John Julius Norwich: Four Princes. (Book Review)
After I read Matthew Kneale's "Rome in Seven Sackings" book, algorithms reccommended this one to me, which is explainable by the subtitle: Henry VIII, Francis I, Charles V, Suleiman the Magnificent and the Obsessions that Forged Modern Europe”
On the plus side - and this is a huge plus - it's very entertaining to read, breezily written, and Norwich deserves credit for showing how European history in the era he picked was an interwoven tapestry instead of a one-country-standing-alone saga and how the politics of the four rulers he picked shaped and influenced each other. Extra bonus for making Suleiman one of the four and hammering home how the expansion of the Ottoman Empire was a huge factor especially in the HRE (Holy Roman Empire) versus France struggles, and for doing a decent job of explaining the various Popes and their own widely different policies during the era in question.
Part of what makes the volume so easy to read is unfortunately also a downside if you want to take it as history. Norwich hasn't met a salacious story he doesn't like, and he doesn't believe in source naming, for the most part, let alone evidence checking. I mean, I sympathize: when it comes to historical fiction, I go with the most sensational often, too. But the book is labeled non-fiction, and thus it has to be held to certain standards. Norwich being opinionated is one thing: he has his faves, and isn't shy of showing it, so Katherine of Aragon is the best of Henry's wives bar none, Catherine Parr comes near but only almost, which makes her still "better than all four of her predecessors in Henry's bed put together", Suleiman's favourite wife Roxelane/Hürrem Sultan doesn't deserve the great tomb she got, Charles' son Philip (II, of Spain) must have been a disappointment to his father since Norwich finds him dull and less intelligent than Dad (sidenote: not what Charles said about Philip! just what Norwich thinks he ought to have felt), and so on. You can argue with those opinions, but I'm actually relieved he's open about them instead of being coy. Where I do feel he could have at least made some effort in source checking or hey, footnoting, is when he comes up with some genuine howlers, like claiming Mary (I, daughter of Henry and Catherine) had her father's body secretly dragged out of his tomb and burned, because he was a heretic. This certainly would have been news to the people who in 1813 when some reconstruction of the chapel was due found Henry VIII's earthly remains very much unburned where they were supposed to be.
Carried away with Anne Boleyn dislike ("nobody liked her, by the end not even Henry"), he also states we will never know whether or not she had sex with any or all of those men she was accused with. Well, you can't prove a negative, Norwich, sure, but we do know at least she can't have had sex with several of them on the dates where Cromwell said she did, since she and the guys weren't even in the same palace but miles and miles away from each other. On other dates, she'd only recently given birth, which doesn't make it impossible, but certainly less than likely. Not that you'd know as much when reading Norwich's book.
Turkish history isn't my forte, but even some quick googling informs me that Norwich's other least favourite concubine-gone-wife, Hürrem Sultan/Roxelane, also is blamed by him for some things she can't have done. To quote from another review: She is described as being the one behind Grand Vizier Ibrahim's "assassination" (which is completely wrong since Ibrahim was executed on Suleyman's orders inside Topkapi Palace and not in his palace, where Norwich says that the blood stains were visible for three years) because she coveted his position for her son-in-law Rüstem Pasha (too bad that Rüstem wasn't her son-in-law in 1536, as he married Mihrimah Sultan only in 1539. Plus, it would take him years to finally become Grand Vizier). Of course she is also blamed for Mustafa's death (because why not) but especially for his young son Murad's? First of all, Mustafa's young son was called Mehmed, Murad was Selim's son, and secondly Mehmed was executed because the sons of executed princes were executed too. So it wasn't Hürrem Sultan who ordered his execution, but Suleyman. She couldn't have ordered someone's execution, she didn't have that power.
As for the Habsburgs starring in this volume: Norwich does a reasonably good job on Charles himself (confessing in the preface he used to dismiss and dislike him as a boy for being German, what with WWII going on in his childhood, but learning more about him - including the fact he was only one quarter German and culturally Burgundian, having grown up in today's Belgium, and then he made himself into a Spaniard - he warmed up to him), but is going for cyphers for the rest of the clan. Which is a let down because there were some fascinating women among them. Between Charles' aunt Margaret of Austria, who negotiated some key treaties between Charles and his arch nemesis Francis, and was called the best diplomat of her era, his sister Mary of Hungary (given that Hungary's near total conquest by the Ottomans is a huge factor in this book, there was more than enough reason to include her in more than by namechecking), who succeeded Margaret of Austria as governor of the Netherlands, did her valiant best in mediating between Charles and brother Ferdinand when the two clashed over the succession, and once got into hot water for letting Luther dedicate a book to her, and Charles' illegitimate daughter Margaret of Parma (who'd govern the Netherlands in Philip's time), there was ample material to explore, but alas, they don't get the page time devoted to Henry's marital shenanigans. About Charles' oldest sister, Eleanor, who was married first to King Manuel of Portugal and then to his enemy Francis I. of France in a vain attempt to help ending that particular feud, Norwich only says (twice) that she was plain and had a "curious absence of personality". Well, Norwich, sure, if you leave out anything that could have made her more dimensional, such as her youthful love affair with Friedrich of the the Palatinate (a love letter of his to her was caught, resulting in Charles breaking up the two since he needed Eleanor for politics), or the heartrendering story of how she tried to see the daughter from her first marriage and waited for three weeks for said daughter to show up at a pre-arranged meeting, only to be snubbed. When Eleanor died, Charles said sadly that she was his elder by fifteen months and he didn't think it would be as long till he followed her, which turned out to be correct; Eleanor, Charles and Mary of Hungary all died within a year from each other, with Mary following her siblings. They'd grown up together at Margaret's court in Mechelen and thus were seen as the "Flemish siblings", while their younger siblings, Ferdinand and Catherine, who had grown up in Spain were the "Spaniards", and the life long closeness of the elders hailed from there. How does this show up in Norwich's book? By his stating with some surprise that Charles and Mary "genuinely grieved for their plain sibling".
I'm getting carried away myself now. Back to praise: for all that putting Henry first in the subtitle - since this is a book marketed at an English speaking audience, this makes sense - , Norwich does a great job illuminating everyone's pov, i.e. you hear as much about how Charles and Francis saw each other and why each felt threatened by and the need to contain the other, or why Suleiman made it all the way to Vienna and was stopped there, from his pov, not just from the Austrians. He points out that Suleiman, executed relations and offspring and beheaded enemies not withstanding, actually was more "tolerant" in the modern sense than any of the three Christian monarchs when it came to religion, as long as his subjects recognized him as their overlord. And he's not shy in pointing out how futile Henry VIII's French wars were, a throwback to the Middle Ages. (Basically: Henry wanting to be Henry V. and have his very own Agincourt. He really really wasn't, and he really really didn't.) Mind you, Norwich thinks Henry should have put that money and effort into overseas "exploration" (read: colonisation) instead, in which he showed no interest, because then "parts of South America would speak English today". Which tells you something about Norwich. And he's almost endearingly unabashed in his Catherine of Aragon fanboying. (A far better scholar in Latin than Henry, as even Henry had to admit! A ruler! Best Queen Consort ever!) Like I said, I don't mind, I just wish he'd given more page time to the other fascinating ladies of the era as well.
Conclusion: if you want to know more about the era and be entertained at the same time, this is a good start. Just don't take it as gospel but, once your interest has awoken, check out other sources, too. This entry was originally posted at https://selenak.dreamwidth.org/1452482.html. Comment there or here, as you wish.
On the plus side - and this is a huge plus - it's very entertaining to read, breezily written, and Norwich deserves credit for showing how European history in the era he picked was an interwoven tapestry instead of a one-country-standing-alone saga and how the politics of the four rulers he picked shaped and influenced each other. Extra bonus for making Suleiman one of the four and hammering home how the expansion of the Ottoman Empire was a huge factor especially in the HRE (Holy Roman Empire) versus France struggles, and for doing a decent job of explaining the various Popes and their own widely different policies during the era in question.
Part of what makes the volume so easy to read is unfortunately also a downside if you want to take it as history. Norwich hasn't met a salacious story he doesn't like, and he doesn't believe in source naming, for the most part, let alone evidence checking. I mean, I sympathize: when it comes to historical fiction, I go with the most sensational often, too. But the book is labeled non-fiction, and thus it has to be held to certain standards. Norwich being opinionated is one thing: he has his faves, and isn't shy of showing it, so Katherine of Aragon is the best of Henry's wives bar none, Catherine Parr comes near but only almost, which makes her still "better than all four of her predecessors in Henry's bed put together", Suleiman's favourite wife Roxelane/Hürrem Sultan doesn't deserve the great tomb she got, Charles' son Philip (II, of Spain) must have been a disappointment to his father since Norwich finds him dull and less intelligent than Dad (sidenote: not what Charles said about Philip! just what Norwich thinks he ought to have felt), and so on. You can argue with those opinions, but I'm actually relieved he's open about them instead of being coy. Where I do feel he could have at least made some effort in source checking or hey, footnoting, is when he comes up with some genuine howlers, like claiming Mary (I, daughter of Henry and Catherine) had her father's body secretly dragged out of his tomb and burned, because he was a heretic. This certainly would have been news to the people who in 1813 when some reconstruction of the chapel was due found Henry VIII's earthly remains very much unburned where they were supposed to be.
Carried away with Anne Boleyn dislike ("nobody liked her, by the end not even Henry"), he also states we will never know whether or not she had sex with any or all of those men she was accused with. Well, you can't prove a negative, Norwich, sure, but we do know at least she can't have had sex with several of them on the dates where Cromwell said she did, since she and the guys weren't even in the same palace but miles and miles away from each other. On other dates, she'd only recently given birth, which doesn't make it impossible, but certainly less than likely. Not that you'd know as much when reading Norwich's book.
Turkish history isn't my forte, but even some quick googling informs me that Norwich's other least favourite concubine-gone-wife, Hürrem Sultan/Roxelane, also is blamed by him for some things she can't have done. To quote from another review: She is described as being the one behind Grand Vizier Ibrahim's "assassination" (which is completely wrong since Ibrahim was executed on Suleyman's orders inside Topkapi Palace and not in his palace, where Norwich says that the blood stains were visible for three years) because she coveted his position for her son-in-law Rüstem Pasha (too bad that Rüstem wasn't her son-in-law in 1536, as he married Mihrimah Sultan only in 1539. Plus, it would take him years to finally become Grand Vizier). Of course she is also blamed for Mustafa's death (because why not) but especially for his young son Murad's? First of all, Mustafa's young son was called Mehmed, Murad was Selim's son, and secondly Mehmed was executed because the sons of executed princes were executed too. So it wasn't Hürrem Sultan who ordered his execution, but Suleyman. She couldn't have ordered someone's execution, she didn't have that power.
As for the Habsburgs starring in this volume: Norwich does a reasonably good job on Charles himself (confessing in the preface he used to dismiss and dislike him as a boy for being German, what with WWII going on in his childhood, but learning more about him - including the fact he was only one quarter German and culturally Burgundian, having grown up in today's Belgium, and then he made himself into a Spaniard - he warmed up to him), but is going for cyphers for the rest of the clan. Which is a let down because there were some fascinating women among them. Between Charles' aunt Margaret of Austria, who negotiated some key treaties between Charles and his arch nemesis Francis, and was called the best diplomat of her era, his sister Mary of Hungary (given that Hungary's near total conquest by the Ottomans is a huge factor in this book, there was more than enough reason to include her in more than by namechecking), who succeeded Margaret of Austria as governor of the Netherlands, did her valiant best in mediating between Charles and brother Ferdinand when the two clashed over the succession, and once got into hot water for letting Luther dedicate a book to her, and Charles' illegitimate daughter Margaret of Parma (who'd govern the Netherlands in Philip's time), there was ample material to explore, but alas, they don't get the page time devoted to Henry's marital shenanigans. About Charles' oldest sister, Eleanor, who was married first to King Manuel of Portugal and then to his enemy Francis I. of France in a vain attempt to help ending that particular feud, Norwich only says (twice) that she was plain and had a "curious absence of personality". Well, Norwich, sure, if you leave out anything that could have made her more dimensional, such as her youthful love affair with Friedrich of the the Palatinate (a love letter of his to her was caught, resulting in Charles breaking up the two since he needed Eleanor for politics), or the heartrendering story of how she tried to see the daughter from her first marriage and waited for three weeks for said daughter to show up at a pre-arranged meeting, only to be snubbed. When Eleanor died, Charles said sadly that she was his elder by fifteen months and he didn't think it would be as long till he followed her, which turned out to be correct; Eleanor, Charles and Mary of Hungary all died within a year from each other, with Mary following her siblings. They'd grown up together at Margaret's court in Mechelen and thus were seen as the "Flemish siblings", while their younger siblings, Ferdinand and Catherine, who had grown up in Spain were the "Spaniards", and the life long closeness of the elders hailed from there. How does this show up in Norwich's book? By his stating with some surprise that Charles and Mary "genuinely grieved for their plain sibling".
I'm getting carried away myself now. Back to praise: for all that putting Henry first in the subtitle - since this is a book marketed at an English speaking audience, this makes sense - , Norwich does a great job illuminating everyone's pov, i.e. you hear as much about how Charles and Francis saw each other and why each felt threatened by and the need to contain the other, or why Suleiman made it all the way to Vienna and was stopped there, from his pov, not just from the Austrians. He points out that Suleiman, executed relations and offspring and beheaded enemies not withstanding, actually was more "tolerant" in the modern sense than any of the three Christian monarchs when it came to religion, as long as his subjects recognized him as their overlord. And he's not shy in pointing out how futile Henry VIII's French wars were, a throwback to the Middle Ages. (Basically: Henry wanting to be Henry V. and have his very own Agincourt. He really really wasn't, and he really really didn't.) Mind you, Norwich thinks Henry should have put that money and effort into overseas "exploration" (read: colonisation) instead, in which he showed no interest, because then "parts of South America would speak English today". Which tells you something about Norwich. And he's almost endearingly unabashed in his Catherine of Aragon fanboying. (A far better scholar in Latin than Henry, as even Henry had to admit! A ruler! Best Queen Consort ever!) Like I said, I don't mind, I just wish he'd given more page time to the other fascinating ladies of the era as well.
Conclusion: if you want to know more about the era and be entertained at the same time, this is a good start. Just don't take it as gospel but, once your interest has awoken, check out other sources, too. This entry was originally posted at https://selenak.dreamwidth.org/1452482.html. Comment there or here, as you wish.