Lest anyone accuse me of trying to relevant, this week I'm reviewing a nearly fifty year old biography of King Charles VII by M.G.A. Vale which honestly felt surprisingly fresh and relevant despite its age. I was very impressed. Fully review below:

​

I was a little shocked when I found out that the most recent English language scholarly biography of King Charles VII of France was published in the 1970s. Charles’ long reign had a notoriously tumultuous start as King Henry V of England (about whom many biographies are available) arranged to have him disinherited in hopes of passing the claim to the English line. Henry died before the reigning French monarch, Charles VII’s father Charles VI, which meant that the dispute over who was truly king of France passed to his infant son, Henry VI, who also happened to be Charles VII’s nephew. Henry V’s brothers, acting as regent, would fight for control of France on behalf of their nephew against his other uncle, but it was Charles who would ultimately emerge triumphant. This is a critical period in Anglo-French history and Charles VII one of the central protagonists so it seems very odd that he has received only a fraction of the attention of his English counterparts - in English anyway, the French have understandably paid him a little more attention.

I was very interested to read Vale’s biography for a number of reasons. I was aware of but not familiar with M.G.A. Vale’s scholarship. He is a major figure in mid-20th, century English scholarship of the end of the Hundred Years War, which given how little has been done since makes him a major scholar in the field as a whole. Tragically, few of his books have remained in print. I was able to acquire a secondhand copy of Charles VII for a reasonable price, but I have struggled to acquire his other books on related topics such as English administration in Gascony in the fifteenth century.

The structure of Vale’s biography is interesting. Charles VII’s relatively long life - he lived to be 58 - includes periods about which we have plenty of evidence and periods where we know very little. A notoriously private individual he would spend long periods of time sealed away in relatively minor castles outside the major metropolitan regions of France. Vale approaches this problem of uneven source material by leaning in to it. Instead of a book that starts with Charles’ birth and follows a mostly linear path, Vale presents something closer to a series of vignettes focusing on key points within the life of the monarch. For example, large sections are devoted to Joan of Arc, her burning for heresy, and her posthumous re-trial that annulled the original verdict. Vale explores Charles relationship to Joan and her impact on his reputation, tackling questions like why it took so long for her initial condemnation to be annulled and whether she really had as big an impact on Charles as popular imagination depicts. Similarly, Vale gives plenty of detail about the 1440 revolt against Charles known as the Praguerie and later fallout with various lords whose relationship with him was spoiled by revolt and similar tensions.

Charles VII’s relationships with his court and especially his frequent clashes with eldest son, the future Louis XI, are a major focus of the book. Vale gives a very detailed picture of how Charles managed the people around him. This includes a detailed discussion of how Charles was able to survive through the difficult time when much of his kingdom was under English rule and then, once he had retaken it, how he managed a kingdom essentially recovering from a civil war. This makes for a very literal political history - it is a history of Charles VII as a political actor. Very little information is provided on Charles’ religious beliefs, the military history of his reign, or his impact on contemporary culture beyond a discussion of changes to how French royalty was presented and the political ramifications of those changes. I don’t mean that to criticise Vale. The focus he has chosen is completely understandable and for a biography that’s less than 300 pages it covers a lot. It only stands out because there are no other English language accounts of Charles to fill the gaps that Vale has passed over.

I found Vale’s account of Charles surprisingly refreshing given its age. I would almost believe it had been written in the past decade. Vale challenges many of the myths around Charles VII, which made the book feel very relevant but also was a slightly sad indicator of how these myths have survived despite Vale’s book being available for so long. Rather than the popular depiction of a weak monarch who was eventually forced to find his place by Joan of Arc, Vale shows a consistency in Charles’ behavior throughout his reign. A master of manipulating the people around him, Charles was a natural survivor whose early reign was focused on simply enduring rather than expanding. The shift towards a more active monarch aligns with his greater power as well as the greater security offered by his eventual marriage and heirs to continue his dynasty should anything happen to him. Vale’s version of Charles VII is very convincing and stands in sharp contrast with the popular depiction - one that can still be found in many histories of the end of the Hundred Years War. I really appreciated how Vale challenged my understanding of this monarch and gave me new insights not just into his reign but also into the political climate of France in the mid-fifteenth century.

Vale achieves what every good biography does: he gives a clear impression of the kind of person his subject was. There are places where I would have liked a little more detail and I found the writing dragged a little bit towards the end, but overall for an academic biography I found it very engaging and informative. I would definitely recommend it to anyone interested in the topic! I would just note that this is very much a specialist book and it assumes a certain base level knowledge of the Hundred Years War, which makes it great for people who are already familiar with the topic but a very poor introduction for anyone who may be new to the Hundred Years War.

​

If you liked this review you read more here: https://www.stuartellisgorman.com/blog/category/Book+Review

Probably jumping the gun here because I'm only a quarter of the way through, but I honestly didn't know it came out yet so I got excited and wanted to let people know...

Indigenous Continent: The Epic Contest for North America by Pekka Hämäläinen came out a little over a month ago. If you read, or heard of, Comanche Empire you know Hämäläinen was one of the vanguard of scholars to shift the narrative of North American history into Indian Country for popular history audiences. Instead of looking west across the frontier, putting colonists in the driver's seat, Ritcher, Hämäläinen, Calloway, Treuer, and others presented the history of North America as fundamentally indigenous. The limitation was, as with Comanche Empire, those works usually could only do justice to one nation or people. Calloway's One Vast Winter Count did an amazing job covering the West, and Ritcher's Facing East From Indian Country likewise tried a survey of the East. Indigenous Continent is Hämäläinen trying to write an introductory survey on indigenous history for the entire freaking continent.

And I think he kinda succeeds.

First, surveys are hard. The geographic and temporal spread means you are relying on other experts for topics outside of your field. In this Hämäläinen falls victim to a few early pitfalls. He didn't appear to read the recent epidemic disease literature by folks like Kelton, and routinely mentions waves of epidemics spreading in advance of early Spanish entradas in the Southeast. We don't have evidence for that (see Beyond Germs for an overview, and Epidemics and Enslavement for a case study of the U.S. Southeast specifically), so it is an early strike against him.

Hämäläinen did, however, read The Other Slavery: The Uncovered Story of Indian Enslavement in America by Reséndez and took the lessons on the impact of indigenous slavery to heart. His narrative centers enslavement as one of the main contributors to demographic collapse in the Caribbean. Outside of Reséndez I can't think of a recent pop history that so centers indigenous slavery in the narrative. So that is great.

Hämäläinen's main thesis, and the themes he appears to be building, is the fluid kinship based social structures and alliances in North America created a fundamental barrier to colonial powers entrenched in a hierarchical bureaucratic mindset. He maintains colonists wanted to deal with kings/headmen and found themselves flummoxed by far more egalitarian social structures who valued flexibility and adaptability in the face of constantly changing circumstances. This adaptability meant a strong indigenous continent confined colonial presence in North America to small, weak, (for the most part) coastal communities for the first few centuries after contact. The genocidal violence of those early years, often portrayed as an indicator of colonial strength, is, in Hämäläinen's view an indicator of terrified weakness. I need to dive further in to see how he deals with the frontier rolling westward, and the atrocities of the later massacres on the Great Plains.

Thus far, this looks like a great pop history introduction to indigenous North America. The prose is easy to read. He explains complex concepts smoothly for newbies. The bibliography is solid for diving deeper into topics of interest. He makes mistakes, but I think I'm going to agree with Treuer's New Yorker review that the pros of having this grand survey of indigenous North American history designed to pull in newbies outweigh his missteps.

Since I recently finished The Red and the Black, I have become curious if there is any good/recommended biography of Napoleon. Looked in the book list and didn't see one. I feel like I read about the Revolution, and the post-Napoleonic period, fairly often, but not about the actual time when Napoleon was in charge. I don't know anything really about the Directory or the Consulate or the Empire. (I know the clothes pretty well, but other than that I feel like all I have is inferences made from offhand remarks etc.)

Don't really care about childhood or relationships or even personality that much, but I am intrigued to learn about the feats that transfixed Europe and made so many wannabe-Napoleons the protagonists of 19th century novels, how things were administered in such a big brief empire, the Concordat and the Law Code, emancipation of the Jews, etc etc.

Does anybody know of any articles or books that provide a broad overview of the earliest development of money? Particularly the ancient near East? Also, more theoretical approaches to the history of money. I know there’s a vast literature out there, and some sort of literature, and some sort of review would be helpful.

Heyo, any recommendations for a first read on cookery in Europe (specific place or general) in the middle ages (anytime).