The Souls of Old Men

I awoke this morning to find that, despite waiting patiently for all these years, I still have neither a bus pass nor a pension. But let's forget all the negatives and instead look forward to the good things that are yet to come:

Inside their worn, tattered bodies 

sit the souls of old men.
How unhappy the poor things are
and how bored by the pathetic life they live.
How they tremble for fear of losing that life, and how much
they love it, those befuddled and contradictory souls,
sitting - half comic and half tragic -
inside their old, threadbare skins.

                     - Constantine P. Cavafy

Miss Lockharte's Letters

Book reviews on this blog are normally related to military history in some way; indeed as it happens there will be another Wars of the Roses related post along shortly. However, today I shall venture into a different genre and address this book, which is a Regency romance:

Now, I am very fond of Jane Austen, and can remember, when laid up with glandular fever many years ago, being grateful for my mother's Georgette Heyer collection to pass the time. But other than that, it's not exactly the sort of book that I would go for. I'm more of a hard-boiled, noir sort of chap. All the same, when this was recommended to me, with the insistence that I in particular needed to read it, I thought that I might as well give it a go.

The reason for the recommendation becomes obvious half way through chapter four. In the first three chapters we are introduced to our Heroine, the eponymous Miss Lockharte. In what I thought was a creative and amusing exposition it is explained why she has, through the ill luck and misfortune that so often seems to have befallen young ladies at that time, found herself in difficult circumstances; the very type of circumstances that cry out for her to be recued by a Hero. We meet this chap - it goes without saying that he is an aloof, saturnine, single, wealthy, peer of the realm - in chapter four, where it also becomes apparent that he has, perhaps inadvertently, played a part in bringing about our heroine's despair. He is rather unhappy when we first come across him, being under the cosh from the women in his life:  his mother, who wants him to marry, settle down and produce an heir; those debutantes having their 'come out' season and trying to trap him into marriage; his sister, who resents his refusal to accept her chosen beau; the mistress he is trying to get rid of. In fact he could literally have been any one of us in our youth, or, just possibly, some among us in the not too distant past. This similarity is something that becomes even more obvious when the author tells us:

"And all he wanted to do was play with his toy soldiers."

So, does all come right for our protagonists in the end? I think we all know the answer to that, but the journey to get there is entertaining enough. Are the toy soldiers pertinent to the plot? Astonishingly, they are.  I won't expand further on what happens, but there is one development that will strike a chill into many hearts: someone breaks in and steals some of his soldiers. I know, how evil is that?

You Know The World Is In An Uproar

 Back before I got side tracked in to writing about wargaming and military history all the time, this blog was renowned as the home of female-fronted seventies blues-rock bands. Let's get back to basics with some Stone the Crows featuring, of course, Maggie Bell; this one's a Percy Mayfield song which sixty-odd years after being written somehow captures the zeitgeist:

Agincourt Diorama

I've mentioned the Royal Armouries talks a few times, including yesterday in fact now I come to think about it. They continue to be (mostly) excellent; my own favourite over recent months was the one on firearms forensic science. Anyway, this is not part of their normal lecture series, but next Thursday, the 25th March, at 17:00 GMT the Royal Armouries will be hosting an online discussion about the building of their splendid Agincourt diorama. The discussion will feature, amongst others, the Perry twins, whose figures those are. Booking details are here.

Because, under normal circumstances obviously, I visit the Royal Armouries several times a year I have perhaps become a tad blasé about the model, but it is very good. I do sometimes find myself standing there wishing it would move. It's a bit like one of those demonstration games at a show that manufacturers set up, but never actually play.

The Castle in the War of the Roses

 In his - highly recommended - one volume history of the Wars of the Roses, John Gillingham writes "In the Wars of the Roses there were few sieges and only one of any consequence". Despite titling his book "The Castle in the Wars of the Roses", it is sieges with which Dan Spencer is primarily concerned. And, as seems to be the custom among academics, Dr Spencer does not agree with Professor Gillingham. According to him, he "demonstrates the significant role of siege warfare during the Wars of the Roses". So, which is it? For me, Spencer more than adequately shows that there were actually quite a lot of sieges; he names 36, and makes a persuasive case that there would have been others unrecorded by history. However, it's hard to believe that any of them really made a difference; indeed very few of them lasted beyond a few days. As will all writers on the period the author can only go on what records remain, so the book focuses on what we know about rather than what was necessarily important at the time. I would also suggest that there isn't quite enough material to make a full length book, and that there has been a certain amount of padding out with the general military and political background. Still, I enjoyed it and would recommend it to those with a particular interest in the subject, perhaps not so much to the general reader. 

Dr Spencer gave one of the talks in this winter's online lecture series from the Royal Armouries, on 'The Development of Gunpowder Weapons in Medieval England", which at the time of writing is still available on the Armouries' YouTube channel. (As an aside, if you do watch any of those lectures you need to know that nothing happens until fifteen minutes or so into the video; I have no idea why they don't edit them properly.) The things that stuck in my mind from the lecture - and which has great relevance to my ongoing siege gaming - is him saying that in the 15th century bombards would have to be placed no further than 40 paces from a wall to have a chance of creating a breach.

I can't finish without revisiting the Spofforth solecism. As reported previously, in chapter 1 this castle was incorrectly reported as being in Northumberland. However, in chapter 2 we find the Duke of Exeter and Lord Egremont raising forces in Yorkshire at a place called Spofford; Egremont of course being another of those hot-headed chaps in whom the Percy family specialised. He doesn't make it to chapter 3 - spoiler alert - having been killed at the battle of Northampton. However, he does variously feature in the text as both Egremont and Egremond. Do I detect an homage to Hergé from Dr Spencer?

"If my name's Egremont we won't get to chapter 3." "To be precise, we won't get to chapter 3 if my name's Egremond."

The Bombardment of London

 I am still reading, and enjoying, 'The Castle in the Wars of the Roses'. I shall do a full (or cursory - delete as appropriate) review in due course; watch out for more Spofforth related nit-picking. However in Chapter 5 we have reached the bombardment of London by the Bastard of Fauconberg.

A mere eight years ago I mentioned that I had been involved in a debate within the Richard III Society about which side the garrison of Calais had been during this event. It is often said that such discussions are all the more heated because there is so little at stake. I rather wish that had remained the case in the Society which has been riven by factionalism over the last year or so, leading to rather tragic events just before Christmas. Anyway, back to the book and to 1471; enter Dr Spencer with a different take on things. According to him, the Calais garrison - whom you will recall were the closest thing that England had to a standing army at that time - were with the Bastard. However, he also says that Richard Haute, appointed as Lieutenant of the Tower of London by Edward IV whilst he was in the city following his victory at Barnet, had recruited one hundred soldiers who had formerly served in the garrison. So, very neatly, they turn out to have served on both sides. If only all disputes could be resolved by compromise.

 

And six years ago, I declared my intention to create a scenario based on the bombardment. Perhaps now that I have a suitable amount of city walls, a castle and some siege rules which could be (heavily) adapted I should get on with it. I think part of the attraction is the surreal moment where Thomas Neville demands that the city opens its gates in the names of Prince Edward and the Earl of Warwick, the city fathers point out that those two are both dead now, and the Bastard in effect says "Don't bother me with details, just open the gates.".

Interestingly the next chapter in the book covers the siege of St Michael's Mount, another one I have always fancied doing. Maybe the blue table top in the annexe will see the light of day after all this time.

Roll Muddy River

 I'm sure I'll be back to sieges soon enough, but in the meantime here's Norma Waterson covering the Grateful Dead. 

It Suffices

 I have been asked for my thoughts so far on 'Vauban's Wars'. Well, I don't like to sit on the fence, and so I am going to come right out and say that they seem "perfectly acceptable".

I shall certainly be exploring the rules further and am currently considering what I might make or paint next to facilitate this: a couple more siege guns for sure and, assuming that access to the laser cutter won't be long in resuming, some ravelines. Because, apart from anything else, I am grateful to these rules for keeping me occupied during lockdown and providing a route for me to try out resin casting. That context has undoubtedly provided a halo effect and made me feel warmer about them; on top of which, even if I say so myself, it all looked pretty good.

Nobody games sieges because...well, because they go on a long time and nothing much happens. So it is to the great credit of Eric Burgess that he has managed to develop a set of rules which extract the action from the tedium and, by moving things along fairly quickly, make it playable. Every turn represents a few days and the results of each are effectively a summation of all the digging, firing, moving about etc done during those days. Issues such as supplies of food and powder, weather, desertion, disease etc are dealt with, but at a level of abstraction that doesn't overwhelm everything else. It's a bit like a campaign fought out on a tabletop, a concept I'd never really thought about before; although if someone were to tell me that Donald Featherstone had written a book on the subject I wouldn't be that surprised.

 I enjoyed my solo run through, in which the balance between garrison and besieger tipped a few times backwards and forwards. The caveats mentioned in previous posts still apply, in particular this is all my interpretation of what is meant and how it should work. I believe that the author runs a Facebook group on the rules, but I don't have a Facebook account so that hasn't been of any help to me.

I do have one or two observations that I would be looking to confirm or otherwise in subsequent games:

• The defender's role seems a bit reactive.
• Many of the swings in fortune mentioned above stemmed from things other than the actions of either side; I like a random event as much as the next man, but you don't want the entire game determined by them.
• The rules for sorties and assaults are limited and, while we never had either in my try out, my wargamer's common sense (shut up!) tells me they wouldn't work very well.
• Some of the points and strengths ascribed to unit types - Coehorn mortars for example - look a bit odd. 

So, to sum up: passed the time perfectly pleasantly, and would seem likely to provide a sound base for the tweaks and house rules which will inevitably emerge in due course.

The Siege Is Lifted

 Those considerate chaps in Ahmedabad have once again gone out of their way to clear some space in my diary and so I have been able to bring the siege game to a conclusion. Turn 8 initially went the way of the besiegers, who won a long run of initiative, caused further damage to the wall and, to my surprise because I hadn't read the rules properly, set fire to the town. It was put out before it could either spread or do any damage.

It was never going to be enough in any event, and once the garrison got the chance to fire their artillery they quickly reduced their opponent's morale to zero and the latter were left with no choice but to withdraw.

You can just see in the photo above that the wall section being attacked had been reduced to level 5, which is still quite a long way from creating a breach. I shall be pondering the lessons learned from all this - apart obviously from "make sure that you thoroughly acquaint yourself with the rules before you start" - but my initial thought is that the besiegers should have spent more time on counterbattery fire from the second parallel before pressing further forwards. I have no suggestions as to how the defenders would best have reacted to that.

Spofforth Castle

 I've started reading 'The Castle in the Wars of the Roses' by Dan Spencer which was published a few months ago. It's been well reviewed, and I shall no doubt bore you with my own opinions in due course. However, I was rather taken aback by an egregious geographical error in the very first chapter. Referring to the Percy Earls of Northumberland, he states that they owned a number of important castles in that county including Alnwick, Warkworth and Spofforth. Surely some mistake?

In fact, Spofforth Castle is, as any fule kno', situated between Harrogate and Wetherby in what in the 15th Century would have been the West Riding of Yorkshire. Indeed it may well be the nearest castle to where your bloggist sits typing this (*). It is of course very closely connected with the Percies, having been the seat of the family from the time that William de Percy came over with the Conqueror until the fourteenth century, when their power grew and they switched their attentions more to Northumberland and the Scottish Marches. 

Its importance to the family is indicated by the fact that Harry Hotspur, the famously impulsive Shakespearean character, was born there; unless he was born at either Alnwick or Warkworth, no one seems to know. It is also possible that Magna Carta was drafted there; but then perhaps it wasn't, once again no one really knows. The one thing I will say with absolute certainty though, is that Spofforth is not, and never has been, in the county of Northumberland (**).

* As readers will have realised long ago, this blog does not run to a team of fact checkers, and I can't be arsed to do it myself, so we shall never know. It is self-evidently nearer than Knaresborough, and intuitively closer than Skipton so I'm going to assume that it is. For the purposes of this exercise the Roman fort in Ilkley doesn't count, and nor, for obvious reasons, does Cliffe Castle. Ripley Castle would, but even as the crow flies that must be further away.

** Before the mid tenth century it would have been in the Kingdom of Northumbria, but that's different.

Six then seven

 "And the seventh sorrow is the slow good-bye..." - Ted Hughes

Turn 6 ended before it started, with a tied dice roll. It cost the garrison one food supply, although I don't think that will come into play; feel free to throw that back in my face at some later stage. On the plus side, I found the missing card at that point. Overall turn 7 hasn't gone well for the besiegers, against whom the tide would appear to have turned.

While they were occupied repairing the sections of sap flooded by the torrential rain during Turn 5, they were driven off completely from the third parallel. Sensing an opportunity the garrison started to dig out from the covered way, aiming to seize and destroy the gun emplacements.

Before they could do so the besiegers managed to move up a couple of siege guns, surviving the opportunity fire as they did so, and, for the first time, bombarded the wall. It is, I suspect, too little too late.

The die next to the wall shows the cumulative hits against that section. When it reaches ten the section will drop from level six to level five. As you might guess it needs to reach level zero before there is a breach. It's not going to happen. The other die is showing the cumulative hits from the mortars which have been shelling the town. Once again, this isn't going to amount to anything worth talking about very soon.

Ignore what it says - it's really Turn 7

And this is why: the attackers have very little morale left. To add insult to injury one of their commanders has died of disease, meaning that they weren't able to rally any units this turn.

I've mentioned before that I'm not confident about my grasp of either rules or tactics - and that definitely still stands - but I have had a bit of an epiphany regarding the role of infantry in the game, which is progress of a sort.

Severe Rain

"Shortly afterwards it started raining, very innocently at first, but the sky was packed tight with cloud and gradually the drops grew bigger and heavier, until it was autumn’s dismal rain that was falling—rain that seemed to fill the entire world with its leaden beat..." - Haldor Laxness

Turn five was bookended by disaster. The first happened in real life when I knocked a whole load of stuff on to the floor. Anyone who has seen the wargaming annexe and the solidity of the table in it will be as baffled as I am as to how I managed it; my first thought was to be thankful that I did it at my house rather than someone else's. Anyway, no permanent harm was done, except that when I had picked it all up one of the cards was missing. Again, especially given the size of the room, it's a mystery as to where it might have gone. Still it will turn up, and the pack came complete with blank cards; presumably to allow for clumsy players.

After that, things proceeded smoothly, although not in the way that I expected. Instead of the besiegers moving up their siege guns and battering down the wall, it was the fortress guns which forced the retreat of both artillery and infantry from the third parallel. I'm not going to go through things in detail, but I will repeat my previous caveats: it's certainly not a good game to play solo, and it's at least possible that I'm not doing it right anyway. 

The turn ended abruptly when it started to rain very heavily; so heavily in fact that some of the siege works have flooded. Now, the players get some choice as to where the flooding occurs, but my decisions were done in the context that I hadn't (still haven't actually) read the rules for repairing them.

So what I've tried to do is to isolate the gun emplacements so as to further delay the commencement of the bombardment of the walls.