Customer Reviews

The Battle of Hastings: The Fall of Anglo-Saxon England

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I only just started Wood's account of 1066 and I have to admit all versions pale next to what was written some decades ago by David Howarth, but Wood is a feisty author and intent on holding her own; enough that I've been sticking with her despite of my own preconceptions! Her writing style pivots between an easy familiarity to admittedly academic level lecture-speak. But don't let that put you off, she has a wonderful sense of moment and humor and truly advocates that a highly evolved culture existed in England before the Normans; one that was virtually crushed or snuffed out of existence once William and his (oh let's call them mercenaries) warriors came and decided to stay. But for what appears to be sheer dumb luck one wonders what Europe and Anglo-Saxon England would have been like had William's boats been blown off course, or had confronted Harold only after Harold had recovered from his earlier battle. No Plantagenets? That boggles my mind and since I am obsessive about the Plantagenets this strikes me to the quick. Grab this book, give her voice a full throat, she makes a long overdue case for the "dark ages" before the Norman Conquest!

This is a concise, well written book that explains, from an Anglo-Saxon point of view, all that was lost in England, Europe and perhaps the world with the Norman invasion of England. As some may know, official U.K. tourist organizations express the view that "real" English history begins with the Norman invasion and they couldn't be more wrong. Harrier Harvey Wood neatly explains why. Her prose is easy, not too scholarly and she expresses her strong opinions with facts. It's easily accessible to anyone beginning to study the Anglo-Saxon culture.

She falters in some of her writing. She should never have mentioned metal shields and some other trivia but it's a good, almost fun book if you don't consider what was lost with the Norman invasion. I also fault her for not using/believing the Carmen de Hastingae - but of all the authors of the events surrounding 1066 I've read, she gets to the main points most directly and succinctly. Each chapter is filled with insight. I enjoyed reading it immensely. Of course this book will likely be remembered for her calling the Normans "Thugs on horseback" but she backs up her points. She emphasizes a lot of what England had before the Normans, for example she examines the rights of women compared to the two cultures. Some basic Anglo-Saxon rights weren't given back to the English people until the 19th century! This surprised me a lot. One is right to believe, after reading this book, that had the Saxons stayed in power and been able to overcome the inevitably bad rulers, there may not have been the need for the Magna Carta - the Saxons already had basic rights. Also one can envision the enmity between England and Ireland could have been avoided. Things we'll never know but Ms. Wood allows one to see that.


I'd say there probably isn't a lot of new scholarship in this book but her perspective is refreshing. With an ever growing appreciation of the Anglo-Saxon culture and with new archeological finds that show the Normans were not close the being in the Saxons class as far as actual culture goes. Ms. Wood has made an excellent contribution to this subject.

Like many others, I became fascinated with the story of the Battle of Hastings upon reading David Howarth's book "1066 The Year of the Conquest." I gave this new book a try because I had heard that the author gave a fair appraisal of the battle from the English point of view and I can say that she did not disappoint. History is almost always written by the victors and Howarth's book as well as many other accounts of the battle recount William as a great and majestic leader and Harold as a clueless oaf. I, for one, am sympathetic to Harold's story and was fascinated to read a book that showed him to be a great leader who had a little bit too much adversity to overcome in a short span of time. Ms Wood also takes great pains to not report apocryphal accounts as fact, something that Mr. Howarth didn't take the time to do. Some may find it tedious to read an account and then find out it is probably hogwash, but I found the honesty to be refreshing. To anyone approaching the topic for the first time I would still read Mr. Howarth's book first, but by all means you should read Ms. Wood's book second. It was very well done.

Was England more civilized, more democratic, under the last Anglo-Saxon kings than it became under William I and his Norman successors? Was William's claim to the English throne more legitimate than Harold's? Harriet Harvey Wood leads us towards answers of yes to the first question, and no to the second. Also that the outcome of the battle near Hastings on 14 October 1066, which determined so much, was largely a matter of good luck for William, bad luck for Harold, that neither of them deserved. The battle, she writes, "wiped out overnight a civilization that, for its wealth, its political arrangements, its arts, its literature and its longevity was unique in Dark Age Europe ... In the general instability, lawlessness and savagery of the times, Anglo-Saxon England stood out as a beacon."

Contrary as these claims are to much that we might think we know about the development of England after 1066 (few of us would pretend to know much about the years before), they deserve closer examination. Pre-Norman democracy is certainly stretching the point a little, but it is true that the royal succession was not simply a matter of accident of birth, but that the anointing of a new king required the consent of a convocation of ealdormen, thegns, and senior clergy, the Witenagemot. William was born a little closer to the lineage from King Alfred than was Harold, but that was not the point. So far as the Norman-influenced histories are concerned, the dispute was over whether Edward the Confessor, Harold's immediate predecessor as king, promised the throne to William, and whether Harold had earlier agreed under oath that William should succeed. But that too ignored the key role played by the Witenagemot.

It's a complicated story. There is a range of sources, though most have to be treated with caution as history written by or commissioned by the victors. The evidence of the Bayeux Tapestry is particularly intriguing; although ordered by William's half-brother, Bishop Odo, and first exhibited in his cathedral in Bayeux, it is believed to have been made in Canterbury by English embroiderers. Harriet Harvey Wood does a competent job of comparing the various sources, and displays integrity in not allowing her own preferred interpretation to obscure the possibility of others.

The story of Harold's dash from London to Yorkshire to decisively defeat the Norwegian invader Harald Hardrada at Hebdon Bridge, his return march south to Hastings, and the battle itself builds significant momentum, becoming just as exciting as tales from more recent wars.

On completion of the book, one may still feel that many questions remain open. Would the continued development of Anglo-Saxon traditions, without the shattering influence of self-serving Norman priorities, really have been better? One can only speculate. England, the English language and culture and, by extension, the significant areas of the world influenced by them, would be very different today if any one of the several chances affecting the outcome of the best remembered of battles had been different.

This book is certainly an in-depth study during the period of 1066. Having studied the Bayeux Tapestry firsthand, the book
chronicles each and every nuance of the politics in play prior to the battle ---the battle itself ---and the aftermath of
the battle; and ultimately how England was transformed.