Peter Rex tells a well researched and detailed story of the Norman conquest, from Duke William of Normandy's claim to be Edward the Confessors heir, the crowning of Harold Godwinson as Harold II, the battles of 1066 to the decade long conquest and normanisation of England. It is obvious that Rex is anti-William, painting this normanisation as at times a genocide and William a war criminal.
One wonders why then call the book '1066' when the conquest lasted for ten years? Maybe this was Amberley's influence to make the book more attractive. I quibble, maybe.
Despite the years following 1066 being treated as important as the background and 1066 itself, the book is not very well structured or written; it's greatest fault being repetition while most of the appendices could have been included in the main body of the book. Even the appendices repeat themselves.
Ignoring it's flaws it was an enjoyable read. It being the first book I have read on this period (I normally read Yorkist and Tudor history,) I want to read more.
8 people found this helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?