Monday, October 5, 2015

Hildebrandts' Shannara

According to Terry Brooks, part of the plan to make The Sword of Shannara into the next Lord of the Rings was to get the Brothers Hildenbrandt to do the book's artwork. They had done a successful Tolkien calendar in 1976 and editor Lester Del Rey told them to do the same style of pictures for Sword. They complied, producing a full color cover and fold out picture of the book's band of travelers, as well as several black and white images.

I included the two color paintings with my previous Sword post but I'll include them again.

Here are the rest.

Allanon at Shady Vale
Escape from Paranor

On the Walls of Tyrsis

Skull Mountain

Palance and Stenmin

The Sword of Shannara

Thursday, October 1, 2015

Why The Sword of Shannara You Ask

Some folks might have noticed the gold hued Hildebrandt Bros. cover of the original The Sword of Shannara over there on the top left corner. Yeah, I've reread it for my next Black Gate review. And I don't hate it. There, I've said. You can burn my membership card in the guild of swords & sorcery aficionados, but I sort of like the poor thing.

For those uninitiated in the history of The Sword of Shannara, legendary Ballantine editors Lester and Judy Del Rey were looking for something to echo the success of The Lord of the Rings (and kick off their new Del Rey imprint). They discovered young Terry Brooks, and worked with him to turn his manuscript into a novel that would do just that.

And it did. According to Wikipedia, it sold 125,000 copies its first month in print. The Sword of Shannara was one of the first fantasy books to climb the New York Times Bestseller list and awakened the publishing industry to the potential of fantasy fiction. It also set the stage for scads of other Tolkien pastiches to appear. Like GRRM paving the way for a host of other grimdark authors, Terry Brooks and Sword showed there was profit to be made in a certain direction.

While we've all had it up to here with secret heirs, bands of diverse heroes bound together on a quest, and evil dark lords and their monstrous hordes and henchdemons, there was a time when we didn't. An innocent time when not everyone and his brother and sister were writing that exact same story, again, and again, and again. When the only big fantasy novels you had read were LotR because that's all there was.

I can't stress how important and mind-blowing it was when The Sword of Shannara first appeared. My fantasy reading friends (all guys I must admit) and I went nuts. The original hardcover was over seven hundred pages long and I know two guys who read it straight through in a day. It took me at least three or four. It was the longest book I had ever read at that point in my life.

Even though we were young, I was only eleven, we all saw the blatant Tolkien rip-offs homages. The whole basic plot: determined band sets off to the big villain's kingdom for some magical folderol that will defeat him. We didn't care. Sure the Siege of Tyrsis equals the Siege of Minas Tirith, Stenmin equals Womrtongue, and a host of other people, places and things in Sword mimic or echo things in LotR. And we still didn't care.

Tolkien's heroes
Brooks' heroes

We were so hungry for new fantasy that satisfied the same things LotR had done for us; good triumphing over evil, adventure and excitement, and cool characters. There was other fantasy out there, Moorcock, Philip Jose Farmer, Ursula K. LeGuin, among others, but they were not offering the same things as Tolkien (and I'm sure all of them would be proud to admit that). Brooks and the Del Reys knew exactly what hordes of young fantasy fans were hungering for and they gave it to us. They took Tolkien, made it simpler and easier to read, and WHAM!, took us for a roller coaster ride.

I came up with the idea of revisiting The Sword of Shannara last year. It's been a decade or so since I last read it and it seemed like something ripe for examination. To gain a little added insight into the book's history, I sprang for the 35th Anniversary Annotated Edition. Brooks towers over the history of fantasy because of the vast numbers of books he's sold and the fact he served as a gateway for so many readers into fantasy. I'm curious how much he matters anymore. I hope to generate a little discussion about this come Tuesday.

Monday, September 28, 2015

Grimdark Magazine #5

I just got myself on the review copy list of Grimdark Magazine and issue #5 just hit my inbox this evening. I've read the first four issues and been adequately pleased. While I think there's a lot of marketing hype behind the term grimdark, I do think much of the best sword & sorcery being written at present comes out under that description. The last issue had a great essay by John Fultz making same basic argument that essentially grimdark=swords & sorcery.

I'm planning on reviewing it along with the usual monthly suspects and some stories from back issues of Fantasy Scroll. Probably in the second week of October. 

The point being, Grimdark Issue 5 has hit the digital bookshelves. At $2.99 you really, really can't go wrong. Now if only the next issue of Heroic Fantasy Quarterly would hurry up and get here already.

Thursday, September 24, 2015

Drift into War: Crimea: The Great Crimean War 1854-1856 by Trevor Royle

The question has been asked whether we are at peace or war. It is one that is very difficult to answer distinctly. We are not at war, because war is not declared; we are not strictly at peace with Russia (a laugh). My noble friend may laugh; but he must know perfectly well that I am correct in saying we are not at war with Russia, although diplomatic relations with that country are suspended...I consider that we are in the intermediate state; that our desire for peace is just as sincere as ever; but then I must say our hopes of maintaining it are gradually dwindling away, and that we are drifting towards war.

Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Lord Clarendon to Lord Clanricarde in the House of Lords in February 1854.

These infamous words do more to underline the whole hazy nature of the Crimean War than anything else in Trevor Royle's, Crimea; The Great Crimean War. The Russians were bent on feasting on the not-yet-dead body of the Ottoman Empire, the French were intent on ending the post-Napoleon Congress system that put them in a place of inferiority to the other Great Powers, and England was fearful of a Russian Empire able to enter the Mediterranean. The Turks, of course, hoped to be left alone, but none of the other nations really seemed to care what they thought.

stampe commemorating Sinope
But none of the Great Powers had any real, concrete reason to go to war. Neither territory, citizens, or wealth were at risk. Still, when the Russians destroyed the Turkish Black Sea squadron at Sinope, the British decided to lend them naval support. Sir James Graham, First Lord of the Admiralty asked the prime minister, Lord Aberdeen, "Are we bound in that case to be dragged into hostilities by a Barbarian whom we are unable to control?" And still, to war they went, leaving hundreds of thousands dead and wounded.

Crimea, Alma, Balaklava, Sebastopol, and the Charge of the Light Brigade. Once these names of places and battles were well known across the West. The dashing soldiers of France and England sailed across Europe to save the tottering Ottoman Empire from the rapaciousness of the tyrannical Russian Empire. Now, most people have little memory of a war fought for, what even then, were obscure reasons, over one hundred and fifty years ago.

Royle's book is a thorough survey of a mostly forgotten war, if from a decidedly British perspective. Before reading this, I only had the vaguest understanding of it. I knew Florence Nightingale was there dealing with disease and medical incompetence, and a little of the disastrous charge of the Light Brigade during the battle of Balaklava, but no more.

Coldstream Guard in Scutari
The Crimean War, was the first war between the Great Powers of Europe after nearly forty years of peace. After the vast destruction and killing of the Napoleonic Wars, the victors thought they had established a structure for peace and stability at the Congress of Vienna. France was reduced in power and stature, and, it was hoped, nationalism and liberalism were tamped down.

The conflict was fought between an alliance composed of France and her old foe, England, and the Ottoman Empire (with some help from Sardinia) against the Russians. While it had its immediate spark in a fight between the Russians and French over whether Orthodox or Catholic monks would hold the keys to the Church of the Nativity in Jerusalem, then under Ottoman rule. For many years, Orthodox monks held the keys to the church's front doors. They were transferred to Roman Catholic monks by the Ottomans when the aggressive Napoleon III demanded them in late 1852. Russia felt deeply insulted and insisted two treaties in the 18th century guaranteed Orthodox control of the keys. This was an attack on her prestige. But the real causes were numerous and complex.

Russian soldiers leaving for the Crimea
In 1853, the Ottoman Empire, was a vast realm that stretched from the mountains of eastern Anatolia all the way to the shores of Tunisia, and covered most of the Balkans and Arabian peninsulas.

And it was crumbling. After nearly four hundred years of occupation, the Greeks had wrested their independence from the Turks in 1821. Fear of Russian intervention led to significant Serbian autonomy. Soldiers under the command of  Albania general Muhammad Ali had seized control of Egypt.

Tsar Nicholas I had taken to calling it a sick man. In its decay, he saw opportunity. He dreamed of expanding his empire's boundaries into Anatolia and the Balkans, and becoming the protector of all the Orthodox peoples under Ottoman rule. Moldavia, Wallachia, Serbia, and Bulgaria should all be granted independence, under Russian guindance of course. On numerous occasions he tried to convince British diplomats and politicians that what was needed was a preemptive plan to deal with the dissolution and disposition of the Ottoman Empire. 
Turkish soldier

Nicholas was optimistic about war against the Ottomans. Their army was filled with incompetent officers, poorly trained and equipped soldiers, and riddled with corruption. Unaided, there was little chance it would have been able to stand up to the Russians. Royle provides several letter from British diplomats confirming the terrible state of the Ottoman army. Fortunately, the Turks would not be alone.

Both England and France feared any increase in Russian power could destabilize the balance of power in Europe. Neither wanted Russia swallowing up the Balkans or Istanbul. Control of the latter would release the Russian navy into the Mediterranean, something that could be a threat in the event of a future war. The British were especially worried that the Russians had their eyes, ultimately, on northern India. Russia. 

There were other considerations at play. France, relegated to the back bench of Great Powers, was looking to return to center stage. Napoleon III, nephew and heir of Napoleon Bonaparte, took power in a coup in 1851 and declared a new empire. Always on the lookout to increase France's prestige and power on an international level, the new emperor had an eye open for the chance at military victory. Russia was one of the two great multi-ethnic empires (the other being Austria) that served as the watchdogs of the Congress system, sending their troops to break up liberal rebellions across central and eastern Europe. Taking one of them down would be a major coup for the French.

Zoauves in the Crimea
Royle spends several chapters exploring the maneuvers of the tsar, his envoys, and those of England and France as they attempt gain advantage over one another while avoiding actual war. For several months diplomats shuttled back and forth from London and Paris to St. Petersburg trying to outfox one another but to no avail. Finally, the Russians made territorial and political demands of the Turks they knew they could never accept.

In response to the Turks' refusal, the Russians invaded Moldavia and Wallachia. The French and British demanded they withdraw, which, of course, the tsar refused to do. Soon French and British troops were on their way to Bulgaria. Shortly after the French and British arrival, the Russians withdrew. This, however, was not the end of the war, merely the beginning. 

The real aim of the Allies was the Crimea. No one even contemplated a full invasion of Russia. It was theorized, that by seizing the great Russian naval base at Sebastopol, Russian power in and along the Black Sea would be curtailed, ensuring Ottoman security.

Valley of Balaklava
The French forces deployed to the Crimea had gained significant combat experience during the conquest of Algeria in the 1830s. This meant they had combat trained officers and an adequately developed medical service. When the cold weather came they had sufficient fuel and heavy clothing.

The British were not so well prepared. For forty years, their army had seen little action and its senior commanders were old men who'd last seen combat against the French. Logistics were not properly prepared branch of the army which directly to many deaths from disease and cold during the war's first six months. It took the first half of the war for the army to get up to speed regarding medical services and supplies.

The increased lethality on the battlefields of 1854 was something the British weren't prepared for. It wasn't that commanders were incompetent, as is often implied, but that they were struggling to adapt to changes they weren't aware of. They also tended to be old men raised on tactics insufficient to win battles in 1854. 

Three major battles were fought in the lead up to and the early day of the siege of Sebastopol. The first was the at the Alma River when French, British, and Turkish troops drove the Russian army out of its trenches and back toward the city. To the Russian's disbelief they were not pursued and managed to escape unmolested.

The next big fight was at Balaklava when the Russian attempted to assault the Allies' supply port. The Russians succeeded in capturing several redoubts and driving the Allies from large parts of their line. In the end, though, it did little to relieve the pressure growing on Sebastapol.

It's during this battle that the one event most people have heard of from the war occurred: the Charge of the Light Brigade. Due to misinterpreted orders that were vague in the first place, said cavalry brigade charged the wrong Russian artillery. It suffered heavy casualties and set off a round of recriminations between the commanders over whose fault it was. It was horrible blunder. The brigade charged over a mile and a half of open ground, with over a third of its nearly seven hundred troopers being killed or wounded. 

The third major engagement was the Battle of Inkerman, later called the Soldier's Battle.. Hoping to break the strengthening Allied line starting to strangle Sebastopol, the Russians launched an early morning assault on the British and French trenches. Fought during a heavy fog, units were often isolated from one another and much of the combat was done at a small unit level. Though outnumbered, the Allies held the ground at battle's end and the Russians withdrew, resigned to the siege.

Royle quotes from Timothy Gowing of the 7th (Royal Fusiliers):

"The bayonet was used with terrible effect by all regiments. The enemy, driven on by their brave officers, had to - and did literally - climb over the heaps of their slain countrymen and ours to renew this bloodthristy contest; but they had to go back time after time much quicker than they came." 

The siege dragged on for thirteen months, ending in October, 1855. Without getting bogged down in hyper-detail, Royle's book covers the various Allied and Russian missteps that prevent the siege from being ended one way or another several times during that year. The seeds of the type of fighting seen in the Overland Campaign of last year of the American Civil War and ultimately the Great War, are seen being plnted during this siege. Long-range artillery, and rifled muskets increased the range and killing power of armies beyond anything previously experienced.

Malakoff tower
The Allies were forced to learn the hard way, meaning infantrymen had to get killed and wounded, that attacking heavily fortified trenches and fortresses was not a sensible thing. Time after time, British assaults on the Great Redan and French ones on the Malakoff redoubt failed. While the Malakoff was finally taken, ending the siege, the British never took their objective. It's a bloody, brutal mess, and Royle makes the strategies and tactics of both sides clear and understandable.

In addition to a limited military capacity to bring the siege to an end, another reason the war dragged on as along as it did was because the British hoped to force the Russians out of the Caucasus. Even as the French, who had suffered the majority of Allied casualties, wished to reach a settlement with the Russians, the British mucked up the works.

"The next few months, from October 1855 to the end of January 1856, were to be marked by a tortuous diplomatic dance in which Austria and France were to take the lead while Britain did its utmost to disrupt the rhythm. It was not always a dignified procedure, for each participant was guided by national self-interest and only occasionally would they present a united front." p. 453

While soldiers were dying, the Russians at a rate of 250 per day, diplomats and politicians were plying each other with promises of future favors, lying to their allies, and playing the press. As with the siege, Royle guides readers through the maze of names, plots, and deceptions with clarity. 

interior Great Redan
With the fall of the Malakoff redoubt on September 8, 1855, the siege of Sebastopol came to an end. The Russians evacuated the southern part of the city and there was no more fighting in the Crimea as autumn began. There was some desultory siege warfare in February of 1856, but the war was essentially over.

In addition to returning Russian territorial gains in the Danube principalities and eastern Anatolia to the Ottomans, the Treaty of Paris, signed in March 1856, Russia and the Turks agreed not to build naval bases in the Black Sea. The Ottoman Empire was preserved for another sixty years and France and England thwarted Russia's imperial ambitions. 

One of the truly fascinating elements of the Crimean War, which Royle describes masterfully, is it was one of the first photographed wars and ones covered by war correspondents. Not realizing the power newspapers will have, the British army didn't keep reporters form the front. When large numbers of men started dying from disease and then the cold, the public knew about it right away. It was this public reaction that led to Florence Nightingale and other nurses to travel to the front. Private collections of winter coats and heavy socks were started to alleviate shortages. Later, what was seen as lackluster conduct of the war led to the collapse of the Aberdeen government. Sadly, the lesson the army took away from this was to ensure it didn't happen again in future conflicts.

Last Look by Franz Robaud
Evacuation of Sebastopol
Coupled with the other book I just finished reading, The Magenta and Solferino Campaign 1859 by Col. H. C. Wylly, Crimea: The Great Crimean War I can see how the stage was set for the next century of European wars. With this war, France reasserted herself as a player in European afairs and Sardinia was able to legitimately set its sights on Austrian-controlled Italy. France's victory against Austria in 1859 further emboldened her and convinced Prussia that Austria wasn't as powerful as everyone thought. Austria's weakened state led directly to war with an aggressively assertive Prussia in 1866. Prussia's victory in that war unnerved the rest of the Continent which finally led to France declaring war in 1870.

The collapse of the French Second Empire and the loss of Alsace and Lorraine (which France had taken possession of during the 17th century). That of course laid much of the groundwork for the Great War (something Royle argues as well) which led directly to the Second World War. Each conflict introduced a new prop, a new motive for one more, bigger war. It's also a reminder that the seventy years of peace in Western Europe is an anomaly in the region's history. 

I mentioned earlier, that this book is biased in its telling towards the British. Not that it favors the British and their cause, but the perspectives of the French, Russians, and Turks especially are concentrated on much less. While Royle provides plenty of information about the French and Russian actions, as well as the two emperors, there's not same breadth of information about the men in their ranks as in the British ranks. Nonetheless, it's not a problem that damages the story he set out to tell, it only whetted my appetite to find a book that tells more of the non-British side of the war.

Royle's book is fast paced, and engrossing (even if you can't tell from my turgid capsulization of its contents). For anyone interested in the period and how forty years of relative peace in Europe came to end, this is a perfect place to start.

Thursday, September 17, 2015

Imperial Mail Bag

I haven't posted quite as much as I had intended (I'm getting a house redone), but the reading's still going strong. To add to my library of imperialism I got myself a big batch o' books for my birthday last month.

This one covers the century of warfare between the British Empire and its local allies against the mighty Asante Empire. The latter was a powerful military state located in present day Ghana. It took the British four wars to overthrow and conquer the Asante.

An author unknown to me, Leasor was the author of tons of books (including a ghost-written autobiography of Albania's King Zog - greatest king name ever!). The Red Fort details the British effort to recapture Delhi during the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857. While there were numerous reasons for the rebellion, the fury of a new cartridge was the trigger. The cartridges for the Pattern 1853 Enfield needed to be greased and the tip bit off when used. Muslim soldiers were convinced the tallow used included pork fat and Hindu soldiers that it contained beef fat.

Napoleon III's downfall came on the heels of this war. He was, along with nearly everyone else in Europe, convinced that the Prussians would fall to French arms. This was despite the drubbing the Prussians had given the Austrians only four years earlier. Sadly for the world, that war kicked Austria out of the big leagues while this one left France embittered and itching for another go around. They would have to wait nearly forty-five years. I've started reading Wawro's book about the Austro-Prussian War and I'm digging it so I have good expectations for this one.

I just rewatched the Charlton Heston-Laurence Olivier epic, Khartoum. Good, patriotic stuff that still manages not to portray the Mahdists as subhuman rabble (even with Olivier in blackface).This thick (virtually) e-tome covers the dozen years starting with the destruction of the Hicks Pasha expedition, and George "China" Gordon's attempt to evacuate Khartoum and culminates with Herbert Kitchener's victory at Omdurman. Michael Asher is an explorer and traveler with vast experience in the deserts of northern Africa. I don't know when I'll get to this book but I'm pretty jazzed about it.

I know lavishly illustrated's a bit of a cliche, but this book really is. It's filled with photos of many of the captains, admirals, and general, most of the ships, as well as period pictures of the ground war. This, a decade before the Russo-Japanese War clinched Japan's place on the world stage, announced to the Great Powers there was a new (and Asian) power to contend with. From MMP Books, this looks terrific.

Finally, for when I finish reading about the Spanish American War, there's this history of our unsavory guerrilla war in the Philippines from 1899 to 1902 (hey, the same years the British were fighting their own brutal irregular campaign in the Transvaal). It's a little known event that left hundreds of thousands of Filipinos displaced or dead.

So, lots of books for the next six months or so (at least). I hope to write something about all of them (and all the other ones I've mentioned in previous posts) at some point or another. This continues to be a fun and very fascinating undertaking. I hope not everyone's bored stiff of me doing this. I'm still blogging each Tuesday at Black Gate, and I might start doing some S&S content here again, but this is what's really doing it for me right now.

Tuesday, September 15, 2015

IJN Mikasa: Survivor of Tsushima

Like has intruded on my pastimes and I haven't finished the Crimea War post I've been working on. Soon, soon. So,in the meantime....

The 1905 Battle of Tsushima is one of the most decisive naval battles of all time and one of the few between modern iron battleships. 

After sailing from 18,000 miles from the Baltic, the Russian fleet under Admiral Zinovy Petrovich Rozhestvensky was caught by the Japanese Combined Fleet commanded by Admiral Heihachirō Tōgō. The Russian fleet was destroyed with 21 out of 38 ships sunk and 4,380 men killed and almost 6,000 taken prisoner. The Japanese losses were a only three torpedo boats, and 117 killed, and about 600 injured. Combined with their loss at the Battle of Mukden in Manchuria, the Russians were done.

The battleship Mikasa was built for Japan in Barrow-in-Furness (where there's a street named for the ship) by Vickers Shipbuilding in 1899 and launched in 1900. She served in all the major engagements in the 1905 Russo-Japanese War only to sink when a magazine exploded six days after the war ended. 

She was raised and served as a coastal defense ship during the First World War. Later, she ferried supplies to the Japanese intervention during the Russian Civil War. 

Decommissioned in 1923 and set for the breakers because of the Washington Treaty (it limited the size of world navies), she was rescued and turned into a museum. During World War II and the Occupation she suffered from neglect. Finally, in 1961 she was restored. Today she's the only remaining pre-dreadnought battleship afloat. 

Bow emblem
main guns

Friday, August 14, 2015

USS Olympia: Living History

Launched in 1892, Comm. Dewey's flagship the USS Olympia is one of only two protected cruisers surviving today (the other is the Russian Aurora). Sadly, due to lack of funds she is rusting away in dock in Philadelphia at the Independence Seaport Museum. She's painted in the same beautiful peacetime white and buff colors she wore when she led the US Asiatic Squadron in its massacre of the Spanish Pacific Squadron in Manila Bay on May 1, 1898.

Commodore's Lounge
USS Olympia's bow

5" gun
I've visited the Olympia several times and I want to back again. With wood lined interiors and graceful curves to her hull and gun mounts, she's one of the most beautiful machines I've ever seen. Emblazoned with an American flag shield, her bow juts forward like an outthrust chin showing she's ready to fight.

After her victorious service in the Spanish American War, the Olympia would go on to cruise around the world and eventually serve as the flagship of the Caribbean Squadron. She participated in the intervention in Honduras in 1903 to protect the banana trade. 

During the Great War she escorted transports to France. She also participated in the Allied intervention in Murmansk and Archangel in 1918. Later she transported the remains of the Unknown Soldier home to the States. She was decomissioned in 1922. It would be a terrible historic loss were she to end up in the scrap yard. Unfortunately, I don't have the $13 million estimated needed to fix her up and keep her afloat.