I'm back with more book reviews, this time it's Siege Warfare During the Hundred Years War by Peter Hoskins

​

It’s a point of general agreement among medieval military historians that it was sieges and not battles that were the dominant form of warfare. This is generally contrary to the popular depiction of the period, where battles draw far more attention than sieges. Arguably no historical topic has been as dominated by narratives of great victories in the field of battle as the Hundred Years War. The stories of Crécy, Poitiers, and Agincourt overshadow the sieges of Calais, Harfleur, or Orleans, among others. I am definitely in the camp who believe that sieges have often been neglected in favour of the dramatic battles so I was very excited to pick up a copy of Peter Hoskin’s book which examines the Hundred Years War through its sieges rather than its battles.

This is unsurprisingly a purely military history - you will not get much on dynastic politics and nothing on culture or religion during this period. What Hoskins does is craft a narrative of the Hundred Years War but framed through its many sieges rather than its set piece battles. Agincourt recieves but a scant few lines while Harfleur is a multi-page event, which I’m fully in favour of honestly. Not every siege is included, that would make for a monumental and probably unreadable book, but a sufficient sample is here that all the famous ones are included as well as several less famous but still interesting examples.

Each siege has its own little section which almost makes the book into a series of vignettes covering dozens of individual sieges, but Hoskins also does a good job linking the narratives into a coherent whole. This creates a nice balance where each siege is given its own attention but they are also placed within their broader context. It also means that you don’t need significant pre--existing knowledge of the Hundred Years War to follow the narrative as Hoskins presents it. I would probably still recommend a more general history of the Hundred Years War as your first book on the subject, something like David Green’s The Hundred Years War: A People’s History, because it is such a pure military history so you are missing out on a lot of the key dynamics underpinning the conflict if you just read Hoskins. That said, for people looking for a more military history of the conflict, Hoskins’ book is a great place to start.

The book doesn’t go into very great detail about the general practice of sieges at the time. Instead it focuses more on the specific narratives of the many different sieges that took place over the century long conflict. People interested in more discussion of medieval siege tactics will probably be happier with the books by Peter Purton, which are a more academic treatment of medieval siege warfare as a whole. That said, I think there’s a lot to recommend taking a more focused and specific look at the development of the sieges at the time. Each siege is a distinct event with its own factors to consider beyond just the general tactics of the era. By spending so long on individual sieges rather than picking a few as representative of the whole era Hoskins highlights the differences that made each siege unique but also manages to show the similarities as well. That said, if what you want is a detailed examination of how mining worked during medieval sieges you would be better off with Peter Purton’s The Medieval Siege Engineer.

If I had a problem with Hoskins’ work it would be with the referencing. I think Hoskins has done his research and the bibliography includes some great information, but there are no notes of any kind and often references to chroniclers do not name which chronicler is being referenced. This means that as a starting point for future research the book is not particularly useful. I understand that there is a perception that foot/endnotes are off putting to general readers but I find it very frustrating when I come across an interesting anecdote but have no recourse to finding out more about it! I really wish there were even basic notes included.

I think the thing I liked most about Siege Warfare During the Hundred Years War was the emphasis put on the periods of French dominance. Far too often in English the narrative of the Hundred Years War focuses on the periods of great English victories, mostly during the reigns of Edward III and Henry V, and covers the other periods only in brief. Hoskins doesn’t do this and instead we get some great information on the careers of Bertrand du Guesclin and Jean de Dunois specifically. This creates a much more holistic view of the conflict which is something of an antidote to most popular narratives of the conflict.

Overall, I really enjoyed Peter Hoskins Siege Warfare During the Hundred Years War and I think its an excellent addition to the military history of the Hundred Years War.

​

If you liked this review maybe check out some of my other ones on my blog: https://www.stuartellisgorman.com/blog/category/Book+Review

I've recently been enjoying Paul S. Hirsch's Pulp Empire: The secret history of comic book imperialism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2021). It's largely a history of American comic books in the mid twentieth century, but it delves into them in a fascinating and provocative way. Hirsch covers how comic books were both derided and appropriated by religious groups and government agencies, exploring how they were used to impart political, religious, ideological, and geopolitical ideas to a wide audience. Heartily recommended.

Malcolm

As it turns out I did read a new book this week, so why not talk about it for a bit?

The Greatest Anti-Submarine Action of All Wars, written and self-published in 1999 by R.B. Hillyer, concerns an anti-submarine operation undertaken in the waters around the Solomon Islands in May 1944 by a destroyer escort hunter-killer group consisting of USS George (DE-697), USS Raby (DE-698), USS England (DE-635), and later USS Spangler (DE-696). During this operation, England sunk six Japanese submarines in a twelve-day span, an accomplishment that remains unparalleled in the history of anti-submarine warfare, even among other highly successful anti-submarine units such as USS Bogue (CVE-9)'s hunter-killer group and the Royal Navy's 2nd Escort Group, and England was awarded the Presidential Unit Citation for her actions. Hillyer was a crewmember onboard George during this operation, though he was a cook and, as far as I know, played no direct role in the combat and has no specialized anti-submarine warfare knowledge. Hillyer's reason for writing this book is essentially that he believes that England has unfairly received the lion's share of the credit and glory for the hunter-killer group's actions, and he wants to set the record straight on what he maintains is the full story that is often untold in other accounts which primarily focus on England.

To get this out of the way before going into the actual content, this is not an unbiased source, and the author makes little effort to appear unbiased. As previously stated he was a crewmember on George, one of the ships that he feels was slighted and cast to the wayside by history, and he very obviously has some negative feelings towards England, almost exclusively referring to her as the "One Ship Brass Band" (OSBB) throughout the book. But that doesn't inherently mean that the information he presents isn't valid and that he can't make convincing arguments for his position. Does he? No, not really.

The first couple chapters are essentially just an overview of George's career from her commissioning up until the operation in question. What she did, what life onboard her was like, some anecdotes about those little quirks every ship and her crew has, pretty run-of-the-mill stuff that gives some insight into the culture aboard her and all that. None of which I have any issue with, and it's interesting information to know if you're like me and want to learn everything you can about the ships involved. Then it has George's deck logs for the anti-submarine action itself, which is, again, inoffensive and good to know (though they're already available in the National Archives Catalog). Then more brief overview of the rest of George's WWII career. All this got you to about the halfway point of the book.

Hillyer's main claim as to why England has been unfairly placed on a pedestal both by Navy brass and history is that her deck logs were rewritten and falsified after the fact in order to make her look better and to omit information that would give more credit to the other DEs. This is obviously a pretty serious and incredible claim, and would require equally credible proof to support it. The proof really isn't very convincing though, he's basically just comparing the deck logs of the various ships involved and picking out minor omissions, time differences, and conflicts between England's logs and the others that are of little consequence and don't actually refute any of England's sinkings nor cast her in a particularly better light than any of the other ships. One of the main selling points was about how England's log of delivering mail to an escort carrier they were operating in coordination with didn't match up, clearly something of the highest significance, that he spends an inordinate amount of time breaking down and discussing. Moreover, none of the present ships' logs, nor those of the commander of Escort Division 39 (who was in overall command of the operation onboard George at the time) dispute any of England's sinkings, and do credit her for the sinkings. I was expecting some big revelation, some indisputable proof, but never really got it.

So on to the other claims. He posits that George and Raby also sunk a submarine each during the operation; however, while George and possibly Raby both registered hits on a submarine, neither of them produced any evidence of scoring a kill (there were some oils slicks in the general area they made their attacks, but as far as I know it's never been established what the oil was originating from), and postwar analysis determined that the only Japanese submarines sunk in the area the DEs were operating in within that timespan were the six that were sunk by England. So neither George, Raby, nor Spangler produced any definitive evidence of submarine kills, nothing in their deck logs supported them getting any kills and they make no claims or assumptions that they did get any, and Japanese records don't indicate any additional kills. He also says it wasn't possible for England to have earned the 10 battle stars she's listed as having (in comparison to George's 2) in the amount of time she was in service, and offers no other argument supporting that claim.

I think the only claim Hillyer actually made that I can see his reasoning for and understand his position, is that it was unfair that only England was awarded a Presidential Unit Citation for the operation, as opposed to all the ships involved. It's true that hunter-killer groups do operate as a team, it's right there in the name, and that any one of them could not have sunk all six submarines completely by themselves. Though George, Raby, and Spangler didn't get any kills themselves, they were responsible for actually detecting many of the submarines in the first place and did assist England (or whichever ship was making the attack at the time) with targeting data and things like that, and they did do a good job of keeping the submarines boxed in and unable to escape with their unsuccessful attacks. Dispatches from Navy brass congratulating them on their success also discussed them as a unit rather than spotlighting any individual ship. But at the end of the day, for most of the submarines the other DEs had plenty of chances to get the kill themselves, but England was the only one who actually did. So while I don't agree with his belief, I do see his reasoning for it.

So that's the book, basically. An interesting insight into the ship in question that's not often shown, but ultimately it fails to do what it set out to do and Hillyer just comes across as someone who's jealous and bitter, grasping at straws for anything that could possibly validate his beliefs and coming up short.

Hello all, I am looking for recommendations on non-fiction books from about 1870 to 1930. Specifically, firsthand accounts of the author's experiences on a journey or in a war in a foreign land. I don't particularly mind if the author writes from a very biased perspective, but I'd rather not read an account that is largely falsified. While I enjoy learning about the First World War, I'd prefer your recommendations from other times (unless the book takes place in a theater outside of the Western or Italian Front). I speak fluent German and conversational Portuguese and would also be interested in works in those languages.

Examples of such books that I recently read and enjoyed are With Kitchener to Khartum by G. W. Steevens, My Journey to Lhasa by Alexandra David-Néel, Commando by Deneys Reitz, and Beasts, Men and Gods by Ferdinand Ossendowski. My Reminiscences of East Africa (Meine Erinnerungen aus Ostafrika) by Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck is also on my reading list. Thank you for your recommendations. I look forward to learning something new.

Has anyone got any suggestions for a good book on Jozef Tito?