Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #122968 in Books
• Published on: 1999-09-02
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 320 pages

Amazon.co.uk Review
Frank McLynn was Research Fellow at St Antony's College, Oxford and is currently visiting Professor in the Department of Literature at Strathclyde University. He is author of several biographies including, Carl Gustav Jung, which was shortlisted for the 1997 NCR Award. He also won the 1985 Cheltenham Prize for Literature with The Jacobite Army in England.

1066 is a triple biography of three great men: William of Normandy, Harold Godwinson and Harald Hardrada who led a Norwegian invasion of England near York in 1066. Frank McLynn overturns previously accepted myths centred around the Battle of Hastings in this superbly researched book. He shows how William's victory at the Battle of Hastings was not the sure thing that was previously thought and how it is unlikely that Harold died with an arrow in the eye. McLynn argues that Harald Hardrada was actually the greatest warrior and most flamboyant of the three, though he lost a battle through unforeseen circumstances to the fortunate and courageous Harold. 1066 is a compelling book in how it shows the truth to be more astonishing than the myths of this time and skilfully explains how they wrongly ended up in the history books. --Pat Naylor

Synopsis
Everyone knows what William the Conqueror won the Battle of Hastings in 1066, but in recent years it has become customary to assume that the victory was virtually inevitable, given the alleged superiority of Norman military technology. In this new study, underpinned by biographical sketches of the great warriors who fought for the crown of England in 1066, Frank McLynn shows that this view is mistaken. The Battle on Senlac Hill on 14 October was desperately close-run thing, which Harold lost only because of an incredible run of bad fortune and some treachery from the Saxon elite in England. Both William and Harold were fine generals, but Harold was the more inspirational of the two. Making use of all the latest scholarship, McLynn shows that most of our 'knowledge' of 1066 rests on myths or illusions: Harold did not fight at Hastings with the same army with which he had been victorious at Stamford Bridge three weeks earlier; the Battle of Senlac was not won by Norman archery; Harold did not die with an arrow in the eye.

Customer Reviews

Wonderful History
Over the years I have read just about everything I can on the year 1066. 1066: The Year of The Three Battles by Frank McLynn has to be the best.

This book is a exciting read in it's own right. We get the full background to the three main people involved. Plus loads on all three battles.

A super history book.

Curate's egg.
OK. Frank McLynn is a great writer, but this book is frustrating in the sense that it could have been near-perfect, but is let down by overlong descriptions of viking foreign policy and internal Anglo-Saxon wranglings that do not always seem entirely germane to the narrative thrust. Sam Dewsbury is right in the above review in asking for more maps and perhaps a family tree or five. Here's another gripe. Look in the index for 'Senlac', the hill on which the Battle of Hastings was fought. No mention. In fact, it is not clear where McLynn explains properly to the reader about the names for the hill. He refers to it as 'Battle' hill, though mentions Senlac elsewhere. An editor or two should have been allowed to do a Viking beserker job on a lot of this text. A lot of chopping and changing would have helped.
Also, what's all this myth-busting stuff at the end with a revelation that Harold very probably didn't cork it from an arrow in the eye? McLynn seems to present this as groundbreaking research. Come off it! I remember doing the Battle of Hastings at school and the teacher told us exactly the same thing. And I'm 32! I'm no expert on this period of history, but McLynn is suggesting that many serious scholars can still be found who support the 'arrow in the eye' theory. Well, maybe so, but when did they publish their books? 1959?
I could have sworn in the 1980s that the consensus that the 'arrow in the eye' man on the Bayeux Tapestry was Harold was shattered in myriad TV programmes and newspaper articles. Pardon my ignorance if I am erroneously projecting onto the past, but I have very strong (if blurred and non-specific) memories about this. Also bizzare is his contention that it is somehow devastatingly original to view the Bayeux Tapestry in general as an allegorical work, biased towards the Normans. Again, who the hell didn't know that?
Hmm. Could have done better. Still a great read for most of it though, which is the frustrating thing....

One of the best books on 1066 I have ever read.
One of the best books on 1066 I have ever read, and I have read quite a few.
Probably best for someone who has some knowledge of the events of that year, but not too academic or dry for someone new to start their fascination with 1066.
Rattles the yarn along superbly, and manages to balance the different strands of Harold, The Confessor, Stamford and Fulford,Hardrada,Tostig, William , Senlac Hill, etc in a masterful way.