1066: The Year of the Conquest

by David Howarth

Book Overview

It is one of the most important dates in the history of the Western world: 1066, the year William the Conqueror defeated the English at the Battle of Hastings and changed England and the English... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0140058508
• Release Date: August 1981
• Publisher: Penguin Books
• Length: 208 Pages
• Weight: 0.90 lbs.
• Dimensions: 7.7" x 0.4" x 5.1"

Customer Reviews

An informative and enjoyable read.

The author take several historical sources, considers their bias along with his own, and give a historical account that is driven by an underlying plot. The author rarely gets bogged down in historical minute details and offers an enjoyable fast paced read.

Engaging book on precarious year in English history

To put it simply, Howarth's book "1066, The Year of the Conquest" is a biased, factually-based, historical account of the year 1066 in England, encompassing both the plights of the royals AND the common people of the island, along with the English's neighbors to the south and east. If you are looking for the play-by-play of the Battle of Hastings and William the Conqueror's reign in England, you've come to the wrong book, my friend.Howarth examines just that profound year in English history, and does not go in full detail about what happened before or after 1066.Like other reviewers, I did notice Howarth's unabashed bias to the English in this work, but his non-objective feelings don't overwhelm the text. A jovial example is that not once, is the Norman king referred to as "William the Conqueror;" in fact, he is introduced to the reader as "William the Bastard."That aside, I had a splendid time reading this short work (only 200 pages). Howarth's writing style keeps the reader engrossed and he has a gift of turning the historical facts into a readable and impassioned story. One thing I really liked was the absence of footnotes. In the text, Howarth will cite the text he is using, what biases it may have, and how accurate it might be with regards to first-person accounts, years after 1066 it was written, etc. This citation style works extremely well in the text and I wish more authors would use it.The best part of the book might be the first chapter where Howarth chooses a random village and takes a Howard Zinn approach at it by explaining what the common folk did at that time, what they ate, where they lived, etc. It really gives a reader a better understanding of the Middle Ages, after all, not everyone got to live in a castle. Another nice feature of the book is the friendly maps. Although there are only six maps, they are easy to read, they include all the places Howarth is writing about, and show the routes of the invasions.I would recommend this to any casual history reader or to anyone who has viewed the Bayeux Tapestry. Instead of trying to decipher the pictures of the tapestry, by reading this book you will get the full story and it will make it easier in seeing what the tapestry is trying to depict.

A very good read...

I have read this book for sheer pleasure at least four times since I came across it a few years ago. David Howarth writes extremely well and does an excellent job of engaging the reader in the times, the events, and the characters, making the presented facts much more memorable than they would be in a "scholarly" work. I would recommend this book to anyone as a valuable introduction to the history of the Norman Conquest, or just as an enjoyable book.

History at its very best

I first read this book back in the late 1970s when it was first published and since then I've read nearly every book by David Howarth. He is the consumate popular historian, who makes history really come alive for the reader.1066 is probably his best book and is certainly my favourite book of history. He takes the reader through the main events of that year, introduces the major players in the story he is unfolding, and speculates about their motives and on the way history has dealt with the story (ie history comes down to us as told by the winners).He makes people like King Harold, William the Bastard and the amazing Harald Hardrada of Norway real for the reader. At the end you are left wondering how English history might have been if just one of the events he descibes had turned out differently.A truly wonderful book - history at its very best.

William the Conqueror or William the Fortunate?

Anyone who has taken any European History classes can tell you that 1)the Battle of Hastings was fought in 1066, 2) Herald, King of England, was killed there by an arrow that struck him in the eye, and 3)because of William the Conqueror, French words entered the English vocabulary. David Howarth provides you with the rest of the story.This is not a book about the Battle of Hastings. Howarth covers that in less than 15 pages. Howarth tries to tell the story of court intrigue and how England was organized, governed and how the common man lived in the eleventh century. There are no more that 20 works that any writer of this period can refer to and Howarth is not reluctant to draw his own interpretations of the facts. His ability to draw convincing conclusions fills in the holes that 900 years have made and makes the book a pleasure to read.There are two things that Howarth exposes in this book that are surprising to anyone who is not a student of the 1100's. First, Herald was an effective, enlightended and energetic King of England. His father, Godwin, came from a mysterious origin but made himself indispensable as a kind of prime minister to a series of weak English monarchs. When Godwin died his son Herald assumed his role. Herald served King Edward wisely and upon the death of the childless Edward was named King. Here is where the trouble begins because William, Duke of Normandy and a certain Harald Hadrata of Norway both believe that they have a more natural claim to the throne than Herald. Herald defeats Hadrata and then turns to face William.The second surprising fact is just how lucky William was. The Normans were not a seafaring people and his effort to cross the English Channel with horses and knights was more of a miracle than a prodigious feat of arms. His timing could not have been more perfect because Herold, who had been watching the coast all summer for William, was in York defeating the army of Hadrata. If William nad landed a month earlier he would have faced opposition almost immediately from a large and confident English fyrd, or conscripted army.William's most impressive weapon, however, was not a shield or sword but an endorsement from the Pope that his cause was just. He obtained this endorsement rather dubiously but to the devoted minds of eleventh-century warriors a blessing from God offered immortality. Howarth concludes that Herald's lethargy on the day of Hastings was due to the William's papal standard among his battle flags. Howarth admits that we can never know if this was the case or not--maybe that's the best thing about writing about events that occured 900 years ago. But these conclusions make this story more than justa history. Howarth, like most good writers, puts the reader smack dab in the middle of Herald's battle line on that October day.