Customer Reviews

Bloodfeud: Murder and Revenge in Anglo-Saxon England

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

 

 

Fletcher takes a fascinating incident from a fascinating period and expands on it to depict an entire age, and in the process produces what is probably the single best book on this period for the layman. Most texts on this brutal, vital, mesmerizing era are magically drained of life by academic writers with pens full of dust. Fletcher is scholarly and meticulous, yet also readable, even compelling.
If more history were written like this, more history would be read.

Fletcher's 'Bloodfeud' is a little keyhole through which we can look clearly at the world of eleventh century England. Moderns tend to view all people of the past as the same as they, in funny clothes, perhaps a trifle more violent, and with poor table manners, all of this informed more by Hollywood than by research. We have so little real, hard information about these times, and almost no record of what these people thought. Fletcher begins with one recorded event--a brutal, politically motivated murder-- and using that as his focus, examines how Anglo Saxon culture worked. He ties together dozens of hints and suggestions from the fragmented records of the time, cross referencing brilliantly, showing where the power was, how it worked, how men and women strove to be masters of their world, and along the way revealing the true nature of these people. A fascinating and truly original work, and one of my favourite books.

the cycles of murder and revenge in the Anglo-Saxon period didn't seem any different than the same in continental Europe at the same time,after all at this period it is families vying for power and advantage.there are no powerful nation-states since the breakup of the Roman Empire and even in Rome there was always the same violence within the empire as families sought out advantage.Like the american old west gunfights were never the romanticized "showdown" at high noon,but overwhelming ambushes delivered with maximum surprise and force,much like the anglo-saxon feuds in this book.Did this chaotic feuding make the anglo-saxon/viking culture more susceptible to be taken over by a more organized power such as the Normans.Like 2 dogs fighting over a bone growling at each other then a third comes in and takes it from both.From reading this book i got the feeling that the feud was a thing in itself beyond any idea of trying to cooperate between the anglo-saxons/vikings and make a nation-state.This is one of the few books i've read where the Scottish king Macbeth is given some time.I wondered after reading the book if Macbeth's murder of Duncan might have been a relic from an old feud of times past. Maybe Macbeth besides being greedy for Duncan's throne,was settling an old score.That could have been even more of a coercian than his nagging wife.Maybe Shakespeare missed something.

It's nice to have a history professor who can bring an obscure part of history alive with real characters and how their machinations developed at least a little part of our history.
And, of course, I may be biased, because several of them mentioned are our ancestors, but, as such, knowing their role in the history brings life into what is often a boring subject for many people. Here, it also helps to have a greater historical background on some of these families thru authors such as Dr. Karen Ralls, Michael Baigent, Henry Lincoln, etc. Thanks for bringing the players in a little developed part of history alive around York, Northumbria, England and the Battle of Stamford bridge.

When reading the title and the description, as well as the first few pages of the opening chapter, you get a feel for what you are about to read. It is only shortly after you have started the book that you realize you have been deceived.

This book is most certainly not about 'bloodfeud' as the title hints. Sure, there is a feud that is mentioned a few times throughout the book, but that only accounts for roughly 15 pages of the 203. Not much information. Another downside to this book: we understand that the sources are few next to none, must you tell us every time that you and other historians would like more sources but they are not available? As well, there is absolutely no point to the final chapter of this book, "The Hagets". They are a century later and yet he writes about them as though they have a significance, with no relation to the parties of the feud. So besides repetition and the fact that this book is not about a 'bloodfeud', what is it about?

This book is a history on the time before William the Conqueror and shortly after, up until the doomsday book. He does a great job in relaying this history, connecting the dots and showing where and how the loyalties were aligned and what happened because of them. His writing style is fluid and nice as well, easy to read. So, if you are looking for a history of a time that is not well documented, of a time before William the Conqueror, then this book should be considered.

Although this book is well written and Richard Fletcher seems to know what he is talking about, the misleading title and description is enough to show that either a) we were purposefully mislead in order to attract more interest and thus more sales, or b) he thought he could write a history about this feud and somehow strayed from his end goal. Either way, both reasons are reason enough to rate this only a three star.

This book is well-written and factual. However, I thought I was buying a novel. I was sadly mistaken. Also, much of the book does not actually revolve around the events of Uhtred and Cnut in 1016. It's still worth reading, though.

This is the most boring book I have ever read, it is all genealogy and no blood. This is just a dark ages who's who of Northumbia. The author takes the reader down some really bizarre blind alleys that are in no way connected to the subject of the book. In the conclusion of the book I am left with the feeling that this is an extremely flimsy case for a blood feud that lasted over sixty years