1066

1066: Behind the Story

Behind the Scenes

Soldiers in battle

Friday 17 April 2009

Researcher - Greg Jenner

Our aim was not to tell the typical story of Kings and Dukes, but instead to experience 1066 through the eyes of ordinary people. Unfortunately, the medieval sources don't say much about the little people, so our task was to piece together the various clues left to us by history, so that we might create fictional, but highly realistic, characters to tell the true story of 1066.

We wanted to include the Vikings and Normans in our drama, but chose to foreground the English as our central heroes. It was their land that was being invaded, so finding their home village was crucial. The obvious place to look was the Domesday Book, a census carried out in 1086, which states that many villages were burned by the Normans - our choice was Crowhurst, in East Sussex, and this became the factual linchpin of the whole film.

Now we needed to name our cast. There are many medieval sources for names, the best being legal charters. We wanted names that sounded good, but also translated well. For example, Ordgar means 'Spear-Point' in Old English, highlighting his warrior role. Likewise, Gyrd means 'Yard Stick' in Old Norse, which is a great name for our giant! Hakon perfectly translates to 'Highborn Son', and Snorri means 'Attacker'. For the Normans, Ozouf translates to 'God's Wolf', alluding to his violent brand of Christianity, while the Baron de Coutances is named after a real place in Brittany.

For our characters' journeys we strived for realism, but it was necessary to find legitimate ways for them to be in the thick of the action. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle speaks of a Viking giant on Stamford Bridge, killed by an Englishman stabbing him from below. We will never know the real identities of these people, so we told the story using our characters of Gyrd and Leofric, as such a scene requires emotional resonance. Elsewhere, several Norman sources mention Duke William's jester called Ivo Taillefer who began the Battle of Hastings with a suicidal charge at the English. Taillefer may never have existed, but we wanted to portray his sacrifice. In our film, the Baron de Coutances fulfils this role to save his kidnapped family. It seemed more psychologically true that a man would die for his loved ones, rather than just for prestige.

Our characters don't all speak the same language, so we wanted a character to communicate between all three armies. The best way to do this was to make Snorri a former Varangian Guard - an elite mercenary in the Byzantine Army, formerly commanded by Harald Hardrada of Norway. The Varangians recruited Vikings, Normans and English, meaning Snorri is able to speak both French and English, making him a useful ally in our story.

Ultimately, after 18 months of historical research, little in our film is invented. Ours are fictional characters, but their actions are source-able, and have been stitched together to make a grand 1066 narrative. Disagreement amongst the medieval sources makes it impossible to find the absolute truth, so sometimes we had to just pick the likeliest interpretation. We tried hard not to compromise the history, finding the truth incredibly dramatic in its own right. What subtle changes we made were for clarity of storytelling, and the constraints of time. However, as ever, there was not room for everything. Anyone curious to know more should look to the original sources listed below.

  • - Carmen de Hastingae Proelio (The Song of The Battle of Hastings), Bishop Guy of Amiens
  • - The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Various
  • - Heimskringla (The Sagas of the Norse Kings), Snorri Sturluson
  • - The Domesday Book
  • - The Bayeux Tapestry
  • - Chronicon ex Chronicis (The Chronicle,) John of Worcester
  • - Gesta Normannorum Ducum (The Deeds of the Norman Dukes), William of Jumieges, Orderic Vitalis, Robert of Torigni
  • - Gesta Guillelmi II Ducis Normannorum (The Deeds of William, Duke of the Normans), William of Poitiers
  • - Historia Ecclesiastica (The Ecclesiastical History), Orderic Vitalis
  • - Gesta regum Anglorum (The History of the English Kings), William of Malmesbury
  • - The Roman De Rou, Wace

Comments

Your Comments

Post your comment

Please note: In order to post a comment you need to be registered and logged in to Channel 4:

Sign In Here or Register Here

Comments closed

Comments are closed at the present time

Your comments

Post your comment
By posting on this website you are agreeing to abide by our Comments Policy.
Mandatory Fields are marked with *
Your Comment (Maximum characters: 4000) *
You have

Comments

Thank you for your comment!

Your message will be reviewed and the best ones will be published below.

If you intended to make an official comment to Channel 4 please contact us.

Comments

  1. I love this series...it was well-acted, it stirs up emotions, it has excellent battle scenes and the music and dialogue adds to the emotion, making this programme extra special. It also tells me things that I never knew about and it is very realistic. Thank you, Channel 4, for showing this programme...I loved the facts it provided and the history and drama of it all. I agree with the other comments...it is the best way to reinact a famous piece of history...
    Posted by Ben Watson on 08/02/2010 20:07:08
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  2. Great program.. I loved learning more about the history of 1066 in this manner. It was great. I would really like to know who wrote and performed and sang the recurring theme song, and what are the lyrics? It was lovely music... very moving, even though I couldn't understand the lyrics! Please let us know.
    Posted by Nancy on 04/02/2010 15:18:11
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  3. i thoroughly enjoyed the series and the costumes ,props etc considering the budget . i would have liked to have heard more of the individual languages . this part is going to sound silly but is has been driving me mad that i cant remember the word the used to describe "Woman" silly i know but its driving me mental ! other then that i liked , seeing that the period is not my fav it got me thinking about the little people who don't get mentioned in the text books. xxxx
    Posted by Amber-Lynn on 23/01/2010 02:52:36
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  4. If you look at the photos and search out the photo of Snorri and Aelfrith together I am the person behind her on the right
    Posted by Michael Harris on 18/11/2009 20:27:22
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  5. I want to thank you all for your wonderful comments. I am one of the re-enactors who worked long and hard in the background of this production. Unfortunately we were used for our weapons skills and the fact that we own our own kit.Regia Anglorum (the society to which I belong) re-enact the period of 920 - 1100AD so this fell right into our laps. The clothing you see us wear have been made and coloured to authentic and documented sources. The maille shirts are actually steel and weigh as much as a 6 year old child, and all the weaponry is steel. As Greg says, we slogged through the pouring rain, and on the day of filming the action for the Battle of Hastings on the hill we were caught in a lightning storm - 75 re-enactors on the side of a hill in full armour, imagine how scared we were. It was hard work and there were injuries, but I would quite happily go through this experience again. If you want to know more about the period, please feel free to visit our website at www.regia.org
    Posted by Michael Harris on 18/11/2009 19:33:50
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  6. An excellent series that captured the flavour of the period. More please Channel 4. I don't know about others , but the story and production made it easy to watch and emphasise with our ancestors during such a epoch changing moment. The actors on all sides were believable, the back up crew who fought the battles deserve an award and the plot generated a feeling of impending doom which drew the viewer in. Personally,I believe that the Anglo Saxons were one of the great civilisations of Europe in the Early Medieval period , witness their forgotten legacy of art and literature to our modern society. Well done to Channel 4 who were willing to tell our story, sing our songs and speak of our heros from ages past.
    Posted by GARY on 16/10/2009 19:16:52
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  7. I thoroughly thoroughly enjoyed this programme... I would really appreciate more programming like this... Acting, characters, story , photography, production, the history (OK not all perfect but don't think it was ever set out to be) all brilliant..... Please do some more.... thank you
    Posted by Manda on 11/10/2009 12:46:00
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  8. I would just like to praise the high quality of the production, costumes, factual story line and brilliant delivery. Very informative, interesting and enjoyable. Something inspirational and awe inspiring !
    Posted by Brent Lintin on 23/09/2009 12:43:38
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  9. Hi! Thanks so much for this truly epic programme, me and my family loved it!!! I absolutely agree with what Mr Greg Jenner said about it being the emotional and psychological details which matter the most. That's not to say accuracy isn't important, of course it is, but you can't possibly include every last detail in TV programmes... aside from money and resources limitations, the people who invest in these things only allow for a couple of hours of watching, whereas I would be thrilled to sit and watch this version of 1066 for a whole series of 50 episodes!!! Even then you would still have to miss out some details! I am a little disturbed by Melanie's comment further down, that the Anglo-Saxons shouldn't... ahem... 'moan'... ahem... about their villages being burned down. Well why would you moan about that? I hope she doesn't expect rape and pillage to be carried out on us if our ancestors happened to do the same thing to other some centuries ago? Anyway, the programme really resonated with me because it was so HUMAN! I know from my studies at uni and such that with any research you have to be critical, and you can't always know the absolute facts, so I accept that the things I watch and read have to be taken with a pinch of salt. More importantly, 1066 did make me want to go and read more into the subject, so bravo to all who were involved! Thank you!!!!!
    Posted by Sam on 31/07/2009 14:58:49
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  10. A very difficult balancing act. Personally, I am a great fan of both re-enactments undertaken live at many historical sites and cgi fantasy films where the scale of battle can be achieved more easily, but find historical fiction more difficult because it seems permanently on the borderline (and to reflect so many cultural influences from the time of writing). Does the DVD contain the "lost" footage? I would love to see that and not a "sequel" (one of the worst of Hollywood's faults) and possibly museum/archeaological references to related finds but more, generally, would be great!!
    Posted by Fran on 30/07/2009 12:49:04
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  11. Hello! I'm not here to engage in debate, but rather to say a big thanks for all your feedback, whether it's positive or negative. Without an audience, making TV is a futile endeavour, so thanks for watching, and also for sharing your opinions. It's heart-warming after 18 months of hard slog (and 4 weeks filming in the appalling Yorkshire rain) to discover it wasn't in vain. For those of you who enjoyed '1066', the DVD is available at Amazon.co.uk and includes a making-of documentary. For those of you who found issue with the historical content, I fully understand. I am not going to try and fight my corner - I will merely explain our thinking on a few things. I am a trained medievalist and wrote my MA thesis on historical accuracy in movies, so I'm no stranger to the debate. I can only say that when dramatising the past, it's the psychological and emotional details which have to come first. Though we made sacrifices to factual accuracy in areas such as military logistics, it allowed us to convey more compelling truths about the savagery of medieval warfare, and the isolated nature of rural communities. Yes, it is highly likely that horses were used to convey the army north to Yorkshire, but we couldn't afford them (and having people running is a more powerful metaphor for human desperation) It is also probable that the peasants from Crowhurst would not have gone north to Yorkshire (though an Alfredian law did permit wholesale conscription in times of crisis), but obviously the narrative needed to have a cast of characters who experienced the whole gamut of events in 1066. It is impossible to make a strong drama that is 100% accurate, particularly in this era. We hoped instead to challenge you, thrill you, scare you, and entertain you. If we did our job well, you came away wanting to discover more about 1066 for yourself. Though I am a great fan of documentaries (and have made several myself), the power of drama is its visceral potency to thrust you into the action, as if you are part of the shield-wall! Attitude therefore sometimes takes precendence over accuracy. Huge praise must go to Regia Anglorum, our re-enactors, who were quite brilliant. We made every effort to harness their knowledge for the intimate details, but did not consult them on the plot, so they are entirely blameless for anything you may have spotted! Yes, the costumes were sometimes deliberately untypical, but this was to help you recognise our cast in the crowded battle scenes. Chainmail isn't very distinctive! Oh, and for the record, there was a lot more authentic Anglo-Norman dialogue (thanks to the Univerity of Wales, Anglo-Norman Dictionary Project), but the constraints of time meant it got mostly chopped. Thanks for all your thoughts. The louder your voice, the more attention TV commissioners will pay - so please keep posting! Cheers, Greg Jenner (Assistant Producer, '1066')
    Posted by Greg Jenner on 19/07/2009 15:02:58
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  12. You guys did a really good job. Some of the most believable battle scenes I've seen in a historical reconstruction. Well done.
    Posted by swissroll on 13/07/2009 23:17:28
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  13. A fantastic achievement in story telling. Keeping real people at the forefront of the story brought it alive and gave it depth. There's plenty of scope for you to develop this theme. Keep it going.
    Posted by Dean Johnson on 07/07/2009 10:16:28
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  14. Brilliant! great acting and brutal fight scences what one would expect if living at the time. I thought the Anglo Saxons , Vikings and Normans made a wonderfull melange in the story. More please !
    Posted by michael quinn on 22/06/2009 17:41:03
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  15. Why have Time Team never done excavations of the supposed site of the Battle of Hastings, can it really be true that weather and lootings can be to blame for total lack of artifacts being found. Can thousands of bodies with armour and accoutrements just dissapear? If here then why not elsewhere. It does not add up. is it that the historians are afraid to have to refute previous stories and re-write history if the have the wrong place??? Why not investigate. It's what Time eam do isn't it? Let's find out!
    Posted by waaii on 20/06/2009 14:55:10
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  16. Great program !! But about the languages. The Normans did not speak French as depicted in the program. They spoke Norman-French, a very close derivative of which is still spoken by the elder generation in the Jersey today. A shame you didn't get the French parts spoken in "Jerriais"
    Posted by Daniel Porterdown on 11/06/2009 21:41:47
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  17. Oh my god! History bought to life in the truest sense of the word. It has been such a long time since I have been so moved by an historical program. A great story is what made this so good, and i would too like to see another program on the aftermath and to see what happened to the main characters who remained. Because lets be trueful if we think 1066 was bad, it only got a whole lot worse in Williams attempt to crush rebellion and uprising. Well done, even without Tostig!
    Posted by Barry Jones on 10/06/2009 23:31:22
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  18. The morning dew on a green field. The first film of this type that takes you there and captures the feeling. The terror of isolated villages with no mobile phones vulnerable to any group of men with iron tools. The dense undeveloped woodland of the time. The recent pagan histories and traditions. The brutality of warfare. The motivations of the normal farmers on the battlefield
    Posted by Mike Walker on 05/06/2009 16:18:14
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  19. I am a bit new to this"posting" but suffice to say I thought the programme was brilliantly conceived. The comment at the end about the land carve-up intrigued me. Where would i find out about which of their descendants currently own what? I know my name is from De Cussac but I'm not aware of any landed pile!
    Posted by brian cusack on 02/06/2009 17:40:19
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  20. Brilliant two-parter. So captivating I watched it twice and recommended to it everyone I knew. It's refreshing to see this historic event explored from a different angle One request: Please please please do a follow up series featuring Snorri and Ealfrith - preferably as a couple!
    Posted by Arcadia Ronin on 29/05/2009 18:54:50
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  21. 1066 the battle for middle earth was compelling viewing,I started watching by chance & ended up watching both episodes. It was very gruesome at times,but then touching with the family scenes re coutances,it might not have been truly accurate but still well done to everyone concerned, please can we have more.
    Posted by geoff on 28/05/2009 13:30:47
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  22. I am one of the members of Regia Anglorum who were the background combat artists for 1066. For all the quibbling that seems to be going on, we worked damned hard for this production. Yes there were historical inaccuracies but you are going to get that with any historical drama. As for no mention of Tostig? There were scenes filmed of Tostig in allegiance with Hardrada. As for the Vikings not wearing armour at Stamford Bridge? We were told to wear the armour, and the original scenes filmed of us running across the bridge, we were actually carrying our kit across our shoulders. We are not the ones to blame for inaccuracies in this programme, as we re-enact this period on a weekly basis and know the history, and actually tried to advise the production team on these matters. Being an archaeologist myself it really frustrated me when points of historical fact we were putting forward were being neglected. About 90% of the actual scenes we filmed were left out, and as for horses not being used for the Saxons, the horses were only available certain days of filming as they were being used for other productions, the cavalry you do see are a Regia Anglorum group called Conroi de Vey who were only available for one weekend, and the most important point - NOT ALL OF US CAN RIDE A HORSE! We put a lot of effort and hard work into this production, and I dont think any of you who have commented have run around in 2.5 stone of chainmail for 16 hours a day for 30 days in a row. So stop complaining and enjoy the programme for what it is - I did.
    Posted by Mike Harris on 27/05/2009 17:12:16
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  23. I am one of the members of Regia Anglorum who were the background combat artists for 1066. For all the quibbling that seems to be going on, we worked damned hard for this production. Yes there were historical inaccuracies but you are going to get that with any historical drama. As for no mention of Tostig? There were scenes filmed of Tostig in allegiance with Hardrada. As for the Vikings not wearing armour at Stamford Bridge? We were told to wear the armour, and the original scenes filmed of us running across the bridge, we were actually carrying our kit across our shoulders. We are not the ones to blame for inaccuracies in this programme, as we re-enact this period on a weekly basis and know the history, and actually tried to advise the production team on these matters. Being an archaeologist myself it really frustrated me when points of historical fact we were putting forward were being neglected.The costume choices for the actors was what the actors wanted, so the Coppergate Helmet and the spectacle helm of Hardrada was what they requested and we had no say in the matter. The comment made about Ordgar having an Irish accent?? Thats because the damned actor playing Ordgar is Irish. About 90% of the actual scenes we filmed were left out, and as for horses not being used for the Saxons, the horses were only available certain days of filming as they were being used for other productions, the cavalry you do see are a Regia Anglorum group called Conroi de Vey who were only available for one weekend, and the most important point - NOT ALL OF US CAN RIDE A BLOODY HORSE! We put a lot of effort and hard work into this production, and I dont think any of you who have commented have run around in 2.5 stone of chainmail for 16 hours a day for 30 days in a row. So stop complaining and enjoy the programme for what it is - I did.
    Posted by Mike Harris on 27/05/2009 16:15:36
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  24. one of the best historical dramas i've seen!!
    Posted by Oscar on 26/05/2009 13:50:05
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  25. What a fantastic programme, I can't remember the last time I was so completely enthralled and captivated watching a tv programme. Thank you very much, and well done to everyone who played a part in the production. Top quality!!!
    Posted by warren smith on 25/05/2009 12:50:00
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  26. Thank you C4 for the best programme in years. I have a copy of Oshere's (Coppergate - as worn by Ordgar) helmet in my office and there has been a stream of people quizzing me about it and other things Anglo-Saxon in the last week. In fact I've become a bit of a bore reciting snippets of sagas and chronicles!
    Posted by Angeltheow on 24/05/2009 19:57:14
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  27. What a treat to see a saxon village on screen and to hear the original lanquages bieng spoken. i don't think the saxons should moan so much about bieng invaded and having thier villages burned. I think you will find that thier warriers did quite enough rape and pillage when they first arrived! How refreshing to see the story of the common people. So now, when are channel 4 going to do the same thing for the celts?
    Posted by melanie on 24/05/2009 12:34:57
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  28. 1066. Brilliant and moving. The story was wonderfully told with living breathing characters. Are there plans for a sequel? What became of Ealfrith and Snorri?
    Posted by Terry on 23/05/2009 22:09:23
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  29. I just have to say that 1066 Battle for Middle Earth was the best thing I have watched in years. I've been telling everyone how great it was, so please repeat.
    Posted by Alison on 23/05/2009 19:17:29
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  30. THIS PROGRAM WAS GREAT.THE PASSION WAS THERE.END OF.
    Posted by Dean on 23/05/2009 18:33:37
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  31. blooming brill tv, there should be more like this! to Eric Bloodaxe, the Mead oath, as best as i could find: "I swear before this company, that I shall fight to the death, for my king. If my king or lord shall die, the i shall take his place and fight as he would have fought. If any man here see me take the weaker hard and run away,he shall remind me of this pledge made here before my kin" or words to that effect.
    Posted by steve on 21/05/2009 19:29:20
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  32. Congratulations on the making of 1066! I found it engaging, a "come to life" version of events that left me feeling wowed. Absolutely brilliant! I would like to see more historical events portrayed from the little guys point of view. Please make more!
    Posted by Sharon Adriana on 21/05/2009 19:06:04
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  33. Superb television. Thank you so much for showing this wonderful programme. I love British history and whilst I was well aware of 1066,the Battle of Hastings and the Bayeux Tapestry I don't think I had ever really appreciated that there were 3 major battles fought that year. This wasn't just mindless "fodder" to while away a few hours, it was very moving and informative and has left a lasting impression.
    Posted by Sara on 21/05/2009 14:24:46
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  34. First and foremost this is TV entertainment and people shouldn't get to hung up on historical accuracy or whether they are wearing the right armour for the period. Yes you could tell it wasn't a big budget production, but they got the most important part right, by telling a good story. It was very watchable and I hope they get the viewing figures and funds to produce more programmes of this quality. Well Done. As for the Normans who stayed, they became English and they and their descendants have fought like many an Englishman in countless battles with English/British armies in the almost One Thousand years(943) since then. England is a mix of all cultures and nationalities today, so any Englishman who can trace their routes back to the Norman Invaders, is definitely more English than most.
    Posted by Mark O'Connor on 21/05/2009 01:13:07
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  35. Thank you channel 4 for bringing such an important piece of our history to our TV. 1066 only endorses to me that nothing has changed even in 2009, 95% of the population know where we sit in this country of ours, controlled, reporting to a higher lord , always up against what is called the "establishment", have limited opportunity for change, scrapping around for affordable homes because Land is in the hands of so few.In 1072 William the Conqueror slayed 150,000 men woman and children North of the Tees to Durham because they refused to pay his Doomesday taxes. Can I suggest Channel 4 does another program on Oliver Cromwell who wanted to rid the House of Commons of Landowners, Lawyers and Royalists in 1640 and replace the house with people who actually represented the down to earth man this is something which is still missing in this country today. You only need to look at Residential "Leasehold" in this country started by the French Normans to see the feudal system is still up and running.
    Posted by Neil member of the feudal sys. on 20/05/2009 23:55:34
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  36. Great to see history through the eyes of ordinary Anglo- folk.A shame to see the accuracy crew complaining about the facts. I think the whole point was to get a look at the Saxon from a different 'Angle'.(see wot I did there!). I hope they get a BAFTA for this excellent series.
    Posted by liam on 20/05/2009 23:05:42
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  37. I have found the whole of this dramatization incredibly moving. I am so impressed by the attention to detail of this interpretation of the events of the summer and autumn of 1066. I had forgotten how few people inhabited these islands at the time and that there were great areas of impenetrable forest that covered the land ( As in the great central forests of Nottingham). I was also greatly impressed that the village of Crowhurst was chosen.It is still marked on modern maps of the South coast to this day but there is only a railway halt and road on the spot. To realize that it is 1000 years since its destruction beggars belief. The battle scenes describe the gritty and smelly reality of axe or sword on flesh in a damp and muddy field in a cold field in England in the Autumn of 1066.Terrifying but sobering. This is truely a monumental production and as with all great art, this dramatisation will have changed the consciousness of a nation. Excellent. James
    Posted by James on 20/05/2009 22:35:00
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  38. Well done on covering our overloked history.However, I sort resented the Anglo Saxon shield wall warriors being portrayed as some sort of 'hobbit '. A bit more Old English dialogue would have also been welcome.Overall, well done on covering the subject.
    Posted by Mike on 20/05/2009 19:58:03
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  39. I loved it! I'm a Scot so don't know a lot about English history and I just felt it got right down to the heart of the fact that all these invasions and battles affected ordinary people most. The characters were brilliant and it really got over how immediate and tenuous life could be! And I learned a lot I didn't already know! Really really enjoyed it!
    Posted by Tambourine Queen on 20/05/2009 15:45:02
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  40. I loved the poetry and the inserts from the texts. Wonderful. More English history, medieval history and history in general channel 4. 1066 and the Devils' whore have been the most intersting stories you have told thsi year. thanks
    Posted by Sarah on 20/05/2009 14:58:57
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  41. I found this a moving and fascinating production, (frustrating as it no doubt was for those who have a more accurate knowledge of history than I). The stats at the and were suprising - maybe we should make a claim for reparations to the French! :). Were there no English archers or horsemen at the Hastings battle?
    Posted by Fascinated on 20/05/2009 13:32:07
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  42. Superbly moving. I'm amazed that even after all this time, the descendents of the Normans own so much of the country. It seems an injustice and makes me feel quite aggrieved actually. The best thing on TV for years.
    Posted by Jonathan Barnett on 20/05/2009 13:05:46
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  43. Forget the technical inaccuracies! This programme was so important as an English perspective on the tragedy. Beautifuly filmed and cast, a fitting tribute to our brave ancestors. I'll never forget a teacher at my primary school telling me that nothing much happened between the Romans leaving and the Normans arriving....leaving me with a life-long passion for our English roots. Channel 4, you've made my year! x
    Posted by Kerstin on 20/05/2009 10:22:14
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  44. I saw it for what it was.A historical drama based on what info was available.I thought it was brilliant and like some of the other comments i could feel my blood rising. What were the words of the "Mead Oath".Which was recited by the men commenced battle.Do any of you experts outthere know?
    Posted by Eric Bloodaxe on 20/05/2009 10:17:04
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  45. Excellent - it really gave a feel of how momentous the events were, and that people were fighting for their lives, their homes and families. The sense of exhaustion, desperation, and brutality in battle was portrayed vividly, as was the way the tide turned from victory to despair as fast as the flight of an arrow. There was an overall feeling of desperate hope set against inevitable doom. It also made me feel angry with a strange, centuries old, desire for revenge against any remaining Norman aristrocrats.
    Posted by peter on 20/05/2009 00:37:55
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  46. Though i have to agree with some of the comments below, regarding some of the notable missing historical factors - Tostig etc . This was an amazing programme to watch - both in look and feel. PLEASE invest in more of this kind of programming, history doesn't always get prime time - i'll certainly be watching if you do! Again well done channel 4!
    Posted by Ian Schofield on 19/05/2009 23:05:29
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  47. Remarkable drama which really carried the atmosphere of the period and as a Sussex native, I loved it. No-one with a soul who has stood and gazed across Senlac Hill can fail to feel the atmosphere that still pervades - and this film captured that feeling. It would appear from comments below that historical innacuracies peppered the production, but it was good to see English history on the screen - and this period is sadly neglected, so well done C4!
    Posted by Lyn Wells on 19/05/2009 22:59:39
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  48. Amazing programme. I loved the little 'bites' of information and in particular the saxon poem. I can't find the source from your list-(and its driving me mad)I would love to know where that beautiful poem, that still speaks to us across the centuries, can be found. Please tell me. Programmes like this make you stop and think how history could have been altered so much on the decision of one man to fight, or not, the vikings at Stamford bridge. A real what if ...? Extraordinary!
    Posted by Eve Batten on 19/05/2009 18:53:05
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  49. I agree with the comments below regarding the inaccurate portrayal of some scenes in the film, especially the Anglo-Saxon army running all over the place instead of using horses. I was also a little disapointed in the accuracy of some of the armour and weapons used by either side, particularly the "Coppergate Helmet" worn by Ordgar, and the Gjermundbu type helmet worn by Hardrada. However, overall I found it quite enjoyable and a glad to see 1066 hasn't been forgotten. K Dowen Archaeologist
    Posted by Keith Dowen on 19/05/2009 17:11:43
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  50. Thoroughly enjoyable- a real sense of history- believable characters. Phil Murphy Sculptor of historical miniatures for the wargames industry
    Posted by philip murphy on 19/05/2009 14:42:16
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  51. i really enjoyed it so much and rewatched it this morning i cant wait for tonights episode . it make a welcome change to watch something about our country . well done
    Posted by english countrychild on 19/05/2009 13:32:06
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  52. As a anglo-saxon historian I was deeply disappointed by the poor research and historical inaccuracies that littered this drama. Myths that were laid to bed 50 years ago by serious historians were trotted out and aired yet again so another generation will carry them forwards. The average anglo saxon warrior held 5 hides of land so was a memeber of the landed gentry, not a conscripted peasant wielding farm implements. They rode to battle hence the rapid advance to York. What was portrayed was week long medieval marathon. The reasons for the Viking assembly at Stamford were incorrectly portrayed and so it went on. Why not drop a hobbit or two in, it would not have affected the historical accuracy. Such period dramas are so rare. This is a subject that has been sadly neglected and in spite of the attempt to portray the costume accurately I feel this was an opportunity lost.
    Posted by Nigel on 19/05/2009 12:58:39
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  53. Overall I was impressed, I agree with Ross about the points he made but I can understand the need for the programme to be accessible to the many rather than the few (hence the need for 'subtle changes'). All in all a good historical drama dealing with an important yet often ignored aspect of our history (and so much better than that dire Robin Hood on the BBC)
    Posted by Ell on 19/05/2009 11:49:07
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  54. I have trouble with this too, although it was great from the point of action and 'look'. Everyone was clothed accurately. However, Tostig was left out, and Ordgar had an Irish accent. York was probably not sacked because of Tostig who wanted his kingdom of Northumbria back (which was why he was prepared to help the Northmen, the Vikingr). However the children that the people of York gave up were to be used as hostages. Harald and Tostig were both killed at Stamford Bridge, and the Vikingr were caught without their armour according to contemporary sources because they were relaxing in the hot summer and had no intelligence that the Army of the South was even close. However, the film seems to be exciting and worth watching but come on people, stick to the history.
    Posted by fi on 19/05/2009 10:52:43
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  55. Excellent dramatisation of a difficult period in history from the point of view of knowledge of life as a common man. Where were the village scenes shot? It looked very much like Murton Park.
    Posted by Wiseowl on 19/05/2009 10:29:07
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  56. As a historian I was disappointed to see that some fairly central stuff got left out. There was no mention of Tostig, King Harolds rebellious brother, who commanded the viking army with Harald Hardrada. Also, a large factor in the English victory at Stamford Bridge was the fact that the Vikings were caught by suprise without their armour, which had been left back at their ships - all the vikings seemed to be wearing armour. Maybe I'm picking holes, but if you're going to do these things you might as well do it right and it can't be that difficult given the amount of information available. Oh, one more thing; did I hear Ordgar 'promote' Leofric to housecarl? Housecarls were trained professional warrior elite, able to use sword, spear and, their trademark weapon, the 2 handed bearded axe (a bit like the one used by the viking on the bridge) - it's not a rank like captain or sergeant...
    Posted by Ross P on 19/05/2009 09:48:05
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  57. Terrific drama that brought to life a vitally important but rarely visited point in the history of our land. Excellent stuff Channel 4! Looking forward very much to the concluding episode.
    Posted by Cartimand on 18/05/2009 23:42:23
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  58. Great to see East Yorkshire history brought to life with the Viking longboats sailing up the Humber to defeat at Stamford Bridge, what a great Anglo Saxon victory that was. Money well spent channel 4, more English history please.
    Posted by Anlaf on 18/05/2009 12:44:26
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  59. "We wanted to include the Vikings and Normans in our drama, but chose to foreground the English as our central heroes. It was their land that was being invaded" Land which their ancestors had similarly invaded and taken from the Celts..... Looking forward to the series.
    Posted by malkyj on 16/05/2009 10:45:26
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  60. Sounds good, but I query a couple of points in this synopsis. How does being in the Varangian Guard help with speaking French? And this business about dying for your family rather than prestige. For you or me this is perfectly reasonable. For a member of the warrior elite in the early medieval period it is far less plausible.
    Posted by Cerdic on 15/05/2009 14:53:41
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment

Last on:

Sunday 13 September

2.40AM, Channel 4

Advertisement

Skip Channel4 main Navigation
Explore Channel4
Food
Homes
Film
News
Comedy
See All

Channel 4 © 2010. Channel 4 is not responsible for the content of external websites.