Mark Konnert revisits his 1997 examination of Châlons-sur-Marne during the wars of religion but now in an expanded comparative perspective, systematically embracing Troyes, Reims, Sainte-Menehould, Vitry-le-François, Saint-Dizier, Langres, Chaumont, Bar-sur-Aube, Epernay, Mézières, and with more random excursions to Meaux and Provins. On what basis these town were selected is not entirely clear, since not all have substantial municipal records extant. Some were episcopal seats, some were legal and administrative centres, some retained significant industry. Population sizes were widely divergent, from the possible 30,000 of Troyes, the 10,000 or so of Châlons and Reims, to the much vaguer ‘few thousand’ or ‘smaller town’ which characterise Sainte-Menehould and Bar-sur-Aube. Meaux is only discussed in the context of the St Bartholomew's massacre, otherwise being excluded for lack of substantial municipal records and because of its stronger ties to Paris than to the province in which it actually lay; we are not told why Provins is omitted from detailed consideration, although it offers an important resource for the whole province in the shape of Claude Haton's memoirs. The variables that Konnert initially highlights – topography, political and administrative (both royal and ecclesiastical) structures, early experiences of the Huguenots – do not all turn out to have equal explanatory force; in particular the somewhat Braudelian approach of his early pages seems somewhat redundant. He asserts, with some justification, the intense localism of urban politics, even when faced with apparently national issues such as adherence to the Catholic League, in 1576–7 or from 1585, or indeed in the aftermath of St Bartholomew. Town councillors sought to maintain their authority, especially in matters such as the watch and, control of keys to city gates, against military governors or other outsiders whether they represented the crown, the Church or Guise who was of course formally a representative of the crown as provincial governor but also the leading local aristocrat as well as a key national political figure. The importance of tradition was manifested in respect for civic culture and in suspicion of innovation, such as the League perhaps represented to some Champenois. Drawing upon the work of Denis Crouzet (although oddly this is not listed in the bibliography), Konnert accepts the recent trend to put religion back into the wars of religion as an explanatory factor, while arguing that their eventual pacification was a matter of politics – others more cynically would suggest that peace was literally bought. He also aligns himself with those historians who argue against there being a ‘failure of clientage’ in this period (his footnote on p. 145 misleadingly states his support for Harding and Kettering, whereas clearly his sympathies are with the latter). He suggests, however, that the Guise were not skilled manipulators of clientage at an urban level, although again there is a problem with sources in the absence of a centralised collection of Guise papers. We are told nothing about the availability of parish records that could reveal patterns of godparenthood as a form of patronage, or of any notarial records that could also reveal links to urban elites. It should be noted that François de Guise was not killed at Dreux (p. 32), nor did Louis de Condé marry Marie de Clèves (p. 46). Within the limitations of his sources, Konnert has provided a solid contribution to the study of urban reactions to the wars of religion.