No comments about Medieval Naval Warfare 10001500 (Warfare and History).

1 comments about Medieval Warfare: Triumph & Domination In The Wars Of The Middle Ages.

1. MEDIEVAL WARFARE deals mostly with The Hundred Years War and the War of the Roses. It starts out a little dry as it explains how the various kings paid for their constant wars, how the battles were fought, and England's attempt to claim the French throne. Peter Reid never does deal much with personalities, although he does provide an appendix in the back with bios of the various "wolfish" dukes and earls.
   
   Another glossary defines unfamiliar Medieval terms such as "bill," a staff weapon adapted from a farm implement with a sharp point at the end and "hauberk," a shirt of mail reaching to mid thigh.
   
   Scotland proves to be more of a worthy adversary than one might think. Such luminaries as William Wallace and Robert Bruce show up early, but once again, Reid disdains to tell us much about them. Luckily, I had Carolly Erickson's PANOPLY, a book about the English kings from William the Conqueror to the present day to spur my memory. The Scottish generals taught the English how to deploy their archers to best effect, which helped them defeat the French, as the French relied on cross bows rather than the more potent long bows.
   
   About two hundred pages in we learn more about the famous battles, such as Poitiers and Agincourt. Unfortunately, they're pretty much all the same. The French never did adapt to the English style of fighting. There were times when the English were outnumbered five to one and still won. Somewhere in there Joan of Arc shows up, proving to be an inspiration to the French soldiers before a deceitful Duke of Burgundy sold her to the British and she was burned at the stake.
   
   French did eventually chase the English out of Normandy but it was due to a lack of interest on the part of the English parliament, kings such as Henry VI, and the refusal of the nobility to replenish the Norman garrisons.
   
   I found the War of the Roses to be much more interesting. I never really had a handle on that one. It was the Yorks vs. the Lancasters. Henry Bolingbroke (Henry IV), a Lancaster, usurped the thrown from incompetent Richard II. Henry V was an effective king, but his son Henry VI was another incompetent, as well as insane. In steps The Duke of York, who takes the throne back for the Yorks if only for his son Edward IV, another excellent king, whose brother, Richard III, murders Edward's sons to take the throne himself. He, in turn, is supplanted by Henry Tudor (Henry VII), whose claim to the throne was never quite explained to my satisfaction.
   
   I've never read Shakespeare's "Richard III," but it's interesting to know that he was an excellent soldier who was loyal to his brother, until tempted by the Duke of Buckingham, who thought he should've been king. The book also leaves out the hunchback.
   
   After reading MEDIEVAL WARFARE I now understand why rulers such as Queen Elizabeth were so ruthless when it came to the nobility. You just couldn't trust these buggers.

1 comments about A Brief History of Medieval Warfare.

1. War is hell!. It is hell now in the cesspools of Iraq and Afghanistan; it was also hellish in the high middle ages of the 14th-15 centuries. Author Peter Reid is a major general (retired) in the British Army who is also a commentator on military affairs for the BBC. In over 600 closely printed pages he presents a panoramic view of the sanguinary conflicts of this bloody period which ran from 1314 to 1485
   The most interesting part of the book was the introductory chapters wherin the author surveys how soldiers of the era dressed for battle, were provisioned, fought and were paid. There were no real standing armies in this time of nascent nationalistic aspirations. Battle was fought hand to hand and you looked your enemy in the eye before you tried to kill him. Recovery from wounds was rare; cruelty was prevalent.
   The history begins with the battle of Crecy in 1314. This important battle was won by the outnumbered English troops fighting in France under the great warrior/monarch Edward III. The English longbow proved decisive as literally hundreds of thousands of arrows would be launched against the enemy. The French knights and their crossbowmen were soundly defeated.
   The English would also do well using the longbow under the inspired leadership of King Henry V in the famed battle of Agincourt in 1415.
   Reid recounts the key battles, plots and strategy used by England and France during the long 100 years war which lasted from 1337 to 1453. The English were finally defeated losing their French territories in Aquitaine, Normandy but holding on to Calais. Outstanding warriors of the war were Joan of Arc and Edward the Black Prince of England. Almost 2/3 of the book deals with this crucial European war. The English grew weary of the endless war as dynastic struggles and domestic affairs became more important. The war ended with France triumphant. The French had ended their civil wars, developed defensive weapons and improved armor to withstand the assault of arrows.
   Reid also discusses the War of the Roses fought between the Houses of York and Lancaster (first called the War of the Roses by Sir Walter Scott in the nineteenth century). The wars ended with the victory of Edward IV and the York faction. Edward IV was also successful in defeating the Duke of Buckingham who sought to usurp his throne. He became King of England in 1483.
   The book ends with a discussion of Richard III's murder of the princes in the Tower of London and his defeat at the hands of Henry Tudor. Richard was killed at Bosworth Field in 1485. Henry Tudor was crowned as Henry VII begining the Tudor dynasty which lasted until the death of Elizebeth I in 1603.
   Reid has done his military homework in a well researched book. He has included short biographies of the key players and provided a glossary of military terms in use during the medieval era. His style is dry and the reader can doze off among recountings of all the carnage. The book will appeal to military history buffs. Reid provides maps to help explain the action.

No comments about EDWARD IV AND THE WARS OF THE ROSES.

2 comments about The Wars of the Roses (Men at Arms Series, 145).

1. The copy I have is the Osprey Men at Arms title written in 1983, but the pages are identical to the ones shown here. Let's face it...there are scores of books on the War of the Roses. This one gives a good visual grasp of the conflict, and impresses the reader with the sheer slaughter perpetrated...twenty-five percent losses to the cream of English nobility. There are some decent descriptions of battles and the armor and weapons used. Especially of interest is the section on the systems of recruitment and organization of the armies.A long period of chaos and dynastic struggle in English history, finally brought to an end with the House of Tudor. My first Men at Arms title purchased, years ago, so I am somewhat fond of this one. They still need help in the map department. History books without decent maps should be a punishable offense. S'wounds!



2. This volume in Osprey's limitless Men at Arms series offers an excellent overall reference on the battles and the arms and armor of this late 15th-century civil war. The breakdown of law that resulted from the existing system of hiring soldiers is explained, as well as its repercussions on the conflict. Small maps are included for all the major battles, including Towton, Tewkesbury, Hexham, Barnet, and Bosworth. The discussion of equipment includes several subtleties, such as the correct origin of the term "pole axe" and the dubious historical value of medieval harnesses of plate assembled by later collectors.

3 comments about The Weaver's Inheritance (Roger the Chapman Medieval Mysteries).

1. In 1447 Bristol, widower Roger the Chapman leaves his two-year-old daughter behind with her grandmother to travel to Hereford. His mother-in-law wants Roger to bring home her cousin, widow Adela, and the woman's son to live with them. Upon completing his trek, Roger learns that Clement Weaver, assumed dead for six years, has also returned home.

   Clement's father, ailing Alderman Alfred Weaver, accepts the man as his lost son. However, Alfred's daughter Alison and her spouse Alderman William Burnett refuse to believe that Clement is alive. Their thinking might have to do with the fact she is no longer the beneficiary of her father's vast estate when he dies. Adding to the confusion is the bewildering murder of a fortuneteller. Roger, who has solved some mysteries before, begins to look into whether this is the real Clement or an impostor and who killed the seer.

   The eighth Roger the Chapman medieval mystery is a powerful historical who-done-it that keeps the star fresh while providing the audience a clever who-done-it. The story line contains insight into the late fifteenth century, but the plot belongs to the hero. Roger seems so authentic as he still feels guilt and relief with the death of his wife two years ago who died in child birth, but also has emotionally moved forward since THE BROTHERS OF GLASTONBURY. Kate Sedley has written another remarkable tale that her readers will cherish while newcomers will search for the past titles.

   Harriet Klausner




2. "The Weaver's Inheritance" is a follow-up mystery novel to the very first Roger, the Chapman adventure, "Death and the Chapman." However, it is not necessary to have read that novel first, as Kate Sedley does a wonderful job of blending elements of that novel with this one, all the while keeping things fresh and interesting.
   To summarize briefly, in "Death and the Chapman," Roger was asked by the wealthy Bristol weaver, Alderman Weaver, to locate his young wayward son, Clement, last seen outside a seedy London tavern. Not only was Roger unable to find young Clement, but all the indications were that Clement had met with a rather nasty end. Things have settled down quite a bit since then -- Alderman Weaver's sole surviving child, his daughter Alison has married another weaver, William Burnett, and the two businesses have merged, with Alison being the natural heir to this very prosperous enterprise. So that when a bedraggled stranger, with a passing resemblance to Clement, turns up claiming to be the long lost Weaver heir, Alison and William are naturally suspicious. The Alderman however is all set to accept this stranger as his long lost son. Aghast at the turn of events, Alison turns to Roger for help: she wants Roger to investigate the man's claims and to prove beyond all doubt that he is not her brother. Roger takes a little persuading but is soon busy calling on those who knew Clement before his disappearance to see if they can shed any light on the matter. But it isn't too long before he realises that in order to discover if the man currently residing in the Weaver household is truly Clement or not, he will have to return to London, to the stews and back into danger: for the best way to discover if this Clement is the true one or not is to discover what happened all those nights ago in London...
   The Roger, the Chapman series by Kate Sedley is one of my favourite medieval mystery series, and is almost always, consistently good. Each murder mystery is almost always steeped in an atmosphere of chilling evil, and can be downright scary at times. Another thing I like about this series is that she always frames each Chapman adventure around the political maneuverings of the day -- Edward IV's tenuous hold on the crown, the manner in which the political doings abroad can affect things in England -- all this comes through in each and every Roger Chapman adventure. And of course there is Roger Chapman himself, one of the most unique private inquiry agents of all time: an ex-monk, who chose to become a peddler because he cannot bare to be indoors for more than a couple of days at a stretch, and whose intellect and natural ability to solve puzzles has earned him the respect and friendship of the Duke of Gloucester, no less. One of the strains that runs through each Chapman novel is the prevailing question: will Roger finally settle down and give up his wondering ways? As an avid fan, I can only hope that that day is far in the future, so that we can all enjoy more Roger, the Chapman adventures.
   "The Weaver's Inheritance" is definitely a brilliant read, and one that will keep you guessing till the very end. Is the stranger the real Clement or not? Is there something more sinister to this Clement's sudden apperance? And why is Alison so sure that this man is not her brother? This mystery novel is full of twists and turns that will definitely keep any avid mystery fan happily engrossed for quite a while. A truly brilliant read.



3. Another wonderful Roger the Chapman novel. This one is about an 8 out of 10 as the series goes mystery wise but well worth buying.

1 comments about The Wars of the Roses.

1. A quick search of books will show a list of dozens with the title `The Wars of the Roses' or some derivative thereof; in the past generation, much scholarship has been devoted to this particular and peculiar event in English history, and that has had the somewhat unfortunate outcome of making it out to be a far more dramatic episode than perhaps a raw interpretation of empirical data might warrant. Add to this the undoubted dramatic flair of the Shakespearean revisionism for the benefit of the Tudors and later dynastic houses, and one gets the sense that this was an occurrence in English history of truly epic proportions.
   
   While the events that collectively now fall under the classification `The Wars of the Roses' were certainly pivotal in the overall dynastic stream of English (and, ultimately, British) history, J.R. Lander puts forward the case that in fact the Wars of the Roses is a misnomer - compared with contintental European warfare, the events constituting the multi-generational Wars of the Roses (and attendant prelude) seem no more than mere skirmishes. `During the Wars of the Roses the total period of active campaigning between the first battle of St Albans (1455) and the battle of Stoke (1487) amounted to little more than one year - one year out of thirty-two years. Henry VII's progress from his landing in Milford Haven to his victory at Bosworth Field lasted only fourteen days.' Indeed, even the symbolic nature of the term, the Wars of the Roses, is not entirely accurate, as the rose on each side was but one of many symbols used.
   
   Lander describes situations in terms of strategies military and political, tactics and ambitions that all pale by comparison to European counterparts. Most English cities were not fortified; most castles and great houses did not suffer siege; the idea of burning crops and laying waste to cities and villages was far from commonplace practice. Lander conjectures that the prominence of the Wars of the Roses in the stream of English history may be due to the lack of foreign invasion and involvement; even the French campaigning of the English up to this period was far more intense and far more destructive, and yet the prominence of that cycle of warfare in English history is much smaller.
   
   Perhaps it is because of the fascination and sometimes automatic identification of English history general with English royal history particular that the Wars of the Roses took their pride of place. After the general introduction in which Lander puts forward his caveats and reservations, he proceeds to explore the history of the House of Lancaster, the House of York, periods of peace and stability as well as particularly intense periods of struggle, and Lander devotes individual chapters each to Richard III and Henry VII. Lander also addresses the strange case of Perkin Warbeck, and presents in good fashion the various arguments pro and con in controversies such as Richard's possible murder of the princes in the tower versus the claims of someone like Warbeck.
   
   Lander uses extensive sections of previous material - rather than paraphrasing or re-interpreting earlier chronicles, he inserts large sections of the material to allow the reader to make her or his own evaluation of the material. This book was first published in 1965, but most of the material quoted is not out-of-date even forty years later, as it comes from chronicles and documents contemporary with the events they describe, or histories written shortly thereafter. It remains an important contribution in the scholarship of the time.

5 comments about The Wars of the Roses: A Concise History.

1. A well written book with excellent ilustrations. One of the best survey of the Wars of the roses. Highly recomended to anyone interested on the subject. He divides the book in five chapters, one dedicated exclusibly to the battles, and the last one is an accurate panorama of the Wars impact on the English people.



2. Ross draws upon his experience as a professor of Medieval History at the University of Bristol to provide the reader with a well written survey of the Wars of the Roses. He presents the reader with discussions of views held by chroniclers of the period, as well as those of modern historians. Ross divides the topic into five main categories: 1. the historical traditon of the wars; 2. the origins of the civil wars; 3. civil war and dynastic revolution; 4. the military aspects of the wars; and 5. the impact of civil war on English politics and society. The book is well illustrated with 126 black and white illustrations, a map and two battle plans. Genealogical tables help the reader understand the relationships amongst the houses of Lancaster, Tudor, Beaufort, York and Nevill. Although the bibliography is short, Ross enhances its value by short comments regarding each book or article. If the reader becomes confused by the use of titles to refer to the major players, a quick glance at the well written index where the title includes entries for the Christian and Surnames for the individuals holding the title.

   I highly recommend this book to anyone looking for a survey on the Wars of the Roses! Readers who are interested in biographies of the kings will want to read Ross' biographies of Edward IV and Richard III.




3. I am a reasonably intelligent person, was a theater major in college, and have read more than my share of the tragedies and comedies of Shakespeare. I was, however, quite at a loss upon completing the first Act of RICHARD III. I was completely lost. The endless queue of corpses, pretenders to the throne, and partisans of one competing group or another left me completely bewildered and confused. I knew that Richard was unscrupulous and evil, and that he had managed the deaths of many of his relatives, but by and large I was unclear on all of the details.

   The fault lay not with Shakespeare but with my knowledge of English history. The depth of my ignorance about several periods of history is unfathomable. Among those areas of ignorance are several of the military conflicts in European history. I know that there was a Hundred Years War (that lasted considerably more than a hundred years), a Thirty Years War (that I believe was fought in the early 17th century for God knows what reason), and the Wars of the Roses. To be perfectly honest, until recently I had no idea when the Wars of the Roses were fought, between whom, nor why. Imagine my delight when I discovered that this was precisely the conflict with which most of Shakespeare's historical plays dealt. Learn about this period of English history, and I have the background I need to read RICHARD III and the other historical plays. After some brief research, this volume appeared to be one that would give me what I needed to know about the conflict.

   I have to admit that it did the trick. I have now restarted reading RICHARD III, and I not only understand Shakespeare's narrative, I know his account of things is extraordinarily wrong! Primarily he changes chronology to suit his purposes, and recreates historical scenes that could not have happened. There is no evidence according to Ross that Richard in any way plotted against either his brother Edward IV (he in fact seems to have been his staunchest supporter) nor that he machinated his brother Clarence's imprisonment (Clarence was the tool of Warwick, who pushed him forward as a pretender to the throne). Nor was there ever a time when Margaret could have made her long, impassioned speech. Actual historical chronology would have precluded it. In short, Shakespeare recreated history for dramatic effect, and painted Richard far, far blacker than he in fact deserved. He was not, however, a nice guy. Most historians agree that he probably did have his nephews murdered, and there is some evidence that he killed his wife Anne (daughter of Warwick) with the idea of marrying his niece Elizabeth (who in fact married Henry Tudor, later Henry VII). Shakespeare more or less gave the Tudor party line, and then some. Had Richard III won the Battle of Bosworth, he undoubtedly would have painted Richard as a great hero, and Henry Tudor as a black hearted villain.

   For those who like the books to be pleasant to look upon, I am happy to report that THE WARS OF THE ROSES is a beautifully produced paperback book, sewn in signature, printed on high quality paper, with a huge number of well-reproduced photographs. In short, quite apart from the content--which was excellent--it was a complete pleasure to hold and look at this book. It certainly enhanced the reading experience.




4. At first, I felt the book went at a break-neck pace through years of changing alliances and shifts in power, not giving a novice enough detail to understand why the momentum would shift from one house to another. However, I greatly appreciated the real "meat" of the book in the last two chapters where Ross goes on to explain the effect of the wars on the culture of England. I teach World History to high school freshmen in a college prep environment. Each of my students is following a certain theme, and I will definitely direct some of them to the final chapters of Ross's book. For those following battles, there are diagrams of Barnet and Bosworth with paragraphs explaining tactics. For those following architecture, Ross explains how the wars did (or did not) affect building styles and plans of the nobility. For those following economic patterns, Ross explains how various groups (nobility, towns, merchants, etc.) were influenced by the wars and by foreign alliances made by Yorkists and Lancastrians. For those studying women's history, the Wars of the Roses more than any other (I think) show the "value" of marriage in military alliance. There is even a section showing how literature was affected and an interesting segment on Sir Thomas Malory (author of *Morte d'Arthur*). The last two chapters also help students understand the concept of the "new monarchy" and the declining power of the feudal nobility that occurred in the aftermath of the Wars. What is more, the paragraphs in the last chapter, in particular, will give great practice for younger students in their attempts to follow the development of an idea over several paragraphs, a great skill for ACT and SAT practice. I will definitely be getting a copy of this book for our school library!



5. The War of the Roses is the name given the the struggles in the late 1400s between British nobles from the competing houses of York and Lancaster for control of the English throne. The figures involved in these struggles (Richard the Third, Henry the Fifth, etc.) are the subjects of some of Shakespeare's most famous plays and, indeed, their political affairs are dramatic and colourful. The events of this civil war are parallel in style to the struggles in Renaissance Italy that set the context for Machiavelli's "The Prince." Charles Ross's book is a helpful introduction--about 140 pages of reading--to the main developments in these struggles that led shortly thereafter to the rule of Henry VIII, and then Elizabeth I. Ross's interpretation is a bit conservative, but overall he gives a fair sense of what was happening and why. This would be a good first book to read to get a handle on what the "War of the Roses" was about.

5 comments about Lancaster Against York: The Wars of the Roses and the Foundation of Modern Britain.

1. For the right reader, _Lancaster Against York_ is a four-star book. If you're looking for an overview of/introduction to the political and military history of the Wars of the Roses, this is an excellent choice.
   
   But there are several important caveats.
   
   First and foremost: There is a titanic cast of characters. It is not always easy to remember who is whom, especially since the same personage may be referred to by first name, family name, or suffix, all of which are usually shared by several *other* characters. Trevor Royle chose to be complete at the expense, I think, of clarity. For example, there's a plethora of information along these lines:
   
   "Leaving his brother George Neville, Archbishop of York, in charge of affairs in London, he [the Earl of Warwick] took his army north ..."
   
   But George Neville, Archbishop of York, is not really relevant to the subsequent events. He and London alike could have been omitted from the passage quoted above with no loss of essential information. (There are already a raft of Georges, a horde of Nevilles, and a flock of Archbishops cluttering up the scenery; one more doesn't help.)
   
   This is but one example. There are some authors who have mastered the technique of keeping track of this kind of multi-decade, multi-family chronicle--Robert K. Massie's _Dreadnought_ is a favorite of mine. Royle does not demonstrate that kind of authorial discipline. (There is, however, a helpful appendix of main characters in the back.)
   
   Second: The subtitle of the book refers to "the Foundation of Modern Britain". This is arguably misleading. The book does not talk very much about the subsequent implications of the wars, or the social changes they introduced or reflected, or how they're relevant to later history. About all it does is give a brief summary of the later descent of the British monarchy. Otherwise, this is a strict blow-by-blow account of who did what to whom. (It is not, for example, a counterpart to Barbara Tuchman's _A Distant Mirror_.) Do not approach this book in hopes of learning much about the origins of the modern British state, or late-medieval arms and armor, or religious upheaval, or social conditions, or economic developments, or anything of the sort. Such things are treated, if at all, as minor adjuncts to the main chronology.
   
   Third: I cannot forbear to mention some remarkably ham-fisted copy-editing. Some examples:
   
   * p. 8: "The spark was the decision to raise the poll tax to one shilling (eight cents or $42 today) ..." What? Eight cents is not $42, today or any other day. If this is intended to equate one shilling to eight cents, it's gibberish: one shilling was *twelve* *pennies*, not eight (or any other number of) "cents".
   
   * p. 78: Henry V's army en route to Agincourt "consisted of 105,000 soldiers". This is highly improbable for a medieval host. On the very next page, furthermore, we are told that Henry had lost a third of his fighting men", leaving him with ... 6,000. A few pages later, we are told that the French had 20,000 men, that they outnumbered the English by six to one, and that (once again) the English numbered 6,000.
   
   * p. 320: Anthony Gray was the "4th Duck of Exete". Quack, quack.
   
   Not all of this is necessarily Trevor Royle's fault, but it's all part of the book.
   
   However: these (aside from the editing) can be seen as legitimate authorial choices. They're not necessarily problems, just features that will appeal to some readers more than others.
   
   I'd describe _Lancaster Against York_ as, in effect, a very good "newspaper account" of the Wars of the Roses. Royle is excellent, and very complete, at describing the essential newspaper features of every battle and every political twist--who, what, where, when, and why. This is, perhaps, a good justification for including so many minor characters: they were there, they were part of the story, and some reader might want to follow up. Indeed, this would be a great book for someone who wanted to get a grounding for some further deep research.
   
   Also, in spite of the cast of thousands, Royle does succeed in keeping his main focus on the various Kings of England and their immediate cohorts. This is conventional, perhaps, but it is essential in book about factional fighting for control of the English Throne. And it can be surprisingly difficult to maintain such a focus, particularly in a tale with as many turns as this one. Even if you find yourself losing track of the secondary players, the relationships and actions of the big names are always clear, and will let you follow the main thread of the story with no difficulty.
   
   So I recommend the book--for the right sort of reader. It is what it is; don't go into it expecting something else, and you'll be pleased.



2. One should ask what this work brings to the reader that other books on the Wars of the Roses haven't, and the answer is "clarity." In spite of poor editing and some very awkward sentence structures (he then ill was), the thread of the narrative through very complex times is clear and comprehensive to the average reader. There are only a few times when the author jumps backwards or forwards in the chronology, and his Appendix of names and titles was very helpful in maintaining an idea concerning who was who. In the author's treatment of Henry Bolingbroke who became Henry IV, and Richard, Duke of Gloucester (later Richard III), however, I found his aversion to using first names (except for kings) misleading.
   
   There are other problems with certain facts and assertions, but none are so egregious that they detract from the book, at least for the casual reader. Serious historians will find this account somewhat glossy -- passing over very complex issues and situations with a few dismissive sentences either expressing the author's opinion or showing how the actions led to outcomes the author already knows. The participants, of course, were not clairvoyant and took actions based on the information available to them and in what they thought was their best interest. Serious historians delve into those actions and the reasons for them in much greater detail.
   
   The author begins his narrative with the reign of Richard II to put the eventual conflict between York and Lancaster into perspective. This is a valuable approach as it puts the genealogy into perspective. Richard was the only surviving son of Edward of Woodstock (The Black Prince), oldest son of Edward III. The Lancaster claimants came down from John of Gault, Duke of Lancaster and the fourth son of Edward III, and York came from Edmund of Langley, fifth son of Edward III. The line of succession went off track when Richard II was deposed in 1377 by Henry Bolingbroke, the 4th son of John of Gault (eldest surviving son to adulthood). This was an usurpation that put the game afoot. Two other Lancastrian Kings followed, Henry V and Henry VI, but then York asserted itself with Edward IV, Edward V and the usurpation of Edward's throne by the younger brother of Edward IV, Richard III. By that time the Lancaster line was essentially played out with only Henry Tudor, the grandson of Henry V's wife, Catherine of Valois and a commoner, Owen Tudor. To say that Henry Tudor possessed a strong claim would be to wildly overstate his case, but he eventually became Henry VII and established the Tudor line in 1485 which led to Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary and Elizabeth.
   
   If the reader is interested in the genealogy in detail during this period, I recommend "Blood Royal" by T. Anna Leese, particularly the chapter on John of Gault and his marriages.
   
   The author treats the succession of kings and their adherents fairly without becoming bogged down by criticizing the cruelties and savagery of the time. The legions of nobles were regularly decimated not only in battle but also by being threats to the king in power or even just for being on the wrong side. Survival was always questionable, and it is understandable that England hardly progressed during this period. Marriages were arranged strictly for political or economic reasons, and in Europe's incestuous nobility special dispensation from the Pope (for appropriate consideration) was often necessary to put aside questions of consanguinity. The author's subtitle "And the Foundation of Modern Britain" is a misnomer unless he meant this time to be the last period before the foundation of modern Britain.
   
   All that being said, I highly recommend this work to individuals interested in the late Medieval period and English history, particularly since Shakespeare dominates in establishing the popular conception of this period. Needless to say, Shakespeare took extensive poetic license and often followed and even enhanced Tudor propaganda (ala Sir Thomas More) to legitimize the Tudors.
   
   In all, well done, and a good read.



3. Lancaster Against York is a thorough and exciting read about an important period in English history. The author tells the story well and the style of the story telling and the subject are entertaining.



4. The history is about the ruling class, largely written by the ruling class or its in house scribes and captive prelates. Ordinary folk in those days did not know how to read and write, and in many case were prescribed against doing so. We know a great deal about the petty insults and pettier affronts, perceived and inflicted on and by the ruling class, that spilled over reining destruction on those ordinary folk, both French as well as English, who paid for it all. Ultimately, a respect for law and an appreciation of common sense arose out of this age of nation state adolescence, when everyone, from King down to commoner, saw the justice, as well as the advantages, in systemizing things in an open and transparent way, or as open and as transparent as it could be in those days. Only then could England enter the `modern' era, providing a basis and model for the rest of the world, including what became the United States. The book's 22 chapters is an easy read, augmented by a very good bibliography.



5. When the Kindle first came out, there was a "promise" made that prices for Kindle books wouldn't exceed $10. However, that promise went by the wayside in the past months. A group of Kindle users is staging an ad hoc boycott of any publication that exceeds the $10 mark. I loved Trevor Royle's account of the English (and Scottish and Irish) Civil Wars, which I bought as a hardback, and would have liked to purchase "Lancaster Against York" in Kindle format. However, the Kindle version is the same price as the hardback, which is rather ridiculous. So I will be foregoing this purchase.

5 comments about Richard the Third.

1. This is a very readable biography of Richard III. While more recent research may have overtaken some of Mr Kendall's conclusions it by no means diminishes his scholarship.
   
   Richard III's life has been the subject of many works of historical fiction. Additionally, he appears in the works of Shakespeare, is dissected by Sir Thomas More and others writing during Tudor times. Variously lionized and demonized, he is considered by many to be either the tragic hero slain in battle at Bosworth Field or the murderer of the princes in the Tower of London.
   
   To see Richard solely as either a villain or a victim is to ignore the realities of the period in which he lived and the circumstances whereby he came to the throne.
   
   I recommend this biography to those who want to know more about the life and reign of Richard III or are seeking some historical background to some of the works of historical fiction in which he features.
   
   Jennifer Cameron-Smith



2. In 1955 this old biography of old Richard III was authored by Ohio University Ph.d Paul Murray Kendall. The book is still being published and is, arguably, the best introduction to the life and times of the last Yorkist monarch of England. Anyone interested in Richard III should add this well researched book to his or her shelf.
   Richard III was born in 1452. His father the Duke of Gloucester was executed for treason. Richard grew up amid the confusion and tumult of late fifteenth century British life. He was the brother of Edward IV. His father Edward III had been a great warrior king. When Edward IV died in 1483 Richard usurped the throne from the new 12 year old boy King Edward V. Richard hated Edward IV's greedy and power mad widow Elizabeth Woodville and her family. Edward V and his brother the Duke of York were murdered in the Tower of London. No one has proven conclusively who the murderer was. Many historians speculate that it was Richard III who ordered the murders or perhaps the foul deed was done by his henchman the Duke of Buckingham (who later led an unsuccessful revolt against Richard).
   Richard was involved in the battle of Barnet along with his brother Edward IV which led to the death of the rebellious Warwick. He also particpated in the Battle of Tewksbury in which the mad King Henry VI
   was killed.
   Richard was married to Anne Neville who was weak and died prior to his own bloody death. Richard was popular in the North of England and his Council of the North brough orderly government to this volatile region. Richard particpated in battle against the Scotch keeping the English marches relatively well governed.
   The greatest challenge to Richard's eighteen month reign as King of England came from Henry Tudor. At Bosworth Field in August, 1485 Richard died in battle against Henry. Henry became Henry VII beginning 119 years of Tudor monarchy. Kendall is critical of Henry VII and says he was a tyrant. This is disputed by many historians while others in the academic community support this contention. Richard III was the last English King to die in battle.
   Richard III was no saint. He was a violent man living in a violent age. He died at age 33 and may have become a good king despite his bloody record. Kendall says later Tudor mythology especially in the biographies of Richard III by Sir Thomas Moore and the chronicler Hall have portrayed Richard as a monster who was deformed. This was not true. Neither is the portrait painted of Richard limned by Shakespeare in his history play true to all the facts.
   Kendall writes in a dry academic style with countless names. This is confusing for a lay reader unfamiliar with the history and players of the period. He is to be commended for his research. Most helpful were the battle maps especially of Bosworth Field which the author visited in a successful attempt to paint an accurate portrait of the crucial battle.
   This book is a fine and famous history of Richard III well worth reading.



3. Every once in awhile one stumbles upon a real gem. For me, Kendall's "Richard III" is such. I can't believe my good fortune.
   
   According to Harold Bloom, of all the characters Shakespeare created, only Iago in Othello is a greater monster than Richard III. With the recent publication of Brenda James' "The Truth Will Out," I was curious to see why Sir Henry Neville might have portrayed Richard III in such a bad light. I think Kendall provides the answer.
   
   This book is divided into two parts: the first part is the history of Richard before he becomes king; the second part, his two years on the throne.
   
   In addition, there is a wonderful epilogue, a study of what happened to the characters that were still hanging around after Richard was killed and his successor, Henry VII, assumed power. It produced that same effect one feels when a screenwriter tells us what ultimately happened to others in the film.
   
   And just for good measure, there are two wonderful appendices, quite lengthy and just as well researched: an appendix on "who murdered the `Little Princes'? and an appendix on Richard's reputation, the reason I first sought out a biography of Richard III.
   
   The notes are extensive (66 pages) and fun to read; the index is wonderful; and, the bibliography is superb.
   
   This book was first published in 1955; my soft cover copy was printed in 1973. Such staying power suggests this is a very reputable book. I was gratified to see that a reviewer (J.M. Whitford) who has read every biography and reference source on Richard III opines that this is still the best introduction.



4. ..the winter of our discontent, made glorious summer by this son of York."
   Richard's soliloquy is quite draconian from the beginning and sets the stage for a trgedy only Shakspear can pull off.
   This play, focuses on Richard III's Machiavelli pursuits and determination to crop the crown from all who stands in his way- kin, no exception.
   He prose is superb, and his timing excellent. He is able to woo lady Anne moments after killing her husband - his brother - and build alliances only to depredate them, for his selfish gains.
   Quite stirring, and at the same time quite revulsive.
   What better recipe can you want?



5. As one who didn't know much about Richard III outside of Shakespeare, I found Kendall's book fascinating.
   
   Altho it was first published in the 1950's, it is very well researched and Kendall goes out of his way to present FACTS (with copious notes) and limit conjecture.
   
   I have to say that this is one of the most interesting books I have read in a while. The writing is concise and descriptive without being over-dramatic.
   
   I very much enjoyed this book and would recommend it to anyone interested in English history or even a tourist visiting England.