When I studied history at university many, many moons ago, history and narrative were two completely separate entities. In fact history and narrative were not allowed in the same room together, not even a little bit of small talk. Us faux academics used to scorn those who pushed the dignified objective history with the exaggerated and flowery narrative, how very dare they. Pop history, we called it.

Since then I have toned down the snob a little, and come to see that yes history does have a natural narrative arch, and reading a history with a prominent narrative not only high lights the drama, intrigue and suspense but also highlight historical argument.

And after this long winded introduction I get to 'Henry V's Year of Glory'. Mortimer uses a specific narrative format, chronicling almost day by day of the year 1415, the year of Agincourt. This is a year of religious reform, political strife, and the usual royal murder and intrigue. By scaling back the time line, Mortimer is able to create one 551 page case study of the main issues in the early 15th century. '1415' is also a brilliant study of character, Henry V's character. How Henry reacted to his situation, both political and spiritual of the time is a reflection of religious zealousness and political ambition, with a dash of Daddy issues thrown in for good measure.

I was not overly familiar with Henry V when I picked up this biography. In fact all I knew was that Kenneth Branagh had played Henry in a Shakespeare adaption. Mortimer has a gift for historical narrative, taking you into candle lit halls, blood coated mud on the field of Agincourt, his writing is vivid and too the point. Mortimer's argument is also strong and well executed. This is a book many might not agree with, but it will be a interesting and absorbing debate.