1066: The Year of the Three Battles

by Frank McLynn

Frank McLynn was Research Fellow at St Antony's College, Oxford and is currently visiting Professor in the Department of Literature at Strathclyde University. He is author of several biographies including, Carl Gustav Jung, which was shortlisted for the 1997 NCR Award. He also won the 1985 Cheltenham Prize for Literature with The Jacobite Army in England.

1066 is a triple biography of three great men: William of Normandy, Harold Godwinson and Harald Hardrada who led a Norwegian invasion of England near York in 1066. Frank McLynn overturns previously accepted myths centred around the Battle of Hastings in this superbly researched book. He shows how William's victory at the Battle of Hastings was not the sure thing that was previously thought and how it is unlikely that Harold died with an arrow in the eye. McLynn argues that Harald Hardrada was actually the greatest warrior and most flamboyant of the three, though he lost a battle through unforeseen circumstances to the fortunate and courageous Harold. 1066 is a compelling book in how it shows the truth to be more astonishing than the myths of this time and skilfully explains how they wrongly ended up in the history books. --Pat Naylor

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Medieval, Medieval History, British Literature, War, Anglo Saxon

320 pages, Hardcover

First published November 18, 1998

About the author

Frank McLynn is an English author, biographer, historian and journalist. He is noted for critically acclaimed biographies of Napoleon Bonaparte, Robert Louis Stevenson, Carl Jung, Richard Francis Burton and Henry Morton Stanley.

McLynn was educated at Wadham College, Oxford and the University of London. He was Alistair Horne Research Fellow at St Antony's College, Oxford (1987–88) and was visiting professor in the Department of Literature at the University of Strathclyde (1996–2001) and professorial fellow at Goldsmiths College London (2000 - 2002) before becoming a full-time writer.

Reviews

[Jim · Rating 4 out of 5]

In spite of the fact that this scholarly work has encapsulated many years of warfare, it doesn't have the gritty edge of a battlefield account. I guess you could say that the book is interesting and educational, but it is certainly not thrilling. Let's face it...we all knew the outcome going into this one.

The author provides us with detailed histories of the principals involved in the battles of the titular year and outlines the events and personalities that combined to bring about the Battle of Hastings. His research (and some speculation) is quite thorough. So thorough, in fact, that he delves into the logistics required to build a fleet and maintain a standing army preparing to embark. Mr McLynn has calculated how many tons of hay were required for the livestock, speculated on the extent of forests that had to be chopped down to build ships, and even goes so far as to consider how much labor and resources were required to provide the destriers with horseshoe nails. (For want of a nail the shoe was lost, for want of a shoe the horse was lost, etc. etc.)

Mr McLynn can claim credit for having me finally obtain a dictionary ap for my cellphone because I was tired of walking over to the bookcase to consult the dictionary. Enfeoffed, indeed!

The book is short, so little time is spent on the actual battle events, and there isn't much here that we didn't already know, or thought we knew. It is a very readable history, and has been thoughtfully illustrated with photos and maps. It is likely the best account I have read regarding the events leading up to the battle of Hastings.

[Szplug · Rating 4 out of 5]

Forget Game of Thrones: McLynn's expansive revisionist history of that most famous of battles in the course of the Sceptered Isle's southern majority sequence is the real deal. The maneuvering between native Saxons, outlier Britons, and the ravenously acquisitive appetites of the Dane, Norwegian, and Norman potentates who eyed England as a most tempting of prizes—one as readily sought through wedding or inheritance vows as the dangerous game of armed conquest—is just superbly narrated, most especially in the portraiture of the Big Men whose competing claims and inflated ambitions were set in motion against each other. Harold Godwinson comes off especially well, even set against the Norman cunning of Duke William, the bastard heir of Normandy who only survived to his majority through the devotion of his mother's family and unruly nature of his competition; the fjorded scheming of Harald Hardrada, the Norse king whose battle prowess was unmatched ere he was slain at Stamford Bridge whilst in berserker mode; not to mention the treachery from his fire-veined brother, Tostig Godwinson, an attestation of the trouble inherent in any sovereign having competent and aggressive siblings; indeed, were it not for the accumulated weight of lopsided misfortune, the ferocious Saxon war machine—particularly its spear-thrusting and axe-hewing Housecarl cadre—might have carried the day against the famed Norman cavalry in deciding the last and most momentous of the triadic titular battles. What's more, he boldly reassesses the popular belief that Harold was struck down by an arrow through the eye—positing rather, via combined evidentiary and speculative vim, that the formidable English monarch was slain by a squad of Norman knights—including Guy de Montfort, of that renowned clan—specifically (and unchivalrously) set upon such a regicidal task, which included mutilating the dead king's body, when William espied a tactical opening.



Medieval armies were just so damn colourful! And grim. In both ways was this era of Northwest European history, when there were still pagans abounding to the east and the Anglo-Saxon kings of England had forged a governmental bureaucracy that, even in the period of the Danish interlopers, worked admirably and diligently at the business of collecting taxes, administering justice, and generally striving for that orderly state of affairs which would eventually see England as the tea capital of the world. McLynn sets the stage appropriately and intelligently: opening with the applied misrule of Ethelred the Unready, and that the path of intertwined coincidence and fate flowed forth from the actions and errors committed during his severely-tested and -lacking reign, the author draws all of the disparate strands together—in especial, those stemming from the regal interregnum of Cnut the Great and his not-quite-so-great son, which split the thread of the Saxon line and brought the Norman dukes into the picture as English allies and succorers and, via thinning blood and contested oath, future claimants to the throne—making the political and personal stakes clear, while combing the sources to assemble an enchained historical picture that differs from what has been the conventional depiction. You'd likely need more than a passing interest in the proto-feudalistic tides of this period to commit to 1066's considerable charms—and the signal clash at Hastings is but the endgame of the tumultuous and fascinating events, times, and personalities of post-millennial and -viking England into which the author delves—but it's the best account of the seminal whole that I've yet encountered.

[Kevin · Rating 4 out of 5]

There are very few sources regarding Hastings and Harold Godwinesons defeat. Most was written by the victors, by French Bishops. However modern analyses points out some errors, mainly that of the scene in the Bayeaux Tapestry that depicts two things; one, the arrow in the eye and second, of a Saxon being ridden down by Norman Knights. These two embroidered scenes are underneath the Latin quote saying Harold Rex (Harold King) dies. The arrow in the eye is actually not really written about in the early histories, it only came up later, which leads historians to believe that possibly Harold was the second figure, and the fact that he was singled out and ridden down from a hand picked group of Knights. He was also mutilated, and it was Harold's wife, Edith Swan-Neck that had the unfortunate task of identifying his body from marks she knew. Its an interesting 'revisionist' alternative viewpoint of Hastings, but due to the fact that Harold lost his Brothers at Hastings, his family line ended up in diaspora, there was no one left to counter the official Norman version of 1066.

Frank McLynns book details the main figures of this pivotal year, starting from Edward the Confessor, Earl Godwin, Harald Hardrada, William of Normandy and Harold Godwineson. He studies all these historical figures, putting a character onto them all, their pasts (the past of Harald Hardrada is the most interesting) and how they all became interlinked in 1066. He then analyses 1066 and the three main battles of that year; Fulford, Stamford Bridge (and just how lucky Harold Godwineson was to pull off Stamford Bridge which saw the total route of the Vikings as well as loosing their King Hardrada), but unfortunately, either through poor generalship or whatnot, he ends up rushing too fast down south to take on William, leaving most of his levies behind and the ones he takes were all exhausted from the fast long march from York. It is worth noting that Hastings was such a close run battle, the Saxons were actually winning throughout the day, and maybe could well have won if Harold had not died and managed to muster and rally his forces.

So, the question the book poses is that was it the 'arrow in the eye' that slayed Harold, or was he singled out by hand selected Norman Knights who smashed through his housecarls and butchered him? The 'arrow in the eye' story only came up later on, maybe being mis-interpreted because Harald Hardrada apparently died from an arrow to his neck, but there will always be conjecture and I doubt if we will ever know. Good History.

[Christopher · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fine and detailed history of the "Big Three" leaders of the 1066 time period - Harold Godwinson (the rightful king of England), Harald Hardrada (king of Norway), and William of Normandy ("the Conqueror"). In 1066 they all wanted England for himself. That year each one was a victor in one of the three battles in the title, William of course won the battle that mattered the most, the last one. The author gives fine bios of many of the people involved (King Edward the Confessor, Tostig, Harold Godwinson's traitorous brother, and others). My favorite bio was the history of Harald Hardrada of Norway, but then I've always been a fan of The Vikings (no, not the ones from Minnesota), and feel like they have gotten a bad rap. McLynn dispels many myths, such as William being the rightful heir to the English throne, Harald Godwinson being killed with an arrow to the eye. etc. I wish the chapters on the three battles had been more detailed, but they give fine information. Maybe it's just the board war-gamer in me. I also think that the book could have used a glossary of all the many historical characters mentioned, just a line or two of each to reference when reading the book. All-in-all though, it is the best history of a memorable year that changed history.

[Kbullock · Rating 5 out of 5]

The best account of the events of 1066 I've encountered so far. McLynn draws heavily on Norse records to draw a detailed picture of Harold Hardrada, a terrifying and fascinating figure who is given short shrift in other accounts.

There is also a great treatment of William's unlikely accomplishment in bringing his vassals (and then some) on board for what appeared to be a suicide mission, followed by the impressive logistical effort that was required to keep the Norman invasion force in place for weeks until favorable winds finally arrived.

McLynn contests some commonly repeated myths about the Battle of Hastings, such as the idea that the entire Anglo-Saxon army was exhausted because it rapidly marched south from Stamford Bridge to meet the Normans. The author points out that Harold Godwinson almost certainly left his fyrd in the north, marched his housecarls south, and met William at Hastings with a new fyrd. The author also contests the Norman-inspired narrative that had Harold Godwinson being disabled by an arrow in his eye. Instead, he draws on Norman sources to argue that William sent a "hit squad" of knights to cut down Harold at the end of the battle, avoiding a single combat that William probably would have lost.

Okay, this has gone a bit long. Read the book!

[J. Bryce · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was really good, though was almost one of those "too much info for the casual reader" kind of things.

There's lots of biographical detail about the three major claimants to the English throne in 1066 - the Anglo-Saxon Harold Godwinson, the Norwegian Harald Hardrada and the eventual (SPOILER ALERT) winner Duke William of Normandy, most of which (even after a lifetime of casual interest) I never knew, and a lengthy-enough write up of the three battles that assisted William in winning the Battle of Hastings -- I say "lengthy-enough" because so much of the historical record is still unknown - McLynn literally uses all available reputable sources and still Hastings is only about a six-page write up.

He discusses at length which sources are reliable and which are Norman propaganda, and for these reasons, this is a worthwhile book for all but the most scholarly readers.

Recommended! 4 of 5 stars if only because some of the vocabulary may not come easily to those who prefer more popular histories.

[Tony Calder · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ask people about the year 1066 in England and most of them would know about the Battle of Hastings, those with an interest in history may know about the Battle of Stamford Bridge, but only those with a specific interest in Dark Ages English history are likely to know about the Battle of Fulford Gate. Primarily, this is because King Harold did not participate in the battle, but it was to have a significant effect on how the events of that period played out.

Much has been written about Hastings over the years,and its importance in English and European history. McLynn does not go into great detail on the major battles, indeed they only occupy the final two chapters of the book, but he does provide a quite comprehensive look at the political events which allowed the situation to play out as it did. This is accomplished by dedicating each chapter to a different one of the key players. In this way the reader get a good overview of the political situation in northern and western Europe for the half-century preceding 1066.

[Nicholas George Setford · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very, very interesting indeed! The detailed biographies of the various protagonists is enlightening to say the least - a bloodthirsty lot, who were mostly very experienced and proficient in the art(s) of war! It also exposes the post-conquest Norman propaganda for what it was, just the victor's self righteous altering of the facts to suite the murky outcome! This altered, perfidious truth, was, at least in my day, what we were taught in school, and in England too! The actual battle descriptions were rather short but very concise, especially if you have a detailed modern map to hand!

[Sebastian · Rating 4 out of 5]

McLynn, Frank, 1066: The Year of the Three Battles (Londen: Pimlico, 1999). McLynn gaat uitvoerig en op levendige wijze in op de achtergronden en de hoofdpersonen in 1066, het jaar waarin de Angelsaksische koning Harold Godwinson eerst de ontzagwekkende Noorse koning Harald Hardrada verslaat bij Stamford Bridge om vervolgens zelf ten onder te gaan in de slag met Willem de Veroveraar bij Hastings. Willem komt naar voren als uitzonderlijk hardvochtig heerser, die over geluk bovendien niet klagen had (‘lucky bastard’). Hij wilde niettemin ook altijd de ‘moral high ground’ bezetten en liet zich nadrukkelijk in met wat wij tegenwoordig ‘strategische communicatie’ en de ‘battle of the narrative’ zouden noemen. McLynn rekent af met veel ‘Norman propaganda’ (waartoe ook het ‘tapijt’ van Bayeux moet worden gerekend naast het werk van Willem van Poitiers), zoals de veronderstelling dat Harolds voorganger Edward de kroon aan Willem de Veroveraar zou hebben beloofd en Willem dus met de invasie slechts zijn recht kwam halen. Verder weerlegt McLynn dat de Normandiërs, dankzij hun cavalerie, militair superieur zouden zijn aan de Angelsaksische ‘housecarls’ met hun ‘double-headed axes’. Voor Harolds nederlaag zijn andere redenen belangrijkers, zoals het feit dat hij een tweefrontenoorlog voerde. Ook is Harold bij Hastings volgens McLynn niet om het leven gekomen door een pijl in zijn oog, maar werd hij gedood door Normandische ridders die hem eerst met een lans doorboorden, hem vervolgens onthoofden en zijn ‘been’ – aangenomen wordt: zijn edele delen – afhakten. Dat de elfde eeuw een barbaarse tijd was, maakt het boek wel duidelijk. Er wordt veel ge-‘ransacked’, ‘laid to waste’, etcetera. Behalve aan Harold en Willem besteed McLynn veel aandacht aan de rol die de Vikingen – of ‘Norsemen’ – in die tijd speelden. Hoewel het boek daardoor wijdlopig wordt, zijn de hoofdstukken die hierover gaan erg interessant. Het levensverhaal van Harald Hardrada, die jarenlang aan het hof van Byzantijnse keizer verkeerde, is zonder meer imponerend. Cijfer: 8. Gelezen: augustus 2011.

[Peter Fox · Rating 1 out of 5]

1066 – The Year of the three Battles by Frank McLynn 1998, 241 pages

I tried to read this two weeks ago and paused because I thought it was weak. Instead, I've spent the last couple of weeks reading other books about Late Anglo-Saxon England and I now wish to revise my opinion of this book from weak to very weak.

McLynn is a very biased writer and simply not balanced enough in this book to make it a rewarding read. The amount of vitriol that McLynn has for Edward the Confessor and others is unbelievable. Where one would expect objectivity there is just an onslaught of insults. He has Aethelraed, Emma and Edward accused of:

spectacular incompetence,
a murderous pogrom,
being 'deranged'
a vindictive rage,
dishing out disgraceful punishment,
being secretive and duplicitous,

There is no attempt at nuance, such as showing that Aethelraed made some sensible decisions, like building up the kingdom's might by ordering ships and byrnies produced, that Emma was an astute political operator who lived well during the reigns of five different kings, or that Edward's behaviour was less vindictive than many kings.

There are also factual errors, such as a hide as being 120 acres (it was a fiscal unit, not a geographical one and the relationship with size varied upon the economic productivity of the land) and he doesn't understand how the revenue from towns was divided up (there's a charter concerning Worcester that he would have benefited from being aware of).

Between the lack of balance and the fairly basic errors I stopped reading 80 or so pages in. McLynn has written many books on lots of different aspects of history, but he's obviously no expert on Anglo-Saxon England and this book is more misleading than useful. If I were to discover anything new in here that I wasn't already aware of, I'd want to substantiate it in another book before trusting it. Not a good sign.

[BJ Richardson · Rating 4 out of 5]

The whole time I was reading 1066 I was thinking to myself, "This would make an excellent episode series for Dan Carlin's Hardcore History". Seriously. While McLynn does a great job at creating the background and shedding light on all the major players of England's fateful year of 1066, he is just a bit too dry to properly tell a story that have the potential to make certain HBO Blockbuster series seem tame by comparison. Oh well. It is still an excellent read.

McLynn gives a brief background of Cnut the Great and Ethlered the unready and then sets in devoting a chapter each to all the major players like Edward the Confessor, Harald Hardrada (the hard ruler), Svein Estrithson, Earl Goodwin, Harold Goodwinson, Tostig, and of course two for William the Conqueror. He finally concludes with chapters on the famous battles at Stamford Bridge (Harold vs Harald & Tostig) and Hastings (Harold vs William).

In all this book is definitely worth reading. McLynn does a good (not great) job building the scene and you are a good halfway through the book before we even get to the title year of 1066. He also has done a good (not great) job in researching and presenting his subject material. My only real disappointment was that Hastings was really the conclusion to this story. I was halfway expecting it to occur much earlier on with a significant chunk devoted to the way that battle changed the fate and history of the Island and the world. In a way I am glad it didn't so that significant space can be spent building the stage, but now I must be off to find something more to read as an appropriate follow up. My appetite has definitely been whetted.

[David Bickerton · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not my usual sort of book and I had to stick with it for a while to get something out of it. My history is poor so there were so many characters I didn't know. The first quarter to a third is just full of people attacking each other. Apparently, the eleventh century was particularly violent. But in the end, I felt I learned a lot about a completely different era so it was well worth the effort.

It was interesting how most of the Normans had what I would think of as English names while many of the English had those odd Anglo-Saxon/Scandinavian names. It was also fascinating to see how close Britain was to a very different history.

[G Liguori · Rating 1 out of 5]

When the author appears to criticise respected Norman historians you know where this book is heading. The chapter on Edward was a struggle to read as the interpretation of the evidence was at times difficult to accept given how many other historians view the same evidence. The chapter on William was where I gave up. A pity as I was looking forward to reading this book to see if another eminent Norman historian's advice to avoid this book was sound. It was. Fortunately this isn't the first book on the Normans I have read (it's the 70th). I am glad it wasn't the first!

[A Collins · Rating 5 out of 5]

The day old England died

Absolutely excellent, giving a solid grounding of Anglo-Saxon and Norman culture before the battles. The accounts of Stamford Bridge and of Hastings are better than any I have read. I can't help but wonder how Britain, and Europe, would have turned out if William had been defeated and Anglo-Saxon England continued. There must be a book in that, even if it would be speculation it could still be well thought musings.

[Aurel Mihai · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author manages to capture a snapshot of northern Europe in the 11th century culminating in William’s invasion of England without making it too overwhelming. Highly readable. However, not perfect. There are still so many names and details that it’s hard to keep straight and the storytelling nature of the book sometimes does get lost for the details. Overall though you could do much worse.

[Doris Raines · Rating 2 out of 5]

THIS IS A VERY INTERESTING BOOK.

[Richard Marshall · Rating 4 out of 5]

A detailed insight into the politics and characters of 11th Century England. A must for anyone seeking to separate reality from the myth of this great confrontation.

[Nikola Novaković · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fascinating series of interlinked biographies of the men who played the main roles in this monumental event. Brilliantly told and obviously exhaustively researched.

[Tom · Rating 3 out of 5]

a lot of back story before the three battles o 1066

[Suzette Jones · Rating 4 out of 5]

I liked the fact that all three battles were taken as part of the whole thing rather than separate because it gives a fuller picture as to why 1066 became such a turning point.

[Jonathan Rogers · Rating 4 out of 5]

a very hard read, i think the amount of content, dates and people studied made this a very hard read, i had to keep going back over it.... hope to read it again at some point and read again.

[Stuart · Rating 5 out of 5]

I pick up many books of varying quality in second hand shops, many of which I never finish. For £2, however, this was a fantastic buy.

This book is a solid account of one of the most pivotal years in English history, which is well written and thoroughly researched. I particularly appreciated the biographies of all the main characters, as so many narrative histories often fail to adequately portray the people involved. At times the book presents a biased view of certain events, but it does provide sources and reasoning, and even discusses the reliability of those sources.

My main criticism is the complexity of the language used. At times I felt I was learning just as much about niche English vocabulary, that I have never heard or seen before (and probably never will again), than I was about history. But a cracking book nonetheless, definitely recommended.

[Sam · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a good book. It covered an area of history and the world that I knew very little about which meant at times it was actually even a little exciting. I found the inter-relation of the region very interesting and much more than I had thought. The awareness of the key actors of each other and the other regional politics was very interesting. I regret though that the author did not do any big "so what". At the end of the book he just finishes with Williams victory and ends the book. There was no big "take-away" from the region or the politics or the leaders. I was disappointed by this. The author obviously spent a great deal of time on the subject. I would have thought he would have wanted to share what "big ideas" he got from that study.

My big idea was the thought that by creating the Laws of War and separating the populace from war we have effectively limited the results that war can achieve. Time and again in the 1000's when the enemy did not come to heal, the invading Army would go after their enemy's property in the form of people and land. After a while, the losing side would normally sue for peace. The other interesting action was that hostages would be exchanged. This was also very common for the Romans and other militaries of the time to do. Using Clausewitz's dual analogy, today once we have forced the enemy to drop his weapon, we can no longer use force to coerce him to do what he want. So, why have an army today? If we cannot use force to coerce the enemy to do our bidding and we can legally only use force to destroy his military, why should he even build an army? He does better without. I am going to have to ponder this further, but this book has really caused me to ponder the impact of limiting ourselves by the Laws of War. I think the effective use of stick and carrot against the enemy government, people and military is the best way to achieve political reconciliation in unreconcilable situations which is when war is best.

[Brendan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Most people regard 1066 as the year in which William, Duke of Normandy, invaded England in the last successful cross-Channel invasion of that country, killing the Saxon King, Harold II, at the Battle of Hastings, and beginning the thousand-year process by which "England" became "Great Britain". However, as Frank McLynn shows in his meticulously researched and admirably accessible account, the Battle of Hastings was itself just the culmination of a series of political tides and dynastic struggles that swept across northern Europe, themselves originating in the seizure of the English Crown by the Danish King Swein Forkbeard and his son Canute in 1013. Along the way, we meet a host of intriguing characters from the not-so-saintly Edward the Confessor to the perpetual also-ran, Svein Estrithson of Denmark; as well as William, Harold, Harold's brother Tostig, and the legendary Harald Hardrada, King of Norway. Most compelling of all is McLynn's description of events leading up to, and including, Hastings: the pivotal battle of Fulford Gate (the "third battle" of the title) which precipitated the encounter at Stamford Bridge and forced Harold to march northwards, leaving the south of England undefended; the treachery of the Northumbrian earls, Morcar and Edwin, who hung Harold out to dry in their doomed attempt to revive the ancient Northumbrian kingdom; the ebb and flow of the battle of Hastings itself, in which Harold came desperately close to pulling off a remarkable victory; and the almost preternatural luck which William eventually rode to a famous victory. Combining history, biography, source analysis, and a flare for narrative, McLynn has crafted what is surely the definitive work about this pivotal event for the general reader.

[Sean Brennan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Do not let the title mislead, the actual events that occurred in 1066, are only covered in the last two chapters of the book. What this book actually covers is all the major larger than life characters, who were eminent and important in the events leading up to The Battle of Hastings.

You really could not make this up, this really is history in all it's glory, it has everything greed, treachery, honour and in King Harold, William the Bastard of Normandy(no man truly deserved the title more)and Harald Hardrada of Norway, the three greatest warriors of their era.

But for me the one character who deserves the most praise is Earl Tostig, the only one of the main player's whose actions were not for the benefit of personal gain but for the betterment of the Kingdom. Betrayed by his brother Harold, forced into exile, driven mad by betrayal, and at the end refused to betray Hardrada for sake of honour.

I can't wait for the movie!

[Lisa · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very interesting book, but it was a little hard to follow the characters. Each chapter deals with only one character at a time, and there are a few main characters, so each person's story may not pick back up for a couple chapters. If you can keep all the information in order, then it's nice when they finally meet in the end, during the big battles for dominance of England.

There were lots of nice maps and the footnotes were thorough and enlightening. I like a book that has maps of the places its describing and this book did not disappoint in that regard.

Frank McLynn had quite the vocabulary. I learned a few words!

This is one of those non-fiction books that reads like fiction.

[John Nellis · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a good book about the three battles of 1066, and the events leading up to that year. The author sets the stage very well, and tells short biographys of each of the key players. He also dicusses many of the legends and myths of the battles and events. I would recommend this book to anyone wanting to learn more about this key event in history.

[فيصل اللنقاوي · Rating 5 out of 5]

Pro. Frank is one of great history writers of all time
Very organized book

[Ann · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is tiny - not that many pages - but it takes FOREVER to read one page. The writing is complicated. We still talk about it in book club. Everyone had the same experience. Very slow going.

[Katie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Vikings! Kings! Treachery! Revenge! A bloodthirsty power hungry struggle for the rule of England! I now know more about eleventh century politics in northwestern Europe than I ever really wanted.