Andrew Bridgeford's "1066: The Hidden History in the Bayeux Tapestry" ran hot and cold for me, but for the most part was very interesting and offered an excellent analysis of the tapestry. The positives are that Bridgeford examines not only the story the Bayeux Tapestry tells (that is, the Norman invasion of England), but he also examines a bevy of hidden meanings and subtexts that may or may not be present in its famous pictures. He also gives a very captivating account of the tapestry's life since its creation, including a few close shaves while in the hands of Napoleon and, later, Hitler. The style is light and offers the right amount of analysis for a popular history. I also felt Bridgeford presented his opinion on some of the more mysterious aspects of the tapestry's creation and purpose in a balanced though still persuasive way.

One minor negative is that Bridgeport has a habit of getting over dramatic at times. Nothing too distracting, but now and then I felt it detracted from the otherwise scholarly-yet-readable tone of the book. Also, the occasional chapter drags. I'm more forgiving of this in unflinchingly textbook-like histories but this book is clearly meant to be for the casual historian. I could have done with a bit less information on the four mystery characters of the tapestry (the dwarf Turold; Aelfgyva; and the knights Wadard and VItal). They weren't totally uninteresting, they just could have been explained more briefly.

One very pleasant and surprising thing I got from "1066" was a spirited overview of the political situation in England following the death of Aethelred the Unready through to the ascension of Edward the Confessor. This is a sadly neglected period in the way of accessible histories. While I had already read a good dry, scholarly treatment of the era ("Unification and Conquest" by Pauline Stafford), I like to combine such books with a more general, lighter treatment: it helps me remember details and keep everything straight. Bridgeport provides us with that popular-history treatment in his chapter on Aelfgyva. I now have a much better handle on this pre-conquest stretch of time. I would even recommend reading just that chapter to help fill in the gap between Alfred the Great and the conquest even if you're not interested in the tapestry's whole story. Of course, if you are interested, I highly recommend reading the whole thing. ( )

Quite engaging ( )

I am an unabashed Anglophile, and as such I have read more books about British history than I have about American history. I also know just enough about history to be a danger to myself and others, but I know my limits. Still, I think it is arguable that the Norman invasion of England in 1066 is one of those few events in world history that marks an inflection point, one at which everything that came after it was informed by it. The Bayeux Tapestry is an impressive historical and textilic artifact that forms the basis of much of what historians know or think they know about the Norman invasion.

Andrew Bridgeford is one of those chaps who probably drove his teachers crazy in school asking questions like, "But how do we know that's what really happened?" Here, Bridgeford reconsiders everything that is accepted about the tapestry and presses each point with questions until they confess to their fallacies or clam up. Thankfully, his book is also the only I know of that examines how the tapestry survived for 900 years through the tumult of history. ( )

I read this book because I was going to be visiting Bayeux on a tour. I am interested in British history anyway but this was a really fascinating book about a very precise and crucial time in the history of the British people. I enjoyed reading it and since it is so full of detail I plan to read it again someday. Seeing the town and the tapestry soon after I had read it just sealed the deal. ( )

Andrew Bridgeford takes a deep look at the Bayeux Tapestry, its history, and potential interpretations of its content. He is extremely thorough in his assessment, laying it out in a logical sequence that makes his arguments very persuasive. It’s fairly obvious that he is a lawyer, since he spares no time for fanciful ideas and sticks to interpretations straight from the facts.

The part that I liked most about this was Bridgeford’s extensive use of primary sources. He pulls in plenty of Anglo-Saxon, Norman, and French chronicles, as well as various records and writing of other types. He does occasionally use the work of other historians, but I was very impressed with the depth of his research into the original chronicles. He links the tapestry with various contemporary accounts in an attempt to separate out the true thread of events as well as who may have created or paid for the tapestry and why. He takes an indepth look at various misunderstood aspects of the tapestry and postulates why they are they and what they could possibly mean. He even makes a suggestion as to the author of the Song of Roland.

Bridgeford’s strict use of facts and logic assists the reader in understanding his ideas and are a great support to him. His suggestions never seem implausible, even if they occasionally diverge from orthodox opinion. His footnotes and bibliography are extensive. Definitely a recommended book for anyone interested in 11th century medieval history.

http://chikune.com/blog/?p=20 ( )

have not read yet

Though I believe this book could have been more accessible, it is definately worth a read if you are interested in history of this period. The fact that a textile, such as the Bayeux Tapestry not only survived the ages, but also still tells a tale is fascinating. ( )