You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.86 AVERAGE
3.86 AVERAGE
I'm afraid my expectations were too high after reading a wonderful history previous to this. It was often hard to tell what was fact and what was speculation, and much of the writing felt biased. Add to that that everyone has three names, like in Shakespeare, and it did not make for a fast or terribly interesting read. Despite all that, I do feel I learned a lot about the wars of the roses, even if some of that is trivial details.
I recently completed watching BBC's The Hollow Crown series, which covers six of Shakespeare's history plays from Richard II all the way to Richard III. This book is an excellent companion to that very enjoyable series. It covers the early history of the Wars of the Roses, starting way back with the deposition of Richard II and ending with Edward VI securing his throne by ordering the death of Henry VI (so the end of Henry VI Part 2). One thing I particularly enjoyed was contrasting how Shakespear tells the story with the actual events of history: the major brushstrokes are the same but the details differ quite critically. Both are filled with larger than life characters, though this book leans more heavily towards military history than Weir's other works that are more biographical. I took one star off for that because I find that approach less interesting, but that's just me. In both works, Margaret of Anjou stands out as a boldly fascinating character. Though this book was written after The Princes in the Tower, a whodunnit involving the mysterious murder of Edward VI's sons, it also serves as a prequel to it. I'm almost tempted to read that one again with more context this time ... if only my reading list wasn't already so long.
This was a very interesting book and read much like a soap opera!! The author did such a fabulous job writing this book that I did not feel like I was reading a history novel. Although it was confusing trying to keep track of the people involved since they all had the same names. Overall if you love history I would recommend this book.
This story begins in 1400 with the murder of one king, and ends in 1471 with the murder of another. One murder could be said to have been a direct result of the other. The story of what happened between 1400 and 1471, which is the story told in this book, answers the question: how? - from the introduction to The Wars of the Roses>
What happened between the killing of the Plantagenet king Richard II and that of the Lancastrian Henry VI was the constant grappling between two families - the Lancasters and the Yorks - for possession of the throne of England. There was continual plotting, scheming to overthrow one king or another or at least to overthrow those who controlled him. Betrayal, treason, brother against brother, son against father, switching of sides in mid-battle, and the most cruel torture and death to the losers were all standard practices of the day.
And yet, during the thirty-two years covered by the two Wars of the Roses, there were at most thirteen weeks of actual fighting and the total time spent campaigning amounted to approximately a year. Many of the battles themselves were very short and none lasted longer than a day. Still the death and destruction visited upon the land in those thirteen weeks were horrendous.
Alison Weir writes:
The Wars of the Roses were primarily wars between the great magnates. The magnate class consisted of a small number of dukes - usually related to the royal house - marquesses and earls, and a great number of barons, knights and gentry. These were the men who owned most of the landed wealth of the kingdom and who exercised the greatest influence in their own territories, where they were respected and often feared.
The two primary houses among these rich and powerful were the Lancasters and the Yorks, and for much of the fifteenth century, they fought either on the battlefield or through their various plans and schemes to control the English throne.
The period of conflict started with Henry IV of the House of Lancaster who took over from the deposed (and then murdered) Richard II and it ended with Edward IV of the House of York who took over from the deposed (and then murdered) Henry VI. It would lead ultimately to Henry Tudor, Henry VII, but that is a story for another book.
This is one of Weir's early books, published twenty years ago. Her writing style has changed a bit in the intervening years, I think. Her later books seem to have more humor injected and are generally written with a somewhat lighter touch. The writing here is a bit dry and I found it heavy going at first, but once I really got into the tale, the stories themselves are so mesmerizing that they really don't require any embellishment. Weir states the facts in a very straightforward, linear fashion that makes it fairly easy to follow a complicated, convoluted storyline.
One of the main challenges to keeping the facts and the timeline straight is simply that all the men in the story are named Henry or Richard or Edward, with an occasional John thrown in to spice things up. And all the women seem to be Elizabeth or Margaret or Anne. After a bit, one's eyes begin to cross and it becomes harder and harder to remember who is who.
One of the more fascinating aspects of this story is the role played by strong women. Women such as Margaret of Anjou, wife and queen of Henry VI. Henry was a bit of a weakling and he suffered from a mental illness which debilitated him from time to time, but Margaret had enough strength for them both. It was through her efforts, her scheming and making alliances that Henry was able to hang onto the throne as long as he did.
Then there was Elizabeth Wydville, wife and queen of Edward IV. She was another schemer and a ruthless promoter of her own multitudinous and far-flung family. She was a commoner whom Edward married for love, not the best political decision in the times in which he lived, and yet their marriage was apparently happy and successful.
The Wars of the Roses comprise a fascinating chapter in the history of England, and Alison Weir is able to bring it all to life and to show us the real faces and personalities of the human beings behind those stodgy portraits hanging on museum walls.
I read this book and Dan Jones' [b:The Wars of the Roses: The Fall of the Plantagenets and the Rise of the Tudors|20821029|The Wars of the Roses The Fall of the Plantagenets and the Rise of the Tudors|Dan Jones|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1396671577s/20821029.jpg|40166938] close together, so I ended up comparing the two of them. Weir starts the narrative much earlier than Jones; Jones starts immediately with Henry IV's overthrow of Richard II in 1399 whereas Weir starts much earlier, with Edward III. I found Weir's starting point preferable, since the accession of Richard II as a child was certainly relevant to the issues that surrounded Henry IV's accession as an infant. However, Weir's telling stops much earlier than Jones'. Weir stops with the Battle of Tewkesbury, when Edward IV defeats Henry VI, rather than continuing until Henry VII defeats Richard III. I suspect this is because she has written a book about the Princes in the Tower. Jones instead covers Henry VII's accession and even discusses Henry VIII, since this is the point where a son of a living king acceded to the throne as an adult. I find Jones' ending point much more satisfactory.
In terms of narrative, I felt that Weir did a better job of giving the actors personality, particularly figures who weren't personally vying for the throne. Jones focuses much more on the actual claimants to the throne and their closest allies (Margaret of Anjou, Warwick). Weir's approach has benefits - I feel like I got a better sense of the various actors involved with different events - it did mean flipping back and forth between genealogical tables A LOT. Jones' narrative is a bit easier to follow (though it also helped that I read Jones' book second) .
Jones seems to have been much more conservative with sources than Weir. Some things that Jones presents as possibilities/uncertain, Weir states as fact (e.g., Somerset agreeing to surrender Maine as part of Henry VI's marriage agreement). At points she seems to accept contemporary beliefs without much questioning, whereas Jones is more questioning.
I preferred Jones' actual writing to that of Weir. While both are quite readable, I found Jones' style flowed better, particularly when listing names, as he used semi-colons to separate lists of names that include titles whereas Weir only used commas. Sounds like a small complaint until you read a long list of supporters of a claim...
I've given both 4 stars - both were enjoyable.
In terms of narrative, I felt that Weir did a better job of giving the actors personality, particularly figures who weren't personally vying for the throne. Jones focuses much more on the actual claimants to the throne and their closest allies (Margaret of Anjou, Warwick). Weir's approach has benefits - I feel like I got a better sense of the various actors involved with different events - it did mean flipping back and forth between genealogical tables A LOT. Jones' narrative is a bit easier to follow (though it also helped that I read Jones' book second) .
Jones seems to have been much more conservative with sources than Weir. Some things that Jones presents as possibilities/uncertain, Weir states as fact (e.g., Somerset agreeing to surrender Maine as part of Henry VI's marriage agreement). At points she seems to accept contemporary beliefs without much questioning, whereas Jones is more questioning.
I preferred Jones' actual writing to that of Weir. While both are quite readable, I found Jones' style flowed better, particularly when listing names, as he used semi-colons to separate lists of names that include titles whereas Weir only used commas. Sounds like a small complaint until you read a long list of supporters of a claim...
I've given both 4 stars - both were enjoyable.
Digestible history of a fucking bonkers time in English history. I didn't know too much about this era prior to reading - basically just the stuff Shakespeare covered - so it was a real delight to sink my teeth into. Fun also to spot elements that obviously inspired some of the characters and conflicts of the Game of Thrones series.
Song of Ice and Fire fan looking for something to hold you over until TWOW, fan of history, or someone who enjoys a good political drama? Then this is your book.
Go on a journey through a period of time that helped inspire ASOIAF. Weir writes a dense, but easy to follow along book. It reads much more like a novel than a history book. It starts a little slow, it gives some back story, those chapters are skimable, but once Weir moves to the back stabbing, political jockeying and corruption, it is a hard book to put down.
Go on a journey through a period of time that helped inspire ASOIAF. Weir writes a dense, but easy to follow along book. It reads much more like a novel than a history book. It starts a little slow, it gives some back story, those chapters are skimable, but once Weir moves to the back stabbing, political jockeying and corruption, it is a hard book to put down.
informative
medium-paced
What a mess! Seriously! I know quite a lot about history and about armed struggles but the tug-of-war presented here is staggering!
I must admit to never really having been interested (except for a few cornerstones) in this period or English aristocracy but since the Tudor dynasty was quite entertaining, I thought I should know about this too (thanks, St. Mary's).
So what was the Wars of the Roses (WotR) all about?
Well, one was king, the other wanted to be king, a lot of poverty resulting from a 100 year long war with France, misrule, ambitious lords and nobles, ... greed was certainly the dominant factor. That plus sheer stupidity on all parts.
Honestly, you get to root for one side because they appear more noble and then they go ahead and ruin it all by being just as idiotic as the others!
The original House of Plantagenet was the root of the throne. From there we got the House of Lancaster
and the House of York.
Going by blood relations alone, York had the claim to the throne (making the Tudors usurpers). But since everyone is related to everyone else, it's really all the same (I'm not kidding, it's why they usually needed a Papal Declaration that their intended marriages were sanctioned by the Church)!
Alison Weir says in the introduction to this book that finding the cause for the WotR is not a simple task and has been made too simplistic by later Tudor chroniclers so she really went back far to explain how England's treasury was empty thanks to the war with France and how that, amongst other things, started displeasure with the common population. So I'm gonna give you the run down:
King Richard II was a weakling who let himself be led like a puppet on strings, leading (amongst other things) to magnates getting more and more powerful. One day he exiles two (verbally) fighting parties although he had said the matter should be settled in a hand-to-hand fight (by this point the people already had enough of the king changing his mind every 3 seconds). One of the exiled men was Henry Bolingbroke. When his father died shortly later, the king seized his inheritance (money, land, title etc) which caused Henry to come back to England and (after originally "just" wanting back what was rightfully his) usurp the crown, thus becoming King Henry IV. His reign was definitely bumpy and, long story short, he died a few years later without having been a significant king. He is followed by his son, Henry V, who is famous for winning an enormous amount of French territories and winning, against all odds, at Agincourt. The problem is that such a king is hard to follow so when he dies relatively bad and young, his son is but a baby. The factions still exist at court and, once Henry VI comes into power, he marries a French princess without money, Margaret of Anjou. The English didn't like that but honestly, that woman was a force to be reckoned with! If it wasn't for her ... well, she was very young but had a mind of her own, was very intelligent but also temperamentful. Unfortunately, she also made a lot of mistakes (like not paying attention to the animosity between the English and the Scots). After the success of Henry V it is an even greater thorn in England's side to lose ALL the French territories again (except Calais). The king is just too weak, too easily manipulated. At first, one of his magnates, York (yes, a cousin of the king and actually the rightful heir to the throne) simply wants more balance in governement. That changes with every favour his opposition receives so he wants his side to be more influential and after one long-ass struggle with LOTS of back-and-forth, promises being broken, advances made and lost, York finally decides to go after the throne himself. He dies trying but his eldest son, Edward, crowns himself King Edward IV and manages to drive Henry VI and Margaret of Anjou out of England. Many years of struggles and skirmishes follow. Honestly, they were all so stubborn and yet often too quick to start another campaign which is why, again, there is a lot of back-and-forth. At some point, Margaret of Anjou goes to France and stays there for a while with her son, marries him to one of the daughters of Edward's former warlord Warwick (there is no other title for the "kingmaker") and then returns to England. By then, Henry VI had been captured and imprisoned in the Tower of London. At first, Warwick and Margaret of Anjou are successful in raising a lot of people to their cause but in the end, Warwick is killed, one battle after another lost, Prince Edward (Henry VI's son) killed either in battle or shortly after one and it's over. Margaret of Anjou is eventually captured as well and Henry VI dies in prison (killed by a severe blow to the head so no further rebellion can rise in his name).
Still with me so far?
This is VERY simplistic. There's a lot more to everything.
Anyway, this was the FIRST War of the Roses (notice that the title is Wars of the Roses?). The other is not dealt with in this book but in the next and recounts what happens when, after 12 years of peaceful and relatively prosperous reign, Edward IV dies suddenly, leaving his 12-year-old son king - who is promptly deposed by his uncle, put in the Tower and then probably killed there along with his younger brother (supposedly by their uncle Richard III, who crowns himself king). There is another uprising, instigated by Jasper Tudor and others, who are still loyal to the Lancaster cause (aided by a lot of people who simply don't like Richard III and what he apparently did to the two boys) and suddenly, a young Beaufort/Tudor boy is the next male heir to the throne, becoming King Henry VII after the victory at Bosworth. He marries the oldest daughter of Edward IV, thus uniting the houses Lancaster and York and founding the Tudor dynasty - the famous Queen Elizabeth I is his granddaughter.
Now, apart from giving you an overview of the events, I also want to point out a few remarkable (and often infuriating) things about this period:
The overall Wars of the Roses lasted for approximately 32 years. However, there were only a total of about 13 weeks of fighting within these 32 years!
The time of campaigning (raising men to arms etc) totals approximately 1 year (with individual campaigns only lasting days or weeks due to the trouble of feeding the men at arms) and no battle lasted longer than 24 hours.
Surprisingly, the conflicts had very little effect on the population (unless a battle meant a great loss of lives amongst the common soldiers which was rare since they were most often spared due to the fact that they only followed orders and did not start a rebellion - Towton in 1461 being the big exception proving the rule).
The fighting was usually not done in towns but in open fields so no towns were destroyed either. Only three towns suffered sieges, which is what caused such outrage when Margaret of Anjou brought the Scots over the border to win her back her kingdom since the Scots got permission to loot and sack every city they came upon (she didn't have money to pay them) which was regarded as savagery.
However, all sides, without exception, often had soldiers looting and sometimes even raping through certain areas so they shouldn't be pointing fingers at the Scots.
There was one Englishman (Tiptoe or something like that) who was known for his cruelty and despised for it as well. At one point he beheaded traitors in the name of the king (regarded as OK) but then hung their corpses by their feet from a town wall (not OK). However, the "official" and "respected" methods of killing traitors was hanging, drawing and quartering or beheading or (in some cases) disemboweling, cutting off limbs and then burning (all while said traitor was still alive)! Yeah, so much more noble!
Even the architecture, recorded visits of foreign traders and dignitaries (numbers and frequency) as well as literature of the time would suggest a period of prosperity and not civil war. The WotR were regarded not as a civil war back then but as a dispute between noble factions.
On one hand people rarely saw a fault in government with whatever king sat the throne (he was anointed, it was a religious thing), but with the advisers surrounding the king. The problem is that a weak king such as Henry VI allowed others to rule through him, thus causing injustice and poverty and misrule.
The population didn't much care who wore the crown so long as they had a good enough life (food on the table, a good justicial system); self-interest was paramount through all layers of society, and opinions could change minute by minute. When Edward IV claimed the crown people hated Henry VI or at least his parliament for misruling but after Henry VI's death there were even pilgrimages to his tomb and his piety was revered (it was even tried to have him canonized). His great deeds like founding Eton College and King's College at Cambridge were remembered instead of the loss of all the French territories that had sparked so much outrage and hate when he was deposed. To this day, the governorns of Eton College still lay a sheaf of lillies and red roses on the traditional site of Henry VI's murder on every 21 May!
After needing some time to get into this since the author is VERY thorough, I must admit to loving the fact that we get presented with all factors leading to this great struggle so as to better understand why and how it happened and see the probable motivation for those chiefly involved. I will definitely read the author's other book about the princes in the Tower and Richard III. And really, it's not Alison Weir's fault that these people were so greedy and stupid and changed their loyalty all the time (which was really getting on my nerves).
So yes, this is a comprehensive work that I can recommend to anyone wanting a thorough overview.
I must admit to never really having been interested (except for a few cornerstones) in this period or English aristocracy but since the Tudor dynasty was quite entertaining, I thought I should know about this too (thanks, St. Mary's).
So what was the Wars of the Roses (WotR) all about?
Well, one was king, the other wanted to be king, a lot of poverty resulting from a 100 year long war with France, misrule, ambitious lords and nobles, ... greed was certainly the dominant factor. That plus sheer stupidity on all parts.
Honestly, you get to root for one side because they appear more noble and then they go ahead and ruin it all by being just as idiotic as the others!
The original House of Plantagenet was the root of the throne. From there we got the House of Lancaster
and the House of York.
Going by blood relations alone, York had the claim to the throne (making the Tudors usurpers). But since everyone is related to everyone else, it's really all the same (I'm not kidding, it's why they usually needed a Papal Declaration that their intended marriages were sanctioned by the Church)!
Alison Weir says in the introduction to this book that finding the cause for the WotR is not a simple task and has been made too simplistic by later Tudor chroniclers so she really went back far to explain how England's treasury was empty thanks to the war with France and how that, amongst other things, started displeasure with the common population. So I'm gonna give you the run down:
King Richard II was a weakling who let himself be led like a puppet on strings, leading (amongst other things) to magnates getting more and more powerful. One day he exiles two (verbally) fighting parties although he had said the matter should be settled in a hand-to-hand fight (by this point the people already had enough of the king changing his mind every 3 seconds). One of the exiled men was Henry Bolingbroke. When his father died shortly later, the king seized his inheritance (money, land, title etc) which caused Henry to come back to England and (after originally "just" wanting back what was rightfully his) usurp the crown, thus becoming King Henry IV. His reign was definitely bumpy and, long story short, he died a few years later without having been a significant king. He is followed by his son, Henry V, who is famous for winning an enormous amount of French territories and winning, against all odds, at Agincourt. The problem is that such a king is hard to follow so when he dies relatively bad and young, his son is but a baby. The factions still exist at court and, once Henry VI comes into power, he marries a French princess without money, Margaret of Anjou. The English didn't like that but honestly, that woman was a force to be reckoned with! If it wasn't for her ... well, she was very young but had a mind of her own, was very intelligent but also temperamentful. Unfortunately, she also made a lot of mistakes (like not paying attention to the animosity between the English and the Scots). After the success of Henry V it is an even greater thorn in England's side to lose ALL the French territories again (except Calais). The king is just too weak, too easily manipulated. At first, one of his magnates, York (yes, a cousin of the king and actually the rightful heir to the throne) simply wants more balance in governement. That changes with every favour his opposition receives so he wants his side to be more influential and after one long-ass struggle with LOTS of back-and-forth, promises being broken, advances made and lost, York finally decides to go after the throne himself. He dies trying but his eldest son, Edward, crowns himself King Edward IV and manages to drive Henry VI and Margaret of Anjou out of England. Many years of struggles and skirmishes follow. Honestly, they were all so stubborn and yet often too quick to start another campaign which is why, again, there is a lot of back-and-forth. At some point, Margaret of Anjou goes to France and stays there for a while with her son, marries him to one of the daughters of Edward's former warlord Warwick (there is no other title for the "kingmaker") and then returns to England. By then, Henry VI had been captured and imprisoned in the Tower of London. At first, Warwick and Margaret of Anjou are successful in raising a lot of people to their cause but in the end, Warwick is killed, one battle after another lost, Prince Edward (Henry VI's son) killed either in battle or shortly after one and it's over. Margaret of Anjou is eventually captured as well and Henry VI dies in prison (killed by a severe blow to the head so no further rebellion can rise in his name).
Still with me so far?
This is VERY simplistic. There's a lot more to everything.
Anyway, this was the FIRST War of the Roses (notice that the title is Wars of the Roses?). The other is not dealt with in this book but in the next and recounts what happens when, after 12 years of peaceful and relatively prosperous reign, Edward IV dies suddenly, leaving his 12-year-old son king - who is promptly deposed by his uncle, put in the Tower and then probably killed there along with his younger brother (supposedly by their uncle Richard III, who crowns himself king). There is another uprising, instigated by Jasper Tudor and others, who are still loyal to the Lancaster cause (aided by a lot of people who simply don't like Richard III and what he apparently did to the two boys) and suddenly, a young Beaufort/Tudor boy is the next male heir to the throne, becoming King Henry VII after the victory at Bosworth. He marries the oldest daughter of Edward IV, thus uniting the houses Lancaster and York and founding the Tudor dynasty - the famous Queen Elizabeth I is his granddaughter.
Now, apart from giving you an overview of the events, I also want to point out a few remarkable (and often infuriating) things about this period:
The overall Wars of the Roses lasted for approximately 32 years. However, there were only a total of about 13 weeks of fighting within these 32 years!
The time of campaigning (raising men to arms etc) totals approximately 1 year (with individual campaigns only lasting days or weeks due to the trouble of feeding the men at arms) and no battle lasted longer than 24 hours.
Surprisingly, the conflicts had very little effect on the population (unless a battle meant a great loss of lives amongst the common soldiers which was rare since they were most often spared due to the fact that they only followed orders and did not start a rebellion - Towton in 1461 being the big exception proving the rule).
The fighting was usually not done in towns but in open fields so no towns were destroyed either. Only three towns suffered sieges, which is what caused such outrage when Margaret of Anjou brought the Scots over the border to win her back her kingdom since the Scots got permission to loot and sack every city they came upon (she didn't have money to pay them) which was regarded as savagery.
However, all sides, without exception, often had soldiers looting and sometimes even raping through certain areas so they shouldn't be pointing fingers at the Scots.
There was one Englishman (Tiptoe or something like that) who was known for his cruelty and despised for it as well. At one point he beheaded traitors in the name of the king (regarded as OK) but then hung their corpses by their feet from a town wall (not OK). However, the "official" and "respected" methods of killing traitors was hanging, drawing and quartering or beheading or (in some cases) disemboweling, cutting off limbs and then burning (all while said traitor was still alive)! Yeah, so much more noble!
Even the architecture, recorded visits of foreign traders and dignitaries (numbers and frequency) as well as literature of the time would suggest a period of prosperity and not civil war. The WotR were regarded not as a civil war back then but as a dispute between noble factions.
On one hand people rarely saw a fault in government with whatever king sat the throne (he was anointed, it was a religious thing), but with the advisers surrounding the king. The problem is that a weak king such as Henry VI allowed others to rule through him, thus causing injustice and poverty and misrule.
The population didn't much care who wore the crown so long as they had a good enough life (food on the table, a good justicial system); self-interest was paramount through all layers of society, and opinions could change minute by minute. When Edward IV claimed the crown people hated Henry VI or at least his parliament for misruling but after Henry VI's death there were even pilgrimages to his tomb and his piety was revered (it was even tried to have him canonized). His great deeds like founding Eton College and King's College at Cambridge were remembered instead of the loss of all the French territories that had sparked so much outrage and hate when he was deposed. To this day, the governorns of Eton College still lay a sheaf of lillies and red roses on the traditional site of Henry VI's murder on every 21 May!
After needing some time to get into this since the author is VERY thorough, I must admit to loving the fact that we get presented with all factors leading to this great struggle so as to better understand why and how it happened and see the probable motivation for those chiefly involved. I will definitely read the author's other book about the princes in the Tower and Richard III. And really, it's not Alison Weir's fault that these people were so greedy and stupid and changed their loyalty all the time (which was really getting on my nerves).
England hath long been mad and scarred herself,
The brother blindly shed the brother's blood,
The father rashly slaughtered his own son,
The son, compelled, been butcher to the sire:
All this divided York and Lancaster.
So yes, this is a comprehensive work that I can recommend to anyone wanting a thorough overview.
Weir, Alison. The Wars of the Roses. Ballantine, 1996.
Schadenfreude. If you love to think about other people suffering, 15th-century English politics is for you. Though the nursery rhyme “The Grand Old Duke of York” is about an 18th-century guy, it perfectly well describes the feeling one gets from reading Alison Weir’s The Wars of the Roses, about the 15th-century battles between the York and Lancaster clans:
Oh, the grand old Duke of York,
He had ten thousand men;
He marched them up to the top of the hill,
And he marched them down again.
When they were up, they were up,
And when they were down, they were down,
And when they were only halfway up,
They were neither up nor down.
What the song misses is the amount of butchery involved and the youth of many of the players, many of whom were in their mid-teens when they first went to war or ordered an execution. Henry VI was 23 when her married his 15-year-old princess bride, Margaret of Anjou. Edward was a battle-scarred veteran of 19 when he first deposed Henry. None of them died of old age. Not all of them were sane. Reading about the century’s numberless plots, counterplots, betrayals, and assassinations, I begin to understand why my sophomore course in English history passed it over as quickly as possible to get to the simpler problems of Henry VIII and his simpler dynastic issues. (OK, that is snark, but still.) The politics of the 15th are bafflingly complex, and reliable information about them hard to come by. Almost all the news of the period was fake. The common people of England and many of its leaders were usually wrong about who did what to whom and why in their own time. Weir’s greatest expertise is in women’s history, and she makes clear that Margaret and Elizabeth, the wives of Henry VI and Edward IV were often more competent and just as ruthless as their husbands. Margaret was married eight years before giving birth to a son, who would die in battle (or shortly thereafter) at 17. Elizabeth had a lot of children, but unfortunately for her dynastic line, most of them were girls. One does wonder how the course of history might have changed if the genetic roulette had played out differently.
Schadenfreude. If you love to think about other people suffering, 15th-century English politics is for you. Though the nursery rhyme “The Grand Old Duke of York” is about an 18th-century guy, it perfectly well describes the feeling one gets from reading Alison Weir’s The Wars of the Roses, about the 15th-century battles between the York and Lancaster clans:
Oh, the grand old Duke of York,
He had ten thousand men;
He marched them up to the top of the hill,
And he marched them down again.
When they were up, they were up,
And when they were down, they were down,
And when they were only halfway up,
They were neither up nor down.
What the song misses is the amount of butchery involved and the youth of many of the players, many of whom were in their mid-teens when they first went to war or ordered an execution. Henry VI was 23 when her married his 15-year-old princess bride, Margaret of Anjou. Edward was a battle-scarred veteran of 19 when he first deposed Henry. None of them died of old age. Not all of them were sane. Reading about the century’s numberless plots, counterplots, betrayals, and assassinations, I begin to understand why my sophomore course in English history passed it over as quickly as possible to get to the simpler problems of Henry VIII and his simpler dynastic issues. (OK, that is snark, but still.) The politics of the 15th are bafflingly complex, and reliable information about them hard to come by. Almost all the news of the period was fake. The common people of England and many of its leaders were usually wrong about who did what to whom and why in their own time. Weir’s greatest expertise is in women’s history, and she makes clear that Margaret and Elizabeth, the wives of Henry VI and Edward IV were often more competent and just as ruthless as their husbands. Margaret was married eight years before giving birth to a son, who would die in battle (or shortly thereafter) at 17. Elizabeth had a lot of children, but unfortunately for her dynastic line, most of them were girls. One does wonder how the course of history might have changed if the genetic roulette had played out differently.