What do you think?
Rate this book
Wars of the Roses #4
Ravenspur: Rise of the Tudors
England, 1470. A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. The Yorkist king Edward IV is driven out of England, his wife and children forced to seek sanctuary from the House of Lancaster. Yet rage and humiliation prick Edward back to greatness. He lands at Ravenspur, with a half-drowned army and his brother Richard at his side. Though every hand is against them, though every city gate is shut, they have come home. The brothers York will not go quietly into banishment. Instead, they choose to attack. Yet neither Edward nor Richard realize that the true enemy of York has yet to reveal himself. Far away, Henry Tudor has become a man. He is the Red Dragon - 'the man of destiny' who seeks to end the Wars of the Roses. His claim will carry him to Bosworth Field. There will be silence and the mourning of queens. There will be self-sacrifice and terrible betrayals. Two royal princes will be put to death. There will be an ending -- and a new royal house will stand over them all. Praise for Conn Iggulden's Wars of the Roses series: 'A tough, pacy chronicle of bloody encounters, betrayals and cruelties. Superb' Daily Mail 'Iggulden is a master storyteller and makes our blood flow faster' Sunday Express 'Iggulden breathes new life into the darkest and most dramatic of times, with a flair for both the huge scale and human interest of it all' Star 'Pacey and juicy, and packed with action' Sunday Times 'Iggulden is in a class of his own when it comes to epic, historical fiction' Daily Mirror 'Absorbing and bloody' The Times 'One of our finest historical novelists' Daily Express
468 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2016
390 people are currently reading
4823 people want to read
About the author
Conn Iggulden
144 books6,020 followersAlso publishes under author name C.F. Iggulden.
I was born in the normal way in 1971, and vaguely remember half-pennies and sixpences. I have written for as long as I can remember: poetry, short stories and novels. It’s what I always wanted to do and read English at London University with writing in mind. I taught English for seven years and was Head of English at St. Gregory’s RC High School in London by the end of that period. I have enormous respect for those who still labour at the chalk-face. In truth, I can’t find it in me to miss the grind of paperwork and initiatives. I do miss the camaraderie of the smokers’ room, as well as the lessons where their faces lit up as they understood what I was wittering on about.
My mother is Irish and from an early age she told me history as an exciting series of stories – with dates. My great-grandfather was a Seannachie, so I suppose story-telling is in the genes somewhere. My father flew in Bomber Command in WWII, then taught maths and science. Perhaps crucially, he also loved poetry and cracking good tales. Though it seems a dated idea now, I began teaching when boys were told only girls were good at English, despite the great names that must spring to mind after that statement. My father loved working with wood and equations, but he also recited ‘Vitai Lampada’ with a gleam in his eye and that matters, frankly.
I’ve always loved historical fiction as a genre and cut my teeth on Hornblower and Tai-Pan, Flashman, Sharpe and Jack Aubrey. I still remember the sheer joy of reading my first Patrick O’Brian book and discovering there were nineteen more in the series. I love just about anything by David Gemmell, or Peter F. Hamilton or Wilbur Smith. I suppose the one thing that links all those is the love of a good tale.
That’s about it for the moment. If you’d like to get in touch with me leave a comment in the forum or you can tweet me @Conn_Iggulden. I’ll leave it there for the moment. If you’ve read my books, you know an awful lot about the way I think already. There’s no point overdoing it.
Conn Iggulden
I was born in the normal way in 1971, and vaguely remember half-pennies and sixpences. I have written for as long as I can remember: poetry, short stories and novels. It’s what I always wanted to do and read English at London University with writing in mind. I taught English for seven years and was Head of English at St. Gregory’s RC High School in London by the end of that period. I have enormous respect for those who still labour at the chalk-face. In truth, I can’t find it in me to miss the grind of paperwork and initiatives. I do miss the camaraderie of the smokers’ room, as well as the lessons where their faces lit up as they understood what I was wittering on about.
My mother is Irish and from an early age she told me history as an exciting series of stories – with dates. My great-grandfather was a Seannachie, so I suppose story-telling is in the genes somewhere. My father flew in Bomber Command in WWII, then taught maths and science. Perhaps crucially, he also loved poetry and cracking good tales. Though it seems a dated idea now, I began teaching when boys were told only girls were good at English, despite the great names that must spring to mind after that statement. My father loved working with wood and equations, but he also recited ‘Vitai Lampada’ with a gleam in his eye and that matters, frankly.
I’ve always loved historical fiction as a genre and cut my teeth on Hornblower and Tai-Pan, Flashman, Sharpe and Jack Aubrey. I still remember the sheer joy of reading my first Patrick O’Brian book and discovering there were nineteen more in the series. I love just about anything by David Gemmell, or Peter F. Hamilton or Wilbur Smith. I suppose the one thing that links all those is the love of a good tale.
That’s about it for the moment. If you’d like to get in touch with me leave a comment in the forum or you can tweet me @Conn_Iggulden. I’ll leave it there for the moment. If you’ve read my books, you know an awful lot about the way I think already. There’s no point overdoing it.
Conn Iggulden
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 404 reviews
June 16, 2017
I read this book a year ago and it annoyed me so much at the time that I’m only just now bothering to write a review for it. Poor editorial decisions have ruined what could have been a strong ending to an otherwise strong series.
It should have been two books!
The first three hundred pages or so depicted the final days of Edward IV’s reign. It was told in all the detail is should have been. A perfect end to the novel would have been the death of such a stable monarch. The aftermath that followed was chaotic and uncertain, again, a great place to leave off. The second part of the novel (only around a hundred pages or so) depicted Richard III’s kingship. This crammed in his courtship of his own niece, the death of his wife, the princes in the tower incident and his demise at Bosworth. So that’s quite a lot of story to fit in before the rise of the Tudor dynasty.
Having read the previous three books over a number of years (normally just after release) I was very eager to see the end of this one. It’s a period of history I find fascinating. I read Philippa Gregory’s The Cousin’s War series in conjunction with this, and I couldn’t wait to see how Iggulden addressed the rise and fall of Richard III in comparison. Unfortunately, he absolutely butchered it. What we have here is a basic, brushed over series of events that needed their own novel. Richard was betrayed by his own men, I know why, but Iggulden didn’t show me here. Instead it felt completely random and unjustified.
Where's Richard?
The result was a very, very, disappointing ending to a series I’ve enjoyed immensely over the last three years. There were so many gaps in the narrative and so many things barely touched upon. The Buckingham rebellion was over before it even began, the final action sequence was fairly well written though it had no foundations to achieve any dramatic effect. Sharon Penman’s The Sunne in Spelndour makes Iggulden’s depiction of Richard seem lazy and amateurish. Dare I say it, but the villainous one dimensional version created by Shakespeare had more substance and character to him. And that says a lot considering the Bard purposely made him narrow minded, perverted and plain evil as to gain favour with the Tudor dynasty.
However, this isn’t to overlook the first part of the novel even if the Richard section was quite literally slapped on the end. There was some great storytelling; it was up to standard and it really followed on well from the previous book. The title “Ravenspur” is a reference to Edward’s return landing onto the shores of England. It’s appropriate. The second part “Rise of the Tudors” should have been the name for the fifth book in the series, a book that should have just been about Richard III and the subsequent victory of Henry VII.
I read this series and others like it in order to gain a window into understanding some of Shakespeare’s history plays. The background knowledge of some of the events certainly helped, but I think now I will be moving away from such readings.
It should have been two books!
The first three hundred pages or so depicted the final days of Edward IV’s reign. It was told in all the detail is should have been. A perfect end to the novel would have been the death of such a stable monarch. The aftermath that followed was chaotic and uncertain, again, a great place to leave off. The second part of the novel (only around a hundred pages or so) depicted Richard III’s kingship. This crammed in his courtship of his own niece, the death of his wife, the princes in the tower incident and his demise at Bosworth. So that’s quite a lot of story to fit in before the rise of the Tudor dynasty.
Having read the previous three books over a number of years (normally just after release) I was very eager to see the end of this one. It’s a period of history I find fascinating. I read Philippa Gregory’s The Cousin’s War series in conjunction with this, and I couldn’t wait to see how Iggulden addressed the rise and fall of Richard III in comparison. Unfortunately, he absolutely butchered it. What we have here is a basic, brushed over series of events that needed their own novel. Richard was betrayed by his own men, I know why, but Iggulden didn’t show me here. Instead it felt completely random and unjustified.
Where's Richard?
The result was a very, very, disappointing ending to a series I’ve enjoyed immensely over the last three years. There were so many gaps in the narrative and so many things barely touched upon. The Buckingham rebellion was over before it even began, the final action sequence was fairly well written though it had no foundations to achieve any dramatic effect. Sharon Penman’s The Sunne in Spelndour makes Iggulden’s depiction of Richard seem lazy and amateurish. Dare I say it, but the villainous one dimensional version created by Shakespeare had more substance and character to him. And that says a lot considering the Bard purposely made him narrow minded, perverted and plain evil as to gain favour with the Tudor dynasty.
However, this isn’t to overlook the first part of the novel even if the Richard section was quite literally slapped on the end. There was some great storytelling; it was up to standard and it really followed on well from the previous book. The title “Ravenspur” is a reference to Edward’s return landing onto the shores of England. It’s appropriate. The second part “Rise of the Tudors” should have been the name for the fifth book in the series, a book that should have just been about Richard III and the subsequent victory of Henry VII.
I read this series and others like it in order to gain a window into understanding some of Shakespeare’s history plays. The background knowledge of some of the events certainly helped, but I think now I will be moving away from such readings.
August 18, 2017
Ravenspur is the final book (I would think) in Conn Iggulden's superb history of the Wars of the Roses.
The tale begins with Edward IV, of House York, returning to England after being chased out by forces Loyal to Henry VI, House Lancaster, the current King of England. But Henry VI is old and frail. Edward lands in England, at Ravenspur, to wage war with the full might of his Plantagenet bloodline.
Putting aside any historical judgements of their rule as Kings of England, I would just like to point out that there IS something to be said of the Plantagenet bloodline when it comes to war and battle. As an aside the Plantagenet line, which is from Anjou in France, was always of interest to me. The name itself is said to derive from "Plante Geneste" (Latin for Broom Plant-it's a yellow plant-the Counts of Anjou used to wear them on the side of their helmets) which was the nickname for Geoffery, Count of Anjou and Duke of Normandy. Now some historians hailing usually from England, and the occasional rogue Princeton guy, debate the ACTUAL "coming of" the Plantagenets to England starting with Henry II (1133-1189) or with King Henry III (1216 - 1272).
The reason behind this is the aforementioned "Anjou in France" bit. See the original Plantagenets were really Angevins (literally "from Anjou". . This was an old line of powerful French noble families. Though France, during the 1100's, was not not the nation state of today. The reach of the French King wasn't too far outside Paris. Thus powerful Duchies like Anjou or Normandy had their own Lords who often rivaled the King of France's power. The Angevins sported the three golden lions rampant-a sign of their control of England, the Duchy of Normandy and the Duchy of Aquitane. Henry II, Richard the Lion Hearted and King John I were all Angevin Kings. They spoke French (Richard had a smattering of English), had extensive holdings in France and through crafty marriages had managed to become a true force.
The Plantagenet line, therefore, is truly said to start with King Henry III. He was born in England and ruled from 1216-1272. His father was King John I. This Plantagenet line ends in 1399 with Henry IV, House Lancaster, forcing Richard II (his cousin) to abdicate. Henry IV is the son of John of Gaunt, First Duke Lancaster-himself the fourth son of Edward III.
Anyways the whole point of that rambling jaunt through the convoluted world of European Dynastic Gymnastics was to point out that I, as a Military Historian, have admired the ability of the Plantagenet Kings of England to embody the English concept of "Battle King". And boy were there some great ones- Henry II, Richard I (the Lion Hearted), Edward I (Longshanks, 'The Hammer of the Scots'), and Edward III all were truly warriors of tremendous skill and fearsome physical attributes compared to even other noble Houses of the age. In all the varied tomes I've come across this Plantagenet name and its attendant "Battle Kings" I keep running across people who remark on their large and powerful frames. Kings though they may be it is unwise to judge the Kings of this time by the modern standards. These were truly gifted warriors and woe be unto you in these times if you lined up against them in battle.
Oh yeah..sorry...the book? It's great. Um here is a spoiler that's not really a spoiler-the Tudors win. If this is news to you and you're angry with me-please immediately run to the bookstore and buy a History book. Now. For the rest of you- the author tells a great tale of essentially the fight of Edward IV to claim ("reclaim", one could say, technically) the Crown and for Richard III to keep it.
For those of you raised to suckle at the teats of Shakespeare you will find a warrior's description of Richard. I tend to agree with the author's description rather than the more fanciful, and no doubt more artistic, rendition of Richard III as a hunch-backed and diabolically nefarious character. I believe, IMHO, that he truly did love his brother Edward. But with Edward's death the entire equation changed. But that's me. I think you should judge for yourself. Now stop reading this overly long review and go read this excellent book.
The tale begins with Edward IV, of House York, returning to England after being chased out by forces Loyal to Henry VI, House Lancaster, the current King of England. But Henry VI is old and frail. Edward lands in England, at Ravenspur, to wage war with the full might of his Plantagenet bloodline.
Putting aside any historical judgements of their rule as Kings of England, I would just like to point out that there IS something to be said of the Plantagenet bloodline when it comes to war and battle. As an aside the Plantagenet line, which is from Anjou in France, was always of interest to me. The name itself is said to derive from "Plante Geneste" (Latin for Broom Plant-it's a yellow plant-the Counts of Anjou used to wear them on the side of their helmets) which was the nickname for Geoffery, Count of Anjou and Duke of Normandy. Now some historians hailing usually from England, and the occasional rogue Princeton guy, debate the ACTUAL "coming of" the Plantagenets to England starting with Henry II (1133-1189) or with King Henry III (1216 - 1272).
The reason behind this is the aforementioned "Anjou in France" bit. See the original Plantagenets were really Angevins (literally "from Anjou". . This was an old line of powerful French noble families. Though France, during the 1100's, was not not the nation state of today. The reach of the French King wasn't too far outside Paris. Thus powerful Duchies like Anjou or Normandy had their own Lords who often rivaled the King of France's power. The Angevins sported the three golden lions rampant-a sign of their control of England, the Duchy of Normandy and the Duchy of Aquitane. Henry II, Richard the Lion Hearted and King John I were all Angevin Kings. They spoke French (Richard had a smattering of English), had extensive holdings in France and through crafty marriages had managed to become a true force.
The Plantagenet line, therefore, is truly said to start with King Henry III. He was born in England and ruled from 1216-1272. His father was King John I. This Plantagenet line ends in 1399 with Henry IV, House Lancaster, forcing Richard II (his cousin) to abdicate. Henry IV is the son of John of Gaunt, First Duke Lancaster-himself the fourth son of Edward III.
Anyways the whole point of that rambling jaunt through the convoluted world of European Dynastic Gymnastics was to point out that I, as a Military Historian, have admired the ability of the Plantagenet Kings of England to embody the English concept of "Battle King". And boy were there some great ones- Henry II, Richard I (the Lion Hearted), Edward I (Longshanks, 'The Hammer of the Scots'), and Edward III all were truly warriors of tremendous skill and fearsome physical attributes compared to even other noble Houses of the age. In all the varied tomes I've come across this Plantagenet name and its attendant "Battle Kings" I keep running across people who remark on their large and powerful frames. Kings though they may be it is unwise to judge the Kings of this time by the modern standards. These were truly gifted warriors and woe be unto you in these times if you lined up against them in battle.
Oh yeah..sorry...the book? It's great. Um here is a spoiler that's not really a spoiler-the Tudors win. If this is news to you and you're angry with me-please immediately run to the bookstore and buy a History book. Now. For the rest of you- the author tells a great tale of essentially the fight of Edward IV to claim ("reclaim", one could say, technically) the Crown and for Richard III to keep it.
For those of you raised to suckle at the teats of Shakespeare you will find a warrior's description of Richard. I tend to agree with the author's description rather than the more fanciful, and no doubt more artistic, rendition of Richard III as a hunch-backed and diabolically nefarious character. I believe, IMHO, that he truly did love his brother Edward. But with Edward's death the entire equation changed. But that's me. I think you should judge for yourself. Now stop reading this overly long review and go read this excellent book.
September 13, 2016
This is one of the best novels that I have read on the Wars of the Roses, and I do not say that lightly. Part of me is surprised that I can make such a statement about a book that does not necessarily portray each historical figure as I would have or highlight the events that I would feature, but, regardless of any differences in opinion that I might have with Iggulden, this book is amazing.
You know how one could be put to death in medieval times by being pulled apart by four horses? That's kind of how this book feels . . . . but in a good way.
In one corner, we have Margaret of Anjou, who Iggulden has attempted to force us to sympathize with throughout the series. In the first book, Stormbird, I would say he accomplishes this. Seeing Margaret as a hopeful young bride with little understanding of the greater political game being played around her, shed new light upon her. Unfortunately, I have yet to find an author who can justify the bloody acts perpetrated by Margaret in the name of her catatonic husband. In this book, she makes her last stand. I knew it was coming, knew what was going to happen, but for once wasn't thinking that she was finally getting what she deserved. No mother deserves what Margaret went through, even if she had caused so many other mothers to go through the same thing.
In the next corner, those irresistible Sons of York. So easy to cheer for despite their arrogance and weaknesses that eventually bring about the end of the Plantagenet dynasty. Iggulden shows us the closeness between Edward the warrior king and his devoted brother, Richard, while managing to realistically demonstrate how that could have easily evolved into self-preservation on Richard's part upon Edward's death. Edward and Richard were so well-versed in war that neither seemed to really know how to be a king of peace.
Then we have Richard Neville, earl of Warwick. To me, he is the real star of this series. Instead of being a wily kingmaker who puts whomever on the throne that will give him the greater power, he is portrayed as a man always trying to do the right thing - yes, the right thing for himself, but even more so for his country. He is haunted by the execution of his father and tortured by the idea of going to war with young men whom he thinks of as sons. Maybe that is why he made the poor tactical decisions that led to his death. I have never read a better characterization of this man who had such a vital impact on the Wars of the Roses. I wanted him to be victorious, for he and Edward to be reconciled and live happily ever after. Damn historical fact.
Finally, the Tudors were constantly sneaking around the edges of this story like that quiet contestant on 'Survivor' who is victorious in the end because everyone else has destroyed each other. Jasper is less gloriously and probably more realistically portrayed as a man who is unafraid of doing whatever it takes to protect his nephew. Henry's cold manner that he is so famous for is satisfactorily explained as the result of a childhood void of affection, but it serves him well when calmly leading men, unemotional in the face of horrible odds.
Each of these players was brought to life in a way that made me wish that none of them had to die. But they did, and often with an eerie quietness that gave me chills. Instead of the big build up and dramatic death scene often found in novels, these characters died like everyone else, from a chance weapon swing or unnoticed opponent. Felled by illness or a victim of their own impetuosity, they died without false glorification. I didn't even have time to cry for them before events moved on without them.
They all had faults. Margaret's ruthlessness. Edward's hunger for blood and adventure that could only be fed by drink when he was at peace. Warwick's reluctance to take the big steps that would bring about resolution. Each of them committed violent acts that would haunt them. They were each so real.
Usually an author lets you know who the hero of a story is. When we review books of this era, we say things like, 'This was a Lancastrian point of view' or 'a Ricardian novel.' This was the story of them all, and I wanted everyone to win. But there were so few real winners in the Wars of the Roses. After all, that's how Henry Tudor was crowned in the end. Nobody else was left.
You know how one could be put to death in medieval times by being pulled apart by four horses? That's kind of how this book feels . . . . but in a good way.
In one corner, we have Margaret of Anjou, who Iggulden has attempted to force us to sympathize with throughout the series. In the first book, Stormbird, I would say he accomplishes this. Seeing Margaret as a hopeful young bride with little understanding of the greater political game being played around her, shed new light upon her. Unfortunately, I have yet to find an author who can justify the bloody acts perpetrated by Margaret in the name of her catatonic husband. In this book, she makes her last stand. I knew it was coming, knew what was going to happen, but for once wasn't thinking that she was finally getting what she deserved. No mother deserves what Margaret went through, even if she had caused so many other mothers to go through the same thing.
In the next corner, those irresistible Sons of York. So easy to cheer for despite their arrogance and weaknesses that eventually bring about the end of the Plantagenet dynasty. Iggulden shows us the closeness between Edward the warrior king and his devoted brother, Richard, while managing to realistically demonstrate how that could have easily evolved into self-preservation on Richard's part upon Edward's death. Edward and Richard were so well-versed in war that neither seemed to really know how to be a king of peace.
Then we have Richard Neville, earl of Warwick. To me, he is the real star of this series. Instead of being a wily kingmaker who puts whomever on the throne that will give him the greater power, he is portrayed as a man always trying to do the right thing - yes, the right thing for himself, but even more so for his country. He is haunted by the execution of his father and tortured by the idea of going to war with young men whom he thinks of as sons. Maybe that is why he made the poor tactical decisions that led to his death. I have never read a better characterization of this man who had such a vital impact on the Wars of the Roses. I wanted him to be victorious, for he and Edward to be reconciled and live happily ever after. Damn historical fact.
Finally, the Tudors were constantly sneaking around the edges of this story like that quiet contestant on 'Survivor' who is victorious in the end because everyone else has destroyed each other. Jasper is less gloriously and probably more realistically portrayed as a man who is unafraid of doing whatever it takes to protect his nephew. Henry's cold manner that he is so famous for is satisfactorily explained as the result of a childhood void of affection, but it serves him well when calmly leading men, unemotional in the face of horrible odds.
Each of these players was brought to life in a way that made me wish that none of them had to die. But they did, and often with an eerie quietness that gave me chills. Instead of the big build up and dramatic death scene often found in novels, these characters died like everyone else, from a chance weapon swing or unnoticed opponent. Felled by illness or a victim of their own impetuosity, they died without false glorification. I didn't even have time to cry for them before events moved on without them.
They all had faults. Margaret's ruthlessness. Edward's hunger for blood and adventure that could only be fed by drink when he was at peace. Warwick's reluctance to take the big steps that would bring about resolution. Each of them committed violent acts that would haunt them. They were each so real.
Usually an author lets you know who the hero of a story is. When we review books of this era, we say things like, 'This was a Lancastrian point of view' or 'a Ricardian novel.' This was the story of them all, and I wanted everyone to win. But there were so few real winners in the Wars of the Roses. After all, that's how Henry Tudor was crowned in the end. Nobody else was left.
September 2, 2016
Not so enamoured overall with this chapter, found it a little staid in places as we jus ground out the historical timeline........ maybe thou that’s a tad harsh seeing as its a generational series & most of my favourite characters are no more..... the author hasn’t really brought any new characters to life in this chapter which is prolly reasonable as many don’t survive long enough to be fleshed out but it does make it a little characterless at times when the main (surviving) protagonists are interacting with the non-entities..... found it more of a history lesson then political skulduggery but to be fair thats how Edward IV was, potent with a war hammer in his hand meeting out “justice” to one n all, not half the intrigue/player where peace abounds. He defo wasn’t a schemer, more a “smash yer face” in style of king!
Must say thou I enjoyed the history side of it immensely & now realise I didn’t know the half of what occurred in this period of history.
Another niggle was that i felt the ending was hurried a little, years were omitted & it felt almost like trying to squeeze it in at the end......
I really enjoyed it for the most part but the niggles when comparing it to the last 2 books leave me rounding the 3.5 stars down to a three stars which is still fairly good. Defo a series worth reading overall as has much to offer the history buffs amongst you, I would rate it a four overall.
Must say thou I enjoyed the history side of it immensely & now realise I didn’t know the half of what occurred in this period of history.
Another niggle was that i felt the ending was hurried a little, years were omitted & it felt almost like trying to squeeze it in at the end......
I really enjoyed it for the most part but the niggles when comparing it to the last 2 books leave me rounding the 3.5 stars down to a three stars which is still fairly good. Defo a series worth reading overall as has much to offer the history buffs amongst you, I would rate it a four overall.
January 20, 2022
Incredibly bored by this long, stale story. 1 of 10 stars
August 9, 2022
This was slow and the ending was truly rushed.
Meh.
I'm unimpressed for the most part this series focuses on war, battles and lightly skims everything else.
🤷🏾♀️
Meh.
I'm unimpressed for the most part this series focuses on war, battles and lightly skims everything else.
🤷🏾♀️
July 14, 2017
Okay, this will be short and sweet and will cover the whole series because, to be honest, there's not much of a difference between the books.
The Wars of the Roses series is a solid recounting of history, and by solid I mean that the reader (listener, in my case) gets a pretty good picture of the roots of the initial conflict and how it escalated into a decades long war that not only decimated the English nobility but also put a huge burden on the common people.
That's about it, really. Iggulden forgets, however, that a story needs relatable characters and there was simply none. Well, maybe with the exception of Henry VI's spy master, Derry Brewer.
Even the first book's main conflict, Jack Cade's revolt that included a huge group of common people unhappy about Henry VI's politics - especially the loss of land in France - can't breathe life into the story.
So, all in all, it's a repetition of a part of history that I could have read up on Wikipedia. What did make me scoff a little was how stereo-typically the two main female characters, Magaret of Anjou and Katherine Woodeville, were portrayed. Very one-dimensional, and in Katherine Woodeville's case almost a caricature in her spite against Richard Neville, whilst Neville was the noble brother/father-figure to the three York brothers whose only mistake - and ultimate demise - was to trust them. It just underlines my opinion that history is always open to interpretation, depending on what the author/historian prefers.
The narration was good, though, Hence the second star because it made a rather dour story entertaining enough to listen.
The Wars of the Roses series is a solid recounting of history, and by solid I mean that the reader (listener, in my case) gets a pretty good picture of the roots of the initial conflict and how it escalated into a decades long war that not only decimated the English nobility but also put a huge burden on the common people.
That's about it, really. Iggulden forgets, however, that a story needs relatable characters and there was simply none. Well, maybe with the exception of Henry VI's spy master, Derry Brewer.
Even the first book's main conflict, Jack Cade's revolt that included a huge group of common people unhappy about Henry VI's politics - especially the loss of land in France - can't breathe life into the story.
So, all in all, it's a repetition of a part of history that I could have read up on Wikipedia. What did make me scoff a little was how stereo-typically the two main female characters, Magaret of Anjou and Katherine Woodeville, were portrayed. Very one-dimensional, and in Katherine Woodeville's case almost a caricature in her spite against Richard Neville, whilst Neville was the noble brother/father-figure to the three York brothers whose only mistake - and ultimate demise - was to trust them. It just underlines my opinion that history is always open to interpretation, depending on what the author/historian prefers.
The narration was good, though, Hence the second star because it made a rather dour story entertaining enough to listen.
July 7, 2024
Review for book 1: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
(1) Let's face it, I don't like this Edward guy, like, not at all. So I am not happy when he is winning.
(2) I know, it is a historical novel so we can barely change the historical events just to suit our likes and dislikes, but still.
(3) I don't think Richard III's motivation of killing his older brother's sons was well explained *in the story*, Iggulden explained in the history notes that Richard killed the boys as a result of him hardened his heart after experiencing 30-plus years of wars. Well, it can be the reason, but *in the story* there is barely any character development for Richard's character to let the readers see how the guy turned from a adoring younger brother to a child killer after his older brother Edward's death.
(4) Henry Tudor also barely has much development, but his story is okay enough so I have no complaint.
(5) I like how the final battle did Richard III justice by showing his bravery, instead of letting him be a comical villain.
(6) As for Warwick, Edward and the York clan's biggest supporter and then he turned against them...too bad he isn't all that great on the battlefield.
(7) A nice conclusion for a 4 books series, but I do hope there can be more exploration of the Tudor clan and how they ran their business .
(1) Let's face it, I don't like this Edward guy, like, not at all. So I am not happy when he is winning.
(2) I know, it is a historical novel so we can barely change the historical events just to suit our likes and dislikes, but still.
(3) I don't think Richard III's motivation of killing his older brother's sons was well explained *in the story*, Iggulden explained in the history notes that Richard killed the boys as a result of him hardened his heart after experiencing 30-plus years of wars. Well, it can be the reason, but *in the story* there is barely any character development for Richard's character to let the readers see how the guy turned from a adoring younger brother to a child killer after his older brother Edward's death.
(4) Henry Tudor also barely has much development, but his story is okay enough so I have no complaint.
(5) I like how the final battle did Richard III justice by showing his bravery, instead of letting him be a comical villain.
(6) As for Warwick, Edward and the York clan's biggest supporter and then he turned against them...too bad he isn't all that great on the battlefield.
(7) A nice conclusion for a 4 books series, but I do hope there can be more exploration of the Tudor clan and how they ran their business .
January 3, 2018
This fantastic series concludes in spectacular style. Masterly telling of the Wars of the Roses including a particularly intriguing portrait of Richard the Gloucester, later to become Richard III.
May 23, 2024
It actually pains me to give this book only 3 (1/2) stars. I wish I could give it more, because I really liked the first three books and I almost did, because it did some things that were very important to me right.
For example, neither Richard III nor Henry VII was portrayed as a mustache twirling villain who abuses everyone who crosses their path. I would even argue that for most of the time both of them were amongst the most likeable characters. A huge relief for me, because I just like it better when both sides of the conflict have understandable motives and characters to root for even if the author is maybe a bit biased towards one side or family (for example, I thought it was crystal clear that the author is not fond of the Woodvilles).
But somehow towards the end, this seemed to fly out of the window. I suddenly couldn't understand why Richard was doing the things he did anymore. Especially strange in his POV parts. He became totally flat all of sudden. As did Edward IV, but I think that may have been the author trying to show the reader how his alcoholism affected him. Still weird that in one scene he's frowning at his children for weeping about their sister's death the year before and yet in the next he is super pained by it himself.
This flatness in particular dragged down the book for me, because it's full of scenes surrounding battles. Raising banners. Planning. Waiting for the battle to start. The battle. Fleeing. Betrayal. It all gets a bit repetitive with time, which is a shame. Obviously the battles really happened and I would never want to erase them from the book, but give me characters with some depths to root for or be sad about when they die. It worked fine in the three books prior!
Note: The highborn people actually all seemed like assholes in the end (to modern sensibilites), cutting off ears of people doing their jobs, burning villages, violating sanctuary to slaughter more soldiers etc. It makes those actions easier to bear when they're otherwise interesting enough to make up for it - especially when one has historical people like this at their disposal.
I do have to say that everything about the battles felt realistic. I could see everything in my head very easily.
I also sort of missed the women? Margaret of Anjou took a backseat compared to the other books, which was fine. Her story was almost finished. Elizabeth Woodville never had a big role (but a thankless one). But what about Margaret Beaufort? Shouldn't she have been a bit more prominent? Or Anne Neville? Also maybe the future Queen, Elizabeth of York? I think all three of them together don't even reach five pages out of over 450, which is a shame.
But then even Henry VII got way less than I expected given "The Rise of the Tudors" being on the cover. Henry VI was (fittingly in this case!) barely a character anymore and I have honestly no idea why Derry Brewer was even brought back for this. .
The book was essentially mostly about Edward IV, Richard III and their battles.
And I did truly love their relationship. I could feel their love and respect for each other and a lot of scenes were saved through them for me.
Same with Jasper Tudor and Henry. Those two relationships probably were the highlight of this book to me.
In the end I don't think this is a bad book at all. I don't think I've wasted my time reading it and there are things about it I loved. I will remain fond of this series and recommend it to others. I just wish this last one had simply been more. Especially since obviously a lot of care and research went into writing this series. Maybe I will re-read it one day and raise the rating to four stars afterall. We will see. I do know that I will definitely read more books by this author.
For example, neither Richard III nor Henry VII was portrayed as a mustache twirling villain who abuses everyone who crosses their path. I would even argue that for most of the time both of them were amongst the most likeable characters. A huge relief for me, because I just like it better when both sides of the conflict have understandable motives and characters to root for even if the author is maybe a bit biased towards one side or family (for example, I thought it was crystal clear that the author is not fond of the Woodvilles).
But somehow towards the end, this seemed to fly out of the window. I suddenly couldn't understand why Richard was doing the things he did anymore. Especially strange in his POV parts. He became totally flat all of sudden. As did Edward IV, but I think that may have been the author trying to show the reader how his alcoholism affected him. Still weird that in one scene he's frowning at his children for weeping about their sister's death the year before and yet in the next he is super pained by it himself.
This flatness in particular dragged down the book for me, because it's full of scenes surrounding battles. Raising banners. Planning. Waiting for the battle to start. The battle. Fleeing. Betrayal. It all gets a bit repetitive with time, which is a shame. Obviously the battles really happened and I would never want to erase them from the book, but give me characters with some depths to root for or be sad about when they die. It worked fine in the three books prior!
Note: The highborn people actually all seemed like assholes in the end (to modern sensibilites), cutting off ears of people doing their jobs, burning villages, violating sanctuary to slaughter more soldiers etc. It makes those actions easier to bear when they're otherwise interesting enough to make up for it - especially when one has historical people like this at their disposal.
I do have to say that everything about the battles felt realistic. I could see everything in my head very easily.
I also sort of missed the women? Margaret of Anjou took a backseat compared to the other books, which was fine. Her story was almost finished. Elizabeth Woodville never had a big role (but a thankless one). But what about Margaret Beaufort? Shouldn't she have been a bit more prominent? Or Anne Neville? Also maybe the future Queen, Elizabeth of York? I think all three of them together don't even reach five pages out of over 450, which is a shame.
But then even Henry VII got way less than I expected given "The Rise of the Tudors" being on the cover. Henry VI was (fittingly in this case!) barely a character anymore and I have honestly no idea why Derry Brewer was even brought back for this. .
The book was essentially mostly about Edward IV, Richard III and their battles.
And I did truly love their relationship. I could feel their love and respect for each other and a lot of scenes were saved through them for me.
Same with Jasper Tudor and Henry. Those two relationships probably were the highlight of this book to me.
In the end I don't think this is a bad book at all. I don't think I've wasted my time reading it and there are things about it I loved. I will remain fond of this series and recommend it to others. I just wish this last one had simply been more. Especially since obviously a lot of care and research went into writing this series. Maybe I will re-read it one day and raise the rating to four stars afterall. We will see. I do know that I will definitely read more books by this author.
July 4, 2017
I felt that this final entry into his Wars of the Roses Series is the weakest book in the series. In this novel, Mr. Iggulden divides the narrative into two parts. The first is the restoration of Henry VI 1470 and Edward IV’s subsequent recapturing the throne in 1471. The second part is basically the story of Richard III reign, from 1482-1485 and his defeat at Bosworth Field.
In telling the story of the events of 1470/71, the author starts off with the future Henry VII escaping with his uncle, Jasper Tudor, from Pembroke Castle. I thought this was a very well done sequence, but after introducing us to Henry, he doesn’t reappear until the final chapters of the novel. The picture Mr. Iggulden paints of Henry is a boy who grew up both unloved and unwanted by the people who are caring for him.
After Henry escapes, the story turns to Edward and his brother Richard. The picture the author draws of Edward is not at all flattering! He is depicted as a womanizing, drunken and overweight lout. Richard is the faithful little brother who does Edward’s dirty work. I thought Mr. Iggulden’s portrayal of Richard’s spinal problems and the affect they had on him was well done.
As Warwick returns to England to restore Henry VI he catches Edward completely unprepared. The scenes of Edward racing for a port to escape Warwick are also very well done. Once Edward and his small retinue arrive at the court of the Duke of Burgundy, his determination to regain his crown and get back into fighting shape are vivid. I thought this was some of the best scenes in the novel. As Edward returns to England the focus shifts to the Earl of Warwick and just how his is going to handle Edward’s return. His torment about what to do with his erstwhile protégé and a man he still respects in many ways is well drawn. According to the author’s take, his indecision about what to do with Edward leads to mistakes at the Battle of Barnet and his ultimate defeat and death. Also in this section of the novel Mr. Iggulden choses to have Richard kill off the only major fictional character in all four books - the Lancastrian spy master, Derry Brewer.
Finally the author caps off this section with the Battle of Tewksbury and the Death of Henry VI’s son and heir, Edward. A note of the character of Henry VI. In this entry of the series, he is portrayed as a literal shell of a man, with almost no independent thought or actions. Why anyone would want this man anywhere near the throne is beyond comprehension.
After the defeat of the Lancastrians at Tewksbury, the author fast forwards 11 years to the final days of Edward’s reign and the rise of his brother Richard. While there are some individual scenes that are well drawn as a whole this section seems rushed and almost tacked on. Unlike the Richard of the first section of the novel, the Richard of this section is almost a cardboard cutout. There is almost no exploring of his motives or reasons for the path he took. Also the author ducks the big questions about Richard, Did he kill Henry VI and did he have the Princes in the Tower killed. There is just a brief mention of both.
Lastly, in spite of the subtitle “Rise of the Tudors”, Henry Tudor is a minor character in the novel at best. He appears in the first 30 pages and the last 30 pages of an almost 500 page novel.
While I have my problems with the novel, I still thought this was an entertaining read and I enjoyed it. For the problems noted, I would rate this a bare 4 star read.
In telling the story of the events of 1470/71, the author starts off with the future Henry VII escaping with his uncle, Jasper Tudor, from Pembroke Castle. I thought this was a very well done sequence, but after introducing us to Henry, he doesn’t reappear until the final chapters of the novel. The picture Mr. Iggulden paints of Henry is a boy who grew up both unloved and unwanted by the people who are caring for him.
After Henry escapes, the story turns to Edward and his brother Richard. The picture the author draws of Edward is not at all flattering! He is depicted as a womanizing, drunken and overweight lout. Richard is the faithful little brother who does Edward’s dirty work. I thought Mr. Iggulden’s portrayal of Richard’s spinal problems and the affect they had on him was well done.
As Warwick returns to England to restore Henry VI he catches Edward completely unprepared. The scenes of Edward racing for a port to escape Warwick are also very well done. Once Edward and his small retinue arrive at the court of the Duke of Burgundy, his determination to regain his crown and get back into fighting shape are vivid. I thought this was some of the best scenes in the novel. As Edward returns to England the focus shifts to the Earl of Warwick and just how his is going to handle Edward’s return. His torment about what to do with his erstwhile protégé and a man he still respects in many ways is well drawn. According to the author’s take, his indecision about what to do with Edward leads to mistakes at the Battle of Barnet and his ultimate defeat and death. Also in this section of the novel Mr. Iggulden choses to have Richard kill off the only major fictional character in all four books - the Lancastrian spy master, Derry Brewer.
Finally the author caps off this section with the Battle of Tewksbury and the Death of Henry VI’s son and heir, Edward. A note of the character of Henry VI. In this entry of the series, he is portrayed as a literal shell of a man, with almost no independent thought or actions. Why anyone would want this man anywhere near the throne is beyond comprehension.
After the defeat of the Lancastrians at Tewksbury, the author fast forwards 11 years to the final days of Edward’s reign and the rise of his brother Richard. While there are some individual scenes that are well drawn as a whole this section seems rushed and almost tacked on. Unlike the Richard of the first section of the novel, the Richard of this section is almost a cardboard cutout. There is almost no exploring of his motives or reasons for the path he took. Also the author ducks the big questions about Richard, Did he kill Henry VI and did he have the Princes in the Tower killed. There is just a brief mention of both.
Lastly, in spite of the subtitle “Rise of the Tudors”, Henry Tudor is a minor character in the novel at best. He appears in the first 30 pages and the last 30 pages of an almost 500 page novel.
While I have my problems with the novel, I still thought this was an entertaining read and I enjoyed it. For the problems noted, I would rate this a bare 4 star read.
October 13, 2017
The Henry VIII and Six Wives saga is my particular passion as far as Tudor history, but I was drawn farther back recently when I happened upon "The White Queen" series on Starz. I was quite captivated by this depiction of the finale to the Wars of the Roses saga that put Henry Tudor (or Henry VII) on the throne of England. I was about to start reading the corresponding Phillipa Gregory books that informed "The White Queen" when I spotted "Ravenspur: Rise of the Tudors (The Wars of the Roses, #4)". Author Conn Iggulden has finished off his Wars of the Roses series with this book, the other three in the series being "Stormbird", "Margaret of Anjou" and "Bloodline". The whole 4-book series can be purchased as one large kindle book called "The Complete Collection". In fact, even though I was provided the kindle file of "Ravenspur" from the publisher via NetGalley to review, I opted to purchase "The Complete Collection" to enjoy the whole book series on my own. The fact that I did that is a testament to the quality of this book.
This is historical fiction that the author took great care in researching and setting a careful pen to certain facts up for debate. For instance, did Richard III really have his two nephews killed in the Tower? There is also much mention of Richard III's painful scoliotic spine as well as his fortitude and strength in overcoming that weakness. Author Iggulden is skillful at cultivating the historical characters in the book to connect their personalities with the reader. This can be found in his characterization of King Edward of York who drank and cavorted with other women to excess; yet, when exiled from England and in anticipation of reclaiming his throne, he was resolute in abstaining from this destructive behavior and harnessing his physical and mental strength. Edward of York's skill on the battlefield was legendary and the author translated this very well.
His recounting of some of the most historic battles between the rival branches of the royal House of Plantagenet: the House of Lancaster and the House of York, such as the Battles of Barnet, Tewkesbury and Bosworth Field are riveting. I would recommend this fine book to those wanting to experience this major chapter in British Royal history.
This book was provided to me by the publisher via NetGalley in return for my fair and honest review.
This is historical fiction that the author took great care in researching and setting a careful pen to certain facts up for debate. For instance, did Richard III really have his two nephews killed in the Tower? There is also much mention of Richard III's painful scoliotic spine as well as his fortitude and strength in overcoming that weakness. Author Iggulden is skillful at cultivating the historical characters in the book to connect their personalities with the reader. This can be found in his characterization of King Edward of York who drank and cavorted with other women to excess; yet, when exiled from England and in anticipation of reclaiming his throne, he was resolute in abstaining from this destructive behavior and harnessing his physical and mental strength. Edward of York's skill on the battlefield was legendary and the author translated this very well.
His recounting of some of the most historic battles between the rival branches of the royal House of Plantagenet: the House of Lancaster and the House of York, such as the Battles of Barnet, Tewkesbury and Bosworth Field are riveting. I would recommend this fine book to those wanting to experience this major chapter in British Royal history.
This book was provided to me by the publisher via NetGalley in return for my fair and honest review.
June 3, 2016
Book 1: Stormbird review
Book 2: Trinity review
Book 3: Bloodline review
This is probably my favourite series ever. I was a little tentative going into this because a lot of reviews had said it wasn't as good as the first three books, but honestly I loved it just as much. This novel is really the fall of Warwick and the Lancaster cause, the end of Edward IV and subsequent rise of Richard III, and, as we near the end, the start of the Tudors. The Wars of the Roses is such an interesting period of history, full of people that are so much fun to read about.
Both Richard (Plantagenet) and Henry (Tudor) were really intriguing characters and I think Conn Iggulden wrote them well. For some reason there are so many rumours around Richard and it's always interesting to read him in a new light. There is his hunchback (although there's no evidence of that actually being a thing), the princes in the Tower, and I had also read somewhere that he might have poisoned Edward, though I doubt that. He wasn't King for very long but he was in the general picture for a long time so I enjoyed seeing his character and trying to work out his motives. Apart from that: I could read about King Louis XI all day; Warwick slowly became my favourite character over the course of the series; age and experience has changed Derry so much and his development has been interesting to read through; and the ladies behind the scenes of these wars are incredible.
I don't have much more to add other than Iggulden is a fantastic writer and I think he's done this piece of history justice in this series. I'm left wanting more in the best way. I'm sad that this series has concluded but I think it ended at the perfect place, and I honestly can't wait to read more from Iggulden in the future.
Book 2: Trinity review
Book 3: Bloodline review
This is probably my favourite series ever. I was a little tentative going into this because a lot of reviews had said it wasn't as good as the first three books, but honestly I loved it just as much. This novel is really the fall of Warwick and the Lancaster cause, the end of Edward IV and subsequent rise of Richard III, and, as we near the end, the start of the Tudors. The Wars of the Roses is such an interesting period of history, full of people that are so much fun to read about.
Both Richard (Plantagenet) and Henry (Tudor) were really intriguing characters and I think Conn Iggulden wrote them well. For some reason there are so many rumours around Richard and it's always interesting to read him in a new light. There is his hunchback (although there's no evidence of that actually being a thing), the princes in the Tower, and I had also read somewhere that he might have poisoned Edward, though I doubt that. He wasn't King for very long but he was in the general picture for a long time so I enjoyed seeing his character and trying to work out his motives. Apart from that: I could read about King Louis XI all day; Warwick slowly became my favourite character over the course of the series; age and experience has changed Derry so much and his development has been interesting to read through; and the ladies behind the scenes of these wars are incredible.
I don't have much more to add other than Iggulden is a fantastic writer and I think he's done this piece of history justice in this series. I'm left wanting more in the best way. I'm sad that this series has concluded but I think it ended at the perfect place, and I honestly can't wait to read more from Iggulden in the future.
January 25, 2022
I began this series in the beginning of October. What? I just realized that I read the entire series in 17 days! I never intended to gobble it up that fast, but I had all 4 books sitting here and I just could not stop myself.
This last chapter in The War of Roses covers the final years of the York's trying to keep hold of the crown and Margaret of Anjou trying to restore the Lancaster's. All the while the Tudor's lurk in the background. Some of the worst battles for the crown are included here, and the author writes them well.
Many readers were disappointed in the author's ending. He condenses the rise of Tudor in the last 100 pages. For me, that was fine. This was not about the Tudors. It was about the Yorks and Lancasters and the ending satisfied me. I think it leaves the door open for Conn Iggulden to write "The Reign of The Tudors"-you hearing me Mr. Iggulden?
This last chapter in The War of Roses covers the final years of the York's trying to keep hold of the crown and Margaret of Anjou trying to restore the Lancaster's. All the while the Tudor's lurk in the background. Some of the worst battles for the crown are included here, and the author writes them well.
Many readers were disappointed in the author's ending. He condenses the rise of Tudor in the last 100 pages. For me, that was fine. This was not about the Tudors. It was about the Yorks and Lancasters and the ending satisfied me. I think it leaves the door open for Conn Iggulden to write "The Reign of The Tudors"-you hearing me Mr. Iggulden?
April 3, 2018
This book follows the author's trilogy on England's War of the Roses which I finished reading over 2 years ago. At the time I finished that series I was somewhat critical of how the author ended his trilogy. The last book ended shortly after the Battle of Towton in 1460. In my understanding of English history the War of the Roses didn't definitively end until the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485. In my opinion the War was not over and there was some significant history yet to be played out and a 4th book was needed. Well some 2 years later this is that missing book and it completes the story started in the trilogy and it is every bit as good as the three books that preceded it.
"Ravenspur" begins in 1470 and ends in 1485. It covers the dual reigns of Henry VI and Edward IV and climaxes in the death of Richard III on Bosworth Field in August of 1485. Since this history is relatively well known I do not think there is any danger of my mentioning anything that might be considered a spoiler but I do not want to go into too much detail and diminish the reading experience. The value of this book is in the telling of the story. It is historical fiction and by that I mean that it is an accurate portrayal of the history in question by supplying dialogue to the real participants in that history. This is my idea of good historical fiction. Stories that are simply dropped into a historical period without regard or interaction with any significant historical event or personality are, to me, merely period pieces and not true historical fiction. Conn Iggulden has clearly mastered my preferred form of this genre and joins my other favorite such author, Jeff Shaara, in my esteem and gratitude.
While the dialogue the author provides makes it technically a fiction the fact that the history is completely accurate and the dialogue supplied is true to the character and motivations of the person it is attributed to makes this history with impact. Reading a history can be informative and thought provoking but reading history in the manner demonstrated by books like this one makes an impression on a reader that a simple history could never achieve. In this book you feel for the characters and identify with them. You understand their fears and motivations. You feel their sorrows and disappointments and their angers and hatreds and if there is anything that reading English history can provide it's a complete range of human emotions and motivations. The brutality of the battles, the murders, executions, betrayals, treachery, manipulations, immorality, etc. depicted during the course of these 4 books is just too much to even begin to describe. Can you imagine going into partnership with the person that had your father and brother killed? Could you further understand offering your daughter in marriage to the son of that same person? How about killing your wife's father knowing that your wife will absolutely know what you did? That is just a little sample of the behavior of English nobility in the 15th century. This, to say the least, is a very entertaining and informative history of the end of the War of Roses and more than worth reading. However, if you haven't read the trilogy that precedes this book I suggest you read that first. It probably isn't necessary but I wish I hadn't discovered the trilogy when I did as the 2 year time lag made remembering the characters a bit difficult at first. It would have been a better experience if i could have read all 4 books one after the other or, at least, in a much shorter time frame. Nevertheless, reading the trilogy first will give you a complete understanding of the history of this period and it will be easier to trace the evolution in motivations that occur. Apparently, loyalty wasn't a strong virtue among 15th century nobility. Enjoy the read.
"Ravenspur" begins in 1470 and ends in 1485. It covers the dual reigns of Henry VI and Edward IV and climaxes in the death of Richard III on Bosworth Field in August of 1485. Since this history is relatively well known I do not think there is any danger of my mentioning anything that might be considered a spoiler but I do not want to go into too much detail and diminish the reading experience. The value of this book is in the telling of the story. It is historical fiction and by that I mean that it is an accurate portrayal of the history in question by supplying dialogue to the real participants in that history. This is my idea of good historical fiction. Stories that are simply dropped into a historical period without regard or interaction with any significant historical event or personality are, to me, merely period pieces and not true historical fiction. Conn Iggulden has clearly mastered my preferred form of this genre and joins my other favorite such author, Jeff Shaara, in my esteem and gratitude.
While the dialogue the author provides makes it technically a fiction the fact that the history is completely accurate and the dialogue supplied is true to the character and motivations of the person it is attributed to makes this history with impact. Reading a history can be informative and thought provoking but reading history in the manner demonstrated by books like this one makes an impression on a reader that a simple history could never achieve. In this book you feel for the characters and identify with them. You understand their fears and motivations. You feel their sorrows and disappointments and their angers and hatreds and if there is anything that reading English history can provide it's a complete range of human emotions and motivations. The brutality of the battles, the murders, executions, betrayals, treachery, manipulations, immorality, etc. depicted during the course of these 4 books is just too much to even begin to describe. Can you imagine going into partnership with the person that had your father and brother killed? Could you further understand offering your daughter in marriage to the son of that same person? How about killing your wife's father knowing that your wife will absolutely know what you did? That is just a little sample of the behavior of English nobility in the 15th century. This, to say the least, is a very entertaining and informative history of the end of the War of Roses and more than worth reading. However, if you haven't read the trilogy that precedes this book I suggest you read that first. It probably isn't necessary but I wish I hadn't discovered the trilogy when I did as the 2 year time lag made remembering the characters a bit difficult at first. It would have been a better experience if i could have read all 4 books one after the other or, at least, in a much shorter time frame. Nevertheless, reading the trilogy first will give you a complete understanding of the history of this period and it will be easier to trace the evolution in motivations that occur. Apparently, loyalty wasn't a strong virtue among 15th century nobility. Enjoy the read.
July 26, 2017
As Conn's books always are, this story was very well written and the battle scenes were excellent. The dialogue always draws me in and the scenes are clearly and cleanly painted. For some reason, I didn't feel quite as hooked to the latter half of the book. The history grabbed me since I have an interest in the period, but the loss - understandable loss - of characters I felt like I knew left me ever so slightly empty. It had to be done and I can't fault Conn for it. I blame history for this, but it goes to show just how much Conn had me engaged to characters that had survived the series and wars up to this point.
I would say 4.5 stars for this, which means I thoroughly enjoyed it and would still recommend it, and most certainly recommend the series as a whole.
I would say 4.5 stars for this, which means I thoroughly enjoyed it and would still recommend it, and most certainly recommend the series as a whole.
May 16, 2019
Fantastic conclusion to the Wars of the Roses. Conn Iggulden is a brilliant writer and he truly brought these characters to life.
5 stars
5 stars
December 29, 2018
This wonderful book is the 4th volume of the "Wars of the Roses" series, and besides that it is also the final instalment of this marvellous series.
The book contains once again an immaculately researched Historical Note, while at the time it also possesses superbly explained Family Trees, from the Royal of England, to the Houses of Lancaster, York and the Nevilles, and last but not least the House of Tudor.
Not forgetting of course, is that this great book also contains a beautiful map of England at the time of the Wars of the Roses, while it also produces a wonderful list of Historical characters, who'll all excel in their own kind of way within this entertaining book.
Storytelling is, as it has always been throughout this series, of a top-notch quality, for once more all the characters, whether real or fictional, come vividly to life within this historical treat of a novel, and that's why I feel a kind of sad that it has now come to it's inevitable end.
The story continues, after the exile of Warwick and Clarence to France, in the year AD 1470 and it will end in the year AD 1485, with the coronation of Henry Tudor (VII), as King of England.
Besides Civil War this book tells us also about plenty of treachery at various levels of power, while backstabbing is close at hand when necessary, and all that for the ultimate power and glory, the Royal Crown of England.
What we will definitely also find in this fascinating and gripping book is years of bloodshed and betrayal between these factions, Lancaster and York, a bloodshed that will cost many lives on both sides, but that will finally come to it's definite conclusion at the "Battle of Bosworth Field" in AD 1485, with what will eventually become as the "Rise of the Tudors".
Very much recommended, for this book is "A Superb Conclusion"!
The book contains once again an immaculately researched Historical Note, while at the time it also possesses superbly explained Family Trees, from the Royal of England, to the Houses of Lancaster, York and the Nevilles, and last but not least the House of Tudor.
Not forgetting of course, is that this great book also contains a beautiful map of England at the time of the Wars of the Roses, while it also produces a wonderful list of Historical characters, who'll all excel in their own kind of way within this entertaining book.
Storytelling is, as it has always been throughout this series, of a top-notch quality, for once more all the characters, whether real or fictional, come vividly to life within this historical treat of a novel, and that's why I feel a kind of sad that it has now come to it's inevitable end.
The story continues, after the exile of Warwick and Clarence to France, in the year AD 1470 and it will end in the year AD 1485, with the coronation of Henry Tudor (VII), as King of England.
Besides Civil War this book tells us also about plenty of treachery at various levels of power, while backstabbing is close at hand when necessary, and all that for the ultimate power and glory, the Royal Crown of England.
What we will definitely also find in this fascinating and gripping book is years of bloodshed and betrayal between these factions, Lancaster and York, a bloodshed that will cost many lives on both sides, but that will finally come to it's definite conclusion at the "Battle of Bosworth Field" in AD 1485, with what will eventually become as the "Rise of the Tudors".
Very much recommended, for this book is "A Superb Conclusion"!
October 22, 2018
I can only describe this book as a sensational end to a spectacular series. Conn Iggulden entire Wars of the Roses series is nothing short of a masterpiece. He has a gift for making historical figures alive through the written word. I felt the pain of Margaret of Anjou wanting to claim back her husbands throne and by doing so losses her son. Edward IV was a flawed man yet at the same time terribly charismatic. It was evident that in the end he knew that while Henry VI was alive his claim to the throne would face contest, but still felt at odds with killing such a simple man. Richard III was the most loyal and treacherous brother who whole heartily supported his brother, but cut down his nephews once his brother had passed. In the end Henry VII eclipses them all with his belief that he was destined to be king.
Beyond that we know that Henry VIII is the successor and he, not through war, but his need to marry Anne Boleyn changes the face of religion. I can only hope that Conn Iggulden will decide to write about this time in history too.
At times yes the genealogy of the characters was some what confusing, but this simply meant flipping to the family tree or list of characters in the front of the book. This cannot be considered a flaw. The author is portraying very complex time in English history where seemingly everyone is claiming the throne. The aforementioned charts and character lists help greatly.
The historical notes are so interesting themselves and the author give insight into factual events and his methodology in how to portray these. The Wars of the Roses are not simply a “fluffy” look at history. The books are detailed and very well thought out from a readers perspective.
Beyond that we know that Henry VIII is the successor and he, not through war, but his need to marry Anne Boleyn changes the face of religion. I can only hope that Conn Iggulden will decide to write about this time in history too.
At times yes the genealogy of the characters was some what confusing, but this simply meant flipping to the family tree or list of characters in the front of the book. This cannot be considered a flaw. The author is portraying very complex time in English history where seemingly everyone is claiming the throne. The aforementioned charts and character lists help greatly.
The historical notes are so interesting themselves and the author give insight into factual events and his methodology in how to portray these. The Wars of the Roses are not simply a “fluffy” look at history. The books are detailed and very well thought out from a readers perspective.
September 11, 2018
Conn Iggulden has become much more experienced as a historical fiction writer,his work has grown gradually more nuanced. This book has better balance when it comes to bending for historical accuracy, changes made for the fictional part of the story. It is also more political story about fighting for the throne, power and the wealth that comes with power. It is different compared to his other military historical fiction that was mostly about famous battles.
This book is well written, as exciting, as vivid as i expect from Iggulden but it is also history/ story full of the ugly sides of humanity. It is arguably his best work when it comes writing about important historical figures, their inner world as balanced, real people of this historical period but at the same time i'm glad to get out of the head of these kings, nobles, princes, ladies.
This is a story about killing your brothers, cousins, longtime friends for more power, for the throne. Not to mention the thousands of peasant boys, commoners, their families that was annihilated because a York or a Lancaster king couldnt keep his crown for 30 years.
As a fictional story about this part of English history in hindsight its almost funny that a Tudor son of common Welsh soldier won the war in the end over The main Plantagenet houses.
This book is well written, as exciting, as vivid as i expect from Iggulden but it is also history/ story full of the ugly sides of humanity. It is arguably his best work when it comes writing about important historical figures, their inner world as balanced, real people of this historical period but at the same time i'm glad to get out of the head of these kings, nobles, princes, ladies.
This is a story about killing your brothers, cousins, longtime friends for more power, for the throne. Not to mention the thousands of peasant boys, commoners, their families that was annihilated because a York or a Lancaster king couldnt keep his crown for 30 years.
As a fictional story about this part of English history in hindsight its almost funny that a Tudor son of common Welsh soldier won the war in the end over The main Plantagenet houses.
January 2, 2017
Not as good as the other books in the series but I would still recommend this tremendous saga about the War of the Roses. A must read !
January 19, 2023
Ed eccoci giunti finalmente all'ultimo volume de La Saga della "Guerra delle due Rose".
Dopo aver recensito i precedenti volumi con un voto non particolarmente positivo, non posso esimermi dall'assegnare all'ultima fatica di Conn Iggulden un voto ancora più basso. Questo è, dal mio punto di vista, il peggiore dei quatto romanzi. E vado a spiegare perché.
Problema n. 1(sì, sono talmente tanti che trovo più semplice fare un elenco punto per punto):L'autore tenta di mettere in piedi un romanzo storico corale, ma fallisce miseramente.
Per comprendere cosa intendo io per "romanzo storico corale" vi raccomando la lettura di The Sunne in Splendour di Sharon Kay Penman, Some Touch of Pity di Rodha Edwards o anche Under the Hog di Patrick Carleton. Sono tutti ottimi esempi di romanzi storici in cui ognuna delle molteplici voci che formano la narrazione (spesso di vedute e schieramenti opposti) hanno eguale importanza e approfondimento. Non ci sono super cattivi o super buoni, ognuno viene presentato con i suoi pregi e i suoi difetti. I personaggi sono approfonditi, e perfino quelli che non trovano un posto da protagonista adeguatamente rappresentati.
In Ravenspur ci sono sì molti personaggi, ma nessuno di esso è approfondito. Presentano tutti tratti negativi a seconda delle simpatie personali dell'autore, tranne quei pochi personaggi che Iggulden ha voluto santificare, ovvero principalmente Margherita D'Angiò (chiaramente la sua beniamina da quattro libri) e Warwick (il suo nuovo preferito da un paio di essi). Per rendere negativi il resto di loro l'autore ignora praticamente ogni fonte storica; emblematico il caso di Anthony Woodville, rinomato per essere un uomo intellettuale, virtuoso, religioso ed erudito (tradusse anche dei testi in inglese), qui presentato come una specie di gorilla muscoloso, crudele e stupido.
Ridicola poi la caratterizzazione di George, che nel libro precedente era il "buon buono" e scemo della situazione, che qui (non avendo in lui più alcun interesse) Iggulden dipinge tra il pavido e il crudele.
Ognuno di questi personaggi principali è talmente pallido e grottesco che non contribuisce minimamente a creare l'affresco storico che ci aspetteremmo. Anzi, sembra più di trovarsi di fronte a una parodia della storia; i personaggi, i punti di vista e le situazioni completamente sconnessi tra loro.
Problema n. 2:Personaggi secondari? Perché, c'erano?
E qui sono talmente basita che alzo le mani.
Margaret di York? Perché, Edward e Richard hanno forse una sorella? Sì, lo so lo so, ne avevano tre, ma questa in particolare doveva trovare un posto nella storia, considerato che sposò Carlo di Borgogna e che i suoi fratelli trovarono proprio rifugio in Borgogna durante l'esilio. Eppure nemmeno di sfuggita Iggulden si fa scappare che Margaret è la sovrana del paese da cui Edoardo IV avrebbe ottenuto uomini e armi per lanciare la riconquista del trono. Per non parlare del fatto che oppose Tudor in ogni cosa dopo la morte del fratello minore, non lasciandogli pace finché ebbe vita, tanto che lui la soprannominò "La Duchessa Diabolica". N-e-m-m-e-n-o n-o-m-i-n-a-t-a.
Anne Neville? Considerando che nel precedente romanzo manco veniva nominata, dobbiamo considerarci fortunati che qui l'autore si sia ricordato di lei. Certo poi lasciamo perdere che in due righe in cui la nomina le fa fare una pessima figura, facendole trattare male senza motivo il marito con cui divise praticamente la vita.
Elizabeth Shore? La famosa amante di Dorset, figlio di primo letto di Elizabeth Woodville, e di Lord Hastings, coinvolta nella cospirazione di quest'ultimo e poi arrestata... mai nominata.
Elizabeth di York? Assente, prof! Comodo non nominare nemmeno le voci messe in giro per calunniare Richard dopo la morte della moglie e completamente assenti quindi i negoziati che quest'ultimo intavolò per sposare Joana del Portogallo e far sposare a Elizabeth il Duca di Beja.
Lord Hastings, Francis Lovell, Robert Brackenbury, Dorset e Richard Grey, i due figli illegittimi che Richard ebbe prima del matrimonio John e Katherine, Cecily Neville, Anne Beauchamp contessa di Warwick... solo per dirne alcuni, completamente assenti o appena nominati (ma solo Hastings se non vado errata).
Problema n. 3:L'accuratezza storica
Aaaah, e qui sfondiamo tre porte aperte. L'accuratezza storica non è evidentemente il punto forte di Iggulden, ed è chiaro dal primo romanzo. D'altronde egli stesso chiarisce che si tratta di una semplice reinterpretazione della storia da parte sua. Ma qui si toccano livelli assurdi, addirittura nelle note dell'autore commette errori enormi!
Le tempistiche sono tutte sballate. All'inizio ad esempio, già in santuario, Elizabeth Woodville dichiara che suo marito è in esilio, mentre nel capitolo dopo questi è ancora in Inghilterra.
Una volta che Edward, svegliato nel sonno, seppe che Montagu stava per abbattersi su di lui si affrettò a fuggire, altro che avere tempo insieme a Anthony Woodville di appiccare incendi alle abitazioni e uccidere uomini innocenti senza motivo. Ma poi perché mai avrebbero dovuto farlo?? E dove ha preso l'autore questa idea? Forse perché voleva presentarli ancora una volta come cattivi?
Afferma che Richard conosce il modo di fare di Derry Brewer, ma come poteva se non lo aveva mai incontrato?
Comunque si sa, agli occhi di Iggulden gli York sono sempre cattivi. Ridicolo l'episodio in cui per entrare a Londra dopo essere tornati dall'esilio i fratelli, e Richard in particolare, uccidono gratuitamente le guardie (al capo delle quali è stato dato anche un minimo di background, negato alla maggior parte dei personaggi principali, solo per fomentare ancora più odio nei confronti degli York).
In realtà Londra era una roccaforte yorkista, da sempre. I londinesi adoravano Edoardo IV e lo fecero entrare accogliendolo in trionfo. Da qui il disperato precedente tentativo dei Neville di far sfilare Enrico VI per le strade di Londra, cosa che non diede i frutti sperati. Infatti non poteva esserci confronto tra la figura misera e appannata di Enrico e lo splendore di quel marcantonio di 1,94 metri di Edoardo.
Ma per Iggulden solo i suoi beniamini lancastriani raccolgono consensi, mentre gli York non li può vedere nessuno. E ripete questa cavolata anche più tardi, quando Margherita viene acclamata al suo ritorno (guardacaso però la sua mancata entrata a Gloucester, che le chiuse le porte in faccia, viene fatta quasi passare come una cosuccia così). In realtà Margherita era odiatissima dagli inglesi, primo perché era una regina straniera, e secondo perché non aveva avuto nessun riguardo per loro, scatenando eserciti stranieri che avevano razziato, distrutto, ucciso e violentato.
Sempre perché gli York sono brutti e cattivi non fanno altro che proclamare e giurare che uccideranno tutti una volta messe loro le mani addosso. Edoardo vuole morta Margherita, Richard vuole morti tutti i loro nemici. Peccato che poi Iggulden manchi di spiegarci perché Margherita fu invece risparmiata, o perché tutti quelli che Richard voleva morti finì per aiutarli (emblematico il caso di George Neville, fratello di Warwick).
E anche i sostenitori yorkisti non fanno eccezione: così i malvagi conti di Pembroke maltrattano in ogni modo il povero Henry Tudor, affidato alla loro custodia, quando una volta diventato re lo stesso Tudor avrebbe ricordato con affetto la contessa di Pembroke e il tempo trascorso nella sua casa.
Vogliamo parlare di Richard che dopo Barnet se ne va 250 miglia più nord per dire alla moglie di Warwick che il marito era morto, quando invece dopo una breve sosta a Londra l'esercito dovette ripartire in tutta fretta per cercare di tagliare la strada ai lancastriani prima che arrivassero nel Galles? Inoltre sarebbe stato un viaggio inutile visto che Anne Beauchamp non si trovava lì ma era salpata dalla Francia nello stesso momento di Margherita e, saputa la notizia della morte del marito appena sbarcata, si era rifugiata nell'abbazia di Beaulieu.
Per non parlare del fatto che sempre Richard viene collocato a Londra quando il fratello muore. Non solo! Nelle note dell'autore Iggulden ribadisce che è proprio così e che Richard ha potuto agire prontamente perché aveva subito saputo che Edoardo era morto. Evidentemente ignora che Richard si trovava a Middleham quando il fratello morì e che i Woodville gli tennero nascosta la notizia per giorni per cercare di prendere loro il potere. Richard lo seppe solo perché fu informato da Lord Hastings, ed anche così ci vollero molti altri giorni per raggiungere la capitale. Ma ovviamente del complotto dei Woodville per prendere il potere, del furto del tesoro reale, delle navi che Edward Woodville portò via in barba al Lord Ammiraglio (che era Richard), dei Woodville che emettevano ordini in nome del giovane re, che chiesero un esercito per accompagnare Edoardo V a Londra - che fu ridotto a duemila uomini solo perché Hastings minacciò di ritirarsi a Calais con la guarnigione... nulla. Oltretutto Richard non malmenò Anthony Woodville, anzi furono perfino a cena insieme loro due, insieme a Buckingham, prima che Rivers fosse arrestato la mattina dopo.
Allo stesso modo è un fatto noto che Richard e Anne non furono presenti alla morte del figlio, ma gliene giunse notizia a Nottingham e il bambino quasi sicuramente non morì di tubercolosi visto che fu una malattia breve e improvvisa.
Iggulden poi confonde la riunione del Consiglio con il meeting nella torre, dove venne giustiziato Hastings e arrestati Morton e Rotheram (l'autore dice erroneamente che furono perdonati entrambi). Inoltre in quella stessa riunione piazza anche Stanley che era assente e che non fu arrestato o coinvolto nel complotto.
Richard non parlò con Buckingham sulla piazza del mercato, anzi è cosa nota che il duca chiese disperatamente di poter parlare con il re e questi rifiutò.
Nelle note dell'autore troviamo ulteriori errori: ad esempio Elizabeth Woodville non era con il marito quando questi fu costretto a scappare, infatti era a Londra e trovò rifugio a Westminster; dice anche che le persone che furono giustiziate durante il protettorato di Richard lo furono perché egli affermò che i complotti erano contro il nipote, quando invece erano contro di lui. Richard disse sempre che erano contro il suo governo e la sua persona.
E checché ne dica l'autore Tudor non portò nessuna pace in Inghilterra. Il regno era in pace da vent'anni. Lui semmai portò altra guerra.
E ancora mi sfugge perché Richard, dopo che il suo amico Norfolk muore tragicamente a Bosworth, avrebbe dovuto farlo giustiziare se fosse sopravvissuto? Ma cosa cavolo ho letto?! Bah!
Inoltre non fece dichiarare illegittimi i nipoti, come le note dell'autore ancora una volta riportano, dopo pochi giorni. Passarono in realtà tre mesi.
Per finire (ma ho elencato solo gli errori principali) Edaordo diventerà grasso e indolente molti anni più tardi, non già all'epoca dell'esilio.
Problema n. 4:Saltiamo pure pezzi qua e là!
Sorvoliamo sul fatto che, nel poco spazio disponibile, si saltino anni e anni di narrazione, con la morte di George e di Anne addirittura fuori scena, e appena accennata. Sorvoliamo sulla tonnellata di personaggi assenti o appena nominati. In tutto questo è di fondamentale importanza dedicare pagine e pagine al battesimo del Principe di Galles, con tanto di descrizione del corteo fino alla chiesa, alla tempesta al largo delle coste inglesi in cui vengono coinvolte le navi di Edoardo IV di ritorno dall'esilio, a personaggi come Jack Daw. Il finale del libro è talmente affrettato che lascia completamente indifferenti, come se si stesse leggendo una pagina di Wikipedia.
Problema n.5: Richard il cattivone
Nonostante Iggulden dica di scostarsi dalla tradizione shakesperiana, il suo Richard è proprio quello di tudoriana memoria. Cattivo, crudele, doppia faccia, al mondo mostra un volto ma dentro cova rabbia sempre pronta ad esplodere, non ama nessuno, non ne è capace, usurpa il trono ai nipoti e poi li uccide, è coinvolto nella morte di George e di Enrico VI... insomma tutta la trafila. Per descrivere la sua fisicità dice di rifarsi alle analisi del suo scheletro, e per alcune cose ci azzecca, come la ferita mortale a Bosworth. Per altre toppa completamente: nonostante gli attribuisca correttamente la scoliosi dice anche che lo rendeva gobbo, cosa completamente errata. Derry Brewer lo chiama anche "gobbetto", ma la scoliosi non era visibile con i vestiti addosso, motivo per cui nessuna fonte contemporanea ne parla (fu scoperta quando il corpo fu spogliato dopo la sua morte). E' abbastanza penoso per me leggere Richard così malignato, perfino accusato di crimini, come la morte di George contro cui lui protestò apertamente, e quella di Enrico VI, che furono sola responsabilità di Edoardo IV.
Cose positive:
Ebbene sì, concludo con qualche nota positiva - molto poche - di questo libro. Prima di tutto, in mezzo alla massa di disinformazione allucinante, Iggulden ha un paio di buone intuizioni. Ad esempio il fatto che Tudor non avesse alcun diritto al trono, o che la rosa rossa non fosse il simbolo dei Lancaster (la sua origine rimane oscura). Anche il fatto che Buckingham, che aveva mille volte più diritto al trono di Tudor, non si ribelli per mettere quest'ultimo sul trono. Non avrebbe avuto alcun senso. Quindi questo lo apprezzo, senza dubbio. Ma è veramente poco, molto poco.
Ah sì, e finalmente
Dopo aver recensito i precedenti volumi con un voto non particolarmente positivo, non posso esimermi dall'assegnare all'ultima fatica di Conn Iggulden un voto ancora più basso. Questo è, dal mio punto di vista, il peggiore dei quatto romanzi. E vado a spiegare perché.
Problema n. 1(sì, sono talmente tanti che trovo più semplice fare un elenco punto per punto):L'autore tenta di mettere in piedi un romanzo storico corale, ma fallisce miseramente.
Per comprendere cosa intendo io per "romanzo storico corale" vi raccomando la lettura di The Sunne in Splendour di Sharon Kay Penman, Some Touch of Pity di Rodha Edwards o anche Under the Hog di Patrick Carleton. Sono tutti ottimi esempi di romanzi storici in cui ognuna delle molteplici voci che formano la narrazione (spesso di vedute e schieramenti opposti) hanno eguale importanza e approfondimento. Non ci sono super cattivi o super buoni, ognuno viene presentato con i suoi pregi e i suoi difetti. I personaggi sono approfonditi, e perfino quelli che non trovano un posto da protagonista adeguatamente rappresentati.
In Ravenspur ci sono sì molti personaggi, ma nessuno di esso è approfondito. Presentano tutti tratti negativi a seconda delle simpatie personali dell'autore, tranne quei pochi personaggi che Iggulden ha voluto santificare, ovvero principalmente Margherita D'Angiò (chiaramente la sua beniamina da quattro libri) e Warwick (il suo nuovo preferito da un paio di essi). Per rendere negativi il resto di loro l'autore ignora praticamente ogni fonte storica; emblematico il caso di Anthony Woodville, rinomato per essere un uomo intellettuale, virtuoso, religioso ed erudito (tradusse anche dei testi in inglese), qui presentato come una specie di gorilla muscoloso, crudele e stupido.
Ridicola poi la caratterizzazione di George, che nel libro precedente era il "buon buono" e scemo della situazione, che qui (non avendo in lui più alcun interesse) Iggulden dipinge tra il pavido e il crudele.
Ognuno di questi personaggi principali è talmente pallido e grottesco che non contribuisce minimamente a creare l'affresco storico che ci aspetteremmo. Anzi, sembra più di trovarsi di fronte a una parodia della storia; i personaggi, i punti di vista e le situazioni completamente sconnessi tra loro.
Problema n. 2:Personaggi secondari? Perché, c'erano?
E qui sono talmente basita che alzo le mani.
Margaret di York? Perché, Edward e Richard hanno forse una sorella? Sì, lo so lo so, ne avevano tre, ma questa in particolare doveva trovare un posto nella storia, considerato che sposò Carlo di Borgogna e che i suoi fratelli trovarono proprio rifugio in Borgogna durante l'esilio. Eppure nemmeno di sfuggita Iggulden si fa scappare che Margaret è la sovrana del paese da cui Edoardo IV avrebbe ottenuto uomini e armi per lanciare la riconquista del trono. Per non parlare del fatto che oppose Tudor in ogni cosa dopo la morte del fratello minore, non lasciandogli pace finché ebbe vita, tanto che lui la soprannominò "La Duchessa Diabolica". N-e-m-m-e-n-o n-o-m-i-n-a-t-a.
Anne Neville? Considerando che nel precedente romanzo manco veniva nominata, dobbiamo considerarci fortunati che qui l'autore si sia ricordato di lei. Certo poi lasciamo perdere che in due righe in cui la nomina le fa fare una pessima figura, facendole trattare male senza motivo il marito con cui divise praticamente la vita.
Elizabeth Shore? La famosa amante di Dorset, figlio di primo letto di Elizabeth Woodville, e di Lord Hastings, coinvolta nella cospirazione di quest'ultimo e poi arrestata... mai nominata.
Elizabeth di York? Assente, prof! Comodo non nominare nemmeno le voci messe in giro per calunniare Richard dopo la morte della moglie e completamente assenti quindi i negoziati che quest'ultimo intavolò per sposare Joana del Portogallo e far sposare a Elizabeth il Duca di Beja.
Lord Hastings, Francis Lovell, Robert Brackenbury, Dorset e Richard Grey, i due figli illegittimi che Richard ebbe prima del matrimonio John e Katherine, Cecily Neville, Anne Beauchamp contessa di Warwick... solo per dirne alcuni, completamente assenti o appena nominati (ma solo Hastings se non vado errata).
Problema n. 3:L'accuratezza storica
Aaaah, e qui sfondiamo tre porte aperte. L'accuratezza storica non è evidentemente il punto forte di Iggulden, ed è chiaro dal primo romanzo. D'altronde egli stesso chiarisce che si tratta di una semplice reinterpretazione della storia da parte sua. Ma qui si toccano livelli assurdi, addirittura nelle note dell'autore commette errori enormi!
Le tempistiche sono tutte sballate. All'inizio ad esempio, già in santuario, Elizabeth Woodville dichiara che suo marito è in esilio, mentre nel capitolo dopo questi è ancora in Inghilterra.
Una volta che Edward, svegliato nel sonno, seppe che Montagu stava per abbattersi su di lui si affrettò a fuggire, altro che avere tempo insieme a Anthony Woodville di appiccare incendi alle abitazioni e uccidere uomini innocenti senza motivo. Ma poi perché mai avrebbero dovuto farlo?? E dove ha preso l'autore questa idea? Forse perché voleva presentarli ancora una volta come cattivi?
Afferma che Richard conosce il modo di fare di Derry Brewer, ma come poteva se non lo aveva mai incontrato?
Comunque si sa, agli occhi di Iggulden gli York sono sempre cattivi. Ridicolo l'episodio in cui per entrare a Londra dopo essere tornati dall'esilio i fratelli, e Richard in particolare, uccidono gratuitamente le guardie (al capo delle quali è stato dato anche un minimo di background, negato alla maggior parte dei personaggi principali, solo per fomentare ancora più odio nei confronti degli York).
In realtà Londra era una roccaforte yorkista, da sempre. I londinesi adoravano Edoardo IV e lo fecero entrare accogliendolo in trionfo. Da qui il disperato precedente tentativo dei Neville di far sfilare Enrico VI per le strade di Londra, cosa che non diede i frutti sperati. Infatti non poteva esserci confronto tra la figura misera e appannata di Enrico e lo splendore di quel marcantonio di 1,94 metri di Edoardo.
Ma per Iggulden solo i suoi beniamini lancastriani raccolgono consensi, mentre gli York non li può vedere nessuno. E ripete questa cavolata anche più tardi, quando Margherita viene acclamata al suo ritorno (guardacaso però la sua mancata entrata a Gloucester, che le chiuse le porte in faccia, viene fatta quasi passare come una cosuccia così). In realtà Margherita era odiatissima dagli inglesi, primo perché era una regina straniera, e secondo perché non aveva avuto nessun riguardo per loro, scatenando eserciti stranieri che avevano razziato, distrutto, ucciso e violentato.
Sempre perché gli York sono brutti e cattivi non fanno altro che proclamare e giurare che uccideranno tutti una volta messe loro le mani addosso. Edoardo vuole morta Margherita, Richard vuole morti tutti i loro nemici. Peccato che poi Iggulden manchi di spiegarci perché Margherita fu invece risparmiata, o perché tutti quelli che Richard voleva morti finì per aiutarli (emblematico il caso di George Neville, fratello di Warwick).
E anche i sostenitori yorkisti non fanno eccezione: così i malvagi conti di Pembroke maltrattano in ogni modo il povero Henry Tudor, affidato alla loro custodia, quando una volta diventato re lo stesso Tudor avrebbe ricordato con affetto la contessa di Pembroke e il tempo trascorso nella sua casa.
Vogliamo parlare di Richard che dopo Barnet se ne va 250 miglia più nord per dire alla moglie di Warwick che il marito era morto, quando invece dopo una breve sosta a Londra l'esercito dovette ripartire in tutta fretta per cercare di tagliare la strada ai lancastriani prima che arrivassero nel Galles? Inoltre sarebbe stato un viaggio inutile visto che Anne Beauchamp non si trovava lì ma era salpata dalla Francia nello stesso momento di Margherita e, saputa la notizia della morte del marito appena sbarcata, si era rifugiata nell'abbazia di Beaulieu.
Per non parlare del fatto che sempre Richard viene collocato a Londra quando il fratello muore. Non solo! Nelle note dell'autore Iggulden ribadisce che è proprio così e che Richard ha potuto agire prontamente perché aveva subito saputo che Edoardo era morto. Evidentemente ignora che Richard si trovava a Middleham quando il fratello morì e che i Woodville gli tennero nascosta la notizia per giorni per cercare di prendere loro il potere. Richard lo seppe solo perché fu informato da Lord Hastings, ed anche così ci vollero molti altri giorni per raggiungere la capitale. Ma ovviamente del complotto dei Woodville per prendere il potere, del furto del tesoro reale, delle navi che Edward Woodville portò via in barba al Lord Ammiraglio (che era Richard), dei Woodville che emettevano ordini in nome del giovane re, che chiesero un esercito per accompagnare Edoardo V a Londra - che fu ridotto a duemila uomini solo perché Hastings minacciò di ritirarsi a Calais con la guarnigione... nulla. Oltretutto Richard non malmenò Anthony Woodville, anzi furono perfino a cena insieme loro due, insieme a Buckingham, prima che Rivers fosse arrestato la mattina dopo.
Allo stesso modo è un fatto noto che Richard e Anne non furono presenti alla morte del figlio, ma gliene giunse notizia a Nottingham e il bambino quasi sicuramente non morì di tubercolosi visto che fu una malattia breve e improvvisa.
Iggulden poi confonde la riunione del Consiglio con il meeting nella torre, dove venne giustiziato Hastings e arrestati Morton e Rotheram (l'autore dice erroneamente che furono perdonati entrambi). Inoltre in quella stessa riunione piazza anche Stanley che era assente e che non fu arrestato o coinvolto nel complotto.
Richard non parlò con Buckingham sulla piazza del mercato, anzi è cosa nota che il duca chiese disperatamente di poter parlare con il re e questi rifiutò.
Nelle note dell'autore troviamo ulteriori errori: ad esempio Elizabeth Woodville non era con il marito quando questi fu costretto a scappare, infatti era a Londra e trovò rifugio a Westminster; dice anche che le persone che furono giustiziate durante il protettorato di Richard lo furono perché egli affermò che i complotti erano contro il nipote, quando invece erano contro di lui. Richard disse sempre che erano contro il suo governo e la sua persona.
E checché ne dica l'autore Tudor non portò nessuna pace in Inghilterra. Il regno era in pace da vent'anni. Lui semmai portò altra guerra.
E ancora mi sfugge perché Richard, dopo che il suo amico Norfolk muore tragicamente a Bosworth, avrebbe dovuto farlo giustiziare se fosse sopravvissuto? Ma cosa cavolo ho letto?! Bah!
Inoltre non fece dichiarare illegittimi i nipoti, come le note dell'autore ancora una volta riportano, dopo pochi giorni. Passarono in realtà tre mesi.
Per finire (ma ho elencato solo gli errori principali) Edaordo diventerà grasso e indolente molti anni più tardi, non già all'epoca dell'esilio.
Problema n. 4:Saltiamo pure pezzi qua e là!
Sorvoliamo sul fatto che, nel poco spazio disponibile, si saltino anni e anni di narrazione, con la morte di George e di Anne addirittura fuori scena, e appena accennata. Sorvoliamo sulla tonnellata di personaggi assenti o appena nominati. In tutto questo è di fondamentale importanza dedicare pagine e pagine al battesimo del Principe di Galles, con tanto di descrizione del corteo fino alla chiesa, alla tempesta al largo delle coste inglesi in cui vengono coinvolte le navi di Edoardo IV di ritorno dall'esilio, a personaggi come Jack Daw. Il finale del libro è talmente affrettato che lascia completamente indifferenti, come se si stesse leggendo una pagina di Wikipedia.
Problema n.5: Richard il cattivone
Nonostante Iggulden dica di scostarsi dalla tradizione shakesperiana, il suo Richard è proprio quello di tudoriana memoria. Cattivo, crudele, doppia faccia, al mondo mostra un volto ma dentro cova rabbia sempre pronta ad esplodere, non ama nessuno, non ne è capace, usurpa il trono ai nipoti e poi li uccide, è coinvolto nella morte di George e di Enrico VI... insomma tutta la trafila. Per descrivere la sua fisicità dice di rifarsi alle analisi del suo scheletro, e per alcune cose ci azzecca, come la ferita mortale a Bosworth. Per altre toppa completamente: nonostante gli attribuisca correttamente la scoliosi dice anche che lo rendeva gobbo, cosa completamente errata. Derry Brewer lo chiama anche "gobbetto", ma la scoliosi non era visibile con i vestiti addosso, motivo per cui nessuna fonte contemporanea ne parla (fu scoperta quando il corpo fu spogliato dopo la sua morte). E' abbastanza penoso per me leggere Richard così malignato, perfino accusato di crimini, come la morte di George contro cui lui protestò apertamente, e quella di Enrico VI, che furono sola responsabilità di Edoardo IV.
Cose positive:
Ebbene sì, concludo con qualche nota positiva - molto poche - di questo libro. Prima di tutto, in mezzo alla massa di disinformazione allucinante, Iggulden ha un paio di buone intuizioni. Ad esempio il fatto che Tudor non avesse alcun diritto al trono, o che la rosa rossa non fosse il simbolo dei Lancaster (la sua origine rimane oscura). Anche il fatto che Buckingham, che aveva mille volte più diritto al trono di Tudor, non si ribelli per mettere quest'ultimo sul trono. Non avrebbe avuto alcun senso. Quindi questo lo apprezzo, senza dubbio. Ma è veramente poco, molto poco.
Ah sì, e finalmente
February 26, 2025
Ultimo capitolo della saga col quale si conclude questa guerra, considerata civile e tra casate, durata più di vent’anni.
I personaggi principali sono più o meno gli stessi: i Lancaster e gli York che si litigano la corona, Warwitch che vuole riprendersi le terre e riconquistare la sua affidabilità, la regina Elizabeth che a questo giro diventa donna meno indomita e più madre, i Tudor sempre molto nascosti ma comunque leggermente più nominati rispetto ai volumi precedenti (che sia aderente alla verità o frutto di finzione).
Ho provato un sentimento di odio/amore nei confronti di re Riccardo III e mi sono venuti i brividi a leggere della vicenda dei Principi della Torre soprattutto dopo essere stata a Londra a vedere la motra sui fantasmi proprio alla Torre di Londra…
Nonostante il libro finisca con l’inconorazione di Enrico VII di Tudor e che negli ultimi capitoli la vicenda ruoti intorno a loro mi ha lasciato un po’ insoddisfatta, mi aspettavo qualcosa di più sulla dinastia futura, ma ci sta che sia un fattore attinente alla realtà storica e che l’autore ha deciso di mantenere e non alterare più di tanto.
Alla fine questa saga non mi è dispiaciuta ma la reputo una buona lettura da spiaggia, preferisco saggi storici al riguardo che analizzino più approfonditamente gli eventi. Sicuramente è utile come aiuto a districare la matassa ingarbugliata che caratterizza questo periodo storico non semplice.
Mi mancheranno un po’ tutti questi personaggi e non vedo l’ora di leggere i saggi che mi sono presa al riguardo!
I personaggi principali sono più o meno gli stessi: i Lancaster e gli York che si litigano la corona, Warwitch che vuole riprendersi le terre e riconquistare la sua affidabilità, la regina Elizabeth che a questo giro diventa donna meno indomita e più madre, i Tudor sempre molto nascosti ma comunque leggermente più nominati rispetto ai volumi precedenti (che sia aderente alla verità o frutto di finzione).
Ho provato un sentimento di odio/amore nei confronti di re Riccardo III e mi sono venuti i brividi a leggere della vicenda dei Principi della Torre soprattutto dopo essere stata a Londra a vedere la motra sui fantasmi proprio alla Torre di Londra…
Nonostante il libro finisca con l’inconorazione di Enrico VII di Tudor e che negli ultimi capitoli la vicenda ruoti intorno a loro mi ha lasciato un po’ insoddisfatta, mi aspettavo qualcosa di più sulla dinastia futura, ma ci sta che sia un fattore attinente alla realtà storica e che l’autore ha deciso di mantenere e non alterare più di tanto.
Alla fine questa saga non mi è dispiaciuta ma la reputo una buona lettura da spiaggia, preferisco saggi storici al riguardo che analizzino più approfonditamente gli eventi. Sicuramente è utile come aiuto a districare la matassa ingarbugliata che caratterizza questo periodo storico non semplice.
Mi mancheranno un po’ tutti questi personaggi e non vedo l’ora di leggere i saggi che mi sono presa al riguardo!
December 19, 2020
It is really hard to rate this book, because I loved it so much yet was so disappointed at the end.
This book should have ended with the death of Edward VI, with a little bit more details on Clearance treachery and execution.
Part Two should have been a separate book, in which all details of Richard usurpation and fall, the union of Lancaster and York, and literally the rise of the Tudor would come to light.
Yet we see nothing of the sort, as the second part was so rushed we didn't really get to understand Richard of Gloucester, we didn't get to see the end of the princes in the tower, and what were the roles of Elizabeth Woodville and Margaret Beaufort in making Elizabeth of York Queen. I believe we would have loved to know and see more of Henry VII as well.
All in all, I loved the series, full of action and political intrigues. The books were page turners indeed.
This book should have ended with the death of Edward VI, with a little bit more details on Clearance treachery and execution.
Part Two should have been a separate book, in which all details of Richard usurpation and fall, the union of Lancaster and York, and literally the rise of the Tudor would come to light.
Yet we see nothing of the sort, as the second part was so rushed we didn't really get to understand Richard of Gloucester, we didn't get to see the end of the princes in the tower, and what were the roles of Elizabeth Woodville and Margaret Beaufort in making Elizabeth of York Queen. I believe we would have loved to know and see more of Henry VII as well.
All in all, I loved the series, full of action and political intrigues. The books were page turners indeed.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 15, 2017
Okay. So now I have finished the series. I'm glad I read it. I'm also glad I read Gregory's "The Cousins War" previously. Iggulden wrapped up Richard and Henry a little too quickly. But he is a master at the battle scenes. Now on to the next series in English history.
May 28, 2022
This was a great read about the war of the roses and it's end with the death of king Richard III in battle and the beginning of the Tudor dynasty.
This book is about king Edward III struggling to keep his crown, about king Henry VI and his fragile health, about queen Margaret trying to get back her son's inheritance.
It's about treason, fight for power and also about loyalty.
This book is about king Edward III struggling to keep his crown, about king Henry VI and his fragile health, about queen Margaret trying to get back her son's inheritance.
It's about treason, fight for power and also about loyalty.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 7, 2018
A bit disappointed. Not bad but it could have been better
December 7, 2020
This was very descriptive series explaining how the War of the Roses played out with all its twists and turn. The historical note section Conn includes is good as evidence is for some of the legends and facts of the time with his personal take on the wars. Any who has an interest in British history would be worth reading an entertaining series, especially since the history curriculum in the UK avoids this period entirely focusing on Henry VIII era
March 22, 2019
#Beendet
🐭 🐭 🐭
Conn Iggulden
"Brüderschlacht" - Die Rosenkriege
- Historischer Roman -
Eine gelungene Erzählung der Rosenkriege, die auf die Situation schaut und beide Seiten erzählen lässt.
🐭 🐭 🐭
Conn Iggulden
"Brüderschlacht" - Die Rosenkriege
- Historischer Roman -
Eine gelungene Erzählung der Rosenkriege, die auf die Situation schaut und beide Seiten erzählen lässt.
November 30, 2021
Amanecer (Con Iggulden ) #4 Guerra de las rosas.
Está tiene que ser una de las sagas más aburridas que leí en mi vida y por desgracia es de las pocas sobre este período histórico con traducción al español.
Eh leído decenas de novelas sobre esta guerra civil algunas exelentes otras decepcionantes no diré que está es la peor pero se acerca, los primeros tres libros (en los que ni si quiera desperdiciare mi tiempo dando revisión) son increíblemente detallados aunque lentos lo que hace que se vuelvan o muy aburridos o entretenidos pero aún los puedo considerar decentes, el gran problema es que la idea de enfocarse en personajes ficticios o poco conocidos es absurda y es un desperdicio de tiempo, aquí añadire para quienes no sepan que la guerra de las rosas originalmente conocida como la guerra de los primos fue una guerra civil entre dos casa Los York y los Lancaster que se disputaron el control de la corona inglésa a finales de la edad media, el hecho en si es increíblemente interesante lleno de misterios, asesinatos, traiciones, amores, matrimonios prohibidos y sobre todo de personajes intrigantes que el autor de esta saga retrata de forma plana y vacía, además como pasa casi siempre no es imparcial elige un bando en este caso Lancaster y hace que la mayoría de los Yorkistas sean malos lo cual no solo es falso sino además aburrido y no hace sentido en muchos momentos lo que hace que la trama sea absurda, por ejemplo Margarita de Anjou es uno de mis personajes favoritos en la historia pero no era la santa que retrata la novela, y al final no se refleja la verdad de su causa ni de sus acciones ( polémicas como pocas ), Warwick es otro de mis personajes favoritos pero no era el benévolo corazón bueno y triste del que leemos aquí, confieso que eh llegado a entenderlo y darle la razón en sus acciones inclusive traiciones pero aquí ni si quiera está bien hecha su defensa, en general los personajes eran personas con virtudes y defectos pero el libro no sabe contarlo y omite muchos de ellos y muchos eventos, los amores y conflictos personales se presentan de una forma poco profunda y aburrida no ahí emociones y ni si quiera le pido al autor que las invente si no que la cuente, sobre todo en este libro que al final hace que la serie cierre de forma horrible y que ni si quiera se entienda, el autor no se detiene a interpretar de forma lógica las acciones de los personajes sino que las medio cuenta lo que deja cosas colgadas por ejemplo : Leemos que Ricardo III fue un hermano leal pero cuando muere Eduardo IV va y le quita la corona a sus sobrinos (?) En serio ahí tantas cosas aquí que se omiten como las tensiones entre los hermanos que surgieron en la campaña francesa, la muerte de Jorge etc. No entraré en detalles aquí respecto a los príncipes de la torre y otras polémicas solo diré que está tiene que ser la representación de Ricardo III mas aburrida y mala que leí en mi vida ( ni si quiera la de Philippa Gregory está tan mal hecha) el hombre tiene un matrimonio horrible, esposa aburrida , hijo llorón, enemigos sin chiste, pensamiento soso inclusive sus acciones son tontas ( y nótese que es uno de los personajes mas polémicos en la historia) Como es que el autor lo hizo tan plano? Ni idea pero es sin duda un mérito.
A Eduardo IV no le gusta Isabel su esposa pero la favorece más de lo normal durante todo su reinado entonces de dónde viene o como se refleja el desprecio (?)
Otra cosa que me fastidio fue los errores no sé si el autor solo quería terminar la saga pero, ESPAÑA??? NO existía en España en el siglo XV, eran Reinos en este caso debió hacer referencia al Reino de Castilla que envío embajadores a Inglaterra en 1483, y errores como ese se repiten una y otra vez.
Los diálogos son aburridos y las descripciones pobres, creo que lo único que rescató es la narrativa y que fue al origen de la guerra aunque omite los verdaderos culpables y las causas, no merece más de una estrella para mí y honestamente no entiendo por qué tomarse la molestia de traducir un trabajo tan simple y tibio.
Está tiene que ser una de las sagas más aburridas que leí en mi vida y por desgracia es de las pocas sobre este período histórico con traducción al español.
Eh leído decenas de novelas sobre esta guerra civil algunas exelentes otras decepcionantes no diré que está es la peor pero se acerca, los primeros tres libros (en los que ni si quiera desperdiciare mi tiempo dando revisión) son increíblemente detallados aunque lentos lo que hace que se vuelvan o muy aburridos o entretenidos pero aún los puedo considerar decentes, el gran problema es que la idea de enfocarse en personajes ficticios o poco conocidos es absurda y es un desperdicio de tiempo, aquí añadire para quienes no sepan que la guerra de las rosas originalmente conocida como la guerra de los primos fue una guerra civil entre dos casa Los York y los Lancaster que se disputaron el control de la corona inglésa a finales de la edad media, el hecho en si es increíblemente interesante lleno de misterios, asesinatos, traiciones, amores, matrimonios prohibidos y sobre todo de personajes intrigantes que el autor de esta saga retrata de forma plana y vacía, además como pasa casi siempre no es imparcial elige un bando en este caso Lancaster y hace que la mayoría de los Yorkistas sean malos lo cual no solo es falso sino además aburrido y no hace sentido en muchos momentos lo que hace que la trama sea absurda, por ejemplo Margarita de Anjou es uno de mis personajes favoritos en la historia pero no era la santa que retrata la novela, y al final no se refleja la verdad de su causa ni de sus acciones ( polémicas como pocas ), Warwick es otro de mis personajes favoritos pero no era el benévolo corazón bueno y triste del que leemos aquí, confieso que eh llegado a entenderlo y darle la razón en sus acciones inclusive traiciones pero aquí ni si quiera está bien hecha su defensa, en general los personajes eran personas con virtudes y defectos pero el libro no sabe contarlo y omite muchos de ellos y muchos eventos, los amores y conflictos personales se presentan de una forma poco profunda y aburrida no ahí emociones y ni si quiera le pido al autor que las invente si no que la cuente, sobre todo en este libro que al final hace que la serie cierre de forma horrible y que ni si quiera se entienda, el autor no se detiene a interpretar de forma lógica las acciones de los personajes sino que las medio cuenta lo que deja cosas colgadas por ejemplo : Leemos que Ricardo III fue un hermano leal pero cuando muere Eduardo IV va y le quita la corona a sus sobrinos (?) En serio ahí tantas cosas aquí que se omiten como las tensiones entre los hermanos que surgieron en la campaña francesa, la muerte de Jorge etc. No entraré en detalles aquí respecto a los príncipes de la torre y otras polémicas solo diré que está tiene que ser la representación de Ricardo III mas aburrida y mala que leí en mi vida ( ni si quiera la de Philippa Gregory está tan mal hecha) el hombre tiene un matrimonio horrible, esposa aburrida , hijo llorón, enemigos sin chiste, pensamiento soso inclusive sus acciones son tontas ( y nótese que es uno de los personajes mas polémicos en la historia) Como es que el autor lo hizo tan plano? Ni idea pero es sin duda un mérito.
A Eduardo IV no le gusta Isabel su esposa pero la favorece más de lo normal durante todo su reinado entonces de dónde viene o como se refleja el desprecio (?)
Otra cosa que me fastidio fue los errores no sé si el autor solo quería terminar la saga pero, ESPAÑA??? NO existía en España en el siglo XV, eran Reinos en este caso debió hacer referencia al Reino de Castilla que envío embajadores a Inglaterra en 1483, y errores como ese se repiten una y otra vez.
Los diálogos son aburridos y las descripciones pobres, creo que lo único que rescató es la narrativa y que fue al origen de la guerra aunque omite los verdaderos culpables y las causas, no merece más de una estrella para mí y honestamente no entiendo por qué tomarse la molestia de traducir un trabajo tan simple y tibio.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 404 reviews