In David Howarth's book 1066: The Year of the Conquest, the history of medieval Britain during this pivotal year in its history is conveyed in great detail. Of particular interest to the book is the Norman and French conquest of England, in which Duke William II of Normandy successfully invaded and took over England from Harold II at the Battle of Hastings. Howarth's overall thesis of the book is that England fell, in great part, due to Harold's many incorrect or misguided decisions in his defense of the country. He examines these attributes through detailed and thorough examination of the political reasons for the conquest, as well as the personal lives of the participants of the events.
Howarth criticizes many of Harold's decisions over the course of his reign in an attempt to figure out exactly how England was defeated so soundly and changed so much. He starts off the book with a description of the small village of Horstede, about an hour from Hastings. The provincial life of a villager in that time is provided with great detail - the people were not fearful, as the war was still very far away from them, but they were still uncertain about their future1. With the death of King Edward the Confessor, his successor needed to be named - Harold eventually was. Howarth marks this decision as the beginning of the end of England as they knew it2.
In order to determine the reaction of Harold to the succession of Edward the Confessor, Howarth examines both sides of the debate as to whether or not Harold's succession was justified or greeted well. Howarth, in essence, argues that Duke William was right to rebel against Harold and to lead the conquest of England3. At first, during the beginning of the conquest, Harold's military prowess is substantial; he turns the tide at the invasion of Hardrada and Tostig, and he wins a decisive victory at the Battle of Stamford Bridge. However, his luck soon runs out, as William lands on the southern coast of England, just as all of Harold's forces are concentrated in the north.
Howarth shows the many mistakes that Harold made in his military leadership that led to the eventual successful nature of the conquest. First, this timely invasion of the south was purely fortuitous; it was supremely well timed on William's part, and tide and time were in his favor. Harold, having learned of William's approach, changed his attitude substantially, essentially giving up. Because William had the support of the Pope, Harold was frozen to the point where he would not do anything. This was a dramatic change from the military master at Stamford Bridge; by the time the battle of Senlac Hill arrived, Harold was a completely different person. He wanted to accept defeat, due to the judgment he felt that God had levied against himself and his country4.
Howarth rounds out this book by bringing the reader back to the village of Horstede; despite the rampant changes that occurred in England as a result of the successful conquest of the Normans, the English maintained their identity, and eventually the Normans simply became British on their own5. To that end, Howarth further demonstrates the triviality of the war, which was exacerbated by Howard's rash decisions.
Howarth notes the Norman conquest of England as a turning point in English history. The succession of King Edward caused a contentious war between the English heir to the throne and the Duke William. Many factors led to Harold's change of heart from warrior to coward after the Battle of Stamford Bridge, including the apparent friendship between the William and Harold. The actual succession of Harold to king is even contested, as accounts vary between who should have had the actual throne6. There is substantial evidence to support the idea that William at least thought that he was named successor, though artifacts like the Bayeux Tapestry is thought to show Harold being given the throne. This confusion about who was to be given the throne flung Harold into a substantial amount of responsibility, being forced to go to war with Normandy in order to defend his own crown. Howarth's noting of Harold's skill and apprehension shows him to be a flawed human being, and an ultimately defeated leader7.
In conclusion, Howarth's thesis for his book 1066: The Year of the Conquest is that Harold was, for one reason or another, totally unprepared for this sudden contention to his throne immediately upon his reign. Despite defending himself and his country admirably, his inability to pull himself together after his setback following the Battle of Stamford Bridge led to England's eventual conquest. While this did not impact England substantially in the long run, it is evidence that Harold's mindset was not fit for a king.
Works Cited
Howarth, David. 1066: The Year of the Conquest. Paw Prints, 2008. Print.
