The author trying to show the reality of what happened in 1066 and the battle of Hastings. What England was going through, the interactions between its people and other countries. Written for the years 1066 to 1086, some new looks, and more. Great for those who have an interest in this period.

This book was a bit of dichotomy - I enjoyed the historical work put into it, but the tone the author takes throughout the monograph was snide, overbearing, and condescending. I am heartened to know that he is not a regular in a classroom.

I really enjoyed this book for the simple fact that it has given me another way of thinking about the Norman Conquest. "English Collusion and the Norman Conquest" is well-written and interesting, but it leaves plenty for your imagination - which is something that I hadn't expected, but it worked for me! I would have liked a few more photographs, but that's just nit-picking. I would like to read more by this author - particularly on the same subject.

My thanks to the author, publisher, and NetGalley for an advance copy to review. This review is entirely my own, unbiased, opinion.

This title at times was a bit over my head, but still very interesting. The last third of the book is the strength as Anglo Saxon England is covered. The author's writing is easier to understand and his enthusiasm for the topic shines through.

The Norman Conquest of 1066 was one of the most important dates in English and world history. It signaled the start of the Norman influence in England with Duke William, also known as William the Conqueror,  becoming King of England. But does William I deserve the reputation that is attributed to him in history, or should we be careful with how we view him because his story is told by the avaricious Church? How much help did William and the Normans receive from their English counterparts? Can we call this event a “conquest”? Who was to blame for the “Harrowing of the North”? These questions and more are discussed in Arthur C. Wright’s latest book, “English Collusion and the Norman Conquest”.

I would like to thank Pen and Sword Books and Net Galley for sending me a copy of this book. When it comes to studying the Norman Conquest, I am a bit of a novice, so I was excited to read another book about this time. 

I found this book rather difficult to understand. Wright writes in a style where he is having a conversation to experts, while at the same time saying that every historian has it wrong and he knows exactly what happened. This rubbed me the wrong way. If he had proved his point, I might have found his argument compelling, but he just came off as an angry rambler in the first half of this book. I wanted to understand what he was trying to say, but I did not see his evidence for English collusion. Instead, he spent a lot of time arguing that feudalism is a myth, which was quite bizarre. 

I think the second part of his book was stronger than the first half. It explored the life, commerce, and education of the average citizen. I think if Wright had reorganized his chapters, this book might have been a bit easier to comprehend. Wright tends to focus on after the conquest, without specifying dates, but it is hard to see where the English collusion comes into play. Another problem that I did have is when he tried to insert more modern sayings, ideas, and characters into the conversation. It felt out of place and rather distracting. 

I do believe that Wright is knowledgable when it comes to the subject of the Norman Conquest and England in the years that followed. Unfortunately, his writing style makes it difficult to understand what message he is trying to get across with this particular book. It was readable, but the focus was a bit off and it was hard to figure out his target audience. If you are familiar with the Norman Conquest and would like a challenge, check out “English Collusion and the Norman Conquest” by Arthur C. Wright. It was not my cup of tea, but that does not mean it is a bad book. Someone else might enjoy it.

3.5 stars, interesting information, enjoyable read, misleading title.

While I did enjoy reading this book, I feel like the title was a bit misleading. There really was no information provided on an "English collusion", which was the main reason I was interested in this title. It seems to focus more on events after the conquest than on the conquest itself or, the aforementioned English collusion.

It was interesting to read the author's viewpoint and get a view of the events and individuals in a different lens, but the book just wasn't what I was expecting. The author seems to reference his own previous works for a lot of the information provided as well which makes it difficult to find more information on the subject.

I received an ARC through Netgalley in exchange for an honest review!

I've not read a lot on the Norman conquest, but it is an area of history that is interesting and sparked so much change in the world. And I enjoyed the lens that this book went through, that the English did help in some ways. However, I don't entirely agree with the message because there was very little information about the collusion itself and who did it. While I don't doubt there might have been some, it was just hard to see the information about that in here. I felt the focus of the book was more after the conquest than what happened during it. A lot of space was used for talking about the things that happened after rather than the collusion that the author is making a case for. Overall, readable book but the focus was off.

I am not sure who the target audience is for this particular book, but it is certainly not for those just dipping their toes into this specific period and set of events, or even someone with a modicum of knowledge.  

What was very disappointing was that there was no real discussion as to the exact nature of this "collusion" by the local populace to the invasion.. I mean, this is why I requested the title in the first place - I have enough background to want to narrow down and explore specific and diverse subject matters that tie in with the main theme.  I wanted to know who did the colluding, how they did it, what was their motivation for doing so, and what were the results and consequences, not only for themselves but for the country as a whole.  The brief was not met in my humble opinion.