Richard Brooks (1) (1949–)

This is an account of the life and military times of William Marshal, a major but undeservedly neglected figure in English history. His steady role supporting the Angevin kings of England over several decades was unparalleled. In particular it is no exaggeration to say that his role of regent in the minority of the boy king Henry III, after the death of King John, saved the country from conquest by the French dauphin Louis. Owing to the unpopularity of King John, most of his barons supported show more Louis's very tenuous claim to the English crown, willing even to countenance the heir to the French crown on the English throne, rather than see John triumph. John inadvertently and ironically performed probably his best service to the future of his dynasty by dying in 1216 at the age of 49, taking some of the wind out of the sails of the barons' support for Louis. But even so, Louis held London and had a number of other successes before William's strategic leadership led to English victory in two decisive battles, at Lincoln in summer 1217 and at sea, off the Kentish coast at Sandwich, in the autumn of that year. Lincoln was "a decisive shift..... Before Lincoln, the royalists had never risked confronting Louis in the open; afterwards he dared not face them again." But London still held out. The naval battle of Sandwich was the end for Louis's claims, leaving him "unable to replace the losses at Lincoln, definitively ending his cross-Channel adventure". Even at the time it was "perceived as a major event, a providential deliverance from foreign invasion, comparable from our point of view with the Spanish Armada, Trafalgar, and the Battle of Britain." Without these two victories, England would have become a province of France, and the French crown, having already gained Normandy and other lands from the English crown during King John's reign, would have become vastly stronger. The only surprise is that these battles are not much better known as the key turning points in English history they undoubtedly are.

The book was a little uneven and there were drier passages on the evolution of military technology that I struggled with a bit. But these are important to understanding how things turned out the way they did, so no real complaint. show less

This was quite useful in that while the importance of Walcheren is often bandied about in general accounts of the NW Europe campaign (usually as a way of bashing Bernard Montgomery's military competence), it was good to get a detailed accounting of what went into the battle in question. In particular, I was unaware about the amount of dike-busting that went into this operation and the amount of menace the local population was under. Also, the critics who wonder if this could have all too show more easily turned into another Dieppe probably have a point; in terms of manpower this looks like it was something of an economy-of-force operation and more motivation on the part of the Germans might have meant disaster. show less

This was the first biography of William Marshal I have read, though I recently became more interested in him, due perhaps in part to Thomas Asbridge’s recent BBC Documentary. I can’t make comparison with others, though I really should make an effort to read David Crouch’s William Marshal: Knighthood War and Chivalry in the near future.

I would describe this book as more of a military biography, with extensive attention given to battles, campaigns, strategy and logistics. There is some show more danger of getting ‘bogged down’ in the detail (and there is a lot of detail) but it’s a book worth persevering with- though I confess it took me nearly two months to finish it, which is not usual considering the Kindle edition is only 250 pages. Not that the book is bad (and I can plead mitigating circumstances), on the contrary it’s a fascinating, crammed full of detail, asides and interesting tidbits (I never knew Archbishop Stephen Langton was the man who divided the Bible into chapters) but those expecting a quick, light and easy read may be disappointed.

However, anyone seeking a well-researched overview of the life, times and historical legacy of ‘The Marshall’, to give them a good ‘sense’ of the period should be pleased. I wouldn’t agree with all of the author’s conclusion’s or comparisons (he does seem to judge by modern standards every so often), the structure could have been better, and perhaps he has fallen in love with his subject. Yet for all his failings, which any failings he did have, it would be hard to admire William Marshal. How many septuagenarians, even today could lead a charge in battle or a regency government?

It would be no crime to finish this book with the belief that William Marshal is one of the great (if not the Greatest) largely unsung heroes of English history, who has been unfairly forgotten and side-lined. How many have heard of the Battle of Lincoln, or the naval debacle at Sandwich? Like King Alfred having been unjustly reduced in the popular memory to little more than the King who burned the cakes, William Marshall deserves more credit and popular recognition.

Altogether, recommended reading. I received a ebook version of this title from Netgalley in exchange for review. I was not required to write a positive one and all opinions expressed are my own. show less

Another Osprey title with huge quality control issues. The author carries a giant anti-Austrian chip on his shoulders, I wonder why. His bias prevents him from performing a proper analysis of the three armies (In my view, he overvalues the Sardinian army and neglects the rift within the French army between the Colonial pros and the national army.).

Brooks neither cites nor includes German language sources which results in curious round-about ways to get to the information: A German account show more published in English in the United States about the Austrians (twice removed: Austrian to German to English). His ignorance of German and Austria leads to a large number of easily spotted typos and inconsistent spelling.

The mistakes are unfortunately not confined to Austria. He writes that Napoleon III lacked "formal military experience". This is completely untrue. Napoleon III attended the Swiss artillery school in Thun and was an active Swiss militia officer. Americans might know about the 1857 Napoleon gun, further testament to his interest in artillery. Consulting any proper biography about Napoleon III would have prevented this howler (not however reading the English Wikipedia entry which is still silent about this), Italy was not completely reunited in 1870 - Trieste remained an Austrian city (fueling Italian irredentismo) .

The author fails to include even a glimpse of the reasons, the history or an account of what led to the war. It jumps from the presentation of the forces to the start of the campaign. The account of the campaign is not bad. A comparison to earlier French Italian campaigns could have highlighted some of the differences between Napoleon I and III, as well as explained some of the Austrian fears. Henri Dunant and the Red Cross merit nearly a paragraph of their own. The bad luck of both victorious and defeated generals in future wars might have been explored.

The commissioned illustrations are well done if biased. Austrians appear (apart from a handful of soldiers) but as casualties. Given that Solferino is nearly synonymous with the suffering and horror of war, an illustration would have been fitting (even the author's supposedly efficient casualty-removing railroads, given that its nearest line was 10 km away from the carnage).

Overall, the book is a casualty of a lack of editorship and quality control. The editors at Osprey must have been too busy with "Zombies - A hunter's guide" (a General Military book, sic!). Those unfamiliar with the topic should stay away from this title, otherwise they risk contamination with misinformation. show less