In recent years it has become customary to assume that William the Conqueror's victory at the Battle of Hastings in 1066 was virtually inevitable, given the alleged superiority of Norman military technology. In this study, underpinned by biographical sketches of the great warriors who fought for the crown of England in 1066, the author aims to show that this view is mistaken. The Battle on Senlac Hill was a desperately close run thing, which Harold lost only because of an incredible run of bad fortune and some treachery from the Saxon elite in England. The author aims to show that most of our knowledge of 1066 rests on myths and illusions. Harold did not fight at Hastings with the same army with which he had been victorious at Stamford Bridge; the Battle of Senlac was not won by Norman archery; Harold did not die with an arrow in the eye. In overturning these myths, the author shows that the truth is even more astonishing than legend. A special feature of this work is the space devoted to the career and achievements of Harald Hardrada, who usually appears in such narratives as the shadowy third man. The author aims to show that he was probably the greatest warrior of the three and that he, in turn, lost a battle through unforseen circumstances....