What do you think?
Rate this book
Fighting Kings Of Wessex
Emerging from the mists of legend at the time of the fall of Rome in the fifth century, the Saxon kings attempted to build a new kingdom around their own province of Wessex in southwestern England; strongly emphasizing a "collapse of civilization" theme, the author of this classic volume shows that Saxon England and Viking Scandinavia did not exist in isolation from the rest of Europe.
- GenresHistory
304 pages, Paperback
First published June 21, 1996
4 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
December 7, 2014
I have such mixed feelings about this book! I will start off by saying it is dry reading...so dry I would call it desiccant. That's why it took me so long to finish it; I could only get through about one page at a time. Much of the early part of the book was unknown to me, so I couldn't judge its accuracy (that is, if you can judge accuracy about anything that took place in the dark ages). He starts in the Reign of Alfred the Great and ends at the Battle of Hastings. I was surprised to see a chapter on Ragnar Lothbrok, whose existence I wasn't aware of until "The Vikings" program aired last year. That's when I started paying real attention.
As an author of historical fiction, I am often stymied by the lack of details in medieval histories; once I got up to an era I knew something about, this book provided many surprising anecdotes that I have never seen elsewhere. For instance, in talking about the Five Boroughs: "These towns owe their subsequent importance to the Danes, who first carried out the policy later on adopted by Henry the Fowler in Germany, of making fortified towns the centre of agricultural districts portioned out among the townsmen who formed its military garrison." It's not profound, but it helps enlighten. To me, this is grist for the historical fiction mill!
When talking about the Battle of Hastings, he explains how the the English fought; this was a big surprise to me for it redefines the shield wall: "The first line was armed with the single-bladed battle-axe with a haft five feet long...It was wielded left-handed--so that no shield was of much service against it...As the axe needed room for its swing, the front rank cannot have been spaced closer than some six feet apart. Each man, like a goal-keeper, had charge of a certain space through which he was to let nothing pass. Some paces behind, the three supporting ranks stood shoulder to shoulder, covered with their great kite-shaped shields, and armed with stabbing spears..." and then, "The task of the supporting ranks of Houseman was to relieve and replace the axemen when necessary, and to finish off all that fell or got past." You know, I always wondered how the Anglo-Saxons could effectively use their great-axe behind the shield wall, but I never thought they stood outside of it. It's an interesting concept, but I just don't see it working for the whole day.
Now for the unfortunate part: I found many errors, at worst, and unfortunate speculations, at best when I arrived at the era I knew most about. For instance, first he said that Godwine married the daughter of Knut, then on his genealogical table he shows Gytha as the sister of Knut. Neither one of these is correct! Then there was his statement about Harthacnut, which made my head spin: "Harthacnut might have excited more general and more powerful opposition, had there been a likelihood that his reign would continue indefinitely. But it was recognized that he was a stop-gap, affording time for a more careful decision in the matter of the succession." WHAT! That was a hard pill to swallow! And as for relieving Emma of her treasures at the beginning of Edward's reign, he stated that this was the three Great Earls' decision (rather than Edward's) because they didn't want to fill the King's empty coffers out of their own pockets. They devised a coup d'etat against her and Edward gave his permission. I don't know...everyone else said the idea originated with Edward himself.
So to sum it up, I would say this is a good resource if you need some anecdotal ideas, but not a very reliable source. There is no Bibliography and few footnotes; the reader has to take much on faith. I can't say I enjoyed it, but I'll keep the book around when I get stuck for ideas.
As an author of historical fiction, I am often stymied by the lack of details in medieval histories; once I got up to an era I knew something about, this book provided many surprising anecdotes that I have never seen elsewhere. For instance, in talking about the Five Boroughs: "These towns owe their subsequent importance to the Danes, who first carried out the policy later on adopted by Henry the Fowler in Germany, of making fortified towns the centre of agricultural districts portioned out among the townsmen who formed its military garrison." It's not profound, but it helps enlighten. To me, this is grist for the historical fiction mill!
When talking about the Battle of Hastings, he explains how the the English fought; this was a big surprise to me for it redefines the shield wall: "The first line was armed with the single-bladed battle-axe with a haft five feet long...It was wielded left-handed--so that no shield was of much service against it...As the axe needed room for its swing, the front rank cannot have been spaced closer than some six feet apart. Each man, like a goal-keeper, had charge of a certain space through which he was to let nothing pass. Some paces behind, the three supporting ranks stood shoulder to shoulder, covered with their great kite-shaped shields, and armed with stabbing spears..." and then, "The task of the supporting ranks of Houseman was to relieve and replace the axemen when necessary, and to finish off all that fell or got past." You know, I always wondered how the Anglo-Saxons could effectively use their great-axe behind the shield wall, but I never thought they stood outside of it. It's an interesting concept, but I just don't see it working for the whole day.
Now for the unfortunate part: I found many errors, at worst, and unfortunate speculations, at best when I arrived at the era I knew most about. For instance, first he said that Godwine married the daughter of Knut, then on his genealogical table he shows Gytha as the sister of Knut. Neither one of these is correct! Then there was his statement about Harthacnut, which made my head spin: "Harthacnut might have excited more general and more powerful opposition, had there been a likelihood that his reign would continue indefinitely. But it was recognized that he was a stop-gap, affording time for a more careful decision in the matter of the succession." WHAT! That was a hard pill to swallow! And as for relieving Emma of her treasures at the beginning of Edward's reign, he stated that this was the three Great Earls' decision (rather than Edward's) because they didn't want to fill the King's empty coffers out of their own pockets. They devised a coup d'etat against her and Edward gave his permission. I don't know...everyone else said the idea originated with Edward himself.
So to sum it up, I would say this is a good resource if you need some anecdotal ideas, but not a very reliable source. There is no Bibliography and few footnotes; the reader has to take much on faith. I can't say I enjoyed it, but I'll keep the book around when I get stuck for ideas.
Displaying 1 of 1 review