1066: A Year to Conquer England

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.