I picked this up for next to nothing in a charity shop, purely on the strength of the title: 'The Perfect King' is a strong opening move for any biography, and I wanted to see if Ian Mortimer could prove it.

Highly detailed and clearly written - although Mortimer does have a weird habit of never referring to events by their relative distance in time from one another, so you constantly have to check when the hell you are. This is definitely a biography, not a work of history - you follow Edward through his life in sequence, with very little connection to things happening elsewhere which do not involve him directly (with the occasional exception of his three eldest sons), which can leave the narrative feeling a little isolated from events.

My biggest problem with the book is that it dips far too often into hagiography. The title is explained away early on as deriving from prophetic expectations of the young Edward, expectations he felt he had to live up to, but then Mortimer goes on to seemingly try to prove the thesis anyway. Edward's warmaking, even at its most brutal, is brushed aside as just 'the way things went back then', despite occasional allusions to contemporary moral outrage, and this trend of making excuses is extended into the king's personal life as well. The final couple of chapters do depart from this, but I found it quite telling that this coincides with Edward's increasing physical infirmity and mental disability, as if the only thing Edward ever did wrong was get old and sick.

In Mortimer's favour, he did convince me that his argument that Edward II survived Berkley Castle in 1327 is plausible, something I had been VERY sceptical of previously. He also treats both Isabella of France and Edward III's mistress Alice Perrers with far more charity than most historians usually deign to give them, falling into the misogynistic stereotypes of the chroniclers they are drawing on. Also, he uses the phrase 'avarice of capitalism' during one of his rare forays into broader economic history, which wins him points from me.

All in all, worth reading for a detailed, favourable overview of the man Edward III, but lacking in broader context and any sustained critique of the king and his society. ( )

A non-fiction read about said king. However, it was much more, too much! I slogged through this book for over 4 months. The first third of the book is a scathing review of the Victorian biographers of Edward III and their shortcomings. Snooooooooooze! Detailed battle strategies, formations, and weaponry: snoooze! At least 25% of the book are historical notes and bibliography. Although I finished this book, I want to read a shorter, condensed, and perhaps novelized form of Edward III! 560 pages ( )

Interesting, detailed, took forever to read but worth it. ( )

A great book to read for some insight into Edward III. The battle descriptions are especially good. Although, I am still chewing on the author's belief that Edward II was not murdered, but survived well into his son's reign hidden away in Europe under the Pope's protection.
This does not read like a "dry" non-fiction history. Good stuff. ( )

Well-written and very informative. However, the author's attempt to defend his theory that Edward II was not yet dead when Edward III became king was a bit distracting. I also don't like how he would continue to speculate and speculate throughout the book. But overall, I would still recommend this book to anyone who wants to know more about Edward III ( )