1066 Battle of Stamford Bridge/Hastings Discussion Thread

[Alligator]

I think we should have a discussion thread for 1066, that pivotal year in English history.

Let's say Harald wins at Stamford Bridge, surprising Harold instead of the other way around. What happens next? I can think of a few different possibilities, but I'm not sure which is more likely:

1. Harald wins Stamford Bridge. He stays in York, hoping William attacks him so he can take the advantageous defensive position. In the meantime he recruits native Saxons, wintering in Yorkshire. William takes London in the interim. This leads to a small-scale raiding between Harald's northern England and William's southern England, until William marches north to York.
2. Harald wins Stamford Bridge. He marches immediately to London to capture and garrison the city. William's troops do not have to fight the Battle of Hastings, but instead, they have to siege London. (More casualties for William?)
3. Harald wins Stamford Bridge. He marches to London to place a small garrison (which maybe rebels against him while he's gone). Harald then takes the bulk of his army and marches south to attack William's castle at Hastings. William wins even more effectively than OTL, due to Harald's smaller force.
4. Harald wins Stamford Bridge. He immediately sails to Hastings, surprising William from the sea, crushing him.

 

[BBadolato]

1 Seems risky William can go take and forage around the south. 2 Was William really expecting to siege anything? 3 depends on what happens, Harold almost won Hastings OTL. 4 Sounds Total War-ish, could put Harold's men with their backs to the sea, but if they don't have horses going by sea shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Alligator]

1 Seems risky William can go take and forage around the south. 2 Was William really expecting to siege anything? 3 depends on what happens, Harold almost won Hastings OTL. 4 Sounds Total War-ish, could put Harold's men with their backs to the sea, but if they don't have horses going by sea shouldn't be a problem.

1. True, so does that mean Harald would rush to London?

2. If Harald had taken London, wouldn't William have to siege it if he wants to conquer England, despite his plans for a quick field battle? (Or would William just launch a terror campaign across England, destroying cities and farmlands until Harald comes out of London?)

3. Assuming William is lucky and still wins, what do you think are the effects of William having greater or fewer surviving troops? Does fewer surviving troops cause him to have to request aid from his liege, the King of France?

4. I agree it does sound Total War-ish, but Harald was a Viking after all, and was not averse to naval raids.

 

[Cuchulainn]

1. Williams the Conqueror & the Lion make alliance & Harald is attacked from 2 directions.
4. Harald burns William's ships & crosses over to raid Normandy.

 

[jahenders]

I think we should have a discussion thread for 1066, that pivotal year in English history.

Let's say Harald wins at Stamford Bridge, surprising Harold instead of the other way around. What happens next? I can think of a few different possibilities, but I'm not sure which is more likely:

1. Harald wins Stamford Bridge. He stays in York, hoping William attacks him so he can take the advantageous defensive position. In the meantime he recruits native Saxons, wintering in Yorkshire. William takes London in the interim. This leads to a small-scale raiding between Harald's northern England and William's southern England, until William marches north to York.
2. Harald wins Stamford Bridge. He marches immediately to London to capture and garrison the city. William's troops do not have to fight the Battle of Hastings, but instead, they have to siege London. (More casualties for William?)
3. Harald wins Stamford Bridge. He marches to London to place a small garrison (which maybe rebels against him while he's gone). Harald then takes the bulk of his army and marches south to attack William's castle at Hastings. William wins even more effectively than OTL, due to Harald's smaller force.
4. Harald wins Stamford Bridge. He immediately sails to Hastings, surprising William from the sea, crushing him.

I'd say the most likely is #1 -- Harald goes on the defensive, resulting in a split England. William may eventually attack, but might be content to consolidate gains in the South. OTOH, unconquered Saxon areas in the South might align with either Harald or William against the other.

#2 is possible
#3 seems too ambitious for someone who has just made inroads and need to consolidate his gains
#4 extremely implausible -- Harald's fleet would be hard-pressed to even try. If they did somehow manage it, it would be a huge surprise to William who was anxiously awaiting favorable wind to invade England.

In all these, it's important to remember that Harald's force wasn't entirely his own -- it consisted of Norwegians, Scots, etc -- so he's not going to have free rein.

 

[JohnR]

I think the turning point was something not mentioned - the Battle of Fulford.

What if Earls Edwin and Morcar had waited for Harold to arrive north before attacking the Viking force? A combined force could have more easily defeated the invaders, leaving Harold to take a stronger force south to take on the Normans.

 

[jahenders]

I think the turning point was something not mentioned - the Battle of Fulford.

What if Earls Edwin and Morcar had waited for Harold to arrive north before attacking the Viking force? A combined force could have more easily defeated the invaders, leaving Harold to take a stronger force south to take on the Normans.

Interesting take. Had they stayed within the nearby walls, they might have been able to simply hold the vikings at bay, leaving Harold to contend with William with a full and rested force.

 

[SirCliveWolfe]

I think the turning point was something not mentioned - the Battle of Fulford.

Or what if they had won at Fulford, or at least dramatically blooded Harald. Harold has a full and fresh army to fight William and Harald is defeated, or at least bloodied enough to go home?