What do you think?
Rate this book
Osprey Essential Histories #54
The Wars of the Roses
The Wars of the Roses (1455–85) were a major turning point in English history. But the underlying causes for the successive upheavals have been hotly contested by historians ever since. In this original and stimulating new synthesis, distinguished historian Michael Hicks examines the difficult economic, military, and financial crises and explains, for the first time, the real reasons why the Wars of the Roses began, why they kept recurring, and why, eventually, they ceased. Alongside fresh assessments of key personalities, Hicks sheds new light on the significance of the involvement of the people in politics, the intervention of foreign powers in English affairs, and a fifteenth-century credit crunch. Combining a meticulous dissection of competing dynamics with a clear account of the course of events, this is a definitive and indispensable history of a compelling, complex period.
352 pages, Hardcover
First published April 20, 2003
81 people are currently reading
421 people want to read
About the author
Michael Hicks
25 books24 followersMichael Hicks (born 1948) is an English historian, specialising on the history of late medieval England, in particular the Wars of the Roses. Hicks studied with C. A. J. Armstrong and Charles Ross while a student at the University of Bristol. He is today Professor of Medieval History at the University of Winchester, and a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society.
Librarian Note:
There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name. See this thread for more information.
Librarian Note:
There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name. See this thread for more information.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews
December 25, 2013
Well. That was interesting. Historian Michael Hicks sets out to reassess the "Wars of the Roses" - boy, does he ever! Hicks contends that much of the contemporary material we have from the period, loosely 1460 to 1530, is tainted by propagandist overtones. This has certainly been the rallying cry of Ricardians attempting to rehabilitate the reputation of King Richard the III, as they try to strip away the centuries of spin in the "Tudor Myth". Hicks takes this many steps further, in dismissing much of what what written about the Yorkists' victories at the time (in what he terms the first two Wars of the Roses) as being tainted by Yorkist propaganda. His rejection of most of the contemporary sources finds Hicks trying to tease out history from fragmentary records and presumed economic conditions, but often Hicks seems to be constructing his history based on a lack of evidence rather than evidence itself. Such arguments from silence allow for a great deal of reinterpretation, which leads Hicks to some wild reevaluations of events. Strangely enough, he downplays both the battles themselves and the roles of secondary players, especially women, in the Wars. He also contends that the usurpation of Henry Bolingbroke in 1399 had little to do with the Wars of the Roses, but then extends his definition of the Wars to include Stoke in 1487 and the ill-fated contenders and pretenders that plagued Henry VII and Henry the VII into the 1550s.
In Hicks' treatment, Henry the VI becomes both more victim and a worse monarch, ostensibly more in control and yet... not. Margaret of Anjou becomes a player quite late in Hicks' version of events. Richard, Duke of York, becomes a cipher - an overmighty subject who suddenly goes for full usurpation. Warwick the Kingmaker actually looks a bit better here than he has in some other histories. Edward the IV is almost a non-entity - Hicks certainly gives Warwick most of the credit for Edward's first reign. Though Hicks admits Edward made the monarchy solvent again, he repeatedly insists there was nothing the kings could do to help England economically during the "Great Slump", which struck this reader as contradictory. There were several such jarring moments in the text.
The narrative is also highly uneven. By the time Hicks gets to what he calls the "Third War" - the coups and usurpation of Richard the III, Bosworth, usurpation of Henry the VII and Stoke and other battles up through the 90s - Hicks' narrative pace has quickened to the point where Buckingham is only briefly mentioned and considered. Richard the III is also painted as a mercurial cipher like his father, who engages in reckless behavior from incomprehensible motives. Hicks underlying thesis seems to be, "Damn, those Yorkists were INSANE!"
So it is a reassessment, a new telling, a new look at these events, an attempt at providing a different lens and framework in which to view these civil wars. But Hicks seems to be going out of his way to be contrary, for the very sake of contrariness. Granted, this period can certainly use some airing out, some challenge to the "orthodox" view of the time. But Hick's pendulum swings so far in the other direction that he makes the Yorkists motivations' ridiculous and nonsensical.
In Hicks' treatment, Henry the VI becomes both more victim and a worse monarch, ostensibly more in control and yet... not. Margaret of Anjou becomes a player quite late in Hicks' version of events. Richard, Duke of York, becomes a cipher - an overmighty subject who suddenly goes for full usurpation. Warwick the Kingmaker actually looks a bit better here than he has in some other histories. Edward the IV is almost a non-entity - Hicks certainly gives Warwick most of the credit for Edward's first reign. Though Hicks admits Edward made the monarchy solvent again, he repeatedly insists there was nothing the kings could do to help England economically during the "Great Slump", which struck this reader as contradictory. There were several such jarring moments in the text.
The narrative is also highly uneven. By the time Hicks gets to what he calls the "Third War" - the coups and usurpation of Richard the III, Bosworth, usurpation of Henry the VII and Stoke and other battles up through the 90s - Hicks' narrative pace has quickened to the point where Buckingham is only briefly mentioned and considered. Richard the III is also painted as a mercurial cipher like his father, who engages in reckless behavior from incomprehensible motives. Hicks underlying thesis seems to be, "Damn, those Yorkists were INSANE!"
So it is a reassessment, a new telling, a new look at these events, an attempt at providing a different lens and framework in which to view these civil wars. But Hicks seems to be going out of his way to be contrary, for the very sake of contrariness. Granted, this period can certainly use some airing out, some challenge to the "orthodox" view of the time. But Hick's pendulum swings so far in the other direction that he makes the Yorkists motivations' ridiculous and nonsensical.
January 22, 2018
This book was quite thorough and offered a look into the War of the Roses that was accessible and easy to read. At times, I was overwhelmed, but the brief rundown of the wars at the beginning worked as a good anchor in the text. Also has good diagrams and genealogy charts. Can't say I would have picked this up on my own (had to read for class), but I certainly learned a lot.
June 10, 2022
ngl is an actual banger for the last minute revision
February 15, 2019
To start, this is a 5-star book for its historical content and analysis. The only reason I give it a 4 is that it's pretty clumsily written (a fair amount of repetition, and he occasionally references future events which could confuse somebody not already familiar with the events and names), and can be a little ponderous. It's also not going to be "exciting" for the casual reader. I consider this an essential work for anyone with serious interest in the period, but it has its flaws and limitations.
That said, when it comes to the history, Hicks does a superb job of taking the various contemporary sources and giving the reader an even, nuanced look at just who all of these people were, and why they did the things they did. Hicks is highly critical of the various contemporary sources (many of which were written during Edward IV's reign in the middle of the Wars), and makes note of where later-written accounts conflict with contemporary versions of events, and gives a lot of context where the later accounts may be propaganda designed to rehabilitate York or justify his decisions post-facto. What you get in this book is a good look at what Hicks himself describes as the four major factors that led to seven different exchanges of the crown in approximately fifty years: the weakness of the monarchy (mostly financial), the direct involvement of the common people, intervention by foreign powers, and the dynastic rivalry that had removed the presumption in favor of the current king. Once the monarchy's claims to the throne were called into serious question, it gave legitimacy to overthrowing the government. Once the monarchy could no longer claim clear unanimous support (and thus military superiority), all of the kings of the era became vulnerable to effective challenge. This began with York, and ended (more or less) with Henry Tudor. Hicks also gives some insight into where sheer luck swung the outcomes one way or the other, especially in the favor of Edward IV.
Hicks breaks the book up into several important sections early in the book, the "Preconditions"
which examine the systematic problems the government faced, many of the people involved, and the historical context in the years leading up to open warfare between the nobles. Then it moves on to a chronological accounting of each "phase" of the time period, which he breaks up into the First, Second and Third Wars, and then two separate sections that explain what happened in the years of (relative) peace in between the First and Second, and how they came to an end. Hicks doesn't spend much time on the final years of Edward IV's reign, but that's fine because he died peacefully, and it was that power-vacuum left by the accession of a 12 year old prince that would lead to the events which shaped the start of the Third War.
You also get a very nuanced picture of Henry VI, who has gotten a lot of broad-brush treatment in more popular histories as anywhere from a simpleton to a puppet. But, again, many of those interpretations were based on those later-written contemporary accounts, which were often either Yorkist or Tudor era accounts which had the propensity to try to soften the image of the whole thing to strengthen the claim of the currently sitting dynasty. Henry VI becomes more of a real human being, perhaps weak-willed and occasionally pushed around and manipulated by more forceful and cunning councillors (and his wife), and definitely disinterested in continuing a losing war with France, but who also was a cogent and rational human being when he wasn't incapacitated by whatever mental illness he was afflicted by. You get the sense of a king whose main failure was not being a strong willed king, in a time when what England needed was a strong-willed king with a firm hand to deal with a country beset by petty squabbling amount nobles, economic troubles affecting the peasant classes, and the cultural crisis of a country that had lost the Hundred Years War (which was seemingly inevitable). If there is a primary strength to this book's value as a scholarly text, it is the rich accounting of the overwhelming struggles Henry VI's government faced, and the context that brings to the understanding of what being a "weak" king meant, and how much fault lies on Henry himself, and how much was out of his hands and would have afflicted any king reigning at the time.
Hicks also tends to give a mostly-balanced depiction of York, as he is unwilling to accept the later-written accounts at face value, instead comparing them to contemporary documentation for examples of inconsistencies either in the telling, or in how they match up with typical examples from the period. This process gives the book a more in-depth picture of the way York repeatedly escaped harsh punishment for his crimes (even when some of his allies were attainted or executed), but continually used those punishments as justification for his subsequent treasons, and often complained about being treated too harshly or unjustly. You get the more evenly-balanced picture of how, while York made many attempts to institute the reforms he claimed to want to make, he wasn't above petty reprisals against his political opponents or cronyism for his allies.
If there's one other criticism (or perhaps just important note), Hicks isn't terribly interested in the battles themselves, and only the causes and effects. So there's something to be desired for the "narrative strength" of this book. Battles are accounted for quickly and sometimes abruptly. You know when they happened, and the basic outcome. This will certainly please some readers, but perhaps disappoint others looking for more military history. Hicks is mostly interested in the ramifications of those battles, in terms of what people thought of them at the time, and how they influenced subsequent events. If details are included, they are only concerned with those factors. For example, York raised an army subsequent to the First Battle of St Albans that was clearly too large to justify as for mere personal protection, and the Yorkist victory in battle at Blore Heath firmly turned sentiment against him because he had multiple opportunities to withdraw or disband his armies. Also, Lord Audley commanded the royalist army and was killed. That's it. That's the Battle of Blore Heath for you, trimmed down by only about two sentences. Hicks will give quite a bit of valuable detail as to what York and his allies did subsequently to that which would lead to his short exile in Ireland after his army fell apart at Ludlow, but those looking for flavorful accounts of battles will need to look to other books. Towton gets a single, but substantial, paragraph and then Hicks moves on to what happens afterward. This is a political history, not a military one.
I wish I could 5-star this book. It really is one of the most valuable looks at the Wars of the Roses, and in my opinion a must-read for anyone with serious interest in the period. But that would be disingenuous as there is more to a book than just the volume of academic research and ideas it contains. It's not quite going to fully satisfy the scholarly reader, and not quite completely accessible to the general reader.
I don't mean to scare anyone away with that criticism, but objectively perhaps the final manuscript needed another once-over by an editor to make some sections more fluid. Also, any reader interested in a more "narrative" account of the Wars of the Roses, especially any of the military history, will need to read further.
That said, when it comes to the history, Hicks does a superb job of taking the various contemporary sources and giving the reader an even, nuanced look at just who all of these people were, and why they did the things they did. Hicks is highly critical of the various contemporary sources (many of which were written during Edward IV's reign in the middle of the Wars), and makes note of where later-written accounts conflict with contemporary versions of events, and gives a lot of context where the later accounts may be propaganda designed to rehabilitate York or justify his decisions post-facto. What you get in this book is a good look at what Hicks himself describes as the four major factors that led to seven different exchanges of the crown in approximately fifty years: the weakness of the monarchy (mostly financial), the direct involvement of the common people, intervention by foreign powers, and the dynastic rivalry that had removed the presumption in favor of the current king. Once the monarchy's claims to the throne were called into serious question, it gave legitimacy to overthrowing the government. Once the monarchy could no longer claim clear unanimous support (and thus military superiority), all of the kings of the era became vulnerable to effective challenge. This began with York, and ended (more or less) with Henry Tudor. Hicks also gives some insight into where sheer luck swung the outcomes one way or the other, especially in the favor of Edward IV.
Hicks breaks the book up into several important sections early in the book, the "Preconditions"
which examine the systematic problems the government faced, many of the people involved, and the historical context in the years leading up to open warfare between the nobles. Then it moves on to a chronological accounting of each "phase" of the time period, which he breaks up into the First, Second and Third Wars, and then two separate sections that explain what happened in the years of (relative) peace in between the First and Second, and how they came to an end. Hicks doesn't spend much time on the final years of Edward IV's reign, but that's fine because he died peacefully, and it was that power-vacuum left by the accession of a 12 year old prince that would lead to the events which shaped the start of the Third War.
You also get a very nuanced picture of Henry VI, who has gotten a lot of broad-brush treatment in more popular histories as anywhere from a simpleton to a puppet. But, again, many of those interpretations were based on those later-written contemporary accounts, which were often either Yorkist or Tudor era accounts which had the propensity to try to soften the image of the whole thing to strengthen the claim of the currently sitting dynasty. Henry VI becomes more of a real human being, perhaps weak-willed and occasionally pushed around and manipulated by more forceful and cunning councillors (and his wife), and definitely disinterested in continuing a losing war with France, but who also was a cogent and rational human being when he wasn't incapacitated by whatever mental illness he was afflicted by. You get the sense of a king whose main failure was not being a strong willed king, in a time when what England needed was a strong-willed king with a firm hand to deal with a country beset by petty squabbling amount nobles, economic troubles affecting the peasant classes, and the cultural crisis of a country that had lost the Hundred Years War (which was seemingly inevitable). If there is a primary strength to this book's value as a scholarly text, it is the rich accounting of the overwhelming struggles Henry VI's government faced, and the context that brings to the understanding of what being a "weak" king meant, and how much fault lies on Henry himself, and how much was out of his hands and would have afflicted any king reigning at the time.
Hicks also tends to give a mostly-balanced depiction of York, as he is unwilling to accept the later-written accounts at face value, instead comparing them to contemporary documentation for examples of inconsistencies either in the telling, or in how they match up with typical examples from the period. This process gives the book a more in-depth picture of the way York repeatedly escaped harsh punishment for his crimes (even when some of his allies were attainted or executed), but continually used those punishments as justification for his subsequent treasons, and often complained about being treated too harshly or unjustly. You get the more evenly-balanced picture of how, while York made many attempts to institute the reforms he claimed to want to make, he wasn't above petty reprisals against his political opponents or cronyism for his allies.
If there's one other criticism (or perhaps just important note), Hicks isn't terribly interested in the battles themselves, and only the causes and effects. So there's something to be desired for the "narrative strength" of this book. Battles are accounted for quickly and sometimes abruptly. You know when they happened, and the basic outcome. This will certainly please some readers, but perhaps disappoint others looking for more military history. Hicks is mostly interested in the ramifications of those battles, in terms of what people thought of them at the time, and how they influenced subsequent events. If details are included, they are only concerned with those factors. For example, York raised an army subsequent to the First Battle of St Albans that was clearly too large to justify as for mere personal protection, and the Yorkist victory in battle at Blore Heath firmly turned sentiment against him because he had multiple opportunities to withdraw or disband his armies. Also, Lord Audley commanded the royalist army and was killed. That's it. That's the Battle of Blore Heath for you, trimmed down by only about two sentences. Hicks will give quite a bit of valuable detail as to what York and his allies did subsequently to that which would lead to his short exile in Ireland after his army fell apart at Ludlow, but those looking for flavorful accounts of battles will need to look to other books. Towton gets a single, but substantial, paragraph and then Hicks moves on to what happens afterward. This is a political history, not a military one.
I wish I could 5-star this book. It really is one of the most valuable looks at the Wars of the Roses, and in my opinion a must-read for anyone with serious interest in the period. But that would be disingenuous as there is more to a book than just the volume of academic research and ideas it contains. It's not quite going to fully satisfy the scholarly reader, and not quite completely accessible to the general reader.
I don't mean to scare anyone away with that criticism, but objectively perhaps the final manuscript needed another once-over by an editor to make some sections more fluid. Also, any reader interested in a more "narrative" account of the Wars of the Roses, especially any of the military history, will need to read further.
August 26, 2016
This book gave me a whole new appreciation of Shakespeare's plays. The author is an expert on this period of history, and he takes great pains to get all the details correct. In so doing, what he presents is a really confusing time period, with lots of characters, many with the same name (how many different Edwards & Henrys & Richards & Johns can you fit in one book?) that are often changing sides, changing stories, and seeming to change whatever just to create maximum confusion in their own environment. Seeing what Shakespeare had to work with, and considering the masterpieces he produced, now I can appreciate the genius that he was. And I can understand what his plays were about. Richard III really was as nasty as he is portrayed in the play.
August 22, 2011
I did NOT finish this book. I decided that it would be a completely waste of time after reading a third of it and still hadn't gotten anything useful out of it. Not because there wasn't anything useful in it´. But because it was so unbelievably pretentious that I hardly understood a word of it. Obviously Michael Hicks is extremely smart and knows a lot about the Wars of the Roses. He just doesn't have the talent of conveying his knowledge. If I hadn't known just a little about the people and happenings of this era I would have been lost long before I was.
July 5, 2025
This books isn’t for everyone. It’s not particularly well written. It’s full of names and events that appear without context (and thus should be googled and researched separately). And it completely eschews all narrative techniques that usually make for exciting popular history: there’s no buildup to major events, no clash of personalities, no descriptions of battles, and not much focus on individual actors beyond their usefulness to the author’s main thesis about the War of the Roses.
This book would probably bore most fans of Dan Jones or Ian Mortimer (great authors of exciting popular history). Which is why its average rating is 3.5/5.
I gave this book 5 stars because I don’t really expect exciting narrations techniques and verbal cinematography from history books. This work does an amazing job at answering fundamental historical questions about the Wars of the Roses and presents a strongly argued revisionist thesis about the nature of the Wars, which is all I really wanted.
Michael Hicks identifies the underlying reasons for why the Wars began, why they persisted, and why they ceased. He also doesn’t accept either Yorkist or Tudor propaganda re the Wars being a struggle for good governance or dynastic strife. His view is that they came about because of a pan-European economic crisis whose effects couldn’t be solved by England’s government, the insatiable ambition of Richard Duke of York and Warwick the Kingmaker, and Henry VI’s inability to keep his powerful subjects in check.
He closely follows original sources but does shy away from treating them with skepticism. E.g., when Yorkist chroniclers claim that Queen Margaret caused York to rebel again in the late 1450s by trying to ruin him. There’s no individuating that Queen Margaret held much political sway in this period. York’s political ambition and lack of serious punishment the previous times he openly rebelled is a far better explanation.
I also really enjoy Hicks’ snappy style. He doesn’t shy away from voicing his opinion, calling a spade a spade (whether it’s actually a spade is for you to decide), shooting at medieval chroniclers from the hip and all that.
I also adore the random name-dropping. Some people hate constantly googling random names, events, and facts that aren’t properly dealt with by the author. I love it!
TLDR: Do read this book if you’re ok with a work of history with good analysis but little dramatization. If you’re into history books that read like a novel, Dan Jones has an excellent book on the War of the Roses. :)
This book would probably bore most fans of Dan Jones or Ian Mortimer (great authors of exciting popular history). Which is why its average rating is 3.5/5.
I gave this book 5 stars because I don’t really expect exciting narrations techniques and verbal cinematography from history books. This work does an amazing job at answering fundamental historical questions about the Wars of the Roses and presents a strongly argued revisionist thesis about the nature of the Wars, which is all I really wanted.
Michael Hicks identifies the underlying reasons for why the Wars began, why they persisted, and why they ceased. He also doesn’t accept either Yorkist or Tudor propaganda re the Wars being a struggle for good governance or dynastic strife. His view is that they came about because of a pan-European economic crisis whose effects couldn’t be solved by England’s government, the insatiable ambition of Richard Duke of York and Warwick the Kingmaker, and Henry VI’s inability to keep his powerful subjects in check.
He closely follows original sources but does shy away from treating them with skepticism. E.g., when Yorkist chroniclers claim that Queen Margaret caused York to rebel again in the late 1450s by trying to ruin him. There’s no individuating that Queen Margaret held much political sway in this period. York’s political ambition and lack of serious punishment the previous times he openly rebelled is a far better explanation.
I also really enjoy Hicks’ snappy style. He doesn’t shy away from voicing his opinion, calling a spade a spade (whether it’s actually a spade is for you to decide), shooting at medieval chroniclers from the hip and all that.
I also adore the random name-dropping. Some people hate constantly googling random names, events, and facts that aren’t properly dealt with by the author. I love it!
TLDR: Do read this book if you’re ok with a work of history with good analysis but little dramatization. If you’re into history books that read like a novel, Dan Jones has an excellent book on the War of the Roses. :)
October 10, 2019
I have read a lot of books about this period, primary and secondary, and this is one of my favourites as a starter. It lays out the events in a methodical and sensible way breaking down the components of the wars in easy to digest pieces; for anyone looking for an overall timeline and description of the issues that caused each segment of the longest civil war in UK history, this is it, or a great start. This period is incredibly complicated, lots of deaths, deeds and titles swapping hands, foreign players and countries that were once independent but are now combined into the world we know today. No matter who writes about this period it is impossible to get on the first round, so you might end this book still a little confused, but any comprehensive review of the period will be the same. Hicks is really strong on the financial and economic factors that precipitated and prolonged the conflict and you quickly understand it was more complicated that a bunch of people who wanted to be king causing trouble. There is little here for the military minded historian which suits me because I couldn’t care less about military strategy but also our records on all the battles are poor and subject to conjecture anyway - after all the primary sources were often written by the winning side. The major criticism I would give is that the characterisation of the main players is quite basic and shallow. For example, the view that Richard III was the one who claimed Edward IV was illegitimate to support his claim over Edward V. But this claim crops up much earlier when his brother is making a play for the throne, and Richard was close to his mother, Cecile, who managed to survive all her sons, and there is some evidence she perpetuated or supported the myth/reveal herself. Relations with both of them remained loving and I doubt Richard would of damaged her reputation or this feisty woman would of stood by and let it happen without precedent. And this is what I mean by shallow. There were lots of switches from one camp to another and oaths and allegiances where fluid, but never does Hicks try to get into their heads, it’s all matter of fact stuff. I don’t want historical fiction but I like a human aspect to history or else what is the point?
If you want a straight telling of the wars to get your head around what happened this book is great. If you want an in-depth psycho study of those involved, look elsewhere.
If you want a straight telling of the wars to get your head around what happened this book is great. If you want an in-depth psycho study of those involved, look elsewhere.
July 5, 2022
The Wars of the Roses evokes the angst of the early 21st Century - competing factions driven more by personality than ideology; competing claims for power based on brute strength; and ceaseless civil strife kindled on the fears of economic malaise. There is much to admire in Michael Hicks' thorough treatment of England's 15th Century civil war, but too much to allow the reader to become immersed fully in the world of Lancaster versus York. Besides kingly names like Henry VI, Edward IV, Richard III, and Henry VII, a slew of noble titles and characters dart across the pages, all with little relish for their motivations, personalities, or individual traits. The book makes the mistake of many modern histories, positing socioeconomic trends and vast forces as the movers of events, rather than the dash for power, hunger for greed, and lure of fighting for good against evil in a Manichean crusade.
Readers unfamiliar with the Wars may find this useful, though suffocating in its expansiveness and thoroughness.
Readers unfamiliar with the Wars may find this useful, though suffocating in its expansiveness and thoroughness.
March 9, 2025
This is just significantly less readable and enjoyable, in prose terms and quality of writing, than the average comparable Ofsprey work outside of its content.
Obviously historians tend to give you their take, but in a short Essential Histories work its probably better if they at least telegraph they are doing so a bit more than is the case here.
Obviously historians tend to give you their take, but in a short Essential Histories work its probably better if they at least telegraph they are doing so a bit more than is the case here.
August 24, 2020
This book does a fantastic job of explaining why the Wars of the Roses began, paused, restarted, and finally ended. I appreciated the discussion on the preconditions as there were so many drivers to the conflict that often get cast aside or forgotten.
October 9, 2012
This is not an easy read. The author is obviously knowledgeable and this book represents a culmination of tremendous knowledge and research. The book is a thesis containing a challenge to conventional thinking about the wars.
I don't fully know the conventional thinking on this war so the details on the challenge were hard to digest. I wanted to learn about the war --- and I did --- but there were narrative and organizational problems made it more difficult than it should have been.
One problem is with definitions. On p.28, where the author defines "bastard feudalism", which the author (who according to the dust jacket has written a book on this) considers a necessary condition of these wars, as a system where a lord could call all in his employ to pageantry or battle. As a lay person, this is my view of feudalism, so how "bastard feudalism" differs is not clear. Similarly, a new concept (to me), that of "entails in tail male" on p. 36, seems to be a method of oral or written testament to override inheritance by primogeniture, but this is not clear.
There are things for which better immediate connections would help. For instance, there are many mentions that the Yorkists are promoting a "reform" or "good government" agenda. Not until p. 172 is the agenda itself spelled out, and it contradicts the many pevious references to "reform agenda" (and also what seems to be part of the author's thesis), but fits the actions of the Yorkists: "However, the Yorkist programme had not proposed a reformed system of government. It entailed rather the better management of the existing system by good rather than evil counselors, in short, themselves."
Queen Margaret is mentioned several times in the first half. You learn that historians are split about her influence, but neither the debate, nor what she is doing is not defined is defined until, finally, on p. 152 comes the first evidence that she is a player, she raises an army in Scotland.
While I don't know this history well enough to critique the balance of events, Henry VI's mental illness comes and goes with no telling of what this illness was and how it vanished. This 2+ year period would seem to be a major event and a major influence in what happened next, but it is mentioned, not explained or analyzed. Similarly Richard, Duke of York who dominates the first half of the book is key to initiating this many years struggle, dies in battle and this is sum total of what is said: "Obviously the defeat at Wakefield and the deaths of both York and Salisbury were unexpected disasters for the Yorkist cause." It would seem that for a key player this would be a big event and it seems there should be something about how he was struck, his mourners/burial, his inheritance. If nothing is known, since Richard is so important to the story, the absence of information should be noted.
The plates are very good and appropriate. The publisher opted for b & w over color, making more of them possible than if color had been used.
The final chapter "The End of the Wars" and the Epilogue are very good and can be used as free standing commentary on these wars for informed readers. "The End..." talks about the significance of the wars both then and now.
Despite all the above, I got through it and learned a lot about this multi-generational war and its aftermath. It's hard to assign stars for an ambitious work like this when I don't have be background to critique its actual thesis. While there is 5 star information here, my experience of the book was 3 stars or less. I'm going to round this higher due to knowledge of the author and the work he put into the it.
I don't fully know the conventional thinking on this war so the details on the challenge were hard to digest. I wanted to learn about the war --- and I did --- but there were narrative and organizational problems made it more difficult than it should have been.
One problem is with definitions. On p.28, where the author defines "bastard feudalism", which the author (who according to the dust jacket has written a book on this) considers a necessary condition of these wars, as a system where a lord could call all in his employ to pageantry or battle. As a lay person, this is my view of feudalism, so how "bastard feudalism" differs is not clear. Similarly, a new concept (to me), that of "entails in tail male" on p. 36, seems to be a method of oral or written testament to override inheritance by primogeniture, but this is not clear.
There are things for which better immediate connections would help. For instance, there are many mentions that the Yorkists are promoting a "reform" or "good government" agenda. Not until p. 172 is the agenda itself spelled out, and it contradicts the many pevious references to "reform agenda" (and also what seems to be part of the author's thesis), but fits the actions of the Yorkists: "However, the Yorkist programme had not proposed a reformed system of government. It entailed rather the better management of the existing system by good rather than evil counselors, in short, themselves."
Queen Margaret is mentioned several times in the first half. You learn that historians are split about her influence, but neither the debate, nor what she is doing is not defined is defined until, finally, on p. 152 comes the first evidence that she is a player, she raises an army in Scotland.
While I don't know this history well enough to critique the balance of events, Henry VI's mental illness comes and goes with no telling of what this illness was and how it vanished. This 2+ year period would seem to be a major event and a major influence in what happened next, but it is mentioned, not explained or analyzed. Similarly Richard, Duke of York who dominates the first half of the book is key to initiating this many years struggle, dies in battle and this is sum total of what is said: "Obviously the defeat at Wakefield and the deaths of both York and Salisbury were unexpected disasters for the Yorkist cause." It would seem that for a key player this would be a big event and it seems there should be something about how he was struck, his mourners/burial, his inheritance. If nothing is known, since Richard is so important to the story, the absence of information should be noted.
The plates are very good and appropriate. The publisher opted for b & w over color, making more of them possible than if color had been used.
The final chapter "The End of the Wars" and the Epilogue are very good and can be used as free standing commentary on these wars for informed readers. "The End..." talks about the significance of the wars both then and now.
Despite all the above, I got through it and learned a lot about this multi-generational war and its aftermath. It's hard to assign stars for an ambitious work like this when I don't have be background to critique its actual thesis. While there is 5 star information here, my experience of the book was 3 stars or less. I'm going to round this higher due to knowledge of the author and the work he put into the it.
March 31, 2016
A comprehensive account of confusing times.
Michael Hicks sets out to try to explain the, literally speaking, bloody mess that was England in the 1450s to 1480s. He does it by first introducing the precontext of political upheaval in late medieval England, like for example the effects of the Hundred Year's War, the economic crisis of the 15th century and the social and political effects of bastard feudalism. He then introduces the dynastic effects caused by the deposing of Richard II in 1399, which put the House of Lancaster on the throne, but at the same time created strong pretenders in the House of York. Weak governments, particularly under Henry VI, and the tendency of the late feudal system to create overmighty noble subjects then paved the way for decades of bitter civil strife, not ending before well into Tudor rule.
Though this is for the most part a book that is both a joy to read and a provider of knowledge and insight it has some drawbacks. The language is at times a bit dry and lacklustre, which doesn't give the interesting subject full credit. A clearer index would have been preferable, not the least to follow the myriad of actors appearing and the legal and political subtleties of medieval times.
For those interested in the subject (and perhaps want to compare them to its fictional counterpart A Game of Thrones) but not having much prior knowledge of the Wars of the Roses this is a book I can thoroughly recommend. One should be aware, though, that this account is about politics and society, those interested in the actual warfare have to look elsewhere.
Michael Hicks sets out to try to explain the, literally speaking, bloody mess that was England in the 1450s to 1480s. He does it by first introducing the precontext of political upheaval in late medieval England, like for example the effects of the Hundred Year's War, the economic crisis of the 15th century and the social and political effects of bastard feudalism. He then introduces the dynastic effects caused by the deposing of Richard II in 1399, which put the House of Lancaster on the throne, but at the same time created strong pretenders in the House of York. Weak governments, particularly under Henry VI, and the tendency of the late feudal system to create overmighty noble subjects then paved the way for decades of bitter civil strife, not ending before well into Tudor rule.
Though this is for the most part a book that is both a joy to read and a provider of knowledge and insight it has some drawbacks. The language is at times a bit dry and lacklustre, which doesn't give the interesting subject full credit. A clearer index would have been preferable, not the least to follow the myriad of actors appearing and the legal and political subtleties of medieval times.
For those interested in the subject (and perhaps want to compare them to its fictional counterpart A Game of Thrones) but not having much prior knowledge of the Wars of the Roses this is a book I can thoroughly recommend. One should be aware, though, that this account is about politics and society, those interested in the actual warfare have to look elsewhere.
January 24, 2016
I have just finished this book and what I would say is phew - it's a tough read in places. I'm no history student but do have a genuine interest in the history of the monarchy and as a hobby I'm quite knowledgeable on that. I decided to read this book as it is a fascinating period within English history that grabbed my attention.
I thought the book was very informative, but in places, too detailed in the politics of the time although perhaps necessary to convey the events. I liked the fact that each chapter was broken up into smaller sections, as I found taking smaller bite size readings made it easier for me to digest. That said there are areas which I read but cannot recall the event because I got bogged down in a lot of detail.
On the whole though, I got a lot out of it, and enjoyed it. My advice would be to sit in a quiet room alone and read without distraction, take your time with it, and you might get more from it. It took me ages to read, but that's perhaps because I try to really get into it, and take little bites as I go along. I need to lie down in a dark room for a week now, but glad I got to the end.
I thought the book was very informative, but in places, too detailed in the politics of the time although perhaps necessary to convey the events. I liked the fact that each chapter was broken up into smaller sections, as I found taking smaller bite size readings made it easier for me to digest. That said there are areas which I read but cannot recall the event because I got bogged down in a lot of detail.
On the whole though, I got a lot out of it, and enjoyed it. My advice would be to sit in a quiet room alone and read without distraction, take your time with it, and you might get more from it. It took me ages to read, but that's perhaps because I try to really get into it, and take little bites as I go along. I need to lie down in a dark room for a week now, but glad I got to the end.
July 19, 2025
A good overview of the Wars of the Roses, refreshingly looks at the underlying economic problems of the period and its impact on the monarch of the day's ability to run the country effectively. Hicks also puts the domestic events into the context of events in Europe, especially the fighting between France, Bergundy and the Holy Roman Empire. Some events are under explored - Richard III's authoritarianism and the death of the "princes in the tower" for instance is discussed only as the impact on the rebellions that later used these names as tokenistic leaders. Short on the personal issues but better on the broad sweep of historical change. Ends thoughtfully on Henry VII and his contrast from previous monarchs, especially how he extorts money from peers to keep them in line.
Also places the WotR as ending not in 1485 with the death of RIII but in 1525 seeing the early Tudor rebellions as part of the continuing wars.
#Booksof2025 No 8
Also places the WotR as ending not in 1485 with the death of RIII but in 1525 seeing the early Tudor rebellions as part of the continuing wars.
#Booksof2025 No 8
January 15, 2017
The Wars of the Roses crammed into 90 pages is going to be difficult, but once again Osprey manage to give a good overview of the various conflicts, reasons and results of these English Wars - or battles.
Well presented with many maps of the troop movements (no specific battle ones), although in some cases they could have been nearer the text to which they refer, but I've read enough of these to know to skim forward looking for maps.
An interesting introduction, although more reading would be required to know more about the Wars of the Roses; gives a good follow up to the Hundred Year Wars and a first appearance of the Tudors in Henry VII.
Well presented with many maps of the troop movements (no specific battle ones), although in some cases they could have been nearer the text to which they refer, but I've read enough of these to know to skim forward looking for maps.
An interesting introduction, although more reading would be required to know more about the Wars of the Roses; gives a good follow up to the Hundred Year Wars and a first appearance of the Tudors in Henry VII.
April 10, 2011
I got this book to prepare to see a version of Shakespeare's Richard III. To appreciate any of the histories, I have tried to review my English history a bit. Richard III is located at the end of the War of the Roses, which is a very confusing time period with lots of battles, lots of ups and downs and betrayals by the various supports of York and Lancaster. The Hicks book provided some background to the wars and it was helpful, although it is very hard to keep track of everything. That is probably the fault of the historical period rather than the book itself.
June 7, 2019
This is, as described, an essential history and to be fair the book does cover every event of the war. However it is a such a slim volume that by cramming in so many facts, it loses something in the narrative. I found the book was useful in cross referencing other works I am reading on the subject and it was nicely illustrated and set out, but the text was rather dull.
July 7, 2013
I am starting uni in September studying medieval history so i picked up this book for a bit of background. I thought it was very good and extreamly detailed to give you a full rounded image of all three wars and the more intracate points of the politics and rivalries surrounding them
Want to read
September 19, 2010Got this in the mail today--looks meaty!
February 10, 2013
Interesting and informative, but a bit too scholarly for me at this moment. I think I need to learn about the Wars of the Roses from Horrible Histories.
March 22, 2013
The war of roses seems more like soap opera of gang fights.
Read
June 11, 2016A good, brief, visually enhanced summary of what Prof. Hicks treats elsewhere in much greater depth. Useful for me in preparing to act in Richard III.
February 6, 2020
WHAT A VERY INTERESTING BOOK.
July 21, 2020
I had expected a bit more depth.
November 10, 2020
VERY INTERESTING BOOK.
March 19, 2021
I find this book sometimes repetitive. It also seems to me that some information are considered certaintly known to the (english?) reader, so they need not be explained.
May 4, 2021
Nice overview of this period of English history. Essentially, we don't know all that much, but what we know is in here. Good survey of the larger picture.
Read
July 16, 2024Decent and accessible for A level students. - wouldn't recommend reading for pleasure though.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews