The Wars of the Roses: England's First Civil War

by Trevor Royle

THE WARS OF THE ROSES is the definitive account of one of the bloodiest episodes in British history - wars between the houses of York and Lancaster. Trevor Royle provides a military history of the Wars while placing the conflict in the context of the time. This was a period with a rich legacy: William Caxton introduced the art of printing; there was a growing body of literature, such as Chaucer, in the English tongue; architecture flourished and great educational institutions were born such as Winchester School and King's College, Cambridge.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Medieval, Historical, British Literature, War, Medieval History

496 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2009

About the author

Trevor Royle is a broadcaster and author specialising in the history of war and empire. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh and was a member of the Scottish Government’s Advisory Panel for Commemorating the First World War.

Reviews

[John Allgood · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fine book on the chaotic period known as The Wars of the Roses. Royce covers all the important facts and characters of the period in a well researched and thoughtful manner. Highly recommended.

[Matti Karjalainen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Luin alkuvuodesta loppuun Conn Igguldenin Ruusujen sotaa käsittelevän neliosaisen romaanisarjan, ja innostuin sen verran aiheesta, että päätin etsiä käsiini myös jotakin aihetta käsittelevää tietokirjallisuutta. Ensimmäiseksi lukulistalleni päätyi sotahistoriaan erikoistuneen brittikirjailijan Trevor Roylen "The Wars of the Roses: England's First Civil War" (Abacus, 2010).

Nimi on hieman harhaanjohtava, sillä teoksessa käsitellään oikeastaan Englantia hallinneen Plantagenet-suvun vaiheita kuningas Rikhard II:n valtakaudesta (1367-1400) alkaen. Varsinainen Ruusujen sota käynnistyy kirjassa vasta parinsadan sivun jälkeen. Huolellinen pohjustus on joka tapauksessa paikallaan, sen verran merkittävällä tavalla aiemmat tapahtumat vallanperimyskiistoihin.

Lukukokemus oli nautittava. Royle kirjoittaa maallikkoharrastajan näkökulmasta laadukasta ja mukavasti eteenpäin soljahtelevaa populaarihistoriaa, ja kyseinen historiallinen ajanjakso on sotineen, valtataisteluineen ja juonitteluineen niin kiinnostava ja jännittävä, että sen käänteet jättävät helposti yhden jos toisenkin romaanin varjoonsa. Lisäksi tekstiä täydensivät ja elävöittivät lainaukset niin aikalaislähteistä kuin William Shakespearen näytelmistä.

Lukiessa sai kyllä olla tarkkana, sillä liittolaisuussuhteet kuin arvonimien haltijat vaihtuivat tiuhaan (innokkaimmat aateliset onnistuivat Ruusujen sodassa vaihtamaan puolta kolmekin kertaa), ja tottahan puutteellinen kielitaitokin asetti välillä rajoituksiaan. Suomeksi ei valitettavasti vaan ole vastaavanlaista yleisesitystä saatavilla.

Jos jotain jäin kaipaamaan, niin ehkäpä Ruusujen sodan tärkeimpiä taisteluja kuvaavat kartat olisivat olleet asioiden sisäistämisen kannalta ihan mukava lisä.

[Alenka of Bohemia]

Not even being really interested in the topic could I get through how dense and dry this book was. definitely a valiant effort on the part of the author, but it read like a telephone list. abandoning it at a half-point.

[Ary · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very informative but a slow read

[Elia Princess of Starfall · Rating 4 out of 5]

In The Wars of the Roses: England's First Civil War, Trevor Royle chronicles the beginnings of the dynastic conflict that tore England apart, butchered the aristocracy and weakened the monarchy from the reign of King Richard II and the usurpation of the crown by the House of Lancaster in 1399. This single act by King Henry IV had major ramifications for England and its beleaguered monarchy which paved the way for the Wars of the Roses to erupt and throw the whole issue of the succession to the throne into chaos and uncertainty. This is a well-researched, insightful albeit dry read of the origins of the Wars and the various political intrigues, alliances, betrayals and battles that so starkly defined this dark era of English medieval history.



The tangled roots of the Wars, both its long ago and calamitous origins along with the various players who tried so desperately to seize/hold the English crown, are deftly explained and analysed by Royle with fore thought, detailed knowledge and thoroughness. Although following a narrative/chronological structure, this book is definitely on the more academic side despite a lack of footnotes. This is measured, carefully appraised and diligently researched history; Royle presents the facts and analyses with a keen eye and great asperity which makes for decent academic history but a very, very dry and stoic read. Newbies should be prepared for academia; no popular history here!

Covering the early reign and deposition of King Richard II, the sometimes steady/unstable reign of Henry IV, the short, glorious and military victorious reign of Henry, the disastrous, corrupt and ineffective rule of Henry VI before moving to cover the three main periods of violence and warfare which pitted York against Lancaster, this book goes into great, sometimes staggering depth. While fascinating and engrossing to history buffs, those wanting a lighter read will probably be intimidated by the breadth of Royle's research. Again popular history this is not. I particularly enjoyed his telling of the life of Richard, Duke of York, the father of Edward IV and Richard III and who technically had a greater claim to the throne than Henry VI. What an intriguing and complex man! One has to wonder what he would have been like as King of England if he had been successful in his bid for the throne.



All in all, I would heartily recommend this book to anyone who want to learn more about the Wars of the Roses from an academic viewpoint. Its engrossing, insightful and measured. I also take issue with the idea of Richard III planning on marrying his niece Elizabeth of York, I'm not yet a historian but there's a whole range of reasons why Richard III would not have considered such a move (marrying your bastard niece?) There were however a smattering of mistakes throughout the book which greatly annoyed me.

1. Eleanor of Aquitaine is described as the widow of King Louis VII of France when in fact she was his former wife. (Their marriage was annulled). pg 4.

2. Lady Margaret Beaufort, mother of King Henry VII, is called the sister of the second Duke of Somerset, Edmund Beaufort, when in fact she was his niece the only child of his brother John Beaufort. pg 191. This is repeated on page 214.

3. In Main Characters for John, Duke of Bedford his date of birth is named as 1359, eight years before the birth of his father Henry IV....

[Ian · Rating 4 out of 5]

I only had vague knowledge of this period of history although knew a bit about the incidents leading up to it... which are also covered in depth here. Indeed this 430 page book covers just shy of 100 years of history with a cast of hundreds... whilst compelling stuff this was also problematic in that it was easy to forget who was who, what and why... especially with so many having the same name and chopping and changing sides with gay abandon. There was more conniving, betrayal, murder and double crossing in one chapter than a whole book of Game of Thrones... who needs fiction? !

I fair whizzed through this, captivating stuff on the whole, written with a good pace if a little dry (to be expected I guess). I learnt plenty and am quite keen to read more on this period of history now, perhaps smaller chunks in greater detail to help me keep track of everything!

[R.M.F. Brown · Rating 5 out of 5]

I never miss an opportunity to be pedantic, so I'll take the opportunity presented here. England's first civil war is credited as being the struggle between Stephen and Matilda, which occurred centuries earlier, so the title of this book is slightly misleading.

Pedantry aside, this is a cracking read. Entertaining, jam-packed with history, a meaty page length, and as a bonus, I picked this up at a charity shop for the ubiquitous 50 pence!

To use one of my over used phrases, this is a wonderful introduction for the layman. Pretty soon, you'll want to jump in a car and drive to Bosworth Field.

[Stephanie · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was interesting, and very well researched. I picked it up out of curiosity about that period in History, and I did learn an awful lot.
However, the writing was pretty dry, of course. I have read lots of histories that I couldn't put down, but this one took a very long time to finish! I would walk away from it for a few weeks, or even months, before picking it back up - not because I didn't want to finish, but because it was dense enough to really need to be taken in chunks.
Better as an instruction than a fun read.

[Mark Dickson · Rating 3 out of 5]

If all English historians could refer to people by their legal names rather than their titles then that would be great. Legal names are consistent, whereas multiple people can hold titles.

Slightly haphazard and could have done with a harsh edit to remove the detours and tangents, but comprehensive and feels balanced to both sides.

[Patrick Vallee · Rating 3 out of 5]

I learned a great deal of British history from this book. A lot of stuff about the monarchy and the time period and of course the whole civil war. I was able to take away quite a bit but unfortunately none of it felt gripping or earn in a sense. The author lays down a hefty prologue just setting the stage of the world and how this era is looked back on now. After that he throws you in it but not in the civil war. But about 50+ years back before the war starts. The actual civil war doesn’t happen until halfway through. I get why cause it sets up the Royal House of Lancaster but halfway?? Seriously? Like maybe touch on it a bit and set the stage but there’s so much he says before the Civil War that I felt quite lost and then boom! Here’s the war. I guess my problem was with the structure. Don’t get me wrong I exactly dislike what I was reading and didn’t flat out hate it but it was just annoying that there was so much to get through before the actual war. At times it felt like just a bunch of facts of what was going on at the time during the kings reign or he would go on a tangent for a few pages about some little rebellion that also happened and doesn’t affect anything really. The characters were another problem because they’re so many people to talk about and the same names they use that it was hard to keep track. That part though I was prepared for so it didn’t throw me off too much. All in all I did find it interesting and did learn some stuff, just felt like an average history book. If I could give it 3 and half stars I probably would.

[James Tester · Rating 4 out of 5]

The first of the English Wars, the erstwhile "Wars of the Roses" have fascinated and captured the imagination of historians and authors for centuries, writers such as A Song of Ice and Fire series author George RR Martin is known to have used the real events as inspiration for the Westerosi battle for the Iron Throne.
Trevor Royle - a wonderful name for a historian - gives a dramatic, mind-stretching account if the expansive nature of this part of medieval history, and the effect on social changes, and the entwined histories of Scotland, Ireland, Wales and France. This was always going to be an unwieldy subject, and through every thoughtful account of character (Richard III for an example is fascinating compared to how much of history as viewed him after the fact) there are many who fall by the sword or executioners axe to the wayside. The titles of Lord's and Duke's can also be a scramble of confusion for the uninitiated. None of this is fault of the author, and Royle himself mentions this in the beginning as a forewarning, and has a helpful cast of main characters listed in the back of the book.
It's a fine drama regardless, taking us through the fall of Richard II to the myth making heights of Henry V and onto what sadly came to pass after his death from the hands of powerful twin houses York and Lancaster. A necessary account for anyone interested in the stabilisation of the monarchy and the dying of the so called dark ages into the light of the renaissance.

[Aidan · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good overview of the conflict and the people who set it, and kept it, in motion.

The first part of the book delves into the origins of the Wars which Royle considers, along with skid other historians, as when Henry IV deposed his cousin Richard II and began the Lancastrian dynasty. Royle takes us through his reign, as well as Henry V’s reign (though not great detail) which sets the stage for Henry VI and his inevitable fall from power. I say inevitable as, just as with any other book on the Wars, Henry VI was simply incapable of being an effective king.

Royle’s book doesn’t do much in terms of anything breakbreaking when detailing the Wars, he takes us through it chronologically, mentions all the important events and people, including some which other authors may have chosen to leave out. But Royle does exactly what you would want him to, recount the events that preceded the Wars and the conflict itself, both politically and militarily.

It’s a good book if you’ve never read about the Wars before and want to know more, or if you’ve read other books on the subject and want to get a different perspective from someone.

[Matt Payne · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a detail-rich, super-compelling history of bloody power games. The author does a great job painting a picture of royalty and politics in the 1400's. It's so alien to how we live now, but this book humanizes the characters and makes everything relatable. A king can't hold his crown unless he has the backing of a bunch of other elites, and they need to muster armies for any military action (and there are lots of military actions).

The back-stabbing and scheming are tragic, but so are the moments of great weakness. Reading this, I was disgusted a few times when a character I liked turned around and betrayed his allies. But I was even more disappointed with any weak king who didn't have the heart (or the brains) to figure out who needed to be killed.

It's a great ride, very readable, and I recommend it.

[Steven Poore · Rating 3 out of 5]

An enjoyable top-down overview of the whole period from Richard II to Henry VII, succeeding most of all in making every one of the main characters unlikable, power-driven and bloodthirsty despots (with the possible exception of Henry VI). One can look from these monarchs and magnates to the modern-day oligarchs and not see much difference between them.
So much blood is spilled in fact, that it can be difficult to know which Neville, Percy, Warwick or Beaufort you're dealing with at any given point. Handily, Royle has provided a list of titles and their holders to dispel the confusion.

[Kieran · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really enjoyed Royle’s tale of the conflict that ripped late medieval England apart; it was well written, and absorbing.

However, I had two quibbles. As important as it was to go into the long term causes of the Wars of the Roses, it ended up taking half the book, which eats into the subject contained in the title.

Also, that title; England’s first civil war? I don’t think so.

But those aside, a very good read.

[Roman · Rating 5 out of 5]

"And yet time hath his revolutions; there must be a period and an end to all temporal things—finis rerum—an end of names and dignities, and whatsoever is of worth.
For where is Bohun? Where is Mowbray? Where is Mortimer? Nay, which is more, and most of all, where is Plantagenet? They are entombed in the urns and sepulchres of mortality! "

[Richard Joseph · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting read which really does take you through the stages of the Wars. However i did struggle seeing as everyone was called "York" or "Lancaster" due to titles. And at the time everyone seemed to have similar names. That did through up a little confusion in following the story, however i cant see how else the author could of got around that issue.
Informative and enjoyable to read.

[Emily Jarzembski · Rating 2 out of 5]

I only got 22 pages in before deciding there was no point in continuing this book. Unfortunately, I have picked up on multiple historical errors as well as grammatical errors. The latter is only a minor annoyance, but as someone genuinely wanting to learn more about a subject in which I'm not particularly knowledgeable, I can't trust this book to provide me with accurate information.

[Dan Egglestone · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really compelling narrative on a long and now sadly forgotten period of English and, to an extent, British history. It is short and thus less detailed but it covers the sweep coherently and clearly and provides a gripping and well-balanced narrative that should be taught to English schoolchildren again.

[Federico Petley · Rating 4 out of 5]

Gripping recount of one the most impactful events that forever reshaped England. Royle examines the six kings that ruled across this turbulent period of history with a reasonable and unbiased judgement.

[Jan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very Informative of a period that I was not clear on. I enjoyed it very much.

[Sharon Miller · Rating 4 out of 5]

Perfectly fine overview. Really helpful in understanding the timeline and events and persons.

[Mark Nichols · Rating 5 out of 5]

Enjoyed very much... nice to be able to connect with English history with its intrigue, character flaws, amplified ambition and twists and turns.

[Susan Grimshaw · Rating 3 out of 5]

A solid, but quite readable account of the Wars of the Roses, covering a span of over a hundred years. A reasonably keen interest in the period is needed to get through it

[Amy · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5*

[Liz · Rating 3 out of 5]

This draaggeeddd
Too much about France. Could’ve done without like 1/3 of it

[J · Rating 4 out of 5]

Like a long hike, trying at times but worth it

[Small Review · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5

I've owned this book for about five years, so I'm glad I finally read it. It starts all the way back with Richard II, which was on one hand nice because I'm less familiar with Richard II, Henry IV, and Henry V, but on the other hand less nice because when I read Wars of the Roses books it's because I want the drama and flair of Margaret of Anjou, Margaret Beaufort, Edward IV, Richard III, Elizabeth Woodville, Warwick the Kingmaker, and the treacherous Duke of Clarence. So, I "slogged" through about 250 pages of history I wasn't particularly interested in reading about.

On the bright side, it wasn't actually a slog. I enjoyed the way Trevor Royle covered the Richard II - Henry V years and I found myself caught up in the narrative. The writing was easy to read, though on the drier side of things. Not because the content was boring or went on tangents, but mostly because it lacked heart. It was easy to pick up and read a chapter, and then just as easy to put the book down for a few days.

Disappointingly, when I finally did get to Henry VI, the whole pageant of characters fell flat. This was one of those history books with a male-focus, which is fine except I felt robbed of getting to read about Margaret of Anjou, Margaret Beaufort, and Elizabeth Woodville. They're such dynamic characters in history and here they were covered, but largely skimmed over and with no sense of drama, passion, or excitement. While more time was spent on the men, even they suffered from this soulless approach.

Perhaps that's a better, more serious approach to history? I don't know, but I do know that I'm the type of reader who likes my history in technicolor. So, overall, okay and a good overview of the time that goes into enough depth that this isn't a skim, but it lacks heart.

[Bill Tyne · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book places the Wars in context by starting with the Reign of Richard II (Hous of York) who came to the throne as a boy after his father and elder brother had died before his grandfather, Edward III. Richard failed to deal effectively with the powerful lords around him and his reign was troubled by peasant rebellions. Ultimately he was deposed by Henry Bolingbroke (Henry IV) who ceased the throne for himself. This act destabilised the throne for years to come and set the stage for rival challenges to the throne for decades to come. Henry packed the throne with Lancastrian supporters (i.e. his own kinsmen and supporters) which help keep things steady and his son's reign (Henry V) was relatively untroubled, however Henry V died young and his son Henry VI came to the throne as a child (spot a pattern here). Cue old unresoved rivalries between Lancaster and York boiling over into civil war proper. After Henry VI is disposed we get Edward IV who makes a decent fist of things and does his best to calm things down but sadly he dies young and guess what - his sons are not old enough to take to the throne. Along with latent resentment and rivalry due to preferential treatment of Edwards wife's family - the Woodvilles et.al. things are set for another bitter outbreak when Richard III takes the stage to try and put the Woodvilles in their place and take charge of the princes - I think we all know the outcome. Sadly this final act feels rushed compared to the earlier dramas and Royle by and large takes a old school Richard II bashing line. A slight let down to an otherwise excellent book.

[Teresa]

Well-written, documented, and not at all dense account of the History of England between Richard II and Richard III, encompassing The War of the Roses, from its very beginning to the start of the Tudor dynasty. The author is clearly a bit more on the side of those who paint Richard III as a villain but overall I really liked the book.
However, the use of Thomas More as the most accurate source of information for Richard III's reign is a bit doubtful given that More had all the incentives to portray Richard as a psychopath. Another argument which Royle uses to back up More’s account is the finding of two skeletons in the tower 1) never tested if male or female, 2) other skeletons belonging to kids have been found in the tower, 3) there are two unnamed skeletons in Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville’s grave that have never been studied, 4) Even if any of the skeletons found in the tower were actually the Princes it wouldn’t mean Richard III was their murderer.
Even if he then states that the disappearances and likely murder of the Princes Edward and Richard is still a mystery he quickly dismisses any other of the possible theories (Buckingham, Beaufort, Henry VII, etc).