William Rosen is at it again! The Third Horseman wonderfully combines history and science to make an exciting book on Europe in the 14th Century.
Rosen is a popular historian, and this is the third book I've read by him. Although his background seems to be from the editing and publishing world, he seems to have now carved a niche for himself in the popular history sphere.
The Third Horseman is of course drawing our attention to the mythical third horseman of the apocalypse, who brings famine in his wake.
The Great Famine which lasted roughly 7 years in the early part of the 14th Century --although the worst years were the 1315-17 period-- completely ravaged Europe, especially North-West Europe. The reasons, according to Rosen, were mainly due to sudden change in the climate of the North Atlantic. This is somewhat backed by data recorded in tree rings and ice cores, but clearly Rosen is uncomfortable with these topics and we are advised to take his hypothesis at face value. What we do know for sure is that an era known as the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) abruptly came to an end in the 14th Century. The MWP --which lasted from the 8th to the 14th Centuries-- was marked by higher average temperatures across the globe than any time, well since the advent of early European civilization. It was certainly far warmer (about 1-3 degrees centigrade warmer, per annum, which is heck of a lot) in the MWP than say the Roman Empire. According to Rosen, and many other historians now, the MWP uncannily coincides with the heyday of the so-called Dark Ages (Rosen doesn't use this term, he prefers early Middle Ages). Feudalism and the Church rule, and we can see both these receding with the warm temperatures.
The sudden change in climate in the North Atlantic meant that NW Europe received devastating rainfall in 1315. This lead to wholescale destruction of farmland in England, the Low Countries, France, and although the records are somewhat sketchy here: Scandinavia, Germany and the Baltic. Since these were the days before any kind of nation-states existed (although, France and England were somewhat on that path), and no central authority existed and trade was limited, famine was sure to follow. Rosen spends quite a bit of time detailing the horrific effects of food-deprivation on an already malnourished, mainly peasant population of Europe. As if agriculture weren't alone hit, Europe was also hit by a barrage of diseases which mainly affected cattle (England and Flanders both depended on sheep, indeed as Rosen puts it: English economy was wool). Whether this was a freak co-incidence or related to the anomalous climate is left unexplained.
The mortality rate approached 10% across most of Europe, and in certain places such as towns (although townspeople were richer, they didn't produce their own food which really came back to haunt them) or border areas where nobody's writ ran, a staggering 20% to 30% people died.
However, most of the book is given over to the other major cause of the famine, and another horseman of the apocalypse: war. This to me was the main thread that gave narrative drive to the book. Rosen excels at writing with verve and brought alive 14th Century feuding, mainly between England and Scotland. William Wallace (since this a popular history book, references to Braveheart are many), Longshanks and Robert the Bruce regularly appear. Also intertwined are few episodes set in France, mainly the fight between the Flemings and the nascent French state; and the last bit even covers the Great Famine's effect on Germany coupled with war between two rival claimants for the Holy Roman Empire's throne.
It is clear that if the 14th Century European world wasn't so violent, the famine's effects wouldn't be so dreadful. The raids carried out by the English, Scots, French and Flemings in their rivals territories, especially when these areas' agricultural production had taken a severe hit, further damaged the chances of the villagers recovering from the famine. Unfortunately, they paid the brunt of the costs of the war, and a difference can be noticed in that usually before the 14th Century, in the MWP, the armies put on the field where usually much smaller and the wars didn't last as long. But the Scots managed to turn the fight between kings and lords into a fight for Scotland itself, probably the very first instance of nationalism. This prolonged the conflict into a decades-long struggle (one can say it has resurfaced, only using democracy and referendums as vehicle now thankfully). The unique situation of the highly urbanised Flemings who revolted is also discussed, and Rosen convincingly paints the picture that they were such a problem for the French that all plans of an French invasion of England in support of the Scots were shelved (something I used to wonder about). So, although in the end Flanders was successfully assimilated by the French kingdom, they helped the Scots stay independent for centuries more, something that bears thinking about according to me.
There are quite a few negative things I can talk about this book. At times, the narrative jumps far too quickly among far too many topics, especially in the beginning. Such as: climate change, physics, ocean currents, Vikings, climate again, farming, England, the Norse, Greenland, marketing and finally climate again! It feels like you're reading a stream-of-conciousness rather than a book. This gave a jarring effect that the book wasn't edited enough, shocking considering most of Rosen's career before he took to writing was spent in editing. And considering that I thought these were flaws in his earlier works I've read, Rosen has clearly not altered his style. Pity. Because they can turn a truly well written, exceptional book into merely a good book. Also, his penchant for bizarre, patronizing, diversions continues. In a book about a 6th Century plague, he talked about the "Cambrian Explosion of life" a phenomena that occurred 500 million years ago which in no way adds to the narrative. Here he talks about fluid mechanics, battle at the Stamford Bridge and a sundry other things that suspiciously look like padding. Also there are many, many footnotes which add a few bon mots and interesting facts to the book, but otherwise take you out of the narrative (especially since they weren't hyperlinked properly in my e-ARC). Moreover, for a book that should be about famine, its spends most of its time on military history. While I personally don't have a problem with this since I enjoy a battle description nearly as much as the next guy, for people who picked this book up to learn just about the famine and its wider ramifications on Europe, they will be disappointed at the bulk of what they have to read.
Overall the Third Horseman was fun to read. Rosen's skill remains at combining many topics including history, economics and science and making a narrative out of the mash without giving it a stodgy, academic feel. He also writes for a lay-reader and you can pick this up knowing only enough about history from having watched Braveheart and the Vikings. A more tightly edited and dare I say it, more researched book would have made it immeasurably better.
Read from: 13-05-2014 to 17-05-2014; ARC kindle copy.
Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars.
Full Disclosure: I received an ARC from the publisher in exchange for a review.
No comments:
Post a Comment