Europe's Last Warrior Kings
Original title: 1066: A Year to Conquer England
IMDb RATING
6.9/10
286
YOUR RATING
Drama-Documentary in which historian Dan Snow explores the political intrigues and family betrayals between Vikings, Anglo-Saxons and Normans that led to the Battle of Hastings.Drama-Documentary in which historian Dan Snow explores the political intrigues and family betrayals between Vikings, Anglo-Saxons and Normans that led to the Battle of Hastings.Drama-Documentary in which historian Dan Snow explores the political intrigues and family betrayals between Vikings, Anglo-Saxons and Normans that led to the Battle of Hastings.
Browse episodes
6.9286
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Featured reviews
The Norman Invasion and the End of the Anglo-Saxon Era
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.
Weird editing
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.
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.
Disappointing overall but covered the subject well.
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.
William the Conqueror had a black right hand man??!!!
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?
What A Bore
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
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
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official site
- Language
- Also known as
- 1066: A Year to Conquer England
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content





