a different 1066

WI Willem the conkerer dose not betray Harald the Hard, King of Norway at the battle of stanford bridge and splits England between them, Willem in the south, Harald in the north.

Here are some things to consider.

Harald the Hard was a beliver in the old ways, a victory for him might prolong the old viking belifes.

Harald and Willem were both power hungry, peice might not last long,and if a war dose result, who would win?
 
Um, how did William betray anyone at Stamford Bridge? He hadn't even left Normandy at that point, Harold the Saxon just beat Harald and left his (Harald's) wishes and plans irrelevant.
 
Harald (the norwigen one) and willeam had struck and agreament that they would invade England together, the Vikings invaded Englind expecting norman help, but Wielleam did not like the Idea of him not ruling all of England, He didnet care who he fought, vikings or saxans, so he just let them fight and he would take on the winner

another interesting point is, if Harald (the norweigen) took the north, would a differeint dialect develop there? the north with norwiegen influence insted of Freanch, the south developing as normal?
 
Harald (the norwigen one) and willeam had struck and agreament that they would invade England together, the Vikings invaded Englind expecting norman help, but Wielleam did not like the Idea of him not ruling all of England, He didnet care who he fought, vikings or saxans, so he just let them fight and he would take on the winner

another interesting point is, if Harald (the norweigen) took the north, would a differeint dialect develop there? the north with norwiegen influence insted of Freanch, the south developing as normal?

Source (on said agreement)? I've always seen that the two had their own ambitions and it was every would-be-king for himself.

I'm not sure if it would matter - Harold is either going to split his forces (unlikely, division in detail) or take on one and then the other.

But this might mean William is faced first and Harald second, which is probably good for the Saxons.
 
Given the nature of both William and Harald I can't see a truce lasting for long and a couple of years down the line they would be fighting eachother for the title of King of England.

My guess is that William would win, and the Harrying of the North comes about due to this battle rather than Saxons uprising as in OTL.
 
WI Willem the conkerer

That particular spelling mistake gives me the image of William playing conkers :p http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conkers

The scenario you describe isn't really possible. I have never heard of any suggestion that there was a prior agreement between Harald Hardrada and William the Bastard before their respective invasions of England. William did claim that Harold Godwinson had sworn an oath to support William's claim to the English throne. Was this what you were thinking of?

I have wondered how events would have transpired if Harold had supported William's claim and had been content to remain the power behind the English throne. Given William's interests elsewhere he may well spend a lot of his reign outside England, leaving Harold the most powerful person in the land
 
I have wondered how events would have transpired if Harold had supported William's claim and had been content to remain the power behind the English throne. Given William's interests elsewhere he may well spend a lot of his reign outside England, leaving Harold the most powerful person in the land

Interesting.
A Saxon nobility more or less intact, with a Norman overlord. I assume that Harold would have riased and army and defeated the Norwegians on behalf of his new King.

The court would be Norman, but the Earls are all Saxon, I can see something like the Magna Carta being introduced sooner into English history as the Earls tried to limit the power the King had over them.
 
Interesting.
A Saxon nobility more or less intact, with a Norman overlord. I assume that Harold would have riased and army and defeated the Norwegians on behalf of his new King.

The court would be Norman, but the Earls are all Saxon, I can see something like the Magna Carta being introduced sooner into English history as the Earls tried to limit the power the King had over them.

And possably less norman influence in Engand, thus, the saxon heratige survieves, also possable endurance of the saxen and/or viking belifes (or they could be incorparatid into cristeanity like Irish/celtic catholisaim.
 
And possably less norman influence in Engand, thus, the saxon heratige survieves, also possable endurance of the saxen and/or viking belifes (or they could be incorparatid into cristeanity like Irish/celtic catholisaim.

The Saxons converted to Christianity in the 6th Century, Anglo-Saxon paganism was long since dead except maybe in some very out of the way back waters and/or in the sort of folk myths that survive to this day but aren't really seen as religion per se.

By 1066 the vast majority of Vikings who had settled in England had also converted to Christianity, again there may have been a few remnants in the backwoods but these were insignificant. Viking conversion began in the 9th Century and was pretty much complete not just in England but in all the Viking lands by the middle of the 12th Century

One other thing, could you please try and correct your spelling. About 50% of what you wrote there was misspelt and it's very distracting. All modern browsers have built in spell checkers so this shouldn't be a problem
 
I can't see either Harald Hardrada or Guillaume le Batard being content with just ruling half of England. If Harold died at Stamfordham Bridge, England would be plunged into chaos for years as the country is fought over by Norwegians, Normans and rival native English earls.
 
One other thing, could you please try and correct your spelling. About 50% of what you wrote there was misspelt and it's very distracting. All modern browsers have built in spell checkers so this shouldn't be a problem

I wlil try to splel bteter form now on:p (just kidding, I will realy will try)
 
I have wondered how events would have transpired if Harold had supported William's claim and had been content to remain the power behind the English throne. Given William's interests elsewhere he may well spend a lot of his reign outside England, leaving Harold the most powerful person in the land
There is no reason for Harold to back William's claim when you consider the level of support he had in England. Why settle for a regency which you can get sacked when you can be king.
 
Top