You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by maitrey_d
The Wars of the Roses by Alison Weir
3.0
The War of the Roses was a straight-up political history of England during the civil war known as the War of the Roses in the 15th Century.
I'd not read anything by Alison Weir before but I know she's one of the most popular historians around. After finishing Schama's [b:A History of Britain: At the Edge of the World? 3500 BC-AD 1603|155314|A History of Britain At the Edge of the World? 3500 BC-AD 1603 (A History of Britain, #1)|Simon Schama|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1405039845s/155314.jpg|2339309], I decided to read more about the War of the Roses.
A few pages in, I realized why most histories give this war a wide berth (including Schama's). The esoteric genealogies and dynastic feuds can spin anyone's head. The book actually starts with Edward III, who reigned over England a good 150 years before the war! The sons of Edward III, and their descendants make up almost the factions in the Roses. Then there's John of Gaunt and his sons (bastards and all). Add to this, almost all the principal participants are named Edward, Richard, Henry and John! It all got so complicated, I even resorted to notes to keep everything straight.
Why did I bother reading this at all? Well, I've to confess, I've been hearing about Roses for quite a while now, all the more since I became a Game of Thrones buff and GRRM has acknowledged Roses as one of the main historical inspirations to create his fantasy saga. But, I've to confess the actual history wasn't that gripping. Sure, there were betrayals and brother fighting brother, but you're just not invested in any of the players. But call me crazy, but I get a certain thrill from knowing the exact order in which the Plantagenets succeeded one another, and without knowing about Roses, the order is hopelessly muddled. Now I know exactly what happened to Richard II, who Henry Bolingbroke (later Henry IV) was descended from, and why Henry VI and Edward IV reigns' overlap. That's it then.
The War of the Roses is only half the account of the history actually. It ended with Edward IV on the throne. His brother who was to become Richard III and his fight with Henry Tudor is only briefly touched upon. I gather Weir has written another book covering that part, I'm undecided if I should ever pick it up.
This book was clearly written by a popular historian. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it didn't quite grip me the way a well written history written by a professional historian does. Weir repeatedly stresses that although this was a civil war that dragged on for many decades, it didn't affect the common people as much as one would expect. This was mainly because all the battles were finally fought by small armies, and none for more than a day since supply and logistics were still very undeveloped military sciences. That also made this history pretty dull, not that more bloodshed would have, but that petty politicking got boring to read about and Weir doesn't have the skill to make it interesting. There was hardly any social or cultural commentary. There was some discussion on the money involved to finance armies and rent got from some provinces, but again, this is not of much use since this is 15th Century money we are talking about. More maps would've helped immeasurably (there were just 2, and one of them of France!) since all the shires and counties where the battles occurred made my eyes glaze over (as I'm sure it'll for any non-Briton).
To conclude, War of the Roses was a complete chronicle of the first half of the civil war, albeit told in a dull and a old fashioned sort of way. Pick it up only if you want to clear up who exactly succeeded Henry IV and how many times Richard 'Kingmaker' Neville, the Earl of Warwick changed sides. (Twice.)
I'd not read anything by Alison Weir before but I know she's one of the most popular historians around. After finishing Schama's [b:A History of Britain: At the Edge of the World? 3500 BC-AD 1603|155314|A History of Britain At the Edge of the World? 3500 BC-AD 1603 (A History of Britain, #1)|Simon Schama|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1405039845s/155314.jpg|2339309], I decided to read more about the War of the Roses.
A few pages in, I realized why most histories give this war a wide berth (including Schama's). The esoteric genealogies and dynastic feuds can spin anyone's head. The book actually starts with Edward III, who reigned over England a good 150 years before the war! The sons of Edward III, and their descendants make up almost the factions in the Roses. Then there's John of Gaunt and his sons (bastards and all). Add to this, almost all the principal participants are named Edward, Richard, Henry and John! It all got so complicated, I even resorted to notes to keep everything straight.
Why did I bother reading this at all? Well, I've to confess, I've been hearing about Roses for quite a while now, all the more since I became a Game of Thrones buff and GRRM has acknowledged Roses as one of the main historical inspirations to create his fantasy saga. But, I've to confess the actual history wasn't that gripping. Sure, there were betrayals and brother fighting brother, but you're just not invested in any of the players. But call me crazy, but I get a certain thrill from knowing the exact order in which the Plantagenets succeeded one another, and without knowing about Roses, the order is hopelessly muddled. Now I know exactly what happened to Richard II, who Henry Bolingbroke (later Henry IV) was descended from, and why Henry VI and Edward IV reigns' overlap. That's it then.
The War of the Roses is only half the account of the history actually. It ended with Edward IV on the throne. His brother who was to become Richard III and his fight with Henry Tudor is only briefly touched upon. I gather Weir has written another book covering that part, I'm undecided if I should ever pick it up.
This book was clearly written by a popular historian. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it didn't quite grip me the way a well written history written by a professional historian does. Weir repeatedly stresses that although this was a civil war that dragged on for many decades, it didn't affect the common people as much as one would expect. This was mainly because all the battles were finally fought by small armies, and none for more than a day since supply and logistics were still very undeveloped military sciences. That also made this history pretty dull, not that more bloodshed would have, but that petty politicking got boring to read about and Weir doesn't have the skill to make it interesting. There was hardly any social or cultural commentary. There was some discussion on the money involved to finance armies and rent got from some provinces, but again, this is not of much use since this is 15th Century money we are talking about. More maps would've helped immeasurably (there were just 2, and one of them of France!) since all the shires and counties where the battles occurred made my eyes glaze over (as I'm sure it'll for any non-Briton).
To conclude, War of the Roses was a complete chronicle of the first half of the civil war, albeit told in a dull and a old fashioned sort of way. Pick it up only if you want to clear up who exactly succeeded Henry IV and how many times Richard 'Kingmaker' Neville, the Earl of Warwick changed sides. (Twice.)