100 Years War

Hi everyone,

Can anybody recommend the title of a good book on the 100 Years' War? I'd even try a French one.......

Thanks, Jan.

Sent from my iPad

Hi Jan
There are quite a few books on The Hundred Years War. A new one called the Alternative History of The Hundred Years War by Timothy Venning presents 'what if' scenarios and sound interesting. He also does other periods in English/British history including The War of the Roses.

A couple of introductory books are Hundred Years War 1337-1453 by Anne Curry, which is only 96 pages but has good reviews on Amazon. Robin Neillands' The Hundred Years War is another introduction to the subject. Others worth mentioning are by Christopher Allmand who also writes on Henry V and Jonathon Sumption's, which is a comprehensive account covering three volumes. You should be able to find something there. Just don't go near Desmond Seward who is persona non grata. Anything of his deserves to be burnt!
Elaine


--- In , Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> Can anybody recommend the title of a good book on the 100 Years' War? I'd even try a French one.......
>
> Thanks, Jan.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>

Hi Elaine,
Many thanks for your recommendations & your reply.
I have never heard good of Sewell!
Jan.


On 10 Jun 2013, at 00:37, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:

> Hi Jan
> There are quite a few books on The Hundred Years War. A new one called the Alternative History of The Hundred Years War by Timothy Venning presents 'what if' scenarios and sound interesting. He also does other periods in English/British history including The War of the Roses.
>
> A couple of introductory books are Hundred Years War 1337-1453 by Anne Curry, which is only 96 pages but has good reviews on Amazon. Robin Neillands' The Hundred Years War is another introduction to the subject. Others worth mentioning are by Christopher Allmand who also writes on Henry V and Jonathon Sumption's, which is a comprehensive account covering three volumes. You should be able to find something there. Just don't go near Desmond Seward who is persona non grata. Anything of his deserves to be burnt!
> Elaine
>
> --- In , Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > Can anybody recommend the title of a good book on the 100 Years' War? I'd even try a French one.......
> >
> > Thanks, Jan.
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
>
>

--- In , Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Elaine,
> Many thanks for your recommendations & your reply.
> I have never heard good of Sewell!
> Jan.

Carol responds:

You mean Seward, not Sewell, right? Desmond Seward wrote the horrible book, "Richard III: England's Black Legend," which accepts Shakespeare's view of Richard as in essence true. He claims to have started out passionately believing in Richard's innocence and ended up (shades of James Gairdner, who did the same thing) equally passionately believing in his guilt and deformity.

I own the book, and the only reason I haven't given it away is that I don't want to be guilty of spreading the plague of propaganda and lies. I may end up shredding or burning it, freedom of the press notwithstanding, or just mixing it with other garbage to be dumped in a landfill and just shredding the book jacket. It's worse than Alison Weir's book on the "Princes," and that's saying a lot.

Carol

Thank you for the correction. I must be more careful. Fortunately I have plenty to read without recourse to Weir. Annette Carson's The Maligned King has jumped the queue for my book at bedtime.
Jan.

Sent from my iPad

On 10 Jun 2013, at 17:18, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

>
>
> --- In , Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Elaine,
> > Many thanks for your recommendations & your reply.
> > I have never heard good of Sewell!
> > Jan.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> You mean Seward, not Sewell, right? Desmond Seward wrote the horrible book, "Richard III: England's Black Legend," which accepts Shakespeare's view of Richard as in essence true. He claims to have started out passionately believing in Richard's innocence and ended up (shades of James Gairdner, who did the same thing) equally passionately believing in his guilt and deformity.
>
> I own the book, and the only reason I haven't given it away is that I don't want to be guilty of spreading the plague of propaganda and lies. I may end up shredding or burning it, freedom of the press notwithstanding, or just mixing it with other garbage to be dumped in a landfill and just shredding the book jacket. It's worse than Alison Weir's book on the "Princes," and that's saying a lot.
>
> Carol
>
>

Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you for the correction. I must be more careful. Fortunately I have plenty to read without recourse to Weir. Annette Carson's The Maligned King has jumped the queue for my book at bedtime.
> Jan.

Carol responds:

Great! Annette's book converted me from "Buckingham did it" to "both boys escaped to the Continent." Lots of other good material as well. Enjoy!

Annette used to be a member of this forum before she became involved with Philippa's Finding Richard project (though she disliked the direction the documentary was taking and chose not to contribute to it), but that's a long story and I don't want to repeat it here. Unfortunately, I don't think she plans to come back, but maybe she'll surprise us now that she's through revising her book and writing the new one.

Carol

Somewhere I heard Seward wormed his way into the confidences of respected people in the Society, then betrayed them.... 

Miserable piece of work (man as well as book).

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: 100 Years War



 


--- In , Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Elaine,
> Many thanks for your recommendations & your reply.
> I have never heard good of Sewell!
> Jan.

Carol responds:

You mean Seward, not Sewell, right? Desmond Seward wrote the horrible book, "Richard III: England's Black Legend," which accepts Shakespeare's view of Richard as in essence true. He claims to have started out passionately believing in Richard's innocence and ended up (shades of James Gairdner, who did the same thing) equally passionately believing in his guilt and deformity.

I own the book, and the only reason I haven't given it away is that I don't want to be guilty of spreading the plague of propaganda and lies. I may end up shredding or burning it, freedom of the press notwithstanding, or just mixing it with other garbage to be dumped in a landfill and just shredding the book jacket. It's worse than Alison Weir's book on the "Princes," and that's saying a lot.

Carol

Hi

Military History are doing a major feature ' The Death of King Richard
III ' in the July issue of the magazine, see press release attached. As
you read it you will also see that there is an item from Phil with
regard to the re-interment.

It all sounds rather grim to me, don't think I really want to know:( so
I think I'll skip - it despite Phil's article.

Jac

********
Military History Monthly Press Release

"The body of Richard III, the last Yorkist king, represents the only
human remains of a Bosworth battle fatality ever recovered. Yet the
multiple injuries revealed by osteological analysis correspond with
the evidence of other bodies recovered from medieval battlefield
cemeteries. Military History Monthly now offers a detailed
reconstruction of the grim reality of mid 15th century battle.
We picture the King, unhorsed, isolated, his helmet lost, surrounded
by enemies, staggering under a succession of blows, and finally
collapsing as a sword is driven through the back of his head and a
poleaxe slices away part of his skull.

Neil Faulkner's detailed reconstruction of the close-quarters fighting
is followed by the report by Chris Skidmore (MP, Tudor historian,
and author of a new study of Bosworth) on the latest archaeological
discoveries and his challenge of conventional historical accounts of the
battle.

Is the account we have an idealised version fed to a gullible historian
by an ageing general, who wished to be remembered as a clever
Renaissance man', for self advancement? Did this account bear any
real relation to the two hours of chaotic carnage in an East Midlands
field a quarter of a century earlier?

Furthermore, Dr Phil Stone outlines the Richard III Society's views
regarding the king's burial, with a plea for the fallen king to be
treated right royally.

Following publication of a full account of Leicester University's
discovery of the body of Richard III in our sister magazine Current
Archaeology, and lead archaeologist Richard Buckley's presentation
at our Current Archaeology Live conference, Military History Monthly
magazine completes the historical picture in vivid colour, with a unique
insight into the last moments of the King."

Just thumbing through it, and there is a very nice paragraph from Dr Stone on page 10, and an article entitled From Darkness into Light.
"The finding of the lost remains of a 15th-century king is a unique occurrence that provides a unique opportunity for the reinterment in a manner that reflects their historical importance. The public today and generations to come can expect nothing less. For Ricardians and believers in fair play around the world, the finding of the king's remains means we can clear away half a millennium of myth and innuendo, and give a dignified reinterment to the physical remains of the man who was known in his lifetime as 'Good King Richard'. Please, let us not repeat the mistakes and insults of the past."

On Jun 10, 2013, at 3:21 PM, "jacqui" <jacqui@...<mailto:jacqui@...>> wrote:



Hi

Military History are doing a major feature ' The Death of King Richard
III ' in the July issue of the magazine, see press release attached. As
you read it you will also see that there is an item from Phil with
regard to the re-interment.

It all sounds rather grim to me, don't think I really want to know:( so
I think I'll skip - it despite Phil's article.

Jac

********
Military History Monthly Press Release

"The body of Richard III, the last Yorkist king, represents the only
human remains of a Bosworth battle fatality ever recovered. Yet the
multiple injuries revealed by osteological analysis correspond with
the evidence of other bodies recovered from medieval battlefield
cemeteries. Military History Monthly now offers a detailed
reconstruction of the grim reality of mid 15th century battle.
We picture the King, unhorsed, isolated, his helmet lost, surrounded
by enemies, staggering under a succession of blows, and finally
collapsing as a sword is driven through the back of his head and a
poleaxe slices away part of his skull.

Neil Faulknerýs detailed reconstruction of the close-quarters fighting
is followed by the report by Chris Skidmore (MP, Tudor historian,
and author of a new study of Bosworth) on the latest archaeological
discoveries and his challenge of conventional historical accounts of the
battle.

Is the account we have an idealised version fed to a gullible historian
by an ageing general, who wished to be remembered as a clever
ýRenaissance maný, for self advancement? Did this account bear any
real relation to the two hours of chaotic carnage in an East Midlands
field a quarter of a century earlier?

Furthermore, Dr Phil Stone outlines the Richard III Societyýs views
regarding the kingýs burial, with a plea for the fallen king to be
treated ýright royallyý.

Following publication of a full account of Leicester Universityýs
discovery of the body of Richard III in our sister magazine Current
Archaeology, and lead archaeologist Richard Buckleyýs presentation
at our Current Archaeology Live conference, Military History Monthly
magazine completes the historical picture in vivid colour, with a unique
insight into the last moments of the King."