I love history books for either one of these two reasons - either they are densely packed with historical information that i often find very juicy tangents to explore on my own and have many TIL moments (i am currently reading one such book called India in the Persianate Age); OR they tell a riveting story and read almost like a thriller novel (Anarchy by William Dalrymple was one such book). Unfortunately, this book was neither of those.
It is a short book (about 176 pages of content, excluding the notes, bibliography etc.), so its a quick read. But that might not have given the writer enough space to add enough content, enough juice so that you come out feeling like you have immersed yourself in that time and world. I admit that this might be too strict of a benchmark. But i believe if you are reading history, you do so seriously. A casual read that you dont 'retain' of, is not a good history book. And i didn't retain enough from this book.
I also wonder if i found the book lacking because it didn't have a central hypothesis, a central theme that it was trying to paint via historical facts and legends and stories. It is a book about Krishnadevraya, the most successful and hence well known rulers of the Vijayanagar empire - and like any biography, it talks about the context in which he became king, the people closest to him, his politics, his wars, and the eventual decline of the empire. But it lacked the detail and the narrative you need for the picture to render completely. Again, Anarchy of William Dalrymple or India under the Persianate Empire are both good examples of books with a strong, central hypothesis and offering enough depth to reiterate that throughout the book.
The book references many historical artifacts, but it does so in a very dry manner. It is not fun to write the english translation of an inscription. Its great when it is referenced, but within the framework of a narrative or a story. In some parts, the book reads like it has been commissioned by Krishnadevraya himself to sing his praises - it goes so over the top. That was underwhelming.
Not to say the book does complete injustice to portraying Krishnadevraya or the context of his rule. It was interesting to learn that the Tirupati temple was a very important religious site for the king, and he seems to have visited there about 7 times. The story around how Krishnadevraya captured Raichur from the Adil Shahi sultanate was painted very well. It was also a TIL moment to learn that Prataprudradeva, the Gajapati king, was a rival for Raya throughout his reign - his conception of the Vijaynagar rulers as less then him because they came from a lower caste added fuel to that rivalry. But i did have to reference my notes to refresh my memory, which is what i meant by 'i didnt retain enough from this book'.
Overall, this was one of the books that i will forget with the passage of time and can't recommend it for people interested in the Vijaynagar empire or medieval Indian history.
