Reading matters

Of my recent haul of six books, I've now finished two. The Twilight of the Soldier Kings rules were the first. I found a few things I missed and a few things I didn't know about (or hadn't picked up from the videos). More of this the next time I play a game with them.

Latterly I've been reading the John Barratt book on the 1646 campaigns on the borderlands of England and Wales. This was a good book overall. Be warned though, if you are just interested in it for the immediate run up to and fighting of the Battle of Stow, this part only covers a quarter of the main text. The rest of it covers the attempt to take Chester from late 1645 to its eventual fall, and wider campaigns in the West Midlands and Marches. One of the 8 chapters is dedicated to the capture of Hereford alone: in 1645. So you're well into the book before 1646 comes along. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the book, and found it very informative and well documented in Barratt's usual style, but why do publishers find it difficult to give books an accurate subtitle? Even adjusting it to 'the end of the Civil War in the Welsh Marches from the fall of Chester to the Battle of Stow.' 

Reading the Afterword, I was struck by how many of the leading characters died in the same year. And no I don't mean they were killed or mortally wounded in the Battle of Stow. 

Jacob Lord Astley (R) died at home in 1652

Thomas Leveson (R) died in exile in 1652

Sir Charles Lucas (R) captured at the siege of Colchester in the Second Civil War, 1648 and shot

Barnaby Scudamore (R) 'did not compound until 1651' and, you guessed it, died the following year.

Sir Thomas Tyldesley (R) involved in the rising of 1651 and died 4 months short of 1652, being killed at the action at Wigan on 25 August. A very bad Bank Holiday. Looking for Wigan Pier no doubt.

Sir William Vaughan (R) killed in Ireland in 1649.

Henry Washington (R) managed to avoid the curse, dying in 1664.

Sir Michael Woodhouse (R) 'may have died in 1651'. I'm having that, as he therefore, may have died in 1652.

Sir William Brereton (P) also avoided the curse, dying in 1661. Lest you think that was just winner's luck, fate took some revenge. He was buried in Croydon.

John Birch (P) died in 1691.

Thomas Morgan (P) died in 1679.

Yes, I know it was the Royalists who died in 1652, and as they were the losers you expect that they might have had more trouble adapting and surviving in the new regime. But given that most of these seem to have died in peacetime, you have to wonder. How's that for the makings of a conspiracy theory?

I can't make my mind up what to read next. The Duffy is the most tempting, even though I've read the first edition quite a few times. The Henry Morgan book is the most different to my normal reading material, so might be 'refreshing'. The Saxon Army book is brief and I've already dipped into it. Maybe jump straight to the narrative section, I'm not massively interested in the regimental evolution. The Monmouth book will have to wait and I hope this talk on Wednesday does not put me off the book. http://warsoflouisxiv.blogspot.com/2021/03/monmouth-rebellion-talk-by-steve-carter.html

Note that Ralphus has posted a Zoom link in the comments so you don't have to be signed up to Fakebook.

Ta-da for now!

Postscript.

Back already. This is rapidly turning into a whinge. A middle-aged rant in fact. Apologies for that. Switch off now if you don’t like this sort of thing.

I started the book about Morgan, but soon got disillusioned for the reasons given in the comments below. Then I followed Tradgardmastare’s suggestion (not your fault old boy, not your fault). I picked up the book about the Saxon army in the mid-eighteenth century. So far I’m part way through the Silesian Wars section of the narrative.

This book looks like it hasn’t been edited. I don’t mean that it’s got several typos, or badly phrased sentences. Initially it looked like a poor translation. I have no idea whether it was written in Italian then translated into English, by a person who doesn’t have the required standard or by a machine, or whether the author wrote it straight into English. Either way I would suggest it is the publisher’s responsibility to edit it. I would be delighted if I could write Italian, or any other language, to this standard, but I would be gobsmacked if someone published it.

It’s not just errors in English grammar though. There are often paragraphs that have two completely different themes in them. Some contain a narrative that is jumbled up chronologically, like one of those drama series that keeps jumping backwards and forwards in time.

In parts it reads like a collection of notes that haven’t been sorted yet and the balance is all wrong. E.G. lots of information about a column’s order of march and how it marched backwards and forwards between different cities within Saxony, then next to nothing about the business end when the column got to Bohemia. Before we know it the Saxons are at Prague. Now this might reflect the over-abundance of sources for one phase, and the lack of sources for another. Surely an alert editor might point this out and suggest a revision or two here and adding a comment about lack of information.

This isn’t meant to be a proper review. Just a whinge from an unimpressed reader. I’m glad I bought it for a heavily discounted price because I would be hugely disappointed if I’d paid the publisher’s price. It’s a shame because there’s a lot of useful information in it, and it was a delight to see the author’s passion come through in the preface.