Hastings

by Edwin Tetlow

Fascination with the mystery of how and why William the Conqueror came to seize England has grown ever since that fateful year of 1066. The picture we have of it today, built upon scanty original evidence by historians and novelists over the course of nine centuries, is a distorted one. In this engrossing and revolutionary interpretation of the events preceding Hastings and the battle itself, Edwin Tetlow casts new light on the incidents and personalities involved. His account includes much new material based on firsthand investigation at Hastings, Stamford Bridge, Tadcaster, Oxford, London and Normandy.

Genres: History, Nonfiction

224 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1974

Reviews

[Julie Yates]

Source: www.openlibrary.org
Very readable with well explained reasons for various assumptions, always very much aware of Norman propaganda! The book packs a lot of information into a mere 211 pages - a great work to tell all the basic facts. 3.5 upgraded to 4.

It starts with a brief but informative chapter about the Bayeux Tapestry, followed by a chapter about Duke William, Earl Godwin, and King Edward (who he doesn't admire), he then lays out "The challengers prepare" (including Tosig's betrayal and William's request of a papal blessing); A very good chapter about William's war machine and just what type of planning went into his invasion force. Great detail in the final chapters on: The Norwegian pretender intervenes, Harold's finest victory, The Duke Invades, Harold's Last Ride and The Battle (Does a fabulous job of pointing out the myriad of ways William was very lucky and how that gave him the final push to overcome English troops.)

A real issue is the lack of foot notes - For example he says: "Tostig's whole career testifies to his impetuous, treacherous and cruel nature, and it appears that he was envious of his elder brother Harold." (footnote please!!) Moreover, he keeps stressing the lack of unity in England but not giving any citations. Ex: "Godwin needed desperately to strengthen his shaky hold upon his kingdom." and "... England at that time was not a unified kingdom under a truly national ruler; it was not even as closely knit as it had been under Edward the Confessor and certainly not as unified as under Alfred the Great, a century and a half earlier." I would like to know more about this disunity!!

[Kbullock]

No longer the definitive account (that would be Frank McLynn's 1066 The Year of Three Battles). But if you want a shorter introduction to the subject, this is a good choice. Some of the scholarship is dated, but Tetlow treats the source material with the appropriate caution and does not make any obviously false assertions. And he explores some aspects of the campaign and the personalities involved that are not addressed in other recent accounts.

[W. Nikola-Lisa]

I've read quite a few books on the Norman Conquest of England and I'll have to say that Tetlow's book is right up there when it comes to lucid writing, clear thinking, and excellent research skills. He makes a very readable book about a set of understandably complicated issues and events that happened almost a millenium ago.

[Karen Floyd]

Didn't realize that the reason Harold lost at Hastings was such an enigma, but then I've always thought it was lost for the reasons the author gives. A well-written book, with interesting information about the political situation in England. I hadn't realized that England was still so divided between north and south and that there were a lot of Normans already there. The real problem with the book has nothing to do with the writing, but with the proofreading. There are so many typos in this edition that it's distracting, and even confusing.

[Jared Detter]

A great review of one of the most important battles in history, the Battle of Hastings.