The Greatest Knight
Many of us find William Marshal to be a very interesting and sympathetic figure and so I am happy to report that there is a new biography of WM out, The Greatest Knight, by Dr Thomas Asbridge, the British historian who is the author of the excellent history, The Crusades. It is definitely high on my To Read List. It was just published in the US, but British readers will have to wait till its January publication. And this would be a good time to re-read Elizabeth Chadwick’s novel with the same title, The Greatest Knight, which is also high on my To Read List and is hugely popular with my readers.
http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Knight...
http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Knight...
http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Knight...
http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Knight...
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Blair
(new)
Dec 03, 2014 09:04AM
I wish Dr. Ashbridge had picked a different title; one wonders why the publishers would create confusion by choosing the same title for a biography of William Marshal as already in use for a biographical novel about the same figure. Still, I always look forward to reading up on the Marshal.
reply
|
flag
My guess would be that they felt it was apples and oranges, Blair, since his book is non-fiction and Elizabeth Chadwick's book is a novel.
Chadwick's book is one of my all-time favorites, Sharon. Marshal's life is as fascinating as Henry & Eleanor's clan. I will definitely put Ashbridge's biography on my TBR list.
I agree with Blair because when I kept seeing a book called "The Greatest Knight" mentioned, I definitely didn't realize they meant a new non-fiction one! Now I have to add it to the Christmas list. (I, too, love Chadwick's books)
Oh I fell in love with William Marshal when I read The Greatest Knight. I was hungry for more info on him and scoured the internet. He would be one person I would love to time-travel and meet.
Sharon, I am almost half way through this book and was enjoying it until I just came to a paragraph about Richard which says: The sprawling province remained prone to unrest, and much of its populace saw Richard as a brutish tyrant. Even English chroniclers admitted that he ‘oppressed his subjects with unjustified demands and a regime of violence’ and acknowledged that ‘the great nobles of Aquitaine hated him because of his great cruelty’. Indeed, one shocked contemporary stated that Richard routinely ‘carried off his subjects’ wives, daughters and kinswomen by force and made them his concubines’, later handing them on to his men to enjoy.
That is not the Richard you wrote about, please say it isnt so!
Richard's enemies in Aquitaine accused him of making free with the wives of his lords while he was Duke of Aquitaine, Elizabeth, but it is impossible to know how much of it was true and how much was propaganda. Henry had the same charges thrown at him, too. I seriously doubt that 'much of the populace saw Richard as a brutish tyrant." William Marshal certainly didn't. Richard comes off quite well in his Histoire, in contrast to John, whom WM seems to have loathed. He said that he'd never seen such a tumultuous welcome as Richard's subjects gave him when he returned to his own domains after his German captivity. Richard's contemporaries greatly admired his military prowess, but I do not doubt many of his subjects were unhappy with the financial demands made upon them, first by Eleanor and the council to raise his exorbitant ransom and then by Richard to fund his war with the French king. Certainly medieval kings could be ruthless when they felt the need; the only one we can absolve from that charge was poor, hapless Henry VI.
Wow, thanks for putting sense to that. I was floored when I read that because events so far go along with your books. This paragraph about Richard was the first contradiction I have come across.I do not think I would appreciate this book if I had not read yours first.
I cannot go without saying how sad I am that Henry II made such a big mistake in hoarding his power. It tore his family apart. I wonder if he saw that at the end?
When I was writing Devil's Brood, Elizabeth, there were so many times when I wanted to shake both Henry and Eleanor and make them see the error of their ways! Sometimes tragedies seem preordained, but their family's calamities could all have been avoided. Henry was such a great king, but so flawed as a father and husband. He did not deserve to die as he did, though, his heart broken by John's betrayal, the one son who had least cause to rebel against him. If only he hadn't been such a power freak, unwilling to share even a little of his power. If he'd respected and valued Eleanor's political shrewdness as Richard did, their marriage could have ended so differently. I would have these mental conversations with all of them. Eleanor, you might want to rethink that rebellion idea. Geoffrey, do you really want to take part in that tournament? Richard, for God's sake, remember to wear your hauberk at a siege. Henry, why can't you see that Richard and Geoffrey are very different men than Hal and treating them as you did him is not going to work. John...ah, where to start with John? But of course none of them paid me any mind--a mere scribe and a female one at that. But flaws and all--and they had them in abundance--they were great fun to write about.
"A mere scribe and a female". What a great mental picture you gave me of your midevil self.
Well, I was trying to imagine how Henry and the gang would have seen me. :-)
Sharon Kay Penman's Blog
- Sharon Kay Penman's profile
- 4037 followers
Sharon Kay Penman isn't a Goodreads Author
(yet),
but they
do have a blog,
so here are some recent posts imported from
their feed.
