What do you think?
Rate this book
1066: The Year of the Conquest
Alternate cover for ISBN 10: 0140058508 / ISBN 13: 9780140058505
Everyone knows 1066 as the date of the Norman invasion and conquest of England. But how many of us can place that event in the context of the entire dramatic year in which it took place? From the death of Edward the Confessor in early January to the Christmas coronation of Duke William of Normandy, there is an almost uncanny symmetry, as well as a relentlessly exciting surge, of events leading to and from Hastings.
Everyone knows 1066 as the date of the Norman invasion and conquest of England. But how many of us can place that event in the context of the entire dramatic year in which it took place? From the death of Edward the Confessor in early January to the Christmas coronation of Duke William of Normandy, there is an almost uncanny symmetry, as well as a relentlessly exciting surge, of events leading to and from Hastings.
208 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1977
About the author
David Howarth
84 books82 followersDavid Armine Howarth (1912 - 1991) was a British historian and author. After graduating from Cambridge University, he was a radio war correspondent for BBC at the start of the Second World War, joining the Navy after the fall of France. He rose to the rank of lieutenant commander and spent four yeas in the Shetland Islands, becoming second in command of the Shetland Naval base. He was involved in the Special Operations Executive (SOE), including the Shetland Bus, an SOE operation manned by Norwegians running a clandestine route between Shetland and Norway, which utilized fishing boats with crews of Norwegian volunteers to land agents and arms in occupied Norway. For his contributions to espionage operations against the German occupation of Norway, he received King Haakon VII's Cross of Liberty. The King also made Howarth a Chevalier First Class of the Order of St Olav.
After the War he designed and built boats before turning to writing full time. He wrote an account of the Shetland Bus operation, as well as many other books of history, bringing to his many of his books an immense practical knowledge of ships and the sea.
David Howarth died in 1991. At his request, his ashes were scattered over the waters of Lunna Voe, Shetland, near Lunna House, the first base of the Shetland Bus operation.
After the War he designed and built boats before turning to writing full time. He wrote an account of the Shetland Bus operation, as well as many other books of history, bringing to his many of his books an immense practical knowledge of ships and the sea.
David Howarth died in 1991. At his request, his ashes were scattered over the waters of Lunna Voe, Shetland, near Lunna House, the first base of the Shetland Bus operation.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 360 reviews
April 9, 2014
The last time England was successfully conquered by a foreign army? 1066.
David Howarth takes a nearly thousand-year-old historical subject (well known by every British kid before they were allowed out of school I'd imagine) and retells the story in a most readable, almost fairytale way. This is not the most scholarly text on the subject, but it is one of the most enjoyable I've read.
It's especially enjoyable if you like a good underdog story, one where that lowly hero doesn't even win, but rather ends tragically with an almost martyr's death...
King Harold
He was the son of a kingmaker, who held no hereditary right to the throne, but who seemingly was given it by an almost democratic majority of lawmakers abiding by the apparent wishes of the previous king.
If Howarth is to be believed, Harold didn't even particularly want the throne, but was essentially thrust into it in order to fill a vacuum of power before the monarchy became weakened by a lack of leadership.
Howarth does a marvelous job of creating empathy in the reader for Harold. The poor sod undergoes trial after trial in a surprisingly short period of time...
There's a sea voyage that ends in a shipwreck and a greedy count's dungeon.
There is a conniving, backstabbing brother.
There is a viking king, one of the last of his kind, making a last ditch stab at glory by attempting to seize York, the seat of power in northern England.
And then there was Harold's mortal enemy...
William the Conqueror
William was born the bastard son of a Norman duke. In the treacherous times that were 11th century Normandy, William was lucky to escape childhood with his life. He grew up in the warrior's world and knew one thing, how to fight, and he did it very well.
From all accounts, it seems that just prior to 1066, Harold spent time as William's guest. During this time - and there is MUCH debate over - William felt he'd come to an understanding with Harold that when the time came Harold would aid his ol' pal Will (who may actually have been holding Harold hostage) in claiming for him the English throne, based on William's rather weak and distant line of heritage. When England decided she preferred local boy Harold over a bastard foreigner who didn't even speak their language, William was incensed to say the least, incensed enough to lead one of the most ambitious invasions of the era.
When people think "1066" they often think of the Bayeux Tapestry...
Highly regarded by historians, the tapestry is the story of the Battle of Hastings and the events leading up to it.
David Howarth's 1066 is another version of that same story. Some will see this as blatant revisionism, because some don't read the fine print, and the print isn't all that fine. Howarth is straightforward in saying that some of his theories are just that, theories that can not, and may never, be proven. But what's the difference between guessing at history that way as opposed to taking the word of the winners? William the Conqueror commissioned his version of history by way of victory. No scribe of the era wishing to retain his head was going to write anything but glowing praise of the man now in charge. And should we listen without a skeptical ear to the historians who wrote their own versions of The Battle of Hastings some 100 or 200 years after the fact, from which much of the past century's "scholarly" work on the subject has been derived? They weren't there for it and knew no more than what the accounts of William's men tell them.
Certainly, Howarth's is a liberal view of the Battle of Hastings, with the author's bias quite apparent. Having said that, it's still quite an enjoyable look from a different perspective on the event that changed England's future in a big way, the last successful invasion by a foreign enemy.
David Howarth takes a nearly thousand-year-old historical subject (well known by every British kid before they were allowed out of school I'd imagine) and retells the story in a most readable, almost fairytale way. This is not the most scholarly text on the subject, but it is one of the most enjoyable I've read.
It's especially enjoyable if you like a good underdog story, one where that lowly hero doesn't even win, but rather ends tragically with an almost martyr's death...
King Harold
He was the son of a kingmaker, who held no hereditary right to the throne, but who seemingly was given it by an almost democratic majority of lawmakers abiding by the apparent wishes of the previous king.
If Howarth is to be believed, Harold didn't even particularly want the throne, but was essentially thrust into it in order to fill a vacuum of power before the monarchy became weakened by a lack of leadership.
Howarth does a marvelous job of creating empathy in the reader for Harold. The poor sod undergoes trial after trial in a surprisingly short period of time...
There's a sea voyage that ends in a shipwreck and a greedy count's dungeon.
There is a conniving, backstabbing brother.
There is a viking king, one of the last of his kind, making a last ditch stab at glory by attempting to seize York, the seat of power in northern England.
And then there was Harold's mortal enemy...
William the Conqueror
William was born the bastard son of a Norman duke. In the treacherous times that were 11th century Normandy, William was lucky to escape childhood with his life. He grew up in the warrior's world and knew one thing, how to fight, and he did it very well.
From all accounts, it seems that just prior to 1066, Harold spent time as William's guest. During this time - and there is MUCH debate over - William felt he'd come to an understanding with Harold that when the time came Harold would aid his ol' pal Will (who may actually have been holding Harold hostage) in claiming for him the English throne, based on William's rather weak and distant line of heritage. When England decided she preferred local boy Harold over a bastard foreigner who didn't even speak their language, William was incensed to say the least, incensed enough to lead one of the most ambitious invasions of the era.
When people think "1066" they often think of the Bayeux Tapestry...
Highly regarded by historians, the tapestry is the story of the Battle of Hastings and the events leading up to it.
David Howarth's 1066 is another version of that same story. Some will see this as blatant revisionism, because some don't read the fine print, and the print isn't all that fine. Howarth is straightforward in saying that some of his theories are just that, theories that can not, and may never, be proven. But what's the difference between guessing at history that way as opposed to taking the word of the winners? William the Conqueror commissioned his version of history by way of victory. No scribe of the era wishing to retain his head was going to write anything but glowing praise of the man now in charge. And should we listen without a skeptical ear to the historians who wrote their own versions of The Battle of Hastings some 100 or 200 years after the fact, from which much of the past century's "scholarly" work on the subject has been derived? They weren't there for it and knew no more than what the accounts of William's men tell them.
Certainly, Howarth's is a liberal view of the Battle of Hastings, with the author's bias quite apparent. Having said that, it's still quite an enjoyable look from a different perspective on the event that changed England's future in a big way, the last successful invasion by a foreign enemy.
March 11, 2022
Edward the Confessor: I bequeath you the right to my kingdom in my passing.
William the Conqueror: All righty great-uncle cousin!
The Witan: Not so fast, William.
William the Conqueror: Whatchu talkin' bout witass?
The Witan: We have chosen Godwin's son, Harold Godwinson as Edward's rightful heir to the throne.
William the Conqueror: (talking to a bloated corpse) Is this true Edward?
Edward the Confessor: Silence
Harold Godwinson: Now, now, can't we just get along?
William the Conqueror: No.
The End.
William the Conqueror: All righty great-uncle cousin!
The Witan: Not so fast, William.
William the Conqueror: Whatchu talkin' bout witass?
The Witan: We have chosen Godwin's son, Harold Godwinson as Edward's rightful heir to the throne.
William the Conqueror: (talking to a bloated corpse) Is this true Edward?
Edward the Confessor: Silence
Harold Godwinson: Now, now, can't we just get along?
William the Conqueror: No.
The End.
February 10, 2011
David Howarth is another historian I would invite over to dinner every Sunday night if he lived nearby and weren’t already dead. I doubt he’d find me as delightful as I find him, but I’d try. Even if you have no interest in the Norman Conquest, this book is so enchantingly and clearly written that you’ll think you’ve stumbled into a particularly good novel about those zany folk in medieval England and France. Even better, Howarth was an accomplished sailor, so he can offer educated speculation about the logistics of crossing the English Channel in various vessels – with war horses! – at various points, which doesn’t sound super exciting but is when he writes about it. My favorite aspect of his writing style is his matter of fact tone: he says, “Here’s what one original source says, here’s what this other original source says, here’s why they’re both suspect, and, for what it’s worth, here’s what I think probably happened.” It’s quality, in-depth scholarship for people with short attention spans. I almost drew little hearts in the margins.
September 8, 2021
David Howarth wrote this historical account of the rise and fall of the Anglo-Saxon King Harold in a very accessible, engaging, and almost conversational style, which is somewhat unusual for historians of the mid-20th century. It made the reading most enjoyable. I felt totally engaged by the story, even though Howarth admitted upfront that we cannot know all the exact details because of the extent of time passed and the filtering of the various political factions (Normans vs Anglo-Saxons) who recorded the events.
A very interesting aspect that the author included was a bit of background of the feudal structure of Anglo-Saxon estates and the political system of the time. It seems that the Anglo-Saxons were well on the way to a certain level of democratization, where the king was not seen as an all-powerful, divine figure who ruled like a dictator, but was more of a leader amongst the upper classes. The institution of the Witan (Witenagemot) was a council of elders who not only counselled the king, but gave their approval to his succession. Who knows how England may have evolved if the Duke of Normandy had failed in his quest?
Howarth also delved into the characters and emotional outlooks of Duke William and Harold, perhaps editorializing to some extent but basing his thoughts on fairly solid historical evidence as much as possible. I came away feeling like I knew them more as real men of whom you may read about in today's newspaper rather than as abstract political figures from a thousand years ago.
I'll definitely be looking up more of David Howarth's historical non-fiction.
A very interesting aspect that the author included was a bit of background of the feudal structure of Anglo-Saxon estates and the political system of the time. It seems that the Anglo-Saxons were well on the way to a certain level of democratization, where the king was not seen as an all-powerful, divine figure who ruled like a dictator, but was more of a leader amongst the upper classes. The institution of the Witan (Witenagemot) was a council of elders who not only counselled the king, but gave their approval to his succession. Who knows how England may have evolved if the Duke of Normandy had failed in his quest?
Howarth also delved into the characters and emotional outlooks of Duke William and Harold, perhaps editorializing to some extent but basing his thoughts on fairly solid historical evidence as much as possible. I came away feeling like I knew them more as real men of whom you may read about in today's newspaper rather than as abstract political figures from a thousand years ago.
I'll definitely be looking up more of David Howarth's historical non-fiction.
July 10, 2021
"...The gale on 3th September was the start of a period of a month and a day packed with coincidences that are hardly credible and yet are certainly true. Here were two rulers with their fleets and armies, William and Harald Hardrada, each bent on the conquest of England, some three hundred miles apart, acting quite independently, and neither, so far as anyone can tell, suspecting for a moment that the other was there: and between them Harold, who knew about William, but did not know where he was, and who had only heard of Harald Hardrada's menace when a week was already past. Time and again in these thirty-two frantic days, one can see that if one event had chanced to happen one day later or one day earlier than it did- if anyone had hurried even more or paused a little longer-all the later events would have happened differently, and nothing whatever in the history of England since would have been the same...."
-David Howarth
David Howarth's masterful and superbly written history of the Norman invasion is one of the best history books I've read in a while. His writing style is informative and eminently readable. It feels like you are reading an old story about this epochal event in British history.
Howarth's scholarship reveals some fascinating details about the entire saga. He also looks in-depth into the personalities and the motivations behind the three main players- Harold, Harald, and William. A Saxon, a Norwegian, and a Norman.
Howarth also has a great analysis about the combat and why Harold acted the way he did, factoring in the mindset of the time and the devastating result of the Papal verdict. Interestingly enough, Howarth starts the narrative with the village of Horstede, which still exists, and shows the lives of ordinary Englishmen, who had enjoyed some measure of peace and freedom in the post-Viking period, and their struggles to find a replacement for Edward the Confessor.
Howarth shows many of the interpretations, by both sides, of the arguments and even does a very creditable job explaining why William believed as he did and what Harold actually said to him. He also disproves some historical "myths" spread by either partisan Normans or, in rarer instances, Norwegian and English sources.
A truly wonderful history book and a must-have for anyone who wishes a great look at the events of 1066. Highly recommended. Oh BTW if you live in England and wish to see Horstede, it's now called Horsted Keynes in Middle Sussex and has the St. Giles Church which was built in the Saxon style, but rebuilt by the Normans into the current form. Just FYI since the point of reading history is to be able to appreciate the places we tend to take for granted.
-David Howarth
David Howarth's masterful and superbly written history of the Norman invasion is one of the best history books I've read in a while. His writing style is informative and eminently readable. It feels like you are reading an old story about this epochal event in British history.
Howarth's scholarship reveals some fascinating details about the entire saga. He also looks in-depth into the personalities and the motivations behind the three main players- Harold, Harald, and William. A Saxon, a Norwegian, and a Norman.
Howarth also has a great analysis about the combat and why Harold acted the way he did, factoring in the mindset of the time and the devastating result of the Papal verdict. Interestingly enough, Howarth starts the narrative with the village of Horstede, which still exists, and shows the lives of ordinary Englishmen, who had enjoyed some measure of peace and freedom in the post-Viking period, and their struggles to find a replacement for Edward the Confessor.
Howarth shows many of the interpretations, by both sides, of the arguments and even does a very creditable job explaining why William believed as he did and what Harold actually said to him. He also disproves some historical "myths" spread by either partisan Normans or, in rarer instances, Norwegian and English sources.
A truly wonderful history book and a must-have for anyone who wishes a great look at the events of 1066. Highly recommended. Oh BTW if you live in England and wish to see Horstede, it's now called Horsted Keynes in Middle Sussex and has the St. Giles Church which was built in the Saxon style, but rebuilt by the Normans into the current form. Just FYI since the point of reading history is to be able to appreciate the places we tend to take for granted.
August 20, 2021
A little book with a big impact on my English history comprehension. The year 1066 didn't really register with me until later in life - being American it didn't make an impression on me like the year 1776. Now I know better. It changed the course of history including later American history. The Norman conquest smashed the British psyche and changed their view of themselves. In just a short while the British went from local rule with an elected king to being a conquered people under the iron Norman thumb and a French speaking king.
The author, David Howarth, had a chatty writing style and offered explanations for some of the battle's mysteries. History of the event was written by the Norman invaders so, of course, the British came out looking bad. David Howarth proposed the victory was REALLY just good luck for the Normans - not any brilliance on their part. I propose that Norman audacity is what won the day! It took a lot of nerve to cross the channel expecting to win.
Hopefully this review isn't a "spoiler". I get the impression that the Battle of Hastings is common knowledge for most English-speaking people. I was among the unenlightened. Not anymore.
The author, David Howarth, had a chatty writing style and offered explanations for some of the battle's mysteries. History of the event was written by the Norman invaders so, of course, the British came out looking bad. David Howarth proposed the victory was REALLY just good luck for the Normans - not any brilliance on their part. I propose that Norman audacity is what won the day! It took a lot of nerve to cross the channel expecting to win.
Hopefully this review isn't a "spoiler". I get the impression that the Battle of Hastings is common knowledge for most English-speaking people. I was among the unenlightened. Not anymore.
July 11, 2019
The Great Man interpretation of history — the idea that civilization is driven by a few exceptional men of will who impose their vision on the world and shape the development of humanity — was never particularly true, but it’s only been recently that it stopped being taught. Most of what we learn of history in school is still driven by the reading of mankind as a record of impressive figures who rose to great moments, and by the memorization of significant dates in which those figures chose to exert their will on the world. But we have come to understand that these figures were often hapless, helpless, or simply the beneficiaries of good fortune, and that everything from mass movements to ill wind placed them where they were.
1066, the date of the Norman invasion of England, is one of the most imperishable numbers in the record of human history, and even in the modern understanding of the past, its significance cannot be underestimated. In his groundbreaking 1977 book 1066: The Year of the Conquest, British historian David Howarth approached it with a wide-ranging understanding of all the curious factors that made the even what it was, and yet we still encounter many complex and crucial figures, from William the Conquerer himself and the opportunistic Viking hard-ass Harald Hardrada to the ill-fated Anglo-Saxon king Harold Godwinson and his quixotic, doomed brother Tostig. But more than that, Howarth shows in this slender but compelling volume the many threads of a tapestry that show how one event can be made up of a million little things, and that their ultimate form can take a whole nation in directions no one, not even the principals whose names we are taught to remember, could have possibly intended or predicted.
We learn, for example, how Harold Godwinson was never quite prepared to be king, and was wholly unprepared for the nearly apocalyptic changes that came about from an invasion he ultimately was able to see coming but was helpless to do anything about. We learn about the blustery, violent Harald and how his ego and love of violence — culturally inculcated in him by a Viking worldview he did everything to further — allowed him to be all too easily manipulated We learn that William never had any intention of being a conquerer, and that internal pressures and sheer luck contributed as much to his stunning victory as any qualities of martial prowess or leadership he might have possessed. And we learn that Tostig was a true wild card, driven by jealousy and resentment and other factors too unpredictable to even speculate on, who, against all odds, found himself almost unwittingly orchestrating the utter demise of the kingdom to which he felt himself entitled.
But we do not learn just about these great men. We learn about their wives, their companions, their subjects and their lords, and how each of those exerted their own sort of influence. We learn that England in the 11th century maintained a feudal society entirely different in character to that of France, and that its corps of knights bore little resemblance to those across the channel, who were essentially the Proud Boys of medieval Europe. We learn that the English king had to do much more convincing of his vassals to get them to participate in any kind of unified action than did his French equivalent. We learn that the King of Norway was an entirely different creature than his counterparts elsewhere. We learn about what the church meant to all of them, and what it didn’t, about the internecine complexity of their arranged marriages, about the expectations their families had of them, and what kind of characters they all possessed, at least some of which would be described in contemporary terms using the language of mental illness.
Even beyond that, though, we learn, through Howarth’s casual and conversational but extremely careful narration, about the rhythms and characteristics of everyday life that contributed so much to how the invasion played out. We learn about the weather, and how much it ha to do with both sides’ preparation for battle. We learn not just the expected qualities of war — the superiority of Norman knights thanks to their training, weaponry, and practice; their greater knowledge of fortification; the way communication over distance gave the whole proceedings an air of uncertainty and even unreality — but also the unexpected ones, such as how the Vikings, alone in the area, possessed the ability to steer and navigate their ships, and how the entire invasion would likely never have taken place if an unlucky combination of wind and rough seas hadn’t blown a single ship off course. And, in a meta-textual sense, we learn how we’ve learned all these things, and what sources we ought to trust and which we oughtn’t, in one of the most stark lessons on how history is generally written by the victors.
For reasons that should be obvious, the book begins with a look at the pastoral and curiously eternal rhythms of English country life and ends with the massive upheavals that took place because of the fallout of the Norman invasion. But it never loses sight of how these great events and “great men” intertwined with the lives of ordinary people, even going so far as to spell out with some precision how, prior to 1066, the power of the monarchy was at least partially attributable to the consent of the people and limitable by its withdrawal. As has been said about China, so many miles distant, the emperor is very far away. It took years for news of the change in rulership to reach some of the more remote points of the British Isles, despite the vast changes that resulted from the conquest.
Those changes were incalculable, and are still with us today. Among other things, it resulted in a huge shift in written and spoken language (and the development of what we now know as “English”, a bastard amalgam of Saxon and Gaelic and French and Latin that is the furthest thing from the ‘pure’ language imagined by reactionaries); the end of slavery as it was known at the time (and the ultimate transformation of it to the race-based horror it would become); huge demographic shifts that would echo for centuries; and the beginning of what we can now understand as the age of imperialism and colonialism. Howarth anticipates those changes and guides us from the very small to the very large with skill and precision. As well-informed as it is, it can’t come close to encompassing how much the invasion of 1066 meant to the world, but it’s a hugely impressive and entertaining introduction that lays out dozens of paths that the curious can follow from there.
1066, the date of the Norman invasion of England, is one of the most imperishable numbers in the record of human history, and even in the modern understanding of the past, its significance cannot be underestimated. In his groundbreaking 1977 book 1066: The Year of the Conquest, British historian David Howarth approached it with a wide-ranging understanding of all the curious factors that made the even what it was, and yet we still encounter many complex and crucial figures, from William the Conquerer himself and the opportunistic Viking hard-ass Harald Hardrada to the ill-fated Anglo-Saxon king Harold Godwinson and his quixotic, doomed brother Tostig. But more than that, Howarth shows in this slender but compelling volume the many threads of a tapestry that show how one event can be made up of a million little things, and that their ultimate form can take a whole nation in directions no one, not even the principals whose names we are taught to remember, could have possibly intended or predicted.
We learn, for example, how Harold Godwinson was never quite prepared to be king, and was wholly unprepared for the nearly apocalyptic changes that came about from an invasion he ultimately was able to see coming but was helpless to do anything about. We learn about the blustery, violent Harald and how his ego and love of violence — culturally inculcated in him by a Viking worldview he did everything to further — allowed him to be all too easily manipulated We learn that William never had any intention of being a conquerer, and that internal pressures and sheer luck contributed as much to his stunning victory as any qualities of martial prowess or leadership he might have possessed. And we learn that Tostig was a true wild card, driven by jealousy and resentment and other factors too unpredictable to even speculate on, who, against all odds, found himself almost unwittingly orchestrating the utter demise of the kingdom to which he felt himself entitled.
But we do not learn just about these great men. We learn about their wives, their companions, their subjects and their lords, and how each of those exerted their own sort of influence. We learn that England in the 11th century maintained a feudal society entirely different in character to that of France, and that its corps of knights bore little resemblance to those across the channel, who were essentially the Proud Boys of medieval Europe. We learn that the English king had to do much more convincing of his vassals to get them to participate in any kind of unified action than did his French equivalent. We learn that the King of Norway was an entirely different creature than his counterparts elsewhere. We learn about what the church meant to all of them, and what it didn’t, about the internecine complexity of their arranged marriages, about the expectations their families had of them, and what kind of characters they all possessed, at least some of which would be described in contemporary terms using the language of mental illness.
Even beyond that, though, we learn, through Howarth’s casual and conversational but extremely careful narration, about the rhythms and characteristics of everyday life that contributed so much to how the invasion played out. We learn about the weather, and how much it ha to do with both sides’ preparation for battle. We learn not just the expected qualities of war — the superiority of Norman knights thanks to their training, weaponry, and practice; their greater knowledge of fortification; the way communication over distance gave the whole proceedings an air of uncertainty and even unreality — but also the unexpected ones, such as how the Vikings, alone in the area, possessed the ability to steer and navigate their ships, and how the entire invasion would likely never have taken place if an unlucky combination of wind and rough seas hadn’t blown a single ship off course. And, in a meta-textual sense, we learn how we’ve learned all these things, and what sources we ought to trust and which we oughtn’t, in one of the most stark lessons on how history is generally written by the victors.
For reasons that should be obvious, the book begins with a look at the pastoral and curiously eternal rhythms of English country life and ends with the massive upheavals that took place because of the fallout of the Norman invasion. But it never loses sight of how these great events and “great men” intertwined with the lives of ordinary people, even going so far as to spell out with some precision how, prior to 1066, the power of the monarchy was at least partially attributable to the consent of the people and limitable by its withdrawal. As has been said about China, so many miles distant, the emperor is very far away. It took years for news of the change in rulership to reach some of the more remote points of the British Isles, despite the vast changes that resulted from the conquest.
Those changes were incalculable, and are still with us today. Among other things, it resulted in a huge shift in written and spoken language (and the development of what we now know as “English”, a bastard amalgam of Saxon and Gaelic and French and Latin that is the furthest thing from the ‘pure’ language imagined by reactionaries); the end of slavery as it was known at the time (and the ultimate transformation of it to the race-based horror it would become); huge demographic shifts that would echo for centuries; and the beginning of what we can now understand as the age of imperialism and colonialism. Howarth anticipates those changes and guides us from the very small to the very large with skill and precision. As well-informed as it is, it can’t come close to encompassing how much the invasion of 1066 meant to the world, but it’s a hugely impressive and entertaining introduction that lays out dozens of paths that the curious can follow from there.
May 29, 2012
The year 1066 is so important, so vital to the course of European history, but somehow we manage to reduce it to “the Battle of Hastings.” That is largely what I was expecting with this short history by David Howarth, a popular historian better known for his takes on more recent history, including World War II and the Battle of Trafalgar. But the most popular battle of the Norman invasion takes up only one chapter of the book, with much of the rest providing a cultural and social history within which you can get a better understanding of the historical arc of the entire year.
Before Howarth jumps into any history, however, he gives sets up a picture of daily life in a village called Horstede, which happens to be where King Harold first learned about William’s invasion across the English Channel. A rudimentary description of the feudal system is given in the first few chapters replete with earls and thanes. We get a discussion of English and Norman politics, including William’s motive to invade in the first place, a topic which requires some psychological second-guessing. Howarth seems to think that Edward had somehow promised William the throne in the last years of his life, and was nonplussed when Harold was immediately selected by the Witenagemot, the Anglo-Saxon advisory council that served the king.
And to confuse political matters even more, there is another Harald – Harald Hardrada, King of Norway (but note the difference in spelling) – who also thought that he had a solid claim to the throne, and was invited to invade English by Harold’s estranged brother Tostig, earl of Northumbria. Harald Hardrada and Tostig both die in what is maybe the penultimate battle of the Norman invasion, the Battle of Stamford Bridge.
I said “historical arc” above because in the year 1066, Edward the Confessor dies (January 5th), Harold takes the thrown on the very same day, the Norman invasion is won and lost, and William “the Conqueror” takes the thrown again on December 25th. That’s three monarchs in one year – and four if you count the fifteen-year-old Edgar the Aetheling, who held the throne for about two months before being forced to remit it to William. That’s a busy year.
This isn’t model academic history. There are no footnotes, and there is a lot more conjecture – sometimes couched in the language of verifiable historical record – than I am usually comfortable with. I would approach this as I would any book of popular history: take it with a grain of salt and depending on how interested you are in the subject, consult more scholarly sources. My only complaint about the book is that there is quite a bit of detailed battle strategy (this flank was left exposed, a certain person went Berserk at Stamford Bridge) which I think could have been put to better use in explaining the politics or cultural life; these parts didn’t hold my interest as much. But for all of that, it is engagingly written, and serves as a nice foot in the door for those who want to learn about the major events and the important near-contemporary historians (like William of Malmesbury) through which we know much of what happened that year.
Before Howarth jumps into any history, however, he gives sets up a picture of daily life in a village called Horstede, which happens to be where King Harold first learned about William’s invasion across the English Channel. A rudimentary description of the feudal system is given in the first few chapters replete with earls and thanes. We get a discussion of English and Norman politics, including William’s motive to invade in the first place, a topic which requires some psychological second-guessing. Howarth seems to think that Edward had somehow promised William the throne in the last years of his life, and was nonplussed when Harold was immediately selected by the Witenagemot, the Anglo-Saxon advisory council that served the king.
And to confuse political matters even more, there is another Harald – Harald Hardrada, King of Norway (but note the difference in spelling) – who also thought that he had a solid claim to the throne, and was invited to invade English by Harold’s estranged brother Tostig, earl of Northumbria. Harald Hardrada and Tostig both die in what is maybe the penultimate battle of the Norman invasion, the Battle of Stamford Bridge.
I said “historical arc” above because in the year 1066, Edward the Confessor dies (January 5th), Harold takes the thrown on the very same day, the Norman invasion is won and lost, and William “the Conqueror” takes the thrown again on December 25th. That’s three monarchs in one year – and four if you count the fifteen-year-old Edgar the Aetheling, who held the throne for about two months before being forced to remit it to William. That’s a busy year.
This isn’t model academic history. There are no footnotes, and there is a lot more conjecture – sometimes couched in the language of verifiable historical record – than I am usually comfortable with. I would approach this as I would any book of popular history: take it with a grain of salt and depending on how interested you are in the subject, consult more scholarly sources. My only complaint about the book is that there is quite a bit of detailed battle strategy (this flank was left exposed, a certain person went Berserk at Stamford Bridge) which I think could have been put to better use in explaining the politics or cultural life; these parts didn’t hold my interest as much. But for all of that, it is engagingly written, and serves as a nice foot in the door for those who want to learn about the major events and the important near-contemporary historians (like William of Malmesbury) through which we know much of what happened that year.
April 20, 2023
A masterpiece of narrative compression; I went on to find everything else by Howarth (his books on Tahiti and the Spanish Armada are amazing as well). Probably my favorite passage:
King Harald of Norway was nominally a Christian, although it was less than half a century since Norway had been forcibly converted by this predecessors; but he managed to have two wives, apparently of equal status, and to live a life in which the principle pleasures were fighting, duplicity, and hoarding gold. ... In 1030, when he was fifteen, he was on the losing side of a battle to defend his half-brother King Olav. He fled by the old-established Viking route that led through the rivers of Russia all the way from the Baltic to the Black Sea; and after a year or two in the army of the King of Novgorod he reached Constantinople, where he enrolled in the forces of the Byzantine Empress Zoe.
A large part of the army of the Byzantine Empire in that era was formed of adventurers who had come all the way from Scandanavia, a journey which in itself took over a year. Harald quickly rose to be captain of it, growing famous for swindles and trickery. Besieging one town in Sicily, Harald fell sick and conceived the idea of staging his own funeral. His men told the townspeople their leader was dead, and begged for the Christian burial in one of the churches within the walls. There was great competition among the princes to accept the body, because they expected rich offerings from the Norsemen. All the priests came out of the town to form a procession, and the Norsemen marched mournfully in with them, bearing a coffin: and inside the gates, dropped the coffin and blew a war blast on their horns. The monks and other priests who had striven to be the first to receive the corpse now struggled to get away from the Norsemen, who slew everyone around them, clerk or layman, ravaged the town, slaughtered the men, robbed all the churches and loaded themselves with booty.
After ten years or so in the east he thought it was time to go home; and then there was trouble. The Empress accused him of swindling over the booty; Norse rumor said she wanted him as a husband, although she already had one - the second of three in her lifetime. Harald, on the other hand, wanted a girl named Maria who was her niece. The Empress put him in prison. His saintly and dead half-brother Olav appeared in the night to a woman he had miraculously cured, and told her to rescue Harald - which he did by letting down ropes from the prison roof. He rounded up his followers, personally put out the eyes of the Empress's husband in a street of the city, abducted Maria and escaped by rowing a galley over a defensive chain that was stretched across the Golden Gate to stop him. He sent Maria home with an offensive message to the Empress and set sail across the Black Sea and up the river Dneiper to Novgorod, where he collected his treasures and married the King's daughter Elizabeth.
May 30, 2014
So fantastically written, I easily could have read it cover to cover in one sitting. Even knowing the outcome ahead of time, the story is still so engrossing that you can't help but keep turning the page.
I quite agree with Howarth's assessment of the principal characters; how he'd have liked King Harold, felt sorry for Tostig, and been terrified of William. Echoing my earlier comment, I'm not sure why he disliked Edward the Confessor so, perhaps I need to read more about King Edward. Harald is quite an enigma to me still, and I'd like to read more about the "last of the great Vikings".
Here you're given a much more objective view of Harold and there doesn't seem to be much to dislike about him. Nor does there seem to be any indication that he'd have been anything but a fair and just King. You can't help but feel sorry for him, once he saw the papal banner that William carried, and given the terrible way in which he died. His behavior compared from Stamford Bridge to Hastings is so markedly different, one almost has to assume his confidence was completely gone and the he believes he'd already lost and that God was against him. You have to feel sadness too, for the numerous Englishmen who continued to suffer once William was crowned (though they certainly suffered before then as well, once Harold was defeated).
It's intriguing to think how differently England would have developed if Harold had won Hastings and William had been killed or at least been sent packing.
I quite agree with Howarth's assessment of the principal characters; how he'd have liked King Harold, felt sorry for Tostig, and been terrified of William. Echoing my earlier comment, I'm not sure why he disliked Edward the Confessor so, perhaps I need to read more about King Edward. Harald is quite an enigma to me still, and I'd like to read more about the "last of the great Vikings".
Here you're given a much more objective view of Harold and there doesn't seem to be much to dislike about him. Nor does there seem to be any indication that he'd have been anything but a fair and just King. You can't help but feel sorry for him, once he saw the papal banner that William carried, and given the terrible way in which he died. His behavior compared from Stamford Bridge to Hastings is so markedly different, one almost has to assume his confidence was completely gone and the he believes he'd already lost and that God was against him. You have to feel sadness too, for the numerous Englishmen who continued to suffer once William was crowned (though they certainly suffered before then as well, once Harold was defeated).
It's intriguing to think how differently England would have developed if Harold had won Hastings and William had been killed or at least been sent packing.
January 31, 2019
I loved this book. David Howarth writes in a conversational style, and this short history of the Norman conquest of England is simple, and chatty. It was sort of like listening to a very eloquent and warm old man, perhaps your grandfather, tell a long, but fascinating story, you hanging on every word while curled up at his feet, a fire in the fireplace, you with a cup of cocoa, he with a whisky.
Maybe he has a pipe. Howarth writes like he knows the 950 plus year old people in this book, as if they all lived next door to him for years, and he's just telling their life stories. King Edward the Confessor (bad king, and not even really a saintly guy), King Harold (gentle, brave, and tragic), William of Normandy (that terrifying and lucky, lucky bastard), Earl Tostig (loony), Harald Hardrada (bloody brutal, pardon my French), Edith Svannehals (Edith Swanneck, the most beautiful woman in England). Add to this Gareth Floyd's impeccable pen and ink illustrations of Anglo Saxon England that begin each chapter, and you have a perfect little book.
Maybe he has a pipe. Howarth writes like he knows the 950 plus year old people in this book, as if they all lived next door to him for years, and he's just telling their life stories. King Edward the Confessor (bad king, and not even really a saintly guy), King Harold (gentle, brave, and tragic), William of Normandy (that terrifying and lucky, lucky bastard), Earl Tostig (loony), Harald Hardrada (bloody brutal, pardon my French), Edith Svannehals (Edith Swanneck, the most beautiful woman in England). Add to this Gareth Floyd's impeccable pen and ink illustrations of Anglo Saxon England that begin each chapter, and you have a perfect little book.
June 8, 2018
This book is more storytelling and conjecture, than historical fact. The author says this in the beginning, because there is not enough history about it, plus the history it does have are written by the invaders to make them and their leader look more favorable.
Overall, I really enjoyed this book. The storytelling was on point and kept the reader interested.
Overall, I really enjoyed this book. The storytelling was on point and kept the reader interested.
May 20, 2012
Bookman's Alley in Evanston is closing, the owner being up in his eighties. Since the announcement in the papers months ago there has been an ongoing sale, prices on the used books and paraphenalia going down thirty, now fifty percent. I picked up this slender volume along with a few others on the last walk to visit that place, the Amarynth and the Public Library, Bookman's owner assuring me that he'd be around for at least another month.
I'd read Howarth before, some of his WWII memoirs about Norway. Those were good, but personal. This is more objective, more a straight attempt at historical reconstruction, yet still personable, a pleasant read all around.
As promised, Howarth's examination of the Norman conquest and the events leading up to it shattered a lot of my preconceptions about 1066 while broadening and deepening my understanding of the Norse, English and Norman cultures involved. While good as an introduction to the period, the work is not juvenile, explicit attention being paid to the sources and the interpretative controversies arising from them.
I'd read Howarth before, some of his WWII memoirs about Norway. Those were good, but personal. This is more objective, more a straight attempt at historical reconstruction, yet still personable, a pleasant read all around.
As promised, Howarth's examination of the Norman conquest and the events leading up to it shattered a lot of my preconceptions about 1066 while broadening and deepening my understanding of the Norse, English and Norman cultures involved. While good as an introduction to the period, the work is not juvenile, explicit attention being paid to the sources and the interpretative controversies arising from them.
January 4, 2020
Quick, interesting read; it's considered a "poplar history," for people like me who aren't wanting a super scholarly history book. I am adding it to Term 1 of Ambleside Online Year 7, as it fits right in with the historical time period.
March 10, 2024
A good book on the Norman Conquest of England that examines the perspectives of the three groups involved - the English, the Normans and Norse.
November 19, 2019
THE YEAR OF THE CONQUEST is one of the most engrossing histories I have had the pleasure of reading, and probably the most engrossing book I've ever read about the Middle Ages. David Howarth was already an accomplished writer when he began his research, and the finished work, published in 1977, shows him at the peak of his descriptive and narrative powers. The author begins by summarizing life in eleventh-century England, characterizing the late Anglo-Saxon kingdom as quiet, self-sufficient, rural, and isolated. This may be a little romanticized - the Anglo-Saxons, unlike their Norman successors, practiced slavery after all – but it creates an appealing contrast to grimly militaristic Normandy, and to the fire and sword William brought to his new domain.
Peaceful as its subjects' lives may have been, England was, at the level of the royal court, unstable. It had until recently been under Danish rule (King Knut et al.), and its monarch, Edward, died in January 1066 without leaving an indisputable heir. Howarth notes there were multiple claimants to the throne, all of whom wound up fighting for it before the year was out. Harold Godwinson, elected king by the Anglo-Saxon witan, wore the crown until the Battle of Hastings; Harold's hapless brother Tostig mounted a failed invasion in the spring, then fled to Norway; King Harald Hardrada of Norway, "Last of the Vikings," was persuaded by Tostig to add England to his holdings, and pressed his claim at the Battle of Stamford Bridge; and William the Bastard, Duke of Normandy, then destroyed Harold's exhausted army at Hastings. Howarth gives thoughtful character sketches of each of these actors, and fine and pithy descriptions of rural village life, of the two coronations that bookended the year (Harold's and William's), of the primitive ships that William somehow used to bring his army and horses to England, and of the climactic Battle of Hastings. His account of that fateful encounter is brilliant, from his description of the eerie silence of pre-modern battles to his analysis of the two leaders' strengths and weaknesses: William's familiarity with the tactic of feigned retreat, Harold's own demoralization (stemming from a Papal endorsement of William) and the breakdown of command and control over what was, for the Anglo-Saxons, a large army.
The book's exciting story ends on a baleful note, with the new king laying waste to "thousands of square miles" of English countryside during his reign, killing twenty percent of the English population by the sword or through starvation, and covering his kingdom with castles and garrisons. The Muse of History rarely guarantees a happy ending, and rare is the conquest that improves the lives of the conquered. It would be many decades before the Normans and their descendents actually began to improve the realm they had seized and despoiled.
Peaceful as its subjects' lives may have been, England was, at the level of the royal court, unstable. It had until recently been under Danish rule (King Knut et al.), and its monarch, Edward, died in January 1066 without leaving an indisputable heir. Howarth notes there were multiple claimants to the throne, all of whom wound up fighting for it before the year was out. Harold Godwinson, elected king by the Anglo-Saxon witan, wore the crown until the Battle of Hastings; Harold's hapless brother Tostig mounted a failed invasion in the spring, then fled to Norway; King Harald Hardrada of Norway, "Last of the Vikings," was persuaded by Tostig to add England to his holdings, and pressed his claim at the Battle of Stamford Bridge; and William the Bastard, Duke of Normandy, then destroyed Harold's exhausted army at Hastings. Howarth gives thoughtful character sketches of each of these actors, and fine and pithy descriptions of rural village life, of the two coronations that bookended the year (Harold's and William's), of the primitive ships that William somehow used to bring his army and horses to England, and of the climactic Battle of Hastings. His account of that fateful encounter is brilliant, from his description of the eerie silence of pre-modern battles to his analysis of the two leaders' strengths and weaknesses: William's familiarity with the tactic of feigned retreat, Harold's own demoralization (stemming from a Papal endorsement of William) and the breakdown of command and control over what was, for the Anglo-Saxons, a large army.
The book's exciting story ends on a baleful note, with the new king laying waste to "thousands of square miles" of English countryside during his reign, killing twenty percent of the English population by the sword or through starvation, and covering his kingdom with castles and garrisons. The Muse of History rarely guarantees a happy ending, and rare is the conquest that improves the lives of the conquered. It would be many decades before the Normans and their descendents actually began to improve the realm they had seized and despoiled.
May 1, 2015
The events of 1066 changed European history. If you ever wondered why so many English words have French roots, you only need look at what happened in 1066. England's king died, another one was selected and the Duke of Normandy thought that the throne had been promised to him. What I hadn't realized previously was that the king of England had to fight the Vikings a short time prior to the Battle of Hastings. The cultural context is well laid out - it is easy to understand why each side didn't understand each other. I also hadn't realized how difficult it was to move armies (including horses) across water. Huge numbers are involved! And since the invading army didn't bring enough supplies, they ravaged the countryside. It's no wonder that the English didn't welcome their visitors. Great read.
March 12, 2018
A great little book that chronicles the infamous year in English history that began with the death of King Edward and ended with the battle of Hastings and the ascension of William the Conqueror, changing England forever. Howarth carefully compares the subjective written accounts of these events and offers his own reasoned opinions. Although William's conquest might appear inevitable to us today, Howarth offers any number of happenstances that occurred which could have changed the outcome - from the Pope's blessing to the shifting winds to how much wine was carried. He also gives us a wonderful glimpse of everyday life in the typical English village of Horstede both at the beginning and at the end of this fateful year.
September 4, 2018
The tale of the conquest of England by the Normans has been shaped like usual throughout history by the victors. This examination of the conquest and the events preceding it draws from both English and Norman sources. It is an interesting read and the author does a good job of describing the time period but it wasn't a page turner.
June 20, 2024
Short but densely packed with information, 1066 makes for a fascinating, albeit, slow read.
May 23, 2023
1066: The Year of Conquest.
This is a story about the year 1066, more specifically England and the Norman Invasion. David Howarth compactly provides the context for invasion, first detailing the everyday life of English peasants before turning to the political turmoil that resulted in the coronation of William the Conqueror as King of England.
The way Howarth approaches the book allows the reader to actually be interested in the source material. He states in the introduction ”this is not meant to be read as a work of scholarship, only as an evocation of the excitement, pleasures and miseries of that year”, and considers many different sources and points of view while trying to evaluate the truth of what happened in 1066.
I will not delve much into the subject matter as one can glean a satisfactory understanding of events from a quick Wiki search. I will say that I learned a great deal about not only about 1066, but also how people existed in the Middle Ages, their customs and attitudes and passions. Obviously the English Saxons were featured the most, but Howarth also delves into Norman and Viking culture as the year progresses onward.
This is a very very very solid nonfiction effort. 4/5
P.S.
Talking about King Edward of England (Page 35), “sometimes his servants preserved the wonderful bath-water and administered it, perhaps for a fee, without telling him”. Sorry gamer girls, Ol’ Eddie did it first.
This is a story about the year 1066, more specifically England and the Norman Invasion. David Howarth compactly provides the context for invasion, first detailing the everyday life of English peasants before turning to the political turmoil that resulted in the coronation of William the Conqueror as King of England.
The way Howarth approaches the book allows the reader to actually be interested in the source material. He states in the introduction ”this is not meant to be read as a work of scholarship, only as an evocation of the excitement, pleasures and miseries of that year”, and considers many different sources and points of view while trying to evaluate the truth of what happened in 1066.
I will not delve much into the subject matter as one can glean a satisfactory understanding of events from a quick Wiki search. I will say that I learned a great deal about not only about 1066, but also how people existed in the Middle Ages, their customs and attitudes and passions. Obviously the English Saxons were featured the most, but Howarth also delves into Norman and Viking culture as the year progresses onward.
This is a very very very solid nonfiction effort. 4/5
P.S.
Talking about King Edward of England (Page 35), “sometimes his servants preserved the wonderful bath-water and administered it, perhaps for a fee, without telling him”. Sorry gamer girls, Ol’ Eddie did it first.
January 22, 2019
As long as I can remember I have known that William of Normandy invaded and conquered England in 1066, but that has been the extent of my knowledge of the subject until I read this book.
While portions of this book are, of necessity, conjecture (because the events described transpired nearly 1,000 years ago; and because, as always, the winner writes the history), the author makes it very clear what each of the sources says, what is fact, what is clearly fabrication or embellishment, what is his opinion, what is his educated guess, and what will simply never be known.
I found this book to be utterly fascinating as it lays the background of the principal characters and the history of the regions from which they came, leading up to the battle of Hastings and the subsequent brutal Norman takeover of England. The way of life and thinking is clarified for each region, which I found to be immensely helpful in understanding the actions and possible motives of the people involved.
The principal characters of the story were intertwined by birth and by marriage in a way that could be very confusing. I made a chart to keep all these people straight and it helped me immensely.
Ethelred, king of England who died in 1015, is the first player introduced to us in the extended drama of 1066, and the story continues through three more generations of his family, which is closely intertwined with the family of Godwin, primary adviser to Ethelred's son, King Edward the Confessor.
Knut, prince of Denmark and his sons play a role; as well as Harald Hardrata, Viking king of Norway; and the family of Godwin, a powerful political figure who came from an entirely unknown background. Of course there is William, Duke of Normandy; and even Tostig, an insane and trouble-making brother.
"1066" is a tale comprised of many other intertwined tales of courage and cowardice and political expediency; of pride and hatred and a thirst for power; of treachery and ingenuity and a complex code of ethics. It's a story of deceit and carnage and even love. It's the story of a brave nation committed to their king and of the primarily mercenary army who brutalized them for the sake of promised plunder. It is fascinating, informative, and evokes sympathy in the reader.
I highly recommend this book.
While portions of this book are, of necessity, conjecture (because the events described transpired nearly 1,000 years ago; and because, as always, the winner writes the history), the author makes it very clear what each of the sources says, what is fact, what is clearly fabrication or embellishment, what is his opinion, what is his educated guess, and what will simply never be known.
I found this book to be utterly fascinating as it lays the background of the principal characters and the history of the regions from which they came, leading up to the battle of Hastings and the subsequent brutal Norman takeover of England. The way of life and thinking is clarified for each region, which I found to be immensely helpful in understanding the actions and possible motives of the people involved.
The principal characters of the story were intertwined by birth and by marriage in a way that could be very confusing. I made a chart to keep all these people straight and it helped me immensely.
Ethelred, king of England who died in 1015, is the first player introduced to us in the extended drama of 1066, and the story continues through three more generations of his family, which is closely intertwined with the family of Godwin, primary adviser to Ethelred's son, King Edward the Confessor.
Knut, prince of Denmark and his sons play a role; as well as Harald Hardrata, Viking king of Norway; and the family of Godwin, a powerful political figure who came from an entirely unknown background. Of course there is William, Duke of Normandy; and even Tostig, an insane and trouble-making brother.
"1066" is a tale comprised of many other intertwined tales of courage and cowardice and political expediency; of pride and hatred and a thirst for power; of treachery and ingenuity and a complex code of ethics. It's a story of deceit and carnage and even love. It's the story of a brave nation committed to their king and of the primarily mercenary army who brutalized them for the sake of promised plunder. It is fascinating, informative, and evokes sympathy in the reader.
I highly recommend this book.
December 6, 2011
Not knowing a lot about British History, and hearing that the Battle of Hastings was one of the most important events in British history, I felt the need to read this book. '1066: The Year of the Conquest,' not only proved to be informative, but very interesting as well. David Howarth used contemporary sources to tell the story, while trying not to be too biased about the events, and he was able to make me empathize with several of the important characters in the story, even though they opposed each other.
The events that led to the Battle of Hastings were so incredible, it was almost hard to believe that all of these events occurred within just one year's time. This may be one of those cases where 'truth is stranger than fiction.' This story is full of broken promises, extraordinary events, and heart wrenching tales of the suffering of the English people. Howarth tells of the battle in as great of detail as possible without making it tiresome. He discusses the hopes and wishes of the prominent figures involved, and how their hopes were destroyed. He leads you from a great victory to an even greater defeat. My only wish is that he would have included some better maps showing where the events took place. I kept having to resort to Google to see where the various villages were located. Still, it was a great book, and I'm glad I read it because it is one of the stories that helps you make connections with other events in history.
The events that led to the Battle of Hastings were so incredible, it was almost hard to believe that all of these events occurred within just one year's time. This may be one of those cases where 'truth is stranger than fiction.' This story is full of broken promises, extraordinary events, and heart wrenching tales of the suffering of the English people. Howarth tells of the battle in as great of detail as possible without making it tiresome. He discusses the hopes and wishes of the prominent figures involved, and how their hopes were destroyed. He leads you from a great victory to an even greater defeat. My only wish is that he would have included some better maps showing where the events took place. I kept having to resort to Google to see where the various villages were located. Still, it was a great book, and I'm glad I read it because it is one of the stories that helps you make connections with other events in history.
December 16, 2009
I am an English major, and part of my course work including English history and linguistics. So I had a basic understanding of how the Normans had influenced England. But until I read this book, I never had a clear idea of what England was like BEFORE the Normans showed up. As I listened to this one, I have to admit that my sympathies (and clearly those of the author) were firmly with the English. Harold was a good king and would have served the English well. William's arrival was nothing short of a disaster for most of the English. The Normans took over the estates, built castles that doubled as prisons, ransacked the countryside and the churches, and completely changed the structure of society.
It was interesting to learn about the Battle of Hastings too. I would have expected that the Norman knights would have had a clear advantage over the English infantry, but they really didn't. It sounded like what had made the big difference was the kind of leadership available during the battle.
I really enjoyed this book. It did a great job of making the personalities behind the names come to life. Now my next job is to find a copy of 'A Needle in the Hand of God' about the Bayeux tapestry. It was mentioned so often throughout this book, and I really have no idea what it looks like. Great for history buffs.
It was interesting to learn about the Battle of Hastings too. I would have expected that the Norman knights would have had a clear advantage over the English infantry, but they really didn't. It sounded like what had made the big difference was the kind of leadership available during the battle.
I really enjoyed this book. It did a great job of making the personalities behind the names come to life. Now my next job is to find a copy of 'A Needle in the Hand of God' about the Bayeux tapestry. It was mentioned so often throughout this book, and I really have no idea what it looks like. Great for history buffs.
March 8, 2018
This is a fantastic little book about the Norman conquest of England, a piece of history I was rather oblivious to until recently. This is primarily a book about what it was like for an Englishman in 1066 and the conditions that led to the invasion, or rather, invasions. Snorri Sturleson's Icelandic Saga, Heimskringla, provides the best account of Harald Hardrada's invasion, which I'm sure to be reviewing at some point in the future. As for William the Conqueror's invasion, no English accounts survive, which tells you something about the nature of the conquest and it's aftermath. With limited information available Howarth did a great job of resurrecting the world of 1066 and showing the conditions that led to the all important Battle of Hastings. Definitely will be checking out his books on Waterloo and Trafalgar. Highly recommended!
December 15, 2022
Despite some flaws, and I'll come back to them, this book deserves 5 stars without hesitation. It is well written, concise, engaging, and generally reliable. In fact, David Howarth has indeed a way with words that is very pleasing and you seldom find nowadays modern history books written with this style. Some reasons for that are good and others bad. You can tell that this is not recent historiography and that is very clear when Howarth spends so much time trying to analyze a historical character's psychology, which is usually a difficult exercise that is rarely done nowadays. In addition, he clearly supports the English in this book (which makes sense as he is after all british) and that makes it difficult for him to remain clear of bias.
For example, he clearly believes that Harold had the most legitimate claim for several reasons and one of those is that he was confirmed by the witan, a constitutional assembly as per Howarth, which seems highly anachronistic to me. There is also the concept of nation that is pervasive throughout his writings when most of us will agree that in 1066, the idea of nationhood was foreign to all contemporaries.
In addition, he repeats several times that the English did not want a foreign king, which seems strange as they did have a Danish king a few decades earlier, Knut, and they did not seem to mind.
Overall, one can tell this book was written in the 20th century when the concept of nationhood in historical writings was very present and therefore, it pushes the author to do anachronism.
Despite the above, it is indeed those same flaws that make the book highly readable: one can more easily relate to another individual if we are able to understand their psychology, and a story seems more powerful when individuals assemble for a common cause that goes beyond them.
Finally, Howarth makes good use of the various chronicles, explaining what we need to consider when we read Norman ones versus Anglo-Saxon ones, and where there is uncertainty, he does not hesitate to provide an explanation, making it clear that it is his interpretation and is thus just a possibility. This possibility is usually convincing and makes for an overly fascinating story. This will remain a classic for quite a while.
For example, he clearly believes that Harold had the most legitimate claim for several reasons and one of those is that he was confirmed by the witan, a constitutional assembly as per Howarth, which seems highly anachronistic to me. There is also the concept of nation that is pervasive throughout his writings when most of us will agree that in 1066, the idea of nationhood was foreign to all contemporaries.
In addition, he repeats several times that the English did not want a foreign king, which seems strange as they did have a Danish king a few decades earlier, Knut, and they did not seem to mind.
Overall, one can tell this book was written in the 20th century when the concept of nationhood in historical writings was very present and therefore, it pushes the author to do anachronism.
Despite the above, it is indeed those same flaws that make the book highly readable: one can more easily relate to another individual if we are able to understand their psychology, and a story seems more powerful when individuals assemble for a common cause that goes beyond them.
Finally, Howarth makes good use of the various chronicles, explaining what we need to consider when we read Norman ones versus Anglo-Saxon ones, and where there is uncertainty, he does not hesitate to provide an explanation, making it clear that it is his interpretation and is thus just a possibility. This possibility is usually convincing and makes for an overly fascinating story. This will remain a classic for quite a while.
January 29, 2020
This is not a comprehensive history of the Battle of Hastings, and it is not meant to be. It is a great storyteller's version of events as he understands them.
Howarth uses mostly contemporaneous writings (17 of his 20 sources are within 100 years of the Battle of Hastings) to decipher and tell the history of the battle between King Harold of England and William the Conqueror of Normandy. He infuses the book with his own point of view, which at times can be borderline Francophobic. "[William] was a more barbarous primitive man than either Edward or Harold, but he is not to be blamed: he came from a more barbarous primitive country."
But it is this point of view, and this conversational tone that makes this book so enjoyable. You might not agree with his point of view, but it sure is fun to listen to. "Obviously, nobody could really make a speech to an army, and the chaplain rather gave the game away. He wrote: 'Nobody has reported to us in detail the short harangue with which on this occasion the Duke increased the courage of his troops...' - and he went straight on to quote the speech at great length word for word."
I'll definitely be looking out for Howarth's other books.
Howarth uses mostly contemporaneous writings (17 of his 20 sources are within 100 years of the Battle of Hastings) to decipher and tell the history of the battle between King Harold of England and William the Conqueror of Normandy. He infuses the book with his own point of view, which at times can be borderline Francophobic. "[William] was a more barbarous primitive man than either Edward or Harold, but he is not to be blamed: he came from a more barbarous primitive country."
But it is this point of view, and this conversational tone that makes this book so enjoyable. You might not agree with his point of view, but it sure is fun to listen to. "Obviously, nobody could really make a speech to an army, and the chaplain rather gave the game away. He wrote: 'Nobody has reported to us in detail the short harangue with which on this occasion the Duke increased the courage of his troops...' - and he went straight on to quote the speech at great length word for word."
I'll definitely be looking out for Howarth's other books.
July 8, 2021
Well now I know what happened when the Normans invaded England. It’s written in a way that unfolds as if your grandpa was telling you a bedtime story about a far away land a long long time ago. Maybe not the most rigorous history but he pieces it together pretty well considering the source material. Funny how William essentially had to invade in order to save face as he had been promised the Kingdom by the previous king Edward, even though he had no right or ability to make such a promise. Because William had been advertising the fact so thoroughly during the years before Edward’s death, he had no choice but to invade or risk losing all of his clout. Certain aspects of English society seem so much more sophisticated than you might assume for the year 1066. I was stunned to realize there were the witen’s who are essentially a local body of men who had to vote and decide who would or could be the next king, given the lack of an heir.
I would have liked to hear more about the implications of the Norman conquest, he simply leaves off by saying that the consensus among historians is that it was for the best. But he would say that, himself being a descendant of the foreign dogs.
I would have liked to hear more about the implications of the Norman conquest, he simply leaves off by saying that the consensus among historians is that it was for the best. But he would say that, himself being a descendant of the foreign dogs.
October 17, 2019
A thoroughly interesting book, and I can say I walked away with a pretty decent general overview of what happened in the year 1066. Reading this though really made me think about a lot of different things, like how old the world is, how advanced people are, and how young America is. 1066 seems like such a long time ago yet the people were reasonable people who could think and make decisions just like us. I know that’s probably not that big of a revelation but I think there’s a huge disconnect between what we see right in front of us and what once was
July 6, 2018
Howarth gives us more of a popular history than a scholarly history, but with plenty of references to the mostly Norman and French sources about the principals. A combination of shifting politics at court and a childless king is seldom a good thing for medieval kingdoms. Easy to see how this spiraled: Edward surrounded by ambitious Godwins attached himself to more Normans at court, and then later reversed to favoring Godwin and his family. It was probably inevitable that this many competing claims would crop up when Edward died-so many dead siblings and few options. Promises made for advantage when it suited Edward.
Howarth doesn't pretend to know the truth, but often ends with "I think or suspect" to make a point about larger motivations. This is appropriate considering the source materials. You get the distinct impression that each of these men (Harold, Duke William, Tostig) all feel trapped by the circumstances. Not so much Harald Hardrada, who saw this is a fine opportunity to plunder and perhaps steal half a territory. Perhaps this is better as an entertaining introduction to all the questions about the Conquest, followed up by reading expert scholarship. The book moves at a great pace, and at just above 200 pages is a quick introduction. I haven't read books dedicated exclusively to the subject. Howarth doesn't really point to any other scholars of recent memory (none close to when this was published in 1977.) As expected, it reads as a popular history published for an English audience. Harold Godwinson is a sympathetic but tragic character; Tostig is pathetic and delusional, desperate to regain his lost Earldom; Duke William is fearsome and proud, feeling spurned by his rejected claim; and Harald is a cunning opportunist, ready for plunder.
Howarth doesn't pretend to know the truth, but often ends with "I think or suspect" to make a point about larger motivations. This is appropriate considering the source materials. You get the distinct impression that each of these men (Harold, Duke William, Tostig) all feel trapped by the circumstances. Not so much Harald Hardrada, who saw this is a fine opportunity to plunder and perhaps steal half a territory. Perhaps this is better as an entertaining introduction to all the questions about the Conquest, followed up by reading expert scholarship. The book moves at a great pace, and at just above 200 pages is a quick introduction. I haven't read books dedicated exclusively to the subject. Howarth doesn't really point to any other scholars of recent memory (none close to when this was published in 1977.) As expected, it reads as a popular history published for an English audience. Harold Godwinson is a sympathetic but tragic character; Tostig is pathetic and delusional, desperate to regain his lost Earldom; Duke William is fearsome and proud, feeling spurned by his rejected claim; and Harald is a cunning opportunist, ready for plunder.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 360 reviews