Product Description

The date of the battle of Hastings - 14 October, 1066 - is probably the most famous in English history. This book brings to life the world of Harold the King and Duke William in a compelling narrative history that reads as vividly as reportage. Harriet Harvey Wood's original and fascinating book shows that, rather than bringing culture and enlightenment to England, the Normans' aggressive and illegal invasion destroyed a long-established and highly-developed civilization which was far ahead of other European peoples in its political institutions, art and literature. It explores the background and lead-up to the invasion and the motives of the leading players, the state of warfare in England and Normandy in 1066, and the battle itself. By all the laws of probability, King Harold ought to have won the battle of Hastings without difficulty and to have enjoyed a peaceful and enlightened reign. That he did not was largely a matter of sheer bad luck. The result could just as easily have gone the other way. This gripping and highly-readable book shows how he came to be defeated, and what England lost as a result of his defeat and death.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #216184 in Books
• Published on: 2009-06-01
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 240 pages

About the Author
Harriet Harvey Wood studied mediaeval languages and literature at Edinburgh University and worked as an orchestral manager before joining the British Council, where she was head of its Literature Department for 14 years. She has published editions of poetry and letters, has collaborated with Peter Porter on a collection of banned poetry for Index on Censorship in 1987 and, with A. S. Byatt, edited an anthology on memory. She was appointed OBE in 1992.

Customer Reviews

Good to read, but.....
There have been a lot of good books on the events of 1066 and, with a limited number of sources to draw on, most of them just quote the same facts. However, I found this telling of the story very well written, facts were presented in a logical order and there were a few things I wasn't aware of before I read the book.So, it's worth having if you want a decent account of the background and events. What I was really not happy about was her section on the weapons and armour used (from page 117 onwards in the paperback edition).I felt the author was really out of her depth and did not know what she was talking about. When she talks about metal shields (page 118) I thought she was making it up. There's a lot we don't know about the weapons and armour of the time, but the author seems to have been prone to a serious attack of conjecture. I thought this section managed to be both vague and incorrect. She ought to have talked to a few people who wear mail and use weapons before writing. Of course, you shouldn't write off a book for one fault. She presents both sides of the debate when the sources disagree and quotes modern military historians where their opinions support her point. What worries me is that if someone like me can see things wrong, how reliable are the other new facts in the book?
One last point. She constantly spells Snorri Sturluson's name as "Snorre". No one else on the planet does.

Well researched but a little hard going at times.
This is a very well researched book packed with information about just about all the major players in the story as well as details about the battle itself.
The problem is its more akin to a bad history lesson at school where the facts are realed off at breakneck speed and I want to know what the real people who faught the battle were doing and thinking.
The characters get confusing as most had similar names there wer so many Harolds etc. I got a little lost and very confused. A list to reference who was who that could be refered to would have been a nice addition; perhaps as a pull out to use a bookmark.
Overall this is an informative book but not light reading; yopu need to really concentrate and make notes as you go!

Enjoyable and fascinating account
I have read history for much of my life, even did it at University in my spare time from my sporting pursuits, and yet knew surprisingly little about the Battle of Hastings (no surprise there, I can hear my old university teachers muttering in the background!) and still less about the civilisation that immediately preceded it, beyond a few legends of King Arthur and some burned cakes. What I realised on reading this excellent little book was the extent to which we have received victors' history.

The author convincingly presents the Norman conquest as a tragedy, the destruction of a much more advanced civilisation, the envy of Europe for its culture and wealth, by a group of bandits who acted without a shred of legitimacy. So far from being a battlefield genius, she portays the victor William as strategically inept (in his preparation for Hastings). Prior to his victory and reincarnation as William the Conqueror, William was known throughout Europe as 'William the Bastard' because of his illegitimacy. He had so much good fortune in the English invasion that the author suggests he might perhaps be known as 'William the Lucky Bastard'!

The author dismisses William's claim to the throne (e.g. through the oath of submission, or through the Pope) very crisply.

Harold Godwinson, Harold II, comes across as a thoroughly good thing and a good king too. Cultured, a good war leader, popular, he had the benefit of having been elected. His victory at Stamford Bridge was a brilliant triumph, one that would have gone down in history as a major event had it not been followed by Hastings within three weeks. The sheer effort of the journey south leaves one amazed that it was possible to fight at all. At the end, perhaps in a bit of poetic fancy, the author plays with the idea of Godwinson as a tragic hero fulfilling his destiny.

The main criticism of the Saxon troops comes at the Battle itself. The Saxons held all the strategic aces. They only needed to avoid losing. The idea of the Norman troops breaking in a planned feint, leading to a planned counter attack when the English charged after them, is examined and seen as unlikely (more likely some fled and others recovered the situation). But still the Saxon line should have held. As the slaughter of part of the Saxion army took place, those left on the battlefield drew together, thereby exposing their flanks.

The battle was largely decided by luck - Harold's death, which broke morale. He had had no option but to fight himself, according to the conception of kinghood of the time, and in such circumstances a single death could decide a battle. So little enthusiasm for change was there that a new king was elected (Edgar) and fighting continued for decades, leading to the appalling punitive famine in Yorkshire, with over 100,000 deaths.

I realised after reading this that I too had seen English history as beginning in 1066, as following a period of assumed lower civilisation. I had not counted the preceding kings as somehow legitimate. Edward Longshanks was not Edward I, for instance - what about Edward the Confessor (who comes across pretty badly in this book)? I had bought the victors' tale, much as I speak and write the language that derived from their victory.

Only 6% of English landholdings survived in English hands. Amazingly, according to another source, 70% of English land is still owned by descendants of the Norman invaders. This invasion changed our country, was one of the defining events in history (across Europe as well as in Great Britain) and not for the better. The author does a good job of explaining all that.

The sources are clearly weak and biased but that is down to almost 950 years and the history having been written post battle. Only criticism would be about the amount of time devoted to exploring the implications. Interesting but almost an afterthought. No 100 years war, no Joan of Ark, our speaking a version of German, ... tantalising, but I feel a more focused thinking through might have drawn out a more interesting discussion.

But this book is a good read and is certainly worth the money.