Lancaster Against York: The Wars of the Roses and the Foundation of Modern Britain [Englisch] [Gebundene Ausgabe]

One should ask what this work brings to the reader that other books on the Wars of the Roses haven't, and the answer is "clarity." In spite of poor editing and some very awkward sentence structures (he then ill was), the thread of the narrative through very complex times is clear and comprehensive to the average reader. There are only a few times when the author jumps backwards or forwards in the chronology, and his Appendix of names and titles was very helpful in maintaining an idea concerning who was who. In the author's treatment of Henry Bolingbroke who became Henry IV, and Richard, Duke of Gloucester (later Richard III), however, I found his aversion to using first names (except for kings) misleading.

There are other problems with certain facts and assertions, but none are so egregious that they detract from the book, at least for the casual reader. Serious historians will find this account somewhat glossy -- passing over very complex issues and situations with a few dismissive sentences either expressing the author's opinion or showing how the actions led to outcomes the author already knows. The participants, of course, were not clairvoyant and took actions based on the information available to them and in what they thought was their best interest. Serious historians delve into those actions and the reasons for them in much greater detail.

The author begins his narrative with the reign of Richard II to put the eventual conflict between York and Lancaster into perspective. This is a valuable approach as it puts the genealogy into perspective. Richard was the only surviving son of Edward of Woodstock (The Black Prince), oldest son of Edward III. The Lancaster claimants came down from John of Gault, Duke of Lancaster and the fourth son of Edward III, and York came from Edmund of Langley, fifth son of Edward III. The line of succession went off track when Richard II was deposed in 1377 by Henry Bolingbroke, the 4th son of John of Gault (eldest surviving son to adulthood). This was an usurpation that put the game afoot. Two other Lancastrian Kings followed, Henry V and Henry VI, but then York asserted itself with Edward IV, Edward V and the usurpation of Edward's throne by the younger brother of Edward IV, Richard III. By that time the Lancaster line was essentially played out with only Henry Tudor, the grandson of Henry V's wife, Catherine of Valois and a commoner, Owen Tudor. To say that Henry Tudor possessed a strong claim would be to wildly overstate his case, but he eventually became Henry VII and established the Tudor line in 1485 which led to Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary and Elizabeth.

If the reader is interested in the genealogy in detail during this period, I recommend "Blood Royal" by T. Anna Leese, particularly the chapter on John of Gault and his marriages.

The author treats the succession of kings and their adherents fairly without becoming bogged down by criticizing the cruelties and savagery of the time. The legions of nobles were regularly decimated not only in battle but also by being threats to the king in power or even just for being on the wrong side. Survival was always questionable, and it is understandable that England hardly progressed during this period. Marriages were arranged strictly for political or economic reasons, and in Europe's incestuous nobility special dispensation from the Pope (for appropriate consideration) was often necessary to put aside questions of consanguinity. The author's subtitle "And the Foundation of Modern Britain" is a misnomer unless he meant this time to be the last period before the foundation of modern Britain.

All that being said, I highly recommend this work to individuals interested in the late Medieval period and English history, particularly since Shakespeare dominates in establishing the popular conception of this period. Needless to say, Shakespeare took extensive poetic license and often followed and even enhanced Tudor propaganda (ala Sir Thomas More) to legitimize the Tudors.

In all, well done, and a good read.

For the right reader, _Lancaster Against York_ is a four-star book. If you're looking for an overview of/introduction to the political and military history of the Wars of the Roses, this is an excellent choice.

But there are several important caveats.

First and foremost: There is a titanic cast of characters. It is not always easy to remember who is whom, especially since the same personage may be referred to by first name, family name, or suffix, all of which are usually shared by several *other* characters. Trevor Royle chose to be complete at the expense, I think, of clarity. For example, there's a plethora of information along these lines:

"Leaving his brother George Neville, Archbishop of York, in charge of affairs in London, he [the Earl of Warwick] took his army north ..."

But George Neville, Archbishop of York, is not really relevant to the subsequent events. He and London alike could have been omitted from the passage quoted above with no loss of essential information. (There are already a raft of Georges, a horde of Nevilles, and a flock of Archbishops cluttering up the scenery; one more doesn't help.)

This is but one example. There are some authors who have mastered the technique of keeping track of this kind of multi-decade, multi-family chronicle--Robert K. Massie's _Dreadnought_ is a favorite of mine. Royle does not demonstrate that kind of authorial discipline. (There is, however, a helpful appendix of main characters in the back.)

Second: The subtitle of the book refers to "the Foundation of Modern Britain". This is arguably misleading. The book does not talk very much about the subsequent implications of the wars, or the social changes they introduced or reflected, or how they're relevant to later history. About all it does is give a brief summary of the later descent of the British monarchy. Otherwise, this is a strict blow-by-blow account of who did what to whom. (It is not, for example, a counterpart to Barbara Tuchman's _A Distant Mirror_.) Do not approach this book in hopes of learning much about the origins of the modern British state, or late-medieval arms and armor, or religious upheaval, or social conditions, or economic developments, or anything of the sort. Such things are treated, if at all, as minor adjuncts to the main chronology.

Third: I cannot forbear to mention some remarkably ham-fisted copy-editing. Some examples:

* p. 8: "The spark was the decision to raise the poll tax to one shilling (eight cents or $42 today) ..." What? Eight cents is not $42, today or any other day. If this is intended to equate one shilling to eight cents, it's gibberish: one shilling was *twelve* *pennies*, not eight (or any other number of) "cents".

* p. 78: Henry V's army en route to Agincourt "consisted of 105,000 soldiers". This is highly improbable for a medieval host. On the very next page, furthermore, we are told that Henry had lost a third of his fighting men", leaving him with ... 6,000. A few pages later, we are told that the French had 20,000 men, that they outnumbered the English by six to one, and that (once again) the English numbered 6,000.

* p. 320: Anthony Gray was the "4th Duck of Exete". Quack, quack.

Not all of this is necessarily Trevor Royle's fault, but it's all part of the book.

However: these (aside from the editing) can be seen as legitimate authorial choices. They're not necessarily problems, just features that will appeal to some readers more than others.

I'd describe _Lancaster Against York_ as, in effect, a very good "newspaper account" of the Wars of the Roses. Royle is excellent, and very complete, at describing the essential newspaper features of every battle and every political twist--who, what, where, when, and why. This is, perhaps, a good justification for including so many minor characters: they were there, they were part of the story, and some reader might want to follow up. Indeed, this would be a great book for someone who wanted to get a grounding for some further deep research.

Also, in spite of the cast of thousands, Royle does succeed in keeping his main focus on the various Kings of England and their immediate cohorts. This is conventional, perhaps, but it is essential in book about factional fighting for control of the English Throne. And it can be surprisingly difficult to maintain such a focus, particularly in a tale with as many turns as this one. Even if you find yourself losing track of the secondary players, the relationships and actions of the big names are always clear, and will let you follow the main thread of the story with no difficulty.

So I recommend the book--for the right sort of reader. It is what it is; don't go into it expecting something else, and you'll be pleased.

Royle's history covers more than the Wars of the Roses proper; he starts with the reign of Richard II and includes all the kings up to Henry VII. Henry VII's reign is not analyzed in full; Royle is concerned chiefly with the last efforts of surviving Yorkists to unseat him, and with Henry and the other Tudors as transitioning to the Renaissance and modernity. Royle's tries to be evenhanded and fair to all of the monarchs, listing their faults and virtues, successes and failures as he sees them.

I am somewhat skeptical of the extent to which he relies on Sir/Saint Thomas More as a source. More's text has some serious problems, none of which are noted by Royle. At one point, he quotes More's description of Edward IV (p.197) and says that More knew him. While it is not outside of the possible that Edward once patted little Tommy More on the head, More was only five when Edward died. More knew people who probably knew Edward IV, but that's a bit sloppy. I am also disappointed that there are no notes, although there is an extensive bibliography' of course, some readers may consider that to be a plus.

I also occasionally found Royle's language a little convoluted: I had to reread sentences to untangle double negatives and antecedents for pronouns. To give an example (p.60), "According to Walsingham, Orleans ... had committed adultery with the wife of a knight, who had killed him and who was then supported by Burgundy in getting his revenge." If 'who' refers to the cuckolded knight, and 'him' to Orleans, as I originally supposed, who is it that had the support of Burgundy? If it is the knight, what is the meaning of the word 'then?' The knight would already appear to have gotten his revenge, so how did Burgundy later support him? If Royle means that Burgundy protected the knight from Orleans' avenging followers, that's a somewhat indirect way to say it.

The quote also points up a flaw in the index: I couldn't find a reference to Orleans either under Louis or under Orleans.

There is a list in the appendix of characters listed and cross-referenced by title or surname which is extremely helpful. I'd like to see more authors adopt the convention.

In all, an informative book, and the bibliography will help readers who want to study further.