1066: The Year of the Conquest

I did enjoy this interpretation of the historical background and events that took place during the year 1066. It was delivered in an informed, well researched manner, also in an imminently readable, understandable and enjoyable manner. Apart from giving the reader a fascinating glimpse of normal villager life at that time it's also a story of political intrigues, power broking, allegiance making and breaking, treachery, murder, accusations and doubt. Howarth I believe does his best to look for plausible solutions to the many mysteries that surround the momentous events that took place during that fateful year. He reasons well, puts forward logical arguments and believable suppositions in order to make sense of many puzzling actions that were taken by the major players of the time. One reviewer poo-poos the historical content in this book accusing the author of bias and disagreeing with "major works of history". He then goes on to give a chapter and verse account of the Godwin's troubled history with Edward, stating that they were guilty of "probably even killing a sitting king and clearly killed the most obvious heir", etc. I object; heresay! Whoever accuses another of bias should not then proceed to put forward his own views of what took place as a matter of fact. Unfair! I make two points: 1) all ancient historians are guilty of bias in some shape or form since their sources never do allow them to know the real truth so they are left to express their own opinions of what took place, and why that, despite the best research, are subjective. Howarth is no more, or less guilty than any other (major) historians in this case and I do not feel he should have to re-present, or constantly refute these authors' opinions here. 2) I would estimate that 99% of the readers in Amazon are not looking for a history text book but want an account that is fun to read whilst not being a complete fabrication, or mockery, of the historical known facts. I know enough 1066-lore to realise that Howarth is no hack! His research is sound and his reasoning is believable, thought-provoking and interesting. If you like your history presented in a way that the lay person can read, understand and enjoy; this book is definitely for you. I am such a reader and I loved it!

This book is very readable history of a year nine hundred sixty years ago, and paints a picture of a way of life and monarchy and war that is very informative and interesting. I'm reading it twice.

If you were going to read just one book to get some working knowledge about 1066 and the Norman Conquest, this'd be a good choice. It is engaging, entertaining, novel-like in its story-telling, and quite interesting. Howarth uses a lot of good techniques to maintain reader interest, such as starting the book with a description of a typical small village, so you can get a feel for the people and the times, not just the political struggles and major battles. The book has some real strengths. It covers the whole range of personalities, places, issues, battles, and other ingredients that go into understanding the rather complex Norman invasion. It does it in an organized, chronological way. You really do come out of the book with an overall, pretty clear sense of what happened and why. Coverage of battles is quite good. Coverage of the politics and complex dynastic situation that led to Hastings is good, too. The book is not without flaws. There are some basic factual errors. For instance, he has Halley's Comet occurring on April 18, 1066. It was on April 24. Some of his other numbers are less definitively incorrect but still doubtful (troop strengths and fleet sizes, etc). A larger issue is that he puts forth opinions and conjecture as fact, without offering alternative viewpoints or even noting that alternative views exist. For instance, he says that Tostig Godwinesson was out of his mind. That is a personal judgment of the author's which is likely wrong, and no other view is presented. For those now toe-dipping into this topic, Tostig was a brother of King Harold of England, the guy who was defeated at Hastings. Tostig, who ruled a big chunk of England but was sent packing with his brother's collusion a year before Hastings, allied himself with Norwegian Vikings against his brother, causing Harold to lose many of his best-trained warriors in a huge, bloody battle (in which Tostig was killed) literally three days before William's force landed in England for the big showdown. Tostig's antics thus paved the way for William the Conqueror's victory at Hastings, a victory that probably would not have happened if not for Tostig's actions (Hastings, after all, was a close-fought near-draw until the end, despite Harold's fighting with a thinned-out shell of his former army). Gaining a solid understanding of Tostig's motivations and situation are therefore crucial to understanding the events of 1066. Some other authors see Tostig as having been sane, smart and strategic; still others, that he was consumed by vengeful fraternal rage but hardly insane. My own view is that Tostig's behavior, which seems excessively vengeful and erratic from a 21st century perspective, fits nicely into the Germanic heroic tradition of the 11th century ["doomed warlord is killed in a final hopeless battle against his brother that could've been avoided, in order to rescue his honor after having been shamed and wronged, his death helping his name to live on", etc. etc. etc.]. In fact his behavior was quite consistent with what you'd expect from a high-ranking noble of the time who was dispossessed of his holdings and left with nothing to do but scheme and dream of ways to retake what was taken from him. I am not sympathetic to what that obviously brutal man did, and I would run, not walk, if he showed up in my neighborhood, but I think there are more historically sophisticated ways to understand his behavior than to call him insane. His children were, in fact, later treated like the noble offspring of an honorable warrior who died for a worthy cause .... in Norway. Howarth brings, as you'd expect, an English perspective to the complicated Tostig Godwinsson situation, but there are other lenses through which Tostig can be viewed. Another example: Howarth presents an interesting view that Papal blessing of the Norman invasion might have demoralized Harold Godwinesson just before Hastings, leading to tepid or tentative generalship and, ultimately, his loss on the battlefield. It's an interesting theory and worth chewing over, but is most likely not the immediate cause of the debacle at Hastings. The Normans' use of integrated artillery, cavalry and infantry, pitted against the Dark Ages model of guys packed together in a shield wall, was likely the "proximate cause" of the debacle at Hastings, combined with the exhaustion of Harold's army after battling the Norwegians. The Pope theory is interesting ... but incomplete, at a minimum. At a maximum, some people (myself included) would question whether the Pope ever gave his blessing to William's Normans. If he did, then why did William build Battle Abbey as penance for the invasion, as well as confess it as a great sin and injustice before he died? You don't usually do penance for and confess things the Pope told you to do; you'd be bragging about such things. So there are some holes in the whole Pope-said-it-was-cool-to-invade theory of Hastings. In Howarth's book you do not get exposure to counterarguments of this nature. As another reviewer suggested, the Frank McLynn book offers a more in-depth, academically rigorous treatment of the same topics, with more diligence about presenting different theories and viewpoints. Where Howarth takes a lot of stuff in the Bayeux Tapestry and Norman "sources" at face value, McLynn is more skeptical and questions whether some of the key events even took place at all, which really challenges the reader to think for himself or herself and evaluate the evidence. Both books are worth reading, though in my opinion the McLynn book is a stronger overall book, and the Howarth book is more of a starter book for people who want to get their feet wet. I'll give it four stars. It's a great place to start, and an easy, simple way to get your head around 1066, but not a perfect book.

A country of 1.5-million people invaded and taken over by an army of 50,000? As impossible as it seems, that is exactly what happened to England in 1066. William of Normandy dreamed big. Coupled with a streak of incredibly good luck--and King Harold's streak of incredibly bad luck-- William and his band of mercenary Normans, French and Bretons conquered England in 90 days. How they did it is vividly explained in David Howarth's concise (201 pages) and smartly written book, "1066: The Year of the Conquest." Howarth spends much of the book setting the stage. The Anglo-Saxons (themselves invaders of Britain some 500 years before) were mostly peaceful farmers, governed by a king and nobles they approved as rulers, and living under the rule of law. Yes, under the rule of law, as established by enlightened monarch Alfred the Great 200 years before. England was a land of small farms and sleepy villages, with a few inland trading centers such as London and York. Fortifications were few, and castles nonexistent. Normandy, on the other hand, was governed by a warlike king and warlike lords who, when not engaged in fighting Frisians, Germans and French, amused themselves with jousting and other warlike games. Chivalry was the law of land, and dueling was common. Anyone of means lived in a castle for protection. The Normans spoke French, but their forbearers were fierce Norse warriors who had pillaged and settled the land 150 years before. It remains unclear, but it's likely that the King of England, Edward the Confessor, promised William of Normandy the English crown, upon Edward's death. When William learned that Edward had died and Harold had been crowned, he sought revenge. He built hundreds of ships capable of transporting horses, armor, weapons, and fighting men. He then waited some time for the wind to change and blow up from the south so his forces could safely cross the channel. That the wind did not change while crossing and dash them against the rocks of either shore or blow them out into the Atlantic, is one of the miracles of the invasion. Harold was fully prepared. He had received word, assembled his army along the south coast of England, and waited to smash William's army as it disembarked. However, he was called away to York to fight another invading army, of King Harald Hardrada of Norway. He defeated the Norwegians, then turned around and marched his army 250 miles back to the south coast to fight the Normans who by then were safely ashore. His army was physically drained but he still should have won. At Hastings, he held the high ground and had superior numbers. Why he lost, and how the Normans managed to take over England so quickly, is fully explained in Howarth's entertaining and informative little book. Final word: the Normans did more than introduce castles and dungeons into English culture. They eliminated slavery, made London the capital city, and consolidated power in a central government comprised of the king and a body of lords that became the Parliament. They added hundreds of French words into the language and scores of French phrases, such as "savoir-faire" and "piece-de-resistance." And did you know that the English adopted their French names? Had NOT the Normans invaded England, today we inheritors of the English tradition would be calling each other Aethelwulf, Beorhtric, Osberht, Egbert and Tostig, instead of John, Robert, Charles, James, and William.

1066 By David Howarth I'm into modern military history and have grown used to the highly organized cut and thrust of modern decisive strategy and tactics; concentrated firepower, tanks, artillery, strategic bombing, and novel weaponry. Imagine yourself 1000 years ago, before the advent of gunpowder or its military uses; where a long range weapon is a long bow or crossbow and the main weapon is a sword and your main protection a shield and helmet. Imagine you're a King in a world where expressed religious thoughts of the various bishops could mean the difference between public support for your kingship or rejection. Understanding an era when Church and State are one. A time when the Church, could make or break you; depending on its political reasoning in Rome. Think of the goings on in a world where an oath uttered was not binding but an oath uttered over the relic of some or other long dead Saint was binding and some people may have relics hidden under the table and you didn't know and weren't informed. Imagine launching a quest for conquest by amphibious landing when your society, largely illiterate, although from Viking beginnings hadn't built a sailing war boat for about 200 years; your sailing is subject to weather being kind to your project but you have no meteorologist; a world where your army is a loose assembly of knights and thugs errant with various loyalties and obligations, mainly to themselves and you need to maintain control. Where your army has a debt of service under fealty provisions but after an allotted time can just pack up and leave for home and the harvest. Imagine a world where you could conquer a whole nation with as little as 5,000 troops and the sound of your major battle in Hastings, causing the death of thousands, couldn't even be heard two or three hills away. Imagine awaiting God's wrath upon your head and sensing that you couldn't really do much about this? This is the story of 1066. This world, its motivations, methods and events are so far removed from our understandings of such things as to feel as though from another planet. A place where, Kings and Nobility, are not much more than landed warlords, thugs and protection racketeers; an "upper class" who have an avaricious desire for adding lands to more lands. If you're into a bit of history of this era, then this is a good book. The author uses about 20 different "source" documents, many written much later than the events that they describe and largely propagandistic in style. Written language is in an easy reading style and the author has done much thinking on the validity of various comments from the "source" documents. As contrasted with our age, the modern reader whilst thinking about what has just been read in this book would be thinking an incredulous, "What??" This is certainly an interesting book and well worth your time if you're into such studies. Other book titles that may appeal to you and amplify this story are; "The year 1000, what life was like etc" and although a little later a book simply titled "1215". There are of course a whole lot more of books about this era e.g. "Life in a medieval Castle" etc. that can be found on Amazon.

There were several strong features of David Howarth's book 1066. First, there was excellent characterization. King Harold and Duke William were fully protrayed in all their strengths and weaknesses. They are both drawn as humans with a mixture of assets and contradictions. William was a military prodigy since age 19 whereas Harold was a strong self-made man trying to cobble England back together after the rule of Edward the Confessor. The story is full of heroes and villians. King Edward the Confessor was a problematic ruler who set the stage for the conflict, supposedly promising the crownof England to William, which was against English law. Harold's cruel sadistic traitor brother, Tostig, caused much ruin and destruction of the English nation. There are many other characters, including the wild Norseman Harold Hardrada who invaded England independently but simultaneously with Duke William the Conqueror. Harold could probably have defeated one invasion but not two. Your heart sinks when Harold learns during the victory feast over his defeat of Harold Hardrada' army, that William has invaded and is marching inland. Second, there is excellent explanations about the technology of farming, law and courts, social structures, and warfare at the time. Howarth contrast the Norman knights, their code of chivalry, their use of horses in warfare, with the English footsoldier with his Norse two handed axe. Howarth is no fan of chivalry which he argues is a destructive social structure that diverts the male children of the aristocracy into warlike activiees starting at age 8 and that creates professional warriors who disdain work and their fellow citizens while they seek and glorify violence and warfare. I found it very interesting that archers were not used in the Battle of Hastings because archery was a priviledge sport used to kill deer that belonged bo the aristocracy. The common soldier would not have access to this art reserved for the nobility. The use of ships to transport soldiers nad horses was also well told. Third, the context and times were well explained, including the corrrupt papacy which had never been elected by the Cardinals until right prior to the battle. Most interesting was the rule of law practiced in England priro to the invasion which was destoryed by the invasion and the dictatorship of the Normans over the Anglo-Saxons. This resulted in 300,000 Anglo-Saxon deaths from starvation while 200,000 Frenchmen relocated to England, changing the language and customes forever. Fourth,the final battle was well described in terms of strategy, human limitations, and bloody gore. Full of facts, well told, and briefly presented, this little book gets 5 stars.

For anyone educated in British schools, the date 1066 stands out as perhaps the most critical in the nation's history. It was that year that William of Normandy defeated King Harald at the Battle of Hastings. Yet, apart from the bare facts of the battle (everyone remembers that Harald was said to have been killed by an arrow that struck him in the eye) and the familiar images of the Bayeux tapestry, we know little of what lay behind the battle and of the personalities of the men who fought it. In this brilliant short book, historian David Howarth repairs that omission. His task is complicated by centuries of Norman-inspired propaganda. After all, as Churchill is supposed to have said, history is written by the winners. The Normans got to tell the tale the way they wanted, elevating William's heroic character, blackening Harald. After the battle, it became very difficult for the English to get their side of the story across. Yet Howarth manages, by consulting documents written before the battle and some accounts afterward, to put forth a different story. One of his main revelations for me is that this was not just a dynastic dispute but a true clash of cultures. He argues that the English were developing a kind of proto-democracy in which all men had rights. From village meetings to regional assemblies to something called the "witena gemot" which was a kind of embryonic parliament, men had a say in their own affairs. There was also a developing legal system. The English, according to Howarth, were also a peaceful people. Their villages were undefended. And even the monarch had to be selected by the "gemot." The Normans in contrast lived by war. Their knights developed a cult of horsemanship and war. Knight constructed mighty castles to defend themselves and spent the rest of the time pillaging defenseless commoners. This culture, according to Howarth, was a social disaster. It produced illiterate young men who knew nothing except how to ride and hunt and fight and whose only interest in life was violence. They were no good at anything other than killing and despised all peaceful occupations. Howarth clearly sides with the English in this conflict and sees their defeat as a massive historical disaster. Immediately, the seeds of the society they were cultivating were ripped out to be replaced by a feudal system that set back the cause of civilization by centuries. In his explanation of Harald's defeat, Howarth places huge importance on William's success in receiving a papal blessing for his invasion and a banner to hold aloft during the battle. This, more than any military tactic, was responsible for the Norman victory since it demoralized Harald, sapping his resolve, poisoning his mind with the idea that God was on the side of the enemy. That explains his strange passivity and immobility during the battle, when he made no effort to attack but just stood his ground waiting for a death he may have felt was inevitable. It also explains the lack of further resistance from the English after the battle. I'm not enough of an expert to judge the validity of this theory but it's intriguing. In general, this slim volume is full of insight into a distant time. One emerges full of sadness for poor Harald and the England that might have been had the invasion been repulsed.

While this book has some good information on 1066 and the Battle of Hastings, it is very clear in the first chapters which side the author favors. The English are made out to be faultless people, while William and the Normans are basically unjustly motivated murderers waiting across the channel,manipulating everyone and everything to fit their agenda. The bias does take away from the book as a whole and the author draws on some soft sources as well. He acknowledges that the Norman sources are full of propaganda, and that the French side is ostensibly pro-frankish but, he quotes multiple times from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle which many other authors I've read acknowledge is full of much the same writing designed to appease whoever was in power at the time of the writing. Another issue I have is that he makes King Harold out to be as English as they come, a "people's champion" but, he himself was a descendent of Danes partly (he shows it though on his pg. 30 genealogy chart) , and not a through and through Englishmen. This is never clearly stated to the reader in any fashion though. No attempt is made to point out the tactical errors made during the showdown at Hastings, but he presents his theory loud and clear that Harold was just too disheartened to command his forces after the news of the papal judgement against him. A bold statement to assume how somebody felt 900 odd years ago. He ignores the more logical conclusion that after a costly battle against the Norwegians that Harold's army was simply just too weakened or low on resources to put up the resistance needed to push the Normans back into the sea. I wouldn't recommend this to someone that at least didn't have basic knowledge of the events described, the author sometimes gets far too sidetracked in his own opinions and conclusions, and someone reading this as a first book on the topic may confuse his speculation for the facts. If you are looking for the English side of Hastings here it is.

Great book.

Splendido, uno dei migliori libri di storia che abbia mai letto, e ne ho letti parecchi. Uno spaccato affascinante che illumina su come fosse la società all'epoca e su quali effetti sono visibili ancora oggi

I bought my copy from Spain. This is a reprint made in France. The original book is published by Penguin.

Je suis familière avec l'histoire d'Hastings, que j'ai eu l'occasion de visiter deux fois. Le livre est très bien écrit.

DAVID HOWARTH WAS ONE OF THE TRULY GREAT HISTORICAL AUTHORS. HIS WRITING STYLE WAS ABSOLUTELY UNIQUE AND THIS WONDERFUL, SWEEPING, ALMOST NOVEL LIKE BOOK PROVES THE POINT. IT IS MAGNIFICENT, TAKING THE READER NOT JUST OVER THE FIELD OF THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS, BUT ON A JOURNEY OF DISCOVERY. A JOURNEY THAT BEGINS BY EXPLAINING WHAT IT WAS LIKE TO LIVE IN SAXON ENGLAND BEFORE THE NORMANS CAME, TO THE FIGHTING IN THE NORTH BY HAROLDS DETERMINED ARMY, THE MARCH SOUTH, HASTINGS ITSELF AND THEN THE AFTERMATH, CULMINATING IN THE SWEEPING CHANGES THOSE FIRST TALKED OF PEOPLE ENDURED AS THEY SAW THEIR WORLD BECOME A NORMAN ONE. THIS IS SIMPLY, IN MY OPINION, THE FINST BOOK EVER WRITTEN ON THE YEAR 1066 AND THAT VITAL BATTLE. I URGE ANYONE INTERESTED IN THE PERIOD, OR WHO SIMPLY WISHES TO READ A FABULOUS HISTORY BOOK TO BUY A COPY.