The Gunpowder Plot

by Alan Haynes

Alan Haynes’s probing analysis offers the clearest, most balanced view yet of often conflicting evidence regarding what happened November 5th, as he disentangles the threads of disharmony, intrigue, betrayal, terror and retribution. In this new, updated edition he gathers together startling evidence to uncover the depth and extent of the plot, and how close the plotters came to de-stabilizing the government in one of the most notorious terrorist plots of British history. This enthralling book will grip the general reader, while the scope of its detailed research will require historians of the period to consider again the commanding importance of the plot throughout the 17th century.

Genres: History, Nonfiction

192 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1994

Reviews

[Rebecca · Rating 1 out of 5]

This was a reread. It'd been so long since I last read this book that I forgot how unpleasant a reading experience it is. I dont mind that the author has a bias. What I can't stand and what makes it hard for me to take anything he had to say seriously or as trustworthy from an academic standpoint is how he dismisses anyone who doesn't share his bias. He acts like he is impartial when he's not. He assumes Catholics writing on this topic are less trustworthy than someone who is clearly pro Robert Cecil. Clearly that wont bias him in any direction.
The first 40 some odd pages are a convoluted mess that can be skipped as it has no real bearing on the rest of the book.The author adds nothing to the discussion of the Gunpowder Plot. Prior to giving any real introduction to Robert Catesby, the author labels him a sociopath, anarchist, and fanatic. He sees only the language of fanatics for all of the conspirators. Percy and Grant are also deemed mentally unstable. The author, so far as I can tell, is not a psychologist. Yet even before exploration of their biographical information would have the reader assume no honorable motives such as fighting for religious freedom as being real. They were just angry unstable men. Or people easily manipulated because no friend ever does anything reckless, stupid, or treasonous due to loyalty to a friend or family. He deems language not unlike that which is found in the American Declaration of Independence to be fanatical, unrelatable, and not how we think or speak now. Such language was the norm then.
Any evidence that contradicts the government version is deemed conspiracy theory made up by Catholics. He rarely actually quotes the specific historians he disagrees with, nor names them, nor gives actual evidence or logic for how his may be a better reading of the facts. He simply goes Catholics came up with it so it must be wrong. If I took a shot every time he wrote about historians and the conspirators like this, I'd be dead from alcohol poisoning before I made it half way through the book.
As for debates on the authenticity of Wintour's confession, which for a time was held as a forgery, he simply states that it is now authentic. How, when, or who authenticated it he doesn't say.
Don't even get me started on how he wrote about the Jesuits or we'd be here all day. Suffice it to say that beffudled hand wringer is not how I have ever heard Father Garnet described till now.
Suffice to say for a book that is supposedly balanced and giving new information, there is nothing new here.
The writing itself is as dry as overcooked pork chops. If you want good introductions to The Gunpowder Plot read Intended Treason by Paul Durst, be aware he leans heavily on the conspiracy theory side, and God's Secret Agents. I forget the subtitle and author for that one.

[Todd Price · Rating 3 out of 5]

Remembering the 5th of November, 1605, Haynes has written a history of the infamous “Gunpowder Plot” by Catholic dissidents in England to blow up Parliament with barrels of gunpowder. He gives excellent background information on various similar plots all the way back to the reign of Elizabeth I. Haynes also offers great follow up on the aftermath of the plot, including the investigation and trial of the conspirators. He then follows the story of the oath of loyalty to James I that further alienated many English Catholics, causing many to leave their homeland to escape religious persecution.

While the historical research is sound, the writing style is fairly challenging. There are times that many of the characters seem suddenly introduced with little background information. To effectively appreciate this work, the reader needs a strong background in 16th and 17th Century English history. Otherwise, the narrative loses much in context, despite being very informative.

[Bill · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read this book because I felt like learning more about Guy Fawkes. For two reasons; 1) He came from York, where I now live and 2) anyone who wanted to blow up the Houses of Parliament can't have been all bad!

Anyway it was an ok book, but for me it was much too dry and it also took far too long to get to Guy Fawkes himself

So not my favourite, but well written if you like dry history books

[Andrew Ives · Rating 3 out of 5]

Although apparently a short and small book, this felt very hard going almost all the way through. The middle of the book is obviously concerned with the Plot and the plotters themselves, from the Plot's inception until the plotters' ultimate downfall around 1604-06. Leading up to this section, we have some lengthy chapters about the state of England, Scotland, the Catholic/Protestant feelings towards the monarch, involvement from Rome and other foreign powers, and some failed plots against Elizabeth I, before the titular Plot against James I. This section covers pretty much everything you could possibly imagine from about 1560 up until 1603, with so many protagonists, places, dates and religious motives, that only the most serious of academics can surely follow much of what the first 60 pages are about. The Plot itself, with Catesby's skulduggery, gathering of gunpowder, weapons, horses, accomplices and backers, whilst trying to maintain some semblance of secrecy, makes for interesting reading. The aftermath, albeit rather gruesome, and subsequent state of Britain, plays, poems, is similarly interesting despite the verbose and academic style. To be fair to Haynes, this is a seriously researched book and if you have any questions about the whys and wherefores of the Plot, it's all here somewhere. No stone is left unturned. However, for the casual reader who dabbles in such history around November, this is hard work which is not entirely rewarding. 3.25/5

[Paul Taylor · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is an absolute shocker. The only thing that can commend this book to you is as an illustration of how, by turgid prose and interminable sentences, one can denude the Gunpowder Plot of any of its spark. On page 113 Haynes refers to:"...the Earl of Northampton, the learned pedant and crypto-Catholic who could bore for England". I do not know whether Mr. Haynes might describe himself as crypto-Catholic but learned pedant who could bore for England certainly fit the bill. It is a real shame that such a wealth of facts have been presented in so unpalatable a way as to render the book almost unreadable. I can only imagine how Haynes might treat his subject matter in the spicily titled Sex in Elizabethan England. I can only imagine it because I certainly won't be reading it; or anything else written by Mr. Haynes.

[Bill38silver · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a difficult read even though it is only 144 pages of text broken up by numerous illustrations. I found many chapters dense, complex and convoluted. For a book bearing this title there is a lot of superfluous material, frequent deviations, and a barrage of characters and titles that make this a bit of a trial to get through. The final two chapters (on the Plot and the Playwright and the Swords of the Gentlemen) appear to have been bolted on (padding).

The best chapters are those which deal directly with the plot itself and the trial and fate of the main conspirators. I would have liked more information on the lives of the main plotters ( who can name any of them except Guy Fawkes?) and also the controversy of who wrote the Monteagle letter. Overall, not a book to fire the imagination, except the more academic student of history. A failed Plot.

[Skallagrimsen]

I read this one around the same time as The Gunpowder Plot: Terror and Faith in 1605 by Antonia Fraser. I recall it being comparably good on the details of the plot itself, less so as an overview of the period as a whole. It has the advantage of decent period illustrations, and appendixes of obscure information about the less-famous Powder Plotters that was of interest to me at the time. The average reader without a deep interest or historical frame of reference might find Alan Haynes's book a more accessible introduction to the Gunpowder Plot.

[Dave Clarke · Rating 1 out of 5]

Took so long to read because it was so truly awful … each page was a tortured mess of overly worded sentence after sentence, the whole thing being in desperate need of a pair of shears and a decent editor … such an amazing tale, so poorly presented

[David Tutt · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book helped my understanding of who the 13 plotters were, the relationship between them and how why the plot was discovered.

[Lily Webster · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was 'ight.

[Jo · Rating 3 out of 5]

Seemed an appropriate time of year to read this. Haynes explores the wheres and the hows and the whys of the Gunpowdeer Plot. A little drily academic at times but, generally, very interesting.

[Pete daPixie · Rating 2 out of 5]

Do you ever read a page, get to the bottom and think...what?! It kept happening to me reading this. So many Elizabethan catholic plotters, the Babington plot (that snared Mary Queen of Scots), the Main plot, Bye plot, Ridolfi plot, Essex plot. So many spies, agents, double agents (the origin of Ian Fleming's 007). The networks run by Cecil (Lord Burghley) & Sir Francis Walsingham ensured the Protestant monarchy and government survived, and all these plots failed.
The research is very detailed, but I found the book heavy going, before finally getting to the climactic events of Robert Catesby's doomed plot.
Interesting to learn playwright Ben Johnson was on the fringes of nefarious deeds, and Walter Raleigh had his fingers in more than tobacco. Even a Lord Stanley turns up again with more coats to turn. After their betrayal of Richard, at Bosworth in 1485, here they are plotting against the Tudor monarchy they helped set up!
(Not a lot of people know this, as Michael Caine would say, but the Stanley family genealogy in the 20th century would spawn a certain John Winston Lennon).

[Changeling72 · Rating 3 out of 5]

A detailed account and my little brain had a little trouble keeping up with the complicated political machinations, but I found it interesting nonetheless. In one respect I find it understandable that the plotters resorted to desperate means prompted by their dashed hopes of leniency following the accession of James, but a lot of 'innocents' would have died too - had the plot succeeded. As it was, the plot did more harm than good to the Catholic cause and many Catholics who were horrified at what was attempted suffered as a result. Ultimately, one could say it was another step in the road to the Civil War and Act of Settlement, but it sounds like Catesby was a fanatic and there was no stopping him. One amusing, if incredulous, aside: I had heard before that the plotters, after fleeing London upon discovery, had attempted to dry out their gunpowder in front of an open fire. Needless to said, said gunpowder ignited and the explosion inflicted burns and other harms on the hapless fugitives. You couldn't make it up!

[Bodine · Rating 1 out of 5]

Really struggled with this one. You constantly jump through time and the first 80 pages feel very much irrelevant to the actual gunpowder plot. A graphic would've helped to understand all the different people involved and how they relate to each other, as that was always pointed out but made no sense in only written words.

[Elliott · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is not a bad book, but for an American audience, and especially one not familiar with the times, or for many of the cast of characters involved in Reformation/Elizabethan/early Stuart England, it is a rather difficult read, and what's more a difficult read that appears much easier than it is.

[Leah Palmer · Rating 3 out of 5]

Found this book difficult to get into at first but loved the indepth history on it all

[me · Rating 1 out of 5]

I can't tell you whether this book is any good as history or not as I found it literally unreadable. Terrible sentences that refused to turn into meaning in my brain.