With Marc Morris' excellent The Norman Conquest (review) fresh on my mind, I turned to The Plantagenets by Dan Jones. For the unfamiliar, the Normans had only three kings on the throne of England: William I (1066-1087), William II (1087-1100), and Henry I (1100-1135). After them came the Plantagenets. Here's how that came to be: Henry I's heir, William, died in a shipwreck in 1120, leaving Henry with no surviving male heirs. He made the nobles of the realm swear fealty to his daughter, Matilda (or 'Maud'), but after Henry passed in 1135, most nobles instead went with Stephen of Blois, Henry's nephew (a woman on the throne was, to most at this time, unacceptable culturally). From 1135 to 1154, civil war raged in England (a time called "the anarchy"), with Maud and Stephen vying for control. Eventually, an agreement was reached: Stephen would remain on the throne until his passing, at which time the crown would pass to Maud's son, Henry II. This Henry's father was Geoffrey, count of Anjou, whom history would later dub "Plantagenet" due to the yellow bloom he wore in his hat (the Latin for which was planta genista). Thus, with the accession of Henry II in 1154, the Plantagenet dynasty was born, and they would remain on the throne for almost 250 years- until 1399 (the death of Richard II), at which point the family would splinter into houses Lancaster and York, and kick off the Wars of the Roses, eventually ending with the accession of the Tudors.
The reign of the Plantagenets coincides with my favorite time in English history: the late Medieval period. So many interesting and/or terrible events: the shipwreck, the anarchy, Henry II and his wife Eleanor of Aquitaine, Thomas Becket, Richard the Lionhearted and the Crusades, The three kings named Edward (collective reign: 1272-1377) and their conquest of Wales and Scotland, castles and knights, the Black Plague . . . the list could continue. It was thus with great anticipation that I started The Plantagenets. What a disappointment.
Regrettably, there are a lot of problems with this book:
1) Not enough depth/background
Jones covers a lot of territory in 600 pages- the aforementioned 250-year period- and so I expected an overview of this time in history. No worries there; Jones delivers just that. But, here's the thing: in glossing things over, Jones misrepresents certain events- or at least presents one view of the time without acknowledging conflicting opinions. Of the events with which I was already familiar, I found myself disagreeing with Jones' statements, or mentally filling in things he left out. It's okay to be brief and summarize- but you have to be accurate, too, and there Jones is slightly off the mark.
2) Unverified assumptions/bias
Jones' account of the time is fraught with unverified assumptions and bias. I got the impression he read a few books/sources from one angle only, then said "sounds good" without any critical analysis. He champions some rulers and maligns others, with little justification in either case. He quotes from Medieval sources- which most agree are incredibly biased- with little analysis. He inserts words and thoughts into monarch's heads which may or may not represent reality. In short, he takes an awful lot of liberty with most things, and in so doing he strays from credibility.
3) Lack of reference material/preparation
Not every writer can strike the balance Morris does between laymen readability and scholarly preparation. With Jones, my first alarm bell went off before I began reading- I looked for the notes and bibliography section, and found only a 7-page "further reading" section. Contrast this with Morris' ~100-page notes section after his 350-page book on The Norman Conquest, and you can see which one of them did their homework. Jones reminds me of a tour guide who's read a few books- he knows a good deal, but he's no historian, and it shows.
-------------------------
In the end, I stopped reading The Plantagenets 10% of the way in- after just 60 of the 600 pages- because when it comes to history (or, really, anything), I'd rather have no idea than a wrong idea, and it became clear to me that there was a lot of chaff amongst the wheat in this book. There are a lot of facts here, yes, but they're mixed with an unhealthy amount of conjecture/bias, and it's not always easy to know what's what. That, for a history book especially, is unacceptable. Other reviewers have called this 'pop history' or 'history light'- I'd agree, and add to their assessment to produce a one-statement review of The Plantagenets: 'potentially-misleading history light.'
I'm disappointed. I really would love a well-done overview history of the Plantagenet era. I'm told Thomas B. Costain did a four-volume history some decades ago; that may go on my list.
Rating: C-
No comments:
Post a Comment