Rating: 
Summary: Excellent, but biased read
Review: I gave this book a medium rating not because I felt it was a bad or boring read. It wasn't. Actually it was a very enjoyable read. My main difficulty with this book was that Mr. Howarth, in his effort to counter ancient Norman testimony about the events leading upto the Battle of Hastings has essentially created an account that is equally biased, but from an English perspective. This attitude is apparent throughout the book in various statements. But ultimately Mr. Howarth drives the point home with his final two sentences in the book. I quote, "Yet those children, or their children, won a victory in the end. They never became Norman; they remained most stubbornly English, absorbed the invaders and made of the mixture a new kind of Englishness." As if in Englishness there is some kind of saintlike purity that is better than the rest. That's utter rubbish. And at the risk of taking this analysis too far....It is precisely this type of attitude that has lead to far worse than the writing of biased popular history. Look no further than Bosnia, Kosovo, etc.
Rating: 
Summary: My Interest In History Is Restored
Review: I liked this book a lot. In fact, I've found that I like this author a lot. I've read another book of his ("Waterloo"), and I'm in the middle of still another ("Nelson The Immortal Memory"). If you find you like this book and have any interest in the other subjects, I suggest you look into those too.But down to business. I like history, but I have trouble learning anything about it. I find history books in general to be either deathly boring, totally irrelevant, or downright snotty. Howarth's writing is none of these, and his books are interesting becasue he understands that the people he's writing about were actual human beings. He can talk about the choices and mistakes both William and Harold made without villifing either--it makes them interesting and believable. I think Howarth's sympathy and insight are the real strengths of his writing. Other reviewers have pointed out that Howarth is biased. Absolutely--he's not shy about saying that he liked Harold and and that he disliked William and that he felt sorry for Tostig. I like that. It's not subtle at all, and you're never in any doubt as to what is the author's opinion and what is fact. I think it gives another human touch to the book and it's a more realistic and honest sort of commentary than I've seen previously. Also, to be fair, Howarth tells you right up front that he's got his own opinion, and he takes care to tell you when he's making a judgement call on something (like the reliability of various sources). Overall, I found this book to be an easy, fun read. Howarth confines himself to a manageable subject (just one year), keeps it to a manageable length (~150 pages), and allows the reader to relate to historical characters like they were real people. If you're like me, frusterated by Hollywood historical inaccuracies and cartoonish characterizations but bored to death by historical texts and overly detailed "scholarly works", then you ought to like this book a lot.
Rating:
Summary: A Wonderful Chance Encounter
Review: My daughter recommended this book after having it on her required reading list at Philips Exeter, so I wasn't sure what to expect. Now I find that I re-read it at least once a year just to refresh the sense of the period and the characters that populated it. A quick read, the book demonstrates how personality and chance make history.
Rating:
Summary: Good and Bad
Review: This book really has a lot of interesting stories and theories to offer about the year 1066, but ultimately fails as work of history. I was a little dissapointed in it. Howarth is far too willing to speculate on the main characters' motives and feelings (surmising that Edward the Confessor was a homosexual because he didn't like his wife or that Harold lost the battle of Hastings because he was depressed), and assumes a lot based on on fairly poor sources (such as monastic chronicles written well after the fact). Do not read this book if you want a scholarly history of one of the most important series of events in European history. That said, it is a very good introduction to the events of 1066 if you do not know anything about them. And, in spite of his all too frequent opinionated interjections, Howarth has some very interesting ideas to offer up. His analysis of the battle at Hastings and England's lack of resistance thereafter are especially interesting. So, do read this book if you need to know the quick facts and don't mind a lot of editorialiazing.
Rating:
Summary: A Real Page-Turner!
Review: David Howarth does a masterful job of bringing the Norman Conquest to life. The collected evidence is fascinating and the way he puts it together makes the story truly compelling--I had trouble putting it down. This book is a wonderful medium for those who like history but have trouble connecting with many of the books available. It is very down-to-earth and easy to read. It sparked my interest in the subject and inspired me to further study of the dramatic events of 1066. Happy reading!
Rating:
Summary: 1066 in a Nutshell
Review: Chances are good if you were raised speaking English you know something significant happened in the year 1066. You may even have heard about the Battle of Hastings and know it had something to do with fellows named Harold and William. Here is your chance to have the whole deal laid out for in one short, sweet and easy to follow book. "1066" focuses on the events of the year, with enough background information to make the events understandable. Details of battles, both political and martial, are well presented but the human side of the major players in the events is not overlooked. Writing as a history buff not a history expert, I say after reading this book I understand the year much better and I enjoyed the time I spent reading this book.
Rating:
Summary: A stirring and quick read.
Review: I have to agree with others who said this was a little biased, but I think the author clearly states where he treads on his own path and comes to his own conclusions, while usually presenting the ideas of the other sources form the period. I find it interesting that many people say this work is biased, but what do they base that on, historial works that everyone knows were biased (history is written by the victorious).
It is a great and easy read, shinning an interesting spotlight ona brief period of history that stirs feelings in the reader and will make you wonder it would have been like if lady luck had just swung her favor a different way. I fealt as if I had a good idea of the basic historical facts, how those writting it might have manipulated it to their advantage, and interesting viewpoints on why things happened as they did.
I highly recomend this book to anyone who is a layman historian, it gives a great starting point to a wonderful history.
Rating:
Summary: A Masterpiece
Review: This is a brilliant and incisive book that stands as a model for how history should be written. Howarth excels in 1066 at parsing the murky accounts of that year. He applyies keen logic to paint a captivating and credible picture of events and their causes. This is a true work of genius, and as a professional historian, one that satisfies both my need for rigorous history and enthralling prose.
Rating: 
Summary: Entertaining, but a bit biased...
Review: 1066: The Year of the Conquest is a richly entertaining account of the Battle of Hastings. It starts off after the death of the mildly insane English king, Edward the Confessor, when an earl with no blood relation with the king, Harold, is elected as king by a group of noblemen. A Norman duke, William, believes that he had a better claim to the throne and thus plans to invade England to claim the crown. To add to the chaos, Harold¡¯s half-brother, Tostig, incites another king Harald (¡°Hadrada¡±) to invade England also in pursuit of the crown. The author gives an intriguing view into the mindsets of three related, but vastly different cultures: the English, Norman, and Norse. He draws skillfully upon a variety of primary resources of around that period to provide vivid descriptions and a touch of humanity. However, the book seems to be firmly biased in favor of the English, establishing the confines of the rudimentary parliament far wider than in actuality. It belittles William¡¯s claim to the throne, and thoroughly vilifies the man as an arrogant, war-mongering despot who does not hesitate to manipulate people and even the church for his purposes. The invasion of Hadrada is put off as a silly, presumptuous campaign, spearheaded by a ¡°berserk¡± ruler. In addition, English peasant life is overly idealized, and Harold is glorified¡. However, despite its English prejudices, it is an amusing, captivating book and well worth your time.
Rating:
Summary: Succinct & Engaging
Review: Whether or not you have any particular interest in the history of England, this is a worthwhile read. There are certainly many sources for the history of the Norman invasion, within context or without. Howarth's account casts the oft-repeated events of 1066 into a vivid and impressive light. His "fairness" obviously depends on your point of view, but he readiliy admits his prejudices. Any effort to inject life into historical events is bound to be objectively flawed. There is much that we simply cannot know, yet without that knowledge, the events lose their impact and become a tangled mass of cause & effect (unless, of course, you are of the existentialist school, in which case they are meaningless anyway). Howarth defends his sources and interpretation, and does so credibly. And within this selected framework, succeeds in a portrait of Harold, William, England, and the Continent that has all the resonance of current events. I would venture to say that Howarth depicts 1066 as something other than a fait accompli, which is no mean feat for such an famous date.
|
