What do you think?
Rate this book
The Angevin Empire
At its greatest extent, the Angevin Empire stretched from the Scottish border to the Pyrenees. For fifty years it was the dominant political entity and "English" and "French" history were inextricably woven together. This study looks at how these disparate territories came together, how they were ruled, and whether they truly constituted an empire. The new edition of this groundbreaking work has been thoroughly revised and features two new chapters.
160 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1984
153 people want to read
About the author
John Gillingham
44 books30 followersJohn Bennett Gillingham is emeritus professor of medieval history at the London School of Economics and Political Science. On the 19th July 2007 he was elected into the Fellowship of the British Academy
He is renowned as an expert on the Angevin empire.
He is renowned as an expert on the Angevin empire.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
July 5, 2024
Concise, fast paced account of Angevin lands from the first building of the empire with Matilda's marriage to Count Geoffrey of Anjou through it's finial dissolution (and falling under French Rule) under King John. Excellent refresher of the era, does not work as an introduction.
Read as a final review of the Angevins as compared to an intro - it's brevity means nuance is missing and instead you are receiving a high level review of battles and personalities. I think I would have been a bit lost without already having background knowledge of what was going on. It is also focused on the land (ex Thomas Becket is mentioned only twice, so while his affect on English history is great, his affect on land transfer is minor.)
Worth reading.
As Robert Bartlett has observed: 'Any of the Norman and Angevin kings who were able to do so spend more time in France than in England. The only kings of England to spend prolonged period in England were the military failures.' ...
In the last five years of his reign, after his return from crusade and imprisonment, Richard spent slightly more than three years in Normandy, one in Anjou, eight months is Aquitaine and less than two months in England.
Read as a final review of the Angevins as compared to an intro - it's brevity means nuance is missing and instead you are receiving a high level review of battles and personalities. I think I would have been a bit lost without already having background knowledge of what was going on. It is also focused on the land (ex Thomas Becket is mentioned only twice, so while his affect on English history is great, his affect on land transfer is minor.)
Worth reading.
As Robert Bartlett has observed: 'Any of the Norman and Angevin kings who were able to do so spend more time in France than in England. The only kings of England to spend prolonged period in England were the military failures.' ...
In the last five years of his reign, after his return from crusade and imprisonment, Richard spent slightly more than three years in Normandy, one in Anjou, eight months is Aquitaine and less than two months in England.
October 11, 2019
The Angevin Empire is a clever and observant examination of the English French territories of the 12-13 centuries! :D The book examines western Europe and shows the perspective from different sides that lead to Angevin concentrating more on the English Kingdoms! :D Clear and concise! :D Full of action and really captures the flavour of the time as well as the humour! :D Crisp High Five! :D Get When You Can! :D
July 10, 2012
A very short book that I found myself wishing was a little longer when I found myself confused. But it cleared up for me and I learned a lot about the Angevins. Gillingham sees the Empire as "a family firm"--not united administratively or legally, but rather through personality. The king moved around quite frequently and made his presence known. Administrators were shifted around from place to place.
“The Angevin Empire was a family firm. It existed for the benefit of the family. The interests of the family counted for more than any notion of keeping the empire intact under a single ruler. Even though there are signs of a movement towards legal and administrative uniformity, this was the result of drift, of ad hoc responses to particular problems, rather than of consciously centralising intention.” 116
There was no "Angevin" culture or art. No common cultural ground between regions.
Gillingham thinks that the loss of Angevin territory was inevitable eventually, even had John not lost it himself. As he writes:
“The legal relationship between a king of France and a king of England who held territories on the Continent meant that it was relatively easy for the king of France to legitimize his own actions as part of a legal process. In this sense, legally speaking, the king of France always had the upper hand and it was bound to be the case that, one day, an able and aggressive king of France would find himself opposed by an inadequate opponent…In the event it proved to be fatal when one of the ablest and most ruthless kings ever to rule France happened to be opposed by one of the worst kings ever to rule England.” 125
“The Angevin Empire was a family firm. It existed for the benefit of the family. The interests of the family counted for more than any notion of keeping the empire intact under a single ruler. Even though there are signs of a movement towards legal and administrative uniformity, this was the result of drift, of ad hoc responses to particular problems, rather than of consciously centralising intention.” 116
There was no "Angevin" culture or art. No common cultural ground between regions.
Gillingham thinks that the loss of Angevin territory was inevitable eventually, even had John not lost it himself. As he writes:
“The legal relationship between a king of France and a king of England who held territories on the Continent meant that it was relatively easy for the king of France to legitimize his own actions as part of a legal process. In this sense, legally speaking, the king of France always had the upper hand and it was bound to be the case that, one day, an able and aggressive king of France would find himself opposed by an inadequate opponent…In the event it proved to be fatal when one of the ablest and most ruthless kings ever to rule France happened to be opposed by one of the worst kings ever to rule England.” 125
November 8, 2013
I'm not sure why historians think that history has to be written in such a boring manner. Or, maybe the Angevins were simply not very interesting. Either way, this book was focused more on France than England, which is fine, except I am in the midst of a long study of English history and this sent me astray. Back to England for me.
May 10, 2016
Introducción al tema suficientemente extensa y con buen aparato crítico.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews