What do you think?
Rate this book
A Brief History of Britain #1
A Brief History of Britain 1066 - 1485
From the Battle of Hastings to the Battle of Bosworth Field, Nicholas Vincent tells the story of how Britain was born.
When William, Duke of Normandy, killed King Harold and seized the throne of England, England's language, culture, politics and law were transformed. Over the next four hundred years, under royal dynasties that looked principally to France for inspiration and ideas, an English identity was born, based in part on the struggle for control over the other parts of the British Isles (Scotland, Wales and Ireland), in part on rivalry with the kings of France. From these struggles emerged English law and an English Parliament, the English language, English humour and England's first overseas empires.
In this thrilling and accessible account, Nicholas Vincent not only tells the story of the rise and fall of dynasties, but investigates the lives and obsessions of a host of lesser men and women, from archbishops to peasants, and from soldiers to scholars, upon whose enterprise the social and intellectual foundations of Englishness now rest.
This the first book in the four-volume Brief History of Britain which brings together some of the leading historians to tell our nation's story from the Norman Conquest of 1066 to the present day.
Combining the latest research with accessible and entertaining story-telling, it is the ideal introduction for students and general readers.
When William, Duke of Normandy, killed King Harold and seized the throne of England, England's language, culture, politics and law were transformed. Over the next four hundred years, under royal dynasties that looked principally to France for inspiration and ideas, an English identity was born, based in part on the struggle for control over the other parts of the British Isles (Scotland, Wales and Ireland), in part on rivalry with the kings of France. From these struggles emerged English law and an English Parliament, the English language, English humour and England's first overseas empires.
In this thrilling and accessible account, Nicholas Vincent not only tells the story of the rise and fall of dynasties, but investigates the lives and obsessions of a host of lesser men and women, from archbishops to peasants, and from soldiers to scholars, upon whose enterprise the social and intellectual foundations of Englishness now rest.
This the first book in the four-volume Brief History of Britain which brings together some of the leading historians to tell our nation's story from the Norman Conquest of 1066 to the present day.
Combining the latest research with accessible and entertaining story-telling, it is the ideal introduction for students and general readers.
560 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 2010
36 people are currently reading
339 people want to read
About the author
Nicholas Vincent
38 books9 followersProfessor Nicholas Vincent of the University of East Anglia has published a dozen books and some hundred articles on twelfth- and thirteenth-century history for both scholarly and popular audiences, including work on the English and European context of Magna Carta as well as Magna Carta: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford, 2012). When a 1297 issue of Magna Carta recently came up for auction, Professor Vincent was commissioned by Sotheby’s to write the catalogue. During his research he discovered two previously unidentified originals of Magna Carta. For the Magna Carta Project he has been searching archives across Britain, Ireland and France for the charters of King John.
Also published under Nick Vincent.
Also published under Nick Vincent.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 33 reviews
January 7, 2020
First of all, this really should have been titled A brief history of England, rather than Britain, as apart from a couple of paragraphs on Scotland and Wales, the entire books is about England during that time, not the rest of Britain.
I thought the first half and the last quarter of this book very entertaining. It does what it says on the tin: it provides a brief overview of the major events and players of the time. If you're looking for an in-depth treatise on anything that happened during that particular time period, move along, this book won't help you. But what it does, it does pretty well, except (for me) for the third quarter of the book.
First of all the author managed to get my back up by referring to a certain king as "not autistic" because he had been observed showing emotions. WTF? Is he trying to infer that autistic people don't have emotions? Or that they don't show them? Both options are so laughably, utterly wrong that it clearly shows his complete ignorance on the subject of autism, and not having a clue of what he spoke, he should really not have gone there.
Then he went on to compare the Scottish to Afghani terrorists, for winning a battle against a better trained and equipped force that seriously outnumbered them. At this point I was mentally adding the guy to my list of people that were dropped repeatedly on the head as a baby, and came within a whisker of abandoning the rest of the book.
I persevered in the end, and the final quarter was much like the first half again. A shame about the few parts that made my blood boil, as I really enjoyed the tone of the book otherwise, and would probably have looked for more by the same author.
2 1/2 stars rounded up.
I thought the first half and the last quarter of this book very entertaining. It does what it says on the tin: it provides a brief overview of the major events and players of the time. If you're looking for an in-depth treatise on anything that happened during that particular time period, move along, this book won't help you. But what it does, it does pretty well, except (for me) for the third quarter of the book.
First of all the author managed to get my back up by referring to a certain king as "not autistic" because he had been observed showing emotions. WTF? Is he trying to infer that autistic people don't have emotions? Or that they don't show them? Both options are so laughably, utterly wrong that it clearly shows his complete ignorance on the subject of autism, and not having a clue of what he spoke, he should really not have gone there.
Then he went on to compare the Scottish to Afghani terrorists, for winning a battle against a better trained and equipped force that seriously outnumbered them. At this point I was mentally adding the guy to my list of people that were dropped repeatedly on the head as a baby, and came within a whisker of abandoning the rest of the book.
I persevered in the end, and the final quarter was much like the first half again. A shame about the few parts that made my blood boil, as I really enjoyed the tone of the book otherwise, and would probably have looked for more by the same author.
2 1/2 stars rounded up.
September 29, 2014
It was a good introduction to medieval Britain. I particularly enjoyed the first half. However, I would've preferred if there had been more focus on the culture and society of medieval Britain, rather than most of it concentrating on the royal family. I also would've liked to have read more about the oft-neglected of Britain's countries: Scotland, Wales and Ireland, who only seemed to be mentioned in relation to England invading them. Parts of it felt rushed as well. But, overall, I enjoyed it.
February 10, 2024
2024 52 Book Challenge - 45) Chapter Headings Have Dates
This was exactly what it says in the title, except that it really should have said England rather than Britain. Anytime that it refers to any other part of Britain, it's only in relation to them having been invaded by England.
It focuses primarily on the royal family, and while this doesn't bother me because political history is my jam, there is barely any mention of the social or cultural history of England. I think it's mentioned briefly in relation to malnutrition being so widespread that people were very susceptible to the Black Death a couple years later.
I listened to the audiobook, and there were times that I had to rewind because the sentences were so long, it felt like each sentence was a paragraph.
This was exactly what it says in the title, except that it really should have said England rather than Britain. Anytime that it refers to any other part of Britain, it's only in relation to them having been invaded by England.
It focuses primarily on the royal family, and while this doesn't bother me because political history is my jam, there is barely any mention of the social or cultural history of England. I think it's mentioned briefly in relation to malnutrition being so widespread that people were very susceptible to the Black Death a couple years later.
I listened to the audiobook, and there were times that I had to rewind because the sentences were so long, it felt like each sentence was a paragraph.
June 22, 2024
The audiobook comes in at about 18 hours, so its assertion that it is brief is rather in the context that it compresses a great deal of history into that time with great effectiveness. An excellent listen.
March 10, 2014
Interesting subject matter but the continual use of analogy and reference to 20th century events as being somehow the same as those of the middle ages detracted from the flow. Initially this style choice added odd moments of interest and motivated me to consider potential parallels but as the book progressed and the chapters turned out to be thickly plastered they became at first laboured, then grinding and by the final chapters I was thoroughly sick of them. Add to this the tendency of the author to use massively extended sentences, with multiple overlapping clauses, contributed to my desire to simply put the book down and not finish it. I persevered and cannot say that my commitment was rewarded.
January 18, 2014
A decent, concise overview of medieval England. However, the Author's insistence on drawing more parallels than it is reasonable was, least to say, counterproductive. Appealing as it may be to draw superficial comparisons between kings two hundred years apart, it tells me more about the Author's aesthetic preferences than about said kings.
Another think that irked me was the Author's insistence on using "it is proven that this or that king had heterosexual relationships" as an argument that various kings couldn't have had homosexual encounters. This is hardly how human sexuality works.
Another think that irked me was the Author's insistence on using "it is proven that this or that king had heterosexual relationships" as an argument that various kings couldn't have had homosexual encounters. This is hardly how human sexuality works.
December 16, 2024
This is the first in this series, but of course, I didn't read it in chronological order, but despite this, I enjoy these histories very much. They are well researched, well written and full of interesting details.
November 2, 2011
This is the first of four historical volumes covering the years between 1066 and 2010. In this volume the author, Nicholas Vincent has written a concise and extremely well thought out history book which covers the years between the Battle of Hastings in 1066, and the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485.
As the historical content is so rich and varied, it never feels like you are reading a stuffy textbook. Each chapter is meticulously researched, and details the social and economic changes in an easy to read manner. I found that the use of genealogy charts and maps at the beginning of the book helped put royal lineage and country boundaries into context, and a comprehensive further reading guide is easily accessible at the end of the book, and is divided into separate chapters for ease of use.
Overall, I thought this was a really informative book. I discovered things I didn’t know about the way in which medieval England developed as a country, and as I am an enthusiastic reader of historical novels, I am sure that this book will be invaluable as an aide memoire.
As the historical content is so rich and varied, it never feels like you are reading a stuffy textbook. Each chapter is meticulously researched, and details the social and economic changes in an easy to read manner. I found that the use of genealogy charts and maps at the beginning of the book helped put royal lineage and country boundaries into context, and a comprehensive further reading guide is easily accessible at the end of the book, and is divided into separate chapters for ease of use.
Overall, I thought this was a really informative book. I discovered things I didn’t know about the way in which medieval England developed as a country, and as I am an enthusiastic reader of historical novels, I am sure that this book will be invaluable as an aide memoire.
June 2, 2014
Extremely fascinating subject matter by an author who is clearly very knowledgable about the era. I found it a little difficult to get through at times, reading purely from a desire to get through the chapter than for pleasure, and yet at other times a fascinating read, generally whenever there was a key character as the subject matter. All in all, I'm not going to purchase the next in the series but I'm glad I've read this one and am feeling all the more knowledgable for having persevered.
July 10, 2014
There was lots to learn in here for me. The writing style was very difficult however, as he kept referring back to stuff he had already discussed, causing me mass confusion. Since all pommie kings share just a few names, keeping all those Henrys, Edwards & Richards straight is hard enough without discussing several Henrys at once.
April 24, 2015
An interesting read, with a nice strong narrative throughout most of the book.
It felt a little like watching a movie of a book, in that the author tended to concentrate on the good bits, skipping over the duller parts of the period almost entirely, offering only a sentence or two to some monarchs or mentioning events only in passing to set up the next 'good bit'.
It felt a little like watching a movie of a book, in that the author tended to concentrate on the good bits, skipping over the duller parts of the period almost entirely, offering only a sentence or two to some monarchs or mentioning events only in passing to set up the next 'good bit'.
April 2, 2013
Useful book on the history of the Middle Ages. The book focuses on the general atmosphere in royal and aristocratic circles, rather than descriptions of battles and family trees. There is very little on the lives of ordinary people.
November 3, 2015
An excellent history that briefly examines not just the political history, but the societal and cultural development of Britain from the arrival of William the Conqueror until the beginning of the Tudor era.
June 20, 2017
History is not really my bag, but I decided to give this book a gander anyway. It's not bad, though a bit dense but informative. I listened to the audiobook because I couldn't hear the paper version, though the paper edition may be a better format for this.
June 22, 2016
A really informative and entertaining read, and he certainly knows his historical onions. But it was marred by terrible syntax. There are so many sentences with long, meandering asides that you forget their original point.
July 6, 2013
Full of fascinating detail based on excellent research...a bit choppy perhaps but still full of good insights and handy details.
January 29, 2015
Easy to follow and educational as I didn't do much of this period in school but have always meant to read more about this time in our history. Split into easily digestible parts too for easy reading.
November 22, 2024
THIS IS NO HISTORY THIS IS PARTIAL FRUSTRATED JUGMENT
We don't want to hear the weeping of a nostalgic englishman whose sole purpose is to make us condemn the Norman's conquest and regret the destiny of this marvelous Kingdom peopled with so nice Anglo-Saxon people who were quietly exploiting the poor slaves and serfs at the base of the civil hierarchy and thus gathering immense wealth;
After being invaded by the Romans (wonderful!) then the Vikings (beautiful!) then the Danes (who became Kings of England!) and other Nordic people you don't understand why the author is so partial about the invasion of the Normans and so reluctant at accepting, if not welcoming this fact which transformed the country so profoundly; In these times, The law of war was the law of warI and it is shocking that a "historian" acts as a judge using the the sentiments if not rules of the 20th century. It seems that the author found the invasion of England, an island well protected by the seas and making quite some business while the others (the Normans) were hungry of Conquest. His hate of the Norman is such that he lets himself write paragraphs like these ones (in his eyes the Norman did nothing good which can be liked):
"The Normans found themselves victorious [in 1066] by sheer desperate persistence"
Does the author know anything about war?? How did Alexander win his battles against Darius (Granique, Issos, Gaugamela... )? Persistence is the key!
The Normans were punished for their pride by the death of a king and a king’s son in the thick of the English greenwood"
Can you believe it???
"The military caste of the Norman Conquest has undoubtedly led to the portrayal of the Normans themselves as a warrior nation, dressed in chainmail even when in bed, plotting lordly proto-Thatcherite schemes to impose order upon a chaotic society. Out went the hobbit burrows of the Anglo-Saxons and in came the newly prefabricated efficiency of castles, counting houses and dungeons. Norman hard tack was substituted for Anglo-Saxon cakes and ale."
What does this pejorative description tend to prove ?
"In learning, in building, even in their warfare, where, after 1066, at their battles such as Tinchebrai or Brémule they adopted King Harold’s technique of riding to battle but fighting on foot, the Normans were the most brazen and parasitical of plagiarists."
This is a judgement from a "British chauvinist pig", partisan and probably pacifist... a loser, not a historian. On the contrary, one can think that this admirable shameless adaptability is the key to survival and in the end, victory. In warfare there is no copyright, the best technique is the winning one.
In his exaggerated views, the Normans were nothing good, did nothing good, left nothing good, forgetting the fact that they came in number after 1066 to mix themselves with the Anglo-Saxons and thus enriched the British "race" as was the case for instance in the United States The Melting Pot. They built Cathedrals, monasteries, castles, etc...
From my point of view, history cannot judge some People against other People. The Huns were hard to love but it was their nature. To me, History like journalism is made of facts not opinions except in the case where facts are missing. It does not seem that the author misses facts to write this book but he uses each of them against the Normans propelling his own bitterness rather than proposing the mere facts
I ABANDONED THE READING OF THIS BOOK
We don't want to hear the weeping of a nostalgic englishman whose sole purpose is to make us condemn the Norman's conquest and regret the destiny of this marvelous Kingdom peopled with so nice Anglo-Saxon people who were quietly exploiting the poor slaves and serfs at the base of the civil hierarchy and thus gathering immense wealth;
After being invaded by the Romans (wonderful!) then the Vikings (beautiful!) then the Danes (who became Kings of England!) and other Nordic people you don't understand why the author is so partial about the invasion of the Normans and so reluctant at accepting, if not welcoming this fact which transformed the country so profoundly; In these times, The law of war was the law of warI and it is shocking that a "historian" acts as a judge using the the sentiments if not rules of the 20th century. It seems that the author found the invasion of England, an island well protected by the seas and making quite some business while the others (the Normans) were hungry of Conquest. His hate of the Norman is such that he lets himself write paragraphs like these ones (in his eyes the Norman did nothing good which can be liked):
"The Normans found themselves victorious [in 1066] by sheer desperate persistence"
Does the author know anything about war?? How did Alexander win his battles against Darius (Granique, Issos, Gaugamela... )? Persistence is the key!
The Normans were punished for their pride by the death of a king and a king’s son in the thick of the English greenwood"
Can you believe it???
"The military caste of the Norman Conquest has undoubtedly led to the portrayal of the Normans themselves as a warrior nation, dressed in chainmail even when in bed, plotting lordly proto-Thatcherite schemes to impose order upon a chaotic society. Out went the hobbit burrows of the Anglo-Saxons and in came the newly prefabricated efficiency of castles, counting houses and dungeons. Norman hard tack was substituted for Anglo-Saxon cakes and ale."
What does this pejorative description tend to prove ?
"In learning, in building, even in their warfare, where, after 1066, at their battles such as Tinchebrai or Brémule they adopted King Harold’s technique of riding to battle but fighting on foot, the Normans were the most brazen and parasitical of plagiarists."
This is a judgement from a "British chauvinist pig", partisan and probably pacifist... a loser, not a historian. On the contrary, one can think that this admirable shameless adaptability is the key to survival and in the end, victory. In warfare there is no copyright, the best technique is the winning one.
In his exaggerated views, the Normans were nothing good, did nothing good, left nothing good, forgetting the fact that they came in number after 1066 to mix themselves with the Anglo-Saxons and thus enriched the British "race" as was the case for instance in the United States The Melting Pot. They built Cathedrals, monasteries, castles, etc...
From my point of view, history cannot judge some People against other People. The Huns were hard to love but it was their nature. To me, History like journalism is made of facts not opinions except in the case where facts are missing. It does not seem that the author misses facts to write this book but he uses each of them against the Normans propelling his own bitterness rather than proposing the mere facts
I ABANDONED THE READING OF THIS BOOK
February 1, 2023
The author does a good summary of the period, covering the most important events in a flowing narrative.
Unfortunately, from time to time, he feels the need to make comparisons with our era, which are mostly forced and irrelevant.
I know very little about this period, so I read it with interest. I made some notes, and four months later, when I read them again, I realised I forgot almost everything and, the content of the book felt new to me. It is either the fact that too many kings and events were covered in a relatively short book, or I am getting older and, worryingly, the process of forgetting is accelerating.
Unfortunately, from time to time, he feels the need to make comparisons with our era, which are mostly forced and irrelevant.
I know very little about this period, so I read it with interest. I made some notes, and four months later, when I read them again, I realised I forgot almost everything and, the content of the book felt new to me. It is either the fact that too many kings and events were covered in a relatively short book, or I am getting older and, worryingly, the process of forgetting is accelerating.
August 22, 2024
A great introduction to this period of British history and strikes a nice balance between scope and depth. It feels as though the whole chronology of the period is covered without diving into too much detail on any single person or event - albeit the author deploys lots of detailed asides, sketches and stories which really bring to life the narrative. Enjoyed it so much I have immediately ordered the next in the series.
December 17, 2024
Love learning about history and was enjoying this book, until the author stated that a notable person was believed to be autistic, but because they had close friends and family and were loved it meant they couldn’t be autistic- very outdated and narrow view on autistic people, put me completely off this author.
July 7, 2025
Allt of mikil upptalninga á nöfnum á konungum og hertogum og hvernig þeir drápu hvorn annan í hinum ýmsu uppreisnum og herleiðöngrum. Góðir kaflar inn á milli um lífið hjá venjulegu fólki og áhrif allra stríðanna,
October 3, 2017
Great read. Lots of facts.
November 22, 2018
Didn't get very far into this as with other books of "British history" this appears to be no more than English history and therefore lacking a vast amount of information and experience within Britain
June 27, 2021
Maybe 3.5/4 stars if the author changes the title to 'A Brief History of ENGLAND'
January 20, 2023
I enjoyed getting this summary of British History until the war of the roses. I like this era of history and it is always fun to learn more about it.
October 6, 2024
A+ sleep book
October 10, 2024
Maybe a little too brief for what they are covering. There's many times they breeze past so0mething I'd have liked more substance on (but that's why God invented footnotes I guess).
October 3, 2011
This is the first of four historical volumes covering the years between 1066 and 2010. In this volume the author, Nicholas Vincent has written a concise and extremely well thought out history book which covers the years between the Battle of Hastings in 1066, and the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485.
As the historical content is so rich and varied, it never feels like you are reading a stuffy textbook. Each chapter is meticulously researched, and details the social and economic changes in an easy to read manner. I found that the use of genealogy charts and maps at the beginning of the book helped put royal lineage and country boundaries into context, and a comprehensive further reading guide is easily accessible at the end of the book, and is divided into separate chapters for ease of use.
Overall, I thought this was a really informative book. I discovered things I didn’t know about the way in which medieval England developed as a country, and as I am an enthusiastic reader of historical novels, I am sure that this book will be invaluable as an aide memoire.
As the historical content is so rich and varied, it never feels like you are reading a stuffy textbook. Each chapter is meticulously researched, and details the social and economic changes in an easy to read manner. I found that the use of genealogy charts and maps at the beginning of the book helped put royal lineage and country boundaries into context, and a comprehensive further reading guide is easily accessible at the end of the book, and is divided into separate chapters for ease of use.
Overall, I thought this was a really informative book. I discovered things I didn’t know about the way in which medieval England developed as a country, and as I am an enthusiastic reader of historical novels, I am sure that this book will be invaluable as an aide memoire.
December 14, 2025
I love history, and I've had these books (this is the first of four) on my to-read list for years. I thought I'd finally start them. I don't know what I expected, but this was not it. I expected a more engaging tale for a history fan about a few centuries of a nation's story.
This was 80% about the royal family. Sure, records of people who weren't royals are a bit sketchy, but I don't much care about the succession of Edward, Edward and Edward, or the six Henry kings (so far).
Wales? Scotland? Ireland? they were mentioned a little as England invaded them. The book spent more time talking about France and Normandy than it did about the rest of "Britain".
The worst thing about the book was that it wasn't particularly interesting. I was going to read all four, but I think I'll stop after one. I don't think I could go through that again - at least not back-to-back.
This was 80% about the royal family. Sure, records of people who weren't royals are a bit sketchy, but I don't much care about the succession of Edward, Edward and Edward, or the six Henry kings (so far).
Wales? Scotland? Ireland? they were mentioned a little as England invaded them. The book spent more time talking about France and Normandy than it did about the rest of "Britain".
The worst thing about the book was that it wasn't particularly interesting. I was going to read all four, but I think I'll stop after one. I don't think I could go through that again - at least not back-to-back.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 33 reviews