Historians may need to rewrite the history books: Battle of Hastings misunderstood for centuries

In 1066, William the Conqueror, Duke of Normandy, inflicted a decisive defeat on England’s king at the time, who met his death on the battlefield of Hastings alongside all his brothers. The Crown thereby passed into the hands of the Norman duke, inaugurating the English history we know today. For centuries, historians have concurred that William prevailed thanks to Harold’s colossal blunder, but this view is now challenged by Tom Licence, professor of medieval history at the University of East Anglia, following painstaking research.

Battle of Hastings: boats, no march

Licence’s theory has not been aired by some obscure blog as a footnote; rather, the BBC has reported it, signalling that the last Anglo-Saxon king, Harold II (Harold Godwinson), must have his legacy thoroughly reassessed.

The prevailing Victorian interpretation, which Licence disputes, holds that defeat at Hastings stemmed from Harold’s forced march across half of England without respite for his army. Spurred by William, Norwegian Vikings had launched an invasion in September, landing in East Anglia. Harold hurried north with his forces and, at the Battle of Stamford Bridge at the end of September, not only crushed the Norwegians decisively but slew their king, Harald III, too. It was then that word arrived of William’s troops landing in Sussex to the south.

Previous historians reckoned that Harold, granting no rest, dashed across half of England in a gruelling trek, meeting the Normans at Hastings on 14 October after his men had covered more than 320 kilometres on foot. Even so, he nearly won the day; William’s plan faltered, and victory came only because his lines held firm against the English counter-attack, and Harold was struck in the eye by an arrow, shattering Anglo-Saxon ranks.

King Harold II: a sophisticated strategist

Yet Tom Licence, professor of medieval history and literature at the University of East Anglia, argues that the epic march is a profound misreading. According to the BBC, the scholar believes Harold covered the distance not on foot, but by ship—a claim backed by sources that earlier researchers misconstrued. Victorian historians took the sources’ mention of dismissing the Anglo-Saxon fleet to mean disbanding it (followed by a long trudge south). Licence, by contrast, interprets it merely as sending the ships home to their London base, with the army aboard.

Should Licence’s thesis gain traction among English historians, they will need to redraw the portrait of King Harold II—from a desperate, inept commander to a shrewd strategist who grasped complex logistics. The idea will be debated at a conference at Oxford University on Tuesday.

If you missed our previous, world history-related articles:

• Remarkable discovery: 7,000-year-old unusual mummies reveal not only the Sahara’s past but humanity’s history too
• A 600-year-old viking ship discovered off the coast of Denmark