The Wars of the Roses: The Bloody Struggle for England's Throne

by Hugh Bicheno

The Wars of the Roses were a prolonged brawl over an inheritance by a deeply dysfunctional extended family. The inheritance in question was the throne of England; the story is one of unbridled ambition and murderous treachery. From the 1450s, when the mentally unstable Henry VI struggled to control the violent feuding of his magnates, through the rise and fall of Richard of York, to the chaos and bloodshed of the 1470s which followed Edward IV's accession and his secret marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, this is a saga of ambition, intrigue, and bloodshed. Charting a clear course through the dynastic and factional minefield of the era, and offering an authoritative analysis of the battles that ensued, this book is a compelling one-volume account of England longest and bloodiest civil war.

Genres: History, Nonfiction

768 pages, Paperback

Published April 1, 2020

About the author

Hugh Bicheno graduated from Cambridge and later joined the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6). He is now a political risk analyst and an historian of conflict.

Reviews

[Mark Bowden · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a difficult book to rate. It has some very positive aspects. It is written in a breezy style which is easy to read. The complexities of 15th-century politics are bound to be difficult for any reader who isn't already well-versed in the period but Bicheno does much to help with numerous family trees and tables. The military complexities are also elucidated through clear maps, campaign diagrams and battle plans - would that other historical writers would make such good use of maps. Bicheno also makes good use of recent battlefield archaeology research.
However, there are down-sides too. The breeziness comes with a certain amount of chippiness, which is not attractive. To take just one example, in the introduction to the 'Further Reading' section the author writes (in response presumably to a critical review of a former book), 'As it appears I did not make it clear enough last time, this is not an academic bibliography.' A good editor could surely have persuaded him to drop this petulant remark.
Bicheno is entirely and unrepentantly partisan. He makes Marguerite d'Anjou the heroine of the first part of the story, which is refreshing. In general he is very positive about the female protagonists. He is also very much anti Richard III. He may be right but the evidence is not so clear-cut as his scornful treatment of the pro-Ricardians suggests; there will always be room for re-interpretation.
I don't know enough about the period to evaluate the accuracy of Bicheno's account but he makes some assertions that must be questionable. Again, one example must suffice: in speaking of Richard III's denunciation of Thomas Grey, Marquess of Dorset, for immorality and adultery, he says 'it is hard to imagine what constituency in bawdy England might have shared his obsessive prudery'; but this is to assume that English society was a monolith with only one opinion. Not everyone in England was 'bawdy' and there were undoubtedly many who believed very sincerely the church's teaching about morality or who just felt strongly about the sanctity of marriage.
While I enjoyed reading this book, I will be looking for a more balanced and scholarly account of this intriguing period of our history.

[Fei Feii · Rating 2 out of 5]

I enjoyed the first half of the book where the format and chapters provided a great detail in understanding the context and backgrounds of the subject. Yet as I read along I found it more likely an in-depth Reddit thread, where you would naturally rant and moan and whine about things you don’t agree with, and making claims and accusations out of rumours, rather than a scholarly history book recounting the events as objectively as possible. Calling out Ricardians a “cult” is one of the many examples. And same as many online forum argument, you would also want to have the last word. And so this is how the author ended the last chapter “…the emergency of a passionate fan club many centuries later “ followed by an entire epilogue dissing more.

This book does a great job with maps and lists of detail but sadly it is not without personal digs and diss and biases, as well as armchair psychologist opinion （constantly calling a few Yorkist “psychopaths”). And assuming speculations as “hard facts” (the princes in the Tower). The greatest takeaway after reading this book is that this author really does HATE the Plantagenate passionately and does not try to hide it from his readers despite from the fact that he picked such a neutral book title. Using the author’s own words, when in face of propaganda, “historians should not be so credulous”, and so do us readers when reading his work.

If you are new to this period of history or would love to learn about it in a broad and comprehensive way, steer away from this book- there are many more other balanced and scholarly books you can get your hands on.

[Carina · Rating 2 out of 5]

Earlier this year I decided to try and read the entire works of Shakespeare in whatever order my omnibus editions were in. That turned out to be alphabetical which meant when I read the chunk of plays relating to the Wars of the Roses I got turned around very quickly because they 'jumped' from near the end of the wars, to the beginning, to various parts of the middle, to finally the very end. It was confusing as hell so I decided that given all I recalled from GCSE history was the wars were York v Lancaster, I ought to read up on that time period a bit more.

This was the book I chose to try and work that confusion out. Given it took me over six months to read this, and resorted to a minimum of two chapters a day to get it done... this unfortunately did NOT help my confusion.

This book is very detailed. The author clearly knows his topic well, though some of the commentary inserts felt out of place. My main issue is one I suspect most people likely suffer with, most of the key players HAVE THE SAME RUDDY NAME. Or they inherit something and GAIN a name. Trying to understand not only who was who but who they supported at any given time was difficult.

By the end of the book I was starting to get to grips with the details so I'd not rule out reading this again (or another book on this topic), but this was the worst slog read I had this year so I just can't give it more than a two star rating.

[Gary Dooley · Rating 4 out of 5]

Having enjoyed a previous work by this author (Redcoats & Rebels) I approached this with a degree of positive expectation and was certainly not disappointed.

This is an extremely well written account of an often greatly misunderstood era of English history and one about which I had very little knowledge, hence my reason for buying the book in the first place. Bicheno writes in a style which is both informative and interesting, concerning a period which may seem complicated and potentially confusing to those with little or no prior understanding of the subject. Notwithstanding the potential for confusion, the author makes every effort to facilitate a good understanding of the people and events that took place over the 32 year period in question.

Personally, there were times throughout the first part of the book when I felt overwhelmed and confused by the names and titles of the many different characters and families especially when a person is referred to first by their given name and then soon after by their aristocratic title, though all things considered this quickly proved to be a very minor obstacle and by pressing on regardless I soon found things becoming clearer.

This is undoubtedly a thoroughly enjoyable read by a highly skilled writer.
I heartily recommend it to anyone who wishes to learn more about the Wars of the Roses.

[Eamonn Kelly · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good historical analysis, and surprising amount of humour. Overall it's informative and engaging, if a bit hard to keep track of names at times because he almost always refers to people by their noble title (i.e the place they rule over) which changes throughout history. There are, for example, multiple Salisburies, Somersets, and Suffolks which aren't adequately distinguished in the text.

Unfortunately there are some sus passages w/r/t the failsons of the Lancastrian and York dynasties indicating Bicheno's disdain for today's youth which is not a comparison that holds water. He also makes some pretty sexist remarks about Elizabeth Woodville, her apparent beauty and 'sexual prowess'. There are some other really weird things he says which are suspect which I cannot recall at present.

At one point he quotes a forum post from a Ricardian without a citation just to dunk on it which is just poor historical scholarship, at least try to be professional - he effectively gloats in the face of a probable non-historian at how much better of a historian he is. Given that this happened, I'm fairly sure that Bicheno will read this review, in which case - Hi Hugh, you can do better, didn't appreciate you mocking an entire generation (which I belong to) with an offhand comment in the middle of some really engaging political discussion of George Plantagenet Duke of Clarence's role in conspiracies against Edward IV.

[Matthew Culley · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a comprehensive account of the Wars of the Roses, considering both the political and military aspects. It delves quite deeply into the main participants which is very helpful. It provides an interesting revisionist account of the main battles, taking into account new interpretations of archaeological and contemporary records. Recommended.

[Richard A]

A superb read. Once you get used to the digressions and extraordinary detail the book is totally absorbing and fascinating. It is a pity the Prologue is so confusing.

[Orlando · Rating 3 out of 5]

comprehensive and well written right up until the author calls richard iii a psychopath several times without backing it up?