What do you think?
Rate this book
Crécy: Battle of Five Kings
A remarkable new study on the Battle of Crécy, in which the outnumbered English under King Edward III won a decisive victory over the French and changed the course of the Hundred Years War.
The Battle of Crécy in 1346 is one the most famous and widely studied military engagements in history. The repercussions of this battle - in which England's King Edward III decisively defeated a far larger French army - were felt for hundreds of years, and the exploits of those fighting reached the status of legend. Yet groundbreaking research has shown that nearly everything that has been written about this dramatic event may be wrong.
In this new study, Michael Livingston reveals how modern scholars have used archived manuscripts, satellite technologies and traditional fieldwork to help unlock what was arguably the battle's greatest secret: the location of the now quiet fields where so many thousands died.
Crécy: Battle of Five Kings is a story of past and present. It is a new history of one of the most important battles of the Middle Ages: a compelling narrative account of the Battle of Crécy that still adheres to the highest scholarly standards in its detail. It is also an account that incorporates the most cutting-edge revelations and the personal story of how those discoveries were made.
The Battle of Crécy in 1346 is one the most famous and widely studied military engagements in history. The repercussions of this battle - in which England's King Edward III decisively defeated a far larger French army - were felt for hundreds of years, and the exploits of those fighting reached the status of legend. Yet groundbreaking research has shown that nearly everything that has been written about this dramatic event may be wrong.
In this new study, Michael Livingston reveals how modern scholars have used archived manuscripts, satellite technologies and traditional fieldwork to help unlock what was arguably the battle's greatest secret: the location of the now quiet fields where so many thousands died.
Crécy: Battle of Five Kings is a story of past and present. It is a new history of one of the most important battles of the Middle Ages: a compelling narrative account of the Battle of Crécy that still adheres to the highest scholarly standards in its detail. It is also an account that incorporates the most cutting-edge revelations and the personal story of how those discoveries were made.
304 pages, Hardcover
First published June 7, 2022
65 people are currently reading
708 people want to read
About the author
Michael Livingston
55 books234 followersA native of Colorado, Michael Livingston holds degrees in History, Medieval Studies, and English. He lives today in Charleston, South Carolina, where he teaches at The Citadel.
In his author life, he is a winner of the prestigious international Writers of the Future Contest (in 2005), and his novel SHARDS OF HEAVEN, the first in a trilogy of historical fantasies, will be published by Tor Books in November 2015. He has also published in a variety of other genres and venues, from a historical retelling of BEOWULF to a brief story about quantum physics in the world-renowned journal of science, NATURE.
In his academic life, he has published more than a dozen articles on subjects as varied as early Christianity, BEOWULF, Chaucer, James Joyce, J.R.R. Tolkien, and digital and practical pedagogies (though never all of them at once!). He has investigated European maps of America that pre-date Columbus, found unrecorded Anasazi ruins and artifacts, and written about the handwriting of fourteenth-century scribes. He is the general editor of the Liverpool Historical Casebooks Series, for which he has edited casebooks on the Battle of Brunanburh (Exeter, 2011), the Welsh rebel hero Owain Glyndwr (co-edited with John Bollard; Liverpool, 2013), and, coming soon, the Battle of Crécy (co-edited with Kelly DeVries; 2015).
In his author life, he is a winner of the prestigious international Writers of the Future Contest (in 2005), and his novel SHARDS OF HEAVEN, the first in a trilogy of historical fantasies, will be published by Tor Books in November 2015. He has also published in a variety of other genres and venues, from a historical retelling of BEOWULF to a brief story about quantum physics in the world-renowned journal of science, NATURE.
In his academic life, he has published more than a dozen articles on subjects as varied as early Christianity, BEOWULF, Chaucer, James Joyce, J.R.R. Tolkien, and digital and practical pedagogies (though never all of them at once!). He has investigated European maps of America that pre-date Columbus, found unrecorded Anasazi ruins and artifacts, and written about the handwriting of fourteenth-century scribes. He is the general editor of the Liverpool Historical Casebooks Series, for which he has edited casebooks on the Battle of Brunanburh (Exeter, 2011), the Welsh rebel hero Owain Glyndwr (co-edited with John Bollard; Liverpool, 2013), and, coming soon, the Battle of Crécy (co-edited with Kelly DeVries; 2015).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 43 reviews
August 21, 2022
A re-evaluation and study of the battle of Crecy, the 1346 battle in which Edward III vanquished superior numbers and the legendary Black Prince of Wales earned his spurs according to legend.
The story for Livingston begins with 1066, the original cross Channel invasion. The victory of the Norman William the Conqueror sets the stage 300 years earlier, when "France" as we know it conquered the British Isles. Fast forward to the deposition of Edward II, father to the III, with the help of his wife's French relatives. When William III comes of age, he asserts a claim to France and sets about getting it. Livingston looks into the necessary details: transportation. supplies, military technology, and strategy. The heart of the book are the details around the battle itself, and Livingston's big axe to grind is a massive claim: that the current assumed battle site is incorrect and that primary sources actually support an alternative site on the edges of the Crecy forest. I was convinced, but academia has a grip on the counter argument. Nonetheless, Livingston is also brave to counter our view of the Black Prince himself, through legend the brave victor of the battle. It turns out that the Prince himself nearly lost the battle and was briefly captured.
Despite these contentions, this is a highly readable account of a major conflict that resulted in prolonging the Hundred Years' War and inflaming British and French tensions for centuries to come after laying mainly dormant for 300 years. I found the English strategy intriguing and the death of the King of Bohemia stirring. For medieval military enthusiasts and historians.
The story for Livingston begins with 1066, the original cross Channel invasion. The victory of the Norman William the Conqueror sets the stage 300 years earlier, when "France" as we know it conquered the British Isles. Fast forward to the deposition of Edward II, father to the III, with the help of his wife's French relatives. When William III comes of age, he asserts a claim to France and sets about getting it. Livingston looks into the necessary details: transportation. supplies, military technology, and strategy. The heart of the book are the details around the battle itself, and Livingston's big axe to grind is a massive claim: that the current assumed battle site is incorrect and that primary sources actually support an alternative site on the edges of the Crecy forest. I was convinced, but academia has a grip on the counter argument. Nonetheless, Livingston is also brave to counter our view of the Black Prince himself, through legend the brave victor of the battle. It turns out that the Prince himself nearly lost the battle and was briefly captured.
Despite these contentions, this is a highly readable account of a major conflict that resulted in prolonging the Hundred Years' War and inflaming British and French tensions for centuries to come after laying mainly dormant for 300 years. I found the English strategy intriguing and the death of the King of Bohemia stirring. For medieval military enthusiasts and historians.
September 19, 2023
If you were to ask me to explain the Battle of Crécy to you, I would most likely make some kind of sucking noise, stare into the middle distance, and say something like “Oh boy, where do I even start?” Despite, or possibly because of, being one of the most famous battles of the Middle Ages, the story of Crécy is hopelessly difficult to unpack. The sources describing the battle are so extensive that Michael Livingston and Kelly DeVries published an entire book, the invaluable Crécy Sourcebook, that just contained ones from the roughly fifty years after the battle. There is so much information around Crécy and so much of it contradictory that putting together a coherent narrative is a challenge for even the greatest of scholars. That also means that it is a battle ripe for reinterpretation. Enter Michael Livingston, of the aforementioned sourcebook, and his new history of the battle, Crécy: Battle of the Five Kings. This is a new popular history of the battle wherein Livingston advances some probably quite contentious views on the history of Crécy.
The first half to two-thirds of Crécy is essentially a history of “how we got here”. It covers, in brief, the origins of the Hundred Years War, stretching back all the way to Hastings in 1066 and navigating a variety of thorny political and inheritance issues that brought everything to a head in 1337. While not exactly breaking new ground, this is a very approachable account of what was at stake in the Hundred Years War and why exactly it can be such a confusing mess when you try and explain it. There are a lot of moving parts and Livingston does a good job at untangling them in a manner that should be entertaining to most readers.
Once the background is out of the way Livingston moves on to the events of 1346 - most importantly the campaign leading up to Crécy and the battle itself. His account of the campaign, of Edward III’s landing near what is now Utah Beach, his capture of Caen, and his race to cross the Seine and Somme rivers are well written and easy to follow. There are certainly nits to pick, particularly around his description of the battle at Blanchetaque ford, but these are fairly minor areas of scholarly dispute.
In terms of how to analyze Livingston’s account of the battle itself, I really need to separate my overall feelings about how the book handles the subject matter from Livingston’s dramatic claim that underpins a lot of the book. Let’s start with the big claim first, and then circle back to how I feel about the latter part of the book’s structure as a whole.
Livingston’s bold claim is that the traditional site of the Battle of Crécy is incorrect and that the battle was actually fought some distance to the south, more in the woods rather than near the village of Crécy. I will come right out and say that I’m generally skeptical of the accurate locating of medieval battles, especially without ample archaeological evidence. The archaeological evidence for the traditional battle site is thin, although Livingston does seem to discount without mention evidence mentioned in A.H. Burne’s venerable work on the subject, so I am amenable to it being potentially incorrect. That said, convincing me of an alternative site would require no small feat. While I am sympathetic to Livingston’s objections to the traditional site, both those objections and his arguments for the new site rely far too much on arguments of “what would make the most sense” and not hard evidence. I also find that Livingston relies too much on how many sources support points he is trying to make and not the quality of those sources - traditionally one would rank the accounts of someone like Geoffrey le Baker, who was at the battle, far above chronicles written decades later in far flung parts of Europe by people who had never even been to northern France. That’s not to say that I disagree with Livingston on the idea that these sources have value, all sources have value, but rather that I’m not entirely convinced by his use of them here. I cannot dispute that he knows the source material, I’m just not in agreement with how he has applied it.
Overall, I wasn’t wowed by Livingston’s account of the battle. Avant-garde reinterpretation of the battle site, and the restructuring of the battle narrative that follows, aside, I just found it hard to follow. He gets lost in the weeds at busting myths, some of which are so old I’m surprised anyone still believes them, and pushing forward his alternative interpretations that he doesn’t ever lay out a clear foundation of how exactly the battle played out. This account would have benefited enormously from a high level overview of just the sequence of events as Livingston sees them before digging into the weeds. His desire to sort of spring his alternative theories on the readers might make for punchy writing but it also makes it hard to follow.
In terms of other nits I have to pick with Livingston’s account, I think he vastly overestimates the power of the English longbow. Part of his dismissal of the traditional battle site is based on the notion of the French having to advance too close to the English, but this requires a vast overestimation of the effective range of the longbow. The attention he pays to the fact that the Black Prince probably advanced from his original position to attack the disordered French is excellent, if a bit undermined by a lack of clarity on where he is advancing much needed changes to modern scholarship and where he is contradicting early modern myths, but it goes a little far in terms of how critical he is of the Black Prince’s decision. It somewhat implies that he thinks the archers would have defeated the French on their own, which does not line up with what we know of the longbow’s power nor the supply of arrows available to them. The Black Prince may not have made the optimal strategic move, but a commander advancing to attack their enemy at their most disordered only to be repulsed in turn when the opponent commits their reserves is hardly a new event in the annals of military history. Livingston’s somewhat exaggerated writing might make for exciting reading, but I don’t love it for historical interpretation.
I think Livingston and I probably subscribe to very different philosophies of how to study medieval military history. In Chapter 9, Livingston outlines his “Four Maxims of Battle” that he uses to guide much of his reconstruction of the events at Crécy. Two of these in particular I found it very hard to agree with. The first was “A battle is its ground.” While in theory I agree with the notion that the physical ground a battle was fought on plays a very important role in determine its key events, my point of disagreement stems from the practicality of locating medieval battlegrounds. Crécy is far from unique in having a contentious traditional location, very few medieval battles have a generally agreed upon site, and that means I am generally skeptical of a history that relies extensively upon the physical geography of the battleground to explain the events. That does not mean that I believe we should assume all battles took place in a blank, featureless field. Instead, I think we should let the written narratives of the battle ground guide our reconstruction more than we should rely upon the conditions of our chosen ground where we believe the battle occurred.
My greater disagreement, though, is with his point “No man is a fool.” Again, I agree in principle that medieval people were no more foolish than we are now and largely behaved in manners they considered rational. That said, I found the application of this principle to skew very close to A.H. Burne’s controversial idea of Inherent Military Probability - where Burne would use his own judgement as a modern British officer to fill in the gaps in the sources with what he would have done in that situation. The thing is, no man may be a fool, but also humans are fallible. War is confusing, complicated, and chaotic. Mistakes happen all the time. Livingston seems to assume a degree of detached objectivity in medieval commanders that I cannot see aligning with the behavior of actual humans. It can both be true that Philip VI was an overall competent military commander and that he made a mistake on one day in August 1346. I think in deciding to push against ancient myths about Crécy Livingston overcorrects and presents a battle narrative that seems to be executed by automatons.
I don’t want to make it sound like this is a bad book, but it is a bit of an odd duck. Much of the book is a very engaging introductory history of the battle, but the radical reinterpretation Livingston proposes makes the book’s ending more like a contentious piece for academic debate rather than something aimed at the average layperson. I think this is a book that someone who is already familiar with the Crécy source material will get a lot more out of than someone for whom this is their first book on the subject. If you don’t already know who all of Geoffrey le Baker, Jean le Bel, and Froissart are, well the book isn’t going to do much to teach that to you and it will probably be important to your ability to appreciate its arguments. This is absolutely a valuable addition to the corpus of material on the Battle of Crécy, even if it didn’t totally convince me, but at the same time I’d be reluctant to recommend it to people as a first book on the subject. For my money, Andrew Ayton and Philip Preston’s The Battle of Crécy, 1346 remains the best book on the battle in no small part because of Ayton’s masterful introduction of the key sources for the battle, including their many strengths and weaknesses. While Ayton and Preston’s book is aimed squarely at an academic audience, and thus not as friendly for a general audience, I think it will do far more to upend people’s understanding of the battle than Livingston’s even if its overall claims are more conservative. Livingston’s book does an admirable job in parts by breaking down the work of a military historian and showing part of the sausage making process, as it were, but I think he could have gone a lot further by introducing the readers to more of his sources. I’m glad I read Livingston’s book, it was certainly thought provoking if not always entirely convincing, but despite its approachable writing I don’t think I will be recommending it to non-specialists any time soon.
This review originally appeared on my blog. You can find more reviews at: https://www.stuartellisgorman.com/blo...
The first half to two-thirds of Crécy is essentially a history of “how we got here”. It covers, in brief, the origins of the Hundred Years War, stretching back all the way to Hastings in 1066 and navigating a variety of thorny political and inheritance issues that brought everything to a head in 1337. While not exactly breaking new ground, this is a very approachable account of what was at stake in the Hundred Years War and why exactly it can be such a confusing mess when you try and explain it. There are a lot of moving parts and Livingston does a good job at untangling them in a manner that should be entertaining to most readers.
Once the background is out of the way Livingston moves on to the events of 1346 - most importantly the campaign leading up to Crécy and the battle itself. His account of the campaign, of Edward III’s landing near what is now Utah Beach, his capture of Caen, and his race to cross the Seine and Somme rivers are well written and easy to follow. There are certainly nits to pick, particularly around his description of the battle at Blanchetaque ford, but these are fairly minor areas of scholarly dispute.
In terms of how to analyze Livingston’s account of the battle itself, I really need to separate my overall feelings about how the book handles the subject matter from Livingston’s dramatic claim that underpins a lot of the book. Let’s start with the big claim first, and then circle back to how I feel about the latter part of the book’s structure as a whole.
Livingston’s bold claim is that the traditional site of the Battle of Crécy is incorrect and that the battle was actually fought some distance to the south, more in the woods rather than near the village of Crécy. I will come right out and say that I’m generally skeptical of the accurate locating of medieval battles, especially without ample archaeological evidence. The archaeological evidence for the traditional battle site is thin, although Livingston does seem to discount without mention evidence mentioned in A.H. Burne’s venerable work on the subject, so I am amenable to it being potentially incorrect. That said, convincing me of an alternative site would require no small feat. While I am sympathetic to Livingston’s objections to the traditional site, both those objections and his arguments for the new site rely far too much on arguments of “what would make the most sense” and not hard evidence. I also find that Livingston relies too much on how many sources support points he is trying to make and not the quality of those sources - traditionally one would rank the accounts of someone like Geoffrey le Baker, who was at the battle, far above chronicles written decades later in far flung parts of Europe by people who had never even been to northern France. That’s not to say that I disagree with Livingston on the idea that these sources have value, all sources have value, but rather that I’m not entirely convinced by his use of them here. I cannot dispute that he knows the source material, I’m just not in agreement with how he has applied it.
Overall, I wasn’t wowed by Livingston’s account of the battle. Avant-garde reinterpretation of the battle site, and the restructuring of the battle narrative that follows, aside, I just found it hard to follow. He gets lost in the weeds at busting myths, some of which are so old I’m surprised anyone still believes them, and pushing forward his alternative interpretations that he doesn’t ever lay out a clear foundation of how exactly the battle played out. This account would have benefited enormously from a high level overview of just the sequence of events as Livingston sees them before digging into the weeds. His desire to sort of spring his alternative theories on the readers might make for punchy writing but it also makes it hard to follow.
In terms of other nits I have to pick with Livingston’s account, I think he vastly overestimates the power of the English longbow. Part of his dismissal of the traditional battle site is based on the notion of the French having to advance too close to the English, but this requires a vast overestimation of the effective range of the longbow. The attention he pays to the fact that the Black Prince probably advanced from his original position to attack the disordered French is excellent, if a bit undermined by a lack of clarity on where he is advancing much needed changes to modern scholarship and where he is contradicting early modern myths, but it goes a little far in terms of how critical he is of the Black Prince’s decision. It somewhat implies that he thinks the archers would have defeated the French on their own, which does not line up with what we know of the longbow’s power nor the supply of arrows available to them. The Black Prince may not have made the optimal strategic move, but a commander advancing to attack their enemy at their most disordered only to be repulsed in turn when the opponent commits their reserves is hardly a new event in the annals of military history. Livingston’s somewhat exaggerated writing might make for exciting reading, but I don’t love it for historical interpretation.
I think Livingston and I probably subscribe to very different philosophies of how to study medieval military history. In Chapter 9, Livingston outlines his “Four Maxims of Battle” that he uses to guide much of his reconstruction of the events at Crécy. Two of these in particular I found it very hard to agree with. The first was “A battle is its ground.” While in theory I agree with the notion that the physical ground a battle was fought on plays a very important role in determine its key events, my point of disagreement stems from the practicality of locating medieval battlegrounds. Crécy is far from unique in having a contentious traditional location, very few medieval battles have a generally agreed upon site, and that means I am generally skeptical of a history that relies extensively upon the physical geography of the battleground to explain the events. That does not mean that I believe we should assume all battles took place in a blank, featureless field. Instead, I think we should let the written narratives of the battle ground guide our reconstruction more than we should rely upon the conditions of our chosen ground where we believe the battle occurred.
My greater disagreement, though, is with his point “No man is a fool.” Again, I agree in principle that medieval people were no more foolish than we are now and largely behaved in manners they considered rational. That said, I found the application of this principle to skew very close to A.H. Burne’s controversial idea of Inherent Military Probability - where Burne would use his own judgement as a modern British officer to fill in the gaps in the sources with what he would have done in that situation. The thing is, no man may be a fool, but also humans are fallible. War is confusing, complicated, and chaotic. Mistakes happen all the time. Livingston seems to assume a degree of detached objectivity in medieval commanders that I cannot see aligning with the behavior of actual humans. It can both be true that Philip VI was an overall competent military commander and that he made a mistake on one day in August 1346. I think in deciding to push against ancient myths about Crécy Livingston overcorrects and presents a battle narrative that seems to be executed by automatons.
I don’t want to make it sound like this is a bad book, but it is a bit of an odd duck. Much of the book is a very engaging introductory history of the battle, but the radical reinterpretation Livingston proposes makes the book’s ending more like a contentious piece for academic debate rather than something aimed at the average layperson. I think this is a book that someone who is already familiar with the Crécy source material will get a lot more out of than someone for whom this is their first book on the subject. If you don’t already know who all of Geoffrey le Baker, Jean le Bel, and Froissart are, well the book isn’t going to do much to teach that to you and it will probably be important to your ability to appreciate its arguments. This is absolutely a valuable addition to the corpus of material on the Battle of Crécy, even if it didn’t totally convince me, but at the same time I’d be reluctant to recommend it to people as a first book on the subject. For my money, Andrew Ayton and Philip Preston’s The Battle of Crécy, 1346 remains the best book on the battle in no small part because of Ayton’s masterful introduction of the key sources for the battle, including their many strengths and weaknesses. While Ayton and Preston’s book is aimed squarely at an academic audience, and thus not as friendly for a general audience, I think it will do far more to upend people’s understanding of the battle than Livingston’s even if its overall claims are more conservative. Livingston’s book does an admirable job in parts by breaking down the work of a military historian and showing part of the sausage making process, as it were, but I think he could have gone a lot further by introducing the readers to more of his sources. I’m glad I read Livingston’s book, it was certainly thought provoking if not always entirely convincing, but despite its approachable writing I don’t think I will be recommending it to non-specialists any time soon.
This review originally appeared on my blog. You can find more reviews at: https://www.stuartellisgorman.com/blo...
March 11, 2023
Foremost is the fact that the author actually walked the traditional Crecy battlefield and has carefully examined the alternative battle site that he has discovered. He did his physical surveys in conjunction with a great deal of study of the accounts of the battle that are available. Pulling it altogether, I think he makes a persuasive argument for his conclusion. Bernard Cornwell provided a favorable forward to the book.
This is not the first time that luck or analysis moved the location of historic events. Recently the site of the Battle of Bosworth Field was moved because of an artifact discovered in the new location and the recognition that the terrain fit the descriptions of the battle somewhat better than the tourist location.
The route that Hannibal took over the Alps is apparently still in question although it should not be. Researchers in the last century used Polybious and, to a lesser degree, Livy to travel the Alps and make what I think are conclusive arguments for Hannibal's route being the Little St Bernard Pass. Polybius, himself, traveled the pass when generally everyone knew the correct route and he identified some striking geological features which are visible today.
When last I visited Salem it was still believed that the hangings took place on what is still called Gallows Hill. However, I found an argument online pointing to Proctor's Ledge on the other side of the highway as being the likely location. I thought the argument sound because he used contemporary records of people seeing the victims hanging while looking from a known place in the town where it would have been impossible to see anyone on Gallows Hill. The victims would have been visible to the witness if they were hanging near Proctor's Ledge. More research since then has confirmed that Proctor's Ledge is the actual location of the executions.
Livingston makes the point in his account that actually visiting the location of historic events, particularly battles, is essential if they are going to be understood. I think the other examples I have given make that point. Great battles in history take place somewhere, an actual physical location, and visiting those locations brings history to life and helps to make sense of some of the decisions made before and during the battle. Gettysburg is a good place to visit to get a grasp of that notion. Everything is laid out clearly.
I once visited Cannae where Hannibal killed about 50,000 Romans in a single day. Standing atop the ruins of the town one can see where the fight probably took place but there are alternatives. Perhaps Dr. Livingston will have a crack at that one.
I enjoyed his analysis of Crecy and I think that he is right.
I should add a postscript on the significance of this battle. Edward III had been trapped in France by a much larger French army and their allies. The gallant knights expected an easy victory over Edward's much smaller contingent of knights who were supported by a contemptible rabble of ordinary bowmen who were scarcely worthy of notice.
The knights charged. The sky was darkened by plunging arrows loosed rapidly from longbows. The knights died. The world turned round and quaked. The social order revealed a fault line. An ordinary farmer who practiced regularly with his longbow could kill any knight.
It happened again at Potiers and Agincourt.
Robert Hardy, the actor who portrayed Cornelius Fudge in the Harry Potter movies, was also an expert on longbows and has published at least one very worthy book on the subject, "Longbow: A Social and Military History". He was so well regarded for his expertise that when the Mary Rose was raised and discovered to have hundreds of longbows from the time of Henry VIII, Hardy was called to examine them and give his opinion. If you want to learn more about the longbow and how it came to be a weapon almost exclusive to the armies of the British Isles, one can hardly do better than reading Hardy's book.
This is not the first time that luck or analysis moved the location of historic events. Recently the site of the Battle of Bosworth Field was moved because of an artifact discovered in the new location and the recognition that the terrain fit the descriptions of the battle somewhat better than the tourist location.
The route that Hannibal took over the Alps is apparently still in question although it should not be. Researchers in the last century used Polybious and, to a lesser degree, Livy to travel the Alps and make what I think are conclusive arguments for Hannibal's route being the Little St Bernard Pass. Polybius, himself, traveled the pass when generally everyone knew the correct route and he identified some striking geological features which are visible today.
When last I visited Salem it was still believed that the hangings took place on what is still called Gallows Hill. However, I found an argument online pointing to Proctor's Ledge on the other side of the highway as being the likely location. I thought the argument sound because he used contemporary records of people seeing the victims hanging while looking from a known place in the town where it would have been impossible to see anyone on Gallows Hill. The victims would have been visible to the witness if they were hanging near Proctor's Ledge. More research since then has confirmed that Proctor's Ledge is the actual location of the executions.
Livingston makes the point in his account that actually visiting the location of historic events, particularly battles, is essential if they are going to be understood. I think the other examples I have given make that point. Great battles in history take place somewhere, an actual physical location, and visiting those locations brings history to life and helps to make sense of some of the decisions made before and during the battle. Gettysburg is a good place to visit to get a grasp of that notion. Everything is laid out clearly.
I once visited Cannae where Hannibal killed about 50,000 Romans in a single day. Standing atop the ruins of the town one can see where the fight probably took place but there are alternatives. Perhaps Dr. Livingston will have a crack at that one.
I enjoyed his analysis of Crecy and I think that he is right.
I should add a postscript on the significance of this battle. Edward III had been trapped in France by a much larger French army and their allies. The gallant knights expected an easy victory over Edward's much smaller contingent of knights who were supported by a contemptible rabble of ordinary bowmen who were scarcely worthy of notice.
The knights charged. The sky was darkened by plunging arrows loosed rapidly from longbows. The knights died. The world turned round and quaked. The social order revealed a fault line. An ordinary farmer who practiced regularly with his longbow could kill any knight.
It happened again at Potiers and Agincourt.
Robert Hardy, the actor who portrayed Cornelius Fudge in the Harry Potter movies, was also an expert on longbows and has published at least one very worthy book on the subject, "Longbow: A Social and Military History". He was so well regarded for his expertise that when the Mary Rose was raised and discovered to have hundreds of longbows from the time of Henry VIII, Hardy was called to examine them and give his opinion. If you want to learn more about the longbow and how it came to be a weapon almost exclusive to the armies of the British Isles, one can hardly do better than reading Hardy's book.
April 7, 2022
My thanks to NetGalley and the publisher Ospery Publishing for a copy of this military history.
During the first decade of the Hundred Years' War, on August 26, 1346 English and French led troops met in battle in Northern France. King Edward III was at the head of the English troops, which defeated roundly the forces of French with King Philip VI as their leader. The French lost a a significant amount of nobles, both to death and ransom, and many, many others whose names are not known nor remembered. This notable victory reverberated through European history effecting countries, trade and growth for years afterward. The Battle of Crécy as it came to be known has become one of the most studied and written about military engagements in history. And yet, according to Michael Livingston in his new book Crécy: Battle of Five Kings most of what might be written and stated as fact about the battle might be wrong.
June 1346. An English army lands in the Cotentin Peninsula and with little resistance begins to sack and pillage its way through France, closing with Paris. The troops are a motley band, robbing anything they can, breaking surrender agreements, and shipping as much back to England as possible. What can't be toted, is burned. Heading North the British plan to meet with a Flemish force advancing also into France. When plans change due to it being war, the English forces through superior engineering rebuild bridges, cross fords and escape the French long enough to prepare defensive positions by near Crécy. The French, who outnumber the English invaders attack, and are slaughtered. These are known facts, but after this is gets a little difficult to be sure of anything.
Using sources from ouside of what has been used before, poem, works translated from Italian, and good old walking the field, Professor Livingston has a few questions. Was the location of the battle as stated, really where it happened? How man men died that day? Many famous Kings were to fight, and in some case die. What were their true fates? Professor Livingston explains all of this walking the field, using satellite imagery. The writing is very good telling the story up to the battle, and filling out the story with new information and how it was acquired, with numerous source notes, and maps to back up his new information.
Books like this make it easy to understand how fake news and misinformation, and simple mistakes can arise, and be considered fact. Truth is hard, sometimes a story or just nodding along to someone's extrapolations is easier then going, well that sounds dumb. A very interesting book, both on histroy and how history is sometimes decided, and the work it entails. Recommended for students of the era, people with interest in the Hundred Years' War, military history, and those that enjoy a very good nonfiction tale.
During the first decade of the Hundred Years' War, on August 26, 1346 English and French led troops met in battle in Northern France. King Edward III was at the head of the English troops, which defeated roundly the forces of French with King Philip VI as their leader. The French lost a a significant amount of nobles, both to death and ransom, and many, many others whose names are not known nor remembered. This notable victory reverberated through European history effecting countries, trade and growth for years afterward. The Battle of Crécy as it came to be known has become one of the most studied and written about military engagements in history. And yet, according to Michael Livingston in his new book Crécy: Battle of Five Kings most of what might be written and stated as fact about the battle might be wrong.
June 1346. An English army lands in the Cotentin Peninsula and with little resistance begins to sack and pillage its way through France, closing with Paris. The troops are a motley band, robbing anything they can, breaking surrender agreements, and shipping as much back to England as possible. What can't be toted, is burned. Heading North the British plan to meet with a Flemish force advancing also into France. When plans change due to it being war, the English forces through superior engineering rebuild bridges, cross fords and escape the French long enough to prepare defensive positions by near Crécy. The French, who outnumber the English invaders attack, and are slaughtered. These are known facts, but after this is gets a little difficult to be sure of anything.
Using sources from ouside of what has been used before, poem, works translated from Italian, and good old walking the field, Professor Livingston has a few questions. Was the location of the battle as stated, really where it happened? How man men died that day? Many famous Kings were to fight, and in some case die. What were their true fates? Professor Livingston explains all of this walking the field, using satellite imagery. The writing is very good telling the story up to the battle, and filling out the story with new information and how it was acquired, with numerous source notes, and maps to back up his new information.
Books like this make it easy to understand how fake news and misinformation, and simple mistakes can arise, and be considered fact. Truth is hard, sometimes a story or just nodding along to someone's extrapolations is easier then going, well that sounds dumb. A very interesting book, both on histroy and how history is sometimes decided, and the work it entails. Recommended for students of the era, people with interest in the Hundred Years' War, military history, and those that enjoy a very good nonfiction tale.
December 8, 2022
This was a good book. A very good book in fact. The author is from Colorado...i.e., he is an American historian. Why the f--- is the narrator British? This is unendingly irritating. It's like the f-----g publisher thinks that in order for Americans to take history seriously it needs to be narrated by a Brit? That chauvinism is infuriating. It is even more so with Barbara Tuchman (who I'd long assumed was British), but why do publishers think it's required for narrators of history to have British accents? The Ukranian author Pilohi is narrated by a Brit...for the love of god, at least have it read by someone with a Slavic accent. Anyway, this book loses a star for that.
June 9, 2022
An interesting examination of the battle of Crecy and the events leading up to it- events meaning several hundred years of French-English political wrangling over territory leading up to the Hundred Years War and then covering the basics of the War up to Crecy. The author resists the urge to detail every aspect of the Hundred Years War before Crecy and sticks to what he believes is important to show the reader why Crecy happened and why it happened the way it happened. The political, economic, and marital explanations building up to the Hundred Years War were impressively as well written and cohesive an explanation as I think anyone could expect considering how expansive a subject it really is. While I wasn't really up for all of the names of the terrain and why that should mean what the author was arguing it should mean I did find his argument for a new location of the actual Crecy battlefield more interesting than I expected to find it and I will be interested to read more in the future if there are any archaeological surveys done based on this theory.
Overall an interesting new approach to some of the entrenched beliefs about a legendary battle and its heroes, well written and with excellent research to back up the arguments.
I received an ARC of this book in exchange for an honest review
Overall an interesting new approach to some of the entrenched beliefs about a legendary battle and its heroes, well written and with excellent research to back up the arguments.
I received an ARC of this book in exchange for an honest review
November 22, 2022
This is a fascinating investigation into one of the most well-known battles of the Hundred Years War. Like a detective solving a knotty crime, Livingston focuses on the why, how and where the battle took place by a deep dive into manuscripts, archives, poems and ballads, archaeological findings, satellite imagery and on-site field inspections. The result is a fresh and insightful account of Edward's improbable victory (thanks to his Welsh archers) over Philippe and his allies that, in the end, did not gain Edward the French Crown but ultimately won the English the city of Calais, which made England rich and the dominant power in the Channel for over two centuries.
September 10, 2023
I was fortunate enough to attend a discussion about the battle of #crecy between @d_a_n_jones and @livingstonphd at @chalkevalleyhistoryfestival this summer. I had to pick up both their books and they were kind enough to sign them. Just finished #michaellivingston ‘s #crecybattleoffivekings A fascinating account of the origins and first few years of the Hundred Years’ War. Extremely well researched particularly with the primary sources. Some interesting detective work challenging myths and putting forward a strong case that the location of the battle isn’t where it is generally considered to be. Particular highlights for me was learning about the king of Bohemia’s death and the discussion about the logistics of moving a medieval army. Highly readable and engaging, not a touch of the dryness that sometimes happens with nonfiction. Great stuff. Looking forward to his agincourt book next month.
December 21, 2024
This book was short, yet it felt like a slog at times. The author relished retelling his quest to overturn the popular myth of where the battle was fought, but I was looking to learn more about the beginning of the 100 year war and less about the minutiae of his research. I still learned some things, and it was worth my time, but not worthy of 5 stars.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 23, 2022
RTC
ARC provided by the publisher in exchange for an honest review
ARC provided by the publisher in exchange for an honest review
May 2, 2024
While this was very entertaining and interesting to see the in-action deduction, I couldn't help but feel revisionism. That said, the narration pulls you forward very well.
May 9, 2022
This book spends more time on what happened before the battle of Crecy and the sources used to document the book than on the battle. I understand it’s important for readers to understand the history and the context around the battle, but anyone reading this book is already familiar with the history of the Plantagenets, the 100 years war, and is more interested in what happened at Crecy than other battles in the campaign.
May 6, 2024
Michael Livingston says that we've got the Battle of Crécy all wrong, beginning with its location.
According to him, Edward III made his stand considerably south of the traditional site.
The English (and Welsh!) chose a spot between a large forest on the left (Forest of Crécy) and a small forest (Bois du But) on the right. In front and behind, they tipped over their wagons into an improvised barrier, a wagenberg. This is exactly equivalent to a Voortrekker kraal, or a Hollywood cowboy wagon circle. The archers (at least half the army) were deployed behind the northern wagenberg and in the fringes of the forests. There was a gap in the centre filled with dismounted knights under a host of noble banners, as if to say, "Attack here, please." Two further lines of knights were kept in reserve. There was a windmill at the rear. Edward would have been up here, where he would have a good view of the battle.
Why was he so sure the French would attack from the north? Outnumbered two to one, his strategic plan was to link up with his Burgundian allies in the north. (If his plan was to go to Calais, he was on the wrong road, as Livingston points out.)
The French had spent the last fortnight chasing the English, who had miraculously slipped away twice: once across the Seine and again across the Somme. The French plan was obviously to bring the English to battle at once, and most of all, to see that they didn't get away again. (This also explains why the French attacked right away and did not wait until morning.) The English wanted to go north and the French wanted to stop them. Thus, the French would prefer to attack from the north.
Now, take a look at the small forest, the Bois du But. This covered the English right flank. If the French cavalry wanted to attack here, they would have to charge up a steep hill and then crash through the forest. Impossible! And yet, as soon as I saw this forest, I got an idea. What if the French could infiltrate the forest with snipers? They would be behind the archers, and would have a wonderful opportunity to pick off the English leaders in the reserve formation. This strategy was used routinely in the Napoleonic Wars. And suddenly everything made sense to me.
One of the big puzzles of the battle of Crécy was the fate of the Genoese crossbowmen. According to the accepted story, they were sent in first, without their shields or armour, to make an unsupported frontal attack on the English position. They were shot to bits, ran away, were mowed down by the French cavalry charge, and were afterwards blamed for the loss of the battle.
These mercenaries from the Italian city of Genoa were initially hired for service in the French navy, but they had been reassigned to the army. Why did these men, who fought for pay, agree to an obvious suicide mission? Livingston has the Genoese attacking through the Jardin de Geneve, a bowl-shaped depression directly in front of the right-hand wagenberg and its archers. It is difficult to imagine a worse place for an unarmoured footman to stand. And what were they doing at the front of the battle anyway, given that cavalry vanguard should have arrived first?
Livingston doesn't answer the first question, but he does answer the second. The French King expected to catch the English further north, pretty much at the site traditionally assigned to the battle. By the time he found out that the English had already stopped running, the French cavalry vanguard was already north of the English. But an army on the move is spread out over several miles of narrow road, and it was quite impossible to double back. So the vanguard pressed on, took a left at the next intersection and arrived at the battlefield from the north. The French King left a message for the rear guard (infantry and wagons) to take a different road that led more directly to the field of battle, arriving from the south. So the vanguard and the rear guard arrived simultaneously, and from opposite directions.
My Theory
So by pure fluke, the Genoese happened to be there at the start, just as the French leaders were pondering how to exploit the small forest on the English right. They could hardly miss this forest, as it was the closest and most visible part of the English position. Someone had the brilliant idea of infiltrating this forest with crossbowmen, to cause panic in the English rear while the cavalry attacked at the front. The crossbowmen would have to go up a steep hill, but once in the forest, they would use natural cover of the trees. So their shields and armour would only slow them down. Better leave them behind.
That was the plan, and it explains why the Genoese went in first and without protection. Maybe they crawled up the hill, under cover of wheat or long grass, hoping to get to the south-eastern edge of the Bois without being seen. But they were seen. The archers opened fire. The Genoese ran. Outnumbered, without protection, earthworks or support, what else could they do?
This leaves only one problem. If the Genoese ran downhill to the south-east, how did they get trampled by the French cavalry, who were forming up in the north? Even Livingston's reconstruction doesn't really solve this. The Jardin de Geneve is at the steepest part of the English front, furthest from the French cavalry starting line, and backed by the impassable wagenberg. It is not the obvious place for the French knights to be. Livingston says the French (and Genoese) could not see the Jardin before they blundered into it, but even so, it is not a sensible target for a cavalry charge, any more than it was a sensible target for crossbowmen. I can only guess that the alleged collision was a later addition to the story: a "just retribution" for Genoese "cowardice and treachery". It never happened. We know for a fact that most of the Genoese captains survived, and indeed, continued to serve the King of France.
However you read the battle, the Genoese were unfairly blamed. They were a side show, at best an improvisation. If their failure had been so critical, the French would simply have waited for the rest of the army to arrive, and attacked in the morning at full strength.
According to him, Edward III made his stand considerably south of the traditional site.
The English (and Welsh!) chose a spot between a large forest on the left (Forest of Crécy) and a small forest (Bois du But) on the right. In front and behind, they tipped over their wagons into an improvised barrier, a wagenberg. This is exactly equivalent to a Voortrekker kraal, or a Hollywood cowboy wagon circle. The archers (at least half the army) were deployed behind the northern wagenberg and in the fringes of the forests. There was a gap in the centre filled with dismounted knights under a host of noble banners, as if to say, "Attack here, please." Two further lines of knights were kept in reserve. There was a windmill at the rear. Edward would have been up here, where he would have a good view of the battle.
Why was he so sure the French would attack from the north? Outnumbered two to one, his strategic plan was to link up with his Burgundian allies in the north. (If his plan was to go to Calais, he was on the wrong road, as Livingston points out.)
The French had spent the last fortnight chasing the English, who had miraculously slipped away twice: once across the Seine and again across the Somme. The French plan was obviously to bring the English to battle at once, and most of all, to see that they didn't get away again. (This also explains why the French attacked right away and did not wait until morning.) The English wanted to go north and the French wanted to stop them. Thus, the French would prefer to attack from the north.
Now, take a look at the small forest, the Bois du But. This covered the English right flank. If the French cavalry wanted to attack here, they would have to charge up a steep hill and then crash through the forest. Impossible! And yet, as soon as I saw this forest, I got an idea. What if the French could infiltrate the forest with snipers? They would be behind the archers, and would have a wonderful opportunity to pick off the English leaders in the reserve formation. This strategy was used routinely in the Napoleonic Wars. And suddenly everything made sense to me.
One of the big puzzles of the battle of Crécy was the fate of the Genoese crossbowmen. According to the accepted story, they were sent in first, without their shields or armour, to make an unsupported frontal attack on the English position. They were shot to bits, ran away, were mowed down by the French cavalry charge, and were afterwards blamed for the loss of the battle.
These mercenaries from the Italian city of Genoa were initially hired for service in the French navy, but they had been reassigned to the army. Why did these men, who fought for pay, agree to an obvious suicide mission? Livingston has the Genoese attacking through the Jardin de Geneve, a bowl-shaped depression directly in front of the right-hand wagenberg and its archers. It is difficult to imagine a worse place for an unarmoured footman to stand. And what were they doing at the front of the battle anyway, given that cavalry vanguard should have arrived first?
Livingston doesn't answer the first question, but he does answer the second. The French King expected to catch the English further north, pretty much at the site traditionally assigned to the battle. By the time he found out that the English had already stopped running, the French cavalry vanguard was already north of the English. But an army on the move is spread out over several miles of narrow road, and it was quite impossible to double back. So the vanguard pressed on, took a left at the next intersection and arrived at the battlefield from the north. The French King left a message for the rear guard (infantry and wagons) to take a different road that led more directly to the field of battle, arriving from the south. So the vanguard and the rear guard arrived simultaneously, and from opposite directions.
My Theory
So by pure fluke, the Genoese happened to be there at the start, just as the French leaders were pondering how to exploit the small forest on the English right. They could hardly miss this forest, as it was the closest and most visible part of the English position. Someone had the brilliant idea of infiltrating this forest with crossbowmen, to cause panic in the English rear while the cavalry attacked at the front. The crossbowmen would have to go up a steep hill, but once in the forest, they would use natural cover of the trees. So their shields and armour would only slow them down. Better leave them behind.
That was the plan, and it explains why the Genoese went in first and without protection. Maybe they crawled up the hill, under cover of wheat or long grass, hoping to get to the south-eastern edge of the Bois without being seen. But they were seen. The archers opened fire. The Genoese ran. Outnumbered, without protection, earthworks or support, what else could they do?
This leaves only one problem. If the Genoese ran downhill to the south-east, how did they get trampled by the French cavalry, who were forming up in the north? Even Livingston's reconstruction doesn't really solve this. The Jardin de Geneve is at the steepest part of the English front, furthest from the French cavalry starting line, and backed by the impassable wagenberg. It is not the obvious place for the French knights to be. Livingston says the French (and Genoese) could not see the Jardin before they blundered into it, but even so, it is not a sensible target for a cavalry charge, any more than it was a sensible target for crossbowmen. I can only guess that the alleged collision was a later addition to the story: a "just retribution" for Genoese "cowardice and treachery". It never happened. We know for a fact that most of the Genoese captains survived, and indeed, continued to serve the King of France.
However you read the battle, the Genoese were unfairly blamed. They were a side show, at best an improvisation. If their failure had been so critical, the French would simply have waited for the rest of the army to arrive, and attacked in the morning at full strength.
March 9, 2025
Livingston follows up No Greater Slaughter with this study of the Battle of Crecy.
He seems to have followed an identical formula, an explanation of the background to the conflict, the movement of the forces prior to fighting and the conflict itself.
There is even evidence presented that the site is not the one accepted by other historians.
Livingston has a fluent, pacy style so this narrative is never boring and there is much more recorded about the 100 years war than was so for Brunanburh but nevertheless the formulaic approach is a little tiresome, not least because with more source material he could have told us more too: how warriors trained for combat, the range of weapons what they ate, their physical size etc etc etc. Good not great.
He seems to have followed an identical formula, an explanation of the background to the conflict, the movement of the forces prior to fighting and the conflict itself.
There is even evidence presented that the site is not the one accepted by other historians.
Livingston has a fluent, pacy style so this narrative is never boring and there is much more recorded about the 100 years war than was so for Brunanburh but nevertheless the formulaic approach is a little tiresome, not least because with more source material he could have told us more too: how warriors trained for combat, the range of weapons what they ate, their physical size etc etc etc. Good not great.
December 31, 2022
A must read on Crecy that obliterates the original battlefield location, through careful modern analysis and moves it to a previously unknown location several ridges over. A wonderful tale of two opposing wills and the intertwined history of France versus England.
March 10, 2025
What happened?
After the absolute masterpiece that was the casebook, what could go wrong? Well, the things that were not within the scope of the texts which were studied in that casebook, of course. That is to say, the prelude to the battle. Livingston recounts the event leading up to the battle of Crécy and the Hundred Years' War. To give an accurate picture of such great events, one must go quite far back. Almost three hundred years back, to be more precise, to just before William the Conqueror earning his moniker. That is where the cracks start to show. I am not putting in doubt the chronology of the events or even the events themselves nor do I presume to know of matters which should have been added or omitted to this chronology. Nevertheless, the retelling, at points, stinks of modern ideology.
This is nowhere more flagrant than in the author's brief escapades into the Crusades. It does not take an astute reader to detect disdain in the telling stories of Richard the Lionheart and Saint Louis. The latter being sent off with the utterly shameful: "the king [Saint Louis] shat himself to death on the coast of Tunis". For an author who, both before and after this prelude to the Hundred Years' war, prides himself on not simply showing a single perspective of events but many, these passages stand out tremendously. These two monarchs and their lords did not take the cause of the Crusade lightly, they picked up the Cross with the utmost sincerity and dedication, but you would not know it from reading this book. Saint Louis did not "continue to linger around the Holy Land for four years [after being ransomed] of largely unproductive 'crusading'" he was trying to rescue his men who were still prisoners of the Egyptians despite being already ransomed. No one is asking for an in-depth history of the Crusade in this book about a battle a few hundred years later, but such polemic is completely unnecessary and detracts from the whole. I suspect modern historiography regarding the Crusades and the author's adherence to it are to blame.
Such cynicism rears its head again when it comes time for Edward III to land in Normandy, the author lists reasons for why men would have joined the king in his Channel-crossing conquest attempt; none of them are positive. The men are there by choice to loot, rape, and plunder or because they are forced to be there. Loyalty, love, and faith are nowhere to be found in the author's words despite being central to many of the primary sources which help Livingston reach his conclusions. Edward III's 1346-47 campaign apparently devoid of men who held their duty to the crown in high regard, devoid of men who loved their king, and devoid of men believe their king was chosen by God. Again, the sources tell us this is untrue. There is no need to paint war as more grim than it actually is nor is there any need to subscribe to these base ideas about the men who waged the wars who shaped our world.
Overall though, there is not a more convincing argument for the traditional site of the battle to be dropped than this book. The author his associates did such a thorough work that the original and widely-accepted tale of the battle of Crécy seems wholly improbable. It is hard to believe that such a famous battle with such famous people as participants could see its narrative so twisted by time and legend, yet Livingston & co. do a splendid work of showing the reader how and why the legend is legend and not fact. Great work.
After the absolute masterpiece that was the casebook, what could go wrong? Well, the things that were not within the scope of the texts which were studied in that casebook, of course. That is to say, the prelude to the battle. Livingston recounts the event leading up to the battle of Crécy and the Hundred Years' War. To give an accurate picture of such great events, one must go quite far back. Almost three hundred years back, to be more precise, to just before William the Conqueror earning his moniker. That is where the cracks start to show. I am not putting in doubt the chronology of the events or even the events themselves nor do I presume to know of matters which should have been added or omitted to this chronology. Nevertheless, the retelling, at points, stinks of modern ideology.
This is nowhere more flagrant than in the author's brief escapades into the Crusades. It does not take an astute reader to detect disdain in the telling stories of Richard the Lionheart and Saint Louis. The latter being sent off with the utterly shameful: "the king [Saint Louis] shat himself to death on the coast of Tunis". For an author who, both before and after this prelude to the Hundred Years' war, prides himself on not simply showing a single perspective of events but many, these passages stand out tremendously. These two monarchs and their lords did not take the cause of the Crusade lightly, they picked up the Cross with the utmost sincerity and dedication, but you would not know it from reading this book. Saint Louis did not "continue to linger around the Holy Land for four years [after being ransomed] of largely unproductive 'crusading'" he was trying to rescue his men who were still prisoners of the Egyptians despite being already ransomed. No one is asking for an in-depth history of the Crusade in this book about a battle a few hundred years later, but such polemic is completely unnecessary and detracts from the whole. I suspect modern historiography regarding the Crusades and the author's adherence to it are to blame.
Such cynicism rears its head again when it comes time for Edward III to land in Normandy, the author lists reasons for why men would have joined the king in his Channel-crossing conquest attempt; none of them are positive. The men are there by choice to loot, rape, and plunder or because they are forced to be there. Loyalty, love, and faith are nowhere to be found in the author's words despite being central to many of the primary sources which help Livingston reach his conclusions. Edward III's 1346-47 campaign apparently devoid of men who held their duty to the crown in high regard, devoid of men who loved their king, and devoid of men believe their king was chosen by God. Again, the sources tell us this is untrue. There is no need to paint war as more grim than it actually is nor is there any need to subscribe to these base ideas about the men who waged the wars who shaped our world.
Overall though, there is not a more convincing argument for the traditional site of the battle to be dropped than this book. The author his associates did such a thorough work that the original and widely-accepted tale of the battle of Crécy seems wholly improbable. It is hard to believe that such a famous battle with such famous people as participants could see its narrative so twisted by time and legend, yet Livingston & co. do a splendid work of showing the reader how and why the legend is legend and not fact. Great work.
September 14, 2024
The year is 1346 and war has just begun between France and England. This conflict would be known as the Hundred Years War, which lasted over 116 years and ended in failure for the English. However, some glorious moments like Agincourt gave the English cause to celebrate, but none more so than the Battle of Crecy. It was a colossal battle between five European kings, leaving countless dead on the field without many long-term rewards. So how did the French and English armies meet on the field of Crecy and what truly happened? Michael Livingston dives deep into the archives and archaeological research to tell the truth of this famous battle in his book, “Crecy: Battle of Five Kings.”
I first heard about this title from a post by Dan Jones singing the praises of this book. I have heard about Crecy from books that I have read, albeit as a side note for the other storylines, so when I learned that there would be a new book about the battle, I jumped at a chance to read it.
Before we dive into the bulk of the conflict, we must understand the challenges of investigating a battle that happened centuries ago. Livingston explains that we must take the more traditional story of this battle with a grain of salt, especially regarding the death totals and the location of the fighting as they were more susceptible to alterations. We also must understand that the issue of biases comes into play and that every writer has a different motive for recording what they do and why some accounts were remembered and others lost to the past.
Livingston then dives into the origins of the conflict, the Hundred Years’ War, starting with the Norman Conquest and exploring how things like wine and wool led to England’s desire to capture the French crown. It is an extraordinary tale, but so were the marches by the English army, led by Edward III and his son the Black Prince, and the French army under the command of King Philippe VI, Charles II Count of Alencon, and King John (the Blind) of Bohemia. What I found fascinating is the different approaches that the French and English armies took on their road to Crecy and what they considered important during their campaigns. Finally, Livingston takes the time to focus on the battle itself, what we know about the battle, including the capture of the Black Prince and the death of King John of Bohemia, and the location where he believes the battle was fought.
This was my first time reading a book by Michael Livingston and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Livingston does a fantastic job of explaining his thought process when it comes to his theories on this important battle while also making it accessible to his audience. I learned so much about the battle, the campaigns of the French and English leading up to the battle, and how to re-examine a medieval battle. If you are a medievalist or just a medieval history nerd, “Crecy: Battle of Five Kings” by Michael Livingston is the book for you.
I first heard about this title from a post by Dan Jones singing the praises of this book. I have heard about Crecy from books that I have read, albeit as a side note for the other storylines, so when I learned that there would be a new book about the battle, I jumped at a chance to read it.
Before we dive into the bulk of the conflict, we must understand the challenges of investigating a battle that happened centuries ago. Livingston explains that we must take the more traditional story of this battle with a grain of salt, especially regarding the death totals and the location of the fighting as they were more susceptible to alterations. We also must understand that the issue of biases comes into play and that every writer has a different motive for recording what they do and why some accounts were remembered and others lost to the past.
Livingston then dives into the origins of the conflict, the Hundred Years’ War, starting with the Norman Conquest and exploring how things like wine and wool led to England’s desire to capture the French crown. It is an extraordinary tale, but so were the marches by the English army, led by Edward III and his son the Black Prince, and the French army under the command of King Philippe VI, Charles II Count of Alencon, and King John (the Blind) of Bohemia. What I found fascinating is the different approaches that the French and English armies took on their road to Crecy and what they considered important during their campaigns. Finally, Livingston takes the time to focus on the battle itself, what we know about the battle, including the capture of the Black Prince and the death of King John of Bohemia, and the location where he believes the battle was fought.
This was my first time reading a book by Michael Livingston and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Livingston does a fantastic job of explaining his thought process when it comes to his theories on this important battle while also making it accessible to his audience. I learned so much about the battle, the campaigns of the French and English leading up to the battle, and how to re-examine a medieval battle. If you are a medievalist or just a medieval history nerd, “Crecy: Battle of Five Kings” by Michael Livingston is the book for you.
September 7, 2024
An extremely revisionist book, for better and for worse. It must be said, some of the arguments are compelling , though I'm far from an expert. For example, the author has an impressive amount of evidence in support of his new proposed location for the battle and against the traditional story, which comes from walking the ground itself. This can't be discounted easily.
Having said that, the author is slightly ungracious to supporters of the traditional tale, despite an insistence in the preface that "upsetting people [is] never the point". Presumably he had forgotten that sentence when writing that the "vulgato" - in itself an interesting word choice for the traditional story - "tortures both logic and even the facts themselves". This latter quote arises in a debate on the location of "Westglyse", which the author thinks supports his proposed location, being as it is a place which lies to the West of a priory (an "eglise", in French). A neat argument, though setting aside that this presumably described a lot of places in mediaeval France, the author's own map at Figure 20 suggests that "North-North-Westglyse" might have been a more appropriate name.
More generally on the historiography, the book seems weirdly pitched at people who need a beginner's guide to the job of a historian in finding "truth", but who at the same time are deep enough into Crecy to be comfortable with the author name-dropping sources like Pseudo-Murimith, the Anonymous Roman and the Prose Brut with little to no context. Whereas the author is sure to explain the biases of some sources behind the traditional story (such as the Chandos Herald), his own favoured sources do not get the same treatment.
This book is similarly mixed when it comes to the narrative tale. It starts extremely strong, with a brisk but fascinating canter through the background to the Hundred Years' War. This continues into the story of the early days of the Crecy campaign, right up to the battle of Blanchetaque, but falters once the author gets to the battle itself. In the end, I'm afraid, the battle just isn't described very interestingly, and certainly not as interestingly as the story of Colins de Beaumont in the introduction.
In a way this is congruent with the author's treatment of the battle as a whole. This book would never have been one to tell a tub-thumping story of a glorious English/Welsh victory, though it is strange how down on the English the author is. What with Philippe VI being a tactical genius, Edward III's campaign being a dismal failure and the Black Prince being an incompetent battlefield commander, one would almost think the English lost this battle. Of course they didn't, but from reading this book it is hard to see how - I'm left with the thought that perhaps God is, after all, an Englishman.
Having said that, the author is slightly ungracious to supporters of the traditional tale, despite an insistence in the preface that "upsetting people [is] never the point". Presumably he had forgotten that sentence when writing that the "vulgato" - in itself an interesting word choice for the traditional story - "tortures both logic and even the facts themselves". This latter quote arises in a debate on the location of "Westglyse", which the author thinks supports his proposed location, being as it is a place which lies to the West of a priory (an "eglise", in French). A neat argument, though setting aside that this presumably described a lot of places in mediaeval France, the author's own map at Figure 20 suggests that "North-North-Westglyse" might have been a more appropriate name.
More generally on the historiography, the book seems weirdly pitched at people who need a beginner's guide to the job of a historian in finding "truth", but who at the same time are deep enough into Crecy to be comfortable with the author name-dropping sources like Pseudo-Murimith, the Anonymous Roman and the Prose Brut with little to no context. Whereas the author is sure to explain the biases of some sources behind the traditional story (such as the Chandos Herald), his own favoured sources do not get the same treatment.
This book is similarly mixed when it comes to the narrative tale. It starts extremely strong, with a brisk but fascinating canter through the background to the Hundred Years' War. This continues into the story of the early days of the Crecy campaign, right up to the battle of Blanchetaque, but falters once the author gets to the battle itself. In the end, I'm afraid, the battle just isn't described very interestingly, and certainly not as interestingly as the story of Colins de Beaumont in the introduction.
In a way this is congruent with the author's treatment of the battle as a whole. This book would never have been one to tell a tub-thumping story of a glorious English/Welsh victory, though it is strange how down on the English the author is. What with Philippe VI being a tactical genius, Edward III's campaign being a dismal failure and the Black Prince being an incompetent battlefield commander, one would almost think the English lost this battle. Of course they didn't, but from reading this book it is hard to see how - I'm left with the thought that perhaps God is, after all, an Englishman.
June 1, 2022
The Battle of Crechy in 1346 is one of the most famous of The Hundred Years War and has been written about time and time again. It created heroes and legends and has ingrained itself into the collective consciousness of the English as the epitome of David overcoming Goliath. Yet in this book, Michael Livingston questions all that we thought we knew of the battle and perhaps most importantly of all; how even the accepted location may be wrong.
I knew very little on the subject of Crechy before reading this book; at most I could name the opposing sides and roughly when it was. The reason I wanted to read it was because my other half studied History at Oxford and The Late Middle Ages was his specialist subject. When he inevitably started his next lecture (sorry - discussion) on the topic I thought it would be nice if I had some of my own knowledge so I wouldn’t glaze over (sorry - become lost).
I always worry that historical non fiction can be a little dry, full of facts and figures with not much else. Thankfully this wasn’t the case here. Livingston has a way of writing which engages you and the beginning of the book was more like the opening to a novel. Wars and battles don’t exist in a vacuum and the author has made a concerted effort to describe the lead up to these events, going right back to 1066 and the Battle of Hastings. I’m grateful he did because this background information is vital to understanding how The Hundred Years War came into being. And I knew very little of it.
Everything is laid out in such great detail that I was even able to follow Edward III’s army on a map, from where they landed in France, right through to where they ended up fighting. The research and knowledge that has gone into this book was truly remarkable but it never felt like I was drowning in facts or getting lost in the detail. The actual battle itself doesn’t cover as much of the book as I expected but that didn’t bother me at all and I really enjoyed the whole reading experience. Now when I’m asked who my favourite Mediaeval Knight was (and yes, I have genuinely been asked that question) I might just be able to answer it, or at least give him a name or two.
Thank you to the publisher and Netgalley for gifting me a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
I knew very little on the subject of Crechy before reading this book; at most I could name the opposing sides and roughly when it was. The reason I wanted to read it was because my other half studied History at Oxford and The Late Middle Ages was his specialist subject. When he inevitably started his next lecture (sorry - discussion) on the topic I thought it would be nice if I had some of my own knowledge so I wouldn’t glaze over (sorry - become lost).
I always worry that historical non fiction can be a little dry, full of facts and figures with not much else. Thankfully this wasn’t the case here. Livingston has a way of writing which engages you and the beginning of the book was more like the opening to a novel. Wars and battles don’t exist in a vacuum and the author has made a concerted effort to describe the lead up to these events, going right back to 1066 and the Battle of Hastings. I’m grateful he did because this background information is vital to understanding how The Hundred Years War came into being. And I knew very little of it.
Everything is laid out in such great detail that I was even able to follow Edward III’s army on a map, from where they landed in France, right through to where they ended up fighting. The research and knowledge that has gone into this book was truly remarkable but it never felt like I was drowning in facts or getting lost in the detail. The actual battle itself doesn’t cover as much of the book as I expected but that didn’t bother me at all and I really enjoyed the whole reading experience. Now when I’m asked who my favourite Mediaeval Knight was (and yes, I have genuinely been asked that question) I might just be able to answer it, or at least give him a name or two.
Thank you to the publisher and Netgalley for gifting me a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
August 10, 2022
For 100 Years War/Medieval history enthusiasts, Michael Livingston's "Crecy" is a fascinating read. After having walked the traditional siting of the Crecy battlefield near the Somme in France, Livingston realized that the topography of that site did not line up with multiple contemporary narratives of the battle or even plain common sense coupled with military logic. This sets up Livingston's case that the actual battle took place some kilometers away, across the river, at the edge of the Crecy forest. "Crecy" makes the case that this spot is far more in line with how both Frnech and English narratives at the time describe the location of the pivotal battle. Livingston also provides maps made in the decades/century of the battle that have places names of indicative of the battle overlaying his proposed revisionist location. ML also notes that in decades of archaelogical/metal detector surveys of the traditional site not a single artifact tied to the battle has ever been found, which defies belief.
ML also makes use of his extensive cataloging of primary documents to dispel many popular myths of the battle, particularly those surrounding the Prince of Wales, the Black Prince, who it itunrs out almost turned the stunning victory into a disasterous defeat by leading the vanguard of his father's (King Edward III) army in breaking formation and advancing to engage the enemy. Several accounts at the time suggest the Prince was even captured for a brief moment before the King's lords rescued him. Even the English accounts hint at this event while going overboard to laud the Black Prince.
A very satisfying read
ML also makes use of his extensive cataloging of primary documents to dispel many popular myths of the battle, particularly those surrounding the Prince of Wales, the Black Prince, who it itunrs out almost turned the stunning victory into a disasterous defeat by leading the vanguard of his father's (King Edward III) army in breaking formation and advancing to engage the enemy. Several accounts at the time suggest the Prince was even captured for a brief moment before the King's lords rescued him. Even the English accounts hint at this event while going overboard to laud the Black Prince.
A very satisfying read
December 20, 2022
Crecy is a deep dive into the start of the Hundred Year's War and its first large battle. Livingston is an academic, yet except for one chapter (on the battle's location, for which the author gives us ample warning about its intellectual exercise) the book is a surprisingly good read. One cannot read Crecy without receiving a thorough understanding of why and how the battle took place. Just as importantly, Livingston provides a valuable insight into how good historians sift through evidence to arrive at a closer understanding of what took place.
For one, the battle's location might be incorrect. Add on that the Black Prince's glorious actions were really an awful blunder. Etc.... The point is that the vulgate, which is the current wisdom based on years of acceptance, could be very wrong. But if one is to refute the vulgate, then he damn well better have ample evidence to back him up. Livingston does.
Lest the above make Crecy sound like a dry read, let me assure you that it is riveting to the point of being a page turner. Livingston provides ample action interweaved with the evidence to back up his opinions about what occurred. Not just the battle itself, but a refreshing review of the events that led up to the Hundred Years War, the war's beginnings, and how we got to Crecy. It s a fascinating book and I highly recommend it.
For one, the battle's location might be incorrect. Add on that the Black Prince's glorious actions were really an awful blunder. Etc.... The point is that the vulgate, which is the current wisdom based on years of acceptance, could be very wrong. But if one is to refute the vulgate, then he damn well better have ample evidence to back him up. Livingston does.
Lest the above make Crecy sound like a dry read, let me assure you that it is riveting to the point of being a page turner. Livingston provides ample action interweaved with the evidence to back up his opinions about what occurred. Not just the battle itself, but a refreshing review of the events that led up to the Hundred Years War, the war's beginnings, and how we got to Crecy. It s a fascinating book and I highly recommend it.
June 25, 2024
This is a weird one. It's an immensely readable book on a fascinating subject, and the author really brings it to life.
But -- My bs meter started tingling over how many times the author crowed over upending the entire established story, and how every other historian has had it all wrong. It's constant and enormously pretentious - he even refers to that established story as a "vulgato," because I guess it sounds smarter. So then I started digging in a little and looking at some criticisms from the academic community.
Livingston has some really interesting things to say, but some of his arguments fall apart under scrutiny. For example, as one bit of evidence the battle did not happen where people think it did, he cites the absence of any archaeological evidence. But then he doesn't offer any archaeological evidence from his alternate location, either, and somehow that's not a problem for him. Further, Livingston fails to mention there have been no serious archaeological digs at either site, so of course there are no widely accepted artifacts.
As a read, this book is great fun if you're not too put off by the author's arrogance, but as history, it's not the knockout blow to established lore he claims it is.
But -- My bs meter started tingling over how many times the author crowed over upending the entire established story, and how every other historian has had it all wrong. It's constant and enormously pretentious - he even refers to that established story as a "vulgato," because I guess it sounds smarter. So then I started digging in a little and looking at some criticisms from the academic community.
Livingston has some really interesting things to say, but some of his arguments fall apart under scrutiny. For example, as one bit of evidence the battle did not happen where people think it did, he cites the absence of any archaeological evidence. But then he doesn't offer any archaeological evidence from his alternate location, either, and somehow that's not a problem for him. Further, Livingston fails to mention there have been no serious archaeological digs at either site, so of course there are no widely accepted artifacts.
As a read, this book is great fun if you're not too put off by the author's arrogance, but as history, it's not the knockout blow to established lore he claims it is.
February 3, 2023
Wonderful book. Excellently researched and written in a tone and voice for the lay reader. Livingston examines several sources related to Crecy that are either newly discovered or overlooked before to argue (I think successfully) that the traditional site attributed to the Crecy battle is probably incorrect and it instead was located nearby. It will be interesting to see if eventually archaeology-which has never been able to confirm or find evidence at the traditional site-will support Livingston's work.
Most of the research Livingston has done can be found in another more academic collection of translations that Livingston and another military historian Kelly DeVries, of previously untranslated old French primary sources.
Looking forward to reading Livingston's other battle book and I hope he continues to publish battle specific books like this.
Most of the research Livingston has done can be found in another more academic collection of translations that Livingston and another military historian Kelly DeVries, of previously untranslated old French primary sources.
Looking forward to reading Livingston's other battle book and I hope he continues to publish battle specific books like this.
August 27, 2023
If you love medieval battles or Edward the 3rd then this is for you!!
This book goes into the the causes of the 100 year war from economics to politics. It dispels stories of herons and cowardice. Then it goes on to what Edward achieved in France prior to Crécy and attempts to understand his plans. Lastly, it breaks down the battle and under covers the fact that much of the history we think we know might not actually be true.
The book is written very well, explaining in detail but not too confusing to the average reader. It is well paced and just incredibly interesting. My favourite part was the chapter on the location. The author write its like an old fashion deceive story with clues trying to figure out the murderer, or rather trying to figure out the site of the battle.
I really loved this book and would recommend highly to those who love medieval history!!
This book goes into the the causes of the 100 year war from economics to politics. It dispels stories of herons and cowardice. Then it goes on to what Edward achieved in France prior to Crécy and attempts to understand his plans. Lastly, it breaks down the battle and under covers the fact that much of the history we think we know might not actually be true.
The book is written very well, explaining in detail but not too confusing to the average reader. It is well paced and just incredibly interesting. My favourite part was the chapter on the location. The author write its like an old fashion deceive story with clues trying to figure out the murderer, or rather trying to figure out the site of the battle.
I really loved this book and would recommend highly to those who love medieval history!!
October 19, 2025
Great book. Historical research [not from this book] indicates that throughout the middle ages and beyond, all males in England were required by royal decree to have a longbow and arrows; making this equipment, bartering, or buying it. [approximately 900-1650 AD]. They were then required to shoot target practice at least once a week. Most of the bows were 5-6 feet long--taller than the person using it. An well-launched arrow was lethal up to 1 & 1/2 football fields away[150 meters]. This gave the King [or Queen] of England 15,000 to 25,000 skilled archers ready for battle. That's how England won the Battle of Crecy in August of 1346.
July 26, 2022
The specialist or the general reader can read this book, which will challenge the thinking of both. I do seem to give out a lot of five-star ratings; however, I do try to "call 'em as I see 'em," and this book is one of the best. He gives an excellent, quick, meaningful review of England from the Conqueror to Edward III. He presents arguments for and against his position and then rallies the facts, details, and logic to support his position. It is a thought-provoking and enjoyable read. Well done.
July 7, 2022
This is really two books in one covers the Battle of Crecy the other covers how a historian writes history. Michael Livingston explains how the traditional site of the battle is more than likely incorrect and he explains how he determined the correct site with the use of historical evidence.
I enjoyed this book and now accept that the site I visited in July 1989 was not where the battle took place.
I enjoyed this book and now accept that the site I visited in July 1989 was not where the battle took place.
November 30, 2022
Without a shadow of a doubt, this is the pinnacle of accessible and enthralling historical literature, over a widely accepted definition of a turning point in English history, and yet it utterly destroyed the "vulgato" accounts, with solid, reliable and supported evidence.
A must read for everyone, of all levels, as this book is not only easy to read, but it sets the stage perfectly at every point to keep you reading.
A must read for everyone, of all levels, as this book is not only easy to read, but it sets the stage perfectly at every point to keep you reading.
November 29, 2023
An engrossing look at the Battle of Crécy, one of the early, and major, battles of the Hundred Years War. The book provides a lot of detail; however, at points it gets a bit bogged down on battle field specifics. That said, it's a nice departure point for studying the war, its impact on France and England, and Europe in the 14th and 15th centuries.
March 10, 2024
Una tesi molt acurada sobre la localització de la batalla i de com va anar que trenca amb les tesis oficials a la llum de noves fonts i l'estudi del terreny. Un bon exemple de com treballa l'historiografia moderna. Per cert, un dels cinc reis era el Rei de Mallorca. Què hi feia a la Picardia? Llegiu-lo.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 43 reviews