Harald Hardrada Won

[Norman]

I like Hastings so much (because it was won with an arrow) that I don't often think about Stamford Bridge. I know we have done this before, but how ould William and Harald have worked it out if Harald had won.

What would today looked like if they had divided tha country?

[hammo1j]

99 times out of 100 Harold should have won this one. He was the Rommel of his time and he defeated the Vikings in the North and had to march south and would have quite easily done that French prat William if the Saxons had not had to go off and bring the harvest in.

Possibly if he won we could have had democracy appearing 120 years earlier and
we could all be living in virtual reality now and all the birds would be right tasty and there would be no hang-overs or work to rain on our parades...

[Wendell]

Originally Posted by hammo1j

99 times out of 100 Harold should have won this one. He was the Rommel of his time and he defeated the Vikings in the North and had to march south and would have quite easily done that French prat William if the Saxons had not had to go off and bring the harvest in.

Possibly if he won we could have had democracy appearing 120 years earlier and
we could all be living in virtual reality now and all the birds would be right tasty and there would be no hang-overs or work to rain on our parades...

Now, might this new Norse empire under Hard Rule get (back) to the New World before Columbus?

[Melvin Loh]

Well, Hammo, Harald and his Norwegian army were just caught napping by the Saxons at Stamford Bridge and annihilated, regardless of how good an army the Vikings were and despite the legendary berserker on the bridge...

[Superdude]

They weren't wearing any armor, either.

So Harald decides to play it safe, have his men wear armor, and have them be alert for Saxons.

[hammo1j]

I think the Saxons were our boys. Thought it was Anglo Saxons v French who also had papal approval. Unfortunately the score ended.

England 0 France 1.

Apparently Harold's last words were: "What arrow?"

[Smuz]

I'll growl at the people who believe the arrow story. Most likely Harold was hacked down by a half-dozen odd French Knights who broke through his huscarles and chopped him to pieces. The arrow was sewn onto the Bayeux tapestry over a javelin Harold was throwing at a later date.

Hadrada winning the battle and Harald taking England are different matters. Possibly the Vikings would be more supported by the British than the Normans (Cnut and other such prior Viking kings- Harald had perhaps the storngest claim to the throne of the three. So we're talking civil war triggered by two different invading "rightful heirs". My money's still on William.

On the other hand, if the bastard had been able to sail earlier, or Harald had been delayed, we might have seen the Battle of Hastings fought before Stanford Bridge- which might have lead to scores of

English 1 - French 0
English 0 - Vkings 1

Vikings get the cup, erm, crown. And then are forced into a razing of where-ever-the-hell-feels-like-rebelling, because they're going to need to stamp in their authority. So I can see a relatively possible ATL with a Viking king in England. Cue tension with the Papacy, and a severe change to the English language, with more Norse and almost no Romance influence.

[Superdude]

In my opinion, that would be awesome.

[stodge]

If we take as the POD an earlier sailing of William's forces over to England (the Norman army tried to cross in mid-August but the winds were too strong and they finished up strung along the Normandy coast) then I think Harold would have prevailed at Hastings or, more likely, Netherfield just to the north.

Very briefly, for the newbies on the Forum, William's army lands at Pevensey on August 12th. Harold has been waiting for the invasion and has observers on the coast. The fyrd is ready and moves quickly to contain the Normans within the Pevensey area which at that time was a natural harbour but with only one road out. The battle takes place astride that road and the Saxons, with the advantage of the higher ground, prevail. William is killed and Count Eustace of Boulogne leads the remnant back to Normandy, minus two of William's sons, who are taken hostage by Harold.

The invasion by Tostig and Hardrada takes place on cue but the Norwegian army proves too strong for the Saxons at Fulford, where Harold dies. Tostig is proclaimed king of England in York but anarchy reigns in the south where his rule is constantly challenged. England re-emerges after a century of warfare but the political and economic power base is now around York and the east coast. The south of England is rolling farmland.

One option...

Or..

The Normans prevail at Hastings. When Hardrada lands, a Norman force goes to intercept but is defeated. William and Hardrada divide England along the line of the old Danegeld. The result is no English nation. The south and west of England eventually become part of France as Comte La Manche Norde. The North and East become part of an enlarged Scotland after the Norwegians are defeated in the 12th century.

[Wozza]

The key issue is can Harald defeat William, I suspect not.

The most interesting result would be the division of England. Now that would make a fascinating ATL.

[MerryPrankster]

Originally Posted by Wozza

The key issue is can Harald defeat William, I suspect not.

The most interesting result would be the division of England. Now that would make a fascinating ATL.

William's army was better-organized (combined arms) than Harald's, and there is the matter of armor that was mentioned earlier. However, William's army will have probably taken losses from the English (in OTL Hastings, the Normans charged the shield-wall 5x before they broke it), while I'm sure Harald can scrounge better armor and weapons as he moves south (esp. if he takes casualties fighting Saxon forces in the north and realizes there's a problem).

[Wozza]

Originally Posted by MerryPrankster

William's army was better-organized (combined arms) than Harald's, and there is the matter of armor that was mentioned earlier. However, William's army will have probably taken losses from the English (in OTL Hastings, the Normans charged the shield-wall 5x before they broke it), while I'm sure Harald can scrounge better armor and weapons as he moves south (esp. if he takes casualties fighting Saxon forces in the north and realizes there's a problem).

I was assuming a situation where Harald beats Harold before he fights William.
We need an earlier POD otherise - one where William strikes first and is defeated.
I think in those circumstances Harold still beats Harald

[robertp6165]

Originally Posted by MerryPrankster

William's army was better-organized (combined arms) than Harald's, and there is the matter of armor that was mentioned earlier.

The Vikings of Harald's army had armor as good as that of the Saxons. The problem was the Saxons surprised them and caught them in camp, before they had a chance to "suit up." So they had to fight without it.

[Wozza]

No, the Saxons tricked the Vikings and invited them to a parley.

[Flocculencio]

Ooh...I'm not getting into one of these again, Norman

[Wendell]

Now, Imagine William geting greedy after defeating Harald at Stamford Bridge, and deciding to fight for control of Norway...

[Bulgaroktonos]

Hmmmm.......I think that the best way to do it would be have Harold beat William first, and have to march north. As it was mentioned, Harold was the much better general, commander, etc.

If he beats William, the fyrd will still likely have to go pull in the harvest, leaving Harold with fewer men, and a good portion of his troops are gone.

Harold marches north to deal with Harald and Tostig. Harold must almost assuredly die, as it is unlikely that the Saxons will lose unless there is some great low to morale. So Harold dies, Harald and Tostig win.

I think these Vikings will have the same problem the others did. England is just too far away, with too many pesky nobleman. The Vikings and Tostig might control the old Danegeld, but eventually, somebody, likely a Saxon king, is going to conglomorate all the little princedoms a la Alfred the Great and Edmund Ironside. Basically a repeat of the 800s.

[DuQuense]

While Norway may have a hard time holding the Isles, This would give a big boast to the North Sea, Idea, and away from the Channel and Europe.

[robertp6165]

Originally Posted by Wozza

No, the Saxons tricked the Vikings and invited them to a parley.

Either way, the problem was not that the Vikings lacked armor. It was that they were simply not wearing it when the fight started.

[Smuz]

Bear in mind that the Danes had already conquered England once- hence King Cnute and co. So there might not be as much resistance from the English as William got.

Given the Norman tactics of archers, horsemen and such vs the VIking/Saxon shield walls, I do wonder if there would be any change to European warfare towards the maintenance of shield wall tactics, or if the Vikings would adopt cavalry once they got settled in and weren't raiding from ships, as they did in other European areas.

Oh, and the daneaxe becomes a far more mainstream weapon with more shield walls to break