Customer Reviews: Read 72 more reviews...
 1066: The year of the Conquest July 7, 2008
Very readable history. Shows how naive we Americans are because we have been so poorly taught real history.
 A quick read of a world changing event May 9, 2008
Like sitting on a star, looking down on the continental world, we get a broad, quick, and enjoyable view of this critical year. Yes, as some reviewers say, it is biased by the author. But what history is not? "History is what men have decided upon," Napoleon said. My view is that what makes a people is geography and religion, and in the end it is geography. "1066" certainly reinforces that concept. What if the wind had blown from the East -- for just one day in the summer, that history would have been written in French perhaps. For those wanting scholarly treatises with lots of footnotes, there are plenty of other big thick books. Howarth has made a valuable historical contribution to the rest of us. A great and welcome read.
Frederick R. Andresen, Author of "Walking on Ice, An American Businessman in Russia."
Entry Level Work May 9, 2008
David Howarth's 1066 is really an essay. There are no end notes, nor learned rabbit trails to follow. Instead, it is a well-written, informative, and at times, personal re-telling of one of Britain's more compelling stories. He deftly reviews the players, sets the stage, and in just a few pages poignantly relates Harold's defeat. All in all, he is kind to Harold and the Godwins but we, English readers, tend to lean in that direction. All the politics and intrigue lie with William and his allies and we only see part of that. However, for what it is, it is excellent.
 Reasonably good but prejudiced introduction to the Norman Conquest March 15, 2008
The book is amusing and provides a good overview of the Norman Conquest for people that look for a first approach to the subject. Do not expect a scholarly book, but it has good information, while maintaining good rythm to keep the reader interested. However, it has a serious flaw for any history book that wishes to be seriously considered. The author is more concerned in giving his point of view that in objectively describing facts and events and drawing conclusions from them. Beforehand Harold and the English are the good and almost flawless characters in the story, while the Normans are assigned a villanous role in their responsibility for putting an end to an almost paradisiac pre-Norman England. The problem is not that the author has a view (we all have one), but that instead of drawing it as a conclusion to the facts he brings to light, he accomodates facts to suit his pre-conception.
Informative, Well-Written, but Biased November 19, 2007
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
As a graduate student with a BA in English and working towards a degree in Medieval Studies, I wanted to pick up a book that focused exclusively on the pivotal date in the history of England and the English language.
So, I wanted a concise book that would give me the facts surrounding the events with enough detail to give a complete story, but which didn't require a lot of back-history to understand. This is that book. Howarth paints an intimate portrait of the times and the people who lived them -- both the important historical figures such as Edward the Confessor and Harold Godwinesson, but also the small-time farmers and villagers. You don't need a great background in Anglo-Saxon history to read; the first chapter of the book does a nice job of briefly overviewing English society using a small real-life village as an example. Howarth gives enough of a background of previous events to help the reader understand the situation of 1066, but doesn't give too many details to overwhelm the reader. He attempts at a personal portrait of the major players, often showing how in many ways they were trapped in the circumstances of the year. They become rather sympathetic, and it lends itself to understanding history not as a series of implacable, inevitable events but as stepping-stones that could have led to a number of different outcomes.
The book is short and gets straight to the point. If you want a focused discussion of this singular event, this is the perfect book. If you are looking for a more general description of the overall time period, there are more generalized authors (James Reston Jr., for one). The author also presents a good understanding of how difficult it is to understand the time period, and especially the motives of the principal players. He gives and adequate understanding of the waves of Norman propaganda that followed the Conquest, again without bogging down in incredibly deep details that might confuse beginning readers on the subject.
The only drawback on the book, I would say, is the obviously biased nature of the author. In his introduction he admits to this -- he makes not attempt at hiding his personal feelings for figures like William of Normandy and Harold Godwinesson. This would be fine and perfectly excusable, if he did not also tinge his bias with a nationalistic rhetoric. Now, I'm not saying he's Anglo-centric, but I do feel he gives his characters too much credit simply on the basis that they were English. He makes much of what he calls "traditional English values" or "virtues" or "principles." His writing is peppered with references to these ideals, and he seems to find virtue in Harold Godwinesson simply based on the fact he is English (all other positive personal attributes he mentions set aside), and William barbaric because he was Norman. It can be a little tedious at times, as if the English could do no wrong. It's a very nostalgic, rather than political, kind of nationalism -- an idea of harkening back to "good old days" when people were far simpler. The violent, scarred past of England -- when ruthless warlords ripped each other apart -- seems to not play a part whatsoever in Howarth's appraisal of the English people.
With that aside, the book is good both as an introduction into English history and as an in-depth discussion of this specific event. Coming from a fairly good background of English literature and history, I already had an understanding of the events before and after 1066. The book was in-depth and innovative enough that it was not boring or re-hashing information that I had already heard, but it was also introductory enough that someone with minimal background on the subject could easily understand it. With the exception of his cultural bias, this is a good, informative work.
|
