I was wondering if anyone out there had a copy of "The Military Campaigns of the Wars of the Roses" by Phillip Haigh. My main question is: how much of the book deals with the "nuts and bolts" of the battle, or is it simply another rehash of the 'big picture' of each battle?

Don't worry, we are still working out the kinks with the forums. I have the Haigh book, it is good, but it is very much a "big picture" book. What you want for the nuts and bolts is the Andrew Boardman book of the Medieval Soldier in the Wars of the Roses.

Yes, I agree that Haigh is an overview of the battles, but I enjoyed it much more and found it much more valuable than Boardman. It was the first book I have read that was both engaging and comprehensive. I especially liked the political context provided, as it relates to the battles.

I disagree that Boardman is a better picture of things, as I find that he has an incorrect picture of cavalry and the role of infantry. You and I have discussed this matter, and I have been informed by other people that many of Mr. Boardman's terms and interpretations are often in error.

Specifically, he refers to "scourers", which is either an incorrect or misapplied term.

If his views weren't contradictory on several points, I could rely on his information more. As it is, I don't feel it's a good reference and don't encourage my group to read it. I had high hopes for it, but was sadly disappointed.

------------------
Cheers,

Actually, for the type of information Glenn was looking for, it is really the only book on the topic. I would say that the only problems that could be attributed to the book are his possibly over-emphasising the role of Cavalry - specificaly the scurriours in the battles of the Wars of the Roses, and his using the term Billmen.

It is the first book that covers a soldiers eye view of the war, and like any such book it is bound to have it's problems, especially as he is pioneering in this topic. A good dose of common sense applied to the reading will make it useful, especially if you compare the information to such books as "Warfare in the Middle Ages", by Phillipe Contamine, and Malcom Vales "War and Chivalry".

The strength of his work is that he does pose some very good questions and tries to look at areas not previously addressed. However, my real criticism of his work as that although he poses the questions he consistently fails to follow through with his logic and winds up either copping out or just imposing his own pet theory with little regard to the very evidence he has just presented. The classi example of this is as both Bob & Jeff have already stated, the use of horses.

And as Bob says his use of the term Billman smacks of a lack of conviction in using his own argeuements and evidence, leading to the contradictory arguements referred to by Bob.
(But then those who know me will know my almost pathological dislike of the modern reenactors and historians use of Billmen ... an excuse for playing with pointy sticks without understanding the history! ... I suppose I really ought to write that article on 'The Myth of the Medieval Billman'... )

I wouldn't go as far as Jeff in not recommending the book, but I'd put some extrememely heavy health warnings on it. It is a great book to get you thinking but a poor book in the conclusions.

As a BTW 'Scourers' sounds like a good topic for the Equestrian Forum?

A person new to the field may not know that some of the information is slanted or incorrect and will develop a view of this subject founded on Boardman's substandard information.

I do agree that this is the only work on the subject of the "medieval soldier", but expect a less conjectural and self contradictory stance when there is enough information out there if you apply it adequately.

Just my thoughts.

------------------
Cheers,

I missed the point on the "scourers" term. Numerous terms apply to the light cavalry, in part describing their role remit or emphasis on one of several duties they may be prescribed. Terms such as Harbingers, Spears, afore-riders (and even the unfortunately named behind-riders for rearguard) as well as scourers. Moreover there are innumerable ways of these terms beng spelt as there are regional dialects in c.15th England before uniform spelling.