What do you think?
Rate this book
Bloody Crowns: A New History of the Hundred Years War
A prize-winning scholar’s new and expansive telling of the Hundred Years’ War, revealing how the lines drawn on medieval battlefields forged the modern world
“A riveting page-turner that brilliantly revises centuries of history” (Bernard Cornwell, New York Times–bestselling author of The Last Kingdom)
Henry V at Agincourt. Edward III at Crécy. The Black Prince at Poitiers. Joan of Arc at Orléans. The period we call “the Hundred Years War” was a cascade of violence bursting with some of the most famous figures and fascinating fights in history. The central combatants, England and France, bore witness to uncountable deaths, unbelievable tragedy, and uncompromising glory. But there was much more to this period than a struggle between two nations for dominance.
Bloody Crowns tells a new story of how medieval Europe was consumed, not by a hundred years’ war, but by two full centuries of war from 1292 to 1492. During those years, blood was spilled far beyond the borders of England and France. The Low Countries became war zones. Italy was swept up. So, too, the Holy Roman Empire, the Iberian Peninsula, Scotland, and Wales. The conflict drove enormous leaps forward in military technology and organization, political systems and national identities, laying the groundwork for the modern world.
With a keen eye for military intrigue and drama, Bloody Crowns critically revises our understanding of how modern Europe arose from medieval battlefields.
“A riveting page-turner that brilliantly revises centuries of history” (Bernard Cornwell, New York Times–bestselling author of The Last Kingdom)
Henry V at Agincourt. Edward III at Crécy. The Black Prince at Poitiers. Joan of Arc at Orléans. The period we call “the Hundred Years War” was a cascade of violence bursting with some of the most famous figures and fascinating fights in history. The central combatants, England and France, bore witness to uncountable deaths, unbelievable tragedy, and uncompromising glory. But there was much more to this period than a struggle between two nations for dominance.
Bloody Crowns tells a new story of how medieval Europe was consumed, not by a hundred years’ war, but by two full centuries of war from 1292 to 1492. During those years, blood was spilled far beyond the borders of England and France. The Low Countries became war zones. Italy was swept up. So, too, the Holy Roman Empire, the Iberian Peninsula, Scotland, and Wales. The conflict drove enormous leaps forward in military technology and organization, political systems and national identities, laying the groundwork for the modern world.
With a keen eye for military intrigue and drama, Bloody Crowns critically revises our understanding of how modern Europe arose from medieval battlefields.
520 pages, Kindle Edition
First published October 21, 2025
About the author
Michael Livingston
57 books253 followersA native of Colorado, Michael Livingston holds degrees in History, Medieval Studies, and English. He lives today in Charleston, South Carolina, where he teaches at The Citadel.
In his author life, he is a winner of the prestigious international Writers of the Future Contest (in 2005), and his novel SHARDS OF HEAVEN, the first in a trilogy of historical fantasies, will be published by Tor Books in November 2015. He has also published in a variety of other genres and venues, from a historical retelling of BEOWULF to a brief story about quantum physics in the world-renowned journal of science, NATURE.
In his academic life, he has published more than a dozen articles on subjects as varied as early Christianity, BEOWULF, Chaucer, James Joyce, J.R.R. Tolkien, and digital and practical pedagogies (though never all of them at once!). He has investigated European maps of America that pre-date Columbus, found unrecorded Anasazi ruins and artifacts, and written about the handwriting of fourteenth-century scribes. He is the general editor of the Liverpool Historical Casebooks Series, for which he has edited casebooks on the Battle of Brunanburh (Exeter, 2011), the Welsh rebel hero Owain Glyndwr (co-edited with John Bollard; Liverpool, 2013), and, coming soon, the Battle of Crécy (co-edited with Kelly DeVries; 2015).
In his author life, he is a winner of the prestigious international Writers of the Future Contest (in 2005), and his novel SHARDS OF HEAVEN, the first in a trilogy of historical fantasies, will be published by Tor Books in November 2015. He has also published in a variety of other genres and venues, from a historical retelling of BEOWULF to a brief story about quantum physics in the world-renowned journal of science, NATURE.
In his academic life, he has published more than a dozen articles on subjects as varied as early Christianity, BEOWULF, Chaucer, James Joyce, J.R.R. Tolkien, and digital and practical pedagogies (though never all of them at once!). He has investigated European maps of America that pre-date Columbus, found unrecorded Anasazi ruins and artifacts, and written about the handwriting of fourteenth-century scribes. He is the general editor of the Liverpool Historical Casebooks Series, for which he has edited casebooks on the Battle of Brunanburh (Exeter, 2011), the Welsh rebel hero Owain Glyndwr (co-edited with John Bollard; Liverpool, 2013), and, coming soon, the Battle of Crécy (co-edited with Kelly DeVries; 2015).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 49 reviews
April 1, 2026
NetGalley provided me with an ARC of "Bloody Crowns: A New History of the Hundred Years War" by Michael Livingston in exchange for an honest review.
This book is also listed with the title; "The Two Hundred Years War: The Bloody Crowns of England and France, 1292–1492". The hardback edition is 484 pages in length with 17 maps and two-colour plate sections with 32 photos and illustrations.
The author of this book offers a new study and analysis of the Hundred Years War (1337-1453), but also draws out the period under review, starting the conflict in 1292 with an incident that took place on Quéménès, an island in the Molène Archipelago in the Atlantic off Brittany, France and ending in 1492 with the Peace of Étaples.
It's an interesting point of view and I think the author offers enough material to justify calling his book the Two Hundred Years War. I found the book to be very engaging, hard to put down at times, interesting and full of fun facts and details.
It was a well told history of this period of conflict, not only between France and England but also drawing in the Scots and the Welsh along with the regions of Brittany, Burgundy, the Low Countries, Castile, Portugal, Navarre and Aragon.
All the major battles and sieges were covered in enough detail to satisfy any reader interested in military history, and also covered were the many smaller engagements and ambushes that took place during this long conflict. All the major players were covered from Popes, Kings, Dukes, military commanders and of course Joan of Arc.
Although this book would never offer the amount of detail that you will find with The Hundred Years War Series by Jonathan Sumption, it is still an excellent one-volume overview that will set you up for further in-depth reading if you so desire.
The military aspects are well covered but so are the political manoeuvring between the various crowns and royal families along with the societal events that took place during this period.
Overall, this is a well-rounded and well told story of the Two Hundred Years War and I am sure anybody that enjoys a good history book will take immense pleasure in reading this book from cover to cover.
This book is also listed with the title; "The Two Hundred Years War: The Bloody Crowns of England and France, 1292–1492". The hardback edition is 484 pages in length with 17 maps and two-colour plate sections with 32 photos and illustrations.
The author of this book offers a new study and analysis of the Hundred Years War (1337-1453), but also draws out the period under review, starting the conflict in 1292 with an incident that took place on Quéménès, an island in the Molène Archipelago in the Atlantic off Brittany, France and ending in 1492 with the Peace of Étaples.
It's an interesting point of view and I think the author offers enough material to justify calling his book the Two Hundred Years War. I found the book to be very engaging, hard to put down at times, interesting and full of fun facts and details.
It was a well told history of this period of conflict, not only between France and England but also drawing in the Scots and the Welsh along with the regions of Brittany, Burgundy, the Low Countries, Castile, Portugal, Navarre and Aragon.
All the major battles and sieges were covered in enough detail to satisfy any reader interested in military history, and also covered were the many smaller engagements and ambushes that took place during this long conflict. All the major players were covered from Popes, Kings, Dukes, military commanders and of course Joan of Arc.
Although this book would never offer the amount of detail that you will find with The Hundred Years War Series by Jonathan Sumption, it is still an excellent one-volume overview that will set you up for further in-depth reading if you so desire.
The military aspects are well covered but so are the political manoeuvring between the various crowns and royal families along with the societal events that took place during this period.
Overall, this is a well-rounded and well told story of the Two Hundred Years War and I am sure anybody that enjoys a good history book will take immense pleasure in reading this book from cover to cover.
November 11, 2025
I received a proof of this book from NetGalley. The following review is made up of my own thoughts, and hasn't been influenced by the author, the supplier or NetGalley.
This is yet another book that once I finished it, I automatically bought the audiobook of it. I've read other books about the One Hundred Year War, and found it difficult to understand. I knew that this was probably because, like the War of the Roses, too much were happening; there were too many cogs spinning; and I couldn't wrap my head around. I saw this on NetGalley, and something about it; mostly the author stating that he'd believed that the years attributed to the One Hundred Year War, didn't give the reader enough of an understanding. Events before and after this period, highly influenced the war(s) between England and France, and so he decided to expand it.
And I'm really glad that he did. This one, with it's clear writing style and the voice of the author, made it much easier for me to keep up with the book. I felt that I had much more of an idea of what was going on, not all of it, but I didn't become aggravated when I did get confused. And to get around that, I only needed to go back a few paragraphs, maybe a page, and I'd be able to follow it again. I liked that I was able to keep many of the important people in my head, without doing lists. Many details, or bits of information, mentioned previously in the book, would be brought back later on and then shown how it all tied together.
Yet there isn't such repetition that the reader feels as though the author thinks they don't have memory retention.
I would highly recommend this book. As I said, I bought the audiobook. I will be listening to this once I've lowered my TBR pile.
5 Stars.
This is yet another book that once I finished it, I automatically bought the audiobook of it. I've read other books about the One Hundred Year War, and found it difficult to understand. I knew that this was probably because, like the War of the Roses, too much were happening; there were too many cogs spinning; and I couldn't wrap my head around. I saw this on NetGalley, and something about it; mostly the author stating that he'd believed that the years attributed to the One Hundred Year War, didn't give the reader enough of an understanding. Events before and after this period, highly influenced the war(s) between England and France, and so he decided to expand it.
And I'm really glad that he did. This one, with it's clear writing style and the voice of the author, made it much easier for me to keep up with the book. I felt that I had much more of an idea of what was going on, not all of it, but I didn't become aggravated when I did get confused. And to get around that, I only needed to go back a few paragraphs, maybe a page, and I'd be able to follow it again. I liked that I was able to keep many of the important people in my head, without doing lists. Many details, or bits of information, mentioned previously in the book, would be brought back later on and then shown how it all tied together.
Yet there isn't such repetition that the reader feels as though the author thinks they don't have memory retention.
I would highly recommend this book. As I said, I bought the audiobook. I will be listening to this once I've lowered my TBR pile.
5 Stars.
September 11, 2025
I found this to be a thoroughly absorbing history of a tumultuous period of European history. The publisher promotes it as “radically original”. I don’t have the expertise to challenge that but it did not appear to me that a prevailing orthodoxy was disregarded and indeed the author acknowledges the extent of his agreement with other scholars. In fact the proposition that we should refer to this a 200 year conflict rather than a mere century seems the most obvious departure from the norm. But for me any process of periodization can be a subject for debate as a principal purpose of such a process is to help divide the past into more manageable chunks. Indeed as part of the context setting the author goes back as far as the crowning of Clovis in 507. So whether you consider it a 100 year war or a 200 year war or even just one damn thing after another I’d unreservedly recommend that you put time aside for this excellent work.
March 18, 2026
This is a well-written and informative book for readers with any to no knowledge of the Hundred Years War. I highly recommend it for history enthusiasts!
I believe this is a great work of modern scholarship for the Hundred Years War.
Its two primary virtues are that it is an informative overview of the conflict, and it challenges the limited and Anglo-centric context most English speakers have been exposed to about the Hundred Years War.
Of the second, Dr. Michael Livingston expands the popular framing of the period that emphasizes England's claim to the crown of France - that it was equally, if not more importantly, a movement concurrent with France's push for unification and self-identity.
Livingston's book is careful to explain the wider geopolitics of the Hundred Years War, that beyond a warring England was France - strengthening its central monarchy; working through civil wars and factional disputes; developing systems of taxation and administration; and asserting control over previously autonomous(ish) regions like Brittany, Gascony, and Burgundy, to ultimately form a French border closer to what we know today.
This and Livingston's expansion of the period into the "Two Hundred Years War", create a historical narrative clearer than the traditional One Hundred Years War.
The expansion logically includes the conflicts surrounding Gascony that led to Edward III's declaration of war in 1337, and continue past the Battle of Castillon in 1453, which was not an official end to England's prosecution for the French crown.
Although I must point out that I myself am barely an amateur enthusiast of this period, I do find his arguments convincing and am now subscribed to this school of thought.
As an overview of the entire period, it's really good! Livingston walks through these two hundred years without slipping into dry recitation. He injects his extensive military knowledge with the political and cultural goings-on relevant with these events.
Of course, two hundred years cannot be entirely covered in this one book (as Livingston himself admits, see Sumption!), but it truly is a comprehensive review that adds additional information not included in other works of its kind.
I highly recommend this as a primer for anyone interested in learning about this period for the first time!
For those who already have knowledge of the Hundred Years War, I still recommend it - Livingston challenges and adds so much to the traditional, Anglo-centric knowledge you may have.
P.S. Regarding the alternate international title, Bloody Crowns is a bloody bland title.
I believe this is a great work of modern scholarship for the Hundred Years War.
Its two primary virtues are that it is an informative overview of the conflict, and it challenges the limited and Anglo-centric context most English speakers have been exposed to about the Hundred Years War.
Of the second, Dr. Michael Livingston expands the popular framing of the period that emphasizes England's claim to the crown of France - that it was equally, if not more importantly, a movement concurrent with France's push for unification and self-identity.
Livingston's book is careful to explain the wider geopolitics of the Hundred Years War, that beyond a warring England was France - strengthening its central monarchy; working through civil wars and factional disputes; developing systems of taxation and administration; and asserting control over previously autonomous(ish) regions like Brittany, Gascony, and Burgundy, to ultimately form a French border closer to what we know today.
This and Livingston's expansion of the period into the "Two Hundred Years War", create a historical narrative clearer than the traditional One Hundred Years War.
The expansion logically includes the conflicts surrounding Gascony that led to Edward III's declaration of war in 1337, and continue past the Battle of Castillon in 1453, which was not an official end to England's prosecution for the French crown.
Although I must point out that I myself am barely an amateur enthusiast of this period, I do find his arguments convincing and am now subscribed to this school of thought.
As an overview of the entire period, it's really good! Livingston walks through these two hundred years without slipping into dry recitation. He injects his extensive military knowledge with the political and cultural goings-on relevant with these events.
Of course, two hundred years cannot be entirely covered in this one book (as Livingston himself admits, see Sumption!), but it truly is a comprehensive review that adds additional information not included in other works of its kind.
I highly recommend this as a primer for anyone interested in learning about this period for the first time!
For those who already have knowledge of the Hundred Years War, I still recommend it - Livingston challenges and adds so much to the traditional, Anglo-centric knowledge you may have.
P.S. Regarding the alternate international title, Bloody Crowns is a bloody bland title.
October 31, 2025
In this new interpretation of the wars between France and England, Livingston takes a different perspective. By making his history more focused on France then the conflicts are no longer narrowed to a one hundred year period and not just to wars with England. Livingston argues that to ignore the actions of the Scots, the Welsh, the Navarrese, the Castilians, the Burgundians, the Bretons etc does not consider the bigger picture in Europe in the 14th and 15th centuries. I really liked this idea and found it put different actions into a clearer perspective.
January 31, 2026
What a great book to finish off/start the year off with. The Hundred Years’ War is my favourite period of history, I have read a lot of books about this period and this is one of the best of them!
Even before you add on the extra 100 years, as it is told from both the perspective of France and England, as well as other factions involved in the war, it made for a really well rounded and in depth book. It included a lot more information than other books in have read on the subject (these are usually all from the English perspective).
The addition of another 100 years only furthered the brilliance of this book. The author wove each thread of history together in a really nuanced and accessible way. It’s rare that history can bring a feeling of freshness to these topics given how well they have already been researched but I felt this book did just that.
I would really recommend this to anyone with an interest in the 100 years war. I’m really pleased I have started my book year off so well 😊
Even before you add on the extra 100 years, as it is told from both the perspective of France and England, as well as other factions involved in the war, it made for a really well rounded and in depth book. It included a lot more information than other books in have read on the subject (these are usually all from the English perspective).
The addition of another 100 years only furthered the brilliance of this book. The author wove each thread of history together in a really nuanced and accessible way. It’s rare that history can bring a feeling of freshness to these topics given how well they have already been researched but I felt this book did just that.
I would really recommend this to anyone with an interest in the 100 years war. I’m really pleased I have started my book year off so well 😊
April 14, 2026
Come for the conquests of Edward III and Henry V and the heroism of Joan of Arc, and stay for Charles the Bad switching sides approximately twelve times.
It’s got a very interesting thesis, and I think it argues for it well. One thing I think it excels at is keeping the broader strategic picture in mind. Though it will sometimes “zoom in” on the decisive battles of the age, it’s not a “here’s all the battles of this war,” but rather keeps the battles and sieges cabined within a “how does this allow England and France to achieve their goals” framework. It also provided a lot of context and explanation for *how* this contest would shape Europe in the years to come.
It’s got a very interesting thesis, and I think it argues for it well. One thing I think it excels at is keeping the broader strategic picture in mind. Though it will sometimes “zoom in” on the decisive battles of the age, it’s not a “here’s all the battles of this war,” but rather keeps the battles and sieges cabined within a “how does this allow England and France to achieve their goals” framework. It also provided a lot of context and explanation for *how* this contest would shape Europe in the years to come.
January 30, 2026
Very clever reframing of what is traditionally seen as the Hundred Years War, outlining the history of conflict between England and France that goes back to William the Conqueror. An absolute must read for anyone fascinated by this era of history
July 7, 2025
Did the Hundred Years War really last one hundred years? According to historian Michael Livingston, people who claim it was only between 1337-1453 are missing the bigger context of this epic conflict between the French and English royal families. He suggests that it is more accurately referred to as the Two Hundred Years Wars and backs up his claim with exhaustive details on a long list of skirmishes and battles between the various nations involved. This includes iconic battles like Crécy, Poitiers, Agincourt, and the Siege of Orléans, along with dozens of other armed conflicts.
His engaging narrative explores the failures of military organization and planning, the continual surprise of one side against new and innovative tactics from the other (particularly the wily Scots and their parallel fight for independence from England), and the melding and splitting of national identities that fed into the conflicts. For many years, the English head of state was also a vassal of the French king, even while Gascony (including the Duchy of Aquitaine), Normandy, and Calais were under English control.
Livingston is daring in his revisionist exploration of this period of European history. How does one identify the first and last battle of an extended war? "Bloody Crowns" is also so detailed that reading it is overwhelming at times. An abridged edition would be great for armchair historians, as only the most dedicated are going to wade through all 600 pages of content. Worth noting is that the ebook galley I previewed was prose only, so I was not able to reference maps and other additional material that would have helped locate the battles. Still, this is a solid analysis and commentary of a complex era in European history and will reward the patient reader.
His engaging narrative explores the failures of military organization and planning, the continual surprise of one side against new and innovative tactics from the other (particularly the wily Scots and their parallel fight for independence from England), and the melding and splitting of national identities that fed into the conflicts. For many years, the English head of state was also a vassal of the French king, even while Gascony (including the Duchy of Aquitaine), Normandy, and Calais were under English control.
Livingston is daring in his revisionist exploration of this period of European history. How does one identify the first and last battle of an extended war? "Bloody Crowns" is also so detailed that reading it is overwhelming at times. An abridged edition would be great for armchair historians, as only the most dedicated are going to wade through all 600 pages of content. Worth noting is that the ebook galley I previewed was prose only, so I was not able to reference maps and other additional material that would have helped locate the battles. Still, this is a solid analysis and commentary of a complex era in European history and will reward the patient reader.
June 17, 2026
Dit boek bestaat uit bijna 440 bladzijdes die opeengepakt zitten met informatie. Het heeft me ettelijke dagen gekost om erdoor te komen, denk niet dat je dit zomaar eventjes in een weekendje uitleest. Je bent verwittigd.
Het achterliggende idee dat Livingston voorstelt, is dat er niet zoiets bestaat als een Honderdjarige Oorlog tussen Engeland en Frankrijk, maar dat die verzeild waren geraakt in een Tweehonderdjarige Oorlog. Tomato, tomahto. Achter dat idee op zich sta ik niet echt, ik vind het nogal spijkers op laag water zoeken. De geschiedenis staat bol van de oorlogen en allerlei gebeurtenissen die met elkaar verbonden zijn en effect hebben gehad op elkaar en op andere zaken, je kunt het altijd wel zo draaien of keren zodat het in je kraam te pas komt. Wat dat aangaat zou je gerust kunnen beargumenteren dat er geen Eerste en Tweede Wereldoorlog geweest zijn, maar dat die net zo goed één groot geheel vormen, 'de Wereldoorlog' zeg maar. Op zich houden de argumenten van de auteur in dit boek wel steek, alleen leiden ze in mijn ogen nergens naartoe, behalve dan naar de verandering van een naam en een concept, maar zonder dat dat de feiten verandert, behalve misschien op een paar plekken waarop je bepaalde gebeurtenissen net in een iets ander daglicht ziet. Maar dat doet er nu ook niet zo heel veel toe.
Dat gezegd zijnde, is het inhoudelijk zeker een heel goed boek. Het gaat hier om de middeleeuwen en het gaat over politiek en oorlog en dan weet je dus waar je aan toe bent: een hele resem namen van plaatsen, koningen en andere meer of mindere notabelen, waarvan helaas de helft dezelfde naam heeft. Dit boek overstapt (meer dan) tweehonderd jaar, dus het aantal Karels, Edwards, Hendrikken, Jannen, Fransen en ga zo maar door is absoluut niet van de lucht. Hoe aandachtig je het ook leest, je gaat op een gegeven moment sowieso de draad kwijtraken. Zeker omdat er dan ook nog allemaal verschillende allianties bij komen - die natuurlijk om de haverklap van positie veranderen, want anders zou het te gemakkelijk zijn. Om maar te zeggen: het is één grote chaos.
Desondanks wordt het verloop van alle gebeurtenissen zo helder als mogelijk is uitgelegd, en zul je sowieso wel een hoop opsteken en de grote lijnen kunnen volgen, geloof ik. De uitleg is soms tamelijk gedetailleerd, wat in andere gevallen lastig zou worden, maar hier zorgt het ervoor dat bepaalde namen vaker vermeld worden en dat biedt juist meer houvast om alles te begrijpen. Het is dus lang en complex, maar het is het ook waard.
Er wordt uiteraard aandacht besteed aan de grote, alom gekende zaken, zoals de Slag bij Crécy, de Slag bij Azincourt enzovoorts, maar ook nog aan ettelijke andere voorvallen die die periode gekleurd hebben. Voor de Nederlanders zit hier niet veel in dat als dicht bij huis zal aanvoelen, maar de Belgen - en vooral de Vlamingen - zullen vaak genoeg de namen van de Vlaamse steden lezen, en ook de Guldensporenslag wordt besproken.
De schrijfstijl is goed. Het leest vlot, met op de juiste plekken kortere zinnen, een wat meer staccato ritme dus, en op andere plekken gaan ze een paar regels door zonder dat dat kwaad kan. Er is dus veel afwisseling en die stijl blijft ook het hele boek lang behouden en consistent, dat is ook erg sterk werk. Over het algemeen is het een neutralere stem die de gang van zaken vertelt, maar af en toe komt er een lichte ondertoon van humor, ironie, ongeloof of onbegrip bovendrijven op plaatsen waar ook dat past. En één keer, toen Jeanne d'Arc (uitvoerig) besproken werd, voelde ik aan de auteur dat hij echt ontzag en waardering voor haar heeft. Het zat ergens in de formulering en de omschrijvingen van wat ze doet. En laten we eerlijk zijn: als je dat deel leest, kun je niet anders dan hem gelijk geven. Die goede balans tussen neutraliteit en betrokkenheid, het hele boek door op verschillende wijzes, maakt het nog aangenamer leesbaar.
En ook de vertaling, van Catalien & Willem van Paassen, is erg goed. Er zal zo nu en dan wel eens een typfout in hebben gestaan, da's in dit soort boeken onvermijdelijk, maar ze zijn me niet eens opgevallen - of ik heb ze niet onthouden. Dat de schrijfstijl waarover ik het zonet had, zo goed overkomt, is natuurlijk ook voor een groot deel aan hen toe te schrijven, dus mijn felicitaties daarvoor. Het zal niet gemakkelijk geweest zijn. Als ik twee kritische puntjes mag benoemen: er stond wat te vaak 'dit' en 'deze' in en wat te weinig 'dat' en 'die'. Meestal stoort me dat niet heel erg, maar hier vond ik het wat te ver gaan, al beterde het wel in ongeveer de laatste honderd bladzijdes. En ten tweede: er is één vertaalfout blijven staan. Iets dat de Nederlanders nooit zal opvallen - en daarom is die fout ook blijven staan - maar een paar oplettende Vlamingen die wat Frans en aardrijkskunde kennen zeker wel: de Slag bij Furnes. Dat is dus de Slag bij Veurne. Want Furnes is de Franse - en blijkbaar ook de Engelse - naam voor Veurne. Maar dat zullen ze niet geweten hebben bij de Nederlandse publicatie. Geen halszaak, natuurlijk, maar ik merkte het.
Naast de gebeurtenissen op zich besteedt Livingston ook aandacht aan de maatschappij en hoe die veranderde, soms door de gebeurtenissen zelf. Dat wordt niet altijd meteen duidelijk - soms blijft het een beetje impliciet, ook al staat het dikwijls wel expliciet vermeld - maar zeker eens je de stof wat beter begint te beheersen en te doorgronden, besef je hier en daar dat er alinea's en paragrafen in zitten waaruit blijkt dat de wereld (van de Fransen en de Engelsen in het bijzonder, maar ook die in het algemeen) langzaam verandert. Daarop ligt niet de nadruk, natuurlijk, maar het is wel een mooie toevoeging.
Het uitgangspunt van het boek staat me niet echt aan, maar wat maakt het ook uit? Inhoudelijk is het zeer sterk.
Het achterliggende idee dat Livingston voorstelt, is dat er niet zoiets bestaat als een Honderdjarige Oorlog tussen Engeland en Frankrijk, maar dat die verzeild waren geraakt in een Tweehonderdjarige Oorlog. Tomato, tomahto. Achter dat idee op zich sta ik niet echt, ik vind het nogal spijkers op laag water zoeken. De geschiedenis staat bol van de oorlogen en allerlei gebeurtenissen die met elkaar verbonden zijn en effect hebben gehad op elkaar en op andere zaken, je kunt het altijd wel zo draaien of keren zodat het in je kraam te pas komt. Wat dat aangaat zou je gerust kunnen beargumenteren dat er geen Eerste en Tweede Wereldoorlog geweest zijn, maar dat die net zo goed één groot geheel vormen, 'de Wereldoorlog' zeg maar. Op zich houden de argumenten van de auteur in dit boek wel steek, alleen leiden ze in mijn ogen nergens naartoe, behalve dan naar de verandering van een naam en een concept, maar zonder dat dat de feiten verandert, behalve misschien op een paar plekken waarop je bepaalde gebeurtenissen net in een iets ander daglicht ziet. Maar dat doet er nu ook niet zo heel veel toe.
Dat gezegd zijnde, is het inhoudelijk zeker een heel goed boek. Het gaat hier om de middeleeuwen en het gaat over politiek en oorlog en dan weet je dus waar je aan toe bent: een hele resem namen van plaatsen, koningen en andere meer of mindere notabelen, waarvan helaas de helft dezelfde naam heeft. Dit boek overstapt (meer dan) tweehonderd jaar, dus het aantal Karels, Edwards, Hendrikken, Jannen, Fransen en ga zo maar door is absoluut niet van de lucht. Hoe aandachtig je het ook leest, je gaat op een gegeven moment sowieso de draad kwijtraken. Zeker omdat er dan ook nog allemaal verschillende allianties bij komen - die natuurlijk om de haverklap van positie veranderen, want anders zou het te gemakkelijk zijn. Om maar te zeggen: het is één grote chaos.
Desondanks wordt het verloop van alle gebeurtenissen zo helder als mogelijk is uitgelegd, en zul je sowieso wel een hoop opsteken en de grote lijnen kunnen volgen, geloof ik. De uitleg is soms tamelijk gedetailleerd, wat in andere gevallen lastig zou worden, maar hier zorgt het ervoor dat bepaalde namen vaker vermeld worden en dat biedt juist meer houvast om alles te begrijpen. Het is dus lang en complex, maar het is het ook waard.
Er wordt uiteraard aandacht besteed aan de grote, alom gekende zaken, zoals de Slag bij Crécy, de Slag bij Azincourt enzovoorts, maar ook nog aan ettelijke andere voorvallen die die periode gekleurd hebben. Voor de Nederlanders zit hier niet veel in dat als dicht bij huis zal aanvoelen, maar de Belgen - en vooral de Vlamingen - zullen vaak genoeg de namen van de Vlaamse steden lezen, en ook de Guldensporenslag wordt besproken.
De schrijfstijl is goed. Het leest vlot, met op de juiste plekken kortere zinnen, een wat meer staccato ritme dus, en op andere plekken gaan ze een paar regels door zonder dat dat kwaad kan. Er is dus veel afwisseling en die stijl blijft ook het hele boek lang behouden en consistent, dat is ook erg sterk werk. Over het algemeen is het een neutralere stem die de gang van zaken vertelt, maar af en toe komt er een lichte ondertoon van humor, ironie, ongeloof of onbegrip bovendrijven op plaatsen waar ook dat past. En één keer, toen Jeanne d'Arc (uitvoerig) besproken werd, voelde ik aan de auteur dat hij echt ontzag en waardering voor haar heeft. Het zat ergens in de formulering en de omschrijvingen van wat ze doet. En laten we eerlijk zijn: als je dat deel leest, kun je niet anders dan hem gelijk geven. Die goede balans tussen neutraliteit en betrokkenheid, het hele boek door op verschillende wijzes, maakt het nog aangenamer leesbaar.
En ook de vertaling, van Catalien & Willem van Paassen, is erg goed. Er zal zo nu en dan wel eens een typfout in hebben gestaan, da's in dit soort boeken onvermijdelijk, maar ze zijn me niet eens opgevallen - of ik heb ze niet onthouden. Dat de schrijfstijl waarover ik het zonet had, zo goed overkomt, is natuurlijk ook voor een groot deel aan hen toe te schrijven, dus mijn felicitaties daarvoor. Het zal niet gemakkelijk geweest zijn. Als ik twee kritische puntjes mag benoemen: er stond wat te vaak 'dit' en 'deze' in en wat te weinig 'dat' en 'die'. Meestal stoort me dat niet heel erg, maar hier vond ik het wat te ver gaan, al beterde het wel in ongeveer de laatste honderd bladzijdes. En ten tweede: er is één vertaalfout blijven staan. Iets dat de Nederlanders nooit zal opvallen - en daarom is die fout ook blijven staan - maar een paar oplettende Vlamingen die wat Frans en aardrijkskunde kennen zeker wel: de Slag bij Furnes. Dat is dus de Slag bij Veurne. Want Furnes is de Franse - en blijkbaar ook de Engelse - naam voor Veurne. Maar dat zullen ze niet geweten hebben bij de Nederlandse publicatie. Geen halszaak, natuurlijk, maar ik merkte het.
Naast de gebeurtenissen op zich besteedt Livingston ook aandacht aan de maatschappij en hoe die veranderde, soms door de gebeurtenissen zelf. Dat wordt niet altijd meteen duidelijk - soms blijft het een beetje impliciet, ook al staat het dikwijls wel expliciet vermeld - maar zeker eens je de stof wat beter begint te beheersen en te doorgronden, besef je hier en daar dat er alinea's en paragrafen in zitten waaruit blijkt dat de wereld (van de Fransen en de Engelsen in het bijzonder, maar ook die in het algemeen) langzaam verandert. Daarop ligt niet de nadruk, natuurlijk, maar het is wel een mooie toevoeging.
Het uitgangspunt van het boek staat me niet echt aan, maar wat maakt het ook uit? Inhoudelijk is het zeer sterk.
July 11, 2025
Disclosure: I received a free copy of this book from NetGalley and Head of Zeus in exchange for an honest review
A very interesting and informative read about the Hundred Years War (which the author argues lasted two hundred years). This was a complex series of events across a wide area, so it could have easily become confusing (especially with the various noble titles) but the book is written in a very clear and readable style.
Chapters are broken into manageable sub-sections focused on a particular battle or event, which makes the journey across two hundred years very enjoyable. I don't read a lot about medieval warfare, but I really enjoyed this book and would recommend it.
A very interesting and informative read about the Hundred Years War (which the author argues lasted two hundred years). This was a complex series of events across a wide area, so it could have easily become confusing (especially with the various noble titles) but the book is written in a very clear and readable style.
Chapters are broken into manageable sub-sections focused on a particular battle or event, which makes the journey across two hundred years very enjoyable. I don't read a lot about medieval warfare, but I really enjoyed this book and would recommend it.
January 18, 2026
"England's attacks on France dominate the story of the Two Hundred Year War. But, as I said at the outset, we ought ot see the conflict the other way around. The English were attacking France because the French were pushing England out. The French monarchy was centralizing power while extending the reach of that power to borders more or less recoginizable as France today." (p.492 - hardcover edition).
Livingston offers something new in the "New History" of the subtitle. As the quote above notes, he sees the normal time frame of the Hundred Years War (1337-1453) as insufficient and extends it over a period lasting exactly 200 years: 1292-1492. The main point of contention revolved around how the monarch of one land was also an underling of another monarch, as the English monarch's vast tracts of land in western France meant he should pay homage to his French lord. Sometimes British kings did and sometimes they didn't, and this friction led to on-again, off-again warfare the predates the traditional 1337 starting point. As for the 1453 ending, Livingston also disagrees, noting the England not only didn't give up its claims to France but in the future did try to revive their alliance with Burgundy (and even got an alliance out of it once) while also sending an army there once (during the Burgundy alliance).
Trying to push the conclusion of the war back to 1492 does not work as well as Livingston wants, though. The big attempted invasion by Britain with an Burgundy alliance really fizzled. France got the British to leave peacefully by offering them a giant sack of cash. Burgundy had already been largely been brough to heel before then, and was soon swallowed up by France regardless. Aside from some mild raids, there wasn't much actual fighting from 1453-1492. (In 1492, England showed up once again, but clearly came in hopes of a peaceful, negotiated cash settlement, which is what happened).
The main theme of the book is the centralization of France. All of England's lands are gobbled up, aside from Calais (which falls in the mid-16th century). France also subsumes the duchies of Burgundy and Brittany, who had conducted their own affairs and alliances. Late in the war, France even has its first nationally centralized military units, instead of going through the various feudal lords. Finances are also increasingly centralized. The low point for France was, of course, just before Joan of Arc, and Livingston makes a compelling case for the traditional view of just how significantly and rapidly her successes transformed the war.
The book is extremely well-written for something from an academic. Then again, Livingston isn't just an academic but also a novelist, so the readability isn't too surprising. While the time frame and view of the overall thrust of the war breaks with tradition, the heart of the book is a fairly standard military history, with accounts of campaign after campaign, and detailed accounts of the key battles.
There are a few weak points. Some key things on the British side are glossed over to the point of barely being mentoined. The 1381 Wat Tyler Rebellion is given a very cursory note, to the point that Wat Tyler himself is not even mentioned. Though the book notes the weakness of England's Henry VI, it makes far less a deal of his inabilities that everything else I've read on this period. It doesn't even give him much blame - he doesn't exist enough to be any sort of player, not even a negative one for Britain. Also, for a book that spends so much time on the military details, it could sure use some more maps. It has a few at the beginning, but they are almost all very narrowly focused on the terrain of certain battles. What's the overall lay of the land in France at different stages of the war? Sorry, it's just assumed everyone knows the countryside of France, especially Brittany, Gascony, Normandy, and Burgundy.
Still, overall it is a very well done book. I'd give it 4.5 stars overall, but I'll round down due to the issues in the preceding paragraph.
Some nuggets from the book:
Rollo, the first Duke of Normandy, supposedly up-ended the footkissing ceremony, by raising the foot to his mouth, knocking over his lord in the process. The phrase "100 Years War" was first coined in 1823. England's monarchs only officially dropped the "King of France" from their title in 1800. (That said, Henry VIII laughed that off in a meeting with his French counterpart in the early 1500s). The first Avignon Popel was not the first in France. Gregory X had governed from Lyon thirty years prior. Pope Clement (first Avignon one) first stayed their for health reasons. England-Scotland problems dated back to the 1280s. The King Arthur legend came from a 1130s History of Britain written by Georffrey of Monmouth. Chivarly was abou how a knight sould fight and acknolwedge ladies and its origins can be seen in Charlemagne's time. By the 13th century, it influenced nearly every aspect of how a knight or better should conduct himself. It was a combination of being a soldier, of being a Christian, and upholding one's class status.
Livingston offers something new in the "New History" of the subtitle. As the quote above notes, he sees the normal time frame of the Hundred Years War (1337-1453) as insufficient and extends it over a period lasting exactly 200 years: 1292-1492. The main point of contention revolved around how the monarch of one land was also an underling of another monarch, as the English monarch's vast tracts of land in western France meant he should pay homage to his French lord. Sometimes British kings did and sometimes they didn't, and this friction led to on-again, off-again warfare the predates the traditional 1337 starting point. As for the 1453 ending, Livingston also disagrees, noting the England not only didn't give up its claims to France but in the future did try to revive their alliance with Burgundy (and even got an alliance out of it once) while also sending an army there once (during the Burgundy alliance).
Trying to push the conclusion of the war back to 1492 does not work as well as Livingston wants, though. The big attempted invasion by Britain with an Burgundy alliance really fizzled. France got the British to leave peacefully by offering them a giant sack of cash. Burgundy had already been largely been brough to heel before then, and was soon swallowed up by France regardless. Aside from some mild raids, there wasn't much actual fighting from 1453-1492. (In 1492, England showed up once again, but clearly came in hopes of a peaceful, negotiated cash settlement, which is what happened).
The main theme of the book is the centralization of France. All of England's lands are gobbled up, aside from Calais (which falls in the mid-16th century). France also subsumes the duchies of Burgundy and Brittany, who had conducted their own affairs and alliances. Late in the war, France even has its first nationally centralized military units, instead of going through the various feudal lords. Finances are also increasingly centralized. The low point for France was, of course, just before Joan of Arc, and Livingston makes a compelling case for the traditional view of just how significantly and rapidly her successes transformed the war.
The book is extremely well-written for something from an academic. Then again, Livingston isn't just an academic but also a novelist, so the readability isn't too surprising. While the time frame and view of the overall thrust of the war breaks with tradition, the heart of the book is a fairly standard military history, with accounts of campaign after campaign, and detailed accounts of the key battles.
There are a few weak points. Some key things on the British side are glossed over to the point of barely being mentoined. The 1381 Wat Tyler Rebellion is given a very cursory note, to the point that Wat Tyler himself is not even mentioned. Though the book notes the weakness of England's Henry VI, it makes far less a deal of his inabilities that everything else I've read on this period. It doesn't even give him much blame - he doesn't exist enough to be any sort of player, not even a negative one for Britain. Also, for a book that spends so much time on the military details, it could sure use some more maps. It has a few at the beginning, but they are almost all very narrowly focused on the terrain of certain battles. What's the overall lay of the land in France at different stages of the war? Sorry, it's just assumed everyone knows the countryside of France, especially Brittany, Gascony, Normandy, and Burgundy.
Still, overall it is a very well done book. I'd give it 4.5 stars overall, but I'll round down due to the issues in the preceding paragraph.
Some nuggets from the book:
Rollo, the first Duke of Normandy, supposedly up-ended the footkissing ceremony, by raising the foot to his mouth, knocking over his lord in the process. The phrase "100 Years War" was first coined in 1823. England's monarchs only officially dropped the "King of France" from their title in 1800. (That said, Henry VIII laughed that off in a meeting with his French counterpart in the early 1500s). The first Avignon Popel was not the first in France. Gregory X had governed from Lyon thirty years prior. Pope Clement (first Avignon one) first stayed their for health reasons. England-Scotland problems dated back to the 1280s. The King Arthur legend came from a 1130s History of Britain written by Georffrey of Monmouth. Chivarly was abou how a knight sould fight and acknolwedge ladies and its origins can be seen in Charlemagne's time. By the 13th century, it influenced nearly every aspect of how a knight or better should conduct himself. It was a combination of being a soldier, of being a Christian, and upholding one's class status.
October 18, 2025
Michael Livingston's "Bloody Crowns: A New History of the Hundred Years War" undertakes what might be called a re-mapping of one of Europe's most examined conflicts. Far from offering another retelling of Edward III's campaigns or Joan of Arc's visions, Livingston insists that we have misread the scale and shape of the war itself. The "Hundred Years War," he argues, is a misnomer born of later convenience—a label coined in the nineteenth century, long after the smoke cleared. The real struggle lasted two full centuries, from 1292 to 1492. In fact, the UK edition is tellingly titled "The Two Hundred Years War: The Bloody Crowns of England and France, 1292–1492" (Apollo, 9 October 2025). Livingston doesn't merely adjust dates—he reframes how we understand Europe's emergence from feudalism into recognizable nation-states.
Livingston's central premise—that the conflict was a two-hundred-year process by which France defined itself—is both persuasive and clarifying. He discards the familiar English-centered framework in which the story unfolds as a succession of royal ambitions and battlefield glories. Instead, he presents the conflict as France's long and painful act of self-definition: the shaping of borders, authority, and identity against England's persistent obstruction. What emerges is a multi-national narrative—a continental history in which Philippe IV and Charles VII are as central as Edward III or Henry V.
This intentionally non-Anglocentric perspective alters the emotional and moral texture of the story. Livingston prefers French naming conventions (Philippe VI rather than Philip VI), a decision that resituates readers within the mental geography of medieval France rather than that of later English chroniclers. It may challenge an English-speaking audience, but it reinforces the book's purpose—to restore a European balance to a tale long filtered through English triumphalism.
The author's training as both scholar and storyteller shapes his execution effectively. His command of archival material—royal letters, treaties, chronicles, and the practical minutiae of campaigns—anchors the narrative, while his instinct for structure keeps it readable. Livingston follows a chronological course but organizes it through what he calls "keystones" of history: pivotal events and turning points that hold the long arc of the war together. For instance, the 1292 mariners' brawl that sparks the war—a seemingly minor incident on a desolate island that Livingston traces through escalating reprisals until it becomes a casus belli. This approach, focusing on essential structural moments rather than comprehensive detail, gives the narrative momentum and depth. His careful tracing of the political machinery behind the Peace of Étaples in 1492 makes clear how local quarrels could escalate into larger systemic conflict.
The book's greatest strength lies in its balance of scope and precision. Livingston can shift from the grand strategy of kings to the commercial importance of the wine and wool trades without losing the reader. His discussion of sovereignty—whether the English king's lands in France were subject to homage—is rendered with both exactness and lucidity. He draws on sources like Edward III's Kitchen Journal to track the king's 1346 campaign with remarkable specificity, grounding abstract political claims in the concrete details of armies on the march. And beneath the politics runs a steady awareness of cost: the shattered towns, the displaced peasantry, the "uncountable casualties" of a war too often remembered through its pageantry.
The narrative's primary limitation stems from its ambition. Compressing two centuries into a single volume demands selectivity; some regions, factions, and social layers inevitably recede from view. Yet the tradeoff is coherence—a through-line from medieval fealty to early modern statehood. The argument's boldness, rather than archival novelty, provides the book's argumentative force.
"Bloody Crowns" is both revision and restoration. It replaces the narrow frame of dynastic rivalry with the broader lens of nation-making, showing that the war was less about who wore the crown of France than about what France and England were becoming. Livingston's reframing has practical implications: understanding the Treaty of Troyes not as the apex of English ambition but as a desperate French fracture—a civil war that invited foreign intervention—changes how we read the conflict's resolution. Instead of a mere battlefield inspiration, Joan of Arc becomes the embodiment of an emerging national consciousness that could survive even catastrophic political division. In that sense, Livingston's thesis feels less like provocation than correction. To accept his premise is to see that the so-called Hundred Years War was never a single conflict, but a multi-century crucible that forged the modern West.
This review is of an advance reader's edition provided by NetGalley and Basic Books.
Livingston's central premise—that the conflict was a two-hundred-year process by which France defined itself—is both persuasive and clarifying. He discards the familiar English-centered framework in which the story unfolds as a succession of royal ambitions and battlefield glories. Instead, he presents the conflict as France's long and painful act of self-definition: the shaping of borders, authority, and identity against England's persistent obstruction. What emerges is a multi-national narrative—a continental history in which Philippe IV and Charles VII are as central as Edward III or Henry V.
This intentionally non-Anglocentric perspective alters the emotional and moral texture of the story. Livingston prefers French naming conventions (Philippe VI rather than Philip VI), a decision that resituates readers within the mental geography of medieval France rather than that of later English chroniclers. It may challenge an English-speaking audience, but it reinforces the book's purpose—to restore a European balance to a tale long filtered through English triumphalism.
The author's training as both scholar and storyteller shapes his execution effectively. His command of archival material—royal letters, treaties, chronicles, and the practical minutiae of campaigns—anchors the narrative, while his instinct for structure keeps it readable. Livingston follows a chronological course but organizes it through what he calls "keystones" of history: pivotal events and turning points that hold the long arc of the war together. For instance, the 1292 mariners' brawl that sparks the war—a seemingly minor incident on a desolate island that Livingston traces through escalating reprisals until it becomes a casus belli. This approach, focusing on essential structural moments rather than comprehensive detail, gives the narrative momentum and depth. His careful tracing of the political machinery behind the Peace of Étaples in 1492 makes clear how local quarrels could escalate into larger systemic conflict.
The book's greatest strength lies in its balance of scope and precision. Livingston can shift from the grand strategy of kings to the commercial importance of the wine and wool trades without losing the reader. His discussion of sovereignty—whether the English king's lands in France were subject to homage—is rendered with both exactness and lucidity. He draws on sources like Edward III's Kitchen Journal to track the king's 1346 campaign with remarkable specificity, grounding abstract political claims in the concrete details of armies on the march. And beneath the politics runs a steady awareness of cost: the shattered towns, the displaced peasantry, the "uncountable casualties" of a war too often remembered through its pageantry.
The narrative's primary limitation stems from its ambition. Compressing two centuries into a single volume demands selectivity; some regions, factions, and social layers inevitably recede from view. Yet the tradeoff is coherence—a through-line from medieval fealty to early modern statehood. The argument's boldness, rather than archival novelty, provides the book's argumentative force.
"Bloody Crowns" is both revision and restoration. It replaces the narrow frame of dynastic rivalry with the broader lens of nation-making, showing that the war was less about who wore the crown of France than about what France and England were becoming. Livingston's reframing has practical implications: understanding the Treaty of Troyes not as the apex of English ambition but as a desperate French fracture—a civil war that invited foreign intervention—changes how we read the conflict's resolution. Instead of a mere battlefield inspiration, Joan of Arc becomes the embodiment of an emerging national consciousness that could survive even catastrophic political division. In that sense, Livingston's thesis feels less like provocation than correction. To accept his premise is to see that the so-called Hundred Years War was never a single conflict, but a multi-century crucible that forged the modern West.
This review is of an advance reader's edition provided by NetGalley and Basic Books.
April 1, 2026
Bloody Crowns did what I didn't think was really possible, bring a confusing mess of a series of skirmishes and battles into something fairly coherent that even someone without a background in history could somewhat understand. Everything else I have read about this time period has been fairly convoluted and while I have a history background and taught it my entire career, let's face it, the political, social, and religious situation of this time period was very different from out modern day sensibilities, so it's sometimes hard to understand why a certain person did this or why they chose to do that. Michael Livingston did a great job trying to show why certain decisions were made and why other options just weren't available for these people at the time.
In this book though, the author goes beyond the actual timeline of the Hundred Years War and argues convincingly that it actually began years before the historical start of the war. The political events before the events that are typically attributed to the Hundred Years War are vital to understanding how the events spiraled out of control and should be included in the timeline. Even my own history professors agreed with this concept as events don't typically just start, except for a few exceptions, but are part of a timeline of events that led into the major skirmishes that have far-reaching consequences. While I don't think the concept is 'radically original' as stated by the author as my own professors thought this way, it certainly does help to understand what led into the major events of the Hundred Years War, what led to Agincourt (for another great read, see Livingston's Agincourt: Battle of the Scarred King) and the importance of Jeanne d'Arc (I'm French so I just don't think of her name in English terms.)
This is a very tumultuous time in history and it doesn't help when every third person is named Henry, Charles, or Louis and property boundaries of countries as well as allegiances changed between breakfast and dinnertime. I thought the author did a great job sorting out who was who, what was what, trying to explain the allegiances in terms of the time period and what that meant, and the importance of what was happening, even the little things, and trying to explain to people who had a familiarity with France where some of these skirmishes would have taken place today. And this is what I found the most interesting, the attention to the details of things non-battle that nevertheless played such a critical role in what happened during this time period. Something like the development of weapons that changed the course of a skirmish, the wedding between two nobles that may have changed an important allegiance, the death of a child, the birth of a child, the friendship between former foes, the madness of a king, the death of a king, etc... It wasn't always the big battles that had a profound effect on what was happening, but the smaller, but still very significant events that changed the course of history. England's claim to the throne pushed France into strengthening its central monarchy (leading to the development of the God-kings we will see in the future), asserting control over independent duchies like Brittany, Burgundy, and Gascony to name a few, and developing a centralized army that would be funded by a taxation system (one that would have repercussions in the future we all know about, but that was still three hundred years away), all controlled by the crown. And what happened to England? The War of the Roses.
Bloody Crowns walks the reader through centuries of battles, politics, and people concisely, but manages to do so in a way that is fascinating and interesting, without falling into that dry recitation that some of these books sometimes do. Personally, I'm not sure how difficult this book would be for someone who has absolutely no knowledge of the subject as I have a really good background and have no difficulty understanding the players in this drama, but it did seem like the author did a great job explaining who was who and what was what. I also know that not everything was covered in this book, as the author readily acknowledges, but that was not the point of this book, it was to show how the Hundred Years War started much earlier than historians typically think, a point he made very, very well. For history buffs though, it does give you a lot to think about and I highly recommend.
I received a copy of this book from the publisher.
In this book though, the author goes beyond the actual timeline of the Hundred Years War and argues convincingly that it actually began years before the historical start of the war. The political events before the events that are typically attributed to the Hundred Years War are vital to understanding how the events spiraled out of control and should be included in the timeline. Even my own history professors agreed with this concept as events don't typically just start, except for a few exceptions, but are part of a timeline of events that led into the major skirmishes that have far-reaching consequences. While I don't think the concept is 'radically original' as stated by the author as my own professors thought this way, it certainly does help to understand what led into the major events of the Hundred Years War, what led to Agincourt (for another great read, see Livingston's Agincourt: Battle of the Scarred King) and the importance of Jeanne d'Arc (I'm French so I just don't think of her name in English terms.)
This is a very tumultuous time in history and it doesn't help when every third person is named Henry, Charles, or Louis and property boundaries of countries as well as allegiances changed between breakfast and dinnertime. I thought the author did a great job sorting out who was who, what was what, trying to explain the allegiances in terms of the time period and what that meant, and the importance of what was happening, even the little things, and trying to explain to people who had a familiarity with France where some of these skirmishes would have taken place today. And this is what I found the most interesting, the attention to the details of things non-battle that nevertheless played such a critical role in what happened during this time period. Something like the development of weapons that changed the course of a skirmish, the wedding between two nobles that may have changed an important allegiance, the death of a child, the birth of a child, the friendship between former foes, the madness of a king, the death of a king, etc... It wasn't always the big battles that had a profound effect on what was happening, but the smaller, but still very significant events that changed the course of history. England's claim to the throne pushed France into strengthening its central monarchy (leading to the development of the God-kings we will see in the future), asserting control over independent duchies like Brittany, Burgundy, and Gascony to name a few, and developing a centralized army that would be funded by a taxation system (one that would have repercussions in the future we all know about, but that was still three hundred years away), all controlled by the crown. And what happened to England? The War of the Roses.
Bloody Crowns walks the reader through centuries of battles, politics, and people concisely, but manages to do so in a way that is fascinating and interesting, without falling into that dry recitation that some of these books sometimes do. Personally, I'm not sure how difficult this book would be for someone who has absolutely no knowledge of the subject as I have a really good background and have no difficulty understanding the players in this drama, but it did seem like the author did a great job explaining who was who and what was what. I also know that not everything was covered in this book, as the author readily acknowledges, but that was not the point of this book, it was to show how the Hundred Years War started much earlier than historians typically think, a point he made very, very well. For history buffs though, it does give you a lot to think about and I highly recommend.
I received a copy of this book from the publisher.
October 26, 2025
Medieval Europe was a time of conflicts and change. While smaller disputes between countries or civil wars would define borders, the most prominent conflict during this period was the Hundred Years' War. A conflict that has been traditionally taught to have lasted 116 years between England and France. It is often told from the English perspective, with battles such as Agincourt, Crecy, and Poitiers celebrated. But what if we look at the bigger picture and expand our lens to the whole of Europe while keeping a neutral approach to the France vs England conflict? What if the conflict did not last a mere hundred years, but in fact two hundred years? What type of story would this kind of approach tell when it comes to medieval European history? Michael Livingston takes on the mammoth challenge of telling the tale of how this war changed European history forever in his latest book, “Bloody Crowns: A New History of the Hundred Years War.”
I would like to thank Basic Books and Net Galley for sending me a copy of this book. I enjoyed the previous book that I read by Michael Livingston on the Battle of Crecy, so when I heard that he was writing a new book about the Hundred Years' War, I was intrigued. I wanted to see what new information he could provide for a conflict that has been discussed heavily for centuries.
Livingston delivers with a plethora of information. He begins by explaining that the term Hundred Years’ War came from a French textbook in 1823. We often think that it began when King Philippe VI of France declared English lands forfeit on May 24, 1337, so King Edward III declared that he was the rightful king of France; and the end of the war was when the French seized the city of Bordeaux on October 19, 1453. However, Livingston argues that the war began in 1292 and ended in 1492, which means it was a two-hundred-year war. Livingston then goes into explaining the origins of France and England to explain how on earth they even got to a state of strife.
While the study of the conflict between France and England tends to focus on these countries, Livingston expands his view to include a pirate war between English and Norman merchants, wars in Portugal, the Burgundian Wars, fights between England, Scotland, and Wales, peasant revolts of all varieties, and wars with the Flemish. We also see a few civil wars in both France and England, including the Wars of the Roses. There are also colorful characters, including a couple of mad kings, the Black Prince, Henry V, Joan of Arc, William Wallace, earls and dukes of every variety, knights who were loyal to a fault, queens who fought for their families, heiresses fighting for their land rights, and a ton of family squabbles. And of course, Livingston focuses on the battles that defined the period, including Crecy, Poitiers, Agincourt, and Orleans, as well as lesser-known battles that helped shift the momentum for either side. Livingston can provide such vivid details that it feels like you are on the battlefield, even when it comes to the more obscure battles.
In my opinion, Livingston is one of the finest medieval military historians right now, and this is his magnum opus. I learned so much by reading this book that it kind of redefined what I think of the Hundred Years' War. This is one of the best books I have read this year. If you want a book about medieval Europe that will challenge your way of thinking about one of the biggest conflicts of the age, I highly recommend you read “Bloody Crowns: A New History of the Hundred Years War” by Michael Livingston.
I would like to thank Basic Books and Net Galley for sending me a copy of this book. I enjoyed the previous book that I read by Michael Livingston on the Battle of Crecy, so when I heard that he was writing a new book about the Hundred Years' War, I was intrigued. I wanted to see what new information he could provide for a conflict that has been discussed heavily for centuries.
Livingston delivers with a plethora of information. He begins by explaining that the term Hundred Years’ War came from a French textbook in 1823. We often think that it began when King Philippe VI of France declared English lands forfeit on May 24, 1337, so King Edward III declared that he was the rightful king of France; and the end of the war was when the French seized the city of Bordeaux on October 19, 1453. However, Livingston argues that the war began in 1292 and ended in 1492, which means it was a two-hundred-year war. Livingston then goes into explaining the origins of France and England to explain how on earth they even got to a state of strife.
While the study of the conflict between France and England tends to focus on these countries, Livingston expands his view to include a pirate war between English and Norman merchants, wars in Portugal, the Burgundian Wars, fights between England, Scotland, and Wales, peasant revolts of all varieties, and wars with the Flemish. We also see a few civil wars in both France and England, including the Wars of the Roses. There are also colorful characters, including a couple of mad kings, the Black Prince, Henry V, Joan of Arc, William Wallace, earls and dukes of every variety, knights who were loyal to a fault, queens who fought for their families, heiresses fighting for their land rights, and a ton of family squabbles. And of course, Livingston focuses on the battles that defined the period, including Crecy, Poitiers, Agincourt, and Orleans, as well as lesser-known battles that helped shift the momentum for either side. Livingston can provide such vivid details that it feels like you are on the battlefield, even when it comes to the more obscure battles.
In my opinion, Livingston is one of the finest medieval military historians right now, and this is his magnum opus. I learned so much by reading this book that it kind of redefined what I think of the Hundred Years' War. This is one of the best books I have read this year. If you want a book about medieval Europe that will challenge your way of thinking about one of the biggest conflicts of the age, I highly recommend you read “Bloody Crowns: A New History of the Hundred Years War” by Michael Livingston.
April 28, 2026
Deze recensie werd eerder gepubliceerd op mijn blog GraagGelezen.
Niet alleen een reeks losse veldslagen, maar de pijnlijke basis voor het moderne Europa
Wie de geschiedenislessen op de middelbare school heeft overleefd, herinnert zich waarschijnlijk de 'Honderdjarige Oorlog'.
De ‘Honderdjarige Oorlog’ bestaat uit een reeks oorlogen, gevoerd van 1337 tot 1453, tussen het huis Valois en het huis Plantagenet, ook bekend als het huis Anjou. Vergeet Jeanne d’Arc bij Orléans niet. De inzet van de oorlogen was de Franse troon, die vacant was door het uitsterven van het huis Capet, de eerste lijn van Franse koningen.
Een overzichtelijke term voor een rommelig conflict, toch?
Michael Livingston denkt daar anders over. In zijn nieuwste werk, Tweehonderd jaar oorlog, gooit hij de traditionele tijdlijn overboord, maar de 'Honderdjarige Oorlog' is overduidelijk aanwezig. De landkaarten die op diverse plaatsen in het boek gepubliceerd zijn, zijn hier zeker behulpzaam.
Het sterkste punt van Livingston is zijn vermogen om de tunnelvisie van de geschiedschrijving te doorbreken. Waar veel historici zich blindstaren op de modderige velden van Crécy of de triomf bij Azincourt, trekt Livingston het gordijn open over heel Europa.
Hij laat zien dat dit geen privétwist was tussen twee koningen, maar een Europese wereldbrand. De impact op de Lage Landen, de politieke intriges in Italië en de betrokkenheid van het Heilige Roomse Rijk worden op meesterlijke wijze verweven in het grotere verhaal.
De meeste populaire geschiedenis over dit onderwerp leest als een lofzang op de Engelse boogschutter. Livingston, zelf een gerenommeerd mediëvist, breekt met deze Angelsaksische dominantie. Hij geeft een stem aan het Franse perspectief en belicht de strategische blunders én briljante zetten van beide zijden met een zeldzame objectiviteit.
Dit zorgt voor een broodnodige balans. Je krijgt als lezer niet alleen de heroïek van de overwinnaar mee, maar ook de politieke wanhoop en de nationale trauma’s die Frankrijk vormden tot wat het nu is.
Ondanks de enorme hoeveelheid data en namen, leest Livingston als een spannende politieke thriller. Zijn schrijfstijl is vlot en ontdaan van stoffig academisch jargon. Het boek legt haarscherp uit hoe de militaire technologie (van de longbow tot de eerste artillerie) de sociale orde van de ridderstand definitief de nek omdraaide.
Tweehonderd jaar oorlog laat zien hoe de concepten 'Engeland' en 'Frankrijk' pas echt vorm kregen in het vuur van deze strijd.
Livingston wil namelijk méér dan alleen een oorlogsverslag geven; hij wil de ziel van de late middeleeuwen blootleggen. Dat vraagt om wat meer aandacht van de lezer, maar de beloning is een veel dieper begrip van onze eigen geschiedenis.
Michael Livingston bewijst met Tweehonderd jaar oorlog dat geschiedenis nooit 'af' is. Door de grenzen van het conflict zowel in tijd als in ruimte op te rekken, biedt hij een fascinerend nieuw kader voor de strijd die Europa verscheurde en uiteindelijk hersmeedde.
Niet alleen een reeks losse veldslagen, maar de pijnlijke basis voor het moderne Europa
Wie de geschiedenislessen op de middelbare school heeft overleefd, herinnert zich waarschijnlijk de 'Honderdjarige Oorlog'.
De ‘Honderdjarige Oorlog’ bestaat uit een reeks oorlogen, gevoerd van 1337 tot 1453, tussen het huis Valois en het huis Plantagenet, ook bekend als het huis Anjou. Vergeet Jeanne d’Arc bij Orléans niet. De inzet van de oorlogen was de Franse troon, die vacant was door het uitsterven van het huis Capet, de eerste lijn van Franse koningen.
Een overzichtelijke term voor een rommelig conflict, toch?
Michael Livingston denkt daar anders over. In zijn nieuwste werk, Tweehonderd jaar oorlog, gooit hij de traditionele tijdlijn overboord, maar de 'Honderdjarige Oorlog' is overduidelijk aanwezig. De landkaarten die op diverse plaatsen in het boek gepubliceerd zijn, zijn hier zeker behulpzaam.
Het sterkste punt van Livingston is zijn vermogen om de tunnelvisie van de geschiedschrijving te doorbreken. Waar veel historici zich blindstaren op de modderige velden van Crécy of de triomf bij Azincourt, trekt Livingston het gordijn open over heel Europa.
Hij laat zien dat dit geen privétwist was tussen twee koningen, maar een Europese wereldbrand. De impact op de Lage Landen, de politieke intriges in Italië en de betrokkenheid van het Heilige Roomse Rijk worden op meesterlijke wijze verweven in het grotere verhaal.
De meeste populaire geschiedenis over dit onderwerp leest als een lofzang op de Engelse boogschutter. Livingston, zelf een gerenommeerd mediëvist, breekt met deze Angelsaksische dominantie. Hij geeft een stem aan het Franse perspectief en belicht de strategische blunders én briljante zetten van beide zijden met een zeldzame objectiviteit.
Dit zorgt voor een broodnodige balans. Je krijgt als lezer niet alleen de heroïek van de overwinnaar mee, maar ook de politieke wanhoop en de nationale trauma’s die Frankrijk vormden tot wat het nu is.
Ondanks de enorme hoeveelheid data en namen, leest Livingston als een spannende politieke thriller. Zijn schrijfstijl is vlot en ontdaan van stoffig academisch jargon. Het boek legt haarscherp uit hoe de militaire technologie (van de longbow tot de eerste artillerie) de sociale orde van de ridderstand definitief de nek omdraaide.
Tweehonderd jaar oorlog laat zien hoe de concepten 'Engeland' en 'Frankrijk' pas echt vorm kregen in het vuur van deze strijd.
Livingston wil namelijk méér dan alleen een oorlogsverslag geven; hij wil de ziel van de late middeleeuwen blootleggen. Dat vraagt om wat meer aandacht van de lezer, maar de beloning is een veel dieper begrip van onze eigen geschiedenis.
Michael Livingston bewijst met Tweehonderd jaar oorlog dat geschiedenis nooit 'af' is. Door de grenzen van het conflict zowel in tijd als in ruimte op te rekken, biedt hij een fascinerend nieuw kader voor de strijd die Europa verscheurde en uiteindelijk hersmeedde.
February 12, 2026
Both useful and fun. Michael Livingston's history of the Hundred Years War added depth and detail to my understanding of these historical events. This volume provides voluminous detail on the famous and less famous battles, but also provides a great chronicle of the various rulers and evolving geographical units involved in his two hundred year story.
That's Livingston's big claim, that we should see this conflict between France and England as a TWO hundred years war rather than a hundred years war. I can't say that I found his argument super convincing. His periodization definitely provided more context and perspective. But that's always the case if you zoom out. Why not call it a three hundred years war, or a five hundred years war, including all the details of the Norman and Angevin dynasties who combined the English throne with French lands after the Norman conquest in 1066?
Livingston has an answer to that question, arguing that the conflicts in the 1000s and 1100s were about defining England and settling the priority of only somewhat English monarchs in England rather than on the continent, while the two hundred years war he has kicking off in the 1290s was about defining France. This seems very plausible to me, but I'm not entirely sure he makes as convincing a case as he should. It's long been established that the Hundred Years War gave both combatants more of the basic building blocks of modern nationalism. It's not clear to me how making it a 200 rather than a 100 year thing makes that clearer.
What Livingston absolutely does with this book, however, is provide a useful and compelling history. I've now got a much better sense of the context within which stirring figures like Henry V and the Black Prince of Wales operated. As an English speaking history nerd, I'm unsurprisingly very used to hearing about this story from the perspective of England. I appreciated the way that the author tried to give equal coverage, or more than equal coverage to the French side of things. I better understand the evolving relationship with Burgundy now as well, which had always puzzled me.
This book has a ton of information, and tells a great story. I did feel it was missing some information on national formation. Livingston tells us that this conflict formed modern France. He very capably tells the story of geographical consolidation. He also tells the stirring story of Joan of Arc, warts and all. He tells us that she was crucial to the developing sense of French nationhood, and capably documents how the tide was decisively turned after as a result of her tragically brief career. But I wanted more detail. How did the French court memorialize and use her memory? How did that trickle down to the French public in general, at the time, and as the years and decades wore on? Perhaps that would have been outside the scope of the project, and slowed down what is a commendably fast-moving narrative. Regardless, it was information I missed. A good solid read though.
That's Livingston's big claim, that we should see this conflict between France and England as a TWO hundred years war rather than a hundred years war. I can't say that I found his argument super convincing. His periodization definitely provided more context and perspective. But that's always the case if you zoom out. Why not call it a three hundred years war, or a five hundred years war, including all the details of the Norman and Angevin dynasties who combined the English throne with French lands after the Norman conquest in 1066?
Livingston has an answer to that question, arguing that the conflicts in the 1000s and 1100s were about defining England and settling the priority of only somewhat English monarchs in England rather than on the continent, while the two hundred years war he has kicking off in the 1290s was about defining France. This seems very plausible to me, but I'm not entirely sure he makes as convincing a case as he should. It's long been established that the Hundred Years War gave both combatants more of the basic building blocks of modern nationalism. It's not clear to me how making it a 200 rather than a 100 year thing makes that clearer.
What Livingston absolutely does with this book, however, is provide a useful and compelling history. I've now got a much better sense of the context within which stirring figures like Henry V and the Black Prince of Wales operated. As an English speaking history nerd, I'm unsurprisingly very used to hearing about this story from the perspective of England. I appreciated the way that the author tried to give equal coverage, or more than equal coverage to the French side of things. I better understand the evolving relationship with Burgundy now as well, which had always puzzled me.
This book has a ton of information, and tells a great story. I did feel it was missing some information on national formation. Livingston tells us that this conflict formed modern France. He very capably tells the story of geographical consolidation. He also tells the stirring story of Joan of Arc, warts and all. He tells us that she was crucial to the developing sense of French nationhood, and capably documents how the tide was decisively turned after as a result of her tragically brief career. But I wanted more detail. How did the French court memorialize and use her memory? How did that trickle down to the French public in general, at the time, and as the years and decades wore on? Perhaps that would have been outside the scope of the project, and slowed down what is a commendably fast-moving narrative. Regardless, it was information I missed. A good solid read though.
October 15, 2025
I received an ARC from the publisher in exchange for an honest review. It has not affected my opinions.
THE TWO HUNDRED YEARS WAR is a pretty monumental reframing of the conflict between England and France in the High Middle Ages, claiming that we should not look at the Hundred Years War as a contain entity but the middle portion of a much longer conflict.
I am really struggling with non-fiction at the moment, for which I blame the PhD - my brain just does not want to read facts right now. So it is telling that I got through this in half a week (and that's even with how much slower I am when annotating!) The book has a very engaging style, looking at both the wider conflicts in the region and the smaller acts that characterise this period.
This is a period I'm pretty familiar with - I might have a *minor* obsession with the 14th century and as a teenager, it was the Wars of the Roses - but for those who aren't quite so... invested in the period, Livingston makes it very easy for the reader to follow along the endless twists and turns. Not to mention the fact that everyone has one of about six names (his frustration with this is obvious at times.)
I do agree with Livingston's argument that we need to re-frame the Hundred Years War in the context of the wider clash. What struck me about this book was the very strong argument for how the conflict led to the re-constituting of France into something resembling the modern state - certainly in borders and centralisation. In the history of France and England, it's often Philip II (Philip Augustus) who is the main man credited with the push back against English power and uniting France. And while it's true that he probably did the single most of any medieval monarch in forging a French state, it is certainly far from done - and only really started - at the end of his reign. This book does a good job of showing how progressive kings and conflict (with plenty of ups and downs) took the Frankish lands from a collection of loosely held together powers into a single country.
Therefore, this book serves as a good companion to TWO HOUSES, TWO KINGDOMS, which tells the story of England and France in the two hundred years before this book and gives a more detailed account therefore of how we ended up in the place where this bloody conflict stretches on between England and France for so long.
THE TWO HUNDRED YEARS WAR is a pretty monumental reframing of the conflict between England and France in the High Middle Ages, claiming that we should not look at the Hundred Years War as a contain entity but the middle portion of a much longer conflict.
I am really struggling with non-fiction at the moment, for which I blame the PhD - my brain just does not want to read facts right now. So it is telling that I got through this in half a week (and that's even with how much slower I am when annotating!) The book has a very engaging style, looking at both the wider conflicts in the region and the smaller acts that characterise this period.
This is a period I'm pretty familiar with - I might have a *minor* obsession with the 14th century and as a teenager, it was the Wars of the Roses - but for those who aren't quite so... invested in the period, Livingston makes it very easy for the reader to follow along the endless twists and turns. Not to mention the fact that everyone has one of about six names (his frustration with this is obvious at times.)
I do agree with Livingston's argument that we need to re-frame the Hundred Years War in the context of the wider clash. What struck me about this book was the very strong argument for how the conflict led to the re-constituting of France into something resembling the modern state - certainly in borders and centralisation. In the history of France and England, it's often Philip II (Philip Augustus) who is the main man credited with the push back against English power and uniting France. And while it's true that he probably did the single most of any medieval monarch in forging a French state, it is certainly far from done - and only really started - at the end of his reign. This book does a good job of showing how progressive kings and conflict (with plenty of ups and downs) took the Frankish lands from a collection of loosely held together powers into a single country.
Therefore, this book serves as a good companion to TWO HOUSES, TWO KINGDOMS, which tells the story of England and France in the two hundred years before this book and gives a more detailed account therefore of how we ended up in the place where this bloody conflict stretches on between England and France for so long.
July 17, 2026
This is why I love narrative histories! In the acknowledgement (like in the preface) the Livingston mentions Sumption’s gargantuan work on the same subject. And I plan to read the first volume before years end; from it I’ll gain a different perspective and more detail on everything discussed more briefly in this work. What I don’t expect to see is the personality Livingston infused into the work. I ended the book feeling all the excitement and inspiration that the author felt as he wrote about a subject he is deeply passionate about.
This book has been exactly what I needed when I needed it as a broad introduction to the HYW. His decision to look at it through the lense of its seeds being planted earlier and its impact reaching out past the traditional beginning and end was incredibly helpful; I’ve left more histories than I can count thinking I now need to read about the period preceding the subject not to mention the want to chronologically go forward!
I feel in this book I gained a solid general understanding of ‘the war’ and it was done in a way that speak to modern audiences. As if Livingston was giving a lecture and I could sense his person involved in the teaching.
Anyone who can effectively tell a story as complex, far reaching and expansive as the Hundred Years’ War in a single book while still making it interesting deserves praise in my book. I’ll hold my copy of this book throughout my life just to remember the reading of it.
This book has been exactly what I needed when I needed it as a broad introduction to the HYW. His decision to look at it through the lense of its seeds being planted earlier and its impact reaching out past the traditional beginning and end was incredibly helpful; I’ve left more histories than I can count thinking I now need to read about the period preceding the subject not to mention the want to chronologically go forward!
I feel in this book I gained a solid general understanding of ‘the war’ and it was done in a way that speak to modern audiences. As if Livingston was giving a lecture and I could sense his person involved in the teaching.
Anyone who can effectively tell a story as complex, far reaching and expansive as the Hundred Years’ War in a single book while still making it interesting deserves praise in my book. I’ll hold my copy of this book throughout my life just to remember the reading of it.
October 20, 2025
Thank you Netgalley and the publisher for this eARC.
3.5 Stars!
Bloody Crowns: A New History of the Hundred Years War is a history of the Hundred Years War, that Livingston argues is actually the Two Hundred Years War, beginning in 1292 and ending in 1492.
Beginning with a murder on a French island all the way to Field of the Cloth of Gold in 1520 AD, this tells the history of France v England and all of the kings, queens, nobles, and citizens affected by it's battles and treaties and many, many untimely deaths.
This is my first non-fiction book about a war, so read my review knowing that I personally have never much read the history of battle tactics and troop movement in a war before. I did get battle fatigue after awhile, to be honest. Livingston really takes the time to explain these movements and their importance, the battles outcome, as well as the negotiations that followed, but you really need a map and a family tree to keep track of everything going on here.
Being much more familiar with the English side of this war in terms of history, I learned so much about France and their side of this conflict, and it inspired me to learn even more about their history. Thank you for that!
All in all, I'm really glad I read this as I really wanted to understand this War in greater detail and this book 100% delivers on that.
3.5 Stars!
Bloody Crowns: A New History of the Hundred Years War is a history of the Hundred Years War, that Livingston argues is actually the Two Hundred Years War, beginning in 1292 and ending in 1492.
Beginning with a murder on a French island all the way to Field of the Cloth of Gold in 1520 AD, this tells the history of France v England and all of the kings, queens, nobles, and citizens affected by it's battles and treaties and many, many untimely deaths.
This is my first non-fiction book about a war, so read my review knowing that I personally have never much read the history of battle tactics and troop movement in a war before. I did get battle fatigue after awhile, to be honest. Livingston really takes the time to explain these movements and their importance, the battles outcome, as well as the negotiations that followed, but you really need a map and a family tree to keep track of everything going on here.
Being much more familiar with the English side of this war in terms of history, I learned so much about France and their side of this conflict, and it inspired me to learn even more about their history. Thank you for that!
All in all, I'm really glad I read this as I really wanted to understand this War in greater detail and this book 100% delivers on that.
April 23, 2026
This is an incredible feet of scholarship! I read this alongside my medievalist.net course on the 100 Years War and I would say that in the years to come this book will be a reccomend and encouraged reading for all curriculum dealing with the hundred years war!
Michael Livingston tackles a dense topic with clear fluidity and makes it fun, engaging and readable! the chapters are well structured and everything is clearly indicated with sub headings!
Will have no trouble forming a desire to read this book Michael's Pros are as entertaining as they are informative. It takes talent to describe this many battles with intrigue but Michael Livingston pulls it off with Perfection you can tell this was quite a passion project.
This is definitely going in my list of favorites scholarship reads. I enjoy any argument where Philip the Fair is blamed for something 🤣🤣👏👏👏 excellent! This book will make you look at the Hundred Years War in a much different way. Their had been more perfect time for a book like this. With the events going on in today's world much in here will resonate and I thank Michael and all the professors who tackle the cements topic so it stays relevant throughout the generations. I'm proud of the understanding I have gained about this conflict and will carry it with me ever more.
Michael Livingston tackles a dense topic with clear fluidity and makes it fun, engaging and readable! the chapters are well structured and everything is clearly indicated with sub headings!
Will have no trouble forming a desire to read this book Michael's Pros are as entertaining as they are informative. It takes talent to describe this many battles with intrigue but Michael Livingston pulls it off with Perfection you can tell this was quite a passion project.
This is definitely going in my list of favorites scholarship reads. I enjoy any argument where Philip the Fair is blamed for something 🤣🤣👏👏👏 excellent! This book will make you look at the Hundred Years War in a much different way. Their had been more perfect time for a book like this. With the events going on in today's world much in here will resonate and I thank Michael and all the professors who tackle the cements topic so it stays relevant throughout the generations. I'm proud of the understanding I have gained about this conflict and will carry it with me ever more.
August 11, 2026
This is a very solid and decent overview of the conflict, and is praiseworthy in extending the scope of the conflict beyond the height of the 100 or so years of the war to the preceding years and the origins of the conflict. However, where it falls down to some extent for me, and this is largely a personal preference, is that it does not give sufficient detail to society, economics, and the general social side of the organisation of the Kingdoms and states involved in the conflict.
This is very much a traditional narrative history. While there is a place for this, I found the lack of attention to the societal changes particularly lacking in this work, particularly as the author themselves details in a very brief passage at the end the monumentous changes that the conflict brought to western European society.
I do not expect every historian to engage in the level of detail that Braudel does in examining society, economy, geography, etc, but I do find that these critical subjects are too rarely examined in detail in many modern histories, despite the widespread acknowledgement of their importance, and as this is a single volume general history of this conflict, I do consider this aspect to be essential.
This is very much a traditional narrative history. While there is a place for this, I found the lack of attention to the societal changes particularly lacking in this work, particularly as the author themselves details in a very brief passage at the end the monumentous changes that the conflict brought to western European society.
I do not expect every historian to engage in the level of detail that Braudel does in examining society, economy, geography, etc, but I do find that these critical subjects are too rarely examined in detail in many modern histories, despite the widespread acknowledgement of their importance, and as this is a single volume general history of this conflict, I do consider this aspect to be essential.
August 22, 2026
I have always had a curiosity about the Hundred Years War, so when I saw this one, figured I would give it read. Very surprised and impressed at how good this rendition was. The thesis was a bit different, arguing that really this could be called a Two Hundred Years War, from 1292-1492 vs. the accepted 1337-1453. Then again, if you tried to account for all of the conflicts between England and France, it could perhaps span nearly 800-1000 years, if you mark 1066 as the new start date. Anyway, Livingston backs up his assertion with quality analysis and writing. It was engaging and quite a page-turner. Also, like so many other European-based conflicts, it never really stayed just between two parties. Spain and Portugal get into the mix as well.
While it is hard to call one book the end-all/be-all for something like the Hundred Years War (I guess now Two Hundred Years War), this would be one I would steer folks to, both for those novices and experts. Glad I picked this one up, as I learned more than I thought I might.
While it is hard to call one book the end-all/be-all for something like the Hundred Years War (I guess now Two Hundred Years War), this would be one I would steer folks to, both for those novices and experts. Glad I picked this one up, as I learned more than I thought I might.
June 14, 2026
A good book, providing an overview of the long medieval struggle between England and France. The author, academic historian Michael Livingston, follows the extended conflict from the late-thirteenth century to the late-fifteenth. He offers a broad history, studying the dynastic rivalries, shifting alliances, and evolving military practice. The book situates the chronological events within the larger political and cultural forces that shaped both kingdoms. By widening the frame, Livingston shows how this centuries‑long contest was not a single war but a series of interconnected confrontations driven by dynastic claims and economic pressures. A great book for readers seeking a comprehensive introduction to the Anglo‑French rivalry and its long-term impact on European history. Highly recommended for anyone interested in medieval conflict, state formation, and the enduring competition between two neighboring powers.
December 22, 2025
The Two Hundred Years War is a clear, consise and quite captivating new interpretation of the Wars between England and France between the years 1292 - 1492.
As someone who's always been interested in history from a young age, I found this to be quite the riveting page turner that discusses a different take on those turbulent times than we're used to.
I found It to be incredibly readable and a book, I think, not just aimed at experts or scholars, but easy to understand by even the casual history reader.
It covers all the main protagonists and battles and the social impacts thereafter in an approachable, engaging style.
5 🌟 🌟 🌟 🌟 🌟 's from me.
As someone who's always been interested in history from a young age, I found this to be quite the riveting page turner that discusses a different take on those turbulent times than we're used to.
I found It to be incredibly readable and a book, I think, not just aimed at experts or scholars, but easy to understand by even the casual history reader.
It covers all the main protagonists and battles and the social impacts thereafter in an approachable, engaging style.
5 🌟 🌟 🌟 🌟 🌟 's from me.
January 26, 2026
I don’t mean to pin this with another writer but since the author Livingston also shouts him out in the acknowledgements, this is a fantastic midpoint complimentary with Dan Jones’s The Plantagenets and (I assume when I read it next) The War of the Roses.
Terrific accumulation of over 200 years of what is some truly complicated dynastic history, a page turner in the best way. It’s really helped fill a hole in my knowledge of the era and more importantly helped reshape why I like reading history, which isn’t just facts and events, but really that molding and shaping each facet imparts over time.
Terrific accumulation of over 200 years of what is some truly complicated dynastic history, a page turner in the best way. It’s really helped fill a hole in my knowledge of the era and more importantly helped reshape why I like reading history, which isn’t just facts and events, but really that molding and shaping each facet imparts over time.
October 26, 2025
This unique perspective on the Hundred Years’ War shows that the conflict actually lasted for two centuries, from 1292 to 1492, impacting much of Europe and driving significant advancements in military and political systems. Informative, revealing, and fun to read, the book brings together a variety of viewpoints to offer a broader understanding of how the interwoven states of northwestern Europe evolved during the medieval period.
Thanks, NetGalley, for the ARC I received. This is my honest and voluntary review.
Thanks, NetGalley, for the ARC I received. This is my honest and voluntary review.
July 1, 2026
Thoroughly enjoyed Livingston’s telling of this fascinating period in human history. The book is well written and was an easy read. By the end you feel as though you’ve watched the war play out over the many lifetimes of its participants.
Livingston breaks up the long 2 centuries into manageable (and in my view sensibly chosen) events in the broader periods during the Hundred Years’ War. On my read, I felt there was just the right amount of exploration of those events, and no unnecessary lingering on the most notable events that have been written about many times before.
Livingston breaks up the long 2 centuries into manageable (and in my view sensibly chosen) events in the broader periods during the Hundred Years’ War. On my read, I felt there was just the right amount of exploration of those events, and no unnecessary lingering on the most notable events that have been written about many times before.
October 31, 2026
Toto je presne druh historickej knihy, ktoré vyhľadávam. Presne mieri na tému, detailne ju popisuje, spája súvislosti a predkladá fakty, ktoré si človek vlastne ani sám neuvedomuje. Storočná vojna medzi Anglickom a Francúzskom vlastne netrvala 100 rokov, ale 200 rokov. Začala v pohnutých časoch konca 13. storočia za vlády Eduarda I. vojnou o Gaskónsko, pokračovala škótskym povstaním, vojnou vo Flandersku a pokračovala aj potom, čo ju všetci považovali v roku 1453 za ukončenú ešte burgundskou vojnou a dotrasmi až do konca 15. storočia. Viac takých
November 13, 2025
This was a very interesting book. I had heard of the biggest battles but did not know much about them this book was extremely detailed and often told from the French angle giving a different perspective on the period. Including all of the different regions of France as it was not a country as we know it now.
I would thoroughly recommend this book It flowed and was easy to read for a person like me with no knowledge but some interest
Thanks to Netgalley and Apollo publishing for my arc copy
I would thoroughly recommend this book It flowed and was easy to read for a person like me with no knowledge but some interest
Thanks to Netgalley and Apollo publishing for my arc copy
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 49 reviews