Customer Reviews

The Greatest Traitor: The Life of Sir Roger Mortimer, Ruler of England: 1327--1330

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

It was with extreme pleasure that I read The Greatest Traitor, life and time of Sir Roger Mortimer written by Ian Mortimer although the author insisted that there is no relationship between himself and his subject. The book proves to be well written and researched although lack of primary sources in many part of Roger Mortimer's life hampered the author's effort. Many of these parts lies with Mortimer's personal life. He did married young and had host of children but there's really nothing in the book that reflects what Mortimer was like, as a father and husband outside of few references. This proves to be the book's only weakness and it may have been out of the author's control to provide.

The author make his case very well that Roger Mortimer was one of England's greatest traitors. Mortimer's actions against his country, his King Edward II, his oath of fealty, his relationship with Queen Isabella and his dominates over Edward III clearly marked him as worst offender of his class. However, the author also tempered that case with the reasoning that many of the things Mortimer did was in self-defense of his lands, honor and life. That Edward II was a bad ruler who ruled terribly. It wasn't until Mortimer and Isabella had total control during the regency of Edward III that they began to act and ruled like tyrants.

This book goes well with Alison Weir's Queen Isabella biography as both of them reflects on the same theory about the fate of Edward II. The Fieschi letter dominate both books that Edward II died peacefully as a religious exile in Italy and not murdered horribly in Berkely Castle as regular history books goes. Weir introduced that theory openly to exonerate Isabella from Edward II's murder and author in this book did the same to exonerate Roger Mortimer as well from that charge.

Overall, very interesting book about an important mediveal English nobleman who effectively ruled England for nearly 3 and half years with his lover, Queen Isabella. While regular history books shows Edward III following his father in rule, anyone reading this book will realized that there's an footnote between the two. Mandatory reading material for anyone interested in this time period and subject matter.

I read this book while on holiday in England. It was the perfect companion. If you enjoy history, especially history that is alive and vibrant, you will like this book.
Mortimer takes us back 700 years to become engaged with Sir Roger and his world. We come to understand what a familial dynasty and legacy meant to a medieval knight/baron. We come to fully understand the failures of Edward II, and how those failures drove Mortimer and others to do the unthinkable - overthrow their king.
The scholarship and research that went into this account are top notch and the authors theory (I won't give it away) is quite compelling.
Great book!

Okay, to begin with, I actually got interested in this period and ran into personalities of it while reading murder mysteries set in the period by Candice Robb, The Cross-Legged Knight and others. That led me to wanting more of the background of the period. I had run across the story of Sir Roger Mortimer and Queen Isabella in reading on the Kings Edward (I-III) of England and their time period. Once one gets started on a dramatic and captivating story, however, it's difficult not to follow up with an investigation of other important figures in the drama. I soon discovered by further reading in Alison Weir's Queen Isabella: Treachery, Adultery, and Murder in Medieval England that this Queen was not just the "evil queen" backdrop for the reign of her son the "good king" Edward that some of the other books suggested. That discovery led me to wonder just how real the "greedy and treacherous" lover, Roger Mortimer, might be. The bibliography in Isabella lead me in turn to this book.

While I have to say that The Greatest Traitor seemed like an effort to rehabilitate the reputation of a rather unsavory character, I also have to admit that the author makes a good case for believing that Sir Roger was indeed the person he had hoped to be until events prevented him from remaining so. In fact more than any other book on the period, this one makes it obvious that the conditions of the time were such that many men of good intentions probably ended up going off the rails for some of the same reasons, mostly survival. The events that could lead to a threat to it were many and endemic--if not down right epidemic at times--to the period--and most people came down with the "disease."

I also noticed that except for the poor and common people, for whom any treatment was considered appropriate and "just," there seemed to be a form of etiquette in waging war on others, one of those being one didn't cause undo discomfort to the opposition's women folk or young children--especially not to young children. Stepping over the line, as Edward II and his favorites tended to do, was what put others off and could turn the tide against one.

Interesting too was the fact that, just like later historians who study it, the individuals of the time were very aware of the precedents they were setting with respect to the laws of the land and to the governmental structures in place to enforce it. The waltzing around over the succession of Edward III and the forced abdication of his father Edward II was certainly an illustration of this, as was the confusing history of Edward II after he left the active stage of government. They were tripping down a particularly greasy set of stairs, but they managed to leave it to others of their kind in later years to actually take the fall.

I felt that the author, though he probably gave Isabella a good deal more credit than earlier authors did, was still missing the fact that the lady was a very adept politician if nothing else. He, like others, seem inclined to see her as more of a pawn in a game played by the "big boys." I'd disagree. For one thing, I suspect the big-blow-up-at-dinner in the French court was a theatrical event staged to give the lady a way to make excuses if things went bad later and they/she had to drop back and punt back at home in Merry Olde England. Secondly, and most importantly, I'd like to point out that she of all of them came out the best. She acquired a great deal of property, and although she had to give up some of it later, she still succeeded in enjoying a comfortable, influential, and lengthy life. Not many of the other players in the game did except Roger's wife, Joan, who survived to age 70 under similar circumstances. Isabella also managed to ensure that her son came to the throne of England before her husband's favorites left very little kingdom behind for him to rule, and without herself and her agents damaging it any more than necessary when she did so. To accomplish this she had to do some pretty fast and serious outmaneuvering against some pretty crafty characters among the aristocratic, royal, and ecclesiastical worlds of her day. I think people have been seriously underestimating this lady for quite some time. I wonder if this isn't becaue historians, both men and women, have this notion that what women want out of a situation is the same as what men want. Visibility and "credit" isn't necessarily part of it, which is why women's history and their effects on it isn't always apparent. Heck, from all appearences there weren't any women in Classical Greece--though there were a few more in Homeric Greece.

This author went into far greater detail and discussion than Weir about the death of Edward II. He gave a thorough treatment of the documentation, it's authenticity, and its likely intent in the final chapter of the book. Although I agree with his analysis of the events of Edward II's last years, I still find it difficult to believe that there was a switch of bodies in his crypt to "fix" it all during Edward III's reign. Maybe our elders were more superstitious, more sentimental, and less pragmatic than we are, but I doubt it.

All in all the book reads like a well written adventure novel. I finished in a day and could hardly put it down. It has everything.

This biography offers a far different perspective than one usually finds in studies of the unfortunate Edward II. The son and the father of the brilliant Edwards I and III, Edward II was an ineffective king who seemed to actively repel the support of nobility that would otherwise have been loyal to the crown, while promoting "favourites" on whom he showered power and wealth. Edward's queen, Isabella, and her lover Roger Mortimer launched a successful invasion and defeated Edward's army, deposed and imprisoned Edward, and (the conventional wisdom says) murdered him in a particulary grisly manner. (I have read other speculation that he escaped and lived in exile in France, and I want to believe that, but who knows?) It would be helpful to the reader to have some background knowledge, at least in broad strokes, of the era before beginning. I would recommend having read Alison Weir's biography of Isabella or even some Sharon Kay Penman period fiction before tackling "The Greatest Traitor". That said, this biography is clear, detailed, and provides fairly extensive insight into the era and Roger Mortimer's possible motivations. Mortimer (the author) thankfully does not tell the reader what Mortimer (the subject) thought or felt--rather he provides documentary evidence of where Roger Mortimer was, when his children were born, with whom he was allied, and so forth. He suggests some motivations based upon the evidence and the known events. The book is, in my view, compelling. The Mortimer name has always connoted a somewhat unsavory character for me: Marcher lords exploiting the Welsh, opportunistic, smart and brave but not trustworthy or loyal. This biography does not completely alter that impression, but provides motivations that make Roger Mortimer's actions seem less opportunistic and more responsive to the crises provoked by the Despensers and Edward's failed reign. Perhaps this is biography is not the place to start exploring Edward II's era, but once you've been hooked on the drama of the period, I think it's a must-read.

Mortimer has done what is almost impossible today: a truly well researched and engaging biography with the blood still pumping madly in the body. His manner of writing is elegant and never academic; he "sees" the whole tempestuous era and the man with a refined eye, he has vision. My one minute complaint is that the author is overly harsh, in my opinion, about the "treason" of Roger Mortimer - honestly, considering the grotesque travesty that Queen Isabella, from the age of 12 onward, had to endure from her "husband" and what the country itself had to endure with a man who clearly preferred to be doing anything but ruling, guiding, shepherding his country and people, as the anointed king, I wonder that historians haven't recognized that the greatest treason was Edward II against his own heritage, people and government. I was particularly horrifed to read of the brutal betrayal and execution of Llewelyn; perhaps the single act that drove Roger Mortimer to break with Edward II?

As for the likelihood that Edward II survived I would agree with the author's hypothesis, in order to preserve his own life and that of the Queen, as Edward III came to age, was to keep Edward II alive, somewhere, as a hedge against retribution. Had Mortimer died in the Tower, or in exile, and never deposed Edward II one has to wonder if Edward III would have ever had the reign he had: a young man with his whole life in front of him. Had Edward II stayed on the throne and if he lived at least as long as his father, Edward I, then "our" Edward III would have been middle aged, at best, when he ascended the crown. Or would he have been an embittered heir, not married to Philippa of Hainault, embarassed by his father's misgovernment,a son driven to work against his own father, as did Richard I with his father, Henry II?

Perhaps Mortimer acted out of self-preservation but he also created an example of what it takes to be an efficient and resolute king - the tragedy of Roger Mortimer is that he wasn't - directly - of the blood royal; he certainly had everything else it would have taken to be an incredibly competent, conscientious and dutiful king.

By the way, the heirs of Roger Mortimer, who was the first Earl of March, would in 7 generations, barely a 130 years later, become king, and in name - by also deposing an anointed king, and by conquest, and finally having that same king (Henry VI) put to death to maintain the throne - that king was Edward IV. Mortimer's almost bloodless coup, in contrast to his future heir's conquest of the throne, is a study in stunning strategic vision.

The author has my highest respect - I can't imagine a finer example of what biography is meant to achieve; it is in another league altogether from the "royal" biographers like Weir. I can only hope that someday Ian Mortimer will undertake to write about another mishandled subject of history: Richard III, in many ways Richard parallels his Mortimer forebear, a masterful coup with minimum blood and revenge and a likely "murder" he also did not commit but will probably never be able to shake from his reputation either.

I do not see what all the yelling is about. Mortimer's conclusion that Edward II secretly survived some years into his son's reign are not logical. He tells us the Edward II considered himself the absolute monarch of England and Ireland and would share no control of the contry with anyone except his very close favorites. After he lost then regained control of the country he so abused his nobles and gentry (the ruling classes) that they would not turn a hand against him. In regaining control Roger Mortimer fled to France. Eventually Roger hooked up with Edward II's wife who was sent to France, her home, on a diplomatic mission. Eventually Roger and Isabelle returned to England to overthow Edward II and claim the crown for Edward III. This is where I think he argues unconvincingly. Edward II is reported dead, a body purportedly his is buried with full honors in a noticable grave. The author aruges that Edward III was told by his mother and Roger his father was still alive and if he wanted to stay king he had better play along. Edward III gets tired of Roger's increasing abuse of power behind the throne and arranges his judicial murder. He also goes after those who are considered responsible for his father's death, but most get away.

Then comes a letter supposedly reporting that Edward II did survive, being moved to Corfe Castle instead of killed, but killing a sleeping porter on the way out of the castle he was being held in, thoughtfully accounting for the substitute corpse. After being held at Corfe for 1 1/2 or 2 1/2 years, he is taken to Ireland where 9 months later he is apparently released, goes on foot in the guise of a pilgram across England, sailing to Europe, dropping in on the Pope to whom he is admitted on the strenght of having a sovereign to bribe the porter there, eventually joining a hermitage and maybe seeing his son and second grandson some years later.

Excuse me. A man who genuinely believed he was autocrat of England shuffles across the width of it without visiting any of his remaining friends and without trying to reclaim his throne? The Pope sees people because his porter is bribed? And the man who is supposed to have been keeping him, when accused of murdering him, gets away with saying, in effect, "what do you mean? I didn't know he was dead!" To which Edward III does not say: if he is not dead, who did I pay to bury with such honor and such visibility? Nor does Queen Isabelle or any member of the nobility ask any of these questions either. Bottom line: Ian Mortimer's conclusion that Edward II got a way simply does not mesh with the man he spends the greatest part of the book describing.

This year's reading has included three of my all-time favorite histories. The Princes in the Tower was lucid and reasoned in its indictment of Richard III, with the kindness to provide sufficient context in the reigns of both Richard's predecessor (Edward IV) and successor (Henry VII). The Hidden History in the Bayeux Tapestry was an engaging recounting of the physical tapestry's own amazing story, and a critical exegesis of the tapestry's tale.

Better than both is Ian Mortimer's The Greatest Traitor: The Life of Sir Roger Mortimer, Ruler of England: 1327--1330.

Like Bridgeford's illumination of Eustace II of Boulogne, Ian Mortimer brings light to Roger Mortimer's upbringing and exploits, mitigating his rebellions against Edward II and his domination of Edward III while exposing Mortimer's descent into the same arrogant tyranny that brought down Edward II's favorites Gaveston and Despenser. He also brings compelling documentary evidence to substantiate what chroniclers of the time considered wild rumors. In short, nothing but a gripping tale wrapped in conscientious scholarship.

And you can complain about Mortimer's (and Alison Weir's) assertions that Ed. II lived out his life in Ireland and then Italy all you want. Mortimer makes a compelling case from documentary evidence. So there.

Mortimer's book is well written and very interesting. He does a great job of weaving in enough anecdotes to make the historical figures come to life and, unlike some historical authors, saves the discussions of source material for the footnoes. He also does a convincing job of putting forth his theory about Edward II's life.

I'm not British, and my knowledge of English political history before picking up Mortimer was, shall we say, limited. I was a bit wary about starting with an historical biography--unlike (I imagine) the average Englishwoman, I'd never even heard of Sir Roger Mortimer (I pause for the gasps to die down), although stories of Edward II's death had reached my pained ears. But I'd just recently read Ian Mortimer's "The Time Traveler's Guide to Medieval England," and knew if anyone could rope me in, it was him.

So, if you're looking at this biography and wondering if it'll even be accessible without a solid background--worry no more. Mortimer makes it accessible--in fact, from page one he makes it impossible not to race to the end.

He's a masterful weaver; his narrative is gripping, evocative and clear. He makes history feel fresh. Fresh! The marvel and opportunities and fears and desperate choices and cusps of each moment feel real, feel alive. Never felt motivation so viscerally in a history book before. And his research is so deep it blows my mind. When I finished this book, it's all I talked about for weeks.

And what can I say, I'm hooked. Bought every book he's written since then (all his non-fiction books, I should say). This one's the game-changer for me, tearing apart history to reveal it more vividly than the page has before. Because of his conclusions about Edward II's end, this book really does stand out from the rest, but he really is IT for me.

Give him a go :)

A ripping yarn indeed. Though ultimately based on circumstantial evidence, the scholarship seems indisputable. Non-stop action a la Dumas pere.

If this book doesn't swash your buckle, nothing will.

The only question is, will it be a 12-part voice-over history documentary visiting actual sites with re-enactments sprinkled in, or a full-blown Peter Jackson $500-million summer blockbuster?