Reviews for Henry V

The average rating for Henry V based on 2 reviews is 4.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2019-06-07 00:00:00 Andrew Bowering Henry V: The Practice of Kingship is a collection of essays about the aspects of Henry V’s policies and approaches to the role of king. This is quite old (first published in 1984) and out of print now, but the essays are still incredibly revealing, informative and surprisingly readable. The contributors include trustworthy historians such as G. L. Harriss and Christopher Allmand, and their arguments are clear and reasonable. This is not necessarily a revaluation of Henry V’s reign and kingship along the lines of “just another despot and war criminal” – which, to be honest, I’ve never found very credible – but it is a nuanced take, sometimes critical of Henry, other times reaffirming why he was so well-regarded in his lifetime.

Review # 2 was written on 2014-06-17 00:00:00 Troy Holmes A readable and well-researched work. Seward provides vivid portraits of Henry’s allies and enemies. The narrative is well-organized, and Seward does a fine job covering relevant issues like the terrible shape of the royal finances and Henry’s treatment of the civilian population. The book may strike some as overly simplistic. It’s based mostly on secondary sources, and the writing is often dull. Seward often writes confidently about what Henry must have been thinking or feeling. He also devotes a lot of space to the atrocities of Henry’s army (he seems to enjoy reminding the reader of these), and often blames them on Henry’s ambition. At one point he even claims that Henry’s invasion caused more damage than Hitler’s. Seward also considers Henry an overrated figure. His coverage of Henry during the Agincourt campaign and Henry’s skill as a strategist and commander is adequate, but it seems like Seward wants to get that part over with as soon as possible, and often refers to Henry as a cynical conniver and intriguer. At one point Seward writes that Henry had no intention of using peaceful means to secure his inheritance, wanted war at all costs, and used diplomacy merely to discredit the French. Seward seems to miss the point. Henry's invasion was imminent, he didn't expect the French to concede more, and his final letter to Charles VI was a useful propaganda tool. But this wasn't cynicism on Henry's part, rather it was Henry following the medieval laws of war. If Henry wanted to make the case that his cause was just, then he had to be careful to take all the steps, like consulting parliament, informing Europe's princes and the church, and laying out his case to the enemy. Still, a solid and informative history overall.