Take a photo of a barcode or cover
peterthomazin's review against another edition
3.0
Simon Schama has a very particular style of writing, which is pretty casual and light for a historian. His insights are not always the accepted ones you may have come across before. All this makes for an interesting read. What I found more difficult to get used to was the tendency to focus on specific topics with a great deal of the surrounding events by contrast out of focus. I can't help but believe this makes for a good television script and a slightly odd book. Enjoyable though.
allthebookblognamesaretaken's review against another edition
4.0
Though I found I already knew the majority of the information in this book, there's something comforting about that, like you're visiting with an old friend or friends you haven't talked to in a while. A nice refresher when it's easy to mix up all those Henrys and Edwards.
That being said, sometimes the author's transitions were terrible and you scarcely knew one monarch had died and you're suddenly reading about another.
That being said, sometimes the author's transitions were terrible and you scarcely knew one monarch had died and you're suddenly reading about another.
emmybooks1703's review against another edition
4.0
A really interesting overview. Would have been nice to have more Scottish and Welsh history as its predominantly about England.
I lost track a bit in the latter stages of the book as there was lists and lists of kings and queens to keep track of.
I lost track a bit in the latter stages of the book as there was lists and lists of kings and queens to keep track of.
estherscholes's review against another edition
5.0
I love a great history overview as each one focuses on slightly different things and I always forget certain elements and get fascinated all over again when I rediscover them!
Good pace, good writing, good insights.
Good pace, good writing, good insights.
laura_read_that's review against another edition
2.0
Questionable sources, almost exclusively secondary, none of which were cited in the text. Several big events were skipped entirely, such as the War of the Roses. Gossip and theories are repeated as fact. It's single redeeming quality is its readability. Though it should not be anyone's sole source of English history, it's a relatively quick and enjoyable read.
dragon7's review against another edition
3.0
One of multiple takes on British history. I haven't settled on Schama's writing yet.
cvvvnvvvl's review against another edition
2.0
The favouritism of monarchs was really really annoying it felt like half of the book was just about Lizzie and Mary Queen of scots while glancing over Henry V and the 100 year war. Maybe it was because of the more religious focus? And Scharma seems more confident with the Tudors onwards?
The part on Henry II was exemplary although new info has come to light since point of publishing.
I just wanted something to refresh me on Brit history since I haven't studied it for 3 years now, it didn't really seem up to scratch but it could be a me problem with wanting more than the average reader.
The part on Henry II was exemplary although new info has come to light since point of publishing.
I just wanted something to refresh me on Brit history since I haven't studied it for 3 years now, it didn't really seem up to scratch but it could be a me problem with wanting more than the average reader.
jimbowen0306's review against another edition
3.0
I remember the Simon Scharma television show that I think this book ties in to. I'm not entirely sure why I didn't get round to reading the book at the time, but I think I remember why now.
This book covers the history of Britain from prior to the Roman invasion to the end of the reign of Elizabeth I. Therein lies the problem. A 480ish page book that covers that long a period of time is going to make the book nothing more than a "greatest hits of English History" book. There's nothing wrong with that, but it felt sometimes like I was reading things that a reasonably well read person would know already (especially if they got an A or A* at GCSE History). I jumped from this king to that king, with a little bit of "Ordinary Joe" history thrown in for good measure, because the author knew it should be there.
If you can accept that, that's fine. it's a good read. It's just I probably had inaccurate expectations of the book, given I knew everyone loved the series so much.
This book covers the history of Britain from prior to the Roman invasion to the end of the reign of Elizabeth I. Therein lies the problem. A 480ish page book that covers that long a period of time is going to make the book nothing more than a "greatest hits of English History" book. There's nothing wrong with that, but it felt sometimes like I was reading things that a reasonably well read person would know already (especially if they got an A or A* at GCSE History). I jumped from this king to that king, with a little bit of "Ordinary Joe" history thrown in for good measure, because the author knew it should be there.
If you can accept that, that's fine. it's a good read. It's just I probably had inaccurate expectations of the book, given I knew everyone loved the series so much.
ladyethyme's review against another edition
1.0
He skims through 600 years of history until he hits Tudors…then….well…
Unfortunately as soon as he hits Tudors, he falls back on mythology, hearsay, slander and flat out lifted Victorian assumptions, romances and “history” (for which they are notorious).
Upon hitting the Tudors, it reads more like a gossipy insult fest than a recounting of deeds of Queens. Funny-all the previous “Kings” get far more respect than Henry VIII’s wives or even Elizabeth I.
The ‘adultery’ of Katherine Howard is recounted, despite the fact that she had no choice in the matter, was a defenseless child, and would be called child rape today. Elizabeth’s encounters with Parr’s husband, the idiotic and lascivious Thomas Seymour, whose molestations were also taken against her in her childhood (with a heavily pregnant Parr taking part), are recounted gleefully, more reminiscent of a trashy magazine than respected scholarship.
He spends 3/4 of the time rehashing Tudor history…in every tiny minutiae, hanger-on, courtier, etc etc. Must be working off their popularity and getting his ‘history’ from the tv show, where the Halloween costumes are at the same level of research.
He recounts that Elizabeth, as an old woman, when she was hot ‘went about topless’. Ok that’s…so not even remotely true, or even possible considering Tudor historical dress. Of course there’s no respectable citation for this-but it sounds good so what does he care?
He calls Mary Tudor’s imprisonment ‘unjustifiable’ ….ok-so-that’s incredibly biased, not to mention…she actively was plotting her entire life to take the throne of England. Any king would’ve treated her with far less respect/leniency. But because Elizabeth is a woman, Schama apparently sees the plotting against her as ‘no big deal’ and her treatment of Mary ‘unjustified’. Seriously?!?
Unfortunately as soon as he hits Tudors, he falls back on mythology, hearsay, slander and flat out lifted Victorian assumptions, romances and “history” (for which they are notorious).
Upon hitting the Tudors, it reads more like a gossipy insult fest than a recounting of deeds of Queens. Funny-all the previous “Kings” get far more respect than Henry VIII’s wives or even Elizabeth I.
The ‘adultery’ of Katherine Howard is recounted, despite the fact that she had no choice in the matter, was a defenseless child, and would be called child rape today. Elizabeth’s encounters with Parr’s husband, the idiotic and lascivious Thomas Seymour, whose molestations were also taken against her in her childhood (with a heavily pregnant Parr taking part), are recounted gleefully, more reminiscent of a trashy magazine than respected scholarship.
He spends 3/4 of the time rehashing Tudor history…in every tiny minutiae, hanger-on, courtier, etc etc. Must be working off their popularity and getting his ‘history’ from the tv show, where the Halloween costumes are at the same level of research.
He recounts that Elizabeth, as an old woman, when she was hot ‘went about topless’. Ok that’s…so not even remotely true, or even possible considering Tudor historical dress. Of course there’s no respectable citation for this-but it sounds good so what does he care?
He calls Mary Tudor’s imprisonment ‘unjustifiable’ ….ok-so-that’s incredibly biased, not to mention…she actively was plotting her entire life to take the throne of England. Any king would’ve treated her with far less respect/leniency. But because Elizabeth is a woman, Schama apparently sees the plotting against her as ‘no big deal’ and her treatment of Mary ‘unjustified’. Seriously?!?