Shipwrecks and Pirates

 Shipwrecks and Pirates.

My book 'Out of the Depths: A History of Shipwrecks' (Reaktion Books, London) will be published in paperback in the UK in July 2024 and in North America in August 2024. The book is also appearing in Japanese and Chinese editions. My next project will be a global history of piracy at sea.

AGJ, 27 March 2024.

Shipwrecks

 My forthcoming book on shipwrecks - Alan G. Jamieson, 'Out of the Depths: A History of Shipwrecks' (Reaktion Books, London) - will be published in the UK on 12 September 2022 and in the USA & Canada on 24 October 2022. It is a general survey of shipwrecks across the centuries and also looks at developments in the last sixty years that have allowed those arch-enemies maritime archaeologists and treasure hunters to find such wrecks.

It is a measure of how much interest there is in shipwrecks that since the book went to the printers new wrecks have come to light and attracted public attention. The wreck of HMS 'Gloucester', lost in 1682, has been found off Great Yarmouth, England, and some maritime archaeologists claim it is the most important historic shipwreck found in English waters since the 'Mary Rose'.

In my book the USS 'Johnston', lost in battle off Samar in the Philippines in 1944, is noted as the deepest shipwreck ever found. However, the team which found the 'Johnston' has recently announced the discovery of the wreck of the USS 'Samuel B. Roberts', lost in the same battle, at an even greater depth - 4.28 miles beneath the surface of the sea.

AGJ, 27 July 2022. 

Turkey in Libya: A New Front for Neo-Ottomanism?

The recent agreement between Turkey and the United Nations-backed government of Libya based in Tripoli includes a provision for sending Turkish troops to Libya if requested. Should that happen, these would be the first Turkish troops to go to that country in more than one hundred years.

Back in 1911 Libya was still a province of the Ottoman empire, but in that year it was invaded by Italian forces bent on imperial expansion. Outnumbered by Italian troops and warships - and facing the first use of aircraft in warfare - the Ottoman Turkish forces in Libya were soon driven from the coastal cities. With the support of the Arab tribes in the interior, the Ottomans then mounted a guerrilla war against the invaders. Among the Turkish officers advising the tribal forces were Enver Pasha, who would lead the Ottoman empire during the First World War, and Mustafa Kemal, who after that war would create the secular Turkish republic. In 1912 the Ottoman government made peace with the Italians, gave up all claims to Libya, and called its army officers home.

Today, more than a century later, there is the possibility of Turkish troops returning to Libya. Although recognized by the United Nations, the current Libyan government in Tripoli controls little more territory than the capital city itself. It is under threat from the advance of forces loyal to General Khalifa Haftar, who rules eastern Libya. Haftar is supported by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), while Turkey supports the Tripoli government and has now declared its readiness to send troops to defend it. The Italo-Ottoman war of 1911-12 saw the first use of aircraft in combat and the present war in Libya has seen the first use of armed drones by both sides in a conflict. Haftar has Chinese-built drones supplied by the UAE while the Tripoli government uses Turkish-built drones. Should Turkey actually send troops to Libya, this will almost certainly trigger a similar response from the opposing side, with Egyptian military intervention the most likely outcome.

To add to the dangerous mix that is Turkish relations with Libya, the recent agreement between Tripoli and Turkey also deals with offshore energy exploration and development in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. Large offshore gas fields are believed to exist in the region and a co-operation agreement on their development has recently been made by countries including Greece, Egypt and Israel. Turkey was deliberately excluded from this group because it recognizes the Republic of Northern Cyprus, created after the island was invaded by Turkey in 1974, and claims that state has the right to any energy resources found of its coasts. Other countries only recognize the Republic of Cyprus, which claims all rights to energy development in Cypriot waters. Turkey has encouraged the Tripoli government to make extensive claims to an area for offshore energy development which if upheld would considerably limit Greek energy exploration south of Crete.

President Erdogan of Turkey has often been accused of 'neo-Ottomanism', that is, trying to revive Turkish influence in areas that were once part of the Ottoman empire. Turkish government officials have long claimed this is no more than a 'good neighbour' policy restricted to the exercise of economic and cultural 'soft power'. However, Turkey's actions since the outbreak of the Syrian civil war in 2011 have rather undermined this benign picture. Turkish readiness to use military intervention, 'hard power', in Syria has shown that influence can all too easily be converted into control. The possibility that a new front for military 'neo-Ottomanism' is opening up in Libya cannot be ruled out  and if it occurs it will put a serious strain on Turkey's relations with other countries, not least its supposed allies, such as Greece, within NATO.

Donald Jamieson and Hugh Birnie: Two Canadian Airmen Murdered in Normandy in August 1944

On the night of 28/29 June 1944, three weeks after the D-Day invasion, Bomber Command of the Royal Air Force (RAF) sent a force to attack railway yards at Metz, France. Many of the aircraft were Halifax bombers from 6 (Canadian) Group of Bomber Command. Seven were lost on the raid, including two from 426 (Thunderbird) Squadron, Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF), based at Linton-on-Ouse, Yorkshire, England. One loss was Halifax LW198, in which one crew member died. The pilot, Flying Officer Gerard, and the rest of the crew parachuted safely, evaded capture, and eventually reached the safety of Allied lines. The other loss was Halifax NP683.

The crew of NP683 on this night consisted of five RCAF men and two men from the RAF. The pilot was Flight Lieutenant Percival Logan from Alberta; the navigator was Pilot Officer Hugh Birnie from Toronto, Ontario; and the bomb aimer was Flying Officer James Willis from Calabogie, Ontario. Both gunners were Canadian: Pilot Officer Donald Jamieson from Winnipeg, Manitoba, in the mid upper turret and Pilot Officer R.S. Kennedy from Prince Edward Island in the rear turret. The RAF men were Pilot Officer G. D'Arcy the wireless operator and Sergeant J. Docherty the flight engineer.

After bombing the Metz railway yards, Logan took a return route to England which took the aircraft near Rouen in Normandy. Near there, in the early hours of 29 June 1944, a German night fighter attacked the Halifax bomber. The first burst of enemy gunfire hit the starboard inner engine and set it on fire. The fire quickly spread along the wing and onto the fuselage. Pilot Logan saw it was too late to save the aircraft and ordered the crew to bale out.

The navigator (Birnie) opened the forward escape hatch and he, the wireless operator and the flight engineer went out through it. Logan set the automatic pilot and moved towards the forward hatch, only to find the bomb aimer (Willis), who had difficulty in putting on his parachute, had not yet left. Before they could both leave, the aircraft began to spin as the automatic pilot was not able to control it. Logan returned to his seat and managed to regain control.

As soon as the bomb aimer had left, the pilot again moved towards the forward hatch, but then there was an explosion on the starboard wing and Logan was thrown forward into the nose, with his feet protruding through the escape hatch. The aircraft was now spinning violently and the pilot was unable to move. Fortunately a further explosion occurred and threw the pilot out of the aircraft, which was breaking up. Although somewhat dazed, Logan activated his parachute and landed safely at approximately 02.50 hours, 29 June 1944, at Bourg-Achard, about fifteen miles south west of Rouen.

On receipt of the order to abandon the aircraft, Jamieson had left the mid upper gun turret and fought his way through the flames to the rear door from which he left successfully. The rear gunner Kennedy seems to have jumped out direct from his turret.

All the seven crew reached the ground safely, except for some minor injuries. Of the seven men Logan, D'Arcy and Kennedy would successfully evade capture by the Germans and return to Allied lines; Docherty and Willis would eventually be captured and sent to prisoner of war (POW) camps in Germany, being liberated at the end of the war; while Jamieson and Birnie would be captured by the Germans and executed.

The RCAF naturally tried to find out what happened to Jamieson and Birnie. On the basis of several reports, they decided in 1946 that the two men had been captured, taken to a prison at Pont-L'Eveque, and later removed to an unknown place and executed, their bodies not being found. According to a French civilian witness, Jamieson and Birnie were last seen alive at Pont-L'Eveque on the evening of 21 August 1944, when they were taken away by the Germans. This report led the RCAF to decide on 22 August 1944 as the presumed date of death of the two men. This information was passed to their parents in September 1946 and it is also the date of death given on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission website.

However, as war crimes investigators looked into the case, they came across French civilian witnesses who claimed Jamieson and Birnie were taken away from Pont-L'Eveque at an earlier date, variously given as 5,6 or 10 August 1944. The investigators now took the view that the victims might have been killed in early August. Yet they included in their report details of the testimony from Sergeant Docherty, given after his liberation from POW camp, which contradicted that view.

According to Docherty, on 8 August 1944 he, Willis, Jamieson and Birnie were still free and being hidden by French resistance people who had picked them up soon after they landed by parachute. The evaders were later split up. Willis, Jamieson and Birnie went away with one resistance group, while Docherty went with another group. This was the last time Docherty saw Jamieson and Birnie. Docherty was captured by the Germans at Lisieux on 14 August and initially sent to a POW transit camp at Amiens. There he met Willis, who had been captured on 16 August. Unfortunately Willis seemed to have suffered a mental breakdown and was unable to give any information regarding the fate of Jamieson and Birnie. Docherty and Willis were sent to separate POW camps in Germany.

Given such confused accounts, all that can be said with certainty is that the last place Jamieson and Birnie were seen alive was at Pont-L'Eveque and that at some point in August before 22 August (when British troops reached that town) they were taken away and executed at an unknown place. Only in the autumn of 1948 did the RCAF give up looking for their bodies in Normandy.

The 'prison' at Pont-L'Eveque was in fact the local boys school and it was run by the German security police - the Sipo (or SD) rather than the Gestapo - but still part of Himmler's SS empire. The prison was under the authority of the Sipo chief at Caen, Harald Heyns. After the war he was apprehended and was to be put on trial before a British military court in Hamburg in August 1948 on a charge of murdering the two Canadian airmen. However, Heyns escaped from custody at the start of the trial and fled to the Soviet occupation zone of Germany (later East Germany). In September the court found Heyns guilty and sentenced him to death in absentia.

The French were also pursuing Heyns as they blamed him for a massacre of French prisoners in Caen jail on D-Day (6 June 1944). In 1952 a French court also sentenced Heyns to death in absentia for that crime. Meanwhile Heyns was living under a false name in East Germany. His true identity was discovered in 1964, but the East German authorities refused to take action against him, claiming neither the British nor the French had provided adequate evidence of his crimes. Even after the reunification of Germany in 1990, the federal German authorities made no effort to prosecute Heyns. He died in Berlin in 2004 at the age of 90.

At the time of their murder in 1944, Donald Jamieson and Hugh Birnie were aged 20 and 22 respectively. They are commemorated at the Runnymede memorial to missing aircrew in England and on the memorial wall at the Bomber Command Museum of Canada at Nanton, Alberta, Canada.

(The author is a distant relative of Donald Jamieson)  

Saudi Arabia: Removing the Pillars of State

The modern state of Saudi Arabia was born from the conquests of Abdul Aziz ibn Saud in the first quarter of the twentieth century. This desert warrior took possession of most of Arabia, including the two holiest cities of Islam, Mecca and Medina. If such a tide of conquest had been continued, Abdul Aziz would inevitably have come into conflict with Britain and France, the two dominant colonial powers in the Middle East in those years.

However, Abdul Aziz was one of those rare leaders who accepted Bismarck's observation that political genius consists of knowing when to stop. When the most militant of his warriors seemed likely to attack British territory, Abdul Aziz crushed them and in future followed a policy of living in peace with his neighbours. He even welcomed a new great power, the United States, to the Middle East as a counter-weight to the British and French, and soon after the formal creation of Saudi Arabia in 1932, American geologists found the vast oil reserves that have enriched the country ever since.

Having given up wars of conquest, Abdul Aziz founded his new state on three pillars: consensus, conservatism, and caution. Abdul Aziz died in 1953, but all his sons who have ruled Saudi Arabia since then upheld those pillars of state - until now. Since 2015 Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), son of the current king Salman and as crown prince already de facto ruler of the country, has begun revolutionary changes in Saudi Arabia which threaten to undermine the pillars of state created by Abdul Aziz.

First is consensus. This does not of course mean consensus among the population of Saudi Arabia. The Saudi kingdom is no democracy, nor is MBS going to make it one. He seems to be modelling himself on the 'enlightened despots' of eighteenth century Europe. Rulers such as Joseph II of Austria and Catherine the Great of Russia sought to reform and modernise their countries without giving away any of their own absolute power. These were to be revolutions from the top down, carefully managed so that the autocrats stayed in control.

Consensus in Saudi Arabia has always meant consensus among the members of the ruling House of Saud. Up to now this system has worked remarkably well. Troublesome members of the ruling house have been passed over for the crown or removed from the throne if they threatened to endanger political stability. MBS has totally destroyed this family consensus. He has successfully grabbed all power for himself, and rival Saudi princes appear too shocked and weak to put up any effective opposition. Once the ruler of Saudi Arabia was just the chairman of the family board of management - now MBS is sole ruler.

The second pillar, conservatism, largely means religious conservatism. Saudi Arabia has no political constitution because the Koran serves that function and the interpreters of the Koran are the Wahhabi Muslim clerics who have long supported the House of Saud. These Sunni Muslim religious leaders have a powerful voice in all political, judicial, and social affairs in the kingdom. Unlike the Shia Muslim clerics in Iran, the Wahhabis have no desire to actually run the country, but they do expect the Saudi ruler to uphold their conservative brand of Islam at home and abroad. So far MBS has avoided a direct confrontation with the Wahhabi clerics, and only those viewed as 'extremist' have been arrested, supposedly as part of the campaign against Islamist terrorism. However, as modernisation of the Saudi state will necessarily involve increased Westernisation in many forms, a potentially explosive clash between MBS and the clerical hardliners must come at some point.

Finally comes caution. The House of Saud has previously moved cautiously in both internal and foreign affairs, but MBS seems determined to take risky policy initiatives in both areas almost as a matter of course. Since 2015 he has embarked on an apparently endless war in Yemen, has imposed a fairly pointless blockade on Qatar, and has openly interfered in the government of Lebanon. Now, if we are to believe Israeli sources, MBS is ready to take the most reckless step of all: to dump the Palestinian cause and join Israel in an anti-Iranian front. A more provocative action could scarcely be imagined in the Muslim world.

Consensus, conservatism, and caution have kept the House of Saud in control of Arabia for more than eighty years. They are the pillars of the state. MBS has now chosen to tear them down. Many commentators see him as moving too far too fast. One thing seems certain, if his modernising revolution fails, its failure will not only endanger him but the very existence of the Saudi Arabian state.

Karak: Echoes of Past Conflict.


The recent terrorist attack in Jordan which killed ten people, including a Canadian tourist, took place at al-Karak, a city of much significance in past Christian-Muslim conflict. The principal tourist attraction is Karak (or Kerak) Castle, usually described as a Crusader fortress. In the twelfth century it was controlled by Reynald de Chatillon, a Christian warrior whose relentless attacks on Muslim lands would in 1187 lead to the capture of Christian-held Jerusalem by the great Muslim leader Saladin.

Reynald might be unknown to most people but for his portrayal by actor Brendan Gleeson in the 2005 movie Kingdom of Heaven. In the context of Christian-Muslim conflict in the Middle East in the medieval period he was a major figure. Originally from France, he came to the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem during the Second Crusade. After marrying the heiress to the neighbouring Principality of Antioch in 1153, he became its ruler. However, in 1160 Reynald was captured by the Muslim emir of Aleppo and he was a prisoner until ransomed in 1176.

Reynald's wife had died during his captivity and he could not return to Antioch. Instead he married the heiress of Oultrejourdain, the Christian territory to the south of the Dead Sea. Its principal stronghold was Karak Castle, where Reynald took up residence. The fortress held an important strategic position at what might be called the hinge of Saladin's emerging Egyptian-Syrian state. From Karak Reynald could attack the caravan route from Egypt to Syria and the route from Damascus to the Muslim holy cities of Mecca and Medina. Reynald also gave support to the Kingdom of Jerusalem and in 1177 was one of the leaders of the Christian army that defeated Saladin at Montgisard.

Reynald later seized the port of Aqaba and in 1182 sent a raiding squadron into the Red Sea. He intended that the ships would prey on the pilgrim trade and then put men ashore to attack Mecca and Medina. Saladin sent forces to oppose the raiders, and their last remnant was captured and executed only a few miles from Medina. This was the closest the Christians ever came to attacking the two holiest cities of Islam, and their near success was a major embarrassment for Saladin.

Twice Saladin tried to capture Reynald's castle at Karak, but each time he failed. Finally, in 1187, during a time of Christian-Muslim truce, Reynald launched a treacherous attack on a caravan from Damascus that was passing his lands. Being now prepared for a final confrontation with the Christians, Saladin used this attack as an excuse to go to war. In July 1187 Saladin defeated the Christian army of King Guy of Jerusalem at the Horns of Hattin. Reynald was among those captured and Saladin had him executed. Jerusalem fell to Saladin in October, returning the city to Muslim control after nearly a century of Christian occupation. Karak Castle fell to the Muslims a year later.

Thus an apparently minor incident near Karak, the attack on a caravan, had culminated in momentous events for the Christians: defeat at Hattin and the loss of Jerusalem. No doubt the recent attackers at al-Karak hoped their actions would lead to larger consequences, but they are very unlikely to be as significant as those of 1187. No doubt Jordan's tourist industry will be damaged for a time, but it is unlikely that the pro-Western government of Jordan's King Abdullah will be undermined. There is no new Saladin waiting to attack Christian, or rather Western, interests in the Middle East.

How Jihadist States End: The Mahdists and ISIS

When the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) was set up in the summer of 2014 it was the first jihadist political entity since the Mahdist state which controlled Sudan between 1885 and 1898.

The Mahdist state ended when its army was slaughtered by forces under Britain's General Kitchener at the battle of Omdurman on 2 September 1898, almost 118 years ago. This was a decisive victory from which the Mahdists never recovered. As anti-ISIS forces advance on Raqqa in Syria and Mosul in Iraq today, it seems the state ruled by ISIS will perish not in some great climactic battle but in protracted and bloody street fighting among urban ruins. Yet it remains doubtful whether the end of the jihadist state will mean the end of ISIS terrorist activities.

Ruled by Egypt since 1820, the inhabitants of Sudan exploited the turmoil caused by the British occupation of Egypt in 1882 to regain their freedom. Their leader was Muhammad Ahmad, who claimed to be the Mahdi, the Islamic messiah who would come to deliver Muslims from oppression. Initially the British were ready to give up Sudan and sent General Gordon to evacuate the last Egyptian forces from the country. However, Gordon decided to oppose the Mahdi and ended up besieged in Khartoum. Reluctantly the British government sent a small army to save Gordon, but at the start of 1885 the Mahdists stormed Khartoum and killed the general. For the moment the British withdrew from Sudan, but this blow to British imperial prestige would not be forgotten.

The Mahdi died only six months after Gordon, but Abdallahi ibn Muhammad took his place, being known as the Khalifa (caliph or successor). Mahdist Sudan was an Islamic fundamentalist state, but its efforts to spread its influence into other countries were largely unsuccessful. Expeditions against both Egypt and Ethiopia were defeated, and in 1896 General Kitchener led a British army into Sudan, intent on destroying the Mahdist state and avenging Gordon. Logistical problems initially proved more of an obstacle than Mahdist resistance, but Kitchener's slow and methodical advance down the River Nile never faltered. In September 1898 the invaders finally reached the Mahdist capital of Omdurman and the Khalifa decided to risk everything in a major battle. Unfortunately religious fanaticism was no match for artillery and machine guns. The Mahdists were slaughtered and their state was at an end, with the Khalifa being killed during mopping up operations in 1899. The Mahdist challenge had been totally crushed and Anglo-Egyptian rule in the Sudan would continue largely undisturbed until the country finally became independent in 1956.

Exploiting civil war in Syria and internal turmoil in Iraq, ISIS set up its state in the summer of 2014. Its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, was not presumptuous enough to call himself the Mahdi, but he did claim the title of caliph (successor to the Prophet Muhammad). Taking the name Caliph Ibrahim, he claimed to rule the world's Muslims and imposed an Islamic fundamentalist regime on the territories he controlled in Syria and Iraq. The Mahdists were left alone for some years to consolidate their control of Sudan, but almost as soon as it came into being, ISIS was under attack from its enemies. The USA and its allies have been carrying out air attacks on ISIS positions and America's local proxies have been making steady, if slow, progress in driving ISIS forces from towns in both Syria and Iraq. Raqqa and Mosul, the last remaining major ISIS-held cities, seem likely to be the final combat zones for the movement, scenes of brutal urban conflict rather than a final great battle.

However, by the terms of its own ideology, ISIS is committed to one final apocalyptic battle. It claims that at Dabiq (near Aleppo in Syria) the forces of Islam, with the Mahdi among their leaders, will defeat the forces of 'Rome' and win dominion over the world. (Dabiq is also the name of the movement's online magazine.) Even if such an encounter were to take place, the result would only be a new Omdurman, with 'Roman' (Western) firepower slaughtering the Islamic militants.

However the ISIS state ends, will its demise be as complete as that of the Mahdist state in Sudan in 1898? There were no Mahdist militants carrying out terror attacks in Victorian London as General Kitchener closed in on Omdurman. ISIS can launch or inspire terrorist attacks in Western cities even as its hold on towns in Syria and Iraq begins to crumble.

The battle of Omdurman marked the definite end of the Mahdist state in Sudan, but the end of the state controlled by ISIS will not be the end of the struggle. ISIS-linked groups are already fighting in Egypt, Libya, and Afghanistan, and ISIS-inspired terrorists may pop up at any time in Western countries. Mahdist Sudan was a geographically limited phenomenon; ISIS can live on in other forms as a continuing global threat even after its state has disappeared.