I decided to watch a movie to commemorate the anniversary of the Battle of Hastings. Unfortunately, there is no good feature film on the battle. However, my search uncovered this docudrama produced by the BBC. It’s alternate title is “Europe’s Last Warrior Kings” which is certainly not an accurate title (speaking for Henry V), so why they changed it is beyond me. It covers the Norman Conquest leading up to the Battle of Hastings and beyond. But it also covers the lesser known invasion by the Norsemen from Norway that same year. It can be seen in its three 60-minute episodes on YouTube.
The miniseries is akin to other BBC productions like “Colosseum” and “Rome’s Worst Nightmare” (on Hannibal). These use a format of mixing scenes acted out by actors with historical narration and interviews with historians. In this case, the docudrama covers the year 1066 from Jan. 1 to Christmas Day (when William was crowned). The scenes are identified by the date and how many days until the Battle of Hastings. It starts with an actor portraying King Edward the Confessor on his deathbed. His death initiates a power struggle between three (four if you count Edward’s traitorous brother Tostig) men, each of whom claims the throne. Harold Godwinson (Adam James) is an English noble who takes the crown because of proximity to the king, who he is brother-in-law and advisor to. Plus, being native born, he is the clear choice of the nobility, of whom he is the most powerful. Unfortunately, it is not going to be that simple. Across the North Sea, King Harald Hardrada of Norway (Clive Russell) decides two crowns are better than one. He forms a partnership with Tostig. Meanwhile, across the English Channel in Normandy, Duke William (Ed Stoppard) is incensed because he claims that Edward promised the throne to him and plus Harold had sworn allegiance to him. The series intertwines their three stories.
“1066” blends several docudrama elements. It uses actors and reenactors to show key events and battles in the story. It has a narrator to give background. It also has popular television historian/host Dan Snow who adds scenes that put history in perspective. These little minidocumentaries cover aspects like medieval weapons and tactics. He brings in an expert to show the effects medieval bows and swords have on a pig carcass, for instance. He has a high school class reenact a shield wall with half the class interlocking shields and the other half trying to push it back by ramming it with their bodies. He goes to actual locations in the narrative and has local historians describe the site at the time of 1066. He also includes a segment on logistics, a branch that is often overlooked in military history. He goes to a bakery to show the type of bread William’s men subsisted on and points out the staggering amount that had to be provided each day. On a similar note, he uses a stable as a backdrop for a discussion on the problem of horse and human waste in an extended encampment.
The series includes the usual talking head historians, but these documentary mainstays are kept at a minimum because of the variety of elements used to tell the tale. One thing I had not seen in other docudramas is it uses three historians who role-play the three claimants. One of them is Tom Holland (I am currently reading his Persian Fire). He gets into the head of William. Harold is played by a female historian (Janina Ramirez). The trio stand by an animated map which they use to supplement what their character is discussing. It is especially well-used for the battles. It is enlightening to hear what the trio might have been thinking. Some of it is conjecture, of course, but the historians’ interpretations seem logical. For instance, it seems reasonable that William was very frustrated when ill-winds postponed his invasion by months. Naturally, the three historians are emphatic in justifying their man’s actions. This interplay does a good job humanizing the three and allows the production to not take sides. None of the three are without their flaws and frankly they are all dislikeable. The series uses medieval sources like the Bayeux Tapestry and the recently discovered “Song of the Battle of Hastings” (the earliest surviving account) to highlight different versions of what happened and challenge long held beliefs.
The highlights are the two battles – Stamford Bridge and Hastings. Both use reenactors dressed and armed appropriately. Because of budget constraints, you can not expect “Braveheart”. However, the Battle of Stamford Bridge does have a bridge. CGI is used for larger formations and fleets, but the fighting is the usual humans clanging away. It’s typical slo-mo and bloodless. Both battles start with shield walls, but as in most ancient or medieval movies, this quickly devolves into a more entertaining melee. Even documentaries can’t avoid this, apparently. The series builds to the Battle of Hastings. Curiously, it has some flaws. Up till this point, the writers had thrown in all the famous anecdotes (like the berserker defending Stamford Bridge by himself), but now some fairly well-known incidents from the battle are left out (e.g., the minstrel who juggled his sword as he made a suicidal attack) and some versions are omitted (e.g., William’s archers being ordered to fire in high arcs). The battle is simplified too much.
People often wonder why there
has not been a major motion picture about the Norman Conquest. Good question.
It seems that we might be getting one in the next few years as a movie entitled
“The Conquest” is in preproduction and a series called “King and Conqueror” is
slated for the BBC. We can thank the popularity of “Game of Thrones” for both
of those. Better late than never. Until then, you can do worse than watch
“1066: A Year to Conquer England” if you want to learn about the Norman
Conquest in an entertaining, but factually accurate way.
GRADE = A
