1066 The Year of the Conquest by David Howarth, Book Review Example

Arguably, David Howarth’s 1066 The Year of the Conquest is a succinct account of the major events that characterized the historic buildup to William the Conqueror’s ascension to the throne of England that also came under the heels of the demise of King Edward; indeed both events featured during the period in question. The reader is exposed to the mundane cycle of the life of an ordinary thane to serve as an orientation into the deeper issues that characterized the dispensation discussed in the book. For good reasons the author highlights the justice delivery system of the period under review, naturally because it is one of the institutional cradles that shaped how the machinery of governance and power functioned. Needless to say that Howarth is justified within this context in his use of power as one of the major themes in this writing.

Howarth brings together a chronology of events that have shaped the framework of the historical milieu that the reader contends with the quest to grasp how England eventually became vanquished. Among other things, the author mentions the contributory role played by Duke William of Normandy; Harald Hardrada of Norway and King Harold. It should be noted that in mentioning them the author seeks to paint a picture that represents the distinct characters of each of these players by way of how their respective backgrounds, ideals and values played out to carve out the history that is known today.

By way of content, the story is explicitly presented to the reader, with a wealth of information drawn from multiple sources to attest to the credibility of the story being told. The author is very charitable in his narration, judging by the fact that the storyline is presented in a very consistent fashion with a sporadic intersperse of flashback to buttress the storyline. In doing so the reader gets the advantage of flowing along the main events of the story without the trouble of taking in too many unrelated details. Here is a writer who has the inbuilt capacity to be prudent in the presentation of information to the reader in a very timely and organized manner so much that the impact is readily felt.

As stated elsewhere in this essay, the author draws his information from a stream of diverse sources and most importantly a good number of the sources consulted are contemporary materials that give the author the advantage of having an insightful pool of information to guide the work done. It is important to note that the historical details of the 1066 Conquest have been strangulated, massaged and twisted in so many ways that getting a balanced account of the real events is indeed a monumental task.

Unlike other writers with covert vested interest Howarth has been gracious in his ability to distil the heresy and propaganda from the facts. He does this by citing all contending reports of any incident in the narration with a keen commitment to state all the diverse and competing claims of reliability. From this point he then skillfully articulates the viewpoint he considers more accurate, not all he provides a justification for the stance he takes. Nevertheless, he leaves room for the reader to make a conclusion as to which account carries more credibility. As an illustration, it is common knowledge that it was the standard practice in medieval Europe to allocate the spoils from any warfare to the victor consequently the author is emphatic in narrating the story from the perspective of a Norman.

By all intends and purposes, David Howarth has kept faith in his ability to ginger the reader to continuously follow the discourse with the lens of the medieval times. He argues that the reader of today has the advantage of getting a retrospective view of events as they happened centuries ago and therefore looking at events with the intuition of those times will eventually enhance the clarity of the storyline. In essence, the author puts aside the kind of prejudices that comes with our contemporary discourses. Of conspicuous significance is the manner in which he deals with this prejudice by avoiding myths in his bid to lucidly tell his story.

To a very large extent by choosing to tow a line of simplicity, the author is very vulnerable of being labeled an inexperienced academician. His style is markedly different from the conventional norm of elaborate and often times overemphasis of petty details. It is clearly consistent because the characters discussed in his writings were ordinary folks with very scanty documented information about them. In other words, whilst keeping it simple Howarth also tries to resist the temptation of exaggeration as he skillfully distils the facts from the propaganda.

In summing up there is every reason to believe that David Howarth has thus far achieved the goal of presenting a balanced account of one of the most divisive moments in the annals of medieval times. Howarth has vividly expressed his stroke of humanity in this work in a way that is uncharacteristic even in his other publications.