There’s a reason that 1066 is the best remembered year in British history. In that year, the Normans invaded England. They are the last people ever to do so successfully. Others have tried since then (notably Napoleon and Hitler), but none of them have succeeded. This is known in English history as “the Norman Conquest” – or sometimes, just “the Conquest.” But who were the Normans? Where did they come from? How did they come to be in France – and then, later, in England? Did they engage in conquests elsewhere in the world? And why, after all of their successes, did they suddenly disappear from the pages of history?
These are complicated questions, and researching them brings a number of surprising answers. But two documentaries are especially good at delving into this subject. They are the BBC’s “The Normans” and “The Normans: The Complete Epic Saga.” I considered reviewing them separately in two different blog posts, but the overlap between them is quite considerable. Thus, it may make sense to cover them together here, and show their relative advantages and disadvantages. Each of them covers some things that the other doesn’t, and brings a unique perspective to some of the events that both of them cover.
BBC episode 1: “Men from the North” corresponds to other episode 1: “The Invaders”
First of all, both documentaries have a historical focus, rather than an archeological focus. That is to say, they focus primarily on what the written records tell us. They show us pictures of where certain things happened, and use those period visuals that have survived – although, sadly, some have not. Their respective first episodes overlap considerably with one another. In the BBC’s “The Normans,” the first episode is called “Men from the North.” In “The Normans: The Complete Epic Saga,” the first episode is called “The Invaders.” So now, let me note some of the similarities between these episodes. Each episode discusses how the Normans originally came from Scandinavia, rather than from France. That is to say, their ancestors were Vikings. In previous generations, some of their Viking relatives had invaded England, with two different Viking invasions of England. But eventually, these Vikings had assimilated into the local English culture around them. This is one of the secrets of the Viking (and, initially, the Norman) success stories – that they assimilated into the local cultures of the areas that they had conquered. They learned the local languages, and soon lost their ancestral Norse language. This, as it turns out, is exactly what happened when the Vikings invaded elsewhere, in places like Northern France. They abandoned the Norse language of their ancestors, and (in that case) became French instead. The word “Norse” is similar to “Norway,” one of the areas of their Scandinavian origins. This is not a coincidence, since the words have similar linguistic origins. But this would also give birth to the name “Normandy,” the region of Northern France where they settled. And, most importantly for our current subject, this is the origin of the word “Norman” itself.
Rollo, leader of the first generation of Norman settlers in France
These two episodes cover very similar ground, including the Norman invasion of England
The first generation of Norman settlers in France was headed by a man named Rollo. They swore allegiance to the king of France, but had enough power to negotiate some of the terms under which they did so. Nonetheless, Rollo and his followers agreed to become baptized as Christians, and built many churches to appease the locals. By the second and third generation of Norman settlements in France, the Normans were native French speakers, and were linguistically indistinguishable from the families that had been in France for much longer. A man known as “William the Bastard” was from one of these later generations, and spoke French as his native language. When the English king “Edward the Confessor” died in 1066, William believed that he had a claim to the now-vacant throne of England, since Edward the Confessor was one of his relatives. But there was another relative in the mix, which was a Viking-descended English-born ruler named Harold Godwinson. Harold Godwinson, too, thought that he had a claim to the English throne. Confusingly, there was another “Harald” in the mix who thought that he had a claim to the throne as well. This was a man back in Scandinavia named “Harald Hardrada.” The Scandinavian-based “Harald Hardrada” invaded England from the north (as Scandinavians did in this time), so the English-born Harold Godwinson confronted him in the north at the Battle of Stamford Bridge. His army soon crushed that of the northern invaders. But now he had to contend with the Norman invaders from the south. Thus, Harold Godwinson marched his army from Northern England to Southern England, to meet the Norman invaders head-on. But “William the Bastard” crushed Harold’s army at the Battle of Hastings in 1066. This is why 1066 is the best remembered year in English history. It was the beginning of the “Norman Conquest.” “William the Bastard” would now become known as “William the Conqueror,” the next king of England.
Scene from the Bayeux Tapestry depicting the Battle of Hastings and the death of Harold
But the two series cover the other material in a somewhat different episode sequence
Both documentaries use the famous Bayeux Tapestry to depict the invasion, as well as some limited re-enactments. “The Normans: The Complete Epic Saga” goes into more detail on the actual Battle of Hastings. It mentions the infamous “Domesday Book” in its first episode – rather than waiting until a later episode to cover this, as the BBC does. But the respective first episodes of both documentaries go into the Norman imposition of the French language and the French legal system. Each would have a major effect upon English culture, with French loanwords into English and Norman influence upon the English court system. The respective first episodes are extremely similar – with some minor differences, as noted above. But the second episode of the one series corresponds to the third episode of the other, and vice versa. That is to say, the two documentaries’ episode structures cover things in a slightly different sequence. I will mostly follow the BBC’s order here, but note that the two documentaries cover much of the same ground – albeit in a slightly different order, as noted earlier.
William the Conqueror, the first Norman king of England (as depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry)
BBC episode 2: “The Conquest” corresponds to other episode 3: “Loss of Identity”
The second episode of the BBC’s “The Normans” is called “Conquest.” This corresponds to the third episode of “The Normans: The Complete Epic Saga,” which is entitled “Loss of Identity.” For the BBC, much of the episode focuses on William the Conqueror after his coronation as king of England. In contrast to “The Normans: The Complete Epic Saga,” the BBC talks more about the Conquest of England, and how there was Anglo-Saxon resistance to the Norman occupation. The BBC even goes more into the Domesday Book, and argues that it may have helped the Normans to tax the English. Whatever its purpose, it is clear that the Domesday Book is an invaluable public record for medievalists. Both documentaries spend some time on the Normans’ later conquests in Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. But the BBC spends more time on this particular subject, developing it in somewhat more detail. In particular, the BBC argues that the conquest of Ireland set the model for later European colonization elsewhere in the world. By contrast, “The Normans: The Complete Epic Saga” goes more into Henry and Eleanor of Aquitaine, and how she advocated Richard the Lionheart’s rebellion against his father Henry. Although Richard the Lionheart is now revered as a hero by the people of England, he was ironically more French than English. They also mention King John, whom some consider to be the first truly English king. He was English in all but language, since he still spoke Norman French. They also mention his eventual signing of the Magna Carta, which this documentary posits as the “end” of the Norman era. Both documentaries argue that the Normans assimilated themselves into English culture, and thus disappeared from the pages of history in that country.
Richard the Lionheart, who was ironically more French than English
BBC episode 3: “Normans of the South” corresponds to other episode 2: “The Kingdom in the Sun”
The third episode of the BBC’s “The Normans” is called “Normans of the South.” This corresponds to the second episode of “The Normans: The Complete Epic Saga,” which is called “The Kingdom in the Sun.” Each of them shows that the Norman conquests were not limited to the British Isles. For example, they cover the Norman incursions into Italy and Sicily. They made war against Pope Gregory VII – but after beating him, they ironically asked him to reconcile with them. They then became some of his strongest supporters – for a fee, of course. The Pope had little choice but to agree to their demands. As “The Normans: The Complete Epic Saga” puts it, deals with the Normans always involved a price tag. Both documentaries note that for the Normans, Christianity was little more than a political convenience, and was never allowed to get in the way of their ambitions. Before the Normans arrived, Sicily was controlled mostly by the Muslim Arabs and the Orthodox Byzantine Greeks. Thus, the Normans came up with an ironic multicultural solution. It even involved religious toleration. This was done more for practical reasons, since it got allies on their side. They didn’t have the power to force their ways upon anyone else at this time, and didn’t really care about doing so anyway (at least with regards to religion). The Pope wasn’t all that happy about the “religious toleration” part, since he had wanted to convert the region to Catholicism. But he had little power to voice his objections at this time. They also mention the Normans getting involved in the Crusades, and show how they gained from the battles at Antioch and Jerusalem – not to mention other battles in the Middle East. The BBC notes that the Muslim world “never forgot nor forgave,” or words to that effect. The Muslim world continues to resent the Crusades, and sees all Western wars in the Middle East through this prism.
The early Norman castle at Adrano, Sicily – one of many castles built by the Normans
Both series cover very similar ground, but in slightly different ways – and each has something to offer that the other doesn’t
The BBC series has higher production values. This includes greater cinematography and better use of musical score. In general, I enjoyed the BBC version somewhat more. But both documentaries have some unique things to offer, and will satisfy medieval enthusiasts of almost any sort. I highly recommend both of these films to medieval history buffs, who want to learn about the legacy of the Normans. They might also benefit from watching another program called “Vikings: The Real Warriors” – which helps you to understand the earlier origins of the Normans, in the Viking conquests of some of their ancestors.
Footnote to this blog post:
The BBC’s “The Normans” also has a bonus episode by another presenter. The episode covers the infamous “Domesday Book.” This episode is thus entitled “Domesday” (pronounced “Doomsday”). This is much more of a nuts-and-bolts kind of history than a dramatic history, but I still enjoyed its presentation of this infamous historical document. They give some good analysis of why it was written, and hint at the human dramas that are contained within its pages – dramas of dispossession, the Norman conquest itself, and medieval feudal society more generally.
If you liked this post, you might also like:
Part of a series about
British history
The Norman Conquest
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment