I find this book sometimes repetitive. It also seems to me that some information are considered certaintly known to the (english?) reader, so they need not be explained.

Michael Hicks excels in his specialist period of expertise in this comprehensive, concise and perhaps somewhat controversial work in which he challenges many long-held assumptions about the key figures and events in the Wars of the Roses, and demonstrates how some of these have their origins in Yorkist propaganda.

Were the wars until 1460 truly a dynastic struggle? Contemporaries did not think so, and until this time, Hicks shows the Yorkist faction stated that their main aim was political reform. Was Richard of York treated `harshly' by Henry VI? Not if you count escaping execution and being pardoned for treason four times as harsh.

This was indeed the case with Richard of York, who rebelled and raised arms against the King no less than 4 times between 1450 and 1459, and on at least two occasions his forces physically attacked the King's retinue. All of these were treasonable acts according to the law, so Richard was guilty of treason several times over, yet was pardoned in exchange for his oath of allegiance or capitulation.

In this regard King Henry was incredibly lenient towards York, but they Yorkists did not extend that magnanimity towards their rivals. As Hicks demonstrates they adopted a policy of eliminating their rivals in battles, skirmishes and even peacetime. The `battles' in which noblemen opposed to York were amongst the only casualties are testament to this.

Hicks also raises some intriguing issues surrounding Richard of York's title and claim to the throne, by demonstrating that there was not one single `right' or `true' system of succession in 15th century England, but rather several different systems, that could favour both York and Lancaster. He also shows how the circumstances in the infamous parliament of 1460 ensured that they were bound to favour York's claim.

What fascinated me the most was how Hicks succinctly demonstrated that the view of Henry IV's reign and usurpation that has existed since the time of Shakespeare and before is very much influenced by Yorkist spin, which is still prevalent today. All too often the Yorkists are viewed as the victims of Tudor propaganda, but few realise that House of York were all too were masterful in deployment of such propaganda for their own ends, which still colours our view of the Lancastrians today.

It cuts through simplistic and 'black and white' interpretations of this period in which the Yorkists are the `goodies' and the Lancastrians seen as the `baddies' by revealing the complexity of the politics of the age in which all sides were often equally immoral and dishonourable in their conduct. The author is not `pro' Lancastrian that I can see, and he is more then willing to criticise this side, but uses the same measure for the Yorkists. Hence this book is more balanced then many on the subject.

This book is `scholarly' but I did not find it nearly as hard going as many such books (as a History student I read a lot of them) and the author's method of breaking up long chapters into shorter sections under their own headings made the book a lot more readable. Overall this was an excellent and fascinating and challenging work that I find to be more balanced than most. ( )