Covering books and digital resources across all fields of history
Like us on FacebookFollow us on Twitter

ISSN 1749-8155


I am grateful for the chance to respond to Elisabeth Mincin’s review of my book because, for all her goodwill and expertise, she does not engage far with my reading of the Alexiad and, where she does, she often misrepresents it.

As an historian, she makes two main points about the Alexiad itself: that it is a flawed history yet a history of real events nevertheless.

My argument is that racism, defined as prejudice against ethnic descent coupled with discriminatory action, is generally triggered by political projects. This explains my approach to the 20th century: I wanted to understand the changing scale and nature of racism which led to processes of genocide.

I very much welcome this review, partly because it is supportive of the book, but also because I think that the substantive criticism within it is entirely reasonable. Some of that criticism concerns things which I consciously omitted, but the most useful elements of it are about the things which I got wrong.

I thank Dr. Al-Gailani for his careful reading of and thoughtful reflections on my book, and I appreciate the uncommon opportunity to respond to a few of the interesting observations that he raised.

Douglas Whalin's review of my 2013 book on social conflict in the age of Justinian, or, perhaps better, in the 'long sixth century', was doubly welcome.

I am very grateful to Dr Watson for such a generous and engaging review. Her own book, Under the Hammer: Edward I and Scotland, 1286–1307 (1997) – along with such works as Colm McNamee’s The Wars of the Bruces: Scotland, England and Ireland, 1306ံ–28 (1997) and A. A. M.

I have very little to add to Dr Linch’s extremely generous and thoughtful review. I am particularly pleased that he draws attention to the online commentary which is designed to supplement the biography at

It is gratifying to read that Tom Crook recognises the depth of primary research that lies behind our analysis and interpretation of public health in Edinburgh and the early career of Sir Henry Littlejohn.

It is extremely gratifying for an author to be faced with a review which takes his or her book on its own terms, and presents it much as it was intended. The description of the book provided by Paul Fouracre is absolutely fair – and the additional points raised (especially with regard to Mark Hovell) are genuinely enlightening.

Review Date: 
2 Oct 2014

Dr Chris A Williams undertakes an ambitious project in attempting to analytically discuss aspects of the development of a public institution over a 200-year period, within a publication limited to 242 pages.