Scan barcode
heidihaverkamp's review against another edition
4.0
This is an engaging and fascinating account of England in 1066 - before, during, and after the Roman Conquest, Jan. 1 to Jan. 1. He outlines English society and helps you distinguish between the various kings - Edmund, Cnut, Edward, Harold, and William. Most fascinating is the psychology of King Harold. Howarth's hypothesis that Harold lost England because of a failure of nerve! (Deliberate Edwin Friedman reference on my part.) Primarily in the face of William's support from the Pope, and rumors that spread among the English that God was punishing them for their sins. Harold made a lot of obviously bad decisions, after a career of making many very GOOD decisions. Howarth also points out that William conquered England pretty much because of overconfidence and luck. Short book, interesting read. But I wish it had more maps. Also, it's a bit dated because Howarth uses words like "ravishing" of women during war, where "raped" is probably more accurate.
lirewoodis's review
4.0
I really enjoyed this book. The author pulled no punches in trying to create an engaging narrative propelled by the elusive history of the Norman conquest of 1066. The blanks were filled with plausible and qualified theories that minimized the hoops through which the reader was required to jump.
lindseysparks's review
3.0
Solid book explaining the events of 1066 when William took over England. It starts by describing life in England right before the conquest, explains how and why William went after England, how the pope got involved, etc. I knew the basics facts but this gave a lot more detail without being overwhelming or stuffy. It's crazy to think of how lucky William was in many ways and how unlucky Harold was and how different the world could be if things had gone down differently.
rumbledethumps's review against another edition
5.0
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.
mrpatperkins's review against another edition
informative
slow-paced
4.0
Interesting look into a critical date of British history.
scholastic_squid's review against another edition
3.0
A WWII expert decided to write about the year 1066; not an expert but he notes this in the introduction and also notes that he is attempting to give his opinion. He also attempts at using psychology? Even though he is not a professional in psychology. He starts as though he is going to focus on one place, but he ends up going all over. He does give solid facts, and used primary sources. He has few sources though and fails to cite them within the texts. It is interesting none-the-less.