Benutzerrezensionen

Well-researched, interesting docu-drama. Good actors, sets, costumes. I've learned more about history from this type of film than in all my years at school.

Anyone feel like at some point, probably during a battle scene in the show, that King Harold of England was going to bust out a camo-can Busch heavy and slam it while Enter the Sandman is playing?

The year 1066 was a fascinating year, but this doc was very dull and bland. I have never thought that Dan Snow was that good a presenter or historian and consider his success mainly due to his father's influence. I saw one of his docs on the Battle of Britain and he clearly did not have any detailed, or even superficial, knowledge of the event. Compared to Michael Wood (say) he lacks charisma and the ability to inspire his audience.

This drama/doc contained many omissions and the tension /dialogue/drama between the three decent historians enacting the motives, thoughts and actions of the three main characters did not really work because it was all a bit insipid and wooden. Some good shots of armour, ships and the landscapes though.

Being a BBC production it had to be politically correct and make some characters black, which was not only irritating but undermined any credibility concerning the facts presented.

Give it a miss.

Another well-done documentary by the BBC on one of Britain's most decisive eras, "1066: A Year to Conquer England" is docudrama as history and entertainment. Chronicling the build-up to the landmark Battle of Hastings and the battle itself to its aftermath the film features and highlights the individuals and events as Northwestern Europe headed to a showdown that would alter European and world history forever. Good acting and presentable battle scenes bring the past alive with interviews from historians providing further information to the events. Aside from a few misguided choices and an amusing tinge of pc the documentary is a watcher from start to finish. Compelling and thrilling this is an impressive series on one of history's most important and fascinating ages.

When a "documentary" trying to be factual inserts a black actor as the right hand man to William, it completely undermines the entire credibility of what they are presenting and turns it into a joke. There were no Africans in England or Normandy at that time, and not for another 500 years at least. Why not use a talking pig? Or a little green man from outer space?

On the whole I found it an interesting look at 1066, I was a bit surprised they spoke about the battlefield as being where it is as recent theories suggest it might have actually been somewhere else , but the most irritating thing about it was the casting of a black actor as one of Williams closest confidants and later as an envoy sent to parley with Harold. I understand from other reviews that this historical figure was definitely white and the program makers must have knowingly changed his ethnicity to make the program more inclusive to black people. Some will say what is the harm of this? - firstly Its highly patronising to black people, there are plenty of factual stories about black peoples contributing to the history of Great Britain without inventing things secondly this is a history series and history should always be rooted in fact , you can't change bits because it suits your agenda no matter how well intentioned your motives, because if an obvious fact like this can be changed then what other facts are changed to fit in with the history tellers political biases - it just undermines the whole programme and turns it into fiction. One of the joys of true stories is that these things really happened, normal people really did these things, when the BBC fiddles with history like this it just ruins it.

Rather like a scientist (rarely) or a politician (commonly) who cannot articulate the word "nuclear"- often in a programme ABOUT nuclear power or weapons -the BBC have a habit of destroying this viewers confidence in the factuality of their "factual" productions by their ridiculous casting.

Would they cast a man to play Queen Elizabeth 1st?

Or a white actor to play Dr. Martin Luther King jnr?

In a supposedly factual drama?

Can you imagine the backlash?

I think and hope they would not, but it's fine to cast a black actor (in their wokish PC minds) for a well documented white european historical figure!

Misleading at best, partcularly to younger viewers who may not be aware of the FACTS of the societal and social structure of Europe in the 11th century.

Personally l have no issue whatsoever with any actor of any colour or gender playing any part in contemporary fiction, but attach the word "FACT" to it and l expect a little more.

This programme was so disappointing. A factual documentary giving all the details of the Norman Conquest has long been needed but although an attempt was made to cover the various angles it just didn't work. The idea of three historians, each 'playing' one of the three contenders for the throne (Hardrada, Godwinson and William) and arguing their cause with each other was bizarre and didn't fit in with the acted scenes that were shown alongside. On a more positive note, the programme did give very fair and unbiased accounts of all three and just didn't portray William as the 'bad guy' which is how he is normally seen.

I can,t believe this tripe has been repeated yet again, the pro norman fake history resembled a carry on farce.michael wood not dan snow would have been a more erudite pair of hands

After tuning in for an evening's entertainment regarding English/Norman military history---I had so hoped---I became quickly and sadly disappointed upon seeing the woke, pc and revisionist casting of one of Duke William's trusted advisories, a casting that, upon viewing, was CLEARLY I'll-advised if one wanted to depict historical accuracy. I'm all for giving actors gainful employment, but, come now, a role should try to be historically believable, should it not? Better luck next time regarding role casting because this was a glaring error.

This documentary is about the fateful year 1066 and is composed of three separate parts:

1. An historical reconstruction of the events, with actors playing the main parts in costumes 2. Dan Snow, the presenter, visiting locations where the events took place, and 3. Three historians "playing" the parts of William, Harold, and Harald and who debate their strategies in what looks like a dimly lit cellar with a large interactive map of Britain

This last bit was quite bizarre and unnecessary since the strategies of the three kings could have been explained in a different way.

All this, interspersed with the occasional intervention of a guy who wrote a book about the Normans invasion based on an ancient book found in Brussels, made the rhythm of the documentary uneven.

Finally, as mentioned by others, the fact that in the reconstruction with actors, William's right hand was an African guy added a surreal touch to the whole documentary, seasoning it with an unnecessarily large portion of "woke".

Still, most likely that in the next documentary about William the Conqueror, the man himself will be from Senegal or Sudan.

I was looking forward to this. It was dreadful.

The central problem is the style of direction. It is in the mold of 'making history exciting', and as usual with this style falls flat on it's face. It wanders between the pretentious, the pompous, and the over hyped.

All the 'revelations' which were supposed to come from an effectively new source were things I was taught in secondary school when I first heard of the Battle of Hastings. 'Revelations' that are anything but are extremely tiresome in documentaries. I thought Dan Snow was better than that, but apparently not. The only thing I remember as new to me from the whole 3 hours was the claim that Harold was killed by a Norman hit squad on the battlefield. But that was a standard Norman tactic, a standard tactic of the time, as was feigning flight. They all did it, not exactly surprising.

There was no analysis offered of the central question. Suppose the Shield Wall held, what then? Suppose the battle had gone into a 2nd day? Could the Saxons have destroyed the Norman heavy cavalry? Could they have won? Or not.

One thing that has always irritates me about Dan Snow documentaries is the liberal sprinkling of "don'cha think I'm sexy" moments. No Dan, I don't, but then I wouldn't whatever you did. And not that many women watch war documentaries so what's the point? I wish they would re-show the analysis of the Battle of Amiens that Dan Snow did with his father. That was excellent.

I stumbled upon this on BBC Iplayer and thought it sounded decent. What it is, is 3 episodes of a host giving information on said subject and actors acting it out.

The information was decent but came across cringy as he tried to inject some excitement ininto it.

Then we had 3 people stood at a computer pretending to be the combatants of this battle giving their reasons on why they were invading.

Give it a miss