Tudors and Wizards

Books read this week: The Later Middle Ages (George Holmes) 6/10, Princep's Fury (Jim Butcher) 6/10, First Lord's Fury (Jim Butcher) 6/10

Books unfinished this week: England Under The Tudors (G.R. Elton) 7/10, A Brief History of the Tudor Age (Jasper Ridley) 2/10

Another slightly broken up week for me; I've just got back from holiday and there's lots still to do, so this entry will probably be quite short. So, this week's books. Princep's Fury and First Lord's Fury are the last two volumes in Jim Butcher's Codex Alera. They're pretty good, but I said pretty much everything I have to say about the Codex Alera last week.

The Later Middle Ages covers the period between 1272 and 1485 - so Edward I to Richard III. It's a good read, fairly accessible, interesting and (as far as I can tell) accurate. The period is covers has some of our least attractive and most incompetent monarchs (hello Richard II, Edward II and Henry VI), but also the Wars of The Roses, which I always enjoy reading about. One of the things about the Wars of the Roses which I don't think is properly appreciated, but which was shown very well in Game of Thrones (which is basically the Wars of the Roses, but with added dragons), is how much the war was caused because a small group of very powerful, extremely closely related people couldn't stand each other; we tend to expect wars to start for grand political reasons; to fight over resources or principles. We don't (nowadays) generally expect tens of thousands of people to die just because you can't stand spending another Sunday at your gran's with cousin Steve.

I've also listed two books I've started, but not quite finished yet. I read about 3/4 of Elton's England Under The Tudors while I was on holiday, but the book's not mine, so I've had to leave it behind. It is a very good book, and mixes political and economic history to give a well rounded portrait of the period. I often feel that Henry VII is very underrated; a cold, ruthless man, but given to political mercy and certainly a far more attractive figure than his psychotic manchild of a son. And frankly, you have to admire any king who insists on personally inspecting and initialing every single page of the country's accounts for his entire reign.

The book also gave me a renewed appreciation of the debt modern British government owes to Thomas Cromwell; Parliament, the Cabinet system and the role of the Secretary of State all owe their origins to him, as does the concept of a civil service that operates without direct and continuous input from the monarch. Of course, none of that stopped Henry VIII chopping off his head so that he could get married (again). It is truly amazing how much the modern British state is a result of the actions of the two Cromwells, Thomas and Oliver.

It is a strange thing how often you find that a dynasty with two good rulers and the balance made up of incompetents; for the Tudors we have Henry VII (good), Henry VIII (psychotic manchild), Edward VI (psychotic child), Mary (religious fanatic) and Elizabeth (good). With the Stuarts in England we have James I (competent), Charles I (fuckwit), Charles II (competent) and James II (fuckwit). The Julian dynasty in Rome: Julius Ceasar (genius), Augustus (genius), Tiberius (depraved fuckwit), Caligula (demented fuckwit), Claudius (fuckwit) and Nero (fuckwit with delusions of talent). Of course, it's not a hard and fast rule; just a useful rule of thumb.

A Brief History of the Tudors on the other hand is not a good book; the very first sentence informs me that "The Tudor Age began on 7 August 1483 when Henry Tudor landed at Milford Haven". As any fule kno, Henry Tudor landed in Milford Haven in 1485 just before the battle of Bosworth. I read a couple of pages more, just to confirm that yes, the author is under the impression that Richard III reigned for exactly one month, and then I stopped. I doubt I'll ever look at the book again.