The Anarchy was the first civil war in post-Conquest England, enduring throughout the reign of King Stephen between 1135 and 1154. It ultimately brought about the end of the Norman dynasty and the birth of the mighty Plantagenet kings.
When Henry I died having lost his only legitimate son in a shipwreck, he had caused all of his barons to swear to recognize his daughter Matilda, widow of the Holy Roman Emperor, as his heir and remarried her to Geoffrey, Count of Anjou.

When she was slow to move to England on her father’s death, Henry’s favourite nephew Stephen of Blois rushed to have himself crowned, much as Henry himself had done on the death of his brother William Rufus. Supported by his brother Henry, Bishop of Winchester, Stephen made a promising start, but Matilda would not give up her birthright and tried to hold the English barons to their oaths.

The result was more than a decade of civil war that saw England split apart. Empress Matilda is often remembered as aloof and high-handed, Stephen as ineffective and indecisive.
By following both sides of the dispute and seeking to understand their actions and motivations, Matthew Lewis aims to reach a more rounded understanding of this crucial period of English history and asks to what extent there really was anarchy.

Stephen and Matilda's Civil War (formerly entitled Cousins of Anarchy) was an excellent and very engaging popular history of the 12th century conflict often known as 'the Anarchy'. The protagonists were two grandchildren of William the Conqueror, Matilda (AKA Empress Maud) and King Stephen. For readers who know nothing about the period, this book is an excellent choice.

It doesn't go into as much depth as some, but is more a summary of key events and figures. I appreciated the slightly more sympathetic appraisal of Stephen reign, and how the author didn't shy away from criticizing Matilda where it was due. However, I'm not that familiar with this period, and I have to confess that other material I have read by Mr Lewis has caused me to have some serious questions about his objectivity and approach.

It's ironic in a way that some of the same criticisms he levels at other historians and Victorian writers in their depiction of Stephen can also be leveled at him for his treatment of Henry VI and other key figures in 15th century Wars of the Roses. In the same way as it does Stephen "a disservice to label his reign as lawless and lacking in government" it is also a disservice to the man who established Eton an King's College Cambridge to label him as utterly useless an incompetent.

For the most part though, this was a good book, I would recommend it more as a starting point for those who seek to learn about the events of the first half of the 12th century in England.

Thanks to Pen and Sword for approving my request for this title on Netgalley. This did not influence my review, and all opinions expressed are my own.