1066 WI - William and Hardrada Land Within DAYS of each Other

Will there be any kind of agreement in the latest scenario?

- Harald's in control of Northumbria and consolidating control of the rest of "the North" - somewhere between the green and black lines
- William has "the South" and is expanding above the red line

Do they armistice?
One attack the other?
Temporary truce?

Do both maintain claim to Kingship of England?

William has the advantage in any delay so if Harald see this he'll press to defeat William in battle.
Where would this take place?
What would be the possible outcomes
 
I probably haven't been explaining myself too well
1. Without an oath then both go for as much of England as they can grab and hold.
2. Edwin and Morcar are of no use to Harald unless he wants rid of Tostig(who was nearly as unpopular in Northumbria as his elder brother Sweyn had been in Mercia) but are of use to William to forment trouble and slow Harald down.
3.What happens depends on how badly mauled the Norman army was at Senlache. The better condition it is in the more land goes to William and the less likely he is to just accept a division of England.
4. Both will claim the title of King of England but William is more likely to be accepted by the French,HRE and Papacy.
5. Any peace would not survive the death of William or Harald.
6. By 1150 England TTL will be little different to England OTL as it will all be controlled by the Normans.
 
Will there be any kind of agreement in the latest scenario?

- Harald's in control of Northumbria and consolidating control of the rest of "the North" - somewhere between the green and black lines
- William has "the South" and is expanding above the red line
In all honestly, again, redline would show "maximalist" advance of Normans.

At worst, I can see William only on Godwinson lands, arguing that he defeated him and therefore have the right to take the spoils

At best, he would advance roughly up to the red line, leaving former Tostig lands and the lands of Morcar, that was already attacked by Tostig and Norwegians at this points, and that probably expanded on former Tostig lands as, he's accounted to have warred with Welsh (something you need an actual common border with to do so).

And that's assuming that everything goes for Normans' wishes. Again, we're talking of a Norman army after a battle (hence with losses) and of a fresh Norwegian-Saxon army that likelt didn't encountered serious resistance. Guess who'll have the upper hand?

Do they armistice?
One attack the other?
Temporary truce?
It's much probably they had an agreement on the principle to sharing the island, as it was already done IOTL. So all that matter is to more or less settle the share, make a formal oath, and...that's all.

Do both maintain claim to Kingship of England?
You don't split titles, so yes.

I probably haven't been explaining myself too well
1. Without an oath then both go for as much of England as they can grab and hold.
You don't have only two choices : oath that bind everyone, and non-oath that allow random stuff to happen.

Again, as Tostig went first in Norman court, then in Harald's, it's pretty safe that an agreement was reached at least on the principle (and it may be what decided Harald to undergo the whole expedition)

2. Edwin and Morcar are of no use to Harald unless he wants rid of Tostig(who was nearly as unpopular in Northumbria as his elder brother Sweyn had been in Mercia) but are of use to William to forment trouble and slow Harald down.
I didn't suggested he made friends with them, I suggested he conquers the hell out of them.
The impopularity is also irrelevant. Normans were also impopular, it didn't stop them to crush the hell out of whoever didn't liked their rule.

And for slowing down : I doubt, I very doubt that a William currently stuck in the south up to a Hastings-like battle would have the material possibilities to pull a Machiavel there, at least up to he controls at least the South (as in, first control what you want before tring to support someone else).
As for the capacity of resistance of Edwin and Morcar, as Harold massed a same army IOTL for both Stamford Bridge and Hastings, it's pretty safe to assume that it would be limited, maybe a thousand or two against a whole expedition of at least seven thousands.

3.What happens depends on how badly mauled the Norman army was at Senlache. The better condition it is in the more land goes to William and the less likely he is to just accept a division of England.
Again, between a fresh, untouched army; and an army that if Hastings serves as plausibility measure, that have relative serious losses...I know which I'll pick.

Everything doesn't depends on William's will, and he would probably understand that a foe with Saxon allies (something that Normans didn't) have a better legitimacy and capacity to have local support than he does. He can bid for Godwinson lands and maybe some more, but unless William is on steroïds, he won't go immediatly for a fight.

(After he secured his grasp on Southern England, probably, but not immediatly)

4. Both will claim the title of King of England but William is more likely to be accepted by the French,HRE and Papacy.
Why? You assume that only one king would be recognized. It's much more probable than both will be (Middle-Ages England wasn't didn't have One-China policy)

France : As the Capetians were fighint William and Normans since decades, I don't see why they would be more interested on William being king (and a more serious threat) than Harald.
Papacy : Unless we give credit to the tale about papal support on William's expedition, I don't see why.
 
So Harald at definitely controls the Earldom of Northumbria. William definitely controls England south of the Thames and the Severn.
The disagreement is about where the boundary between the two will be drawn and you can make a case for any of those suggested so far.

If Harald is to get all England he has to kick William out quickly (even though he will be supported by the English north of the Thames more than William). William can stall for time and rebuild and wait for Harald to die or have to go back to Norway.

Certainly by 1150 England is Norman. (Look at what happened to Wales and Ireland)

However in this situation is Edgar more proactive than in OTL? In OTL although voted King after Hastings he basically accepted William had won the throne and although he wasn't a perfect vassal he didn't rock the boat too much. In TTL could he make a bigger play for the throne? Perhaps England is divided in 3, Harald the North, William the South and Edgar the bit in the middle as a buffer zone?

I think not but any other thoughts?
 
If Harald is to get all England he has to kick William out quickly (even though he will be supported by the English north of the Thames more than William). William can stall for time and rebuild and wait for Harald to die or have to go back to Norway.
I don't think it would turn this way. Again, if we accept the idea of an entente between both rulers (Admittedly, it's not an hard fact; but considering the closeness of both attacks, the links between their courts, and the known fact that Tostig was considered an ally in Normandy before he went to Norway...), the more likely outcome would be an agreement on the said gray zone that would correspond roughly to Mercia (such agreement would probably end with a more or less equal share of it).

Admitting it does, however...

Certainly by 1150 England is Norman. (Look at what happened to Wales and Ireland)
If William have to withdraw from England, I doubt they could. Medieval Normandy was subject to relativly regular revolts (pre and post conquests), more or less supported by Capetians.
Military, financially (preparing the expedition didn't came cheap) and of course prestige's losses would likely prevent William to try again, at least in a forseeable future (the fact his rights were dubious at best doesn't help.)

However in this situation is Edgar more proactive than in OTL? In OTL although voted King after Hastings he basically accepted William had won the throne and although he wasn't a perfect vassal he didn't rock the boat too much. In TTL could he make a bigger play for the throne?
If, as it's likely, Saxons revolt themselves against Norwegian rule, Edgar could indeed play an important role, probably being elected as king. Without Normans to crush him, you'd have another Saxon restoration that could last this time (see above for Normans; and I don't think Scandinavians would really try another invasion).

Now, given that, while not being the miserable failure sometimes depicted, he wasn't probably fit the throne. I could see someone else succeeding him eventually, maybe a northern lord supported by Scottish kings : Tostig, Copsi, or a member of House of Leofric (that is, if they survive).

Perhaps England is divided in 3, Harald the North, William the South and Edgar the bit in the middle as a buffer zone?
I don't really see that happening.
A split of the title was unusual enough to not push the matter too far. Harald and William may have agreed to share the thing between them, but I doubt they would have recognized the last-minute nominee.
 
Northumbria is easy to define everything North of the Humber East of the Pennines and north of the Mersey West of them (Cheshire is a problem).
I've seen a map for around 1066-ish (maybe 1080s, Doomsday Book...), published by a reputable authority (OUP? CUP? Ordnance Survey?), that divided what's now Lancashire at the river Ribble with the area from there south to the Mersey apparently linked to Cheshire rather than to York...


Final thought would Hardrada have called himself King of England? William would because he controlled both Winchester and London.
Or maybe 'King of the English', which from what I've read elsewhere seems to have been the title used by the kings up to & including Harold Godwinsson, instead?

(Note the subtle[?] difference in meaning between the two titles, between "leader of the English people" and "owner of England (under whom everybody else is only a tenant", by the way...)
 
Last edited:
Top