[WestminsterGuy]

I have recently read Ian Mortimer's new book on King Henry V and I really enjoyed it. It's a thrill, since Mortimer doesn't just focus on Agincourt but also on the Council of Constance, the Earl of Cambridge's plot against Henry V, and the siege of Harfluer. Henry is not built up into this Shakespearian hero, but brought down from literature and back into history, where we see that Henry was not Dashing king Henry but Cruel King Henry. This book is very fascinating.

[Dave Musgrove]

Yes, I've had a scan of it too. You know he's written for us in the current mag and is on the podcast. His last book about Daily life in medieval England was a corker too - well worth a read that one. Mortimer's big line on the Agincourt book is that he's looking in detail at just one year, so he's writing a microhistory in essence of 1415. He thinks it's a new and exciting way of studying the past - not the same as same Frank McLynn's 1759 as he has restricted himself to studying documents from just 1415 whereas McLynn's book, though focused on 1759 didn't take quite so tight an approach. What does everyone else think?