Battlefield Detectives: Bloodbath At Hastings (five): THE thing most people know about the Battle of Hastings is that King Harold was killed by an arrow in his eye.

That's the most enduring image of one of the longest battles in medieval history and, according to one expert witness in this documentary, not an accurate one.

Historian David Bernstein contended, after close examination of the Bayeux Tapestry depicting the battle, that the embroiderers created the blinding of Harold as a methaphor for the king's oath-breaking. Both the tapestry and written evidence suggest that he was killed - well, chopped down - by several sword blows rather than shot by an archer.

This is what happens when you employ modern scientific methods to re-examine 1066 and all that. A procession of real-life Sherlock Holmes figures looked at the skills as generals of Harold and William, the invading Duke of Normandy, to discover who was the better leader.

The usual thinking is that William won because Norman soldiers on horseback proved better on the battlefield than traditional Anglo-Saxon foot soldiers, protected only by shields. The programme attempted to see if William won through skill or luck.

Stephen Carver, a consultant and lecturer in project management, was recruited to consider the mental state of the two men. His psychological conclusion was that William had chips on both shoulders, the result of being known as William the Bastard as a child. Harold, on the other hand, had been a line manager and worked his way up to the throne.

A colonel from the Royal Logistics Corps considered both generals' preparations for battle, while marine archaeologists talked about the weather (which, as we know, the British are very good at doing). They contended that William was stranded on the French coast through bad sea conditions at first. When the weather changed, he took a gamble and set sail. Good luck rather than good planning saw him safely across.

He was also fortunate that Harold had been called away up North, where Harold Hardrada was invading, also with an eye on the throne. The English king's victory at the Battle of Stamford Bridge showed him as a brilliant general more than capable of seeing off Viking invaders.

Back at Battle, the hill where the Battle of Hastings took place, geography expert Dr Dominic Fontana was "peeling back layers of the modern world and getting back to the landscape of 1066". He did this using a computer programme that produces 3D maps, showing areas not just as they are now but as they would have been at the time of the conflict.

Equestrian historian Ann Hyland wondered about the behaviour of the Normans' horses in battle, and armourer Peter Seymour described the nasty effect of the Anglo-Saxon weapon, the battleaxe. All very important, but what tipped the balance was one simple event - the first leader to die.

William was in danger more often, having three horses killed under him and being assumed dead at one point. But, as dusk approached, the Normans found a weak spot in the landscape and Harold was killed. When he fell, most of the Anglo-Saxons surrendered.

As he slipped on the crown, the victor gained a new name - William the Conquerer. Much more flattering than William the Bastard, don't you think?