Stephen and Matilda's Civil War: Cousins of Anarchy

by Matthew Lewis

The story of the twelfth-century rivalry for the throne between the daughter and the nephew of Henry I—a battle that tore England apart for over a decade.The Anarchy was the first civil war in post-Conquest England, enduring throughout the reign of King Stephen between 1135 and 1154. It ultimately brought about the end of the Norman dynasty and the birth of the mighty Plantagenet kings. When Henry I died having lost his only legitimate son in a shipwreck, his barons had sworn to recognize his daughter Matilda, widow of the Holy Roman Emperor, as his heir, and remarried her to Geoffrey, Count of Anjou. But when she was slow to move to England upon her father’s death, Henry’s favorite nephew, Stephen of Blois, rushed to have himself crowned, much as Henry himself had done on the death of his brother William Rufus.Supported by his brother Henry, Bishop of Winchester, Stephen made a promising start, but Matilda would not give up her birthright and tried to hold the English barons to their oaths. The result was more than a decade of civil war that saw England split apart. Empress Matilda is often remembered as aloof and high-handed, Stephen as ineffective and indecisive. By following both sides of the dispute and seeking to understand their actions and motivations, Matthew Lewis aims to reach a more rounded understanding of this crucial period of English history—and ask to what extent there really was anarchy.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Medieval, British Literature, Military History, Biography

387 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 19, 2020

About the author

Matthew Lewis is the author of histories and historical fiction novels about Richard III and the Wars of the Roses. The medieval period is a particular passion of Matthew’s, a passion he hopes to share through his blog. He is dedicated to teaching and discussing this period, operating two history podcasts and providing bite-sized facts to his Twitter and Facebook following.

Lewis has degree in Law and currently lives in Shropshire.

Reviews

[Maja - BibliophiliaDK ✨ · Rating 3 out of 5]

NOT GOOD, NOT BAD - FORGETTABLE 🙄

Usually, I write my reviews with a list of good and bad things about the book in question. Sadly, I cannot do that with this one. Nothing jumped out at me as either good or bad. Nothing stood out. It didn't capture my attention. It was not bad in any way - it's just not a book I am going to remember a week from today.

ARC provided by the publisher through NetGalley in exchange for an honest review

Follow me for more book goodness: Facebook | Twitter | Instagram

[Rebecca Hill · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Civil War between Stephen and Matilda has long captivated historians and readers alike. Cousins fighting over who the crown truly belonged to - and the issues of a woman being on the throne - makes for captivating reading.
This book is no different, and you are going to get sucked in from the beginning! Get ready for the best game of thrones you will ever read!

On the death of King Henry I, the throne should have passed to Matilda, his daughter. While she was not the first choice, she was what the king had left after the White Ship disaster. However, her cousin Stephen swooped in and claimed the crown for himself, setting off decades of a civil war that threatened to tear England apart. While England was not truly ready for a woman to rule, Stephen might not have been the best choice - he was rather soft in several areas (although thank goodness, because we got William Marshall through his softness).
The years of war did not lessen the duties that Matilda had as a wife and mother, and her sons grew up under the banners of war, both from their mother and father. While this could have raged indefinitely, the final resolution was brought about after the death of Stephen's son Eustace (who if we are being completely honest, would have been a horrible king), and put Henry, Duke of Normandy on the throne.

I cannot say enough good things about this book! While I know the ins and outs of this Civil War, Matthew Lewis brought it around in a few ways that I had not considered before. I found myself going back and forth, and comparing different theories through his writing.
Absolutely loved it - and I will be adding this book to my student approved reading list for future semesters!

[Joanna Arman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Stephen and Matilda's Civil War (formerly entitled Cousins of Anarchy) was an excellent and very engaging popular history of the 12th century conflict often known as 'the Anarchy'. The protagonists were two grandchildren of William the Conqueror, Matilda (AKA Empress Maud) and King Stephen. The period of course, made famous in the Cadfael series.

For readers who know nothing about the period, this book is an excellent choice. It doesn't go into as much depth as some, but is more a summary of key events and figures. I appreciated the slightly more sympathetic appraisal of Stephen reign, and how the author didn't shy away from criticizing Matilda where it was due.

The author makes good use of contemporary sources. However, whilst I'm a Medievalist, the 12th century is not my strongpoint, so I can't assess every source's strengths or make judgements about accuracy. I have to confess, though, that other material I have read by Mr Lewis has caused me to have some serious questions about his objectivity and approach.
It's ironic in a way that some of the same criticisms he levels at other historians and Victorian writers in their depiction of Stephen can also be leveled at him for his treatment of Henry VI and other key figures in 15th century Wars of the Roses.

In the same way as it does Stephen "a disservice to label his reign as lawless and lacking in government" it is also a disservice to the man who established Eton an King's College Cambridge to label him as utterly useless an incompetent. It's a little odd to remember these words praising Stephen were written by the same man who once told us Henry VI deserved to be murdered.

So whilst this is a good book, I would recommend it more as a starting point for those who seek to learn about the events of the first half of the 12th century in England. There are a couple of other books about the first civil war following the Norman Conquest, and I shall be reading them in the near future.

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

[Melisende · Rating 3 out of 5]

Again, this is not a period that I have come into blindly - and have a number of books on the subject matter on my own books shelves. What I found in Lewis' book, with his alternating chapters between Stephen and Matilda, was a more balanced history of this turbulent period.

What he also stresses that whilst this period was called The Anarchy - he questions whether this is correct - did this period between the death of Henry I (1153) and the accession of Henry II (1154) - see a complete and total breakdown and absence of government during Stephen's reign.

It was a civil war in which there were four potential claimants - with only two interested enough to battle it out for a period of 19 years. The actual violence and destruction was not as widespread as is documented by the three main contemporary writers of the times, all of whose accounts are riddled with their own forms of bias. They were in essence, written by churchmen, providing an opportunistic moral lesson at the same time as recounting localised events and their direct effects.

I am taken back to the events of the Norman Conquest, when the death of a King left the playing field wide open - in this instance, we are not only left with a male relative who was favoured by the late King but with a female, whilst of unquestionable royal blood, at a time when such acceptance of a sole female monarch was just not on the cards.

England was hardly the peaceful realm when Stephen took the throne (for succession was still not hereditary at this point) - Normandy was in rebellion, Scotland and Wales were simmering with tension, and the selection of a king was more preferable to ".. the enforcement of lineal descent ...'' and the oaths made under duress, Matilda absent and in no hurry, Stephen was on the spot, and once annointed, few with loathe to remove him.

Lewis portrays both Stephen and Matilda evenly, and this will provide a good introduction into the period.

[Les Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent informative book. I didn’t realise until reading this book regarding our local castle and Maud. Even it’s building was due to her. Also that Steven‘s wife died here.

[Nemo Nemo · Rating 3 out of 5]

AUTHOR

Matthew Lewis was born in England. He obtained a law degree, but history has always been his passion. He has authored numerous historical books, both fiction and non-fiction. You can find his blog here, his Facebook page here, his Goodreads page here, and his Twitter page here.

WHO IS THE TARGET AUDIENCE?

This book is best suited for historians, students of medieval history or anyone who enjoys learning about the English ancient ruling class.


SYNOPSIS

Stephen and Matilda's Civil War is the tale of two cousins fight over the throne of England. King Henry I died in 1135 and had no legitimate male heir. His only legitimate son, William Adelin, drowned in the “White Ship” disaster in 1120. His only other legitimate child was Empress Matilda, a female. No female had ever ruled England at this time, but Henry I wanted her to reign after him. Unfortunately for Matilda she was in Anjou at the time of her father’s death. Her first cousin Stephen of Blois rushed in and usurped the crown in her absence. This led to The Anarchy (civil-war) that endured nearly two decades.

Matthew Lewis composes a compelling tale of a tumultuous time in English history. His research and writing ability are evident throughout the book. He delves into the chaos of the time and brings to light the suffering of all those involved. The war ebbs and flows back and forth with no one really seeming to get the upper hand. The external and internal conflicts surrounding this event in history are too numerous to comprehend, but Matthew does an excellent job. He uses personal accounts, quotes, and even a few images to help the reader try to understand the complexities of the times.

CONCLUSION

Stephen and Matilda's Civil War is an exceptionally researched historic look at The Anarchy. The author is able to describe in detail the look and feel of the era, as if you were standing there observing it in real time. The battles, both political and literal are played out across the pages of this manuscript. A great read for anyone who is interested in medieval England.

[Stephen · Rating 3 out of 5]

interesting detailed book looking at both sides of this civil war and if there was really was any anarchy overall and looks at all the historical records and the reasons why this period had been overlooked by historians

[Julie Yates · Rating 5 out of 5]

My 2nd Anarchy [Civil war in England 1138-1153 after King Henry I died without male issue.] book - I absolutely loved it! I felt it an even handed general overview year by year with an emphasis on WHY people are making their choices. While it doesn't go into the play by play of every battle, what Lewis excels at is exploring the different scenarios in the players heads leading them to do what they do. [Ex: Is Stephen's brother Henry truly a traitor or is he faking allegiance to Matilda and why?] Lewis alternates chapters between Stephen and Matilda to dig into what their motivation, how their followers are reacting.

* Excellent job exposing how Matilda's sex was so hard for the nobles to overcome, while allowing that she apparently had an extremely abrasive personality.

* Describes how so many of Stephen's choices were "bad" but only in hindsight, and why they may have been his best possible moves at the time.

* Through understanding of why siege warfare was preferable to pitched battles, and why nobles (after 19 years of this nonsense) would start refusing to fight.

* Explains how "The Anarchy" was a misnomer and vast parts of the country was unharmed (to the degree that people left to go on the 2nd crusade, so they obviously felt their lands and families would not be harmed)

Most important quote on why the war continued:
The novel situation faced by Stephen, and Matilda, and those around them, was the potential of a viable alternative. Nobles rebelled - that was nothing new - but they would generally find themselves reconciled, executed of exiled. … The exceptional situation in 1136 was that ...From this moment on, anyone who fell out with Stephen could seek out Empress Matilda and promote her cause. There was no imperative to seek a reconciliation with Stephen and exile was not the end of the matter either. How could he enforce order amongst his barons when they could simply transfer their support at any moment? Many of the traditional levers available to a king to maintain law and unity were removed from Stephen by the existence of this rival claimant to his throne!

[Donna · Rating 3 out of 5]

When King Henry I died in 1135, it created a succession crisis in England between two grandchildren of William the Conqueror - Matilda, Henry’s daughter and Stephen of Blois, Henry’s nephew and son of the Conqueror’s daughter, Adela. While Stephen pre-empted Matilda and swooped in to claim the throne, the matter was hardly settled. This book chronicles the fifteen-year civil war that ensued between the two rivals, known as The Anarchy and referred to in The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles as a time “when Christ and His saints slept.”

Three take aways from Lewis’s analysis of this turbulent time are: 1) King Stephen may not have been as inept as he has been portrayed by historians but rather constantly had to choose the best alternative from a whole host of undesirable options; 2) Matilda suffered from living in an era when strength and forcefulness were seen as virtuous in male leaders but disdained in women and viewed as abrasive and unseemly, and; 3) The evidence, Lewis suggests, doesn’t support the idea that the whole country was thrown into a state of anarchy and disorder under Stephen’s rule, as was written by the monastic chroniclers at the time.

This book was a bit hit or miss for me. It’s a very detailed history with lots of moving parts and a host of actors that can be difficult to keep straight. It started out slowly and remained so until about the halfway point where the narrative became much more engaging. Lewis spends a fair amount of ink pondering the true motivation of key supporters/detractors of Stephen and Matilda, something that can only be guessed at in hindsight and probably never known for certain. He also is repetitive with his analysis. Still, a well-researched, detailed, and even-handed treatment of The Anarchy.

[Oli Turner]

#stephenandmatilda #cousinsofanarchy by #matthewlewis published in 2019.
A fair and balanced account of the civil war between the two central figures. The biography of Matilda I read recently was obviously and purposefully one sided.
I like the structure of alternating chapters.
Although the chapter titles could have been a little more expressive. Some really good anecdotes - especially Matilda’s secret escape from a besieged castle in the snow.
There was some unnecessary armchair-psychology from the author (see slide 3) I know that the pictures in my bedroom are there because I find them aesthetically pleasing, but I cannot honestly say they are the first thing I see in the morning and the last thing I see at night and they certainly don’t dominate my thoughts. The final few chapters and conclusion were excellent and I am looking forward to reading Lewis’ book about Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine soon.

[Heidi Malagisi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Civil wars between cousins have had many names in the past, notably in England, the Wars of the Roses. However, there was a civil war that pre-dates the colorful contest known as The Anarchy. Two cousins fighting against one another from the throne of England, but what makes this contest unique was the main protagonists caught in the middle. One was the only legitimate child of King Henry I, Empress Matilda. The other was Henry I’s favorite nephew, Stephen of Blois. This conflict stretched for decades and has fascinated historians for centuries. It is complex and at times, a bit confusing, but Matthew Lewis has chosen to shed some light on what happened during this period in history in his latest book, “Stephen and Matilda’s Civil War: Cousins of Anarchy”.

I would like to thank Pen and Sword Books for sending me a copy of this book. I have enjoyed Matthew Lewis’ books in the past and I didn’t know much about The Anarchy, so this book seemed like a good place to start.

The story of The Anarchy started when Henry I’s only legitimate son died tragically in The White Ship disaster. Although Henry I did have numerous illegitimate children, the only legitimate child that he had left was his daughter Matilda. She was married to the Holy Roman Emperor Henry V, thus she took her illustrious title Empress Matilda. However, when her husband died, she married Geoffrey, Count of Anjou.

When Henry I died in 1135, the throne was supposed to pass down to Empress Matilda, which would have been unprecedented as a woman never ruled England before. However, Empress Matilda’s cousin and Henry I’s nephew, Stephen of Blois got to England first and became King Stephen. To make matters a bit more confusing for those who study this time period, King Stephen married Matilda of Boulogne, who is known in this book as Queen Matilda. Although they shared the same name, these two women acted very differently when it came to how women in power demanded respect from the men around them.

As Lewis explains, The Anarchy which lasted from 1135 until 1154, was not this period of extreme chaos caused by King Stephen’s reign. There are some misconceptions about King Stephen and Empress Matilda that have been passed on through the centuries such as King Stephen was an ineffective leader and Empress Matilda was power-hungry and heavy-handed. Since Lewis decided to keep a very neutral approach, showing both sides of the conflict, which was such a strength in this book, the reader can understand what both Stephen and Matilda were fighting for and how they fought their war. Lewis also showed how the barons, clergy, and other European rulers played into this confusing conflict which led to Empress Matilda’s son Henry II becoming the first Plantagenet King of England.

This was a great introductory book to the conflict known as The Anarchy and the colorful characters of King Stephen and Empress Matilda. Lewis was able to combine well-researched information and an easy to understand writing style to bring this conflict to life. As someone who did not know a whole lot about The Anarchy before I read this book, I found it rather enlightening. The only qualm that I did have with this book was that I was getting confused about the barons and clergy who were helping either side and which side they were on. I do wish that Lewis included a table of names of the people involved to help clear the confusion. Overall, I did enjoy this book. If you want a great book that introduces you to the tumultuous time in English history known as The Anarchy, I recommend you read, “Stephen and Matilda’s Civil War: Cousins of Anarchy” by Matthew Lewis.

[Peter Bradley · Rating 4 out of 5]

Unruly: The Ridiculous History of England’s Kings and Queens by David Mitchell

David Mitchell is a British comedian. I have seen him on “Would I Lie to You,” where he deploys a mordant wit with a British finishing school attitude. His demeanor is usually one of exasperation with the ridiculousness he is required to put up with.

He seems to be an amateur historian. In this book, he uses his wit and exasperation to take the reader through seven hundred years of British royal history. Mitchell’s history is funny, profane, scatological,l and memorable. I suspect that I am going to remember the line of English monarchs from Edward the Confessor to Henry VIII. (Or maybe not. I’ve got to go and brush up on the Edwards.) Mitchell manages to pack in a lot of historical details in his narrative. He is absolutely right about every woman involved being named “Matilda.”) Mitchell covers the high points and gives a good sense of the consensus of historians on the subject. This suggests that he’s done a lot of reading on the subject.

Mitchell does go on long, irrelevant, anachronistic segues. Mitchell advises that he is center-left politically. Perhaps that makes him something of a republican. His general attitude is that the monarchy is at its best when it guarantees stability and predictability to the country. Kings may need to be tough, sometimes merciless, but they need to be predictable, or the system breaks down, leading to rebellion, civil war, and mass suffering.

To continue to channel Mitchell’s perspective, normally, however, monarchs are screw-ups. They are no better than anyone else, and their pretensions are delusions. In the early days of the English monarchy, kings had the idea that they had been selected by God as a bolster to their rule. When monarchs were removed from the throne, as happened with Richard II and Henry VI, the idea that anyone could be king became a reality. Mitchell points out that the things we like best — parliament and Magna Carta — came with weak and vacillating kings, as things intended to curb their bad decisions. The good kings, the ones we like, are positively toxic to the idea of self-rule.

Despite Mitchell’s center-left tendencies, he carefully reined in the gratuitous shots at the opposition and interspersed more than a few barbs at his side. That shows professionalism and an understanding that his customers might come from all sides of the political spectrum.

This was a fun and informative book, an easy read. In some ways, I wonder if my understanding of the English monarchy isn’t going to pull more from this book than the texts by serious historians that I have and will read.


Stephen and Matilda’s Civil War: Cousins of Anarchy by Matthew Lewis

If George RR Martin was not so obviously basing his “Game of Thrones” on the Wars of the Roses, the “Anarchy” — the civil war between Empress Matilda and King Stephen — would have been the model for the book.

I decided to read this book after reading David Mitchell’s “Unruly,” which led me to appreciate that while I had heard of Empress Matilda and King Stephen, I had no idea what was going on between them. This episode always seemed like a strange interlude in English history.

A few points in David Mitchell’s favor. First, all the women were named “Matilda.” There was Empress Matilda and Queen Matilda and they were both related to a Matilda married to David, King of Scotland. Second, the fact of Stephen’s coronation really was very important. Stephen got coronated first, and from that point on his legitimacy was generally accepted by everyone other than Matilda. Stephen was even captured by Matilda at one point, but rather than being “shortened” — as would have happened in later centuries — he was kept alive, eventually released, and returned to the “game of thrones.”

The story begins with Henry I, a son of William the Conqueror, and, more specifically, with the death of his son in the shipwreck of the White Ship. The White Ship disaster killed his son, William Adelin, and a good number of other noble heirs, who were along for the short-lived, drunken, “party boat” excursion. The disaster left Henry I with no male heir. Henry I improvised by requiring his magnates to swear an oath to support his daughter Empress Matilda.

Empress Matilda was “empress” Matilda because she had been married to the Holy Roman Emperor. He died, but she kept the title.

Unfortunately, when Henry I died everyone forgot their oath to Henry I. Stephen, a nephew of Henry I and cousin of Matilda, was on the spot. He was well-liked and the consensus was that he should take the throne. He was quickly consecrated as king.

Of course, the consecration involved a breaking of oaths by everyone, including King Stephen, which gave Empress Matilda a major point to argue that King Stephen was an oath-breaking usurper.

In addition, Empress Matilda had married Geoffrey, Count of Anjou. His wife’s claim gave him a basis to invade and eventually capture Normandy, the other part of the English monarch’s realm. Geoffrey was ultimately successful in his enterprise and became Duke of Normandy, as well as Count of Anjou.

Stephen was hard-pressed in England as well as Normandy. He had to deal with a Scottish invasion and rebellions in England. One of his trusted subordinates was Robert, Earl of Gloucester, who was an illegitimate son of Henry I, which made him the half-brother of Matilda and cousin of Stephen. Robert had also sworn an oath to support Matilda but had broken that oath. Robert eventually recanted his support of Stephen and became Matilda’s principal supporter in England.

The author Matthew Lewis argues that although the monks depicted an England destroyed by civil war, and the Victorians described the period as “The Anarchy,” the actual situation was not nearly that bad. He points out that magnates developed a patchwork of peace treaties to tamp down the effect of battles, and many Englishmen could sign up for the Crusades, which would not have been possible if England had been devastated.

In addition, while Stephen has a bad reputation as a weak monarch, his quick responses to many threats, his ability to stay in the field, and the support of different parts of England who fought for him or called on him in the face of invasion lead Lewis to rehabilitate his reputation. Stephen’s reputation for weakness comes from his admirable commitment to chivalry, which involved not killing people when he could (including a young William Marshall.)

One of the odder features of the war occurred when Stephen was captured in battle. Battles were things that knights avoided because they were risky and chaotic. Unlike sieges, bad things could happen in battles, which had an admirable certainty. Stephen was captured in one such battle and held as a prisoner for nearly a year. Empress Matilda was not able to capitalize on this event — which should have ended the war — because she was chased out of London by its citizens without being crowned. In addition, Stephen’s wife, Queen Matilda, kept Stephen’s cause alive. Within the year, Robert, Earl of Gloucester, was also captured in battle, and a complicated prisoner exchange of Stephen for Robert was arranged.

Strange times.

Eventually, the person known variously as Henry Fitz Empress, Duke Henry, and Henry II came on the scene. Henry prosecuted a war against Stephen but was reluctant to bring Stephen to battle. (Mitchell’s version is that the nobles refused to fight, which is consistent with the idea that they had been entering into a patchwork of peace treaties.) Stephen’s wife and his oldest son had died, and his second son declared that he did not want the throne, leaving Stephen without an heir. A deal was brokered to leave Stephen as king for his lifetime and have the throne than go to Henry II, the grandson of Henry I, the great-grandson of William the Conqueror.

Stephen died in less than a year.

This book is filled with details. It is incredible how much information can be gleaned from contemporaneous sources, including the Orderic Vitalis, the Gesta Stephani, and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles. The book changes the perspective from Stephen to Matilda with each chapter. The book is a little dry, and the narrative can become confusing, but the flow of the story is easily followed.

[Tudor · Rating 3 out of 5]

Kitabı ümumilikdə bəyəndim və 3 ulduzla 4 ulduz arasında gedib gəldim, amma daha da yaxşısı ola bilərdi deyə düşünərək 3 verdim. Hadisələr daha geniş izah oluna bilərdi, iştirakçıların həyatı haqqında daha çox məlumat əldə edə bilərdik. Xüsusilə əziz Earl Robert haqqında.
Yazıçı haqqında çox şey bilmədiyimdən kitab��n məlumat cəhətdən məni razı salacağından əmin deyildim, amma araşdırma cəhətdən məni narahat edən bir şey olmadı. Kitabın sonundakı səhifə-səhifə ədəbiyyat siyahısından da lazımi araşdırmanın edildiyi görünür, bundan əlavə məndə etibar yaradan kitab boyunca tez-tez Gesta Stephani, William of Malbesbury, Henry of Huntingdon kimi həmin dövrün qeydçilərinin yazılarına müraciət edilməsi oldu, əks təqdirdə kitabın bir qiyməti qalmazdı gözümdə.
Yazıçıda bir qədər Stephen'ə meyillilik hiss etdim, Matilda'nı da yer-yer tərifləsə də Stephen'in hər bir hərəkətinə düşünüləndən əlavə xeyirxah və ya məntiqli başqa bir səbəb ehtimalı da əlavə etmək cəhdləri gözə çarpırdı. Düzü elmi sayılan bir kitabda öz fikirlərini bu qədər əlavə etməsi heç də həmişə xoşagələn görünmədi mənə. Düzdür, hadisələri öz sözləri ilə izah edərək oxucunun işini asanlaşdıra bilər, amma bəzi hallarda öz fikrimi formalaşdırmaq yerinə yazıçının fikirlərinin təsirində qalmaq ehtimalı məni narahat etdi. Nəticə olaraq Anarxiya haqqında əvvəllər oxumamışam və ilk dəfə bu yazıçının qələmi ilə bu dövrə addım atıram. Buna baxmayaraq Stephen'ə olan qərəzli yanaşmamı bir qədər qırmaqda kömək oldu. Bunu önəmli hesab edirəm, çünki çox zaman onu Matildanın haqqını qəsb edən bir xaindən başqa bir şey olaraq görmürdüm, kitab isə mənə onun da xeyirxah və əxlaqi cəhətdən yüksək qiymətləndirilə biləcək davranışları olduğunu, onun da bir insan olduğunu xatırlatmış oldu. Xüsusilə kitabın sonunda yazıçı Stephen'in ölümündən bəhs edərkən onun həyat yoluna və hansı hissləri keçirmiş ola biləcəyinə toxunur, bu da məni Stephen'ə fərqli bir baxış bucağından baxmağa vadar etdi.
Matildanı isə haqqında çox da bir şey oxumadan hər şeyə qadir, güclü, əsl hökmdar kimi təsəvvür edirdim, amma kitab mənə onun da qüsurları olduğunu göstərdi. Gərək çox zaman göstərdiyi passivlik olsun, gərək də xasiyyətindəki bəzi nöqsanlar. Bunlara baxmayaraq yenə də heyran olunası qadındır, xüsusilə Oxford qalasından gecə şaxtada qaçaraq piyada nə qədər yol getmiş olması əfsanəvidir.
Və mənim ilk andan sevimlimə çevrilən Robert of Gloucester! Deyim ki, ilk dəfədir bu qədər onurlu, əxlaqlı, sadiq, şərəfini hər şeydən üstün tutan bir insan haqqında oxudum. Verdiyi sözlərə hər zaman sadiq qalması, qabaqdan gəlmişlik edərək düşmənini namərdcəsinə arxadan vurmağı ağlından belə keçirməməsi, özünün də kralın oğlu olmasına baxmayaraq taxta iddia sürmək əvəzinə əvvəllər içdiyi andın arxasında duraraq bacısını dəstəkləməsi, ən ümidsiz anlarda belə ruhdan düşməməsi... Oxuduqca daha da heyran oldum, daha da sevdim. Bacısı üçün gah İngiltərədə hər cür şəraitdə döyüşür, gah Normandiyaya keçərək Geoffrey'in adından qalalar tutub onu Matilda'ya dəstək olması üçün yola gətirməyə çalışır, sonra isə Matildanın təhlükədə olduğunu bilib bir an belə gözləmədən İngiltərəyə qaçaraq onu xilas etməyə çalışır. Hələ bacısı qaçıb qurtulsun deyə özünü fəda edib əsir düşməsini demirəm. Həmin anda belə ruhdan düşmür, öz xilası üçün belə Matildanı satmır. Belə bir vəfa inanılmazdır. Robert mənim üçün çox dəyərli birinə çevrildi.

[Eileen · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you are not reasonably well read in English history or the fictional works of Sharon K. Penman, you might not know who Stephen and Matilda were. English history is full of fascinating stories of kings, queens, wars, peace, and survival. Among them, the 21-year fight for the throne of England by those two stand out. They were cousins who both claimed the throne; Stephen by physical proximity and a quick coronation after King Henry I died, Matilda by direct line and the solemn oath the nobility, including Stephen, took in the presence of King Henry I to make her the Lady of the English (euphemism for Queen regnant). Exactly how it started, played out, and ended, is the stuff of legend. There were two contemporary chronicals kept, each one favoring a different side. Here Matthew Lewis digs deeper and puts forward the facts that became that legend, and the very real people involved in what would become known as The Anarchy, or at the time called "when Christ and the angels slept".

Though Henry I had more than 26 children, only 2 were legitimate, a son William, and a daughter Matilde. Matilda was bundled off to Germany to marry the Holy Roman Emperor Henry when she was 12. Her younger brother William famously died in the sinking of the White Ship. Coincidentally, Stephen of Blois (later to become King Stephen) narrowly missed the same fate when he left the White Ship minutes before it set sail because he got sick. Unfortunately for Henry I, Matilda, and England in only one generation it was no longer permitted to have an illegitimate heir - and Henry had several capable sons most notable is Robert of Gloucester who fought tirelessly for his half-sister. But as mentioned earlier, Henry thought he had it covered when he had his barons swear an oath before God to accept Matilda.

When Henry I died, both Stephen and Matilda were on the continent. Stephen, who was the son of Henry's sister Adela, quickly boarded a ship to England, while the pregnant Matilda stayed in Normandy awaiting the birth of her third son, by the formidable Geoffrey, Count of Anjou. Stephen was crowned on December 21, 1135, just three weeks after Henry's death. Matilda gave birth in July 1136.

When she finally got to England the 21 year struggle began and while she had the loyalty of many of the most important barons of the land, and Geoffrey had her back in Normandy, Stephen had the crown and she was going to have to fight to get it. It was a ripper of a fight, and honestly, you could not make up some of the stuff that actually happened. And I'm not going to tell you even one! Matthew Lewis' revelations are both stunning and complete. No one does history like him.

If you like adventure, knights in battle, chivalry, fighting (as in on horseback) bishops, constant switching of sides, damsels in distress, this is the book for you.

[Cynthia]

Stephen and Matilda's Civil War by Matthew Lewis is an interesting book and is very well researched. As the author pointed out near the beginning of the book, it can be confusing at times to keep everyone straight but by going slowly and keeping notes (I know, I'm a nerd making notes and family trees), the confusion can be kept to a minimum. If only people consulted a baby names book instead of "honoring" people by naming their children after them! One would think there were only 20 names or so in the world! (Sorry for my very poor attempt at humor.)

In any event, if you have an interest in history, I suggest you check this book out. It covers a period of time that I was not very familiar with and covers it well. It would make a facinating tv series; there is simply too much to tell and trying to cram it all into a movie would do it, and the viewer, a disservice. This seems to me to be a book best read over the winter as one can snugggle up with a hot drink and read to their hearts content. Summer reading should be light fare, this book is meaty and deserves your full attention. Enjoy!

[Don · Rating 3 out of 5]

Sharon Kay Penman wrote a very good historical novel based on this little-known short period of English history--"When Christ and his Saints Slept".

Lewis' book is a thorough--a very thorough--history of the same subject. Lewis seems intent on writing the definitive story, detailing just about every move by each of the significant adherents of Stephen and of Matilda, each siege, each switching of allegiances. Because the original sources are few in number and of dubious reliability, much of his discussion of motives for various actions is admittedly speculative.

I had two problems with the book: First, Lewis is unnecessarily repetitive, reminding us on multiple occasions, for example, that Matilda's one moment of actually ruling (when she had captured Stephen and was about to be officially enthroned) was spoiled by her inartful conduct. Second, it seems that he has reported every maneuver and machination, every change of allegiance, every taking of every town and castle. I think he and the reader would have been better served by a more judicious selection of material. The book isn't particularly long, but it should have been shorter.

[Moniek Bloks · Rating 5 out of 5]

When King Henry I of England died, he had just one living legitimate child - a daughter named Matilda. Although many had sworn an oath to accept her as his successor, it was instead her cousin Stephen who became King of England, leading to many warring years known as the Anarchy. It was a complex and difficult situation.

Matilda succeeded briefly in taking Stephen hostage but she never quite managed to claim the throne and become a Queen in her own right. This right would be reserved for a woman four centuries later. It was Matilda's son who succeeded Stephen as King.

Matthew Lewis manages to write a balanced and well-researched book about a confusing time in England. As Matilda battles for her rights and eventually her son's rights, we also see Stephen's side of the story. I also enjoyed the alternating chapters and the many images included. 

[Chris Stott · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good read, generally well written and pacey, simplifying some of the complexities that can make this period confusing. I'm not sure I fully buy in to Lewis' view of Stephen as a good, firm ruler, and there is (perhaps inevitably at this distance) a fair amount of speculation behind much of his 'evidence' for this approach, but you could do a lot worse than read this book for a punchy introduction to an obscure period in English history.

[David Jones · Rating 5 out of 5]

What a great read! My view of “the anarchy” has been completely reshaped, as well as my view of King Stephen and the Empress Matilda. This author is new to me and I look forward to reading more. My entire view of this reign has been expanded and I have much sympathy toward both figures. If you enjoy the medieval era as I do this is well worth the read and a greater understanding of the march of English history.

[Rick · Rating 5 out of 5]

I think I have read about every book on the subject, but this, while not written by a historian, is a very original, very readable book with some refreshing insights, and liberated of the abundance of footnotes a real historian would need to use. Surprisingly clear for what is a very tumultuous and complicated part of England's history.

[Lynn A Baumann · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great portrayal of the Anarchy

The author gave a great detailed explanation of how the conflict between Stephen and Matilda started and how it evolved during 20 years. The resolution was described carefully. I gained a broader understanding of personalities and events through the best facts available for the time and beyond. A great read. Thank you. More p!ease.

[Pinko Palest · Rating 4 out of 5]

very readable, and quite pro-Stephen, which makes for a welcome change. Subverts a few myths quite nicely too (for example the "good kings" Henry I and II, by explaining why they were seen as models by people in the 19th century). Quite good on political analysis too, trying to see the deeper political reasons behind the actions of individuals

[Kieran O'connell · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fine well researched book

[Josef Maurer · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thumping Good Read

I find the Anarchy and early Plantagenets to be utterly fascinating and this volume certainly lays the groundwork for that period.

[James · Rating 5 out of 5]

A different, overview of the first civil war in the UK. Well written, an easy read. If you are interested in the history of the UK well worth your time.

[Don Auckram · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great and very interesting read.


Having no prior knowledge on this period of English history, this book filled it with a very detailed and unbiased account of the period.

[Sian West · Rating 4 out of 5]

the true King Stephen

I was ignorant of the real history of King Stephen’s reign. This was a fascinating journey through a turbulent time in Europe.

[Janet · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book on the Anarchy and the struggle between Stephen and Matilda for the English crown. I knew a fair amount about the subject but learned so much more from this excellent book. If you are interested in English history, I highly recommend this book.

[Sarah · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Stephen and Matilda's Civil War: Cousins of Anarchy" was an interesting read because I liked learning more about such a famous part of British history.

Unfortunately, the writing style didn't really work for me. There were also some repetitions in the text, which made it a rather slow read.

[Pauline Calkin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Stephen and Matilda engaged in a 19-year war known as the Anarchy to dispute the succession to the crown of England after the death of Henry I. Both were grandchildren of William the Conqueror, but Matilda was Henry’s only surviving legitimate child following the death of his son William in the White Ship disaster. Stephen was crowned king while Matilda delayed coming to England and never succeeded in having her claim sanctified with a coronation ceremony.

Matthew Lewis presents the history of this rather confusing period in a clear and concise manner, making it understandable to a non-academics like me. As in his other non-fiction works, he presents an unbiased assessment of both Stephen and Matilda and the other people who played a significant role during their struggle, such Earl Robert of Gloucester, Matilda’s half brother. The chapters alternate between Stephen and Matilda. King Stephen’s reputation is that of a weak leader whose reign was a failure. Matilda is thought of only as the mother of Henry II, the first Plantagenet king of England. But the author shows the strengths and weaknesses of each.

The book addresses several interesting issues: Was the Anarchy really a period of lawlessness throughout the kingdom? The author persuasively argues that it was not, noting that it was not in the interest of the nobility to allow widespread disorder. In fact, several entered into pacts that to maintain peace in their own territories peace.

Did Matilda’s claim fail because of misogyny? It certainly played a part. Matilda did not behave as the males of that period expected a woman to behave. Furthermore, the English at this time could not conceive of being ruled by a queen regnant. But, Matilda’s own haughty personalty alienated many. There is a fascinating comparison with Stephen’s wife, Queen Matilda, who was very effective in wielding power on her husband’s behalf.

Finally, it was somewhat surprising to me (having read more about the War of the Roses) that the author concludes this was a gentleman’s war, where Stephen and Earl Robert were guided by the principals of chivalry.

All in all, a very good, enlightening read.