You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.86 AVERAGE
3.86 AVERAGE
This is an excellent history of the Wars of the Roses, doing many things quite well. Its a great resource for understanding the various factions and dynasties. After reading this book, you will at the least be able to keep straight all of the English kings from Edward III up to Richard III. The politics of the period are well described, and there are great little quotes from first hand chronicles that bring extra life to the history, and if the book falls short as 'pop history' it is that it does not provide enough of this kind of thing. The book does touch on all sorts of interesting as aspects of the period and the wars, however.
The book is especially good for the background it provides to the wars. You get a detailed, readable run down of Richard II, Henry IV, Henry V, the end of the hundred years war, the after affects of the black plague, Joan of Arc, Cade's rebellion, the insanity of Henry VI, etc..
The book is especially good for the background it provides to the wars. You get a detailed, readable run down of Richard II, Henry IV, Henry V, the end of the hundred years war, the after affects of the black plague, Joan of Arc, Cade's rebellion, the insanity of Henry VI, etc..
I greatly enjoy Weir’s Tudor biographies, but this history is very far from what I was expecting. There is such a strong anti-medieval bias it’s unreadable. She makes statements without sources or footnotes that are ignorant at best or purposefully misleading at worst. Perhaps she has no love for this time period and especially the social and ecclesiastical aspects of the time, but if she wants to live up to her own ideals as a historian, she ought to present the context for the reader, rather than make statements clearly for effect.
One example—she states “child marriage was not uncommon.” And that one heriess had been “thrice married by eleven.” While perhaps these are the bald facts, she is either ignorant or neglects the context necessary to understand as a modern reader. Child marriage *was* common—as in the signing of marriage contracts by parents on behalf of children. What was not common was the consummation and cohabitation of child spouses. The RC Church expressly forbid cohabitation/consummation before 12, ie the expected time of puberty and thus beginning of adulthood, but there is good indication most upper class contracted marriages were not consummated until later in the teen years. The understanding was that it was harmful for their health, which is not unreasonable considering the high risks of child bearing at the time. This stood out to me especially, as I had just read a paper by Robert Kiem on medieval marriage where he explains most of the middle to peasant class marriages we have record of actually resemble the vast majority of marriages in the supposedly more “enlightened” ages—a woman in late teens or early twenties marrying a man usually a handful of years older.
One example—she states “child marriage was not uncommon.” And that one heriess had been “thrice married by eleven.” While perhaps these are the bald facts, she is either ignorant or neglects the context necessary to understand as a modern reader. Child marriage *was* common—as in the signing of marriage contracts by parents on behalf of children. What was not common was the consummation and cohabitation of child spouses. The RC Church expressly forbid cohabitation/consummation before 12, ie the expected time of puberty and thus beginning of adulthood, but there is good indication most upper class contracted marriages were not consummated until later in the teen years. The understanding was that it was harmful for their health, which is not unreasonable considering the high risks of child bearing at the time. This stood out to me especially, as I had just read a paper by Robert Kiem on medieval marriage where he explains most of the middle to peasant class marriages we have record of actually resemble the vast majority of marriages in the supposedly more “enlightened” ages—a woman in late teens or early twenties marrying a man usually a handful of years older.
informative
medium-paced
This is the Weir I love. What a fantastic overview of the first half of the Wars of the Roses. Whether you're just beginning or quite knowledgeable when it comes to the Cousins' War, this won't disappoint. I'll definitely be looking for The Princes in the Tower when I peruse our used bookshops here.
dark
informative
slow-paced
I didn't care for Weir's history, while the it flowed well and I certainly admired the fact she wished reveal the people behind the events; it wasn't near as well researched as it should have been and I found several errors, even with a cursory reading.
I really enjoyed this book. The names and battles can get a little hard to keep straight, but overall it was a great read and a good "prequel" to The Princes in the Tower.
I'm not going to finish this book, which is very disappointing giving how often the author has been recommended. The problem may be that I am reading on a Kindle, nevertheless the lack of attribution for opinion development or footnote making in a non fiction book is worrisome. I find that opinion is being presented as fact with no alternate view presented; particularly on personalities and motivations. Given I am more than 10% into the book and several highly contraversial monarchies have been discussed, I'm quite disappointed and disturbed. I find it hard to believe in a black and white world; then or now.
adventurous
informative
slow-paced
Started off hard to follow with earls and dukes everywhere but started to get interesting 80 pages in.. Strictly historical accounts, not dramatic at all as it is a work of non-fiction. Alison's tone is always leaning towards her opinions but does quote many facts. A very good background for the subject matter and a great follow up is her "Princes in the Tower" if you like her style of writing.