1066: The Year of the Conquest |
|
|
|
| Title: | 1066: The Year of the Conquest |
| Author: | David Howarth |
| Publisher: | Penguin (Non-Classics) |
| Type: | Book / Paperback |
| Publication Date: | 27 August, 1981 |
| ISBN / ISBN-13: | 0140058508 / 9780140058505 |
| List Price: | $14.00 |
| You Save: | $4.11 |
| Amazon Price: | $9.89 |
|
This book is also available, brand-new, from 3rd-party marketplace sellers at Amazon.com, from $1.50.
|
The HTML code below can be pasted onto your web-site, your MySpace page, or blog - or any number of similar places - to create a link to this page:
If, instead of a text link, you'd like to create a link to this page which will display the book cover, if it's available, then the code below will do exactly that:
Check for the same book at these other US book sites:
• [ Abebooks ]
• [ Alibris ]
• [ Barnes & Noble ]
• [ Half.com ]
• [ Powells ]
… or check UK bookstores
|
Editorial Review / Publisher's Information:
[ Unable to obtain editorial review or publisher's summary at present ]
|
Other Items You May Enjoy:
Browse Books From These Related Subjects:
Customer Reviews:
• A Must-read For Any History Buff!
10 February, 2010
This little book (only 201 pages) is a must-read for the history buff. Howarth writes in a marvelously conversational style with none of the pompous, wordy, frustrating pseudo-prose that many historians adopt when writing historical non-fiction.
The result is a very readable, concise look at the Norman Conquest. The players, King Harold of England, William of Normandy, and Harald Hardrada of Norway, are each in their own manner empathetic while the Battle of Hastings is finally presented without all the mumbo-jumbo military strat-egery.
Howarth, who passed away in 1991, was a historian for the average lay person. He wrote several books, including one about Waterloo, each imminently accessible and illuminating to read.
If you'd like to understand the real history behind those fabulous historical novels we all devour, do yourself a favor and pick up a Howarth book. You can read it in an afternoon and walk away a tad bit more edu-ma-cated that when you started.
- Amazon Customer Review
• Before All Theothers On 1066 Read This First
31 January, 2010
Howarth's book has not only held up well over the decades I actually think it improves each time I read it. Along with Alaistair Horne's incredible Price of Glory about Verdun in 1916 I am not sure there is a better "short" history of an event. They remain my high water marks for what history should and could be. Treat yourself to both, Howarth has great charm and writes with an ease as to be almost magical while Horne will knock your socks off- WW1 has been utterly forgotten; read Horne and you will learn why it is a disgrace that we no longer teach history in any depth, from elementary school through college.
- Amazon Customer Review
• Fascinating Exploration Of The Real Story Of The Battle Of Hastings
10 September, 2009
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.
- Amazon Customer Review
• Royal Intrigue At Its Best
11 September, 2009
This is royal intrigue at its best: the passing of a king with no heirs (Edward the Confessor), the mysterious coronation of a possible usurper (Harold Godwin), an angry distant cousin with legitimate claims to the throne (William, Duke of Normandy), a failed plot to overthrow and, ultimately, the taking of the throne by force at the Battle of Hastings. In 1066, William the Conqueror, Duke of Normandy -- a Frenchman -- became King William I of England. David Howarth tells the story in a readable, engaging way. He explores the subtleties of the traditional accounts and reveals nuances of the characters. Howarth offers conjecture about the motives and emotions of the characters. Some might say that he offers too much conjecture. For me, though, this was a valuable part of the book. Seeing his empathy for some characters and dislike of others, helped me to better understand the writer and his message.
- Amazon Customer Review
• A Great Book, Intriguing, Compelling, And Informative
24 July, 2009
When I picked this book up, I was pretty ignorant of the subject matter. My formal education in history had pretty much glossed over the dark and medieval ages, so I was interested but uninformed. After having read this, I have a good feel for the period, its people, mentality and institutions. Howarth's narrative gives a broad picture of the setting that communicates the period well. He also gives clear descriptions of the events of 1066, as well as the events leading up to them, and he does it without assuming prior knowledge, making the book very accessible to laymen.
That in itself is high enough praise, but in truth the book is better than just a well-written account of history. I felt myself absorbed and pulled along by the drama that Howarth lays out. I felt true empathy for the English, and I came close to tears at the tragic end. The principle characters of William, Harold and Harald all have depth and evoke emotions that I would think only an accomplished novelist could accomplish. I know it's the oldest of cliches, but history really does come alive in this book. And all in 200 pages.
As for the negatives, there really are very few. I will say that the author is highly speculative in many of his conclusions, and is free to offer his own interpretations and explanations of events. I don't see that as a drawback though, because he's always clear when he's offering personal opinion that is not either mainstream opinion or fact, and also because, as he makes clear, any account of such remote, poorly recorded history must be speculative.
If I were forced to come up with a real negative, I'd say that it's bias, but it's not a big deal. It's clear the author sympathizes with the English (of course, he is English), but then it is very difficult not to sympathize with a conquered and subjugated people. Nevertheless, the author is somewhat one-sided in his representation of facts, for example playing up the English church's support for the pope, when in reality I doubt the relationship was that cordial. But as I said, that would be the only thing I could call a negative, if I were forced to name one.
If one of my friends asked me for a general history book, I'd recommend this one without reservation or qualification.
- Amazon Customer Review
|
