Cromwell's Spy by Dennis Sewell

A vivid biography of the elusive George Downing, a Puritan from colonial Massachusetts who became Oliver Cromwell's chief spy and a key figure in the Restoration.

Downing Street is synonymous with political power, perhaps only second to Pennsylvania Avenue. But for the builder behind one of the world's most famous streets—George Downing—it was a mere retirement project.

Throughout his storied life, Downing would be a soldier, a politician, a diplomat, and a spy. He came of age as a pioneer in colonial Massachusetts, graduated from Harvard, crossed the Atlantic to sign up for the English Civil War and fast became Oliver Cromwell’s chief of military intelligence. He was one of a close group of now-forgotten Americans in Cromwell’s circle who exerted enormous influence upon English political life during their Civil War.

Throughout his life, Downing was always at the center of events, engaging with the most illustrious men and women of his times. His uncle was the governor of Massachusetts; his cousin the governor of Connecticut. In England, his patrons were Oliver Cromwell and King Charles II. The famous diarist, Samuel Pepys, was his clerk; the great poet, John Milton, prepared his letters and dispatches. William of Orange was godfather to his son; his next-door neighbor was Queen Elizabeth of Bohemia; and when Downing finally built his street, his surveyor was Sir Christopher Wren, architect of St Paul’s Cathedral.

He would leave his mark on American soil as well. He played a key role in the founding of New York by helping to wrest Manhattan and Long Island from the Dutch. Yet he remains one of the most elusive figures of his age. In Dennis Sewell's rich and vivid Cromwell's Spymaster, Downing emerges as the extraordinary, enigmatic, and endlessly fascinating anti-hero of his own life story.

Review: The Irish War of Independence and Civil War edited by John Gibney

Synopsis: In the aftermath of the First World War, a political revolution took place in what was then the United Kingdom. Such upheavals were common in postwar Europe, as new states came into being and new borders were forged. What made the revolution in the UK distinctive is that it took place within one of the victor powers, rather than any of their defeated enemies.

In the years after the Easter Rising of 1916 in Ireland, a new independence movement had emerged, and in 1918-19 the political party Sinn Fein and its paramilitary partner, the Irish Republican Army, began a political struggle and an armed uprising against British rule.

By 1922 the United Kingdom has lost a very substantial portion of its territory, as the Irish Free State came into being amidst a brutal Civil War. At the same time Ireland was partitioned and a new, unionist government was established in what was now Northern Ireland. These were outcomes that nobody could have predicted before 1914. In The Irish War of Independence and Civil War, experts on the subject explore the experience and consequences of the latter phases of the Irish revolution from a wide range of perspectives.

Despite the number of pages, this was a lengthy read for me as the subject matter explored some very singular events and subjects that are an extension of the Irish Civil War of the 1920s.

This is niche content covering off specialised areas within the remit of Irish history. If you have no background in this subject matter, you will find it hard going as the authors of this collection of essays assume a prior and intimate knowledge.

Gibney notes that "... experts on the subject explore the experience and consequences of the latter phases of the Irish revolution from a wide range of perspectives ..." and topics covered range from a look at the files of the RIC collated within Dublin Castle; the Black and Tans; flirtations with Bolshevism and Fascism; the murder of the Mayor of Cork and the burning of Cork City from the perspective of the Fire Brigade; the use and fate of informers; social issues like the postal strike, the moratorium of public amusements as a form of protest, and a cricket match; before finishing off with a look at the women of Cumann na MBan.

For those for whom this is a particular area of study, this will make a nice addition to your required reading.

Baronial Reform and Revolution in England 1258-1267 ed. Adrian Jobson

The years between 1258 and 67 comprise one of the most influential periods in the Middle Ages in England. This turbulent decade witnessed a bitter power struggle between King Henry III and his barons over who should control the government of the realm. Before England eventually descended into civil war, a significant proportion of the baronage had attempted to transform its governance by imposing on the crown a programme of legislative and administrative reform far more radical and wide-ranging than Magna Carta in 1215. 

Constituting a critical stage in the development of parliament, the reformist movement would remain unsurpassed in its radicalism until the upheavals of the seventeenth century. Simon de Montfort, the baronial champion, became the first leader of a political movement to seize power and govern in the king's name.

The essays collected here offer the most recent research into and ideas on this pivotal period. Several contributions focus upon the roles played in the political struggle by particular sections of thirteenth-century society, including the Midland knights and their political allegiances, aristocratic women, and the merchant elite in London. 

The events themselves constitute the second major theme of this volume, with subjects such as the secret revolution of 1258, Henry III's recovery of power in 1261, and the little studied maritime theatre during the civil wars of 1263-7 being considered.

Review: Stephen and Matilda's Civil War - Cousins of Anarchy by Matthew Lewis

Synopsis: The Anarchy was the first civil war in post-Conquest England, enduring throughout the reign of King Stephen between 1135 and 1154. It ultimately brought about the end of the Norman dynasty and the birth of the mighty Plantagenet kings. When Henry I died having lost his only legitimate son in a shipwreck, he had caused all of his barons to swear to recognize his daughter Matilda, widow of the Holy Roman Emperor, as his heir and remarried her to Geoffrey, Count of Anjou. When she was slow to move to England on her father’s death, Henry’s favorite nephew Stephen of Blois rushed to have himself crowned, much as Henry himself had done on the death of his brother William Rufus. By following both sides of the dispute and seeking to understand their actions and motivations, Matthew Lewis aims to reach a more rounded understanding of this crucial period of English history and asks to what extent there really was anarchy.

Again, this is not a period that I have come into blindly - I have a number of books on the subject matter on my own books shelves. What I found in Lewis' book, with his alternating chapters between Stephen and Matilda, was a more balanced history of this turbulent period.

For most, the most common definition of this period is summarised as follows:

The Anarchy was a civil war in England and Normandy between 1135 and 1153, which resulted in a widespread breakdown in law and order. The conflict was a succession crisis precipitated by the accidental death by drowning of William Adelin, the only legitimate son of Henry I, in the sinking of the White Ship in 1120

However, what Lewis questions is that whilst this period was called The Anarchy, did this period between the death of Henry I (1153) and the accession of Henry II (1154) - see a complete and total breakdown and absence of government during Stephen's reign. For the very definition of the word anarchy is ".. a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems ..." and ".. absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal. ..."  For this was not the case - a king was in situ and recognised by both the Church and the Anglo-Norman Magnates, including Robert of Gloucester.

The Anarchy was quite simply a civil war in which there were four potential claimants - with only two interested enough to battle it out for a period of 19 years - Stephen and Matilda. I am taken back to the events of the Norman Conquest, when the death of a King left the playing field wide open - in this instance, we are not only left with a male relative who was favoured by the late King but with a female, whilst of unquestionable royal blood, at a time when such acceptance of a sole female monarch was just not on the cards. There was only one crown ... and for as long as one wanted it and the other refused to give it up, there were be no coming to terms.

The actual violence and destruction was not as widespread as is documented by the three main contemporary writers of the times, all of whose accounts are riddled with their own forms of bias. These chronicles were in essence, written by churchmen, recounting localised events and their direct effects whilst providing an opportunistic moral lesson at the same time.

England was hardly the peaceful realm when Stephen took the throne (for succession was still not hereditary at this point) - Normandy was in rebellion, Scotland and Wales were simmering with tension, and the selection of a king was more preferable to ".. the enforcement of lineal descent ...'' and the oaths made under duress in favour of the late king's nominated heir. Matilda was absent and in no hurry; Stephen, like his uncle before him, was on the spot, and once anointed, few with loathe to remove him  "... for who can stretch out his hand against the Lord’s anointed ....".

As I mentioned, Lewis portrays both Stephen and Matilda evenly.  Stephen is lauded for his careful balancing act in governing and maintaining unity of the realm whilst not upsetting the powerful magnates around him and on both sides of the Channel; and Matilda, who had " ... achieved more than many of her sex in her period .." and like so many women both before and after her, is only remembered for the men in her life. This is a fascinating period of history filled with powerful personalities that is worth exploring, and this book will provide a good introduction into the period.

further reading:

The Anarchy of King Stephen's Reign edited by Edmund King

Matilda: Empress, Queen, Warrior by Catherine Hanley

King Stephen and the Anarchy by Chris Peers

Stephen and Matilda: The Civil War of 1139-53 by Jim Bradbury

The Empress Matilda: Queen Consort, Queen Mother and Lady of the English by Marjorie Chibnall

The Reign of Stephen: Kingship, Warfare and Government in Twelfth-Century England by Keith J. Stringer

King Stephen's Reign (1135-1154) edited by Paul Dalton & Graeme J. White

King Stephen by Donald Matthew

Henry I by C. Warren Hollister

Henry I: King of England and Duke of Normandy by Judith A. Green

The Government of England Under Henry I by Judith A. Green

Review: Gunpowder Girls by Tanya Anderson

The US Civil War is not my forte - so apart from a couple of books, this, for me was a good and unique introduction into both Union & Confederate women.

Author Tanya Anderson was looking to focus on the role of women in the Civil War but was looking for a point of difference - In "Gunpowder Girls" she has achieved that in exploring briefly the role of women and young girls working in the arsenals - making the gun cartridges. But again, the author further narrows her purview to focus on three separate tragedies, all within a two years time frame, all of which had heavy losses of life, mainly women and young girls.

Covering three tragedies - at the Allegheny Arsenal, the Confederate States Laboratory and the Washington Arsenal, Anderson gives us a glimpse into the dangerous working conditions of these often poor, single immigrant women, and how a freak accident or ill-thought out action can have tragic consequences.

The clincher for me was that despite the investigations that followed, and other accidents (both before and after), nothing was really done to improve the working conditions and protect this vulnerable group. Even more alarming was that the families of these women received no form of compensation, except that which was often raised by their own communities or work colleagues.

This was well written and researched, with a good selection of location maps and images, and descriptions to give life to the times and working conditions of those who working in the arsenals.