Marmont - The Balkan Marshal

The Napoleonic Wars podcast has been running a series on Napoleon's Greatest Marshals. The format involves guests pitching for one of the Marshals, the panel discusses and listeners are encouraged to comment and vote. The latest edition features a series of underdogs, as pitches are heard for Oudinot, Poniatowski, Grouchy and Marmont.

I delivered the pitch for Auguste Frédéric Louis Viesse de Marmont, Duke of Ragusa, or the Balkan Marshal as I prefer to call him. I admit, something of an underdog in this contest, but I argue that the predominant Anglo-Centric view of the Napoleonic Wars often ignores events outwith the Peninsular. Marmont was a more rounded professional than most of his contemporaries, To use a cricket analogy, he could bat at number 5 and still bowl the opposition out. Perhaps the most educated and cultured of the Marshals and one of the few to write a thesis on the art of war. A talented strategist, understanding the art of command and the movement of troops. His military, diplomatic and administrative skills make him the premier Marshal of France. He also has the best portrait!

For those not familiar with Marmont, here is a short biography, as we were asked to pitch qualities rather than simply tell a story.

Auguste Frédéric Louis Viesse de Marmont, Duke of Ragusa, was born in 1774 into an army family. His father was a former officer and a member of the petite noblesse, but like many of that class, he adopted the principles of the Revolution. His father made him learn mathematics before entering the artillery. Here, he met one Napoleon Bonaparte, serving together at Toulon.

Marmont became Bonaparte's aide-de-camp, stuck with him during his disgrace and accompanied him to Italy and Egypt, winning distinction and promotion to general of brigade. In 1799, he returned to Europe with him. He was present at the coup d'état of the 18th Brumaire and organised the artillery for the expedition to Italy, which he commanded with great effect at Marengo. For this, he was at once made general of division. In 1801, he became inspector-general of artillery and, in 1804, grand officer of the Legion of Honour. In 1805, he commanded a corps at the great manoeuvre of Ulm. 

The peace with Austria gave France new territories in Dalmatia. He took possession of much of Dalmatia despite a powerful Russian force with a small army and occupied the Republic of Ragusa. For the next five years, he was military and civil governor of Dalmatia, and traces of his rule still survive in public works and memory. In 1808, he was made Duke of Ragusa. In the 1809 campaign, he advanced from Dalmatia and defeated Gyulai's corps in the Battle of Graz before marching to support Napoleon at Vienna and in the Battle of Wagram. He got his Marshals baton after that battle.

After Massena failed in Spain, Napoleon turned to Marmont for another independent command. He outmanoeuvred Wellington in the relief of Cuidad Rodrigo. He was defeated at Salamanca. But he was wounded early in the battle, along with his deputy, and command went down to Clauzel. After recovering from his wounds, he served in the 1813 campaign, commanding a corps at  Lützen, Bautzen and Dresden. He then fought throughout the great defensive campaign of 1814, fighting a skilful retreat. At this stage, he and others recognised the game was up, and he led negotiations with the Allies. 

He stuck to his oath to the Bourbons and didn’t rejoin Napoleon at Waterloo. He also voted in favour of Ney's execution. He held many posts during the restoration and was major-general of the guard on duty during the July 1830 Revolution. Although he disagreed with his orders to put down the revolution, he did his best but was overwhelmed. Charles X initially ordered his arrest, but he left France with him. He wandered Europe, even becoming the Austrian appointed tutor to the Duke of Reichstadt, the young man who had once for a few weeks been styled Napoleon II. He died in Venice in March 1852, the last living Napoleonic marshal.

And if you don't subscribe to podcasts, here is the pitch in a written format.

Hi. My name is Dave Watson, and I am pitching for Marshal Auguste Marmont, Duke of Ragusa. For me, the Balkan Marshal is an obvious choice, but he is perhaps something of a challenge in this project. When most English-speaking Napoleonic buffs think of Marmont, they immediately think of Salamanca. That battle may not have been his finest moment, but I would ask you to look at his record more broadly. 

Marmont was born into an army family and entered the artillery. Here, he met one Napoleon Bonaparte, serving together at Toulon. His early military service highlights include:

• Bonaparte's aide-de-camp in Egypt, winning distinction and promotion.

• Organised the artillery in subsequent Italian campaigns. 

• Commanded a corps at the great manoeuvre of Ulm 1805

The peace with Austria gave France new territories in Dalmatia, where I first came to appreciate Marmont in the research for my book on the Napoleonic Wars in the Adriatic. He took possession of much of Dalmatia with a small army despite a powerful Russian force. For the next five years, he was military and civil governor of Dalmatia, and traces of his rule still survive in public works and memory. He introduced the rule of law prison reform and abolished torture and flogging (playing to Zac here!). He created schools and colleges. Most South Slav historians agree he ruled well, and streets were named after him until WW2. He was liked despite having to finance the cost of the French administration and fund war reparations.

The Illyrian province's appointment was challenging, given the geography and the different religions and nationalities. His staff included interpreters speaking seven different languages. Marmont learned Croatian and sponsored a dictionary. He also built effective diplomatic relations with the Bosnians and Ottomans.

His Balkan campaigns may not be well understood in Britain, but they weren't a sideshow to Napoleon. Writing to his brother Joseph, then King of Naples, he said, ‘Corfu is so important to me that its loss would deal a fatal blow to my plans. The Adriatic would be closed, and your kingdom would have on its left flank a port where the enemy could assemble to attack you. You must regard it as more valuable than Sicily. Mark my words: in the current situation in Europe the worst misfortune that can happen to me is to lose Corfu.’  

Militarily, Marmont performed brilliantly in Dalmatia, making what John Elting calls "a remarkable 300 mile march through frequently roadless country, scattering two Austrian forces, but clinging to his independent status..." He fought in challenging conditions, with two successful incursions into Bosnia to defeat Ottoman forces and deter raiding. The Austrians struggled to do the same.

In the 1809 campaign, he advanced from Dalmatia and defeated Gyulai's corps in the Battle of Graz before marching to support Napoleon at Vienna and in the Battle of Wagram. After that, he got his Marshals baton, although his detractors pointed out that Napoleon said, "Between ourselves, you have not done enough to justify entirely my choice." That was a bit ungrateful, although it may reflect the fact that Marmont had a detached command for most of the campaign. He delivered independently when others operated mainly under the Emperor's supervision.

After Massena failed in Spain, Napoleon turned to Marmont for another independent command. He outmanoeuvred Wellington in the relief of Cuidad Rodrigo. Yes, he was defeated at Salamanca. But he was wounded early in the battle, along with his deputy, and command went down to Clauzel. After recovering from his wounds, he commanded a corps in the 1813 campaign. He then fought throughout the great defensive campaign of 1814, fighting a skilful retreat. At this stage, he and others recognised the game was up, and he led negotiations with the Allies. 

He stuck to his oath to the Bourbons and didn’t rejoin Napoleon at Waterloo. He held many posts during the restoration and was major-general of the guard on duty during the July 1830 Revolution. Although he disagreed with his orders to put down the revolution, he did his best but was overwhelmed. He died in Venice in March 1852, the last living Napoleonic marshal.

Why does Marmont not get the recognition he deserves?

• In the English-speaking world, there is no biography. His memoirs were published in French after he died in 1857, and there is a long, out-of-print 1968 French biography. In any case, we are obsessed with the Peninsular War and Waterloo in Britain, and Marmont excelled in less fashionable theatres of war.

• Bonapartists hated him because they claimed he 'betrayed' Napoleon in 1814. And he didn't return to the fold in 1815. This showed superior political judgement and honoured the oath he had just given the Bourbons. In French, the verb "raguser"—derived from his title, the Duke of Ragusa- was a household word in France that meant "to betray".

• The Royalists also disliked him because they claimed he did not put down the 1830 revolution. 

In conclusion, he was the most rounded of the Marshals. To use a cricket analogy, he could bat at number 5 and still bowl the opposition out. Perhaps the most educated and cultured of the Marshals and one of the few to write a thesis on the art of war. A talented strategist, understanding the art of command and the movement of troops. His military, diplomatic and administrative skills make him the premier Marshal of France.

There is more on Marmont in my book The Frontier Sea.

Napoleonic PoW escapees - Donat Henchy O'Brien

A uniform used by a local sailor to trick his way out of prison during the Napoleonic Wars, which is on display at the National Maritime Museum, received extensive coverage last week. Charles Hare's story reminded me of another Napoleonic escape I touched upon in my book The Frontier Sea, which I meant to return to. 

Donat Henchy O'Brien served on HMS Amphion with Sir William Hoste, and he was mentioned in Hoste's biography when he was picked up off Trieste. This led me to read the background in O'Brien's 1839 memoir, republished in 1902 by Sir Charles Oman. Only the later part of his career was relevant to my book. Still, the earlier story is, if anything, more remarkable than Hare's escape. As Oman says, 'I imagine that no prisoner ever made three such desperate dashes for liberty as did this enterprising Irish midshipman.'

Donat O’Brien entered the Royal Navy on 16th December 1796, when only eleven, even younger than the average midshipman. He was serving on HMS Hussar when that ship ran aground on the French coast, and he was captured in February 1804. He was initially held at Verdun, and his future prospects looked bleak because Napoleon had decided to end the age-old practice of exchanging prisoners. He and a few fellow officers decided to revoke their parole and planned an escape, collecting the necessary provisions and equipment for a dash across France, mainly at night, to a channel port.

They each collected a short piece of rope, bound them together, and scaled down the fortress walls. They had money and decent French but no papers, so night marched their way to Arras and the Etaples and, when challenged by locals, claimed they were conscripts joining the army. Two of his colleagues were spotted by customs officers (the uniform Hare used), and they claimed to be American sailors trying to get home. This ruse failed when an American interviewed them with the Mayor, who identified them as British. 

They were sent back to Verdun under escort but managed to escape. At times, he got some assistance from locals, but it was mostly an arduous trek on rough paths, sleeping in woods at night during a cold winter. This time, he got as far as Strasbourg before his identity was discovered, with his description having been circulated on a list of escapees. 

He was put in irons and sent to the fortress of Bitche, which is largely intact today. As you can see, this was the Colditz of its day. Escapees were confined to subterranean cells. This was January 1808.

By August 1808, they had yet again put together an escape plan that involved scaling down the walls in stages. They made their way east, again mainly by night, occasionally risking stays at inns and farmhouses. They got to Baden and then Bavaria, which was a French-allied territory. 

They crossed the border into Austria and were stopped by Austrian soldiers. “Will you surrender?” said he; and what option of an answer was left to us in any case, when each had a rifle presented to his head? “Most willingly,” I replied, “but are we not in the Emperor’s dominions in Kaisersland?” How my heart beat with joy when he answered the “Yes, Sir,”—Ya Mynheer. Never did the sun behold more willing prisoners.

They maintained their identity as American sailors until the local governor explained that he would not return them to Bavaria and helped them travel to Trieste. The former British consul there helped them get a boat, which they rowed out towards the blockading Royal Navy frigate. This was HMS Amphion, which O'Brien had previously served on, and two officers recognised him. When they reached Malta, they found five more of their fellow escapees. Admiral Collingwood appointed him as a lieutenant on HMS Warrior, and he took part in the capture of several Ionian islands. He was later transferred to Amphion and fought at the Battle of Lissa in 1811. O’Brien reached the rank of rear-admiral on 8th March 1852 and died on 13th May 1857, aged 73.

The details in his memoirs are remarkable, and Oman only slightly edited them. As I said in my book, his story pales even the fictional Hornblower story. I first read the original in the British Library, but there is now a Kindle version for only £1.99. This is absolutely outstanding value for a great story worthy of a film.

Hazzard's Convoy

 This is the fourth book in Jonathan Spencer's series, which focuses on the exploits of marine officer William John Hazzard in the Mediterranean during the Revolutionary Wars. It seemed appropriate holiday reading, as I was in Marmaris Bay, the site of Abercromby's preparation for the invasion of Egypt.

This story covers the period in the year before Abercromby's invasion, up to the Battle of Heliopolis. Napoleon has just abandoned his army in Egypt, leaving a very disgruntled Kleber in command. As Kleber himself put it, ‘The army is at half its strength… disease is prevalent, and the soldiers are in rags…When Bonaparte sailed, he did not leave a penny in the till, nor any cash equivalent. On the contrary, he left a deficit of almost 10 million… The soldiers’ pay in arrears accounts for 4 million alone. […] He saw the fatal crisis approaching.’

The story also touches on naval actions in the Adriatic, the subject of my book The Frontier Sea, particularly the prospects of a fleet built in the Venetian shipyards. The key French ship opposing Hazzard in the story is Généreux, a ship of the line that escaped from Corfu. Historically, the threat from Venice was much more serious later in the Napoleonic Wars, so much so that the Royal Navy had to send its own ships off the line to deal with it.

Hazzard is no ordinary marine officer. He commands a small unit of marines allocated to special missions, part of the nascent intelligence operations of the period that are commonplace today. The story style is very Sharpe-like, and his exploits are even more unlikely. Some naval actions are bordering on the absurd, but this is fiction. I won't spoil the story by giving the details, but it has all the features you would expect in this genre. 

Overall, it's a grand tall tale, not to be taken too seriously. It got me through the flights on holiday.

It also inspired last week's midweek game using Rebels and Patriots rules. The French contested a British landing in Egypt. My marines are considerably more uniformed than Hazzard's piratical command. However, unlike Hazzard, they were thrown back into the water. In fairness, that probably has more to do with my generalship!

Marmaris Bay 1800-01

I am writing this as I look out on Marmaris Bay in Turkey. This city in modern-day Türkiye has a lot of historical interest, but the descent of 16,000 British troops here in 1800-01 is a lesser-known event. 

Britain and the Ottoman Empire were often allied during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars if we overlook Admiral Duckworth's excursion up the Dardanelles in a failed attempt to bombard Constantinople! Napoleon's invasion of Egypt caused a breach in the normally positive Ottoman-French relationship. That act brought General Abercromby and his troops to Marmaris Bay not to invade but to prepare for an amphibious assault on Egypt.

The British government intended the expedition to sail directly to Egypt. However, Abercromby had 1270 sick soldiers and needed supplies and small craft. The sloop Petrel (Captain Inglis) caught up with the fleet (Admiral Keith and 120 ships) off Rhodes and brought them to Marmaris. There was a precedent for this. In 1798, Admiral Nelson assembled his fleet in the harbour at Marmaris before setting sail for Egypt and the Battle of the Nile. 

This was December 1800, and the bay provided some shelter from the storms that can beset this coast – not that you would imagine that today, with unbroken sunshine and 29C! Memoirs mention 'showers of hail or lumps of ice, the largest seen by any of us. The tents on shore were beaten down and riddled as if by musket balls.'

General Moore was liaising with the Grand Vizier's army at Jaffa, but he was unimpressed by their readiness, calling them 'a wild ungovernable mob'. This report persuaded Abercromby to land at Aboukir Bay near the expedition's target of Alexandria rather than nearer to the Ottoman army.

Abercromby also received little of the promised supplies and small boats. He also needed horses for the cavalry. Lord Elgin had purchased horses and mules in Smyrna (Izmir), but storms scattered the convoy. Abercromby wrote home, 'The Turkish government has been lavish of promises, but in no one circumstances have they been fulfilled.' However, he managed to buy around 100 horses at Marmaris, with more boats there and at Rhodes, along with fascines and gabions for the engineers. Although as the government funds had not arrived, the officers paid for the horses from their own pockets.

General Ralph Abercromby

The four weeks the army stayed in Marmaris Bay were well-spent. The shore leave and better diet improved the health of his soldiers, and daily drills prepared his men for the future conflict. Strict discipline and respect for local customs (not always the case with British tourists today!) were enforced. He simplified Dundas' principles and concentrated on the practice of forming a square, as he would face superior French cavalry in open Egyptian terrain. This included marching in a square - wargame rules writers, please note!

Moore took the view that the stay at Marmaris was a mixed blessing. He reported they got cavalry horses and mules for transport and engineering supplies. However, 'we have lost two months and the advantage of surprise'. The French did manage to get 800 reinforcements into Egypt, avoiding the Royal Navy blockade in February. The rank and file took a more positive view. Private Nichol of the 92nd Foot reported, 'The army was exercised by brigades in landing in flat bottomed boats … this was an excellent plan which we had felt the want of in Holland.' A modern army with a strong training ethos would concur.

The fleet left for Egypt on 22 February 1801. The army (including marines) had 16,237 men and 627 horses (454 cavalry mounts). They were refreshed and better trained for their stay in Marmaris Bay. The landings in Aboukir Bay went well, and the army defeated the French at the Battle of Alexandria (21 March 1801), effectively ending French rule in Egypt. Sadly, Abercromby died of wounds inflicted during the battle. He was buried in Malta, and there is a monument to him in St Paul's Cathedral. It is hard to disagree with the Duke of York's tribute, "His steady observance of discipline, his ever-watchful attention to the health and wants of his troops, the persevering and unconquerable spirit which marked his military career, the splendour of his actions in the field and the heroism of his death, are worthy the imitation of all who desire, like him, a life of heroism and a death of glory."

Landing at Aboukir Bay

I am pleased to report that, unlike Abercromby, Turkish hospitality has fully met all my needs! 

We did the Battle of Alexandria as a GDWS display game at Claymore in 2010

War and Peace in the Age of Napoleon

I have spent the last three days indulging in all matters Napoleonic in York. The War and Peace in the Age of Napoleon conference was organised jointly on behalf of the Napoleonic and Revolutionary War Graves Charity and the War Studies programme at York St John University. It is hard to think of a better city, outwith the Balkans of course (😂), for a history conference, and the university is also an excellent venue.

There were dozens of presentations covering all aspects of the Napoleonic wars, something for everyone. The delegates were a mix of academics and enthusiasts, all with a wealth of knowledge. An excellent example was on the first day with a panel session covering re-enacting and wargaming. The wargaming session covered the history of the hobby pre-kriegspiel and discussed the balance between simulation and playability.

Rosslyn Macphail talked about discovering a trunk in the attic belonging to her relative, Captain John Orr, a foot soldier who later helped shape military education in Scotland. She found his diary inside, which gave an interesting insight into his service in the Peninsular War. What an amazing find!

If, like me, you like the obscure aspects of the conflict, sessions on Japan during the Napoleonic Wars, Russia's attempts to open a closed frontier, and Napoleon’s ambitions in the East would leave you well satisfied. 

It was not all warfare; the panel session on Radicals, Violence, and Loyalism across the British sphere of influence covered a range of subversive activities in Britain. This was followed by a fascinating keynote speech from Professor Alan Forrest, Memorialising War, Commemorating Empire? The Napoleonic Wars in French Cultural Memory. He actually covered memory more widely than France.

My presentation covered command decisions in the Adriatic. I attempted to show how junior officers would make military and even diplomatic decisions in a complex and fast-moving political environment. They negotiated with semi-autonomous local warlords, allies and enemies whose loyalties were not always transparent. These were borderlands far from the seat of power and created challenges for the states trying to control them.

The conference also included the AGM of the Napoleonic and Revolutionary War Graves Charity, which, in a short period, has done some amazing work restoring the graves of Napoleonic veterans. I would urge you to check out their website and consider joining.

I have only mentioned a few of the presentations I attended. It's an annual event, and it is worth looking out for next year's conference.

No prizes for guessing which conference I was at, although there was an army chaplain on my panel!

Persian Army of the Napoleonic period

 My latest project has been completed, at least for now. The Persian army of the Napoleonic period was inspired by Lawrence Kelly's book Diplomacy and Murder in Tehran. I followed that up with a history of the South Caucasus and, finally, the most useful, Maziar Behrooz's Iran at War.

While Behrooz is essential reading for the history, the wargamer will find David Brown's booklet, The Persian Army of the Napoleonic Era, indispensable. It is available as a PDF download from Wargames Vault. This provides all the available details on the units and pictures that help with painting. We don't know everything, so some judgement is needed.

The Persian Army of the period fought against the Russians and the Ottomans, giving the wargamer a new opponent for these armies. The French and the British dabbled in the region and provided some support at different times. The army itself is interesting and colourful, with a mix of European-type units, traditional militia, and cavalry.

My current favourite ruleset for this period is Blucher, which enables large battles and doesn't require hundreds of figures. I went for 15mm because Irregular Miniatures do a decent range.

The project got a kick start when I noticed Mark Bevis was selling off his armies of the period. In 1994, Mark wrote a guide to Middle Eastern armies of the period that helped me get into the period at a time when there was very little written.

I bought some of his regular infantry and artillery and rebased them for Blucher.

Next up were the regular cavalry from the Irregular Miniatures range and Zamburak camel gunners. I will supplement these with some of my Ottoman figures of the period to represent tribal cavalry.

And finally, a unit of Russian deserters formed a guard unit known as the Great Warriors. Again from Irregular

The army first appeared on the tabletop against the Russians and performed very well. 

Iran at War

 This is Maziar Behrooz's book on Qajar Iran and its conflicts with Imperial Russia in the early 19th century. If, like me, the use of Iran confuses, it's because that is how the nation referred to itself, even though the country's formal name didn't change until the 20th century. 

The author starts with some background to Iran during this period and how the Qajar dynasty came to power. Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar was a eunuch monarch from 1789, being castrated as a six-year-old upon his capture by Adel Shah Afshar, and hence was childless. While eunuchs have achieved powerful positions, he is possibly unique in terms of royal power. The Ottomans infamously killed off princes who might contend for the throne. The Iranians blinded or cut off ears, noses and other parts to eliminate them from royal contention. For most of this period, Fath Ali Shah ruled Iran. He had a harem of 158 wives and concubines who delivered 48 sons and 49 daughters. Clearly, making up for lost time!

The early years focused on consolidating power, but the first clashes with the expanding Russian Empire came in 1781. The Russians under Potemkin had already reached the Caucasus, and Suverov led a full invasion in 1779. 

At the start of the conflicts with Russia, the Qajar military was a traditional tribal force, at least 60,000 strong, mostly cavalry. From 1805, European-modelled infantry were trained, significantly contributing to the army, although there was a shortage of good-quality muskets. For more information on the Iranian military, David Brown's excellent booklet is available on Wargames Vault. 

The meat of the book is a detailed look at the Russo-Iranian Wars. The first was fought between 1801 and 1813, and while on the fringes of the Napoleonic Wars, all the leading players engaged with the Iranians. The problem for Iran was that alliances with the French and then the British always played second fiddle to European alliances. Behrooz challenges many of the traditional explanations for the conflicts, clearly placing the responsibility on Russian imperialism. This isn't a military history as such; greater emphasis is given to the diplomatic events. However, the main actions are all covered with an analysis of the reasons for the outcome. The Iranians typically started the war well, but the Russians were able to reinforce their armies, and their greater resources triumphed. The Iranian troops generally fought well, but generalship was poor.

War broke out again in 1826, provoked by the Russian governor in 1825. Again, the Iranians started well, but the Russians fought back, aided by some bizarre command decisions. For example, the Iranian commander Abbas Mirza appointed three of his young sons to command segments of the army and then withdrew them when threatened.  

In the final chapter, the author seeks to put the record straight on the common distortions of Qajar history, using seven points of analysis. There is also a detailed chronology and biographies of the leading players. This is a very readable account of the period and valuable for my current wargame project. I now have the core of the infantry and artillery thanks to purchasing and rebasing some of Mark Bevis' collection. The cavalry and camel guns are coming from Irregular Miniatures. In the meantime, I got them onto the table by using some similar Ottoman types. The Russians narrowly pulled off a victory in the first game using Blucher rules.

The Caucasus

 This is Thomas De Waal's introduction to the Caucasus region, specifically the South Caucasus, or what the Russians called the Transcaucasus. I picked this up in an Oxfam bookshop during my football travels, thinking I ought to know more about the background of current events in Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. These three modern countries cover the region south of the mountains.

The author starts by describing the region, dominated by the Greater Caucasus mountain chain and the highest in Europe. There is an iconic WW2 photo of a Gebirgsjager on the highest point, Mount Elbrus. The region also has the greatest density of distinct languages anywhere on Earth. Significantly for me, it is the home of wine, reflecting that not all the area is mountainous.

While this book focuses on 20th-century history, the earlier periods are not ignored. This includes the various religions that influenced the region following invasions. The Ottoman and Persian Empires dominated the area until the Russians arrived, although the nations all had periods of independence. Peter the Great started the imperialist Russian period. Still, Catherine the Great, with her arch-imperialist Potemkin, expanded the Empire to the shores of the Black Sea and the Georgian capital of Tiflis (Tbilisi today). 

In my last post, I covered the later Russian conflicts with Persia (or, as they would have said, Iran). This has kicked off a new wargame project and further reading, of which more will be discussed in later posts. This was the equivalent of the Wild West for Russian officers who called it South Siberia.

The Soviet period was one of many contradictions, from utopian class liberation to Stalinist authoritarianism. The author points to the ways the Soviets behaved that were different from those of the Tsarist period. Stalin was, of course, a Georgian, although he only took a slight interest in the region.

The background of modern conflicts is explained in detail. The breakaway parts of Georgia (South Ossetia and Abkhazia) and the wars fought between Azerbaijan and Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh. There are plenty of maps and some illustrations. Overall, this book is an excellent introduction and a warm-up for more detailed reading on the Napoleonic period in particular.

While not specifically for these conflicts, I have been building some Potemkin period units in 28mm, with their distinctive headgear. This is from the North Star range. I have 36 infantry, enough for two Black Powder or three Rebels & Patriots units. Just as well as, they now appear to be out of stock. I can use my irregular Cossacks for the early period, but I picked up a couple of packs of Foundry Don Cossacks for the Napoleonic Wars.

Diplomacy and Murder in Tehran

 I have hankered after doing the Russo-Persian Wars for a while. There were many, but the early 19th century ones offered a new opponent for my Napoleonic Russians and the Ottomans were involved as well. I was in a second-hand bookshop in York when I spotted this book by Lawrence Kelly, which didn't seem like much of a punt at £3.99. It covers the life of the writer and diplomat Alexander Griboyedov, who played a crucial role in relations with Russia in this period. He was murdered by a mob in Tehran in 1829.

The background was the  Russo-Persian War of 1804-1813, fought over territorial disputes in the South Caucasus region. The Russian Empire, expanding southwards, sought to consolidate its control over the territories in the Caucasus, including Georgia, which had been formally annexed by Russia in 1801. This move antagonised Persia, which had historical claims over the region. The war concluded with the Treaty of Gulistan, signed on October 24, 1813. The terms of the treaty heavily favoured Russia, which gained control over vast territories in the South Caucasus, including modern-day Dagestan, eastern Georgia, most of Azerbaijan, and parts of Armenia. The modern links are obvious!

Griboyedov's linguistic skills and deep understanding of Eastern cultures made him a valuable asset to the Russian Empire's diplomatic efforts in the area. He was on the staff of the Russian governor, General Yermolov, who was the main driver of Russian imperialism in the region. The Persians had a regiment of Russian deserters, and one of Griboyedov's first missions to Tehran was to negotiate their return. He also encouraged the Persians in their conflict with the Ottomans, which ended in 1823.

Griboyedov's career nearly came to a sticky end when he dabbled on the fringes of the Decembrist Revolt that aimed to overthrow the new Tsar Alexander. Several of his friends were executed, and others were exiled to Siberia. Griboyedov's most significant literary work is 'Woe from Wit', a play that satirises the Russian aristocracy and bureaucratic society. It was banned, but copies were widely circulated.

War broke out again in 1826, and Griboyedov played an active role in the conflict as an aide to the new Russian commander, General Paskievich. Initial Persian success was countered by the Russians, who captured Tabriz, forcing the Persians to sue for peace. Griboyedov negotiated the Treaty of Turkmenchay on February 21, 1828, on terms highly favourable to Russia and returned to Moscow as a hero. Russia acquired additional territories, including the Erivan (Yerevan) and Nakhchivan Khanates, solidifying its control over the South Caucasus.

Persia struggled to pay the financial indemnities under the treaty, and Griboyedov and his embassy in Tehran were slaughtered by an angry mob. As the Russians were fighting another war against the Ottomans, it was in everyone's interest to play down the incident.

The book covers all the events of the period and Griboyedov's involvement. It is very light on the military aspects of the conflicts, so further reading will be required.

So, how do we tackle this on the wargame table? Mark Conrad translated a Russian work on the Persian army of the Qajar dynasty, which was helpful. Irregular Miniatures has a decent range in 15mm. Khurasan Miniatures in the US also have a range, as do Black Hussar (they look stunning) in 28mm. It would need to be a big project to justify US postage charges to the UK, so I will settle for 15mm. As it happens, Mark Bevis is selling off his 15mm armies on eBay, so I have bought a few infantry units and ordered some cavalry from Irregular. We will see where we go from there. Famous last words from a wargamer! 

Russian Warships in the Age of Sail

 This is one of those huge wow books you love to have on your bookshelf, even if you have no interest in the Russian Navy. John Tredea and Eduard Sozaev have meticulously researched the Russian Navy from 1696 to 1860. I was fortunate to pick this up in a second-hand bookshop in York for a reasonable price, even if my arm still aches from lugging it around for the rest of the day. 

The authors start with the historical background and then explain ship types, shipyards and ordnance. Over fifty pages are devoted to Russian naval history covering the wars in the Baltic, Black Sea and Caspian Sea. There is a brief mention of the voyages of exploration that saw Russian ships establishing settlements as far away as San Francisco.

The meat of the book is a description of every ship, covering its construction, design and armament, as well as its service history. This is broken down by fleet and period. The smaller fleets in the Sea of Azov, Caspian and the Far East are also included. Captured ships are also covered along with river flotillas and auxiliaries. This is an example covering one of the Pavel class, the Patrikii.

The book is profusely illustrated with line drawings, portraits of the leading commanders and paintings of sea actions. It would have made the research for my book, The Frontier Sea, a lot easier. However, it will certainly encourage me to add to my Russian fleet for games of Black Seas.

Convoys

My holiday reading was Roger Knight's, Convoys: The British Struggle Against Napoleonic Europe and America. My research for the HMS Ambuscade book flagged up the convoy system that gets marginal attention in the main histories. In practice, the convoy system was at the heart of British naval strategy. For most Royal Navy ships, convoy protection was their main role, defending the trade that provided the sinews of war and moving the troops to the continent and beyond.

Warship casualties on convoy duties were high. Between 1803 and 1815, 409 British warships were lost, 250 of which were wrecked or foundered. Bad weather was the main cause of these heavy losses, and the late-season Baltic convoys were the most dangerous. Convoys were organised by Admiralty clerks, who also arranged the warship protection, which was typically inadequate for the job. Both in numbers and the size of ships.

Convoys were not a new concept. The idea goes back to antiquity, but in this context, the Parliamentary navy used them to protect against Royalist privateers. Throughout these wars, privateers operated under a letter of marque, which provided the main threat. The difference in the Napoleonic Wars was the sheer scale of the operations. Convoys could consist of several hundred ships, often understaffed as the demands for crews multiplied. Sailing in a convoy was not popular with the masters of merchant ships because of the sailing discipline and the price advantage of getting goods to port first. However, it was effective and became an insurance requirement and a statutory duty for large parts of the conflict. The ships in the convoy were not always British. They would be protected if they departed or finished at a British port.

After explaining the convoy system and the ships that sailed in them, the author takes the reader through the convoy routes. Some of these are obvious, such as escorting troops and supplies to Wellington's army in Spain. Others, including the East and West Indies, provided the bullion and trade goods that paid for the war. Less well known is the importance of the Baltic, not just for the timber and hemp to build and maintain the Royal Navy ships but also for wheat. Privateers were also active along the British coast, intercepting goods like coal, which were typically moved by sea in the absence of good roads. Finally, the War of 1812 against the USA required huge convoys of troops and supplies to Canada and releasing hordes of American privateers against British ships in the West Indies and home waters.

British shipyards built 500 warships and 6,000 merchant ships during the war, plus prizes taken from enemy states. They were needed because French privateers captured 5,314 ships between 1803 and 1814. However, winter weather caused more casualties than enemy action. 61% of warship losses were due to the weather.

It is not an overstatement to say that without convoys, Britain could not have emerged victorious from the war. The significance of convoys in securing essential resources cannot be overstated. Bullion from Mexico, coffee and sugar from the tropics, and foodstuffs were crucial for financing the war and keeping the armies and population fed. Saltpetre from Bengal and sulphur from Sicily were vital for making the gunpowder that the army fought with. The importance of convoys was largely forgotten after the Napoleonic Wars, only to be reinstated in 1917 when U-Boat losses became unsustainable. In WW2, the convoy system played an equally crucial role in securing victory. 

This is an excellent read, highlighting an aspect of the Napoleonic Wars that has largely been ignored. 

Some of my Black Seas ships. 

The Battle of Aspern-Essling 1809

I am in Vienna this week. It is not my first visit, but my wife has never been. There are lots of Balkan links, of course, but one battlefield I have never visited is Aspern-Essling. It was fought on 21-22 May 1809, during the War of the Fifth Coalition. I wasn't originally planning to go because the volunteer museums are only open on Sundays. However, the previous day's visit had worn my wife's sprained ankle, so I got a morning pass.

Aspern and Essling were two small villages on the banks of the Danube River near Vienna. Napoleon chose this area for his river crossing, led by Marshal Jean Lannes. They initially faced stiff Austrian resistance but managed to secure a foothold on the far bank. Archduke Charles responded, launching a series of fierce counterattacks to dislodge the French from their positions. The terrain, which included marshes and small villages, posed challenges for both sides. Control of critical positions, such as the villages of Aspern and Essling, shifted repeatedly during the battle. While the battle ended inconclusively, Napoleon withdrew his forces to the original side of the Danube, conceding a rare tactical defeat.

I re-read David Chandler's battle description and brought his maps. However, this was an opportunity to try the new travel guide app Guidl. Charles Esdaile has done a guided tour of this battle, and it was very useful. The app is free, but you pay to download each tour, which is £6.99. For that, you get an overview of the battle and several audio segments you can listen to at critical points on the battlefield. You will also need Google Maps to get about. In my case, by walking and bus. The app is a bit clunky, but Charles clearly explains what happened at each spot and describes the commanders engaged.

So, I caught the train to Aspern, which is over the Danube in today's Vienna suburbs. Then, I took a bus to St Martin's Church, which was on the French left flank. This was a key strong point in the battle and has several monuments, along with a small museum.

I walked towards the old main street, which formed part of the defences. There are still some older houses, and the locals haven't forgotten Napoleon😂.

Next, a short bus ride takes you to Essling. First, out to the open fields of the Marchfeld, scene of Bessieres cavalry charges. The street is named after one of the Austrian commanders.

My final stop was the granary in Essling, which formed the right flank of the French position. It is the one building that survived and is easy to spot. The guide goes on to the river crossings, but I needed to head back to our flat for the afternoon museum visits.

 I have refought this battle a few times on the tabletop. It is an interesting tactical challenge, as the French need a bridgehead but are outnumbered at least four to one.

It would have been a better visit with the museums. So, if you have the option, go on a Sunday. However, walking the battlefield is still valuable, and I will enjoy the next game all the more.

The previous day, we visited the Belvedere Palace, which has the classic Napoleon crossing the Alps painting. It's historical nonsense, as he actually crossed the Alps on a mule (a realistic painting is in Liverpool's Walker Gallery), but it's a great painting. The Hofburg also has a fine statue of Archduke Charles. The Austrians do like statues; the city is littered with them.

As a postscript, I also made a quick visit to Wagram later in the week. There is a small museum (open Sundays only) in what was the Archduke's HQ. I didn't have time to walk the Austrian line down to Markgrafneusiedl, and there is no public transport.