![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
inulroWhile advertising itself as the history of a feud between two Northumbrian families in the 11th and 12th centuries, the evidence for that feud comprises one document, so in actual fact the book is fleshed out by recounting (what is known of) the history of Northumbria in that period.
Despite the fact that for much of the book the feud takes second place, this is the best history book I have read this year. As is usual with early medieval stuff, the author makes a lot of suppositions, but Fletcher explains his thought processes & use of the evidence better than most so as not to leave the well-informed reader thinking "yeah, right". He has written a robust scholarly book that reads like a whodunit.
The obvious comparison here is Rose's Kings in the North (reviewed earlier this year), which deals with the same region at a time which takes up where this book leaves off. Bloodfeud is the better book by orders of magnitude. Despite the scarcity of the evidence, Fletcher brings the characters and society to life in precisely the way Rose failed.
I can't recommend this one enough.
Despite the fact that for much of the book the feud takes second place, this is the best history book I have read this year. As is usual with early medieval stuff, the author makes a lot of suppositions, but Fletcher explains his thought processes & use of the evidence better than most so as not to leave the well-informed reader thinking "yeah, right". He has written a robust scholarly book that reads like a whodunit.
The obvious comparison here is Rose's Kings in the North (reviewed earlier this year), which deals with the same region at a time which takes up where this book leaves off. Bloodfeud is the better book by orders of magnitude. Despite the scarcity of the evidence, Fletcher brings the characters and society to life in precisely the way Rose failed.
I can't recommend this one enough.
