What do you think?
Rate this book
Barnet - 1471: Death of the Kingmaker
On 14 April 1471 the forces of Lancaster under the Earl of Warwick and those of York under Edward IV clashed at Barnet in Hertfordshire in one of the decisive battles of the Wars of the Roses. In a bloody encounter the two armies fought to resolve a bitter dynastic dispute that had already fuelled twenty years of war. Warwick's death and Edward's victory changed the course of English history.
In this new guide to the battle, David Clark, one of the leading battlefield historians, gives a gripping account of the fighting and of the intrigue that led to it, and he provides a full tour of the battlefield itself.
In this new guide to the battle, David Clark, one of the leading battlefield historians, gives a gripping account of the fighting and of the intrigue that led to it, and he provides a full tour of the battlefield itself.
160 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2007
6 people are currently reading
12 people want to read
About the author
David Clark
10 booksLibrarian Note: There is more than one author by this name in the Goodreads database.
David Clark is a senior tutor working within HM Prison Service and has been a professor of history for more than 30 years.
David Clark is a senior tutor working within HM Prison Service and has been a professor of history for more than 30 years.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
April 10, 2020
I read this book because I am trying to get a better understanding of the military aspects of the various battles that took place during The Wars of the Roses. It is one of a series of smallish books (this one 160 pages) that focus on battles throughout history.
Overall, I liked the book and would definitely recommend it for someone who, like me, wants to know what happened without going into excruciating detail. It's filled with diagrams, illustrations, and maps, with lots of little side bars on some of the major players and topics.
Chapters include contemporary sources for the events, an overview of the Wars of the Roses, as well as descriptions of the prelude to the battle, the battle itself, and the aftermath. This is followed by a tour of the battlefield today with directions for getting from point A to point B, as well as the folklore surrounding the battle.
In his introduction to thing, the author writes that, “…the battle itself provides an opportunity to examine the reputations of two of its leading participants, the Earl of Warwick and Richard, Duke of Gloucester. Was Warwick really the master tactician of legend, and are there any hints of the villainous Richard III in the conduct of the youthful Gloucester?” This is of particular interest to me, as I am an unabashed Ricardian (just so you know where my own biases lie).
So, what were the author’s conclusions?
About The Kingmaker’s military record, Clark points out that Warwick contributed to the Duke of York’s victory at the 1st Battle of St Albans (1455), but fled at Ludford Bridge (1459); that while part of the Yorkist victory at Northampton (1460), that was due more to betrayal than military prowess (where have we heard that before!); and he was soundly defeated at the 2nd Battle of St Albans (1461). “In short, Warwick was not one of the great generals of his time.”
However, Clark goes on to say that Warwick had other, non-military strengths. He was “charismatic and a respected diplomat skilled in the arts of persuasion…” He had “an uncanny ability to sense the mood of popular feeling” and “knew how to impress the common man and ruled England competently as long as Edward allowed him to do so.”
As for Richard of Gloucester? Clark stands firmly rooted in the traditionalist school of thought. Although Clark depicts Richard as an able military leader and apparently finds nothing amiss in his behavior on the field of battle, he is very much “old school” when it comes to Gloucester’s character in later years. While admitting that Richard was always loyal (at least in life) to his older brother, Clark asks, “what would have been the king’s thoughts had he known that, after his death, his trusted younger brother, Gloucester, whose loyalty was beyond question, would seize the crown for himself, putting to death Edward’s own two young sons?” This and other statements throughout the book demonstrate without a shadow of a doubt that in the author’s mind Richard III was every bit the Wicked Uncle the Tudor historians/propagandists portrayed him to be.
All in all, I definitely recommend this book for anyone who wants to brush up on his/her knowledge of the Battle of Barnet. It is well constructed and easy to follow, put together with a style that obviously has the armchair historian in mind. I give it a sold 4/5 star rating.
Overall, I liked the book and would definitely recommend it for someone who, like me, wants to know what happened without going into excruciating detail. It's filled with diagrams, illustrations, and maps, with lots of little side bars on some of the major players and topics.
Chapters include contemporary sources for the events, an overview of the Wars of the Roses, as well as descriptions of the prelude to the battle, the battle itself, and the aftermath. This is followed by a tour of the battlefield today with directions for getting from point A to point B, as well as the folklore surrounding the battle.
In his introduction to thing, the author writes that, “…the battle itself provides an opportunity to examine the reputations of two of its leading participants, the Earl of Warwick and Richard, Duke of Gloucester. Was Warwick really the master tactician of legend, and are there any hints of the villainous Richard III in the conduct of the youthful Gloucester?” This is of particular interest to me, as I am an unabashed Ricardian (just so you know where my own biases lie).
So, what were the author’s conclusions?
About The Kingmaker’s military record, Clark points out that Warwick contributed to the Duke of York’s victory at the 1st Battle of St Albans (1455), but fled at Ludford Bridge (1459); that while part of the Yorkist victory at Northampton (1460), that was due more to betrayal than military prowess (where have we heard that before!); and he was soundly defeated at the 2nd Battle of St Albans (1461). “In short, Warwick was not one of the great generals of his time.”
However, Clark goes on to say that Warwick had other, non-military strengths. He was “charismatic and a respected diplomat skilled in the arts of persuasion…” He had “an uncanny ability to sense the mood of popular feeling” and “knew how to impress the common man and ruled England competently as long as Edward allowed him to do so.”
As for Richard of Gloucester? Clark stands firmly rooted in the traditionalist school of thought. Although Clark depicts Richard as an able military leader and apparently finds nothing amiss in his behavior on the field of battle, he is very much “old school” when it comes to Gloucester’s character in later years. While admitting that Richard was always loyal (at least in life) to his older brother, Clark asks, “what would have been the king’s thoughts had he known that, after his death, his trusted younger brother, Gloucester, whose loyalty was beyond question, would seize the crown for himself, putting to death Edward’s own two young sons?” This and other statements throughout the book demonstrate without a shadow of a doubt that in the author’s mind Richard III was every bit the Wicked Uncle the Tudor historians/propagandists portrayed him to be.
All in all, I definitely recommend this book for anyone who wants to brush up on his/her knowledge of the Battle of Barnet. It is well constructed and easy to follow, put together with a style that obviously has the armchair historian in mind. I give it a sold 4/5 star rating.
April 6, 2023
What we know for certain about the Battle of Barnet could be written on a small postage stamp which means that most of this book is taken up with preliminaries, aftermath, modern interpretations, fanciful illustrations, maps, and a guide to Barnet at the time of publication. The author seems rather miffed by revisionist historians who question the weight of late 15th century armour. Ah well. Everyone needs a bugbear.
June 19, 2012
Barnet is the last Underground stop on the northern outskirts of metro London; in 1471 it was the fist town on the road north. This simple battle description is written to help you understand what happened and walk the battlefield. It's mostly suburban houses today. The Lancastrians fought the Yorkists in a morning fog. Both right wings were pushed back; one broke and fled to the town. The pursuing left wing returned to the field after scattering their opponents and indulging in a little pillaging; they were mistaken for enemies by their own center and greeted with a shower of arrows. They fled and their side lost. I forget which side that was. In the long run it didn't matter much.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews