Professor Licence Rewrites the Story of the Most Important Battle in English History

The events of 1066 have been memorised by schoolchildren for generations, but the story of the Norman conquest is now all at sea.

Researchers say they have evidence that overturns one of the best-known stories in English history and now believe that King Harold sailed to battle with an English fleet, rather than ordering a gruelling overland march that has been blamed for his defeat at Hastings.

It has been historical wisdom for almost two centuries that Harold led his warriors by land to crush a Viking invasion at Stamford Bridge in Yorkshire, before forcing them down to the south coast to meet William, the Duke of Normandy.

His exhausted army, provoked into battle by the more sophisticated Normans, was then destroyed, and Harold died along with Anglo-Saxon England.

Among the many misfortunes of this campaign was Harold’s early decision to disband his armada of wooden vessels, leaving his army to endure the October trudge up and down the country.

While the excuse of this exhausting manoeuvre may have eased the humiliation of conquest for English historians, a new study of early chronicles indicates that Harold did not dismiss his fleet, and the long march never happened.

Instead, it is possible that Harold launched an amphibious assault to crush the Vikings, before almost repeating this sea-borne “pincer movement” against the Normans.

This maritime venture may also cast new light on the reasons for his eventual and history-altering defeat.

Prof Tom Licence, a leading historian at the University of East Anglia who has reviewed accounts of 1066, told The Telegraph: “I couldn’t find any references to the marching taking place.”

He added that “the whole idea” of a march was “based on a misunderstanding” that simply became accepted.

The march, part of the time-honoured tale of the Norman Conquest, was attested in a translation of William of Poitiers’s Deeds of Duke William, from the 1070s.

This contains passages long translated into English as “he [Harold] is advancing against you by forced marches”, and warnings that the king was “hastening his march”.

However, Prof Licence found that these took liberties with the original Latin, which simply stated that Harold was “returning quickly against you” and “speeding up” this manoeuvre – with no specification that it took place on land.

Similarly, scholars have settled on an account in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle stating that before the violent events of 1066, Harold’s fleet went “home”. This had long been taken in isolation to mean that it had been disbanded, making a march inevitable.

However, a study of other contemporary accounts has revealed that the phrase was commonly used to indicate that it returned to its “home” base in London.

Prof Licence has argued that Harold therefore had an active fleet, which he certainly would have used.

“Why would you march your men to a point of exhaustion and desperation over 290 miles,” he said. “Why would you do that if you had ships available?”

This account also fits with previously dismissed references to English ships being present in the North of England before the Battle of Stamford Bridge, where Harold defeated a Viking force under his rival Harald Hardrada.

Prof Licence believes that the English king sailed from London up the east coast to the Humber, where ships were used to trap the Viking fleet, while disembarked warriors attacked on land.

After this resounding victory, the army would have been shipped south to London, before Harold attempted to repeat his success.

Prof Licence said: “That would have taken maybe four days, as opposed to 10 or 14 days of hard marching.”

It is possible that the English army advanced to block William near Hastings – which was at the time on a marshy peninsula – while Harold’s fleet was sent around the south coast to attack the Normans from the rear.

Prof Licence said: “Harold has been criticised for being reckless, impulsive haste in rushing down from the north and exhausting his army.

“It has been suggested that that is why the English lost the battle of Hastings.

“In working out this new biography and framework of events, I find it very hard to see anything that he did wrong.

“I think that he did do everything right, as far as I can see.”

The fleet, however, did not arrive in time, Harold was killed, and the Normans took control of the crown in a conquest that completely reshaped English society.

With new evidence that a fleet played a key part in these fateful events, new reasons have been suggested for the defeat of Harold, who famously took an arrow in the eye.

Prof Licence said: “If you look at accounts of naval battles … archers are really important, you put your archers on the ships.

“Putting all your archers on ships is what you need to do if you are planning an attack.

“It may be that Harold put a lot of his archers on the ships, that’s what a seasoned general would have done.”

With these key troops still sailing along the Channel, Harold was at a disadvantage compared with the Normans, who had masses of archers whose presence was recorded in detail on the Bayeux Tapestry.

Prof Licence added: “What swings it for William is the fact that he has all these archers available to him.”

Some minor accounts of the events of 1066 record that a naval engagement took place following the Battle of Hastings. It has been argued that this may have been the English fleet, arriving too late, and then withdrawing.

Prof Licence will present his findings at the University of Oxford on March 24 at The Maritime and Political World of 1066 conference.

His findings may also be included in an interpretation of the Bayeux Tapestry when it is displayed at the British Museum later in 2026, following a historic loan signed off by Emmanuel Macron, the French president.

The Telegraph revealed that the loan is subject to a legal challenge in France, following concerns that transporting the Tapestry will result in damage to the almost 1,000-year-old artwork, given the vibrations caused by driving over potholes.