Customer Reviews

The Hundred Years War

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

 

 

A very vivid, well written account of the Hundred Years' War. The writer is a reporter, so the "lively" style in descriptions of facts and situations is not new to him. You will probably read the book only in a few hours (I did it in just three-four hours, to my own amazement), and can consider yourself rather well-informed about the general subject of the Hundred Years' War after that. It is an very handy introductory work, covering all the period of the war without omitting any details. By the way, much better than the writer's "The Wars of the Roses".

I gave it four stars and not five only because I do not consider it a must for experts on the 100 Years' War history.

The question is do you want to delve into the Hundred Years War as deeply as Jonathan Sumption's 2000-page trilogy will take you, or do you want only a good understanding, without spending a great deal of time on it? The 300 pages of Robin Neillands' THE HUNDRED YEARS WAR gave me a good understanding without burying me. I do want to read other things.

Except for its long paragraphs, Neillands' account is written in prose that resembles modern fiction. It is easy to read with enough background detail to place the war into historical context, but not so much to bog you down. He does give some information about the economies of the time, and about the tactics and organizations of the two militaries. Given the complicated subject matter, much is necessarily said about the politics, and what is said is entertaining. Many characters enter into play, with more attention devoted to the major ones, like Edward III, the Black Prince, Henry V (Shakespeare: "Once more into the breach..."), and Joan of Arc. Descriptions of the main battles are lively, particularly Crécy and Agincourt.

Trees of royal dynasties are printed on the front and back flyleaves. Maps and a few battle diagrams are conveniently interspersed with the narration. Seventeen photographic plates help make the story real. You get a bibliography, but no footnotes. And you get a rudimentary index: each topic is followed only by page numbers, without any subtopics. But it's better than none at all.

I noticed two errors in my 1991 paperback edition, which may be corrected in the revised 2001 edition. On page 239, the year 1472 should be 1422. On the back flyleaf, Lionel Duke of Clarence is noted as Edward III's third son. He was actually the second son, and John of Gaunt was the third son (this mistake is not present in the narration).