Customer Reviews

Harold and William: The Battle for England, A.D. 1064-1066

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

 

 

Initially I was getting ready to put this book aside because the author stated that he perceived the Saxons as the good guys.I thought not another one of these pro-Anglos,like a southern American lamenting old "Dixie".Anyways Hastings was almost a thousand years difference and with not alot of primary sources available,how could anyone honestly believe the Saxons were such wonderful people.Ask LLewelyn of Wales what he thought about the Saxon "wonderfullness",so how far back are we going to go on this?
Anyway, I don't think the authors' stated bias affected his interpretations at all and this book is packed with tension and excitement,I actually had to put the book aside a few times so I could savor it.Two strong personalities Harold and William headed on a collision course with lots of swinging axes.A great movie script if some producer could latch on to this book.

I've read the other reviews criticizing Harold and William for its bias towards Harold, but what written history is without bias? History tends to be recorded by winners, survivors, descendants and later observers, the majority of whom tend not to be actual eyewitnesses to the event chronicled for their audience. Credit should be given Mr. Patterson for tackling a subject lacking in available documentation. He has several things working for him: he is British, and they are some of the best historians, he is an academic and professor of journalism, and he is fascinated with his subject matter. This is a labor of love, and Mr. Patterson wishes to share it with us. Can you blame him for that?

As for those desiring a text with lively dialogue and vivid action, please attend to any number of historical fictional adventures not based in fact. I find Mr. Patterson's writing style concise, yet descriptive and his narrative tempered to the right degree to keep me interested. He maintains a fluid plot and his attention to detail with chronologies and background materials adds to the reader's interest and education.

Give thanks that the world has historians willing to take a chance and present their theories before us. You only have to look to Hollywood to see history mangled for lowest common denominator audiences. If you disagree with Mr. Patterson's book, then write your own in rebuttal.

The reason history is so fascinating is because, quite often, momentous, world-altering events occur as the result of smaller, trivial ones. England, one of the greatest world powers in history, would not have evolved as it did without William's successful Norman invasion of the island in 1066. William's invasion may not have been successful but for the fact that his enemy, Harold, the king of England, was required to fight a desperate battle at Stamford Bridge three days earlier against a large invading army from Norway. And Harold would not have had to fight these Norwegians but for the falling out he had with his brother, Tostig, who left the country in a jealous fit one year earlier, and returned with this army to exact revenge.

It is a fascinating story, and recounted expertly in this straightforward but all-too-brief history. Brief, I should add, because there are simply not enough sources from which to draw, but the author does a fine job with what is available.

The reason that there was a conflict in the first place was that the former king of England, Edward, did not leave an heir. For inexplicable reasons--although he was unusually enamoured of the Normans--he decided that the best person to succeed him would be William. He sent Harold, his wife's brother-in-law and his most likely successor, to Normandy to solicit William, and somewhere in there--the author persuasively argues that he was coerced--Harold swore an oath of allegiance to William. But two years later Edward--on his deathbed--requested Harold be his successor, and Harold was subsequently approved by the witan, England's national council. William, enraged, immediately began preparations to invade.

In the meantime, Tostig, Harold's brother and ruler of Northumbria, was having a tough time ruling his subjects. It was so brutal, in fact, that the entire area was on the verge of rebellion. It says something about his rule that the demands of the Northumbrians were in fact met. Tostig was removed, by his brother no less, and became thereafter and until his death, a scourge of England, leading eventually to his alliance with a foreign power, and his accompaniment of this power on their invasion of England.

Perhaps the most fascinating character in the book is Harald Hardraada, the Norwegian leader. After fleeing the country for his life as a young man, he went to Russia where he won the favor of the Novgorodian King. He then enlisted as a mercenary for the Byzantine empire, where for eight years he fought their battles in Sicily, North Africa and the Middle East. He then returned to Novgorod where he married is love, returned to Denmark where he formed an alliance, used this power to forge an alliance with a Norwegian usurper, and eventually became King of Norway himself.

In the summer of 1066 we find him an eager participant in Tostig's plan to invade northern England, but after an initial success, he is surprised by Harold at Stamford Bridge, and both he and Tostig are killed after a long, bloody battle. Three days later--three days--William's forces land in England, and Harold, with his depleted army, makes the long march south. The rest, as they say, is history, and poor Harold has become nothing more than a footnote.

This is really remarkable, fascinating history, and retold here in a methodical, straightforward, and entertaining way.

"Harold & William" is an easy read. It's a fairly concise (200 pages) telling of the story of the personal rivalry behind the Norman conquest of England -- a rivalry between England's last Saxon king (Harold) and the Duke of Normandy (William, later William I). The root of the rivalry lies in the alleged oath by Harold to support William's claim to the English throne after Edward the Confessor's death and Harold's own election to the throne later on, causing William to seek it by force. The story is further complicated by Harold's younger brother Tostig, who for his own reasons persuaded the King of Norway to make an invasion attempt that same year, just weeks before William's landing. "Harold & William" is a good introduction to the story.

As a work of scholarship, the book fails to stand up. Documents are scant and unreliable, but Patterson makes no attempt to analyze them or compare evidence. Rather, he just tells the story as he has interpreted it, and his own words of sympathy for Harold in the introduction demonstrate a strong subjective viewpoint. As for the facts, he simply states that he made what he believes are the "most reasonable" interpretations. Basically, he hasn't contributed anything to the subject other than what he feels. It's largely undocumented opinion.

In the book's defense, one might say that Patterson was never trying to write an annotated, definitive work of scholarship. He was just trying to tell a story. However, the book doesn't really succeed on this level either, because Patterson is not a strong enough writer to make it particularly gripping. It isn't infused with the page-turning passion that a good journalist or best-selling mystery writer would write with.

The book's saving grace is the story itself, because it IS compelling. But there are better books to read. As a place to start, I would suggest David Howarth's "1066: The Year of the Conquest." He too sympathizes with Harold, but he goes through all the facts (what few there are) before laying out his own view--and manages to do so concisely, without dragging down the tale.

In the introduction to this work, Mr. Patterson tells us a few things that apparently do not bias his viewpoint - namely that he is a descendant of the long-deceased King Harold of the 11th century AD, and that the wrong man won at Hastings on that fateful October day in 1066. Needless to say - I was a little surprised and turned off immediately. He goes on to say that huge gaps occur in the historical record, and his novel-esque narrative will have the holes filled by his best guess of what happened. Okay - perhaps it's not a crime, but we're trying to peddle this as history, when, if you do read the text, it is not.

I am familiar with most of the sources used as references (although strangely enough there is NO CITING AT ALL), and the incredible amount of detail into which Patterson occassionally delves is quite astonishing. In all - this is entertaining, but dont' take the man's word for law. His is a story tainted heavily by bias and a great deal of guess-work where it is not necessary. As the old Star Trek axoim goes (and I use it to argue that "history" need be neutral): Don't try to be a great man, just be a man, and let history make its own judgments. Mr. Patterson - present us with the happenings, but don't tell us who "should" have won. You are quick to pass judgment upon something you profess is largely lost in the abyss of the past.