Customer Reviews

The Battle of Hastings

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

 

 

The Battle of Hastings was a key turning point in the history of Northern Europe. Together with the Battles of Fulford and Stamford Bridge, this trilogy of battles enabled the great civilization that was coming into being in Western Europe penetrate into the British Isles, when at that time were culturally and economically part of Scandanavia. Bradbury's account is the best that I have read - it is clear, concise but detailed enough to satisfy anyone who wants to find out more about the climactic battle of 1066. I loved the way he used the Bayeux Tapestry right through as a reference document. Many accounts (and I would include Frank McLynn's recent '1066 - Year of Three Battles'), use the tapestry as a secondary source only, a sure sign of the tyranny of the written word! Yet the Tapestry was made within at least twenty years of the battle on the order of one of the major participants (Bishop Odo of Bayeux, the Conqueror's half-brother). It is therefore perhaps the prime source for the battle. It is also a significant document on the weapons and tactics used, besides being a prime work of art! You feel that Bradbury is judicious and discerning on the major puzzles - Did Harold swear an oath to William? Did Edward support William's succession? What use did the English make of horses? How did Harold die? Did the Normans win the battle with a 'feigned flight'? How did the Normans use their archers? Where were the English archers? Anyone with an interest in medieval politics and military history should have this book on their shelves.

Professor Bradbury (formerly of Brunel University, London) has definitely written a first rate work on one of the defining moments of history, the battle at Hastings between Harold Godwinson, made king of England by the nobility at Edward the Confessor's death, and a rival claimant, Duke William of Normandy. More than any other account, this one clarifies the entire situation surrounding the famous Norman Conquest.

The author discusses the political situations of both Normandy and England prior to Edward's death, so that the reader is well prepared to understand and evaluate events. The lineages of both Edward and William are discussed, leaving the reader aware of the precarious nature of the political situation of their times.

Left in a power vacuum by the retreat of Rome from the affairs of Western Europe, both France and England had to came to grips with the turmoil left in the wake of this abandonment. Nothing was guaranteed, every thing was questioned and challenged, and the-last-man-standing was often the method of determining who was "the rightful" king. If nothing else, the Battle of Hastings and its immediate aftermath brought some degree of political and cultural stability and set the feet of Europe on a path to a more structured and predictable world.

Professor Bradbury ably discusses the sources for the period and gives an honest estimate of their value to the historians that use them. For those unfamiliar with how history is "done," this will give you an insight into the process and a good standard when evaluating the works of other historians you read. It also allows the reader to evaluate the certainty of what is understood as "true." It definitely shows how flexible history can be and the degree to which interpretation shapes it. What we know or think we know is not always set in stone. As one of my former history professors once quipped, "I knew I couldn't change the future, and I felt rather helpless in affecting the present, so I became an historian so I could change the past!" There's more truth in that than might be thought.

In an effort to determine why the event came out as it did, the author characterizes battle in the 11th century and sizes up the potential of both participants. The abilities of both leaders, the composition of their armies, the nature of military equipment, techniques, and personnel, and a description of those events that determined who was or was not present on the battle field, are all presented for the reader to consider.

The actual description of the battle itself is a fraction of the book. Although much is known about the participants and about events that set up the situation, less is known of the actual battle. Even the location of the battle field itself is questioned by the author, and he gives a good account of why he suggests what he does.

My favorite part of a book is often the Aftermath, because it tends to clear up loose ends. What happens to some of those you meet in the context of the book, but whose fates are so often neglected? The author gives a fair account of what took place during the later stages of the conquest and of those who fought for or against William. He also suggests the changes that occurred in the cultures of both people because of the Conquest, and of the effects that the battle had on later history, especially that of the French and English people.

For those who wish to read more on the topic, the author includes a fine bibliography of sources in both the formal bibliography and in the context of notes to the text. Anyone desiring to write a paper on the subject would find this a good starting point for the work.

FOR THOSE WRITING PAPERS on: the Norman Conquest; the effects of the withdrawal of Rome from Western Europe on the stability, culture, and politics of the time; military evolution of the 11th century; the succession of rulers in Europe, etc:

WHY was the succession of monarchs so unstable at the time? What precipitating events lead to Rome's withdrawal from the region? Was the removal of Roman control a "good" or a "bad" thing? For whom; defend your position. Did Alfred the Great actually succeed in his efforts to exclude the Norse from England, or did he only achieve a brief détente; defend your position. Who were the Angles and the Saxons? Where did they come from and why? Are they the original inhabitants of England? Was there really such a thing as national identity at this time, or was national identity only taking shape, why would this matter at all; defend your position. How were the lives of both leaders affected by their experiences prior to the battle? Describe the changes in military equipment and personnel at the time and their implications to the Battle of Hastings. What part did the Roman Catholic Church play in the politics of the time? How did it manage to extend its power, influence and control in the world? Was this a good or bad thing from the point of society; defend your position. Discuss how history is written and what the caveats are. What effect does the culture and era of the historian have on his interpretation of events? Read two or three books on one of the participants in the Battle of Hastings written in different decades or centuries and discribe how their character as people change by virtue of the unconscious skewing of interpretation by the historian. Say what you think about this and why. How are biographies and histories of certain events used by others? Is this good or bad and why?

This book is lean and mean.Very little is devoted to the battle itself,because apparently there wasn't much to it,except in intensity.It seems the English didn't have much cavalry and not enough archers either,the Normans had plenty of well trained experts in both.In addition it seems that during this period Angleland was very politically unstable and had only recently repelled 2 invasions from Norway and the Danes as well.With all the chaos maybe the Normans were a positive addition to the English gene pool.This book also explains well the history of English territorial claims on the European continent.The claims of Henry the fifth were the reassertions of territorial rights in existence since the rule of William the Conqueror.There are some excellent interpretations of the Bayeux Tapestry as well.You'll be an expert without doing the original 3 volume 2000 page set and it will cost you about 3 or 4 hours and 3 or 4 cups of coffee(or tea?).The famous English Longbowman at Agincourt is an original French(Norman) invention.True the normans didn't have the longbow at Hastings but they used the bowman in groups for mass firepower and the Saxons had their archers sprinkled throughout the ranks.When the longbow was invented and used with Norman archery tactics it made the English dominant for 200 years or so.According to this book the Normans gave the Saxons a lesson on how to use archery.