battles, and sieges that shaped the great clash of empires in the eighteenth-century Balkans.

I chose this subject for a few reasons, not just because very little has been written about it. My last book, The Struggle for the Pontic Steppe: Russo-Ottoman Wars 1768-1792, covered the later 18th-century wars, and some of the research pointed back to this earlier conflict. The Russians learned a great deal about the logistical challenges, but the victories over the Austrians strengthened the Ottoman conservatives' resistance to army reform.  It also reminded me that my very first wargames journal article was on this war. In Miniature Wargames 171, I wrote an article on the Bosnian part of the conflict. For those old enough to remember, Gareth Simon had a cottage publication business called Pallas Armata. He published Ibrahim Basmajee's Excreated Infidel Wretches, which gave us a rare primary source from the Ottoman side.

As I started the research, I also came across the story of the 20th Earl of Crawford. The village and castle are not far from me, and he went to Russia, met the Empress, and then rode down to meet the Russian commanders in the south. He then went to Austria, where he fought in the last battle of the conflict at Grocka. He was wounded in that battle and probably died early as a consequence, many years later. He was more a battlefield tourist than a genuine soldier of fortune, but there were plenty of those on all sides.

I usually match my main wargame project to the book I am writing. So the subject of this book was pretty obvious to everyone playing with my 1736 Austrians. There is an annex to the book on wargaming the period, which includes three scenarios. We did Banja Luka at Carronade, and will do Grocka at Claymore using Lust for Glory rules. The third is a skirmish game that focuses on the challenges the Russians faced as they advanced through Tatar territory. We played this one again as part of the midweek game, using Rebels and Patriots rules this time.

It didn't go well for the Russians. The Hussars made some progress, but eventually ran out of steam. The Cossacks were pushed back, not helped by a blunder that had the dragoons firing on them! In the actual war, a Russian colonel was executed for making a mess of a command like this!

1453: The Conquest and Tragedy of Constantinople

 This is Anthony Kaldellis's new look at the Siege of Constantinople. I thought I had this subject well covered, but, like the author, I realised that my copy of Sir Steven Runciman's book dates back to 1965 and doesn't cover much about the siege itself.

The basic story is well known and has become the defining date of the end of the Middle Ages, at least for those of us focusing on Eastern Europe. The 1453 siege of Constantinople began on 6 April when the forces of the Ottoman Empire, led by Mehmed II, surrounded the city, the capital of the Byzantine (or Roman) Empire. Defended by approximately 7,000–8,000 soldiers under Constantine XI Palaiologos, the city withstood relentless artillery bombardment, including attacks from massive cannons designed to breach its formidable land walls. The Ottomans also bypassed the defensive chain across the Golden Horn by transporting ships overland, allowing them to pressure the city from multiple directions. After nearly two months of continuous assaults, mining operations, and bombardment, the Ottomans launched a final coordinated attack on 29 May. Exhausted defenders were overwhelmed after a breach near the Gate of St. Romanus, and Constantine XI was killed while fighting. The city's capture marked the end of Byzantine resistance and secured Ottoman control of Constantinople.

The ruined walls today, on one of my visits

The key point of this new book is that the fall of Constantinople in 1453 was not inevitable, as most people think. This common perception suited both the West, which failed to save the City and the East, which wanted to start a new period.

The Romans (Byzantines) actually believed they could hold out, and Kaldellis argues that they could have. They were successful in resisting a wide range of methods that Mehmed used to besiege the city, including large cannons, the portage into the harbour, and mining. In the end, it took a massive infantry attack through the partial breach to get in, and then, probably, because of the Genoese commander Giustiniani's wounding. Much of the blame was placed on him because he escaped, only to die on Chios weeks later. However, we know little about what actually happened, and without him and his armoured defenders, the walls would certainly have fallen earlier. We should remember that there was no help from Byzantine territories in the Peloponese, or elsewhere in the Balkans. In fact, it was Serbian miners who worked for the Ottomans.

Much of the story of the breach was told by Italian sources that virtually ignore the role of the Romans, few of whom escaped. The City's population was not large, and certainly not big enough to properly defend six kilometres of wall, but they still outnumbered the Italians, mainly Genoese and Venetians. The total defence was about 9,000 men. There were also around 27 ships in the harbour, with an iron chain guarding the entrance, although the one in the Archaeological Museum is probably from Rhodes.

As for the attackers, there may have been this huge gun, but it is much more likely that there were several, and they were not something new. They also fired stone shot rather than the iron balls being used in Western Europe. The Ottoman army was large, but not nearly as big as usually claimed. Probably no greater than around 50,000, and 145 ships. The ships were also too small to take on the larger Genoese ships that managed to get into the harbour with modest relief forces.

After the Ottomans broke into the City, it didn't take long to capture the city and round up the captives, mostly for safety. Probably no longer than three hours. Certainly shorter than when the 'Crusaders' broke in during 1204. There was a debate within the Ottoman system over whether to elevate it to a centralised administrative capital. They are usually identified with the semi-independent frontier warlords who had a looser conception of the Ottoman expansion project. They loved the idea that Hagia Sophia had been turned into a mosque and that Muslim dreams were realised, but they hated the City. Constantinople changed the Ottomans as much as they changed it. It catalysed and accelerated their conversion from nomadic warriors expanding the frontiers of Islam to a centralised state with a sedentary capital. Mehmed also decided to run the city himself, rather than have a Roman official do it.

This is an excellent take on the siege, with lots of details that debunk, or at least challenge, much of what we are usually told. Highly recommended.

This is from the diorama inside the museum of the siege in modern Istanbul. A bit touristy, but worth a look.

Another take from the Harbiye Museum.

And this fine model from the Hisart Museum.

Saladin

My current Turkish TV addiction is 'Saladin: The Conqueror of Jerusalem'. Another very long TV series, this one was co-produced in Pakistan. The producers asserted that the main target of the series is non-Muslims who are unaware of Muslim history. 

A good start, however, anyone who has read any history will quickly spot that this isn't the case. This clicked with me when the series starts with Saladin Yusuf ibn Ayub being secretly adopted by Nur ad-Din, who wasn't even the 'Sultan' at the time, and it didn't happen. They also forgot to mention that Saladin was a Kurd 😅. There are all sorts of other historical imaginations, including the Jews financing the Crusades, in a pretty awful bit of anti-semitism. Impoverished Crusaders often funded their military expeditions by looting and plundering wealthy Jewish communities. In this series, the Crusaders are bossed around by the Jews, whose plan is to secretly create a Jewish state. It is frankly inconceivable that Crusader kingdoms would have tolerated anything even close to being bossed about by Jews, anywhere. Everyone also travels around the region as if Damascus, Jerusalem, and Ashkelon are a couple of miles away!

However, once you get past the fact that this is not anything close to being historically accurate, it has all the best bits of a Turkish TV series. You always know who the baddy is, and when one dies, another quickly arrives.  The uniforms are not bad in this one, although horse archers dismounting is always an irritation. Given that horse archers were trained from birth, I accept the challenges here. There are also strong roles for women, perhaps a little overdone, including their amazing sword-fighting abilities, but great fun. I suspect the Turkish producers won on this one because it reflects other historical TV series.

It reminded me that I had read the first in Jack Height's Saladin Trilogy. This is historical fiction, but a lot closer to the history. This mostly covers his period as Vizier of Egypt, a really interesting period in his life that is often forgotten in Britain, as we focus on his time fighting Richard the Lionheart. Richard appears in the final book. This is excellent historical fiction and highly recommended.

This inevitably led to the tabletop. Most of my Crusaders tend to come from Spain and the Balkans, but the Spanish are mostly fine. I have a mix of Seljuks and others that also work fine. For last week's midweek game, we played a game using the Midgard rules. We hadn't played with them for a while, so the game went slower than planned, but I do like them.

I was playing the Crusaders, and while my knights stormed across the table, my infantry was a bit slow getting forward, hanging onto a hill in front of them. They outnumbered the enemy, so this was a mistake. Anyway, my cavalry charged up the hill on the left, taking a few casualties, but still got pushed back. On the right, they did better but got flanked by the Turcomen horse. There was a bit of recovery on the left, but the wicked Ayyubids got onto my flank there as well. The infantry eventually reached the enemy but then got flanked as well. Game over. 

Still, a good game, and we must play more.

Stronghold Scotland

 My local library has been downsized, and I have been struggling to find my monthly library pick. However, I did spot Geoffrey Williams' book on prehistoric and Roman fortifications in Scotland. Scottish medieval castles are famous, but there are hundreds of earlier fortifications that are dotted around the country.

I suspect the author's chatty, almost quirky writing style will irritate some folks, but I found it very readable. It is also a very solid hardcover that will withstand the heavy handling it is likely to get when used as a guide.

There are two parts to this book. A history and then a gazetteer. The first part is a history of the period and the fortifications that developed during that time. It is shocking to think that the early immigrants probably came from England 😅. Then the Picts, of which we know relatively little, even the name of which was bestowed by the Romans. We are also not sure when the Celts arrived, but they are certainly not indigenous to these isles. By the Iron Age, the population of Scotland was probably around 200,000, and as social structures developed, so did the strength of their fortifications. The Romans came but failed to conquer, though they left behind some fortifications north of Hadrian's Wall.

He then describes the types of strongholds, each with its distinctive style. From simple blockhouses to the early brochs, some of the finest examples are on Orkney. When I was working up there, I usually found an excuse to go and look at them. The best preserved is at Mousa on Shetland.  

Then the water-based crannogs, one of which has been reconstructed on Loch Tay, and it is well worth a visit. The largest fortifications are the hillforts. These are mostly earthworks today because the wooden palisades are long gone, although many had stone walls. Sadly, many of these have been stolen for other building projects. The Roman forts exist as both marching forts and the various walls built across Scotland.

The gazetteer is a fabulous resource, offering alternative days out from the usual historic sites. Around 120 strongholds are covered with references to the others. They are often in scenic spots, making for great walks. Scotland's right to roam makes these more accessible than in other parts of the UK. There is an excellent online resource for hillforts. The Scottish Archaeological Research Framework (ScARF) is also an excellent resource.

This is worth getting for the historical background, but it is also a really useful guidebook.

I haven't got any Picts, too much woad to paint. So, let's have a Roman camp.

Armies in North Russia and Siberia 1918–20

This new Osprey MAA by Phoebus Athanassiou examines the intervention forces that operated in North Russia and Siberia during the Russian Civil War. North Russia and Siberia hosted tens of thousands of Allied troops, predominantly Japanese, Czech, American, British, French and Italian.

The Allies also provided huge amounts of supplies and equipment to the various White armies. Britain alone spent £4bn to equip up to 200,000 men. All wasted, by late 1920, Allied forces had been evacuated from their bridgeheads in North Russia and Siberia, and most of the White armies had been defeated. This book outlines the interventions, and if you want a more detailed description, I would recommend Anna Reid's book A Nasty Little War. 

Many of the Allied troops involved were not happy to be there, and the intervention was equally unpopular at home. There were even mutinies among the Allied troops, including the Quebec members of the 259th Battalion, Canadian Rifles, and 13th Battalion, Alexandra, Princess of Wales’s Own (Yorkshire Regiment). Conditions on the ground were gruelling, with supply shortages, constant rain (in autumn 1918 and spring 1919) and intense cold (during the winter months) making the lives of the Allied troops miserable. There are many period photographs, which give an impression of how bad it was.

The strength of the book is in the description of the troops. There was more than a brigade of British and Canadian troops in North Russia. The main Commonwealth contributor to the war effort on the Siberian front was Canada, which also dispatched a Canadian Siberian Expeditionary Force of over 4,000 men to Vladivostok. There were also Royal Navy and RAF contingents. The latter had to operate from dirt strips. As with most of the intervention forces, they were equipped as in WW1.

Canadian troops in Russia

The USA provided an infantry regiment and support units in North Russia, and a brigade-sized (8,800) contingent in Siberia. The US troops had a limited mandate and sought to maintain a degree of neutrality. In contrast, the Japanese were enthusiastic interventionists, building on their victories in the Russo-Japanese War. Elements of eleven infantry divisions were deployed, totalling 73,400 men at the height of the intervention. They had fully transitioned into the khaki uniforms by this period.

Smaller contributions included the French, with 2410 in North Russia and 1,159 in Siberia. I do like a Balkan link, and there was a small Serb detachment with the French of two officers and 17 men. They would be equipped like the French. Italy provided a battalion in North Russia and around 2,500 men in Siberia. The Czechoslovak Legion has been covered in another Osprey title, and totalled two divisions of former PoWs, mostly equipped in adapted Russian uniforms.

The Whites and Reds were organised into a bewildering array of armies, some with less-than-clear political affiliations. The author does a decent job of outlining this, and the wide-ranging uniforms and equipment. Distinguishing between belligerents and civilians was often challenging, as the period photographs highlight. The Red Army had a more unified command structure and greater unity of purpose than its fragmented White adversaries, which may help to explain its triumph over them.

The Allied intervention, despite the huge resources, may have weakened the White armies by creating a dependency which distracted them from building local support. The longer-term consequence was the trauma that the Allied interventions left behind them in Russia, long after those who had witnessed them were alive to tell their story. This trauma may explain Russian perceptions of the West, throughout the 20th century and into the 21st. It certainly complicated relations between Stalin and Churchill during World War II.

For the wargamer, if you have WW1 armies, then you probably have all you need to take some of these actions onto the tabletop. The lovely colour plates in this book may persuade you to go further.

 

My British WW1 artillery in 28mm. They might have worn coats in Russia!