NetGalley ARC | Usurpers: A New Look at Medieval Kings

 

I received a free digital ARC from the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.

Rating ⭐⭐⭐

Short version: Yes they're all usurpers and you don't need to read this book to know that.

Long version: 

I really struggled for a bit with how to rate this one. The title is a bit misleading if you go into it thinking there will be new ideas or documents or things of that nature. However, if you take it at face value that this is simply a new book on a set of kings who were absolutely usurpers, then the title fits. Every single one of the kings discussed in the book took a throne that was not rightfully theirs. So, I appreciated another look at the people and periods, because those eras of history are most certainly my jam, but there is nothing new actually added to the conversation.

The author looks at six kings: William the Bastard, Stephen of Blois, Henry Bolingbroke (Henry IV), Edward IV, Richard III, and Henry Tudor (Henry VII). Anyone with knowledge of those periods can without a doubt say that yes, everyone single one of these men took a crown that was not theirs.

1. William took the crown from Harold II (Harold Godwinson), who had been chosen by the Witan upon the death of Edward the Confessor. Sorry, not sorry William; forcing people to swear oaths under duress makes them not binding, you big jerk.

2. Stephen of Blois took the crown from his cousin Empress Matilda, whose father Henry I had twice made his nobility swear to support her claim after the death of his only legitimate heir William Adelin aboard the White Ship - or rather, in the water when the White Ship sank and though he had initially survived, he attempted to rescue his half sister. His small boat was swamped and he drowned along with everyone else, save one cook.

3. Henry Bolingbroke, son of John of Gaunt, took the crown from his cousin Richard II when Richard II was deposed.

4. Edward IV took the crown from Henry VI, lost it to him, then took it back again and had Henry VI murdered in order to retain it for good. Major dick move, but not unsurprising for the times. Henry VI is the king I have always felt the most terribly for, having never done anything to warrant his murder.

5. Richard III, don't even get me started on this guy. He imprisoned his nephews, including the RIGHTFUL king, Edward V, and likely had them killed. Margaret Beaufort wasn't behind their deaths, fuck off with that nonsense.

6. Henry Tudor's army faced Richard III's and we all know how that turned out. Richard had it coming, but even after his death on the battlefield, Henry did not have a strong claim. The actual next in line who should have been crowned was Edward Plantagenet, Earl of Warwick. You know, the kid who had been imprisoned because his claim was stronger, who was eventually executed along with Lambert Simnel on Henry's orders. Warwick was the son of George, Duke of Clarence - brother of Edward IV and Richard III who was murdered, on his brothers' orders for plotting treason against Edward.

As you can see, there is a TON of history here, and a lot of it overlapping in the last three chapters of later years (Edward, Richard, Henry) because of how entwined their stories are. Yet the author never really digs too deeply in and the text did become repetitive at times because of how connected they were. But there is also no new insight or analysis either. It's a straight-forward history, but lacking depth.

For a book that was aiming in part to look at what chroniclers of the time said about each of these new kings seizing a throne, there was actually very little from any chroniclers, if at all. I find that very curious, seeing as how those who wrote of each court would certainly have had strong opinions whether they were in favor or not. Thomas More is a prime example of the propaganda machine at work for the Tudors - though again, let's be realistic: if it looks like a horse and sounds like a horse, Richard had the boys murdered. More certainly embellished quite a bit; Richard was a product of his time, but with the murders of his nephews he went too far. Rumors spread around London very quickly once the boys were no longer seen. There is no way Richard did not hear those rumors. All he would have had to do is produce the children in order to stop the gossip. He didn't, because he couldn't.

That was a tangent I realize, but true nonetheless. As for chroniclers in the previous eras, they all had opinions too, and were quite overlooked. I find this curious, and altogether odd. The men (always men) writing at the time produced much in the way of, well, chronicles. Not including passages is weird.

Overall, it is not a terrible read. It is one I think I would suggest to someone who doesn't have much knowledge of the periods and is looking for a starting point. Especially during the Wars of the Roses, things get quite complicated so who knows, the repetition of material might help sort things out. But for those like me who already have a firm background, this is a pass.

NetGalley ARC | The Real Valkyrie: The Hidden History of Viking Warrior Women

I received a free digital ARC from the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.

Rating ⭐⭐⭐⭐

It will surprise no one that everything we think we know about Vikings women dates back to those darn Victorians and their ability to completely Victorian-ize everything.

The island of Birka, not far from Stockholm, is home to a once-busy Viking village, meant to control trade routes around northern Scandinavia. It also happens to be home to hundreds of Viking graves. One grave in particular is of most interest to the author, that of a Viking warrior that was first excavated in 1878. Given the items recovered from the grave and the high-status burial provided, for over one hundred years it has been assumed (by dudes who could not conceive of any other option) that the Birka Warrior was male.

Not so, says the 2017 DNA test.

And from there the author is off and running on a fantastical journey across Europe, imagining what life must have been like for this warrior who lived over hundreds of years ago.

The author does a fantastic job using archaeology, history, and the Norse legends and sagas to bring to light a much more accurate picture of how Vikings women lived, fought, and died. In imagining what life might have been like for this warrior, to whom she gives the name Hervor, the author is able to shed more light on the women of the age who were far more independent than the Victorians would have you believe.

Using the many varieties of sources previously mentioned, the author constructs an example of what life might have been like for young Hervor. Each chapter begins with a segment of Hervor's "story" - a story which sees her cross paths with other formidable women of the age, from Queen Gunnhild to Queen Olga of Kyiv.

While the author has fictionalized what life might have been like for this Birka warrior, each chapter delves deeply into various aspects of life for the real Viking women who lived so long ago. There is extensive research here and the author clearly knows her stuff. The author's knowledge of the sagas and old Norse stories is a wonderful addition to the historical record.

NetGalley ARC | Never Greater Slaughter: Brunanburh and the Birth of England

I received a free digital ARC from the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.

Rating ⭐⭐⭐⭐

I'm not usually one for any kind of military history, but I will always make an exception for the Anglo-Saxons I love so much. Quite lucky, aren't they? Even the Plantagenets don't get that kind of treatment from me.

Part of the draw here though is that the book is so much more than the battle itself, but the archaeology behind finding out where the battle truly took place, as this information as been long lost to history.

The Battle of Brunanburh seems inevitable, once one knows the history leading up to it. The author does a fantastic job laying this history out in an easily readable way even for those with little background knowledge on the topic. He begins with the Celtic tribes who once called England home, even though they didn't call it England. Then come the Romans, then the Saxons. Slowly but surely England begins to take shape, though it will still not be called that for a couple more centuries. When we finally see Athelstan he is doing his thang, humbling kings, conquering their lands, demanding loyalty.

But this would not have been possible for him without the equally heavy lifting done by his grandfather decades earlier.

Not until my fave, Alfred the Great, came along would the stage even be set for this to happen. It was through his uniting of several of the individual kingdoms - Wessex, Mercia, East Anglia, etc. - that Athelstan could stand on his shoulders and after this terribly violent battle, truly declare himself the King of a united England.

So, why is this battle not more well-known?

After all, for generations to come, it was simply referred to as the "great battle". Everyone would know what you were talking about with this reference. Yet today, so many have no idea it ever occurred, or what its significance is.

Part of the problem is, the location of the battle is unknown, though great care has gone into locating it and the author makes an incredibly compelling case here for his theory. I do have to admit though that I have not read other books on the subject. Even so, the author spends time in the Appendix laying out why he disagrees with the theories of other historians. This is not done in a malicious kind of way, but he points out things that don't make sense with what we know, or don't fit the pattern of evidence. I appreciate how thorough he is with the material.

Once you learn about how truly massive this battle was, the logistics that must have been involved, it feels a bit overwhelming. We are talking about Athelstan and his army standing against his enemies - an alliance that would never have come together were it not for their mutual hatred of Athelstan. In fact, these allies had previously spent a good bit of time fighting one another in previous years at various times. But they figured that the only way to defeat Athelstan, to stop him from taking over every last inch of the island, was to band together. Leading the Vikings out of Dublin was their chief, the famous Analf. Coming from Scotland was King Constantine, and rounding out the trio was King Owain of Strathclyde. These men were seasoned leaders and accustomed to fierce fighting. it is no wonder they were confident that by teaming up, they could defeat Athelstan once and for all.

It might sound kind of cheesy, but just think about that for a moment. Seeing these armies come together to form one massive group, pouring from the ships that had to have carried at least two of them there. Seeing the equally massive shield-wall of Athelstan's own army ready for a fight. It's breathtaking.

Even more so when you start thinking about the possible locations this could have occurred, and can place the armies in their respective camps.

So many people are involved in seeking out this location, finding the sight of England's birth. Professional and amateur historians, linguists trying to work out all sorts of possible place-name matches, and of course archaeologists who seek whatever scraps they might find to finally be able to say, "Here, this is the place."

Not so easy to do though, when you consider that the battle took place at some point in 937 AD. The author argues for it occurring later in the year and again, given the evidence he presents, it makes sense.

The author starts where we always must in order to have a basis, and that is with research. He uses the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles and Egil's Saga, as well as the Annals of Ulster. He also makes references to other chronicles and documents as well and even if the details do not all line up 100%, they all agree on the fact that a major battle occurred in 937 AD and untold thousands died. Like any good historian, the author is aware of the biases that each of these sources carries and has to sift through to find what can be proven by other evidence. This is where those linguists come in VERY handy, breaking apart words and putting them back together, determining the meaning then vs now, and so on. I don't envy them in that job, just reading about it was enough for me.

The author determines after a good couple rounds with all the evidence that the most likely location for this all-important battle is on the Wirral Peninsula in North West England. At this time I am not inclined to disagree, though as I said before this is my first book on the subject. Even so, the passion Dr. Livingston feels for the subject, and the obvious time and thought he has poured into trying to find the site is nothing short of extraordinary. He presents his methodology for how he arrived at his conclusions regarding troop movements, likely encampments, the battle itself, and its aftermath.

My only complaint with the book has to do with formatting, something out of the author's control. Not one single numerical value was present, which sometimes made it difficult to assess parts of the author's argument. Every value, from troop numbers to the years being discussed, was represented with a ? and it was SUUUUUPER annoying.

Otherwise, this was one I enjoyed quite a bit. I have been lucky so far in that I can never really go wrong with a book about Anglo-Saxons. It is my favorite period of England's history and even after devouring so many books on the subject, I am still learning new things.

Highly recommended.

NetGalley ARC | Valkyrie: The Women of the Viking World

 

I received a free digital ARC from the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.

Rating ⭐⭐⭐

If you know your Norse mythology, you are already aware that Valkyries are supernatural beings who determined life or death in battle. They spared some, and guided the weapons that killed others. In this way, Viking warriors would not have died in vain, or survived by chance. Valkyries thus determined their fate, their destinies completely out of their own hands.

Through her extensive research then, the author shows just how important women actually were in medieval Iceland, showcasing a multitude of instances where real flesh-and-blood women wielded great power in various roles on top of also controlling the destinies of warriors in the supernatural world.

I was so excited to get a copy of this text, but in the end found myself a bit on the disappointed side. On the surface it looks like something I would love, and I so wanted to love it. The biggest issue for me remains that I much preferred when the author cited archaeological evidence as the basis for her conclusions. I don't mean to dismiss the various Sagas and the entirety of Norse mythology, but they will not give a complete and accurate picture and I feel the author at times relied more on those than the tangible evidence. Both are necessary, but I would have liked it to be more even in how each were addressed and incorporated into the text. There were definitely times I had to skim when it came to those Saga/mythology sections as the book went on.

In the end, my opinion is just that, opinion. There are plenty who will enjoy this incredibly detailed examination of the Sagas especially. The author has clearly spent much time in analysis of her subject and knows quite well what she is talking about. This informative text proves it.

Recommended for those with an interest in Vikings and the Sagas especially.

Review Bomb | Vikings

Oi! Two drastically different books on the same subject today. Who knew it was possible to make Vikings utterly BORING?!

 Rating: ⭐⭐

I waited so long to finally get this, and it ended up taking me aaaaages to get through. I skimmed a lot. The author is supremely knowledgeable about the subject matter but the book is bone-dry. And that is coming from someone who reads non-fiction almost exclusively. I just could not get into this one, no matter how hard I tried - which is kind of ridiculous when you think about it, because the Vikings are not a boring subject matter at all. Yet, here we are. It did not help that the print was incredibly tiny. Normally that doesn't bother me, but if I am already borderline about picking it up once my boredom has set in, print size becomes an issue.

Ferguson can not be entirely to blame, I suppose, though it is his writing style that nearly had me asleep. A major issue with this kind of history is the lack of written records. The author even addresses this issue early on. We don't have contemporary sources because there are very few, if any, that could be called conclusive. That is why we have non fiction texts today that focus on what we can learn from other records, such as those who were conquered by these warriors. But, as we know, those sources themselves are biased against their enemy. Basically, this book is a snooze-fest and that makes me sad. Definitely NOT a starting point if you know nothing about the Vikings, their history, and/or their impact on the world.

At least the cover is pretty.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐

Despite having a more ridiculous cover, this book covers the topic in a far more engaging way. I am really just chalking this up to be the varying of writing styles. Maybe. My opinion might change in another thirty minutes, who knows.

Either way, this book was better and I read it much more quickly because I wanted to keep reading. That doesn't mean it is prize-worthy, but it is certainly attention-worthy.

What this book does rather well, as compared with the previous one above, is that it works WITH the material available, dealing in the provable and concrete. Though the Vikings are long gone, they left a lasting legacy that survives to this very day, all around us. The reach of the Vikings spanned half the globe and it shows. All the usual gang is here, Ragnar, Ivar, and Erik. But we also meet Vlad, Olga, and a cast of others who each contributed to this legacy. It is a given that we also hear quite a bit about my boy Alfred the Great, and his efforts to hold the Vikings back and retain/build up his kingdom.

Given the lack of primary sources, I appreciated how well the author used what we do have, both from the conquered and the conquerors. The book is told in chronological order, but then breaks down further by region. We see the mighty warriors as clusters of men in Norway, Denmark, and Sweden, and watch them spread out far and wide, testing the waters of Ireland, England, Spain, Iceland, Greenland, and finally North America to the west. But they went east as well, and from those journeys we get the Rus, the Balkans, Ukraine, and so many places in between. These warriors also travelled to the Middle East, leaving their mark there as well.

When one considers the lasting impact of the Vikings on our world today (such as days of the week named for their Gods, and my fave football team, to name a very very few - you might be surprised if you do a search to find out just how many of our words today come from the Vikings), it is easy to forget how short their era of exploration, raiding, and pillaging actually was. Less than 300 years, to be exact - from that fateful arrival at Lindisfarne in 793, to the felling of my fave berserker, Harald Hardrada, at Stamford Bridge in 1066.

Speaking of the last Viking warrior, I appreciated the attention given to Harald Hardrada. Though I am firmly on the side of the Anglo-Saxons in all matters of 1066 (don't even get me started on William the Bastard, though I recognize he was necessary in order for the rest of history to play out as it did), there is a special place in my heart for this guy. What a life he lived, and how lucky we are to even know anything about it. Before venturing on his ill-fated voyage with King Harold's seriously crazy brother Tostig, Hardrada spent much of his life journeying in the opposite direction. He spent several years in the east and found himself as a commander of the Varangian Guard, mercenaries of the Byzantine Empire. This was an elite group and it was a privilege to become a guardsman. The men in this infantry unit enjoyed great wealth as a result. Given his history, it makes his death at Stanford all the more surprising - his men were simply not prepared for what the other Harold was bringing to the battle.

Recommended.

Beyond the Northlands: Viking Voyages and the Old Norse Sagas

Rating: 5 Stars

I received a free copy of this digital ARC via NetGalley from Oxford University Press in exchange for an honest review.

I am way late to the party on this one, having received it in October of 2016. I got sidetracked by my own writing projects, but there's really no excuse. Nonetheless, I am so incredibly glad I finally got around to this one because it was, in short, fantastic. This review may be on the sparse side, as once I started reading I could hardly put the book down and as such, I only stopped maybe twice to make notes of items I wanted to include in my review.

I never realized how much I did not know about the Vikings, or Norsemen, or whatever other catch-all term can be used to describe the explorers, raiders, looters, etc. Perhaps because of my own singular focus on the history of the UK, and I never gave it much thought that they would travel to other lands as well, eventually assimilating much as they did in England as well.

I was unsure what to expect in terms of how much the book would simply be a translation of the Sagas. While I find them interesting, I am no really wanting to read them as a whole. I enjoy snippets, but I also like my history concrete and factual. The Sagas containing the other-worldly beings are not of much interest, despite my fascination with the Norse travelers. What I appreciated then, is that the author used both sets of information, the history that we do know, as well as how the Sagas portrayed events and travels. Often, weird creatures aside, the information lines up rather well, which was really cool to see. Kind of amazing too, considering that so many of the Sagas were written long after the fact. We get tons of background information in this text and it all meshes together so well, painting as complete a portrait as possible of the Norse warriors/travelers/etc. Seriously, I do not really even know what to call them. Excuse my laziness, but from here on out I will simply refer to them as Norsemen, despite the fact that it is not entirely accurate and also because there were of course Norse women too.

The only real issue I had with the book comes from it being in digital format and thus is not something the author had any control over. This is definitely a book meant to be read with a physical copy, as most of the maps were chopped up across three "pages" on my Kindle. This may also have just been a formatting error within the ARC itself, and could have been remedied in the final copy. Still, I'd like to see them in color as well, along with the photos included. I will likely seek out a physical copy in the future to get a better look.

Perhaps the most eye-opening thing about this book to me is the realization that the Norse travelers went nearly everywhere. Not just to England and across the expanse of northern Europe into Rus, or Russia as we now know it as, but to Byzantium. These dudes went all the way to Constantinople! And not always as rapey, pillagey hordes, but again, assimilating into the culture and society and becoming the Varangian Guard and fighting as mercenaries for the emperor. Even Harald Hardrada, my favorite berserker, makes a substantial appearance as one of the Guard, long before he becomes King of Norway and then sets out on the ill-fated journey that would see him meet death at Stamford Bridge.

Speaking of 1066, I absolutely loved this bit of information when I came across it at 57%, speaking of Queen Isabella of France, wife of King Edward II of England:

"...Isabella gave birth to several children, including a son who became King Edward III. This means that 261 years after Harold Godwinson was killed at Hastings, his great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandson via the Kievan Rus dynasty ascended the same throne that he had fought for and lost."

I've always been partial to Harold and while it was not really a comfort to him, being defeated in battle and all, his descendants would go on to sit on throne of England after all. I love finding out random tidbits like this. After all, most royal houses all over Europe are still related today.

I found the structure of the book appealing, as it greatly aided in the understanding of the various Norse and the reasons for their expeditions beyond the fjords. In each direction, as the book is broken up into North, South, East, and West, we are given historical background information of the culture of the Norse, as well as the geography, history, and even current archaeology of the lands they traveled to a millennium ago. As always, the author then goes back to the Sagas, weaving it all together. I was particularly interested in Greenland and Vinland, as well as the archaeological finds still being discovered. I would love to visit Greenland and see these places for myself at some point in the future, what a sight that would be. I also found myself becoming more interested in that of the Rus, as well as the idea of the Norse in Constantinople, Jerusalem, and even Africa. I do not know why my brain is having such a difficult time wrapping itself around the latter group, but I am hoping there is more material out there that I can follow up with.

In this ARC, the text itself ended at 84%, with the following 15% being given over to substantial end notes, in addition to the dearth of information found within the text in footnotes. At 99% the author offers up information about the full texts of many of the Sagas and complete translations. She makes note that the translations used in this book are her own, and may vary a bit from the same Sagas translated by others.

This is a great resource for those wanting to learn more about the Norse and their widespread travels. It is well-researched without being so overly academic that you feel like you are being talked down-to. Highly recommended.

England: A History

Rating: 2 Stars

Ugh. This was a tough one to get through. The history of England is complicated to begin with. England as we know it didn't really exist until Athelstan, grandson of my buddy Alfred the Great. And even then, it wasn't exactly England yet. It kind of starts with the Norman Conquest of Anglo-Saxon England and then glosses over all the best parts of the island's history that I care about. There was no mention whatsoever of Eleanor of Aquitaine, a mere paragraph about Richard I, and a total whitewashing of John. While I am not a huge fan of ALL Plantagenets, they are highly intriguing and they did rule England for 300 years. Yet, by 40% of the book, we are already at the dawn of Stuart rule by James VI/I. This might seem like a lot at first being devoted to the Plantagenets and Tudors, but you must also consider the fact that the book ends after World War II. That's something else I can't understand but, whatever. It is hardly even worth delving into.

As an aside, it has never been lost on me that the Tudors are in fact, and always have been, Welsh - not English. yet the English seem to overlook this now? And then at the same time looked down on the Welsh? Another thing that has never made any sense to me. 

This quote I did appreciate, in regards to the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots: "...Elizabeth managed to look the other way until the deed was done, and like a true daughter of her house, she saw to it that her secretary, William Davison, took the blame for the execution of Mary's death warrant" (30%). Yep, exactly. Elizabeth is the WORST. The author did not justice to Mary Tudor either, but he seems to approve a bit more of Elizabeth. Either way, nothing he says is particularly positive about any of them.

Where he really lost me: at 48% he called Cromwell the 'greatest Englishman of his century'. Um. No.

Around 55%, the only things keeping me going were: 1) it was written so generally that it was still an incredibly breezy read. It was not terribly specific, and not very detailed either. 2) At the time I was also operating under the assumption that eventually we'd get to the House of Windsor, William, and Harry. Especially Harry. You can imagine my disappointment then when, as I mentioned earlier, the books ends after WWII.

89%: Blah Blah British Imperialism, snooooze.

So, I guess have at it but I can't say I really recommend this one. The history of England is far too vast and complicated for this slim a volume - even one that ends after WWII. Don't take this one too seriously if you do give it a shot.

The Far Traveler: Voyages of a Viking Woman

Rating: 3.5 Stars

Gah! I really wanted to love this one, because if you have been reading my blog, or know me at all, you know that bad-ass women are among my most favorite topics - hellooooo Boudicca and Eleanor of Aquitaine! Gudrid would certainly qualify as being pretty bad-ass herself, but the author just could not let the story tell itself and she had to push and pull it along and put herself into it and just, argh.

So, anyway.

This text tells the story of Gudrid, an extraordinary woman we know about because of the Icelandic Sagas, but who no one thought really existed. Or, sure she existed, but the details of her life simply could not possibly be true. However, 15 years ago archaeologists discovered a Viking long house buried in a hay field in Iceland, exactly where the sagas stated that Gudrid had lived and cared for her family. Prior to this book, I had no idea who Gudrid was. My own experience with the Vikings has so far come in the form of my poor, dear Anglo-Saxons constantly being harangued and sold as slaves by those nasties from the north. I know very little of the sagas, Leif Eiriksson, and of course Gudrid. Until now.

The problem is, though, that we will not really know FOR SURE if this is Gudrid's house. Those involved in the project were even slow to identify it exactly as yes, this is her house. The author is very enthusiastic about her topic and that is good and necessary, but it can also be a bit deceiving. I myself want to believe that the excavation did uncover Gudrid's former home, but in truth we simply can not know for certain. However, I think at least we can say it is LIKELY to be her home, given the accounts as told in the sagas. And truthfully, I really, really want it to be her home. I want to visit the land and see it someday. Unfortunately, once the excavation was completed for the season, photos taken and any artifacts accounted for, the home was recovered and buried again beneath the sod. Perhaps this is as it should be, it should be left to return to the land it came from, but part of me just wants all that history out in the open so we can see it and walk around it and learn from it. And really, I just love history too much to see it waste away back into nothing. Iceland's government does not share my opinion: "But as for digging on purpose in historical spots, the official opinion is that Iceland's history is far safer left in the ground" (page 43). I get it, because archaeology really does destroy some of the history it is aiming to preserve, but just think of everything left undiscovered.

The book is not without major issues though, no matter how engaging the topic. It is always frustrating to me when the author has a really interesting story and they go and ruin it by making themselves PART of the story. I was not interested in the author's own experiences, I wanted to know about Gudrid. The problem is, of course, having enough material to actually complete a book and thus it became necessary for the author to share said experiences when she participated in the excavation of the long house (another point of contention, by the way. Though, at least the author had the common sense to address this - how she, someone with no archaeological experience, was permitted to work on such an amazing find and make judgments in the spur of the moment of what ash to keep and what to discard. That is unreal to me). I get it, I understand the author is as fascinated by Gudrid as I am, but I wanted this to be Gudrid's story. It was not entirely.

I also find it problematic when authors recreate conversations about their topic in nonfiction texts. This really is something that bothers me beyond belief and maybe I am just being nit-picky but I don't care. Unless the actual conversation was recorded and the author could refer to it and write it word for word in the book, I can do without that nonsense please. It gives less credibility I believe.

Another issue plaguing the book was the fact that it jumped around in time constantly. This occurred within the same paragraphs and I found it rather distracting. For example. there is a paragraph on page 223 that starts out talking about Gudrid making clothing for her family, then suddenly the paragraph morphs into the techniques being used today at Copenhagen's Center for Textile Research. This happened a lot and I feel like the book would have come across as better organized if this jumping around had not occurred - at least not within the same paragraph.

The problem, overall, is that there really is not a lot of information to go on about Gudrid aside from the snippets even mentioned in the sagas. This book is supposed to be at its heart about Gudrid, this amazing woman who traveled all over the world, from Vinland to Greenland, to a pilgrimage to Rome, and yet it is not. This instead is just as much about the time period in which she lived and she merits a mention because she was a woman making the dangerous voyages typically reserved for men at the time. You might go pages at a time with information of the period but not one single mention of Gudrid. The positive in that is that it piqued my interest in the Vikings, their Sagas, and their exploration of the West, but left me feeling very unsatisfied in the pursuit of knowledge about Gudrid.

Also, for the record, I can't take an author too seriously when she describes a boat as "humping the waves". Just sayin'.

Overall, go into this one realizing that it will not be about Gudrid. it will be about the Vikings, their long houses, their sheep, the Inuits, and everything else related to the time period of Viking exploration. You will have glimpses of this woman through time, but will be left wondering, with more questions than answers. Still, worth a read to get even those glimpses.

The Year 1000: What Life Was Like at the Turn of the First Millennium

Rating: 5 Stars

Review:

The Anglo-Saxon world in England holds a special place in my heart and I am forever fascinated by the likes of Alfred and Aethelstan. It never ceases to amaze me how Engla-land is the same physical place that would in the future be ruled by the likes of Henry II, Edward IV and Henry VIII. This is a wonderful little gem of a book that did not disappoint, despite coming in at 200 pages. My concern with slim volumes such as this, especially when dealing with a topic near and dear to my heart, is the potential for lacking detail and misinformation - the gossip is always better than the actual story (at least according to the Dark History series, I suppose). I was pleasantly surprised by how much detail was included and the consistent referencing to contemporary sources provides further validity to the presentation. And of course, I was glad to see several appearances by Alfred, despite his death a century before.

The text begins with an explanation of the Julius Work Calendar - a calendar that has somehow, against all odds (and Henry VIII"s rage and ambition), come down to us from the year 1020. A photograph is also included of the January page, of which my only complaint is that it is in black and white and I'd very much like to see color photographs of the pages. The authors give a brief description of the calendar and its purpose - noting the abundance of holy days and high days marking the pages. They likely conclude this document was of most religious importance, and could have been an instructional manual for monks who had recently joined the order.

Following, the book is divided in twelve chapters, by month. The cover page for each chapter includes a reproduction of a drawing taken from the corresponding page of the original calendar. Again, in this instance I would have liked to have seen the actual page, to examine it in color. A particular instance I enjoyed in the January chapter included the discrepancies having to do with when Easter was to be celebrated and also the debate over dating the birth of Christ. It has never occurred to me before that idea of zero was not in use, as this was not needed in a world which still counted by Roman numerals. The authors point out that since zero was not an accepted concept, dating was off by a year due to missing that 12 months from 0-1. They the address how Dionysius then mis-dated Christ's birth, based on when Herod died, pointing out that Christ was likely born in at most 4 BC, perhaps further back. As a result, the so-called Christian calendar is slightly off, though I think at this point no one is terribly concerned about it anymore - can you imagine trying to change centuries of thinking? Quite simply, not possible. So we accept these inaccuracies while keeping the bigger picture in mind.

Something I have mentioned in previous books about this era include my interest in how words and names have evolved. This volume covers this as well, how Angla-lond/land evolved in to England, Angle-ish to English, etc. I also found this quote to be of interest:

"The Anglo-Saxons could swear to do something, or could swear by something, but there is no record of them swearing at anything at all" (page 31).

The author mentions with this that the curse words we know today likely came from Holland in the later Middle Ages - though I would like to know more about how this conclusion was reached and what documents might still exist to show this exchange of cultural information. He also says that no obscenities occur in Anglo-Saxon documents that survive. This is interesting to think about, but one must also consider the fact that of the documents that do survive, much of the material was written by scholars and monks. Curse would would likely have been at odds with the subjects they were writing about, though perhaps I am off the mark in my own conclusion? This is something I would like to learn more about and will be in search of information about this soon.

Another note on language - it was in this time period that all humans were referred to as menn and mann was the word for human. So, there are two conclusions we could draw from this. Either the Anglo-Saxons had a much better grip on gender-equality than we do today, or they were elevating the status of men over women and encompassing both genders into one term. It might be easy to dismiss this as the latter, were it not for the abundance of wills from this time period in which fathers time and again left money and property to maintain to eldest daughters. 

There are plenty of amusing details included here, such as the fact that even 1000 years ago, chicken soup was recommended for its "soothing and restorative powers." A-MEN! There's nothing I like more than homemade chicken noodle soup when I'm sick, how neat that this is something that has not changed since early times.

The authors also discuss life for the monks in the monasteries and daily life there. As monks were discouraged from speaking vocally throughout the day, they often communicated  during meals and such with a variety of some 127 gestures and signs. The monks are compared baseball coaches in our time, albeit asking to pass the salt instead of signaling to steal third. It is an amusing image to conjure, the men at their tables, hands waving about as they speak without speaking. I'd like to see the document containing all 127 signs, though many are described here in the text.

In all, this is neat month-by-month look at this far-away time that almost seems unreal now in its simplicity. I can't imagine living in a time without noise of a large city - though I would very much like to experience it. To have no traffic noise, no neighbors blaring televisions and music, no hum of a refrigerator. Life would certainly have been both easier and more difficult at the same time. Highly recommended read.

The English and Their History

Rating: 3 Stars

Rating:

This book is exhausting. So exhausting, in fact, that I am not even sure I can review it properly. I have read more than my fair share of books. One might say reading is my 'thing'. I am especially fond of that little island now called England and its amazing history, going way back to the Iron Age people, through Roman Britain, the Anglo-Saxons, the Normans, the Plantagenets, and the Tudors. Beyond that, my interest starts to wane. In the past with books about the history of England, I have always given up a bit after James VI/I. Sometimes I make it through the execution of his son, Charles I, but rarely. I vowed this time, with this one, to make it through. And so I did. Barely.

So, this one began in what is typically still referred to as the Dark Ages, despite our knowledge of the time growing more clear all the time with new discoveries. The Anglo-Saxons and Alfred are possibly my most favorite of the eras in England's history, so it is always nice to see him given his due. Alfred is, after all, the only king in the country's history to be called 'the Great'.

My concerns with the book come very early on though, as I feel there were many aspects of England's history that were glossed over or not mentioned at all from those early years, in favor of much more material covering the last two hundred years. For example, while we see Edgar Aetheling mentioned, there is almost zilch about his grandfather Edmund Ironside and his brief co-reign with Cnut - it is generally thought that Edmund was murdered by or on Cnut's orders so he could assume complete power. Subsequently there is nothing about Ironside's sons who were spirited out of the country and Cnut's reach. That in itself is a fascinating story and deserved a place. The course of history might look very different for England had someone aside from William I become king. There were many other times that this lack of detail jumped out at me - perhaps because these are among the time periods I know best. The author calls the circumstances of William II's (William Rufus) death 'mysterious', but does not fully elaborate. It is considered mysterious for a number of reasons, considering he was shot in the chest with an arrow and the culprit left the scene immediately - while Henry I (his younger brother, the youngest son) headed straight for the treasury to secure it and the crown, effectively stealing it from Robert who was next in line. Further more, it was strange to me that the author considered Matilda (Henry I's daughter) the antagonist in the civil war between her and her cousin Stephen. When Matilda's brother Henry died on the White Ship, she became the only legitimate heir. At least twice Henry I made his nobles swear an oath to support Matilda's claim as queen, but given the fact that there had never been a queen who ruled in her own right, as soon as Henry I was dead they naturally (for the time period) looked elsewhere. Stephen was the usurper, the antagonist, though Matilda certainly did herself no favors by alienating some who she needed support from. In the end, Stephen agreed for Matilda's son to become king as Henry II, despite Stephen having a son of his own. So began the 300 year rule of the Plantagenets.

There was very little attention given to another of my favorites - Eleanor of Aquitaine. She is hardly mentioned, and only as Henry II's wife. We get a glimpse but that is it and no where does it say that without her gathering the ransom, her son Richard I would likely never have been released from prison. While Richard cared very little for England and preferred his lands in Aquitaine, or the Holy Land on Crusade, him being overthrown by John even earlier could have caused even more destruction.

By the time we get to Elizabeth, all of my favorite periods were covered. This amount to roughly 200 pages out of nearly 900 (1,000 if you count the end notes, index, etc). For the rest of the time it was pretty rough going for me, because it just does not hold my interest the way early England does. I truly don't even understand it myself, how I can be totally enthralled by the first 1,600 years and not care one iota about the last 400. But I was determined to slog on through. As a result, it took me a while and I frequently set it aside for something else. I have to be quite honest and admit I skimmed the Industrial Revolution. Glad it happened and all, but it is a terrible snooze to read about.

I found the Victorian era more interesting to read about this time around, so perhaps there is hope for that in the future. World War I and World War II were great reads from the English perspective, as anything I have read about them in the past have been strictly from an American viewpoint. Throughout the book there were tons of maps to aid the reader with the text, which I have always found especially helpful when discussing battles and troop movements. My only real complaint about WWI material involves the omission of Gavrilo Princip. You may not recognize the name, as so often he is simply referred to as 'the assassin of Archduke Franz Ferdinand'. I feel like it is a disservice to history that his name is routinely ignored. Like it or not, for better or worse, hi actions set of a chain of events that culminated in The Great War, which in turn lead directly to WWII.

I can't speak for the accuracy of the rest of the text due to my limited knowledge of those eras, but I at least found them somewhat engaging - enough to continue reading anyway. This is certainly not a book I would consider as my first if I knew nothing about England's history. It is quite the endeavor and not one to enter into lightly if you are looking for a quick read. On the other hand, if you are more interested in the time periods after the Tudors that are less interesting to me, then this may just be the book for you, as that is the bulk of the material.

Foundation: The History of England from its Earliest Beginnings to the Tudors

Rating: 1.5 Stars

Review:

I don't even.

I can't even begin to explain how disappointed I am in this book and Ackroyd's work here. I am actually kind of angry about this book. Normally he is an author I enjoy, having read several of his other titles (The Thames, Chaucer, etc). I so looked forward to this one as this book literally covered almost my entire interest in England.

What makes this disappointment even worse is how promising it even starts out. It begins with a delightful romp through Roman Britain and Boudicca's destructive power (again I say, Eleanor is so lucky I discovered Eleanor of Aquitaine before Boudicca, and the latter is just a nickname). I even enjoyed most of the bits about those nasty Angles and Saxons who were terribly destructive themselves, but eventually manage to evolve into my dear Anglo-Saxons.

When Ackroyd gets specifically to Alfred, king of Wessex, the Angles and the Saxons - Alfred the Great, my first issue comes to light. While it is generally acknowledged that yes, Alfred's grandson Athelstan is the first king of England (England as a whole, not an island of individual kingdoms - Wessex, Mercia, Northumbria, etc), Alfred's accomplishments can not be overlooked. I mean, come on, he remains the only king to ever be referred to as 'the Great'. Alfred set up the kingdom to become successful and united; had he not beaten back the Danes, encouraged reading, writing and education in general, or written down the laws of the land, England could have taken a very different course. Let's give him a little more credit here. There would be no England without Alfred.

The next big flag came when the death of Edmund Ironside was completely glossed over. When Edmund and Cnut were basically co-kings, and then within a few months Edmund was dead, it is generally thought that he was murdered so Cnut could rule alone. Edmund's two sons, Edward and Edmund, were spirited out of the country and Cnut's reach. While the son Edmund also died, sometime in exile in Hungary, Edward eventually returned to England, the potential successor of Edward the Confessor. However, within a few days of his landing in England, he was murdered, which set the course for the invasion of the Normans and The Conquest by William I. I have always felt like this is an important piece of the puzzle, as at this point England's history could have been drastically altered and the Anglo-Saxon line (albeit with a strong injection of Hungarian, due to Edward the Exile's decades away from home) might have continued for a long time. No Normans would mean no Plantagenets, which in itself would also have been tragic. But that is another story. It confuses me as to why Ackroyd would not present this information, but perhaps I view it as more important than it actually is.

Speaking of Edward the Confessor now, Ackroyd makes a statement to the effect of Edward choosing his successor as he neared death. The king did not choose his successor though, the next king was chosen and anointed by the Witan, so Edward could not leave his crown to anyone as was stated. The Witan chose Harold, so it would not have mattered if Edward has promised William and/or that Harold might have sworn an oath to uphold William's claim.

As we move through the beginnings of the Norman kings right before the Plantagenet dynasty dawns, there is another slew of missing and/or mis-information. Ackroyd seems to accept almost unequivocally that William II's death was an accident, despite his own brother's actions after his death - and that fact that his hunting companion who 'accidentally' shot him reportedly immediately left the scene. Upon learning his brother had been shot on their hunting outing, Henry immediately rode off to secure the treasury - surely a sign that he might have known something? The mishandling of the Norman kings continues with Stephen. Stephen was nephew to Henry I. Henry I had made his nobles swear an oath to support his daughter Matilda as queen, as his only legitimate son had died when The White Ship sank years earlier. Naturally when Henry I died and Stephen claimed the throne, no one argued because England had never had a queen rule and were not about to start. Ackroyd states that Stephen was crowned in 1135 but that it was not until 1139 that Matilda arrived to "claim her country". That is by and far one of the biggest issues with this book - there is no detail or support as to WHY it took so long for Matilda to land on English shores. She was married to Geoffrey, duke of Anjou. It was not as though she was thousands of miles away, she was across the Channel. Some kind of explanation for her actions would have been welcome, instead of just glossing over it as was done with Ironside's death a few centuries earlier. Ackroyd also fails to mention that Stephen had a son, who was passed over in the line of succession for Matilda's son (Henry II) to bring an end to their brutal civil war.

I was tempted to quit when Eleanor of Aquitaine was almost completely whitewashed from England's history. I mean, seriously. She was important, despite Ackroyd's statement of Eleanor "severing herself from the king". In truth she retreated to her own estates as the king became involved with his beloved mistress Rosamund Clifford, then was imprisoned for fifteen years for inciting their sons into rebellion. More than once. As we continue along with the Plantagenets, Ackroyd seems baffled by the fact that King John and Richard III are often associated. My guess would be they are associated often in peoples' minds because they both murdered children to get their thrones. Ackroyd does address the fact that Arthur (Geoffrey's son), John's nephew, was actively campaigning against him and actually besieging Eleanor at Mirebeau when he was captured. At the time Arthur was fifteen, and seeing as how he was active in the battle I see Ackroyd's claim that he essentially became a prisoner of war so to speak when John captured him. The fact remains however, that Richard I had named Arthur as his heir to the throne, seeing as how their deceased brother Geoffrey was older than John (the spoiled baby of the family), and thus had a better claim. Not to mention John was super shady and cruel and not at all fit to be king. So yeah, killing the rightful kings who happened to also be children is what will always link them, no matter how Ackroyd wants to say this was not true in John's case.

I seriously considered quitting a second time when I realized I had made it all the way to the reign of Henry III (John's son) and had not even caught a swift glimpse of William Marshal, the greatest knight in the history of England. I double checked the index just to make sure my eyes were not deceiving me, but sure enough, he is no where to be found.

I am almost tempted to not even bother with reviewing the chapters relating to Richard III. This book was published in 2011, so it is no fault of Ackroyd's that Richard's remains had not yet been discovered (Phillipa Langley wouldn't be bawling her eyes out on national television for a while yet, upon discovering that he did in fact have a crooked spine). However, the problem is he claims such authority, so sure that Richard's remains had been scattered or thrown in the river. He states this as fact, not the speculation they need to appropriately be described as. For example, on page 416 Ackroyd says, "The king, for example, was not a hunchback. As a result of strenuous martial training one arm and shoulder were overdeveloped, thus leading to a slight unbalance but nothing more." Again, while the author could not have known that within a short time the world would know that, in fact, Richard did have a significant curvature of the spine, he certainly could have addressed this more responsibly.

There are some positives here. Despite everything I have said thus far, though overall I was greatly disappointed, there is still some good. While the longer chapters detail what Ackroyd wants the reader to know with his take on England's history, he also includes shorter chapters throughout that deal with daily life on the island, from food, to religion, to dwellings, etc. At first these chapters annoyed me because it made the book feel a bit disjointed, going back and forth from general to specific history. But the more I read, the more I began to enjoy them. However if I had to choose between more details on the kings and queens, or these little chapters, hands-down I would opt for the former. I believe this is the first of four books. If Ackroyd wanted to present a clearer picture of England by including these chapters, perhaps he should have planned to write five books in the series then to make room for all the facts and information he left out.

I feel like I have made my point here with some of the biggest issues with the book. Basically, Ackroyd has taken some of the most interesting pieces of history and condensed them down into little bite sized morsels for popular consumption. The problem with that is that many of these stories are so complex and deserve to be fleshed out to explore all facets. That is how you really get the big picture, really understand how England became England. This is at times sensational and gossipy, ignoring more plausible theories for wild claims (hello, Edward II). It is as though this is a completely different author than I am used to reading. It is disheartening, because I was looking forward to the second book, which of course focuses on the Tudors, as this one concludes with Henry VII's reign. I can by no means recommend this as the first book for anyone to read who does not already have background knowledge, as I would hate for anyone to read this and think it is all accurate. There is a decent bibliography that I plan exploring further to see how Ackroyd came to some of the conclusions that he did. Perhaps then I will better understand his view, and then be able to move on to the second book with a little more ease.

Medieval Ireland: The Enduring Tradition

Rating: 3.5 Stars

Review:

Given that my main area of interest leans toward England, the majority of my knowledge of Ireland in medieval times comes with a decidedly English slant. It was refreshing then to find this text, though it was published in 1988. I would be very interested to read the newest edition that came out in 2005 to see what insights have been added in the last couple of decades. Despite the slimness of the volume, it contained a plethora of information focusing mainly on 500-1500 AD, though the two early sections dealt briefly with Ireland prior to that time.

I do have a few complaints - more than once the author made a point and supported it with some detail, but followed up with the phrase, "...but that won't be discussed here..." or something to that effect. This is something that would be very frustrating for someone with no background knowledge. It leaves the reader with two dilemmas - the first being why is this info important enough to mention but not be elaborated on and two, now I have to seek out this information elsewhere (for the truly interested, at least. Some are able to just gloss over lines like that and keep going. I am not one of those people.)

For once I appreciated a lack of photos. They would not have served the text well. Too often I read books that have X amount of colored 'plates' (please, be MORE pretentious) and half of them end up being kind of related to the topic, in that they're from the same time period, but often there is not a specific connection. If I recall correctly, this book at three or four black and white maps of Ireland. They were really all that were necessary, as the primary focus of the text was the development of Ireland in medieval times. While society, culture, literature, the Church, and so on were important to make this development happen, a smattering of random photographs were not.

This is a fairly intense academic work, despite the length. It might be off-putting for those with a casual interest. I would recommend starting elsewhere if you have no background knowledge of medieval Ireland. Otherwise, I can say I recommend it (or perhaps the most current edition) for those who already have a foundation.

The Oxford Illustrated History of the Vikings

Edited by Peter Sawyer

Rating: 4 Stars

Review:

I really enjoyed this collections of essays for a number of reasons. My primary level of interest in is Anglo-Saxon England and the Wessex kings especially - Alfred the Great is great for a reason (and the only king of England with this descriptor!) I also enjoy learning about the Vikings, as so much of the history of Norway, Iceland, and Greenland was only passed down from one generation to the next by word of mouth. What we do have written is truly a treasure, as these people and cultures can come alive to us once again by these words.

The text is a series of essays. Each author focused on their own area of interest, ranging from the Vikings in England, the end of he Viking age, Vikings in Russia, the ships, and so on. While I am not really interested in the ships themselves, or learning about maritime travel, that essay still help valuable information. One essay I found especially interesting was 'Religions Old and New', which discusses the old religion of the Vikings and their gods and the advent of Christianity. Greenland and Iceland were of particular interest too, not only because it is amazing that the ships were able to travel that far, but even beyond to reach North America - long before Columbus and his germ warfare. I would love to see the settlement ruins someday, and it is definitely on my bucket list. The essay focusing on Ireland, etc. was of great interest as well, as I have been to Dublin. Upon my visit with Mom in 2010, I had no idea that the Vikings had ruled Dublin for so long and that it was an area of focus for them. When visiting Dublin Castle on one of our tours, we were able to go below street level to see what remained of not only the medieval castle from the 13th century, but the earthen bank/stone wall of the original Viking town. Photographs belong to me and were taking in Dublin in July of 2010.

Helpful info to start with (2010) Unfortunately I don't have a great shot of the remains of anything but the medieval castle.

Overall, while some of the essays were a bit more dry than others, I enjoyed this collection. Certainly recommended for those interested in various aspects of life as a Viking.

Citadels of Power: The Castle in History and Archeology

Rating: 5 Stars

Review:

So, I love castles. I love looking at pictures of them, watching documentaries about them, reading books about them and, above all, seeing them in person. I've been lucky enough to see a handful so far in the UK and Ireland, and can not wait to visit more in the future.

Naturally then, when I see what I think is a book about castles, I have to give it a read. I found this in the library catalog and reserved it immediately, not paying attention to the 'audio' label until later. No biggie, I figured, I can do a book on cd - then Eleanor can learn too! So, imagine my surprise to find it was not actually a book on cd, but a lecture series by Professor Finan. So, I guess technically I should not be reviewing it here because it is not a book, but it was wonderful!

Now, it was not perfect by any means, and there were portions that were somewhat repetitive, but I still enjoyed this very much. The lecture covered a variety of topics, ranging from the different kinds of castles, their place in society and the landscape, as well as castles specific to England, Wales, Ireland, Scotland, and castles built in the Holy Land by various Crusaders. I found that I knew many facts presented already, though was not nearly as familiar with the earthen and timber castles as presented in the second lecture.

Additionally, Professor Finan clearly cares very deeply about the subjects he is presenting, and even says that the last lecture pertaining to the end of castle-building is his least favorite because he loves the topic so much. While he is not necessarily the most exciting lecturer to listen to, it is worthwhile to hear the material he presents.

There is also a study guide included that has summaries, questions, suggested readings, other books of interest, and suggested websites for each of the 14 lectures. These are available through the company that produces the lecture series (free, but with a shipping charge of course), and I am considering ordering one.

Overall, highly recommended. Very interesting series and I am curious to see what other lectures are offered by The Modern Scholar.

As always, here are MY favorite castles (all photos taken by me in 2009/2010)...

Inside the gate of Stirling Castle (Scotland, 2009)

Edinburgh Castle (Scotland, 2009)

At Windsor Castle (England, 2009)

Blarney Castle (Ireland, 2010)

Malahide Castle (Ireland, 2010)

Bunratty Castle (Ireland, 2010)

(The remains of) Dublin Castle (Ireland, 2010)

Alfred the Great: The Man Who Made England

Rating: 5 Stars

Review:

Anglo-Saxon England might be the most intriguing period for me in the history of the country. I have often wondered how different the world might be had England remained in the hands of King Harold and the Norman invasion thwarted. The possibilities are interesting. This time period is also frustrating, as there is very little evidence left of these great people, particularly from Alfred's time and before. The scraps of information and rare objects we do have are precious; it saddens me to think that what is now left of the mortal remains of this great king, the man who united the warring kingdoms into what would become England and fought off the Vikings time and again, are scattered somewhere in the soil among the modern buildings of Winchester.

Now, onto the book itself...

Everyone knows the (highly likely untrue) story of England's King Alfred, deprived of his throne and set to wander his lands as a fugitive, taking refuge with a poor swineherd. Here he is either reading a book or lost in thought by the fire, only to be rebuked by the swineherd's wife for letting the cakes burn. Alfred accepts the scolding, unrecognized by his own subjects as their former, but true, king.

It's a highly romanticized story of Alfred's time away from his throne, but one the author touches on time and again when noting the importance of and connection to religion in this time period. Christians at this time still believed wholeheartedly in the daily miracles of God, in a time where men we now call saints were living, breathing people among them. I have not read extensively about Alfred yet, though I have read quite a bit about Anglo-Saxon England in general, so I am not yet sure if this is the author's own conclusion, or the conclusion reached by scholars before him, but he refers to this story as a kind of metaphor for England as a whole. Early in Alfred's reign, in the four years of relative peace before the Vikings again returned and betrayal within Alfred's own court enabled the witan to depose him, Alfred did not do all he might have in order to prepare for the repeated attacks that could only be held off with the Danegeld for so long. The conclusion is that this story is a metaphor for Alfred's reign in that time - he didn't pay attention like he should have so the cakes burned, much like he did not take care to fortify his fledgling kingdom, and so it too burned.

It is amazing to me how, though Alfred lived and died in what would be considered the end of the 'Dark Ages', a significant portion of his time and funds were directed toward learning and educating his people. He was a major supporter of translating great works for his people to read in their native tongue - English. He even sent an item (called an æstel) with these books when they were distributed to every bishopric - one of which was found in the late 1600s - which has today been concluded that its possible function was a pointer or a bookmark. 

(Property of the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford)

(Property of the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford; the inscription on the side reads: 'Alfred Ordered/Had Me Made' - I have read different translations using either word)

King Alfred felt that literature and education was imperative to the survival of his kingdom. I of course don't mean education as we know it today: all the good little boys and girls in there desks with pencils sharpened, ready to absorb knowledge. I mean in the sense that he felt it was important for the men governing the burhs in his name to be learned men so that they would be able to read his laws, to dispense justice correctly and appropriately, and for all people to have access to the great books. And while it is again highly unlikely that he actually learned Latin in a single day, Alfred did set about educating himself as well and learned the already-dead language.

Whether you have read about Alfred before or this is your first foray into the arena, this is a fantastic read. It is written in such a way that it is accessible both to the lay reader looking for a 'popular history', as well as those who have background knowledge already and would be considered more academic. It chronicles the years and events leading up to Alfred's birth and sets the stage for this king to become, well, great. There's everything you would expect from the time period - Vikings raids, the warring kingdoms of Wessex, Mercia, East Anglia, etc., betrayal, tragedy, and triumph. I highly recommend this one.