Customer Reviews

Harold: The Last Anglo-Saxon King

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Everyone who takes English history probably remembers 1066, William of Normandy, the Battle of Hastings, and King Harold; essentially the date, the location and the leaders of the combatant armies. Some may remember that the fight was over the right of succession to the throne of England after the heirless death of King Edward the Confessor. A few may even remember that Edmond Halley's famous comet made an appearance just beforehand, creating great consternation that was immortalized in the Bayeux tapestry. For most, Harold's reign seems almost a foot note, hardly more than an intermission before the main event of the Norman conquest. With William and his successors come castle building, classic knighthood, feudal society, all the "romance" of the middle ages. Harold is so often treated as a cipher to all of this that the true drama of this transitional age is often lost on the student. Harold is just "the loser."

Ian Walker's book brings this period more into focus. He approaches his subject by examining, not only Harold's own life and career, but that of his grandfather and father, creating a sense of the venue for the events of the Conquest. Harold is no longer just "the loser." He is a powerful and intelligent warrior, dealing as often in diplomacy as in bloodshed, able to play the chess game of power politics in a very turbulent time. He was in fact "the last Anglo Saxon king," and his time, like the withdrawal of the elves from Tolkien's Middle Earth, is the end of an era. His predecessor Edward was the last of the line of Alfred the Great, the king who had wielded the tiny Anglo Saxon kingdoms into the one kingdom of England. William and his successors would turn the island into a developing nation state striving for a place in a world among other rising nation states.

I found particularly interesting the author's approach to the period as one of a family biography. Harold was not just a famous figure in history, he was a member of an ambitious extended family. Like the Borgias in a later time and place, Harold's father and his grandfather played major roles in English political life during the years preceding the Conquest, as did he and his brothers in their own time. Walker follows these careers, because it is the net created by their liaisons that defined the period. Pull out any of these lynch pins, and the history of the era would have been vastly different. Interesting too were the careers of Harold's children, who went on to carry the family into succeeding generations of international leaders. I have often wondered what the fates of descendants of famous people have been. What did happen to Cleopatra's surviving children for instance? At least in this instance, more is documented about Harold's children which gives a sense of closure to Walker's book.

Thoroughly enjoyable and informative study.

In terms of English history,not much is ever really said about Harold. Those who are looking for an informative and surprisingly entertaining work on the Monarch should look no further.

Ian Walker has left no stone unturned in the telling of Harold Godwineson and his family. Starting from his grandfather and father and ending with his grandson becoming the prince of Kiev.
After reading the book, you come away with a sense of the time that he lived in and more importantly a sense of the man. Walker is also very good at surmising how certain decisions and choices that were made having an effect on the people at the time. Case in point the effect of how Harold's contemporaries veiwed his oath breaking to William. Few historians are able to do this.

The author does love his dates and locations, but he is very thorough when it comes to extended family. Also and most importantly, he writes with a point. Instead of going off on a half page tangent, Walker writes in brief and consise paragraphs. When a major player such as William, Tosti or Harald Hardrada comes along, he writes a full chapter.

I have been looking for a book on this king for long time and this has surpassed my expectations. A definite "must-have" for English Monarch and Anglo-Saxon enthusiasts.

This was an excellent, intense account of a unique king's biography. I read this book to get more info on William the Conqueror, but now I'm obsessed with Harold II. A must-read for history buffs.

I must admit it. I knew next to nothing about this man, and this book opened my eyes to what was truly a remarkable and effective leader. Definitly worth reading to get the "other side" of William the Conqueror's story.

As a fan of the period and King Harold I was looking forward to the book and enjoyed it. There is a wealth of information I hadn't read before and the vast majority of the author's conclusions are put forward thoroughly. There is an element of bias in that Harold's weaknesses seem to me to have been glossed over or excused and any case where you could reasonably draw or good or bad conclusion about him the former is put forward as the most likely. In particular Harold's disposal of his brother Tosti. If William had shown the ruthlessness Harold did then I imagine the author would've used this to demonstrate his serious character flaws. In addition to Tosti's overthrow Harold failed to support his wayward older brother unlike his father Godwin; this is shown as Harold showing his independence from his powerful father rather than him being self-serving in his refusal to give lands back to his brother. That's not to say it isn't the way it was, I would've prefered a little more balance.

Don't misunderstand me though, I rarely read a totally unbiased historical book, it's hardly a surprise that authors get attached to their subjects. It was an interesting, enjoyable book that had me rushing to my seat on the train so that I could start reading it again. Am looking forward to reading the Barlow biography of The Godwins as a comparison.

This book deserves all the praise given to it in these reviews. What really helps it is the organization and clarity of writing. Few other biographies of early English kings tie the historical details so well into a smooth and interesting narrative. Among a variety of interesting scenes that Walker draws, one of the most intriguing is Walker's ingenious and highly plausible suggestion for why William the Conqueror could argue so strongly that he deserved the throne. Many reasons have been given from "William made it up" to the Norman claim that Edward the Confessor actually did appoint William his successor. The first is unlikely given the magnitude of the goal and the logistics involved in it. A total fabrication is not outside William's personality but it would seem that at least some real justification was needed for a claim supposedly made by the prior English king - a claim that no one in England had heard of. The latter claim - that Edward actually did designate William - has no evidence to support it. What Walker suggests is this scenario. After Edward's conflicts with the Godwins, he appointed as Archbishop of Canterbury in 1052 Stigand who not only was a supporter but negotiated the latest peace with the Godwin family. Unfortunately, the current Archbishop, Robert of Jumieges, a Norman, was still alive and was, in his mind, unlawfully deposed after being forced into exile in Normandy. Bitter and hostile toward the English, Robert travelled to Rome to complain and almost certainly would have visited with the Norman Duke to plead for help in restoring him, a Norman, to his proper position. Since the Archbishop of Canterbury performed the royal consecrations and he was the real Archbishop, Walker suggests, quite plausibly, that in their private conversations Robert may have tempted William with the English crown as a means of gaining support. With the anointed Archbishop making the suggestion, William may well have had the tendency, as people do, to use and expand this in his mind when it became handy to do so fourteen years later. This would explain the complete lack of English evidence for what seemed at the time an extraordinary claim. To me anyway, self-justification tied to a self-serving memory seems to make more sense than the other reasons given for William's claim. He would need no higher authority than the Archbishop of Canterbury himself saying this was justified, even if it was first "put in his ear" in 1052.

Whether it was a stray arrow in the eye or some other absurdity in the fog of war, Harold's death was a turning point in history. Walker's book is thought-provoking and easy to follow. The maps and genealogical trees are very helpful. It is an excellent introduction to Harold the man, his family and his times.

Ian Walker's work is a brilliant treatment of the life of a brilliant man. Walker neatly sidesteps the difficulties inherent in writing a biography of someone so long-dead, using every bit of information available to construct a clear, reasonable, and well-defined picture of Harold Godwinson as a flawed-but-worthy man -- the true protagonist of the story of 1066. I found it especially helpful how Walker begins by giving background on Godwin himself and the rest of Harold's family, making clear how much Harold's life was affected by the actions of his father and brothers. He gives credit where credit is due, not failing to recognize the genius ability of William to actually pull the invasion off successfully, but hailing Harold as the true hero of a troubled and fateful year -- not just the bit player between the long reigns of Edward and William that many histories make him out to be.

While I may not necessarily agree with all of Walker's conclusions, he presents well-researched and convincing arguments in favor of every statement he makes throughout the book. I found his work to be incredibly helpful in filling out my previously broad-but-unspecific basic knowledge, both about the events of 1066 in general, and about Harold Godwinson in particular.

Begin, like I did, by reading David Howarth's masterful introductory piece, "1066: Year of the Conquest", and move from there to "Harold: The Last Anglo-Saxon King". Highly recommended.

(Side Note: If you're worried about "bias" in Walker's work, then consider yourself forewarned: it's there. However, what should be obvious to us all is the fact that every historian approaches the past with a bias in one direction or another. Even those who are most praised for their fairness in judgement have a private opinion on who were the "good guys"; it is impossible to examine totally antithetical ideas, belief systems, and motivations and not decide that, according to conscience, one of them is superior to the other. Harold Godwinson was, in general, a praise-worthy man, and Walker treated him as such with great consistency -- much more steadiness than would have been possible had he been trying not to appear partial.)

This is a great book for anyone interested in the mysterious and obscure events of England in the year 1066. Walker does a great job, trying to bring Harold Godwinson to life.

This book has enough detail and judicious use of sources to be of great use to the academic historian, while the author's lucid writing style and the sensible structure of the book will no doubt make it accesible to the interested layperson. Well done!