I shed a tear or two. So without further ado—I think the following is pretty close to the original, may she RIP: Aesthetically, and by way of offense grammatically, this book led me to grind my teeth in a furious fashion. I don't ask for much from a publisher, but Christ-on-the-Cross, countless mix-ups between the rivers Seine and Somme— three times in the course of a single paragraph and its footnote—strikes me as crossing a line for even the most patient of readers.
Shape the fuck up, Running Press.
- A Short History of the Normans?
- SearchWorks Catalog!
- Angel Craft and Healing: Tap into This Source of Magical Assistance to Empower Your Life;
- Quick Overview.
- Strategic Planning.
- Stanford Libraries;
- Recent Comments?
As for Neveux, his French original has been translated quite capably, and his knowledge of the Normans is deep and is presented concisely and in a well-organized manner. From on, I'm much more familiar with the story; and even the chapters covering the Hauteville Normans whose enterprising spirits led to the foundation of the Kingdom of Sicily and the Principality of Antioch, imparted little in the way of knowledge of which I had previously been unaware.
BBC - History: Normans
I mean, how could one possibly continue on without having those particulars squared away within the cluttered closet of accumulated historical minutiae? View all 19 comments. This is an informative history of the Normans from their Scandinavian origins to the rise of Normandy to the Norman Conquests of England and Sicily. I found the bias in favour of William the Conqueror a little hard to swallow as some of his most ruthless actions, such as they Harrying of the North in , are glossed over as if his choice to respond to poorly-co-ordinated Saxon rebellions left him with no other choice than to launch a brutal mass-murdering spree that left tens of thousands of c This is an informative history of the Normans from their Scandinavian origins to the rise of Normandy to the Norman Conquests of England and Sicily.
I found the bias in favour of William the Conqueror a little hard to swallow as some of his most ruthless actions, such as they Harrying of the North in , are glossed over as if his choice to respond to poorly-co-ordinated Saxon rebellions left him with no other choice than to launch a brutal mass-murdering spree that left tens of thousands of citizens dead. Jul 02, Keanan Brand rated it really liked it. I enjoyed this short book -- only eight chapters, but with a chronology and notes -- and recommend it to anyone needing an overview of how the Normans came to be and of their accomplishments in France, England, and Italy.
There are a few typos in the main text and in the notes , most minor but some that left me slightly befuddled, which is why I cannot give the book five stars. Also, sometimes the wording or sentence structure caused me to pause and puzzle out what was actually intended, but thi I enjoyed this short book -- only eight chapters, but with a chronology and notes -- and recommend it to anyone needing an overview of how the Normans came to be and of their accomplishments in France, England, and Italy.
Also, sometimes the wording or sentence structure caused me to pause and puzzle out what was actually intended, but this could be a result of the translation from French to English. However, this volume is a concise reference for not only the serious scholar but also the recreational reader of history. Mar 18, Sean Brennan rated it did not like it Shelves: This therefore makes this book worthless, as you have to ask yourself what else is wrong. The author also states on page that Edward the Confessor unquestionably promised the throne to William with out supplying one iota of proof. I could go on, but I think you get the gist.
Feb 28, Daizee rated it it was ok Shelves: Although there is lots of interesting information given, particularly regarding the origins and decline of the Normans, there is too much data for one to take in. The pictures are good, but there is no real argument behind the narration. Additionally, the translation from French is somewhat slapdash - there are capital letters missing, incorrect spellings etc.
Dec 10, Geoffrey Kozen rated it it was ok. This book has a lot of problems. The most obvious is that the publisher seems to have taken no interest whatsoever in ensuring spelling, capitalization, and the like is correct. Was there even a copy editor? Who knows, but I expect better. At a deeper level, the book fails at the task it imposes on itself as a narrative history. The chapters are too disorganized, jumping from one place, time, and set of characters to another without warning over and over again.
The author introduces minor charac This book has a lot of problems. The author introduces minor characters time and time again without meaningfully addressing who they are or their importance. The book assumes extreme familiarity with geographic details of Normandy that most readers simply will not have. And finally, the author fails to connect narrative threads in Naples and other Southern Norman territories with the story he is trying to tell.
In all, the author clearly knows his subject broadly and deeply, but is unable to effectively communicate his knowledge to a lay audience. He spends all of his time describing individual trees in a book marketed to readers unfamiliar with the forest. Oct 03, Walt rated it liked it Shelves: The Normans were an amazing bunch of adventurers and Neveaux definitely encourages this view. The writing is excellent.
The style is easy to follow. There are generalizations and examples to help the reader truly appreciate the Norman kingdoms.
Bias is something of a problem as Neveaux writes with stars in his eyes when describing the successes of the second generation Norman bureaucrats. The bias is an obvious weakness - Neveaux glosses over constant warfare and unwarranted aggression as common The Normans were an amazing bunch of adventurers and Neveaux definitely encourages this view. The bias is an obvious weakness - Neveaux glosses over constant warfare and unwarranted aggression as common and acceptable. He argues that local lords needed the Normans more than the Normans needed a base of operations for further war. He glosses over the fact that in both successful Norman kingdoms the success was due to constant warfare in the region, weak local control, and impeding continued warfare - areas ripe for conquest.
Recent Posts
These problems are only highlighted when Neveaux goes on to extoll the virtues of second and third generation Normans - William the Bastard, Roger II, Frederick, etc. He correctly points out their remarkable ability to curtail the war-like aggression of their vassals while promoting successful - economic, political, and social states through diplomacy and the threat of violence. Another drawback is that while offering many examples to support his generalizations, there are many unanswered questions. Why did the Normans decline? Why did the leaders slowly curtail the aggressiveness of their vassals?
Even more generic questions remain such as how did they manage to negotiate between so many divergent groups to establish such stable kingdoms? The details can be fuzzy, and this may be due to space constraints or negative imagery for the Norman heroes. The only real conclusion that Neveaux propounds on their decline is a dilution of the blood-line. There was too much interbreeding and the Norman genes were slowly wiped out through social evolution.
See a Problem?
This seems a little too simple; especially considering their remarkable successes. Overall, this is an excellent primer on the Normans for casual-advanced readers. Other readers seeking more details with less bias will have to look elsewhere. Dec 12, Patrick Sullivan rated it liked it. This is really not a bad book.
A Short History of the Normans [Hardback]
Even though there are a few editorial errors, probably to do with the translation from French, it is still very readable. People who knock books on goodreads because three words in the whole book were misspelled or the punctuation wasn't correct are suffering from the bias of over-correction.
Like people who correct your version of "there" in an email, like it matters at all to understanding what you were trying to say. On that note, this is a short and dense histo This is really not a bad book. On that note, this is a short and dense history book about a very specific time and place in history. Americans will find this book challenging; imagine a French person learning about a place in California where constant references to small towns and counties are brought up. If you are French or English, this will not be a problem. On to it then.
This book is pretty good. It gives you enough history of the Norman duchy in what is now France, and how that group of Vikings integrated with Frankish society to give a really good back-drop on the invasion of Britain by William the Conqueror. If you only know that name as a side-note of history, you are better than most Americans - but you still don't have nearly the whole story; or even really a solid overview of the event. The title of the book includes something about how Norman invasions shaped the future of Western society; which might not be hyperbole From the British point of view, the main identifiers of the Norman invaders were the language they spoke a variant of Frankish - French and their tendency to build castles everywhere.
Prior to the Norman occupation, both the Anglo-Saxons and the Celtic Britons before them had lived in smallish communities built on hill tops. These Hill Forts were the primary means of defence and provided a community central point for refuge etc. This was, in part, enforced by the building of Motte and Bailey castles over the land where the Norman Knights could have a base to subjugate the surrounding lands. Building on hill forts is one of the reasons why so many Norman castles especially the early ones are of the famous motte and bailey design.
This design is easy to implement over the site of a previous hill fort. On occasion, the Norman buildings were inside even older structures - such as the Norman Castle inside the Roman Fort at Portchester Shown. Another common trait of the Normans, was their love of Hunting. In addition to the construction of new forest blocks across the Country, the Normans established lots of new laws.
These were all very unpopular with the local British - often they were now unable to hunt or farm on their own land. While the Norman hunting may have left some gorgeous forestry blocks, and been responsible for the importation of new species, it certainly was not started from ecological grounds.
Another side effect of this hunting fanaticism, was the construction of hundreds of hunting lodges around the country. These mini-castles, like Luggershall pictured were used by the Knights and Kings as places to stay and feast while they were out hunting which was a lot of the time. Although they were never used as fortified bases in the way the Castles were, the hunting lodges were remarkably well built. A sign of how cheap labour and materials were to the Norman overlords. This part of the Etrusia web family is dedicated to looking at the period of British history when the Saxons and Danes were supplanted by another invader - the Normans.
This site has been designed by CompuSkills for Etrusia.