Between only Godwinson and Hardrada, who would have won?

  • Harold Godwinson

    Votes: 29 74.4%
  • Harald Hardrada

    Votes: 10 25.6%

  • Total voters
    39
Let's say that our dear friend William of Normandy takes a trip off of a parapet, or is attacked in his bed by a snake, or is shot from behind a grassy knoll while on a hunting trip, or some such. Let's just removed him from the picture before Edward the Confessor, too, kicks the bucket.

We're now left with two Harrys in the picture for the English succession crisis: Harold Godwinson and Harald Hardrada. Historically, William's own invasion of England had little to no effect on the conflict between the two Harrys; Harold killed Harald and defeated the Norwegian forces at Stamford Bridge before either of them even skirmished with William in any meaningful way - William actually only landed on English shores three days after Stamford Bridge.

So, it might be easy to say that, without William around, Harold Godwinson would easily secure the English throne and we would continue to have Anglo-Saxon hegemony over the British Isles for the foreseeable future. However, I am curious as to what degree William's public claim to the throne and planned invasion affected:

A. The political situation in Anglo-Saxon England.
B. The attitude of Harold Godwinson and his forces even before William landed.
C. The attitude of Harald Hardrada, Tostig Godwinson, and their forces before the Battle of Stamford Bridge.

Harald's main ally in England, Tostig Godwinson - brother to Harold - was a former Anglo-Saxon Earl, himself; though he had personal reasons to despise his brother, it seemed that many other Anglo-Saxon feudal lords, such as Edwin and Morcar, had issues with Harold, as well. Though they supported Harold IOTL, I wonder if any local experts on Anglo-Saxon history feel that they may have turned against the Godwinson king if the only two choices had been between the two Harrys?

Harold knew that there were two invaders coming for his crown; the Norwegian and the Norman. My understanding is that the urgency of defeating Harald before William could arrive spurred Harold on to push aggressively against the Norwegian king, which resulted in catching Hardrada off guard at Stamford Bridge, when he and his forces did not have all of their equipment or forces properly together. If Harold had felt less rushed, would he have ended up taking a more conventional battle, during which he may have been defeated by Hardrada?

Similarly, though there's no records for it, I would assume that Harald felt that since his Godwinson counterpart was having to deal with two simultaneous invasions at once, that he himself could take things easy for a little bit - which resulted in him being caught unawares at Stamford. If he knew that it was only him and the other Harry, would he have been more on guard, more ready for an Anglo-Saxon attack at any time?

Or, maybe, Harald never stood a chance, and Godwinson would have defeated him no matter the circumstances.

Either way, what would a yet-again Norwegian England post-1066 look like, and what would a still Anglo-Saxon England post-1066 look like?
 
It seems that it is best for Godwinson that he still believe William is coming so he can beat Hardrada as in OTL.

Did William have heirs at this time? May not one of them, Robert Curthose, Richard, or William, be backed by one of their father's generals? Could they invade on the heir's claim?
 
It seems that it is best for Godwinson that he still believe William is coming so he can beat Hardrada as in OTL.

Did William have heirs at this time? May not one of them, Robert Curthose, Richard, or William, be backed by one of their father's generals? Could they invade on the heir's claim?

William's heirs, widow and generals would likely be more concerned with fighting off people looking to take Normandy down a peg, including the King of France, the Duke of Brittany and the Count of Anjou.
 
Top