Jeffrey Keeten's Reviews > 1066: What Fates Impose

”Before him, unseen by the others, stands a blood-drenched warrior, tall and proud as an oak, fresh from the battlefield, his lank and sweat-soaked hair hanging down his shoulders, his once handsome face made ugly by an eyeless socket. More blood runs from a wound to his throat and another from his chest. As though to steady himself, he leans on his battle axe, resting his hands on its iron head. He stares impassively at William with his single eye, blue and deep as the ocean; a stare made all the more intense by its singularity.”

When King Edward III ( ruled 1042-1066), known as the Confessor so he will not be confused with King Edward III (1327-1377) who is really Edward VI (don’t get me started), dies in 1066, this sets off a chain of events that leads to 1066 being immortalized not only in English history but world history.

There is only really one viable candidate to take over for Edward, and that is the Earl of Wessex, Harold Godwinson. He is a virile middle aged man, a commanding figure, wily, intelligent, fertile (the Godwinson’s produced boys, lots of boys), and a tested great tactician on the battlefield.

King Harold is comparable in stature and ability to the later Richard I the Lionheart (1189-1199) or Edward Ist, who is really Edward IV, (1272-1307). He looks like a king. With Harold being supported by most of the nobles to be King, not only does England have a qualified man for the job, but they also have a man with heirs to spare, insuring decades of qualified succession.

What G. K. Holloway does in this book is take the story from 1045, showing us all the manipulations, power struggles, and uncertainty, leading up to that fateful day in 1066. You will meet the lovely Edyth Swan Neck, who wins the heart of Harold and discovers the sacrifices a woman must make to be in love with a King. You will meet Godwin, Harold’s father, who carves out an estate for his sons that makes him a rival of King Edward. There are Harold’s brothers who are numerous enough to exhibit all the characteristics of mankind from Harold’s demented older brother Sweyn, his disloyal brother Tostig, as well as a brother Gyrth who dies for him on the field of battle at Hastings. There is also, of course, William, who will be known as Conqueror. We see his manipulations and his scheming as he prepares to steal the crown of England.

Holloway will bring these fascinating people to life for you. He seizes them out of the dusty history books and puts flesh on their bones. When he writes dialogue, you will swear he has a time machine and goes beyond just research and stands among them drinking their mead, flirting with their women, and keeping a telescoped ear deployed to capture their interactions.

I enjoy history, but I enjoy historical fiction even more because of the ability of novelists to take history beyond just known events and make the people who were caught up in these relevant affairs breath air, eat food, fornicate, and speak. The reason they can do this is because they do the research, and what they write is not only probable but quite possibly exactly what happened.


Battle of Stamford Bridge

I felt a thrill of excitement when I saw the chapter heading Stamford Bridge. There is King Harald Sigurdsson of Norway, standing there, all 6’6” of him, rallying his troops while Berserkers hold the English off the bridge to buy him time to prepare for battle. King Harold Godwinson hasn’t even had time to measure the windows of his castle for drapes yet, and he finds himself defending his crown.

Then there is the quick march back to Hastings to meet the other threat from William of Normandy. Holloway’s description of the Battle of Hastings is an edge of the seat, blood splattering, sword clanging extravaganza. I know how it is going to come out, but it is as if my brain is hijacked. I am still hoping for a different outcome.

I asked G. K. if he would mind answering a few questions, and he was kind enough to do so.

Jeffrey D. Keeten: I have recently read King Harald’s Saga, which covers the time frame of your book from the Norway perspective. The Gota River Agreement is a wrinkle in an already convoluted succession. In your book, you have William of Normandy waiting and hoping that Harald Sigurdsson of Norway would attack first. Do you believe that was an astute calculation or did William get lucky? It did seem like several fortuitous events contributed to William’s victory.

G. K. HollowayI think William was a very lucky man, as well as being both politically and militarily astute. Initially, his invasion fleet left Normandy in early September, and but for a storm that blew him off course, he might have found himself in a battle with the English navy. In the unlikely event of William winning a victory at sea over the English, he would then have gone on to land on the south coast, only to be confronted by the English army. His chances of winning a second victory on land would have been minimal. So, getting caught up in a storm was, for William, not the disaster he might have first thought. This is where luck served him well.



William’s armada was blown onto the coast of Ponthieu, where he is supposed to have waited for a southerly wind which would take him to England. He even went so far as to have his army pray for the right wind to come along. At the right time, the wind did come along, and the Norman fleet set sail. However, I think this is a product of Norman propaganda. We are to believe William prays for the right wind, and it comes along just when he needs it. It must be God sent, therefore God supports William’s claim. Why else would he send a southerly? At the time of year William was in Ponthieu, the wind blows from the south most days, and so William would have had plenty of opportunity to sail. But if he discovered Harald Sigurdsson was on his way to the north of England, why not wait? Why not let Harold take his army to the other end of the country and fight a battle, leaving William to do battle with an exhausted victor? It would be the smart thing to do.

Jeffrey D. Keeten: Do you believe that William would have had a chance against Harold Godwinson if not for the Battle of Stamford Bridge that depleted King Harold’s forces?

G. K. Holloway: I think William would have faced a major defeat and been lucky to have escaped with his life if not for Stamford Bridge. How can I say that with any confidence? I’ll tell you.

Most battles at that time lasted two to three hours at most. Hastings began at around 9 o’clock in the morning and continued until just beyond sunset, which would then have been around 5 o‘clock. That’s eight hours and more. I’ll grant you they stopped for lunch, which may have taken a couple of hours, but even so, Hastings lasted a very long time by the standards of the day. This tells us, even though the English army was depleted, they still put up a formidable resistance.

But how would the battle have gone if Harold’s troops had been fresh? There’s no doubt in my mind he would have won. It’s important to remember, although the English fought on foot, they journeyed to battle on horseback. The return journey from Stamford Bridge exhausted many of Harold’s troops, as did the battle. Most of the horses used to ride up to Yorkshire and back were exhausted. Once back in London, Harold’s men had to journey on foot for three days to get to Senlac to do battle, and not everyone turned up. Added to this, and I’ve never really discovered why, Harold took very few archers to meet William. The lack of English archers, used so effectively in later battles, would also contribute to William’s victory.

JDK: I googled Stamford Bridge, and all that would come up was a football stadium. Is there anything left that gives you any perspective on the battle?

GKH: I’m happy to say there is. Naturally, the village has changed with the passing of nine-hundred-and-fifty years, but you can still walk around most of the battlefield. In fact, there are guided walks. I’m also pleased to say the Battle of Stamford Bridge Society organize a re-enactment every September, which is well worth a visit. Apart from the re-enactment of the battle, there are encampments where re-enactors demonstrate Viking and Anglo-Saxon crafts of sword manufacture, weaving, weaponry, and cooking. You can even enter a competition to win a spear pie, baked especially to celebrate Harold’s victory over the Norwegians.


Statue of King Harold on the outside of the Abbey Church at Walthamx

JDK: What kind of king do you think Harold would have turned out to be if he had won the Battle of Hastings?

GKH:The Vita Eadwardi Regis, “The life of King Edward who rests at Westminster,” describes Harold as, “A noble earl who, all the time he had loyally followed his lord’s commands with words and deeds, and neglected nothing that met the need of the people’s king.” He is also described by the Vita as “handsome, graceful, strong, wise, patient, merciful, courageous, temperate and prudent but ruthless with opponents.” He was also religious, making a pilgrimage to Rome, and generous to the church being a benefactor to numerous religious houses.

If the above is anything to go by, Harold would have made a good king. Reading through the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, and in fact any of the sources I researched, I couldn’t find anyone, other than the odd Norman, who had anything bad to say about him. The closest I could find to criticism was that he tended to dally and was too liberal. With hindsight, we can say Harold was not quite as politically astute as he should have been. I refer here to his visit to Normandy in 1064 and the situation he found himself in, swearing an oath of fealty to William, which I think we can all agree was not a good idea.

During his short reign, according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle of 1066, “Harold made some good laws.” It’s just a shame we don’t know what they were.

JDK: There have been many periods in English history where the throne has been taken by force, more so seemingly than other countries. Why do you think that the quest for the English throne has proved so bloody?

GKH: I’m not sure the quest for the English throne has proved any bloodier than anyone else’s. The Norman Conquest meant England would be connected to France and southern Europe in a way it had never been in the past. This meant an opportunity for more squabbles than might otherwise have arisen. Added to that, shortages of male claimants to the throne or claimants of the wrong religion and you have a recipe for conflict. Having said that, so far as the British succession is concerned, the last three centuries have been peaceful.

JDK: What book did you read that contributed the most to your research and perspective on 1066?

GKH: Harold the last Anglo-Saxon King, by Ian W. Walker. This book sparked my desire to write my novel, but I used many other books and sources. I also visited all the major sites in my story, hence the family holidays to Normandy, Rome, Yorkshire, Winchester, Bosham, etc., but Walker’s book was my first inspiration and, therefore, the most important.

JDK: There were a few passages where you had ominous portend moments which made me think of the Sagas I’ve been reading. Did the Sagas influence your writing?

GKH:Very much so. In fact, there are quite a few scenes in my novel that have their origins in the Sagas, including the poem Harald uttered in his dying moments. I also leaned on The Wanderer: Epics Elegies and Riddles to help develop a feeling of being in the moment.

JDK: What are you working on next? Hopefully, more history.

GKH: I’ve almost finished the sequel to 1066 What Fates Impose. This one’s called In the Shadows of Castles and tells the story of the first five years of the English Resistance, post the Battle of Hastings. It should be publish early in 2019.

Thank you Mr. Holloway for answering all my questions. I certainly look forward to learning about the post Battle of Hastings world.

If you wish to see more of my most recent book and movie reviews, visit http://www.jeffreykeeten.com
I also have a Facebook blogger page at:https://www.facebook.com/JeffreyKeeten