Don't you hate when authors put personal oppinon in history books?

[MichelleHW101]

It just gets me mad about the biasness of history books.  If someone is going to write a history book such as Lord Montgomery’s ‘Concise history of warfare’, they would do better to stick to the facts rather than throwing their own personal biasness into the text.  For example to read his section on Hastings one would think William was this brilliant tactisionist and great leader.  First of all he made no mention of the fact that ten years before in 1051 Edward the Confessor practally begged William to take over Engalnd and William told him no.  Then Montgomery had the nerve to say that Harold was in no sense a national leader when he had been practally running the country since Edward took the throne because Edward had no intrest in running the country.  Harold was also loved by his fellow countrymen where as William was not.  Then Montgomery goes on to say that after careful planning William left in Sept.  That was not the case.  The second William got news of Harold taking the throne he gathered together the largest army he could built which I would like to point out was made mostly of mercenaries that only went because William promised them spoils of war otherwise they wouldn’t have gone at all.  And the thing about Sept. is that William was sitting at his cost of weeks!  He didn’t plan on leaving in Sept. he was just waiting for the Channel to calm enough to cross and in Sept. it was.  I understand being a decentant of Roger Montgomery who went with William on his Conquest of England, Lord Montgomery will be bias but if someone hadn’t read up on the topics discussed prior to reading his book they would accept his bias oppion as fact.  That just isn’t right.  Yes history is written by the victors so that in itself makes what is recorded as history bias but the authors who currently write history should write without putting their personal feelings into the text.