Product Description

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.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #50824 in Books
• Published on: 1999-09-02
• Original language: English
• 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

Customer Reviews

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.

Six feet of English earth ....
I reccommend this work highly as the latest word on this climactic year. It goes bravely after a broad canvas when three of Europre's greatest warriors clashed for the kingship of one of the wealthiest domains in the continent. There was no inevitability about Norman success, and it has to be said that (even though my own ancestors were Norman) my sympathy is always with Harold of England. The 'best man' did not win, perhaps it was the luckiest. One 'nit' is that McLynn does not treat the Bayeux Tapestry as a source, though it must be taken as such, and perhaps it is the best source of all. Hence, I feel that Harold WAS wounded by an arrow in the eye. As Michael Grant has said, one should not lightly reject one of the strongest traditions in English history. One historian had examined the stitching around the warrior said to be the true Harold (a man being slain by a mounted warrior) and found stitchmarks in front of the man's face as if the Tapestry did once show an arrow protruding from the man's eye. Hence both warriors are Harold - the first showing a disabing wound, the second the death blow. McLynn also recounts the tragic story of the sons of Godwin - all slain in the four battles - Tostig killed at Stamford Bridge by his brothers, and Harold, Gyrth and Leofwine killed at Hastings. The brothers stand head and shoulders above all the other characters in the book - 'what a fall was there, my countrymen!'. Indeed, if Gyrth's advice had been followed, Harold would have not have been at Hastings and (maybe) would have founded a dynasty. What would the history of Ireland, Scotland and Wales have been without the Normans? What sort of English language and literature would have evolved? One of history's great might-have-beens. I know that re-turning these islands from the orbit of Scandanavia southward to France and the Mediterranean was perhaps the most decisive event in their long history.

Rich in facts and scholarship with an interesting story
This is a good read. It mixes scholarship with lively story telling. The opening chapters are full of facts though with little colour. This a bit like an anatomy class but with only a skeleton to work with. For example the section covering Harald Sigurrdsson in Byzantium is full of exotic sounding names but without context its fairly meaningless, if informative. Having said that the emphasis of the story is correctly placed around the interrelationship of England, Scandanavia and Normandy. I thought the focus on individual rulers made sense of a sort but the dynamics of regional interrelations was lost in the scope of the story. This was particularly clear in the discussion of King Edwards foreign policy. If it was confusing or a muddle or if it didn't matter say so, but I thought it was left hanging clumsily. The delination of William the Conquerors rulership was crisp and clear but comparing Duke William to Hitler is as absurd as saying William was like the Serbian leader Milosevic today. Though I liked the thrust to perspective it gave. The story telling becomes a little tiresome towards the end as more and more time is taken up with scholarly speculation. I thought the depiction of the battle of Hastings was good. The scale of the effort is captured in the logistical rundown of William's army. This is not primarily a military history though excellent where it reads as such but rather a medieval history with a strong emphasis on the Vikings.