First things first, I was so excited when I saw this book on Netgalley - because Conn Igguldon is a very popular writer, and this period in time is one of my periods - I've written a trilogy that begins with Brunanburh, a short story regarding the split of England in the reign of King Eadwig and a novel about Queen Elfrida - or Audrey, as the author insists on call her, not to mention my 'main' series charting the final century of Anglo-Saxon rule..

I can barely express my abject disappointment with this novel. I stopped reading it on two occasions but forced myself to get to the end because if I was going to provide feedback, I felt I should do the author the honour of at least reading all of the book - I was, hopeful, that the novel would improve. I was disappointed.

While I have absolutely no problem with the Dunstan being portrayed as a devious bastard, prepared to take any steps necessary to get what he wanted (I think this is a fair assessment of the spread of Christianity in this period and the powerful politicians/ecclesiastics that populated the landscape - although Dunstan has been made to be particuarly evil and self-centred), and while I understand that this is historical fiction, I would have at, the least, expected the author to be historically accurate where possible, and if not, to provide details of this in his notes at the end of the novel. I am left feeling that instead of making people keen to read more about this period, the author has actually irreovocably damaged it, and perhaps worse, held himself up to some ridicule by relying on the Life of St Dunstan and failing to follow the information provided in the Anglo Saxon Chronicle. (The Lives of Saints are inherently difficult to use as any source material - they tell more about the time period they were written in than the person they write about), and sagas. Sagas, again have some historical basis but they were written so long after events they have to be used sparingly and with extreme caution. The best way to use either source is to cross reference it with other information.

If this novel is supposed to be akin to the Vikings TV series, which is based on sagas and not history, then this needs to be made clear from the get-go.

Those people who enjoy historical fiction of this time period will not appreciate being 'dumbed' down to. They are used to such words as ealdormen (earls is a title that was introduced by King Cnut during his reign from 1016-1035 - a century later), and the names that people had - there is no need to change names such as Aethelflaeda to Faeltha or Aelfthryth (or Elfrida) to Audrey, or use names such as Beatrice, John Wyatt, or substituting Allwold for Aethelwald, or Godfreyson instead of Gothfrithson.

Then there is the matter of historical inaccuracy - again I have no problem with messing around with a few facts - but to ignore so many known facts smacks of a lack of intent study - there was no cavalry at Brunanburh (why else would historians have made such a big deal about the Norman Cavalry of the Battle of 1066?) - the Anglo-Saxons were known for riding to battle and fighting on foot (if you Google this it quickly becomes apparant that the idea of cavalry has been much discussed and dismissed for Brunanburh). King Edmund was not an orphan - his mother was still alive until the 960's. King Edmund was married two times, not once, and his second wife didn't die but was still powerful during the reign of her step-sons. King Eadwig and King Edgar did not divide the kingdom until 957 (two years into Eadwig's reign - why else would Eadwig have been crowned King of the English at Kingston - it's because at that time he was). King Edgar married, probably three times, and not twice, and in missing out one of the marriages, the author also misses out one of his children - the Lady Edith of Wilton. It was, as far as I know, King Edgar who brought about the revolution in terms of currency, something brought to a head under King Aethelred II who was able to recall and reissue his coinage every 6 years. People know this stuff - they will know that information has either been missed out or that the author has not studied the period well.

As to the idea of the English kings as High Kings of England or rather Great Britain - this again is a misinterpretation - there were many petty kingdoms in Wales - and where is the wonderful Hywel Dda and great friend of King Athelstan in this story? The Kingdom of the Scots was independent - mostly, although the campaign of 934 against them is ignored as is the treaty of Eamont in 927 - when there was (allegedly) a peace between all the kingdoms within Great Britiainl. There was war, mostly in the north, - Edmund lost the Danelaw and York on his accession. Edmund gained back some of it, and Eadred the rest, and sometimes there were Welsh kings attending upon the English kings but it wasn't a 'done deal'. The kings of the English were not High Kings, even if they wanted to be.

As to Dunstan himself - he is a despicable character and I have no problem with that but by the time you've stomached murder, STI's, murder again and again, and again and again and his own superior attitude to everyone he meets, its difficult to even want to read about him. By the end I simply didn't care what he'd been up to anymore - and this is a terrible shame. After all, he is credited with the sweeping changes, along with Bishop Aethelwold and Bishop Oswald, that the Benedictine Reformation brought about - and yet these characters are missing, entirely from the story. The author even appears to respect Dunstan and yet anyone reading the novel will go away thinking only of his corruption, his murders and the gullability of everyone he meets and manages to hoodwink.

This book, about Dunstan, should have been a wonderful opportunity to illuminate a little known time period in English history, by a very well known author - and to do it through the eyes of one of its churchmen as opposed to through the eyes of warriors - as Bernard Cornwell does - instead it's a turgid read, even without the historical inaccuracies that infuriate me. If I read this with no idea of the time period, I would think Anglo-Saxon England was the mud splaterred, corrupt, violent and filthy place that is all anyone ever seems to make of it, and more, I would wonder why on earth anyone would want to waste their time writing and researching the period, and then inflicting it on readers who are expecting something much, much, much, much better.

Sadly, I can't recommend this book to anyone, but neither will I post this review anywhere but on Netgalley. I must reiterate that I was extremely excited and pleased to be offered a review copy of the book (thank you) - I desperately wanted it to be good - really good - and to illuminate the time period for those who have their heads stuck in the Tudor or Roman period - but this is not that book. I shall wait and hope that one day there will be a book worthy of that hope.

Another riveting read from Conn Iggulden, not that you'd expect anything else from him.

Great to see such dark, unexplored period of British history being given the full historical fiction treatment. There's a great cast of historical characters here that must make an authors life so easy.

However, unlike previous Iggulden books, which are all part of series, this new one felt rushed. It didnt need to be part of a 4/5 book series, however it could have benefited from adding another book. The story needed more depth, the timeline felt rushed. The characterisation wasn't as involved as i've come to expect from the author. I just couldn't get to grips with Dunstan as a character. Didn't really like him, yet couldnt hate him. As a character, he just felt too hollow.

Still, a fun, enjoyable, quick read.