Stephen, King of England win the civil war in England, is also highlighted by another of his biographers, David Crouch. Historian and biographer Edmund King, whilst painting a slightly more positive picture than Davis, also concludes that Stephen, while a stoic, pious and genial leader, was also rarely, if ever, his own man, usually relying upon stronger characters such as his brother or wife. Historian Keith Stringer provides a more positive portrayal of Stephen, arguing that his ultimate failure as king was the result of external pressures on the Norman state, rather than the result of personal failings. Stephen and his reign have been
The History of the Norman Conquest of England He was much involved in politics and not unreasonably regarded participation in government as useful training for a historian…Above all, he had tremendous zest. Marjorie Chibnall added that in his knowledge of medieval chronicles Freeman had no rival. As a set-off to this list Barlow noted Freeman's dogmatism, pugnacity and indifference to various subjects he considered irrelevant to his survey of 11th century England: theology, philosophy, and most of the arts. Freeman went on to publish a history of "The Reign of William Rufus" (1882), in two volumes. He also wrote a series of works on the Anglo-Saxon and Norman