I have always been drawn to the histories and biographies written by Alison Weir. She is a specialist in late-Medieval/Enlightenment English history. I decided to read this book because I realized that I had very little knowledge about the Wars of the Roses and I wanted to learn more after watching a documentary series called Monarchy that takes viewers through the whole history of the British royal houses.The first third of the book provides background history about the ruling kings prior to the period the book is focusing on. This includes kings like Richard II, Henry IV, and Henry V, who will all be familiar to folks into Shakespeare. While this period is not actually part of the Wars of the Roses, it is the events that occurred during this time that set up the division. Richard II was ousted from the throne by Henry IV, the first of the Lancastrian kings. Richard's relatives would continue on the the form of the Dukes of York, who would try to regain the throne, claiming that the House of Lancaster were usurpers. For much of this early history, the two families would bicker through political intrigue and gossip, but that would change once Henry VI became king.He married Margaret of Anjou, a niece of the French king. Beside bringing some strong continental support, Margaret also proved to be quite the administrator. She was able to step in as Her husband would suffer from bouts of of a psychological condition that would (at times) send him into a stupor for months at a time.The problem was she would accomplish many things through special favors to the supporters of Lancaster to the detriment of their foes, the supporters of York, and the average English citizen. This caused resentment to brew, and before long, the two sides found themselves fighting minor-to-major day-long battles over the course of more than 30 years. During that time, the crown would repeatedly change hands between Henry VI and Edward IV, the first of the Yorkish kings.The noble houses of England would jostle for power as they supported either the Yorks or the Lancasters. At times, some of the nobles (or magnates) would even switch sides or try to position themselves from a third perspective in the hopes of using the ongoing fighting to bring power into their own hands.The result is a country that was confronted with decades of civil war, but at a pace in which it was not crippled since battles never lasted more than a day and were spread out over a great deal of time. In fact, Weir points out that their was only about 13 weeks of actual warfare during the more than 30 years of conflict. Weir does a wonderful job of utilizing primary resources from the period and secondary sources from a short time later (the Tudor period) to supplement the content and provide interesting details to the story and insight to the events and the people that experienced them. These include household records such as supply lists to actual histories from the period. These also do a nice job of presenting the biases of those involved and those who followed.As with other books that I have read by her, including her biographies of Eleanor of Aquitaine and Elizabeth I, the tale is rich with detail and presented with a smooth and comfortable narrative that makes it feel almost like a novel rather than a history.The one complaint I have has nothing to do with her own presentation of the events. The folks from the period seemed quite attracted to the same names as they named their children so the presentation is filled with Henrys, Marys, Margarets, Edwards, and a number of other common names. Weir does a great job of trying to help the reader keep track of who is who by referring to them by their landed titles or making sure to include their prenomens.The books also has some really great genealogical charts for those who are really into that. Besides being interesting to see how interrelated everyone is, it helps provide some clarity when reading about the individuals since they can be referenced in the family trees.As an interesting aside, I learned that the Tudors, who would rule later one in the form of Henry VIII, his father, and his children, first come to notice in the history of the Wars of the Roses. They apparently were a very minor Welsh family who married into some of the minor noble houses and dedicated themselves to both the Yorks and the Lancasters at various points in the period. They also started out as Tewdwrs rather than Tudors. One of them changed the spelling right around the time they started to get noticed.Anyway, this was an awesome and very thorough read on the topic. I would definitely recommend it!
"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?"Having now finished the book, I can provide the condensed version of the answer to Weir's question: because illegitimate kids throw one hell of a wrench into people's succession plans. Well, obviously it's more complicated than that - in fact, the Wars of the Roses is kind of a clusterfuck of a situation, helped in absolutely no way by the fact that all the men were named George, Edward, Richard, or Henry. (seriously, that's the thing about Tudor history that drives me absolutely batshit) It's for this reason that I don't usually gravitate towards this period of history, being a much bigger fan of the sexy sexy Tudors and their various sexy sexy scandals. But I love Alison Weir, and when I saw this in a bookstore a few months ago I decided to try it and see if I could get a better idea of how in the hell Henry Tudor (that's Henry VII, btw - see what I mean about the names?) managed to get his hands on the throne of England - and keep it - despite having almost zero right to it. After reading the book, I sort of get it. I'm still a little fuzzy on the details, and who was on whose side at which point in time, and sadly Henry Tudor doesn't do much here because he's like fourteen when most of the action happens, but it was still an engrossing and informative read. There are lots of good battles that Weir describes in great detail (the battles, I'd say, are probably the best part) and she does her best at making this horribly complicated situation make a bit of sense. Since this book was published in 1994, she hasn't quite developed that dry, humorous tone that's the trademark of her later works, but you can still see hints of it cropping up here and there. I was pleasantly surprised that the main figure in this story ends up being, not an Edward or a Richard or a whatever, but Margaret of Anjou. She was the wife of the usurped Henry VI, and was by all accounts an absolute fucking badass. When her husband was overthrown, Margaret spend the rest of her life raising armies, negotiating with allies, and generally calling in every favor she had to restore him to the throne. Did I mention she raised and led armies to fight for her husband's throne? Because she did, as evidenced in this passage that describes what has to be my new favorite episode from history:"From Lincluden, Margaret wrote to Mary of Gueldres, begging for sanctuary and assistance against her enemies. Mary responded sympathetically and soon afterwards arrived at Lincluden...the two queens stayed at the abbey for twelve days, discussing what form that help would take. At length, Mary agreed to provide men and loan money for a campaign against the Yorkists on condition that Margaret surrendered the town of Berwick to the Scots."Can we just pause and appreciate how amazing it is that this even happened? Two women met, hung out for a few days, and during that time planned a military campaign and traded an entire town, without even once having to ask their respective husbands or any other man for permission to do so. Holy shit! That, by and large, simply does not happen, and the fact that Margaret was able to keep this up for years speaks to how awesome she was. Seriously though - two queens spending twelve days together planning an invasion? Make this movie immediately, please, and let me give it all my money.
What do You think about The Wars Of The Roses (1996)?
There are three main problems for any historian trying to tell the story of the Wars of the Roses. Firstly, where to start in the complex set of social and political circumstances that led to the conflict. Secondly, how to separate the web of myths, half-truths and legends from the historical facts and thirdly there are the significantly differing historical accounts to be reconciled. Alison Weir has produced a very readable narrative that deals comfortably with all these problems. I can’t remember the last time I read a book then immediately started all over again at page one, this time more slowly, just in case I’d missed something. As well as covering the whole story from the roots of the families of Lancaster and York (with two hundred pages of background and ‘scene setting’ there are plenty of fascinating footnotes to history. Somehow it had escaped my notice that Henry V’s effigy in Westminster Abbey had its silver head stolen in the time of Henry VIII – and it was only replaced in 1971! Another thing I missed was that Richard of York was the first and only one of the Plantagenets to actually use the name. Even for non-historians, this book is a real page turner that proves that, of course, truth really is stranger than fiction.
—Tony Riches
Weir is a fine writer of accessible history, and is my default "go-to" author when looking to expand my reading in the area of English history.This book is more readable than other biographies and treatments of the people and events of the time, but the sheer number of personages, often going by multiple titles, can still leave your head spinning. But then again, we're talking about a time when people would suddenly change sides, often in the very middle of a battle, joining with a formerly-hated enemy to have at someone who they had sworn allegiance to before (and who might even be a sibling). All this is to say that some confusion comes with the territory. In Weir's treatement, the Wars of the Roses become largely a personal affair, with the social, political, and economic issues largely coming up as the *results* of the conflict, not as causes. She makes a pretty good case that this is an accurate way of understanding the events, particularly in the final chapter (which, along with the first chapter, can by themselves give a rader a decent overall sense of the major causes/effects for readers not ready or willing to dive into the details of names and dates).If anything, a bit more of the social history of the time would be welcome, to put the conflict into context. This would probably offer a slightly more valuable overview of the period, even if it came at the expense of some of the fine details of who occupied what castle on what day.Having said that, I have a much better understanding of the period than I did before, which is what I came to the book for. It also, by the way, would make a good background reading before tackling Shakespeare's history plays covering this era, which often go unread because the history invovled seems inaccessible to modern audiences.
—Ted
Somehow, and it's a miracle, after reading this book, the Wars of the Roses suddenly doesn't seem incomprehensible. In fact, it's downright simple.Few historians can take such a meaty subject and turn it into something easily digestable. The book itself lays the foundation of what happened in 14th century England, so you get an idea of why people acted like they did, what had put them in that position to begin with, and moreover, gave you a well-rounded picture of 15th century England. Weir does an amazing job of explaining the complex financial situations of the day. In addition, for a historian who finds reading battle descriptions tedious, she makes them approachable.It ends after the Battle of Tewkesbury, although some would say that the Wars didn't end until Henry VII's victory on Bosworth Field. But she's covered Richard III - Henry VII in her, equally amazing, book, "The Princes in the Tower."
—Amy
