A Brief History of Britain 1066-1485

Best introduction to medieval history

I read  this book a year ago, yes audible I still read.  I thought it was great so I decided to also get the audiobook. It gives an excellent survey of the period.  The author is clearly an expert in the period.  He is particularly good on the the problem of sources for the period, and that we know far less than we think about the events.  He starts the book by saying the reason medieval historians were so good at code breaking in WW2 was they were use to piecing together a story from fragmentary facts. Some of the coverage of different periods is uneven.  The Norman conquest and the run up to it is given extensive coverage, but some  other periods are skipped over quickly. Religious social and economics factors are also covered, which means the book is covering a lot.

15 of 15 people found this review helpful

A bit dry

A very difficult book to work in Audio. Huge number of facts and names to try to absorb. Whilst it was well read the narrator, understandably being a factual book, was unable to put any emotion into it, subsequently it was rather dry. Found myself drifting away whilst listening to it.

8 of 8 people found this review helpful

Everything you didn't know

Excellent book filling you in on whys, where, what's and who's of britian ! Had lots of ahhh & ohhhhhh moments - interesting listen

6 of 6 people found this review helpful

History made easy

I have enjoyed listening to this book and learning more about a period of history that seems to have had many different interpretations, dependant on whose account was used when you were taught at school!. The reader is a joy to listen to. I am looking forward to listening my way through the rest of history.

5 of 5 people found this review helpful

Dry But Worthwhile

About this audiobook, 'Brief History of Britain' vol. 1: it is the sort of history I thought they did not do anymore i.e. a chronological account of the reigns of monarchs. It does not go into depth, no sustained analysis, nothing overtly 'theoretical', instead a textbook-like, apparently straightforward account of the period. It is what you'd expect schoolchildren to be given rather than university students. The blandness of the style masks the fact this is an interpretation and thus a biased account, giving one angle on its subject. Specialists might be angered by the polemics but I only know enough to know when I am not being told the whole story. At such times I note the bias and smile. If it intrigues me, I make a mental note to get more books or some journal articles that cover that detail in more depth. If you do not want it to be more than it is, it is fine. It is better than wikipedia but not anything special.

As other reviewers have noted, it is written in a dry style and read in a dry way. After a while I find myself tuning out the drone. Never mind, I just put this on and let it play and I tune in and out when something catches my attention. It adds fun - I get half of the story about King Stephen one day and can fill in the pieces when I listen again. It has become a sort of audio jigsaw puzzle - relaxing. Great for falling asleep to and great for keeping the budgie entertained while he is in his cage and I am out and about. Could not recommend it to anyone studying history in a serious way e.g. for university except as a casual resource used for fun (e.g. audio jigsaw) rather than study.

If you like history, I can recommend BBC Radio 4's In Our Time. The podcasts are free and provide hours of entertaining discussion about a wide variety of topics. Sometimes the guests are boring but often they provide enthusiastic, well-informed, entertaining, high-minded chat. It is a bit like dinner-table talk but less free ranging and with less egoism, less gossip, less passionate disagreement and debate. I'm sorry about the lack of debate but that is Radio 4, totally anodyne. This audiobook is anodyne too. I guess that is my biggest criticism - how can you write about history without passion? I dunno, but they manage it.

My remarks apply to vols. 2 and 3 too. Much of a sameness. I haven't read vol. 4 yet. I am not expecting it to be more juicy although since it deals with history up to 2010 it might be more self-conscious about the fact it is just one man's account of Britain's history thus of necessity biased, limited, skewed. We saw how differently people feel about historical events when Baroness Thatcher was given a state funeral a few weeks ago - some were incensed, others proud. The wide range of reactions to one historical event shows why writing even a 'brief' history of Britain has to be the act of an ignoramus, a conceited fool, or a dashing hero. I noticed that all four volumes of this history were written by men. Was that because all the women historians were just too smart to do it and all the men just too tempted by the chance to play the hero they were willing to take a risk on looking like a fool? Who knows. I guess that is why I like history: I ask myself questions such as 'Why would someone write a brief history of Britain when they can foresee all the prat falls?' Or 'Would I touch King Henry VIII with a barge pole?' - working out how specific events came about (this history book) or how to evaluate specific events and the people involved (Henry the wife-murderer) is what history does. It gives the facts and interprets them and evaluates them. It teaches a moral. This brief history presents some facts but it totally short-changes on interpretation, evaluation or drawing any moral conclusions. Think of Maggie Thatcher's funeral - can you write it up as history without address moral questions? I think this history is boring because it is gutless, does not dare to take a stance. It reports the dinner menu of a queen and war and plague with the same blandness. It gives us neither comedy nor tragedy. But human life is both. And a history of human life has to be able to convey the fun and the sorrow - not grey them all out to the same wishy-washy 'shrug, who cares' which is not 'objectivity' it is just bad history. Verdict: all four volumes are definitely worth a punt if offered on cut price deals. Do not pay top dollar or you might rue it.

14 of 20 people found this review helpful

Disappointed

Is there anything you would change about this book?

The reader

Has A Brief History of Britain 1066-1485 put you off other books in this genre?

No

What did you like about the performance? What did you dislike?

He sounded bored and I found it difficult to keep up my interest. So much so I have returned this book

Do you think A Brief History of Britain 1066-1485 needs a follow-up book? Why or why not?

No. I found the chronological order confusing.

Any additional comments?

I had hoped there would be more about William Marshall. He was hardly mentioned

1 of 1 people found this review helpful

Medieval History made easy

If you could sum up A Brief History of Britain 1066-1485 in three words, what would they be?

fascinating, informative, lengthy

What other book might you compare A Brief History of Britain 1066-1485 to, and why?

I've not read another book like it, but because I was listening, usually while driving, I took in a vast amount of interesting material that would have been more difficult on the page.

What does Roger Davis bring to the story that you wouldn’t experience if you had only read the book?

Davis definitely brings it to life, he made me think of historic characters as real people operating within the politics of their time.

Did you have an emotional reaction to this book? Did it make you laugh or cry?

Not an emotional response as such, but a large number of "aha, that's why" moments.

1 of 1 people found this review helpful

Making history interesting

An interesting but never dull or boring account of 1066 onwards. Brought the personalities and events alive. Fantastic

1 of 1 people found this review helpful

Much too long!

What did you like best about A Brief History of Britain 1066-1485? What did you like least?

Much too long and would benefit from a cut to about 1/3 of the current length! After wading through a thicket of detail on various family connections (even when hardly relevant), frequent subclauses starting with 'or...' to hedge a previous statement, and the obligatory politically correct musings, one has often advanced but 20 years in around one hour's worth of listening. This makes it difficult to get an 'overview' of a period - which is surely what a 'brief' history is for?

One still misses a good, short, and to-the-point overview of British history. Somehow British historians seem incapable of achieving this, preferring instead to get bogged down in every little idiosyncratic detail?

4 of 6 people found this review helpful

Not what I thought I was buying

If this book wasn’t for you, who do you think might enjoy it more?

This is an academic's book for real students of English history. It needs you to take notes and make charts of people and events as you go along to see how everything fits together.

If you could play editor, what scene or scenes would you have cut from A Brief History of Britain 1066-1485?

All those containing the less important characters

Any additional comments?

I wanted a simple chronological history of England but this narrative jumped back and forth amongst unheard of knights and bishops and other lesser historical characters until I was thoroughly lost well before the end of part one. I had to stop listening because I was getting even more muddled than before. Don't be misled by the title as I was - it's certainly not what I would call 'brief'. It's a shame because I wanted to carry on with the others in the series but I will have to continue searching for a simpler version.

3 of 5 people found this review helpful