Flocculencio
Donor
My interest in Anglo-Saxon England was piqued again by Norman's new venture into that area of AH and bouncing a few ideas around, I came up with this one. In OTL, William of Normandy came out the victor in the struggle for control of England in 1066. In the ATL that Norman and I worked on last year, Harald Godwinson took the laurels.
What about the often discounted third party in the war of 1066- Harald Haardraade of Norway? OTL, he was killed by Godwinson at Stamford Bridge. I give you another scenario. Well two others but I'm going with the more interesting one since the less interesting one basically has Harald beating William and then going North and either beating or getting beaten by Haardraade. But heres the more interesting one:
Harald Godwinson decides that William the Bastard is the greater threat and marshals in the South. When William lands, he is faced with a fresh English army and has a much harder time. Godwinson fights a series of battles against the Normans, damaging William's army heavily but ultimately is outflanked and defeated at the battle of Ashdown Forest. William now has de facto control of the South of England but in the meantime, Haardraade has landed with Harald's brother Tostig under his command. Many of the Anglo-Saxon noblemen and churchmen in the North and the Midlands declare in favour of Haardraade. He, too decides to name himself king of England and appoints Tostig Duke of Northumbria. William now has to hold the South against a fresh army of Norsemen and Englishmen.
I can see two ways in which this could go- firstly, Haardraade could beat William and become King of both England and Norway. He would then be able to use the resources of his joint realm to begin another campaign against his enemy, king Sven of Denmark... which could very well give us another United Kingdom of the North (ah...my pet AH state)
More interestingly, perhaps William holds back the Northmen and manages to enforce his dominance over the South. We would have, in effect, a divided England along the pattern of the Danelaw but with Norman French rule in the South and Anglo-Norse rule in the Midlands and North. Who knows how long this state of affairs would last? I'd personally say the Anglo-Norse Kingdom would be in a more secure position than the Norman French one since the Normans are going to have to worry about any possible threats to their realms on the Continent while the Northerners have their backs secure.
Discuss.
What about the often discounted third party in the war of 1066- Harald Haardraade of Norway? OTL, he was killed by Godwinson at Stamford Bridge. I give you another scenario. Well two others but I'm going with the more interesting one since the less interesting one basically has Harald beating William and then going North and either beating or getting beaten by Haardraade. But heres the more interesting one:
Harald Godwinson decides that William the Bastard is the greater threat and marshals in the South. When William lands, he is faced with a fresh English army and has a much harder time. Godwinson fights a series of battles against the Normans, damaging William's army heavily but ultimately is outflanked and defeated at the battle of Ashdown Forest. William now has de facto control of the South of England but in the meantime, Haardraade has landed with Harald's brother Tostig under his command. Many of the Anglo-Saxon noblemen and churchmen in the North and the Midlands declare in favour of Haardraade. He, too decides to name himself king of England and appoints Tostig Duke of Northumbria. William now has to hold the South against a fresh army of Norsemen and Englishmen.
I can see two ways in which this could go- firstly, Haardraade could beat William and become King of both England and Norway. He would then be able to use the resources of his joint realm to begin another campaign against his enemy, king Sven of Denmark... which could very well give us another United Kingdom of the North (ah...my pet AH state)
More interestingly, perhaps William holds back the Northmen and manages to enforce his dominance over the South. We would have, in effect, a divided England along the pattern of the Danelaw but with Norman French rule in the South and Anglo-Norse rule in the Midlands and North. Who knows how long this state of affairs would last? I'd personally say the Anglo-Norse Kingdom would be in a more secure position than the Norman French one since the Normans are going to have to worry about any possible threats to their realms on the Continent while the Northerners have their backs secure.
Discuss.