Customer Reviews

The Last Knight: The Twilight of the Middle Ages and the Birth of the Modern Era

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(11)

 

 

This book is somewhat entertaining, but it could've used an editor. Unfotunately, it not only lacks a great deal of facts, but it often gives the opposite. The author frequently falls into tired, false cliche about his opinions of the era, which often contradicts his more factual claims, and speaks about it's figures as if he had known then inside and out, and disliked them. The ridiculous Mark Twain-esque cliches he claims as facts are enough to drop the book, making it just another in the 100 year long pile of falsified, biased histories of the middle ages.

I'm afraid that this book is so appalling that I just had to add my voice to the chorus of disapproval for it. I have read many, many texts on this period and this is far and away the worst I have ever encountered.

The text and style are simplistic - almost in the style of a "Children's book of the Middle Ages". The arguements and assertions are so sweeping and general as to be next to useless, and are made with no reference to geographical differences (of which there were myriad). Much of the work moves from the period 1100 to 1600 and not the period he initially states that he is covering. Finally, the book is riddled with historical inaccuracies from errors on heraldry, to errors on dates (he doesn't even get his dates on the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem right), to errors on armor. Indeed, his lack of knowledge on armor and the timing of innovations and trends would be laughable if I hadn't actually paid for this book.

This book has no redeeming features at all, and can only be considered a waste of precious trees. If it were possible, I wouldn't even have given it one star.

There are far superior works on this period to be had. While most are quite academic, if you want a broad sweep of the middle ages that is easy to read and accessible to the lay person, then try "Terry Jones' Medieval Lives". You'll learn a lot more about the period (as it relates to Britain!!) and have a smile too.

I agree with the revewer who said this book is amazingly bad, in fact it truly is awful. For example the following comes from pages 41-42: "The members of the great families did not like to be alone. They traveled and dined with companions drawn from noble families. They always were accompanied by an armed body-guard of at least a half-dozen mounted soldiers, called knights."
This sounds like a childrens book not a serious history book. It contains almost nothing about John of Gaunt and rambles on about nothing in particular. It must have been written by Cantor when he was in his dottage and printed on the basis of his reputation. I too wish I could get my money back or at least sue the publisher for inflicting such a terrible book on the reading public.

I bought this book knowing that it was an attempt at "popular history," and therefore I would never try to hold it to academic historical writing standards. However, even as an easy-reading book for entertainment, this work is horrible.


1. First of all, this book is extremely repetitive. I imagine the author was paid by the word, because it is not uncommon to see the same piece of information re-introduced to you numerous times in the span of a few pages (let alone the ideas that were revisited in distant parts of the book). For an example, read pages 122-124.

2. Secondly, the writing is very disorganized, despite the topic-centered chapters the author attempted. Mainly when he is repeating himself, the author will slip in "facts" or ideas that may seem to relate to the time period in general, but have no context within the surrounding paragraphs.

3. Lastly, many of Cantor's claims go beyond "speculation" to the realm of "completely unfounded." One appalling example is on page 81, where the author writes, "if John of Gaunt had written to his mistress Catherine Swynford, it may have been along these lines," followed by a made-up letter. This comes 5 lines after Cantor has written that "not one personal letter" has survived from Gaunt. Clearly, this letter then has no basis even in Gaunt's other writing, and it is wholly unnecessary for the sake of the book.


This book has been painful and insulting to read. Overall, there was very little substance. I do enjoy popular history very much, when it is done well, but even as a piece of writing, this particular piece of writing fails miserably. I would be mortified to have my name associated with writing this bad; both the writing and the research were at the level of a young high-schooler, in my opinion. In fact, I'm rather afraid that by purchasing this book, I've encouraged the publishing world to turn out more of this.


If you want a general overview of the medieval England, I'd try The Making of England to 1399 by Hollister, Stacey and Stacey. It covers everything from King Alfred to Richard II, and is very readable.
The Making of England to 1399 (History of England, vol. 1)

I find the subject matter of the transition between the middle ages and the renaissance as a fascinating period. This book focuses on the life and times of John of Gaunt, prince of England and the Duke of Lancaster. One of the most powerful English Dukes who never became King, he is indeed an interesting figure and there is much of the book that is interesting in that regard. I found the portrayal by the author of Gaunt as a pragmatist quite convincing in the context of the turbulent times that Gaunt dominated English politics. His flirtations with the heresies of Wycliff and the patronage of the budding English humanism you find in Chaucer contrasts sharpely with a man devoted to English institutions and the well being of the Plantagenet dynasty. There is much to recommend in this book that I enjoyed reading.

However, I found the author's writing style labored and difficult. Some editorial comments meant to sound witty seemed out of place and detracted rather than added to the enjoyment of the book. There were also some sentences that needed a good editor to correct some structure problems and even correct some spelling errors. Unsupported assertions were also rife in the book. Most disturbing was the fact that there were some significant historical inaccuracies in the book.For example, the author mentions a daughter of Gaunt and Catherine Swynford, Margaret Beaufort, who married Edmond Tudor who was the mother of Henry VII. A little genealogical research shows that Margaret Beaufort, the mother of Henry VII was the daughter of John Beaufort, who was the son of John "Fairborn" Beaufort who was the son of John of Gaunt. That makes Margaret Beaufort the great grand-daughter of John of Gaunt, a two generation discrepancy. He also lists John Duke of Bedford as a grandson correctly since he was the son of Henry IV. However he then goes on to list Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, the Duke of Bedford's younger brother, as John of Gaunt's great-grandson. A second pair of eyes and a good editor should have been able to detect these errors and correct them.

The writing style and editing problems detract significantly from the overall historical value of this book. If the author had remained alive, I would have hoped he would in the future revise the book, correct the problems and perhaps add some more information about Gaunt's Beaufort children and grand-children who were so significant in the political history of England in the 15th Century.

Some day, I hope a better writer comes along and takes the subject matter Norman Cantor addressed and presents it in a more substantial and substantiated way.

I've always admired Norman Cantor as a historian. However, this book is terrible. It is scattered--I could never tell what was coming next or how ideas fit together. It is repetitious--giving the same general fact or opinion over and over again, as if the author couldn't remember what he'd already said or had no idea of organization. It is vague--rarely does he get into the specific details we know of Gaunt's life that would give us a true flavor of the times. The all too brief section on Gaunt's registers was one of the few interesting sections of the book.

A waste of my time and money.

John of Gaunt and his brother Edward the Black Prince have intrigued me since I first took an English History course for my MA, so I purchased this book despite the negative reviews. While it contains at least something on each and their relationship, the book is really not very informative. In fact, you might intuit most of what the author says from just a little knowledge of the period, so general are the author's remarks.

The book was written by a popular although somewhat controversial medieval historian, Norman F. Cantor, during his twilight years. His earlier works were lauded as accessible to the reading public and enjoyed considerable commercial popularity, but according to the Wickipedia entry, his original research was scant and often at variance with other historians, receiving mixed reviews in the journals.

This book is almost sad. The professor died in September of 2004 at the age of 75, and the book was published that same year. One presumes that it was an attempt to recreate something of his earlier success with one last book. I have read other books written by professors at the end of their lives and have been far more impressed. It is a nice way of summarizing the knowledge of a lifetime career and leaving a legacy of what was known and contributed by the author up to that time. I have read a couple of books of this type, including The New Catastrophism: The Rare Event in Geological History by Derek Agar and Ancient Israel's Faith and History: An Introduction to the Bible in Context by George Mendenhall, both of which were quite good. Unfortunately The Last Knight does not stand up well to scrutiny.

I'm not certain to whom I'd even recommend the volume; it is written almost at the level of the middle school student in style and approach, but the material jumps too much from topic to topic, despite the well organized chapter headings: Old Europe, The Great Families, Plantagenet England, Women, Warriors, Spain, The Church, Peasants, Politics, Chaucer, The End of the Middle Ages. They are well chosen topics, but the content is almost random. Each chapter seems to include a hodge-podge of what might easily have been quotes from lecture notes taken out of context but which seemed "too good to leave out." The result is a confusing mix of genealogy and gossipy generalizations.

The author's parenthetical remarks make the book seem coy and dated and probably do more to reveal the author's issues (ie. Ivy league professors, anti-Semitism, etc.) than the period or individuals about whom he writes. Certainly the mention of "illicit sex," "promiscuous sex," and "homosexuality" while it might have been titillating, scandalous, rebellious or even progressive to the young college student in the morally transitional sixties, will seem banal and quaint to a young person today to whom the whole issue is a nonstarter. It reveals the remarkable degree to which Professor Cantor was out of touch with the young at the end of his life.

Part of the problem may well be that the topic, while it is narrowed to the life of John of Gaunt, is really about the age of John of Gaunt. In the absence of any personal letters, the only facts about the man are general ones abstracted from legal and economic documents. To flesh out the book, the author relies upon what is known about other aristocrats of this period; and it's a long period. The author includes information from the reigns of kings as disparate as William of Normandy (1066) to Henry VII (about 1500). That takes in a lot of ground. One must presume that, except perhaps technologically, a lot of change occurred in social behaviors, just as they do now. In fact, even in technology things were changing at a break neck pace compared to the previous 500 years. One might point out that the intrigue, ambition, social interactions and tangled geneology of the time of John of Gaunt were what set up the country for the chaotic period of the War of the Roses which so inspired Shakespeare in his plays Henry IV and Richard III. In short, there is just too much to cover for a book of only 250 pages. More might have been done with a greater degree of focus and better editing.

For those readers who desire a more complete introduction to the Middle Ages and despite the fact that it covers the period immediately preceding John of Gaunt, I would suggest England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings, 1075-1225 (New Oxford History of England) by Robert Bartlett. Although it is a very heavy and serious work, and may lose those interested in only a casual read, it covers the period more thoroughly and its documentation is without parallel. It will certainly set up the reader to more critically evaluate other books on the period for quality and content.


The book suggests haste and an attempt to produce "one last book."

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that publishers should be held legally liable merely for publishing poorly written, banal, politically correct, ahistorical drivel like this book. We rightly protect the freedoms of speech and of the press regardless of the intrinsic value of the speech. (Although I do wonder if Profesor Cantor is solely responsible for this garbage. Perhaps it was his awareness that, as his life was nearing its end, he was bequeathing to the reading public this mess, which led him to so pointedly acknowledge how his literary agent and editor had both "been very helpful in shaping the manuscript" ... which coincidentally represents their last payday from the bestselling author).

As I say, that's not why the publisher should be sued. No, my contention that someone should sue the publisher is based on their own baldfaced false advertisement on the book cover.

They claim that "Norman F. Cantor brings to life John of Gaunt..." He does nothing of the sort. In fact John of Gaunt is really nothing more in the book than a foil for the author's social musings on class and sexual mores and a rant about today's "billionaire capitalists."

To really see where Cantor is heading, just go straight to his last chapter, "The End of the Middle Ages." Here he abandons all pretense to historical perspective or even to staying within shouting distance of his supposed topic. The chapter staggers from unfounded assertion to wild speculation to sweeping generalization to confident prediction of the future like a sawdust preacher haranguing a tentful of simpletons. The moderately informed reader will feel both insulted and somewhat embarrased for the author.

Real scholarship of the past 20 years based on examining a wider body of evidence is dismissed as the faddish popularity of medieval catholicism among historians (p.221). But never fear, Cantor assures us "the truth of the older [Protestant/Whig] view cannot be denied and will slowly be reasserted." Hogwash.

Possible examples can be multipled from almost any page of the book but perhaps I have already gone on too long.

If someone ever gets around to filing that lawsuit, sign me up for the plaintiff's list. I figure they owe me for the purchase price of the book as well as a litle something in compensation for the hours I spent reading it and waiting (in vain) for it to get less awful.

This is a VERY fast read. As a lot of the other reviews have noted, Cantor leaves a lot out. Which is just fine. I don't think his intent was to write the definitive text of John of Gaunt and the era he lived in. That would have required several volumes and only serious academics would have been interested in it. Cantor is more interested in writing stuff that sells as opposed to writing the absolute best history on the market. A lot of good writers (Barbara Tuchman, Lord Norwich) do this and I don't have a problem with it. Historical studies will never reach a wider audience if books aren't written to engage the public. Call it popular history. While this book struggles at times to engage its audience, it's meant to be a very broad overview. The purpose was to show that Gaunt lived in at the end of an era and the beginning of a new era - it wasn't to explain in detail the socioeconomic, military-political realities of Western Europe during John of Gaunt's lifetime.

This history did not live up to expectations set by the fly leaf. Cantor rambles, contradicts himself and fails to support his points. He makes statements about Gaunt's emotional state and motivation which he does/can not substantiate. The editing was sub-par as well: at one point the word "there" should have been replaced by "therefore" in order for the sentence to make sense. I forced myself to finish the book, and found it interesting for the most part, but was overall irritated that the author of such a poorly written book could received such glowing reviews from "The New Yorker" and "The Washington Post" > did they read this?? I doubt it.