空王冠：玫瑰战争与都铎王朝的崛起

by Dan Jones, 丹·琼斯, 陆大鹏 (Translator)

如果你是《权力的游戏》或《都铎王朝》的粉丝，那么丹·琼斯这本精彩纷呈、扣人心弦的中世纪历史著作正合你的口味。《空王冠》是英国史学家丹·琼斯继《金雀花王朝》之后的又一恢弘史诗。本书描写了在英国统治时间最长的金雀花王朝如何分崩离析，并被都铎所取代。莎士比亚笔下的世界在本书里得到真实的展现。

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Audiobook, Historical, Medieval, British Literature, European History

456 pages, Hardcover

First published October 14, 2014

About the author

Dan Jones is a NYT bestselling author and broadcaster. His books, which include The Templars, Henry V, The Plantagenets and Powers & Thrones, have sold more than 2 million copies and are published in 23 languages. He is the author of the Essex Dogs novel trilogy. Dan writes and hosts the popular weekly Sony Music Entertainment podcast This Is History. He has presented dozens of television documentaries, including the popular Netflix series Secrets of Great British Castles, and has executive produced and consulted on a number of films and television shows including Anne Boleyn (Channel 5/Sony Pictures Television) and Knightfall (A+E/History). His journalism has appeared in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post; for a decade he was a columnist for the London Evening Standard. He is a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society and in 2025 was appointed to the Board of Trustees of Historic Royal Palaces.

Reviews

[Emily May · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was good. It is about the Wars of the Roses and nothing to do with the later Tudors, which is what I wanted. I'm pretty well-versed in Henry VIII and family, but have only held a very blurry picture of the wars preceding their reign until now.

All I knew about Henry VI before this was what I got from The Sunne in Splendour, which is to say not a lot. I felt sorry for the guy, to be honest. Clearly he was not suited to leadership in the 15th century, preferring to help people and pour money into education than to wage wars with France.

Interesting that Jones is firmly on the "guilty" side of the Richard III debate, though I do wish he'd shared some of the opposing views. Nobody will ever know if a beloved brother, loyal friend and kind leader, described by contemporary sources as having "a good heart" and never seeking land or power gains for himself, suddenly did an about-turn and murdered his nephew to steal the throne. Certainly it could happen, but I think the arguments put forth by those with doubts are compelling. Such as how this modern view held of Richard largely stems from none other than his enemy Henry Tudor. (Okay, yes, I think he was framed! Guess I am a conspiracy theorist now 😂)

[Nika · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author provides a general account of the bloody struggle between the two branches of the Plantagenets - the Lancasters and the Yorks. The English crown changed hands several times between the members of these two powerful clans.
The book offers a glimpse of a world, in which the victor is always right and mercy for your foes is rare. Yesterday you were a mighty king, today you are a despised prisoner, tomorrow you might be dead. These were chaotic and brutal times when the kings fought, won their crowns in battle, and often suffered a violent death.

Dynastic rivalry sets the kingdom on fire and produces cycles of violence. Fifteenth-century raw power games claim the lives of many thousands of people, ordinary English men and women caught in the jaws of conflict, as well as those who lead the fight in person or as figureheads.

One of the reasons why civil wars began was the personality of King Henry VI, the only son of Henry V. We may assume that Richard duke of York used Henry VI's mental problems as an excuse for his imperial ambitions.
Henry VI's apparent inefficiency contrasted with his father's energy. The author portrays a sympathetic image of Henry V, a warrior king, and shows how inept his son must have seemed to many of his subjects. Unlike his father, Henry VI never sought military glory. On reflection, I would add that the occupation of France that Henry V sought to achieve seems unsustainable. It only demanded more money, distracting the government from internal problems. I would like to add that any occupation is unsustainable, but no, history remembers different examples.
Henry VI was reported to have suffered a mental breakdown at some point and temporarily lost his ability to govern. Though he would recover, his mental problems would only get worse and more worrisome to his entourage.

Richard duke of York challenged the king and the queen. He sought to become the protector of the realm. The circumstances brought Henry VI's wife, Margaret of Anjou, to the forefront, forcing her to fight for what she saw as the undisputed rights of her only son and heir, Prince Edward.
Dan Jones mentions "Queen Margaret’s tyrannical instincts," and it reminded me of the saying "damned if you do and damned if you don't." The position of queens in that epoch often resembled that. Mysigony was coupled with xenophobia as most queens were foreigners. We should not forget how deeply patriarchal society was back then.

Richard duke of York would be killed in battle, leaving his sons to carry on his cause. His eldest son would prove victorious on the battlefield and become King Edward IV. The military victories of the young and charismatic king would be seen as a seal of approval from above. In those days, people attached great importance to such things. Not surprisingly, demonstrating military prowess was considered one of the chief virtues of kings.

Edward died, leaving two young princes to succeed him. Then their uncle, Richard duke of Gloucester decided to usurp the throne by proclaiming that his late brother's marriage was invalid and that the boys were therefore illegitimate. The claim was false, and the author does not seem to doubt Richard's guilt in the murder of his nephews. I think one of the motives that drove Richard to act could be fear. "Brutality equals survival" or "if I do not strike first, my (potential) enemies will finish me off" seems to have been very much in the spirit of the times.

The rest is known. Henry Tudor, the last surviving Lancastrian contender, would invade England, confront Richard in battle, and eventually seize the once again hollow crown of England. Despite having a shaky claim to the throne (through his mother, Margaret Beaufort, who was the last Lancastrian heir), the young Tudor would be seen by many but not all as the eligible candidate, given all other major players had been eliminated. To solidify his claim, Henry married Edward IV's eldest daughter, Elizabeth of York. She could theoretically have become the reigning queen herself, or she and Henry could have governed as joint rulers, but the times were not favorable for that turn of events. As it was, Elizabeth played her role as a consort and mother of princes and princesses very well.

The author makes an interesting point about the royal marriage. He argues that one of the reasons why Edward IV married a commoner and a widow, Elizabeth Woodville, was political. He was eager to gain new supporters among the English nobility as his goal was to put an end to the hostilities, appease his old enemies, and pacify the country.
However, the favors the king showed to his wife's family would greatly annoy Warwick, an influential magnate nicknamed the "kingmaker," and help provoke the confrontation between him and King Edward. Elizabeth Woodville's father would become one of the victims of this confrontation.

Jones notes that "permitting Henry to remain alive was a bold decision that Edward IV would come to regret." It may seem like a magnanimous act, and Edward probably wanted to show magnanimity, but sparing Henry's life while his only son was still alive struck me as a politically astute decision.


Overall, this was a good brief history of the Wars of the Roses and the rise of the Tudor dynasty. Some would argue that it could have provided more explanation behind the complex events, but the lack of depth is balanced by the author's knack for presenting complex and distant history in an approachable and enticing way.

[Melindam · Rating 5 out of 5]

“All murder'd-for within the hollow crown
That rounds the mortal temples of a king
Keeps Death his court; and there the antic sits,
Scoffing his state and grinning at his pomp;
Allowing him a breath, a little scene,
To monarchize, be fear'd, and kill with looks;
Infusing him with self and vain conceit,
As if this flesh which walls about our life
Were brass impregnable; and, humour'd thus,
Comes at the last, and with a little pin
Bores through his castle wall, and farewell, king!
Cover your heads, and mock not flesh and blood
With solemn reverence; throw away respect,
Tradition, form, and ceremonious duty;
For you have but mistook me all this while.
I live with bread like you, feel want,
Taste grief, need friends: subjected thus,
How can you say to me I am a king?”
Shakespeare, Richard II


"So as well as examining the wars of the roses as a whole, this book drills down into the early history of the Tudors, presenting them not according to their own myth, but as the fifteenth century really found them." (Dan Jones, Quote from the Introduction Part)

4,5 stars

This has been my 3rd book by author Dan Jones and, like the previous two (Crusaders: The Epic History of the Wars for the Holy Lands & Henry V: The Astonishing Triumph of England's Greatest Warrior King), it is enjoyable, easily digestible, well-structured, clear and even-handed .
At this point, I think I can safely say Jones has become one of my favorite authors.

I have not (yet) read his The Plantagenets: The Kings Who Made England, but Jones pretty much takes up where he left off with his Henry V biography and I found it a smooth transition altogether.

His rendition of the "War of the Roses" is very enjoyable and very refreshingly factual and realistic. He strips away myth and false romanticism and presents all the key players without bias: none of them are lionised or vilified. We are told about the good intentions and actions, about poor decisions, malicious designs or ruthless ambitions.
The story of the York and Lancaster families with their heritage, power struggle, their genealogy, their forever-shifting allegiances is convoluted enough, but Jones always manages to stay on the ball seemingly effortlessly and steer his ship confidently and safely into port.

What I found a bit surprising, but felt mostly relieved about, was that Dan Jones did not even mention the possibility of Richard III not being responsible for the murder of the princes in the tower.

Personally, I’m convinced he either ordered the murders or, at the very least, condoned them. Not because I believe he was more evil than his contemporaries (none of the medieval ruling class could afford to be snow white ingenues if they wanted to rule.. or to stay alive), but because he was a shrewd and ambitious leader. As Jones himself emphasizes, Richard was an absolutely capable warrior and ruler, and that kind of power came at a price. The murder of the princes was the price he had to pay for taking and keeping the crown and he did pay it.

So, I guess if you are in the Richard-didn't-do-it camp, then you will likely find Jones deeply biased, but for me, it felt entirely consistent and logical with the man and the era.

So, with that caveat in mind, I highly recommend this book. 😊

[K.J. Charles]

An excellent overview of the Wars of the Roses (let's have none of this Cousins War nonsense) that puts a lot of the blame on the Henry VI situation--in effect, the combination of him inheriting the crown as a baby and then a very long period of vacillation and ineptitude as a grown man created all the necessary conditions for what was ultimately a power struggle between the Plantagenet descendants that could only end when all the competition was dead.

Highly readable and does an excellent job of untangling all the Edwards and Harrys. Absolutely no doubt here that Richard III ordered the murders of the Princes in the Tower, which frankly is pretty obvious to most. I swear to God, if a Ricardian comments on this review I will not be responsible for my actions.

[Tony · Rating 4 out of 5]

The wars of the roses are complicated. Even as I type this, I can feel the details slipping out of my brain. So many battles, so many traitors and double crossings, so many kings, so many Salisburys, Gloucesters, Somersets… even with a notebook it’s a struggle to keep up. But Dan Jones does a great job of explaining and keeping everything straight, and tells a cracking story.

[Leanda Lisle · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a story that ends badly, with ‘A wretched and blundering youth’ hacking at the head and shoulders of an old lady dressed in new shoes. She is the last Plantagenet, executed on the orders of the Henry VIII. Yet Dan Jones’s thrilling account ‘of the Wars and the Roses & the rise of the Tudors’ begins so very differently.

Children dressed as angels, with gold painted faces, sang ‘Hail flower of England, knight of Christendom’, as they greeted Henry V on his return to London following the great victory at Agincourt. Five years later, in 1420, the king was regent of France, heir to the French throne, and married to their princess, Catherine of Valois. ‘It is not recorded’ wrote one admiring chronicler, ‘that any king of England ever accomplished so much in so short a time’.

Unfortunately, Henry V’s glorious reign ended with his early death in 1422. He left his infant son as king Henry VI, and his wife a lonely young widow. The revenge of the French for their humiliation at Agincourt would prove to lie in her blood, for it passed to their son a strain of madness inherited from her father, who had suffered bouts of insanity in which he used to run through his palaces naked and screaming, covered in his own excrement.

At first Henry VI, seemed merely gentle and weak. As a young man he was a loving – if not very potent - husband to his loyal wife, Margaret of Anjou, and a kindly half-brother to the recent, and very embarrassing, Tudor additions to the royal family. His widowed mother had married a Welshman ‘of no birth neither of livelihood’, one Owen Tudor, with whom she had fallen in love after he had fallen drunk into her lap at a party (or so legend had it).

The Queen and the commoner had had four children and Henry VI arranged the marriage of the eldest to a royal cousin: Margaret Beaufort. Her descent from an illegitimate line of the House of Lancaster, would give her son, Henry Tudor, his only – and corrupted - claim to English royal blood. But the disasters that were to befall the English crown would carve out a path to the throne.

By the time Henry Tudor was born in 1457, Henry VI had lost his French kingdom, and gone quietly loopy, raising the ambitions of the Plantagenet Richard, Duke of York. The consequence was the period we remember as the Wars of the Roses – a term Jones defends against those historians and novelists who have been claiming, entirely spuriously, that contemporaries called it the ‘Cousin’s War’, and that we should too.

Jones navigates the violence and treacheries that follow in such vivid prose that even a non-battle seem incredibly dramatic and exciting. When the Duke of York runs away to avoid a fight at Ludlow we find his wife abandoned at the castle with her two youngest sons, aged nine, and seven. Henry VI’s vengeful Queen, Margaret of Anjou, is standing behind the royal lines and ‘she was in terrible danger’, but ‘the grand wife of the vanquished duke walked through the streets of the ransacked town, her sons by her side. They walked as far as the overturned market place, in the shadow of the castle walls, and then came to a halt: the remnants of a great family throwing themselves on the mercy of the crown.’

Cecily survives Margaret of Anjou’s wrath, only to see her husband killed after a later battle, and his head stuck on the gates of York, a paper crown fluttering on his bloodied hair in mockery of his former ambitions. But her eighteen-year old son revenges his father, overthrowing Henry VI to become in 1461 the Yorkist king Edward IV. The Lancastrian cause seems hopeless, until in 1470 Edward’s cousin and closest ally, Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, ‘the Kingmaker’ makes an alliance with Margaret of Anjou that sees Henry VI re-adapted as King – briefly.

Edward defeats Warwick at the battle of Barnet and then Margaret of Anjou at the battle of Tewkesbury, where her son is killed, before Henry VI is murdered in the Tower.
With the House of Lancaster wiped out in the legitimate male line, only the fourteen-year old Henry Tudor is left to represent the Lancastrian cause, and he is driven into exile in Brittany. ‘

There had not been so successful no so fortunate an English general since the days of Henry V’ Jones observes of Edward IV. But like Henry V, Edward dies young, leaving a child – his twelve-year old son Edward V – as his heir. England was dependent on the good will of the adults around a king who was too young to rule, and that good will proved in short supply. The rivalry between the young king’s close relatives – his mother’s family, the Woodvilles, and Edward IV’s only surviving brother, Richard - was to be the final undoing of the House of York.

When Richard III overthrew Edward V, and the boy king and his young brother disappeared from the Tower in the summer of 1483, he was following the example set in the overthrow and death of Henry VI. But Henry VI had been a failing king, and Richard III had fatally underestimated the loyalty Edward IV’s memory inspired. So angry were the Edwardian Yorkists at Richard III’s usurpation that they turned to Henry Tudor to overthrow him.

The deal Henry Tudor made with the Edwardian loyalists was that in the event of victory, they would back him as king, and he would marry Edward IV’s daughter, Elizabeth of York. After Richard’s death at Bosworth this is exactly what Tudor did, and in an inspired move he chose as his badge the red rose, which had vague Lancastrian connections, uniting it with the famous white rose of York, to create a symbol of national reconciliation.

Tudor’s son, Henry VIII, became the living embodiment of the union rose and its hopes. But with Henry VIII’s Reformation the dynastic rivalries of the Wars of the Roses came to be replaced with religious divisions. In Margaret Plantagenet, niece of Edward IV and granddaughter of Warwick the Kingmaker, these issues came together, and cost the old lady her life.

In the Hollow Crown the portraits of the leading women are as richly painted as those of the men, and even those who appear only briefly are memorable. The pathetic detail of Margaret Plantagenet dying at the hands of the blundering axeman, while wearing new shoes, is typical of Jones’s ability to get under the skin of the reader to bring people and events alive. Fast moving, witty and humane, the Hollow Crown is narrative history at its best.
A version of this review appears in the September 2014 edition of the Literary Review

[Brian · Rating 4 out of 5]

“As with so many tragedies, our story opens with a moment of triumph.”

I read Dan Jones’ book THE PLANTAGENETS, THE WARRIOR KINGS AND QUEENS WHO MADE ENGLAND a while ago and I greatly enjoyed it. So, it was an easy decision to read his follow up to that text, THE WARS OF THE ROSES, THE FALL OF THE PLANTAGENETS AND THE RISE OF THE TUDORS. The book is a good overview of the tumultuous 15th century in England. From the gruesome execution that opens the text, to the coronation of Elizabeth 1st, which closes the epilogue, it makes for an exciting trip.

There is a lot of history in the stories that this concise and to the point explanation covers, and Mr. Jones takes this complicated and convoluted history and gives it to us in a digestible account. The book is endlessly fascinating and riveting, and all of it is true!

Quotes:
• “For if the travails of the last six decades had taught Englishman anything, then it was that the prosperity of the kingdom was dependent heavily on the good sense of the man who wore the crown.”
• “The wounds were passing into the realm of history and folklore.”

At one point Jones writes of this period in England’s history, “…this was a vicious and at times barely comprehensible period of deep political instability, which stemmed ultimately from a collapse in royal authority and English rule in France under Henry VI.” If there was one thing that THE WARS OF THE ROSES demonstrates it is that very point.
I’m sure that this book leaves out many pertinent points, but if you want to be informed about England’s political history and have a good overview of the period and the aspects of this bloody time in England’s monarchial history, then this is the read for you.

I already have more books by Dan Jones on my “to read” pile. Looking forward to them. I know I will be entertained, and learn something to boot!

[happy · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this follow up to his book,The Plantagenets: The Warrior Kings and Queens Who Made England, I felt the author, Dan Jones, has done an admirable job of explaining the whys and wherefores of the struggle that became known as the Wars of the Roses. Starting with the death of Henry V, Mr. Jones looks at how the English experience in France, the end of the 100 Years War, and the inability of Henry’s son, Henry VI, to be an effective ruler led to the conditions that gave rise to the civil war.

I felt Mr. Jones did an excellent job of explaining just how Henry VI’s mental instability led to the generation long civil war. Even when he was all there, Henry’s inability to be a medieval monarch led to many in the nobility, including his cousin Richard, Duke of York, to contemplate replacing him, first as regent and later as King. After Richard’s death at Wakefield, his son Edward takes up the claim to eventually defeats Henry’s supporters to become Edward IV.

While the author does a good job describing the many battles, including the major ones of Wakefield, Towton, and of course Bosworth, they are not his main focus. The focus seems to be the political maneuverings of the two factions. He offers a good look at the power behind Henry VI, his wife Margaret. He also discusses the power of various nobles including the Earl of Warwick who became known as the King Maker.

As he gets to the later stages of the Wars, Mr. Jones takes on the traditional view of Richard III. Although I felt the author is sympathetic to reasons Richard usurped the throne of his nephew, Edward V. He does support the opinion that Richard had Edward and his brother, the Princes in the Tower, killed. In this there is ample president in English history. Mr. Jones does also give a good look at Richard’s deteriorating political situation prior to Bosworth and the double dealings of the Stanley family that in all probability cost Richard both his throne and his life.

In summary, Mr. Jones doesn't just tell the story of the Wars of the Roses, but gives the reader an insite to why they occured and why they turned out the way they did. I felt this was a solid 4 star read and whould recommend it to any one interested in English or Medieval history.

[zed · Rating 3 out of 5]

I looked at my review of a previous Dan Jones history I had read and had made comment that it was “A very enjoyable popular history and hard to be too critical.” And it is hard not to say the same for this very readable installment that he has produced on the madness that was the Wars of The Roses.

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

If one likes populist narrative history told with “…..pace and flair…”, as the cover blurb says, this is right up that target audiences alley. It is however not my style of delivery. Far too much subjectivity for me. A few too many “it was a blistering hot day” observations.

And to quote my previous review of the authors work “A pity really as there is a magnificent Further Reading chapter at the end and the (Epilogue) was also a good read.” The footnotes are lot better as well. But…….as much as I enjoyed it is was just a good read.

[Ken · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Wars of the Roses: The Fall of the Plantagenets and the Rise of the Tudors Dan Jones, far better title would be, the last warrior kings of England, so engaging masterful, reads like fiction but it isn't. Englands last line of warrior kings, follows on from the strongest ever king Henry 5th and his brutal victory at Agincourt 1415 near the end of the 100 year war against the weak and divided French, his early death as a warrior king of course in battle, a mere 7 years later left his kingdom on a dark deep precipice Henry 6th was only 9 months old and for 61 years the great noble families danced with each other in a deadly game of cut your throat and cut your head off politics. 7 kings 4 houses pretty much destroyed and a dark horse outsider house of Tudor came out on top.

Many years after the wars of roses Henry the 8th chops his elderly Aunties head off, thus ending what he saw as the last threat to the house of Tudor, to firm the kingdom together and the start of Englands renaissance period, leaving the medieval ages behind forever, houses of Lancaster, York, Plantagenets, Woodville forever mere shadows and dust.

34 year old Henry 6th weakest king of England dethroned by a rebellion led by Richard of York commander of Englands armies in France and Henrys insane concessions to France, Richards death in a traitorous sortie in which he went down swinging his sword until he died, his son then was crowned king Edward 4th by his fathers followers who Richard earl of Warrick the kingmaker his most loyal and closest advisor, but one year later supporters of Henry rallied but Edward won the largest and bloodiest battle of Towton 1461 fought in semi darkness snow blinding blizzard and forever known as the largest bloodiest battle that has ever taken place on English soil. Led by Lancastrian nobles after his victory all his rivals dead subdued or having fled.
Edwards Yorkist kingdom enjoyed almost 12 years of relative peace.

But an interuption where Edward lost and won the throne a second time, a story that legends are made off, his cousin Richard of Warrick tried and failed grab at the throne caused by Edwards dubious marriage to a minor house of Woodville, and secret jealousies by established nobles at this upstart Woodville family. Then Edward barely escaped with his life fleeing to Flanders but returned a year later killed Warrick who had freed Henry 6th who was quiet mad by this time, and he now enjoyed a second period of relative peace filled with wild drunken parties, expensive tournaments, more expensive woman, frenzied hunting expeditions until he died in a semi drunken state aged 41, his 12 year old son king Edward 5th 78 day reign being murdered along with his younger brother by their uncle who crowned himself king Richard 3rd who also had the wonderful honor of being the last warrior king of England to die in battle,

Richard the 3rds despicable act of murdering his own nephews drew many nobles away in absolute disgust and they rallied secretly behind Henry of Tudor who was in exile and was only the son of half brother to Henry 6th who had been killed after Warricks death, arriving back from France with a small army some mercenaries and cannoneers he hoped to rally support on his March towards Richards army who when sighted recklessly charged into battle to confront Henry but he lost his helmet and being surrounded and then butchered by swords to his naked head from all sides. There are much more battles acts and deeds but hell knows them all and this review is long enough.

When you get to grips and kind of understand this history you definately see where Shakespeare right through to George Martin became absolutely fascinated and took inspiration for their works as its probaby the greatest fiction, non fiction story, you couldn't even imagine it, if even half of it wasn't the truth then whats left blows you away.

Its still one hell of a history. Which only really the ghosts know the real truth and that is still a story to be told.

[Alyson Stone · Rating 5 out of 5]

Book: The War of the Roses: The Fall of the Plantagenets and the Rise of the Tudors/ The Hollow Crown
Author: Dan Jones
Rating: 5 Out of 5 Stars

I was first introduced to Dan Jones’s wonderful writing through The Plantagenets. I picked up this gem this summer and was pulled right in. There is just something about Dan’s writing that makes me want more. Since this summer, I have watched all of his programs, which if you haven’t checked out, I strongly suggest that you do. I have all of his books on my to read list. He is just one of those writers who has the gift of pulling you in and leave you wanting for more.

While I do like Game of Thrones, I don’t really care that the War of the Roses is the back story to it. I love the time period, plain and simple. Henry VI’s mental problems have left England in a state of instability, which, of course, led to civil war. It is this that has led to many of the nobles to wanting the English crown for themselves. Richard, Duke of York, makes the grab, first by being regent, then going for the prize of King of England. When Richard dies, his son Edward takes up the fight. Edward, of course, wins and becomes Edward IV. Good stuff, right?

Yeah, I know it sound confusing, but don’t let it. Dan is wonderful at making a complicated matter really simple. He doesn’t write in what I would call a scholarly way. To me, Dan writes for the common person-meaning that if you don’t know anything about the War of the Roses, you will be able to understand what is going on right away.

Dan looks into a number of battles and important people. It’s not just focused on the king. We get to meet Margaret, who in my mind is the real power behind Henry VI and the Earl of Warwick, the King Maker. We also travel to Towton, Wakefield, and Bosworth. There is a lot of focus on Richard III and how he got to power. We explore the legend of the Princes in the Tower and what really happened to them. I do agree with Dan’s point of view on the matter. Meanwhile, let’s add the Stanley family into the mix and we are sure to have a great political mess.

See, what I mean? It’s not just another history book. We just aren’t told what happened, but why the events happened and given theories on them. We get to see why English history turned out the way it did. After all, how in the world did the Tudors end up on the English throne? Well, if you have always wanted to know, picked this up and take a look.
Please note that The Hollow Crown is the same book. I have seen a lot of people confused by the two titles before.

[Katie · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really loved this book. Going into it, I had strong opinions about the warring families, having studied the Tudors for 16 years and Shakespeare’s histories in college—but also because my ancestors had been strong supporters of the Lancastrian claim. So imagine my surprise when I read at the end of chapter 11 that “Sir James Luttrell of Devonshire” was later credited with the capture of Richard, Duke of York! For all I knew about my family’s history, I never knew THAT incredible information! I don’t know how Sir James would have felt about his descendant cheering him on 550 years later, but it’s a rare thing to find a book that makes you feel like you are in the midst of the action.

I was fortunate to win this book through Goodreads First Reads, and truly, for a 300+ page history book, it was a quick and exciting read. The Wars of the Roses had many twists and turns, and many characters with complex personalities. Jones’ book covers these events as well as a brief introduction to Henry V to start the setting off, and a conclusion exploring Henry VIII as “the Golden King” he was often characterized as in his youth. It is, therefore, a very ambitious undertaking to explore so much territory in so few pages. Jones does a remarkable job of telling this story in an engaging way, however, I believe that it might be confusing for someone with limited or no knowledge of the Yorks and Lancasters. The pacing of the book is surprisingly quick and while enjoyable for me, might leave some asking “Which Richard are we talking about now?”

So, if you’ve read about the Wars of the Roses before, or even if you haven’t and are looking forward to jotting down a few notes, I would highly recommend this book. While the scope of Jones’ research is vast, he also gives a wonderful, rather intimate perspective of how the key players are related to one another, what they stood for—and, in many cases, what they ultimately died for.

[Samantha · Rating 5 out of 5]

As with his earlier volume, The Plantagenets: The Warrior Kings and Queens Who Made England, Jones has developed narrative nonfiction covering a complicated era of history and made it a pleasure to read. He clearly establishes that the Wars of the Roses were about so much more than who had the strongest royal blood.

When Henry Bolingbroke determined to steal his cousin's crown in 1399, he could have had no inkling of the future that he was setting into motion. By showing that the throne of England was up for grabs to whoever was strong enough to take it, he put the Plantagenet dynasty on a collision course that would decimate the family, leaving the unexpected Tudors in control.

That was quite a rise for the grandson of Owen Tudor who, due to his Welsh blood, had not even been allowed to own land and was imprisoned for daring to marry the widowed dowager queen Catherine. Henry Tudor becoming king had to be the last thing on anyone's mind - except maybe his mother's.

Jones carefully unravels the complex political maneuverings that resulted in the end of the mighty Plantagenets in favor of a minor noble of mixed Welsh, French, and English blood. Much time is spent on analyzing the motivations of Richard, duke of York. Far from the characterizations many have painted of him, Richard Plantagenet did not immediately set out to make himself king.

By refusing to be a king, Henry VI ensured that a more suitable cousin of royal blood would take over, just like his grandfather had done. By looking at families, politics, and foreign policy over the course of decades, Jones demonstrates how things slowly, yet completely, fell apart.

Some readers will be disappointed that the author takes a traditional view on the topics of Richard III and the later Yorkist pretenders Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck. He states that Richard killed his nephews after usurping the crown, taking only about a paragraph to give voice to other theories. In the same way, there is no evaluation of the supposed Edward VI and Richard IV potentially being true sons of York (other than a later discussion of Richard de la Pole).

Since this book covered such an extensive piece of history, I found that it was appropriate to not delve to deeply into these controversial issues, but other readers may feel differently. In the same way, Jones never puts forth any serious doubt that Prince Edward of Lancaster was indeed the son of Henry VI.

I applaud Jones for making complicated history accessible to the amateur historian. While this installment may be somewhat more complex than its predecessor, I still found it quite easy to read, at times capturing events in novel-like fashion. I highly recommend this book to anyone looking for a greater understanding of the Wars of the Roses.

Thank you to NetGalley and Viking Publishing for my copy of this book. Opinions are my own.

[Elyse · Rating 5 out of 5]

The main reason I rate this book so highly is because the author, Dan Jones, explained this complicated period of history so clearly. I have a terrible memory for names and places. I would have loved to have been a history major in college but even back then I knew I wouldn't be capable. I can remember the big picture of historical events but not the details.

Jones assists the reader with family trees and maps. In the text he always calls the people by their full names, Richard, Earl of Cambridge or Richard, Duke of York. Jones never assumes the reader remembers which Richard he's writing about.

It was a bad time to be an Englishman, commoner or royal, during the War of the Roses. It was a confusing 30+ years of death and destruction. Everytime you turned around there was a new king in charge or a battle in your backyard.

To me this was a real page turner of a book and will join my list of favorites.

[Theo Logos · Rating 4 out of 5]

”The Wars of the Roses and the destruction of the House of Plantagenet didn’t really come about because two factions divided by blood were destined to atone through war for the sin of deposing Richard II. All the evil of the fifteenth century wasn’t embodied in a villainous Richard III any more than the marriage of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York provided instant salvation. Rather, this was a vicious, and at times barely comprehensible period of deep political instability which stemmed ultimately from a collapse of royal authority and English rule in France under Henry VI.”


With The Wars of the Roses: The Fall of the Plantagenets and the Rise of the Tudors, Dan Jones completes the sprawling history that he began with The Plantagenets: The Warrior Kings and Queens Who Made England. The Plantagenet dynasty that had been born out of the ruin and chaos of the civil wars known as the Anarchy and ruled for centuries finally tore itself apart in a series of dynastic conflicts where England’s throne repeatedly changed hands by force. In this history, Jones skillfully relates the story of this shocking immolation of this ancient English dynasty.

The Wars of the Roses have long lived in literature. Shakespeare wrote a cycle of eight plays about them (from Richard II through Richard III). Stevenson wrote a boys adventure book about them (The Black Arrow). More recently, George R.R. Martin used them as the inspiration for his unfinished masterpiece Game of Thrones (and anyone familiar with those books will find many dark echoes within this history). Much of what we think we know about these conflicts actually are literary creations that originated in Tudor propaganda meant to prop up their own dynastic claims, even down to the idea of the roses as symbols of the warring houses. Dan Jones separated the history from the propaganda that became literature, and in doing so spins a tale no less riveting.

[Dax · Rating 5 out of 5]

This history of the Plantagenet and Tudor dynasties reads something like a Game of Thrones plot. Dan Jones deserves a lot of credit for not only bringing this story to life, but also constructing his narrative in such an orderly manner that a lay reader will not struggle to follow all of the intricacies of royal intrigue. The history of the Plantagenets and the War of the Roses has a cast of hundreds of earls, dukes, imposters, soldiers, and rivals, most of whom end up losing their head, but once again Jones succeeds where many others would likely fail. Even though these characters come and go at often dizzying speeds, the reader never becomes overwhelmed with the number of actors.

Coupled with its predecessor, 'The Plantagenets', 'The Wars of the Roses' is one of the strongest books of history I have read. I previously gave 'The Plantagenets' a four star reading, but if you consider the two works together, it really is an astonishing achievement by Jones. These books are full of unforgettable characters and scenes that stick in your mind like you've just read a great novel. I can't recommend these books enough.

[Thomas · Rating 3 out of 5]

I received this ebook free from the publisher through NetGalley.com. I gave it three stars because of three major defects. The table of contents listed maps, genealogical tables and an index--all three were missing.
The book is easy to read and well researched, with extensive footnotes and bibliography. This book would be suitable for both lay readers and professional historians,if the missing items were reinstated.
The author goes back to 1420 to set the background and does a good job explaining the origins of the war.

The publisher did not respond to my question "Why did you send me an incomplete book?"(sent 6 months ago). I therefore recommend purchase of only the print version of this book

[Annika Hipple · Rating 3 out of 5]

As with Jones's previous book, The Plantagenets: The Kings Who Made England, I found this a generally engaging narrative marred by some sloppy fact-checking and a few irritating choices in phrasing and interpretation. Jones is a fine writer, with an accessible style. He covers a lot of ground, but the narrative flows smoothly and the pages almost turn themselves. For readers unfamiliar with the Wars of the Roses, it's a good introduction that hopefully will prompt further reading on the subject.

Jones is fairly even-handed in his treatment of the various players in the conflict, although I take issue with some of his discussion of Richard III, particularly the unilateral statement in the introduction that "Richard III murdered his nephews." I personally find other theories of the princes' fate more plausible, but I don't require every historian I read to agree with me before I give them a positive rating. What I do expect is that they acknowledge that no one actually knows what happened to the princes, and there is no proof one way or another. Jones does soften his treatment of the subject in the main section of the book dealing with Richard III (though still making it clear he believes in Richard's guilt). Had he not made that blanket statement in the introduction, I would not have quibbled much, though he does display a subtle bias against Richard despite his surface objectivity. Richard certainly wasn't perfect, but Jones seems a bit surprised that the king, known for his good government as Duke of Gloucester, should be "capable of being generous and sympathetic" after taking the throne. He also dismisses as "ridiculous" and without any discussion the idea of the illegitimacy of Edward IV's marriage—the grounds on which Richard III claimed the throne—and highlights opposition to Richard while downplaying the treason and treachery of leading nobles that was such a significant factor in his overthrow.

Despite my issues with Jones's treatment of Richard III's brief kingship, I would have given this book four stars had it not been for the numerous factual and stylistic problems. They include the following:
1) In discussing the tensions between Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, and Cardinal Henry Beaufort, Jones goes back and forth between calling Beaufort Gloucester's cousin and uncle. In fact, as the half-brother of Gloucester's father, Henry IV, he was the latter.
2) After the Yorkist defeat at Ludford Bridge, Jones describes how the Earl of Warwick set sail for Calais with "his father Salisbury and his nephew, York's son Edward earl of March." In fact, Edward was Warwick's cousin, not nephew. (If Jones intended to say—correctly—that Edward was Salisbury's nephew, his phrasing suffers from a lack of clarity.) In general, Jones neglects to mention the close family relationship between Salisbury and Warwick and the York family—the Duchess of York, Cecily Neville, was Salisbury's sister and therefore Warwick's aunt—until quite late in the story, and then only in parentheses. I kept wondering when Jones was going to mention this relationship, which to my mind is an important one in understanding the Neville family's strong alliance with York (though they did have ties to prominent Lancastrian figures as well).
3) Elizabeth Woodville is described as giving birth to her "first child" when she goes into labor with Elizabeth of York, despite the fact that she already had two sons from her first marriage. Jones would have done better to say "her first child with Edward IV."
4) Richard of Gloucester (later Richard III) is described as "still only 22 years old in 1472." In fact, he was born in October 1452, so in 1472 he was only 19 or 20, depending on the specific date.
5) In discussing Richard's spinal deformities, Jones says they would have caused Richard to "walk with his right shoulder raised and his back hunched." While the recent discovery of Richard's remains did show severe scoliosis that would have caused his right shoulder to be higher than the left, the experts who analyzed his skeleton have clearly stated that this specific type of deformity would not have resulted in a hunchback and, although it would have caused severe pain, would in fact not have been readily visible beyond the uneven shoulders.
6) Jones also describes Richard III as tall, even though he was only 5 foot 8—not short for the time, but certainly not remotely tall, at least in comparison to his brother Edward IV's 6 feet 4 inches and especially not when considered that Richard's scoliosis is believed to have taken several inches off his apparent height.
7) During his discussion of the Kent rebellion, Jones names Thomas Howard as the Duke of Norfolk. In fact, the Duke of Norfolk at the time was John Howard. Jones later cites the famous warning the duke received before the battle of Bosworth: "Jack of Norfolk be not too bold, for Dickon thy master be bought and sold." (Norfolk was later killed during the battle.) Thomas Howard was Norfolk's son and the Earl of Surrey at the time of Bosworth; he was subsequently stripped of his lands by Henry VII, though he was eventually restored to his title and ultimately became Duke of Norfolk much later, in 1514 under Henry VIII.
8) When discussing the Lambert Simnel plot, Jones mentions that Margaret of York, the dowager Duchess of Burgundy and the sister of Edward IV and Richard III, "ruled the Netherlands...on behalf of her son Philip the Fair." In fact, Margaret had no children; Philip was her step-grandson, the son of her deceased stepdaughter Mary (the daughter of Margaret's husband, Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy, from his first marriage) and her husband, Maximilian of the Habsburg dynasty (later Holy Roman Emperor).

At the risk of nitpicking, I'll make a few final comments about more minor issues of phrasing:
1) At one point Jones calls Edward IV the "most able man to have worn the crown since Henry V"—a statement that hardly says much, given that there was only one king, the inept Henry VI, between Henry V and Edward.
2) When describing the death of Richard de la Pole, the last "White Rose" of Suffolk, in 1525, Jones calls him the "last remaining grandson of Richard duke of York"—not strictly true, since Jones himself has already noted that another de la Pole brother, William, remained alive in the Tower of London until the 1530s. Clearly, as a captive, William was no threat to the Tudors, but he was still a surviving grandson of York.
3) After the battle of Sandal Castle (Wakefield Green), Jones says the heads of Richard, Duke of York, his son Edmund Earl of Rutland, and Salisbury and his son Thomas Neville were displayed on Micklegate in York. I would expect any historian of the period to know that in York, as local tour guides love to explain to this day, streets are called gates and gates are called bars. Reflecting the area's strong Scandinavian heritage, the name Micklegate actually refers to the name of a street. The towering city gate upon which the heads were displayed is known as Micklegate Bar. It's a minor error, but just another example of sloppy editing or fact checking.

Overall, this book is an easy read and a good but not problem-free starting point for readers interested in one of the most fascinating periods in British history. Hopefully readers will then go on to read other books on the subject and discover the nuances of the story that Jones's book—understandably, given its scope—does not cover.

[Mary ~Ravager of Tomes~]

This is really good I just don’t think I’m absorbing it by listening. Will definitely resume in physical form!

[Joy D · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well-researched and well-written narrative non-fiction about the period of time in English history covering the various Wars of the Roses (1455-1487). It is an account of the infighting between the branches of the Plantagenets, leading to the rise of the Tudors, replete with many battles, treachery, beheadings, greed, births, and untimely deaths. It documents these tumultuous years in which the crown repeatedly changed hands. Told mostly in chronological order, it documents the various allegiances, betrayals, and general chaos of the times. The author has a knack for providing vivid descriptions and tells these stories in an engaging way, though there are so many people with the same names that it is occasionally hard to keep them all straight. This book covers events at a higher-level, while providing enough background information that it feels like just the right level of detail. I certainly learned a lot!

[Ryann · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great introduction into the English power grab by the Yorks and the Lancasters. I would have liked to dissect these stories further, but having little knowledge of the Wars of the Roses, this was a good starting point.

[Silvana · Rating 4 out of 5]

I wish I had counted how many heads that rolled from the first page. It seems that the best way to live as royalty at those times in England is to stay the hell away from the court and all the intrigue. Just less in five years, there were three kings.

A Clash of Kings, you say? Oh yes, George R. R. Martin definitely was inspired by the Wars of the Roses so much he basically took all the York brothers and put them in Westeros to become the Baratheon brothers. Oh, I was definitely enjoying my time trying to draw parallels to A Song of Ice and Fire characters and hoping the ending of one character would be the same as in the books.

This book is easy to read. All the other reviews mentioned that the narrative is accessible and the stories are expertly woven. For me, I could use a book with less name repetitions - too many Edwards, Elizabeths and Margarets to my liking - but I guess that's what X-Ray feature in Kindle is for. As for the narrative itself, it is indeed digestible, without being too dry - as what could happen in history books.

Being a chronicler at those times probably kind of exciting (as long as you're not implicated in one plot or another). Kings in the middle ages basically had two duties: uphold justice and wage wars. Well, I would also add marry someone that could help you keep the throne. And produce an heir. Now, after the fall of Henry VI - Dan Jones seemed to hate him so much he practically blamed Henry for everything - at least four families could claim descent from Henry VI’s great-great grandfather, Edward III.

Why of course, there were many claimants who fought for their rights and stuff, and many died for it, either getting their heads chopped off (which were a lot) or in battlegrounds. The battles in this book (Tewkesbury and Towton especially) are not described in details (or as much as I wanted) but the results are just still ghastly and bring more suffering to all these families, ending with extinguished lines with the last of them, The Tudors, barely escaped.

I had some doubts a long the way about the book. I complained on why the author did not tell the story of the Lancasters until almost halfway through the book and I grumbled or why no roses were mentioned until 2/3 of the book. It was silly, really, but I just had to know why. I did found out why but I won't spoil it here.

Okay, now the women. I remember reading The Life of Elizabeth I by Alison Weir and found out that while men fought battles, the women waged wars. Elizabeth York, Margaret Beaufort, those are some fantastic real-life characters that were tenacious and dedicated to their causes. I love reading about powerful women. They are not always have to be femme fatales, you know.

Anyway, a highly recommended book - not too long but pretty comprehensive - for those who are interested in English history or like me, who loves A Song of Ice and Fire, wars and politics and the game of thrones.

[Leslie · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have mixed feelings about this book and would probably give it 3-1/2 stars if I could (why, oh why can't we give half-star ratings?). My main problem is that for me the author's biases show a bit too much, not only against Richard III (who he asserts as fact in the Introduction "killed [his brother] Edward's sons" - even a "many historians believe" would have been more tolerable), but also in favor of other characters, such as Richard's father Richard Duke of York, who Jones repeatedly asserts had no intention of usurping his cousin Henry VI's crown, until, presumably, he actually tried to do it, and Edward IV, whose "mercy" toward Henry in not having him killed was (IMO) actually a calculated political decision that lasted precisely as long as Henry's usefulness to him and not a moment longer. (As long as Henry had a son living it was valuable for Edward to keep him alive rather than have a vigorous young man out there claiming to be King, but as soon as that son was dead, the father was also killed.)

However, like Dan Jones' previous book, The Plantagenets, The Wars of the Roses was on the whole a well-written, (mostly) balanced and vibrant account of a fascinating period in English history.

[Heidi Murphy · Rating 4 out of 5]

I’ve always been fascinated by the Wars of the Roses, it’s a complex and rewarding era to study and research but all too often accounts of this era have somehow disappointed. In The Hollow Crown, Dan Jones takes this complex era and its cast of fascinating characters and weaves a tale so gripping that even though you know what will happen next you are still completely hooked.

All the key characters are here, Henry V, victor of Agincourt, his son, the well-meaning yet inept Henry VI, the ambitious and arrogant Richard, Duke of York, Warwick the Kingmaker, Edward IV, the ‘talented soldier’ and ‘capable politician’ who took his chance, seized the throne and briefly brought stability to the country, the tragic Princes in the Tower, the enigmatic Richard III whose ruthless coup in 1483 set in motion a chain of events which eventually led to the destruction of the House of York and the rise of the Tudors.

Scholarly, yet accessible this is a terrific read, set in a period of ruthless power-struggles, bloody battles and political instability, where brother turned against brother and the people of England all too often saw the Crown violently change hands. Packed with fascinating characters this is not a simple tale of 'Hero' versus 'Villain', York versus Lancaster, because in Jones’ hands there is no black and white there are simply facts, insights and understanding. It’s a book I thoroughly enjoyed, will regularly return to, and would recommend to anyone with an interest in royal history in general and the Wars of the Roses in particular.

[Ricardo · Rating 4 out of 5]

I can see where George R. R. Martin got his inspiration from. This is a uber-complicated series of events that I had to reread passages to keep my head straight. It’s always confusing when people are referred to as their titles instead of their names (Warwick, York, Somerset). But this big boat of a story was still captivating. The struggle to claim the English throne featured court intrigue, illicit affairs, illegitimate children and even the bloodiest battle ever fought on British soil (Towton). While all this drama was embroiling the elites, there is very little insight into how the commons took all of this. If a good many were literate, we could have a sense of their feelings. But the backstabbing theatrics kept me glued all the way through.

[Brendan Monroe · Rating 4 out of 5]

The politics of blood has always amused me. The idea that someone is automatically deserving of something – a crown, for instance – because of who their father or mother was, is probably the most absurd, unjust thing ever thought up. So we have Dan Jones’ book “The War of the Roses” in which many characters run about claiming that this person has more of a right to wear the crown than that person because they’re supposedly a more direct descendant of a former king or queen.

The idea of “royal blood”, rightful claimants to the throne, and bastard children of a king being unable to rule because they weren’t conceived in wedlock is all pretty absurd. But was it borne out of a desire for order by a civilization not developed enough to function fully as a democracy, or is thinking that a person’s superiority was directly related to who their relations were simply a result of primeval thinking?

It doesn’t feel too far removed from today’s world either. A recent U.S. President and the current Canadian Prime Minister both got their jobs based not on their qualifications but because of whom their fathers were. Likewise, having a celebrity parent doesn’t just guarantee you a rich inheritance, but a plum posting on television as though you were some sort of expert on anything other than how it felt to be born with a silver spoon in your mouth (looking at you, Meghan McCain, among others).

Royal families the world over are just one of the oldest forms of nepotism. As a critic of such behavior, I find it hard to care much when reading about how a “rightful” heir was suddenly cut down by some usurper. In other words, all hail Richard III! Now there was a man who truly fought against the odds – and on the battlefield, to his ultimate demise – and refused to kowtow to the ravings of the blood cult (not that Richard III was above trying to claim his own blood made him superior to those prepubescent boys he threw into the tower).

In real life, of course, Richard III was unheard to have muttered “my kingdom for a horse” when felled in battle, and deeds just as villainous as those which Shakespeare saddled the scoliosis-afflicted king with could easily be ascribed to just about every other king. Of course, Richard III’s attempt to wed his brother’s daughter isn’t something that will be looked upon positively in the history books – or even in those times apparently, as his, ahem, desires were thwarted. Throw in the possible murder of the aforementioned prepubescent boys and it's clear we're not exactly talking about Mr. Rogers here.

Today too, people will eagerly cite English or other nobles as distant relations as if, somehow, that should mean anything to anybody. We’re all related when you go back far enough.

I didn’t quite enjoy “The War of the Roses” as much as I did Dan Jones’ previous book on the Plantagenets. Perhaps that’s because the “war” constantly mixed things up in this book, leaving all the characters in a bit of a muddle for me. Indeed, I found that listening to this in audio was perhaps not ideal as it required a level of focus that my easily distracted mind – which would quickly flash to thinking of all the people I know who are, in fact, “bastards” – couldn’t maintain a grip on because now that Edward is gone and this one is here, and that Henry is crazy, oh, but now he’s not crazy and now he’s dead and they all die so young when you think about it and England seems to half the time be in the control of children and what would happen if children ruled the world these days and I suppose that would actually be an improvement on Trump …

King Arthur! Yes, these British folk were positively obsessed with King Arthur. Except that naming your child Arthur seems to be ensuring them an early death. Alas, there has never been an actual King Arthur, despite many attempts. Just imagine if Elizabeth II had named her son Charles, Arthur. That guy? The first King Arthur? He's not pulling any swords from stones!

Now a brief review of King Arthur in film:

1. Monty Python and the Holy Grail. So obviously the best that we might as well stop here. It's not just the best King Arthur film, it's one of the best films ever. The knights who say "ni", the coconuts, the killer rabbit, the black knight, the curtains - it's all glorious.

Annnnd then there's quite a serious drop in quality.

2. First Knight. It’s here because of Sean Connery, of course, though Richard Gere and Julia Ormond are also sexy. The casting of Sean Connery, a Scotsman, to play Arthur, a Welshman, is probably a bit of an improvement over casting him as Richard I, an Englishman, in “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves” (See Robin Hood film criticism, here), but both end up working because it’s Sean Connery.

3. The Sword in the Stone. It’s here only because it isn't horrible like all the others.

END KING ARTHUR FILM CRITICISM

No matter what anyone says, everyone has their favorite bastard child, and Richard III was no exception. “Our dear bastard son,” Richard proclaims at a ceremony making the bastard son in question, John of Pontefract, a captain. We have no evidence suggesting that those attending this 1485 ceremony in York were unable to refrain from laughing, but I have my doubts.

A worthy read if you’re interested in the history, but only those who take the most uninteresting routes to work should tackle the audio version.

[John Brown · Rating 4 out of 5]

Want to read Game of Thrones but in real life? Read about the War of the Roses based in 15th century England, where Kings and Princes drop like flies!

[Boudewijn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dan Jones is my favourite author when it comes to Medieval history and this book is no exception to that rule. Engaging and readable, Dan Jones knows how to paint the bleak Medieval power struggle during the War of the Roses. Highly recommended if you want to know more about this.

[Stephen Richter · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you want an easy digestible history of the amazing but confusing period of British History, this book is for you. From Shakespeare to George RR Martin, writers have mined this period for inspiration. Jones' book is a great primer, the players are clearly identified and how everything comes into conflict.

[Matt · Rating 5 out of 5]

"It was a sure sign of the woe that had befallen the English Crown that anyone should have ever considered Henry Tudor as a potential king." pp. 280

5 stars for The Wars of the Roses: The Fall of the Plantagenets and the Rise of the Tudors by Dan Jones.

I really enjoyed this book. It tells the story of the struggles between the Yorks and Lancasters for the English Monarchy over most of the 15th century. After the Lancasters overthrew Richard II in 1399 the crown of England changed hands 5 times during the 1400's. The Lancasters and Yorks fought it out during what is called The Wars of the Roses. White Roses symbolized the Yorkists while Red Roses symbolized the Lancasters. The Lancaster's downfall was Henry VI. He was weak, sickly, and made many horrible decisions that wreaked havoc in England for 50 years. He was thrust into power as an infant after his father Henry V died, and the s**t hit the fan during his reign. In a way I feel sorry for Henry VI, but he made some very stupid decisions and was a puppet for most of his reign.

The aftermath of The Wars of the Roses was the practically inexplicable rise to the the throne by Henry Tudor who had a tenuous (at best) claim to the throne (his father, Edmund, was the half brother to Henry VI- they had the same mother who was not of English royal blood). What Henry Tudor and then his son Henry VIII did to eliminate any other claimants to the throne (primarily the Poles) was probably the wisest of all the moves any of the Kings made during this period. Also, Henry Tudor's marriage to Elizabeth of York to finally bring together the Lancasters and the Yorks was obviously a very solid decision on his part. His son, Henry VIII became in a single person the culmination of the peace after nearly a century of wars and Henry Tudor's concatenation of both houses.

There are a lot of names in this history and it is hard to follow at times, but it is a fascinating story, and it is hard for me to believe that all of this actually happened!