The Muslim and Norman Conquests

There was a contrast between two different conquests in the last posting: the muslim conquest of Spain in 711 and the norman conquest of England in 1066. By coincidence that same night Channel 4 televised the first of a two-part 'drama documentary' on the events of 1066.

It was surprisingly good.There was judicious use of Anglo-Saxon and Old Norse, but not too much to alienate the viewer. Quotes from Norse sagas and the Anglo Saxon Chronicle underscored the action and the battle scenes, particularly the Battle of Stamford Bridge, looked realistic: small-scale skirmishes rather than large set-piece battles.

I particularly liked the lyrically descriptive language - the viking invasion immediately before the normans crossed the Channel - was couched in the language of the sagas; the anglo-saxons described the vikings as 'sea-wolves' falling upon them from the 'whale road' (the North Sea).

While this caught the imagination, there were occasional false notes. the makers were clearly trying to tempt viewers brought up on the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Not only did they incorporate the term 'Middle Earth' into the title (1066, The Battle for Middle Earth) they also had the anglo-saxon defenders talking about 'the Shire' throughout. I even swear I heard the normans described as 'orc-like' at one point.

I used to prefer the 'talking head' approach to history, a historian who marshaled, summarized and presented his arguments (usually it was a man) to the non-professional viewer. In recent years however, the ascent to television of historians like David Starkie has made me reconsider that view. The modern style of tele-history allows the expert to occupy the centre of the screen, booming away at the listener, using force of personality to reinforce a point. Meanwhile the characters and events under discussion are elbowed vigorously back into the middle distance.

So, despite the occasional jarring reference to orcs, last night's drama documentary, with no historians in sight, worked well. It wasn't 'real' history; it was an imaginative reconstruction of events buttressed by quotations from chronicle and saga, but like all good television it made you care for the characters and believe in their predicament.