What do you think?
Rate this book
Harold: The King Who Fell at Hastings
Harold Godwinson, King of England, was unable to defend his realm from William the Conqueror’s invading Norman army in 1066. The Normans wreaked havoc across the country and changed the history of England forever. This full-scale biography of England’s last Anglo-Saxon king reveals an astute political operator who, as Earl of Wessex, won the affection of the English people and the support of Edward the Confessor to succeed him. Peter Rex tells the story of a formidable warrior-king killed in battle in defence of his kingdom.
304 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2005
1 person is currently reading
188 people want to read
About the author
Peter Rex
14 books9 followersBorn in in 1930, Peter Rex attended St Brendan’s and Bristol University prior to earning an MA at Coventry. He taught at Huddersfield and Princethorpe College until his retirement in 1994.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
June 13, 2020
Anyone seeking to assess the life of Harold Godwinson faces a challenge right from the outset. While Harold enjoyed a visible presence in English life in the middle of the 11th century, after his death most of his activities were filtered through the lens of Norman propaganda, propagated to denigrate his character and delegitimize his brief tenure on the throne. Among English monarchs, only Richard III faced such a concerted campaign of historical demolition, though the greater abundance of documentation from the 15th century makes it easier to develop alternate perspectives on his reign.
For the rest of my review, click on the link:
https://www.bestbritishbios.com/2020/...
For the rest of my review, click on the link:
https://www.bestbritishbios.com/2020/...
December 15, 2008
This is the best Peter Rex book I've read. Excellent. Two dates in English history with monumental future implications. 1066 & 1485. Rex takes us through the Anglo-Danish period from Aethelred, through Knutr and the foundation of the Godwin dynasty.
The reign of the Confessor and Harold,s emergence as head of an English state. King for 9 months and 9 days with the tumult of Fulford,Stamford Bridge and Senlac.
A very thought provoking epilogue with a 'what if'. What if Hardrada and William had not arrived more or less together in late summer? What if William had not been so lucky? What if Harold had won at Hastings? A continuous Anglo-Danish Godwin dynasty. No English tie to Normandy and France. No hundred years war.
The reign of the Confessor and Harold,s emergence as head of an English state. King for 9 months and 9 days with the tumult of Fulford,Stamford Bridge and Senlac.
A very thought provoking epilogue with a 'what if'. What if Hardrada and William had not arrived more or less together in late summer? What if William had not been so lucky? What if Harold had won at Hastings? A continuous Anglo-Danish Godwin dynasty. No English tie to Normandy and France. No hundred years war.
July 30, 2009
A great, scholarly biography of the doomed English king. At first, I struggled to get into this book thanks to the usual reasons: dense, wordy text, information overload, no pictures (yep, I'm that shallow). After the first couple of chapters, I found that the author started getting into his stride, and then the book became fun.
It's packed with a wealth of carefully-sourced detail along with arguments made by Rex that I found no reason to disagree with: he's a meticulous, imaginative researcher and he's certainly on form for this book. You learn a great deal about Harold and also Saxon politics, William's motivations and the state of the country in general.
A class read, and a must for anyone interested in this period of history.
It's packed with a wealth of carefully-sourced detail along with arguments made by Rex that I found no reason to disagree with: he's a meticulous, imaginative researcher and he's certainly on form for this book. You learn a great deal about Harold and also Saxon politics, William's motivations and the state of the country in general.
A class read, and a must for anyone interested in this period of history.
April 1, 2023
To reconstruct the life of Harold Godwinson, Harold II, the king who ruled England in 1066, is an all but impossible task, since his defeat by William the Conquerer led to his eradication from the historical record, as William, dating his reign not from the day of the battle but from the day of the death of Edward the Confessor, claimed to be Edward's direct successor. Harold's reign was simply wiped away historiographically by the Normans, and contemporary and historical works written or adapted to fit the newly established dispensation, in which Harold's role was reduced to perjurer and usurper. However, this was far from the case. Harold II was the legitimate king and it was William who was the usurper, while it was Harold who marked continuity with the Anglo-Scandinavian realm established after 1016 and William whose victory established a socially and culturally novel, Anglo-Norman, society. The history of 1066 was intentionally written and rewritten by the victors, and that required the cancellation of the reign of Harold II.
Peter Rex in this accessible and clear, if slightly repetitive and disjointed biography, recognising all the difficulties involved, provides, if not a true biography of Harold due to the compromised nature of the sources, a contextual study of England under the Anglo-Scandinavian kings, with a narrative of the rise and fall of the House of Godwin, involving the prominent role which his father played under Cnut and his sons and then Harold's own under Edward the Confessor, culminating in Harold's brief and intentionally undocumented reign. This is the best that can probably be achieved, and if Harold the man and the king remains an opaque figure that is no fault of the author.
Rex makes a good case for understanding England in the years after Cnut became king as an emerging integrated Anglo-Scandinavian kingdom in which Danish practices and social norms were successfully grafted onto an Anglo-Saxon society which itself had already been profoundly affected by Scandinavian invasions and culture for two centuries: Anglo-Saxon history of the ninth to eleventh centuries cannot be understood but as formed by resistance to and accommodation with the northern peoples who first attacked and then settled in England, and who helped to create the England which was defeated at Hastings. And it was into this Anglo-Scandinavian society that Godwin, a new man benefiting from a new political dispensation, rose from thegn to earl under the Danish Cnut, becoming the king's most dependable minister.
The role of Godwin in the death of the Aethling Alfred, who was blinded and then died after returning to England during the reign of Cnut's son and successor, Harold Harefoot, is fully explored, as is his continued prosperity and that of his sons under Harthnacnut and then Edward the Confessor, until the crisis of 1051-2, which saw the temporary exile followed by return to power of the Godwins. Rex argues that the prominent part played in the attack upon Godwin and his family - Harold's sister, queen Edith was temporarily put aside by the king - was that of Robert of Jumièges, the archbishop of Canterbury, who used the crisis of Godwin refusing to punish the people of Dover in his own earldom for their role in an attack on the count of Boulogne, to assert his own influence, and to utilise the death of Alfred to undermine the Godwins for his own, and that of the church in Canterbury, advantage. Edward may indeed have wished to assert himself against an overmighty earl and his family, and there may have been political tensions within the elite, but the outcome was the triumphant return of Godwin and his family, the reinstatement of the queen, and the defeat and exile of the archbishop, entrenching the Godwins as the dominant force in England for the remainder of the reign.
What Rex establishes is that this crisis was not due to some attempt of Edward to secure the succession for William of Normandy, or to replace an English-Godwin government with that of Normans and Frenchmen, and he shows how, despite his youthful exile in France, Edward was not reliant upon Frenchmen as king, or had surrounded himself with Normans, except in his private chapel, and that he reigned as an English king in the tradition established not only through his father Aethelraed II but also the Danish kings. Importantly, despite the duke of Normandy, who was still establishing his own rule in his duchy, possibly visiting England around this time, there is no evidence that Edward was planning for the succession at the time, let alone in favour of William, particularly as Edith was still of childbearing age, and, contrary to post-Conquest hagiography, the king was not a celibate.
After Godwin's death in 1053, Harold, exchanging his earldom of East Anglia, to which he had been appointed circa 1045, for his father's earldom of Wessex, succeeded him as the king's preeminent adviser and richest and most powerful noble. Rex then explores how England was governed under this dispensation, how Harold co-operated with the others earls, not just of his own family, but importantly those of Mercia and Northumbria, and how English rule was consolidated not just within the realm but also in relation to Scotland and Wales, whose rulers were forced to accept Edward's supremacy. The picture Rex paints is of a relatively peaceful and well governed kingdom, as Scandinavian threats abated, and with Harold successful as Edward's chief minister. However, due to the rewriting of history after 1066, it is difficult to establish Harold's actual role in the government beyond his predominant position, but the very lack of crises, the hold over much of lowland England exerted by him directly and through his brothers, and the evidence of a sophisticated and well functioning state all suggest that Harold was a successful governor and collaborator with the king.
This was the case until the existential crisis of 1065-6, which had two connected elements, one the internal dissension caused by the revolt of Harold's brother Tostig, and, two, the question of the succession, which came to the fore as Edward's health failed during 1065, perhaps affected by the collapse of political amity. If one accepts that Harold had successfully established a system of government through the earldoms with him as the premier earl, then Tostig, who had been appointed to succeed the native Scandinavian Siward as earl of Northumbria, by his unpopular rule, his overthrow, and his consequent rebellion shattered that.
An important prequel to this is the mysterious visit of Harold to the continent, probably in 1064, when he was captured before being freed by William of Normandy and swearing some kind of oath, as depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry. Post-Conquest Norman historiography states that by this Harold not only became William's man, but also that he vowed to support the duke's claim to the English throne, although Rex suggests that while Harold did offer some oath and may even have done homage to William, either it was done under duress, and therefore invalid, or that it was a personal bond with no connection to the succession, relating only to Harold owing service to the duke while in France, probably specifically regarding the joint campaign the two undertook, and he also points out that as Edward was in good health at the time there is absolutely no real evidence that Harold's reason for his journey was to offer William the crown. However, it is likely that William, spurred on by Robert of Jumièges after his 1052 exile, did both believe he had a claim to the succession and that later he interpreted Harold's visit as an offer or used it subsequently to undermine Harold's claim preparatory to his invasion.
In many ways, even after his Norman sojourn, Harold's power was at its greatest in 1065 until the Northumbrian revolt, and it was Tostig's perfidy which brought about his fall. Harold settled the Northumbrian crisis by, once he recognised restoring his brother was impossible, appointing Morcar, son of the great Mercian earl Leofric, as earl of Northumbria, but this ultimately threw Tostig into a treasonable alliance with Harold Hardrada of Norway, when that king claimed the throne after Edward's death, forcing Harold II as king to defeat both at Stanford Bridge, diverting him and his forces from the south when duke William invaded from Normandy, and so initiating the chain of events which led to Harold's defeat at Hastings.
There is no doubt that when Edward the Confessor died there were several claimants to his throne, but Rex explains how Harold Godwinson, despite not being descended from the Wessex House of Cerdic or related to Cnut and his sons by blood, not only had the better claim as Edward's designated successor, but was also chosen by the political community of the realm as the most acceptable to both English and Danes. Edgar the Aethling, the grandson of Edmund Ironside, was the most likely alternative as the candidate with the best claim by blood, but there is no evidence that he was either considered for or claimed the throne, and that Harold was by the customs of England recognised as the legitimate king. Importantly, Rex also shows how, contrary to Norman propaganda, rather than being crowned by the simonaical Stigand of Canterbury, Harold II's coronation was performed by the perfectly orthodox Ealdread of York
As to William's claim, Rex shows conclusively that Edward could not have promised him the succession in the crisis of 1051-2, as in 1057 the decision was taken to send for Edward the Exile, Edgar's father, to groom him as heir, although he died before the two Edwards could meet. Rex proves that nowhere in either English adulterated or Norman post-Conquest sources is any specific promise of the throne or that Harold's oath had anything to do with the succession averred. The story of the offer of the throne to the duke and the oath of Harold were justifications post facto made once the Normans had conquered England.
Rex retells the campaign of Stanford Bridge, Harold's overwhelming victory, and then his equally impressive return south, gathering new troops, in an exciting narrative that culminates in the epochal victory of William over Harold at Hastings. Had his brother and Hardrada not invaded then Harold would have been able to both remain and keep forces near to the south coast, and so have a better chance of defeating any Norman invasion, but his need to win in the north when first attacked there gave William his opportunity, which he seized with his customary military skill. And so, Harold II was undone and the Anglo-Scandinavian settlement of 1016-1066 shattered not because of his failings - he did have to defeat both Hardrada and William if he were to protect his kingship - but because of circumstances and the internal crisis brought about by his brother and Edward the Confessor's death. Harold was an unlucky king, but as Rex shows clearly, one whose defeat totally changed the political and social governance of his realm, and who for the benefit of the winners had to be written out of history.
Rex therefore attempts to restore Harold to his rightful place as best he can in a lively narrative, although one with a consistent anti-Norman bias. But, ultimately, even if William the Conqueror became king by might not right, it is still the case that within medieval mentalities his victory legitimised his rule, so long as he could, as he did, assert it in the years after 1066, and that as much as Harold was the rightful king in 1066, so too was William thereafter, as much as Rex would wish it otherwise.
Peter Rex in this accessible and clear, if slightly repetitive and disjointed biography, recognising all the difficulties involved, provides, if not a true biography of Harold due to the compromised nature of the sources, a contextual study of England under the Anglo-Scandinavian kings, with a narrative of the rise and fall of the House of Godwin, involving the prominent role which his father played under Cnut and his sons and then Harold's own under Edward the Confessor, culminating in Harold's brief and intentionally undocumented reign. This is the best that can probably be achieved, and if Harold the man and the king remains an opaque figure that is no fault of the author.
Rex makes a good case for understanding England in the years after Cnut became king as an emerging integrated Anglo-Scandinavian kingdom in which Danish practices and social norms were successfully grafted onto an Anglo-Saxon society which itself had already been profoundly affected by Scandinavian invasions and culture for two centuries: Anglo-Saxon history of the ninth to eleventh centuries cannot be understood but as formed by resistance to and accommodation with the northern peoples who first attacked and then settled in England, and who helped to create the England which was defeated at Hastings. And it was into this Anglo-Scandinavian society that Godwin, a new man benefiting from a new political dispensation, rose from thegn to earl under the Danish Cnut, becoming the king's most dependable minister.
The role of Godwin in the death of the Aethling Alfred, who was blinded and then died after returning to England during the reign of Cnut's son and successor, Harold Harefoot, is fully explored, as is his continued prosperity and that of his sons under Harthnacnut and then Edward the Confessor, until the crisis of 1051-2, which saw the temporary exile followed by return to power of the Godwins. Rex argues that the prominent part played in the attack upon Godwin and his family - Harold's sister, queen Edith was temporarily put aside by the king - was that of Robert of Jumièges, the archbishop of Canterbury, who used the crisis of Godwin refusing to punish the people of Dover in his own earldom for their role in an attack on the count of Boulogne, to assert his own influence, and to utilise the death of Alfred to undermine the Godwins for his own, and that of the church in Canterbury, advantage. Edward may indeed have wished to assert himself against an overmighty earl and his family, and there may have been political tensions within the elite, but the outcome was the triumphant return of Godwin and his family, the reinstatement of the queen, and the defeat and exile of the archbishop, entrenching the Godwins as the dominant force in England for the remainder of the reign.
What Rex establishes is that this crisis was not due to some attempt of Edward to secure the succession for William of Normandy, or to replace an English-Godwin government with that of Normans and Frenchmen, and he shows how, despite his youthful exile in France, Edward was not reliant upon Frenchmen as king, or had surrounded himself with Normans, except in his private chapel, and that he reigned as an English king in the tradition established not only through his father Aethelraed II but also the Danish kings. Importantly, despite the duke of Normandy, who was still establishing his own rule in his duchy, possibly visiting England around this time, there is no evidence that Edward was planning for the succession at the time, let alone in favour of William, particularly as Edith was still of childbearing age, and, contrary to post-Conquest hagiography, the king was not a celibate.
After Godwin's death in 1053, Harold, exchanging his earldom of East Anglia, to which he had been appointed circa 1045, for his father's earldom of Wessex, succeeded him as the king's preeminent adviser and richest and most powerful noble. Rex then explores how England was governed under this dispensation, how Harold co-operated with the others earls, not just of his own family, but importantly those of Mercia and Northumbria, and how English rule was consolidated not just within the realm but also in relation to Scotland and Wales, whose rulers were forced to accept Edward's supremacy. The picture Rex paints is of a relatively peaceful and well governed kingdom, as Scandinavian threats abated, and with Harold successful as Edward's chief minister. However, due to the rewriting of history after 1066, it is difficult to establish Harold's actual role in the government beyond his predominant position, but the very lack of crises, the hold over much of lowland England exerted by him directly and through his brothers, and the evidence of a sophisticated and well functioning state all suggest that Harold was a successful governor and collaborator with the king.
This was the case until the existential crisis of 1065-6, which had two connected elements, one the internal dissension caused by the revolt of Harold's brother Tostig, and, two, the question of the succession, which came to the fore as Edward's health failed during 1065, perhaps affected by the collapse of political amity. If one accepts that Harold had successfully established a system of government through the earldoms with him as the premier earl, then Tostig, who had been appointed to succeed the native Scandinavian Siward as earl of Northumbria, by his unpopular rule, his overthrow, and his consequent rebellion shattered that.
An important prequel to this is the mysterious visit of Harold to the continent, probably in 1064, when he was captured before being freed by William of Normandy and swearing some kind of oath, as depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry. Post-Conquest Norman historiography states that by this Harold not only became William's man, but also that he vowed to support the duke's claim to the English throne, although Rex suggests that while Harold did offer some oath and may even have done homage to William, either it was done under duress, and therefore invalid, or that it was a personal bond with no connection to the succession, relating only to Harold owing service to the duke while in France, probably specifically regarding the joint campaign the two undertook, and he also points out that as Edward was in good health at the time there is absolutely no real evidence that Harold's reason for his journey was to offer William the crown. However, it is likely that William, spurred on by Robert of Jumièges after his 1052 exile, did both believe he had a claim to the succession and that later he interpreted Harold's visit as an offer or used it subsequently to undermine Harold's claim preparatory to his invasion.
In many ways, even after his Norman sojourn, Harold's power was at its greatest in 1065 until the Northumbrian revolt, and it was Tostig's perfidy which brought about his fall. Harold settled the Northumbrian crisis by, once he recognised restoring his brother was impossible, appointing Morcar, son of the great Mercian earl Leofric, as earl of Northumbria, but this ultimately threw Tostig into a treasonable alliance with Harold Hardrada of Norway, when that king claimed the throne after Edward's death, forcing Harold II as king to defeat both at Stanford Bridge, diverting him and his forces from the south when duke William invaded from Normandy, and so initiating the chain of events which led to Harold's defeat at Hastings.
There is no doubt that when Edward the Confessor died there were several claimants to his throne, but Rex explains how Harold Godwinson, despite not being descended from the Wessex House of Cerdic or related to Cnut and his sons by blood, not only had the better claim as Edward's designated successor, but was also chosen by the political community of the realm as the most acceptable to both English and Danes. Edgar the Aethling, the grandson of Edmund Ironside, was the most likely alternative as the candidate with the best claim by blood, but there is no evidence that he was either considered for or claimed the throne, and that Harold was by the customs of England recognised as the legitimate king. Importantly, Rex also shows how, contrary to Norman propaganda, rather than being crowned by the simonaical Stigand of Canterbury, Harold II's coronation was performed by the perfectly orthodox Ealdread of York
As to William's claim, Rex shows conclusively that Edward could not have promised him the succession in the crisis of 1051-2, as in 1057 the decision was taken to send for Edward the Exile, Edgar's father, to groom him as heir, although he died before the two Edwards could meet. Rex proves that nowhere in either English adulterated or Norman post-Conquest sources is any specific promise of the throne or that Harold's oath had anything to do with the succession averred. The story of the offer of the throne to the duke and the oath of Harold were justifications post facto made once the Normans had conquered England.
Rex retells the campaign of Stanford Bridge, Harold's overwhelming victory, and then his equally impressive return south, gathering new troops, in an exciting narrative that culminates in the epochal victory of William over Harold at Hastings. Had his brother and Hardrada not invaded then Harold would have been able to both remain and keep forces near to the south coast, and so have a better chance of defeating any Norman invasion, but his need to win in the north when first attacked there gave William his opportunity, which he seized with his customary military skill. And so, Harold II was undone and the Anglo-Scandinavian settlement of 1016-1066 shattered not because of his failings - he did have to defeat both Hardrada and William if he were to protect his kingship - but because of circumstances and the internal crisis brought about by his brother and Edward the Confessor's death. Harold was an unlucky king, but as Rex shows clearly, one whose defeat totally changed the political and social governance of his realm, and who for the benefit of the winners had to be written out of history.
Rex therefore attempts to restore Harold to his rightful place as best he can in a lively narrative, although one with a consistent anti-Norman bias. But, ultimately, even if William the Conqueror became king by might not right, it is still the case that within medieval mentalities his victory legitimised his rule, so long as he could, as he did, assert it in the years after 1066, and that as much as Harold was the rightful king in 1066, so too was William thereafter, as much as Rex would wish it otherwise.
November 27, 2015
I'm not quite sure where I would put this volume in my own line-up of pre-conquest history books. On the one hand, it covered the issues intelligently and carefully. On the other hand, many of the major books he cites in his bibliography are already on my bookshelf...especially the 20th century sources. So on the one hand, on an information gathering mission I didn't learn anything majorly new. Nonetheless, I placed a lot of bookmarks which means he touched on little details that fleshed out my understanding.
In many ways, the value of this book is in the explanations of things we just might not be entirely sure about. For instance, we get interesting general details: "The manors of an earl were probably organized like the royal demesne, the 'home farms' of the monarchy, into either provisioning or revenue-producing units. Entries in the Domesday Book note the number of nights' farm that could be obtained from a manor. They were the cost of overnight provisions for the king or lord and his whole household when visiting the manor." That helps explain some everyday factors that usually slip past us. There are many other explanations of this kind that helped put things into perspective for me.
The author also tried to make sense of conflicting histories, especially concerning the battle of Hastings and its aftermath. Which came first, and who influenced who? And why? "Admittedly, some historians criticize the Carmen, believing it to be a twelfth-century product, but the balance of probability seems to favor an early date for this work, around 1068..." Was the arrow in the eye story an effort to portray Harold as being punished from God for his perjury? Or was there some confusion between his death by an arrow and Harold Hardrada's arrow in the throat? How much was this story influenced by the nineteenth century restoration of the Bayeux Tapestry? As you might guess, these passages raise more questions than they answer, but these questions are probably unanswerable anyway, so we might as well learn as much background as possible.
I was interested to see that Tostig's troubles in the north may have had much to do with reforming the out-of-balance low taxation in Northumbria (when compared to the rest of the country). According to the author, "There was a reform of the royal household in the interests of efficiency early in the 1060s...Tostig's rule was then seen as tightening royal control of the north at a time when the Witan in England was dominated by Harold, which would explain why Tostig blamed Harold for the revolt and accused him of conspiring against him." To me, this is a big statement. First of all, it implies that Tostig did not arbitrarily raise taxes, which supposedly sparked off the insurrection. And it also gives a reason why he would accuse Harold of fomenting the rebellion, aside from a mere hysterical reaction. There's a lot of food for thought here, which certainly delves deeper than the usual bland interpretation of Tostig's allegedly poor government.
So, overall, I would say I have benefitted from reading this book. The writing was a little hard to get through in places, and I feel the author jumped around a little bit, but it gave me some specifics where I needed them in an academic manner. If I didn't know anything about the period, I would probably have had a hard time getting through the book. It was really more about explaining why certain things happened rather than merely telling us a straightforward history, although there is a certain amount of that, too. But I think the straight history passages served as a vehicle to get us to the good stuff: sorting out the evidence of our many sources.
In many ways, the value of this book is in the explanations of things we just might not be entirely sure about. For instance, we get interesting general details: "The manors of an earl were probably organized like the royal demesne, the 'home farms' of the monarchy, into either provisioning or revenue-producing units. Entries in the Domesday Book note the number of nights' farm that could be obtained from a manor. They were the cost of overnight provisions for the king or lord and his whole household when visiting the manor." That helps explain some everyday factors that usually slip past us. There are many other explanations of this kind that helped put things into perspective for me.
The author also tried to make sense of conflicting histories, especially concerning the battle of Hastings and its aftermath. Which came first, and who influenced who? And why? "Admittedly, some historians criticize the Carmen, believing it to be a twelfth-century product, but the balance of probability seems to favor an early date for this work, around 1068..." Was the arrow in the eye story an effort to portray Harold as being punished from God for his perjury? Or was there some confusion between his death by an arrow and Harold Hardrada's arrow in the throat? How much was this story influenced by the nineteenth century restoration of the Bayeux Tapestry? As you might guess, these passages raise more questions than they answer, but these questions are probably unanswerable anyway, so we might as well learn as much background as possible.
I was interested to see that Tostig's troubles in the north may have had much to do with reforming the out-of-balance low taxation in Northumbria (when compared to the rest of the country). According to the author, "There was a reform of the royal household in the interests of efficiency early in the 1060s...Tostig's rule was then seen as tightening royal control of the north at a time when the Witan in England was dominated by Harold, which would explain why Tostig blamed Harold for the revolt and accused him of conspiring against him." To me, this is a big statement. First of all, it implies that Tostig did not arbitrarily raise taxes, which supposedly sparked off the insurrection. And it also gives a reason why he would accuse Harold of fomenting the rebellion, aside from a mere hysterical reaction. There's a lot of food for thought here, which certainly delves deeper than the usual bland interpretation of Tostig's allegedly poor government.
So, overall, I would say I have benefitted from reading this book. The writing was a little hard to get through in places, and I feel the author jumped around a little bit, but it gave me some specifics where I needed them in an academic manner. If I didn't know anything about the period, I would probably have had a hard time getting through the book. It was really more about explaining why certain things happened rather than merely telling us a straightforward history, although there is a certain amount of that, too. But I think the straight history passages served as a vehicle to get us to the good stuff: sorting out the evidence of our many sources.
August 15, 2022
Harold II was born around 1022 in Wessex, England. He began his political career by supporting King Edmund Ironside, but switched his support to King Cnut when he was made Earl of Wessex. He was involved in a lot of battles over English lands. He was appointed Earl of East Anglia, and then Earl of Hereford. He served under King Edward (The Confessor). He was involved in murder, was shipwrecked, and generally scheming. He was crowned King upon the death of Edward, who had not named a clear successor. He wound up being killed at the Battle of Hastings, having only been king for just over nine months. His death was the end of Anglo-Saxon rule in England. There are a couple of rumors about his death, one of which was that he was he was killed via arrow to the eyeball. Another was that he was killed by four knights and his body was dismembered, which is probably more likely.
This book was really good. I thought the research was well done. I learned so much about Harold. I had never covered him in any of my history courses, which seems like a shame and also weird. I really learned a lot about Harold and the Battle of Hastings. This was an enjoyable read.
This book was really good. I thought the research was well done. I learned so much about Harold. I had never covered him in any of my history courses, which seems like a shame and also weird. I really learned a lot about Harold and the Battle of Hastings. This was an enjoyable read.
November 2, 2022
Very dense and dry. This is my 2nd Peter Rex book -I also found his work on Edward the Confessor to be so dense that I DNF. So I think Rex is not the writer for me. Your mileage may vary.
Rex seeks to refute the Norman propaganda, which he does quite ably. Well sourced with many endnotes. However, he repeats himself (over and over, again and again, several times.) Rex assumes you know all the Norman propaganda and so he doesn't need to give it any kind of viewing. Finally, he acts like the Vita Edwardi is an actual quotable source as compared to a hit piece by Queen Edith.
Also, this is so "Pro Harold" that even I, a #teamHarold fangirl, was uncomfortable. [For example, after the Godwin family was exiled in 1051 he ignores their bloody and violent return to power - these are NOT nice people.] It's all the (actually few) known facts of Harold filtered thought this pro Godwin lens. Some of it is more believable than others.
After reading a bio on Edward the Confessor I will come back to rejudge this.
Rex seeks to refute the Norman propaganda, which he does quite ably. Well sourced with many endnotes. However, he repeats himself (over and over, again and again, several times.) Rex assumes you know all the Norman propaganda and so he doesn't need to give it any kind of viewing. Finally, he acts like the Vita Edwardi is an actual quotable source as compared to a hit piece by Queen Edith.
Also, this is so "Pro Harold" that even I, a #teamHarold fangirl, was uncomfortable. [For example, after the Godwin family was exiled in 1051 he ignores their bloody and violent return to power - these are NOT nice people.] It's all the (actually few) known facts of Harold filtered thought this pro Godwin lens. Some of it is more believable than others.
After reading a bio on Edward the Confessor I will come back to rejudge this.
September 27, 2025
A solid read on Anglo-Saxon and 1066 related history, the author does well to tap into the largely untold story of the Godwines and how Harold Godwinson found himself the King of England at Hastings.
At times the narrative jumps back and forward through time, and some context to events are given after they've already been explained, but despite being a bit slow, I think this is recommended reading for anyone interested in the factions, nations and legendary stories surrounding 1066. The author is constantly weighing in with his own theories, opinions and takes supported by evidence.
At times the narrative jumps back and forward through time, and some context to events are given after they've already been explained, but despite being a bit slow, I think this is recommended reading for anyone interested in the factions, nations and legendary stories surrounding 1066. The author is constantly weighing in with his own theories, opinions and takes supported by evidence.
January 12, 2021
Good read, very interesting.
July 23, 2011
This book had good points such the use of different sources and detailed explanations of information on the subject but sadly these were vastly outweighed by the bad! Peter Rex was extremely repetitive to the point where I actually doubted myself and had to skip back a few pages to make sure I wasn't somehow re-reading what I had already read! Two of the chapters said essentially the same thing just many, many times over so that I got extremely frustrated. Some points weren't even re-worded but practically repeated verbatim from previous paragraphs. It got to the point where you could actually correctly predict what Rex was going to say next! Some phrases were also questionable with Rex describing a decision as 'whimsical' simply because the reason for this choice was unknown. There could have been a perfectly logical reason that due to the lack of sources cannot now be established. Rex also seemed to be preoccupied with discrediting the Norman sources over and over again, as if the reader was unable to grasp it the first twenty times it was said! I wish I was exaggerating but it really did feel like that. It seemed largely to be less about Harold II and more about why the Norman sources were wrong and shouldn't be believed. At one point he actually described a Norman chronicler as 'laying it on with a trowel'. It may just be me but somehow I don't think this is a suitable choice of language or in-keeping with what is marketed as a reputable historical biography. I am thankful that I borrowed this from the library as at £25 for the hardback I believe it is not worth the money. It just doesn't seem of a quality or standard worthy of that amount. The pictures were black and white and grainy, the text was set out in the centre almost like a journal article with large white space surrounding and most importantly the book could easily be halved in size if the constant repetition was removed. Overall it was very disappointing and although I persevered until the end of the book, part of me wishes I had never started it in the first place!
October 19, 2019
A very helpful book in providing some great knowledge which will help me with my A-level. It explains difficult concepts and events well.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews