Another Alternate England

Flocculencio · Mar 7, 2005

Tentative TL:
(Theres a book in the town library which purports to be a detailed analysis of Harald Godwinson, Harald the Haardraade and William the Bastard. I'll make revision to this TL after getting that out and reading it) For purposes of clarity I will be referring to the two Haralds as Godwinson and Haardraade up till the point of Godwinson's death.

August 1066: Godwinson recieves news of the impending invasion of England by both the Haardraade and William the Bastard. He decides to marshal his strength in the South seeking to drive the Normans back into the sea and then turning his attention to the North.

Sept 1066: The Haardraade lands in Yorkshire and is reinforced by Norse contingents from Scotland, Ireland and the Orkeneys. Tostig Godwinson, the exiled Earl of Northumbria and brother to King Harald issues a call to the English noblemen to abandon the King's cause and recognise Haardraade. Haardraade takes Scarborough. Godwinson marshals his troops in Sussex

20th Sept: Haardraade takes Fulford

24th Sept: Haardraade takes York

28th Sept: William the Bastard lands at Penvensey and Harald moves to intercept him.

29th Sept: Battle of Hastings. Godwinson is slain in battle.

October 1066: Edgar Aetheling, Godwinson's son, declares that he recognises the Haardraade's claim to the throne and flees North to York. Numerous English earls and thanes declare for the Haardraade as well. The Witangemot, fleeing London before William's forces arrive also throw their support to the Haardraade. Edgar Aetheling is appointed Earl of Lincoln by King Harald Haardraade. William realises that his forces are in no shape to commence a campaign into the Midlands now that the English nobles have given their full support to Harald.

March 1067: After a winter spent recuperating and rallying, Harald's troops begin to push into the South.

March-July 1067: After a summer of intense campaigning, William realises that he is unable to prevail against the superior numbers of the Anglo-Norse forces and calls Haaardraade to the treaty table.
The Treaty of Leicester stated that William was to give up all claim to the Midlands, the North and the West Country. In the South, he would retain Kent, Surrey, Sussex, Berkshire and Hampshire. London would remain under English control but the Thames would be the boundary between the Duchy of Angleterre and the Kingdom of England. Harald Haardraade decided that York would be his capital.

Norman · Mar 7, 2005

Don't forget Germany

Don't forget that Henry in Germany is scheduled to have some pretty significant probelms with the Pope over Papal Supremacy, if we have an Orthodox England, it may determine to help Henry by sending in Priests.

Here's something what if the Normans, who (I think) would be in Sicily, South England and Normandy, decide to set up some kingdoms in North Africa?

I think their ability to do this would depend largely on 1: the assistance they receive fromthe Pope, and 2: What else is happening in the Islamic World.

Conversely, if the Mongols exist, and they attack even more into the Islamic South, rather than into the Russian North (maybe just have the Mongols and the Russians come to some sort of tribute agreement, which gradually unravels but leaves them more culturally intact.) If the Eastern portions of the Islamic world then has to mobilize against the Mongols, this might leave a weakness on their western flank.

Since the Roman Pope is probably not going to get a request from the Greeks for help, he determines to declare a crusade against the Spanish Moors. At the same time, the Normans determine attack and form various 'crusader' type Kingdoms in North Africa.

MerryPrankster · Mar 7, 2005

Floculencio,

Very good beginning. However, Haardrada (I think) was known for being a hard, greedy man, as was Tostig. There might be some internal issues in Anglo-Norse Britain.

Norman,

Good ideas (I especially like the idea of a North African crusade

).

Norman · Mar 7, 2005

Matt Quinn said:
Floculencio,

Very good beginning. However, Haardrada (I think) was known for being a hard, greedy man, as was Tostig. There might be some internal issues in Anglo-Norse Britain.

Norman,

Good ideas (I especially like the idea of a North African crusade ).

Personally, I think Hardrada and Tostig would have lasted about three seconds after the death of Harold Godwinsson. One possibility would be for Hardrada to exile Tostig and his followers to (you guessed it) Vinland!

Thande · Mar 7, 2005

Vinland is getting pretty crowded these days...

Paul Spring · Mar 7, 2005

I think people here might be underestimating William the Conqueror. Remember that in OTL he beat the army and commander that had beaten Hardrada and his army, so I think having him beaten and pushed back by Hardrada is not a foregone conclusion, even if Hardrada's army is larger.

The Normans had a balanced army, with cavalry, heavy infantry, and archers, while the Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian armies were basically made up of fighters who all used the same tactics and methods of fighting. Plus, the Normans were better at building castles and holding them.

MerryPrankster · Mar 7, 2005

Paul Spring said:
I think people here might be underestimating William the Conqueror. Remember that in OTL he beat the army and commander that had beaten Hardrada and his army, so I think having him beaten and pushed back by Hardrada is not a foregone conclusion, even if Hardrada's army is larger.

The Normans had a balanced army, with cavalry, heavy infantry, and archers, while the Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian armies were basically made up of fighters who all used the same tactics and methods of fighting. Plus, the Normans were better at building castles and holding them.

True, but the Normans don't have time to build castles before their collision with Haardrada's forces. William has also taken losses from Harold's army at Hastings. I think William would recognize that a full-on clash between his army, which will have probably taken greater losses than OTL b/c Harold Godwinsson has his archers with him this time, would be suicidal. Haardrada will also have archers with him, and infantry, if they can hold ranks, can defeat cavalry--they nearly did at Hastings.

Now, I think that perhaps the Anglo-Norse need a "bloody nose" from an attempt to seize "Anglaterre." Perhaps they try to seize the province while the Normans are distracted, suffer huge losses, and are forced to make territorial concessions. This forces them to reorganized their armies on the Norman model, possibly with the aid of exiled Normans (I'm sure the ruling dukes had enemies).

EDIT: Taking another look at the TL, it describes a summerlong war between Haardrada and William. Haardrada has a larger army than William, combining his own Norse troops with the surviving English nobility and the armies they can levy. The Norse can probably afford to lose more battles than William, considering they're operating their own ground with a larger army, and to learn from their mistakes.

Perhaps William wins the initial battles and pushes his luck. The Anglo-Norse learn from their earlier mistakes and start winning, or at least costing William more than his forces and supplies can stand. William ends up at the negotiating table.

Historico · Mar 7, 2005

Great Start on this Tl, I can't wait to see how this develops

Norman · Mar 7, 2005

Here's something to consider, with the Normans and Hardrada duking it out, the Welsh could hold the ability to tip a sort of 'balance of power.' What if William and Hardrada are basically beating themselves to a stalemate, when the Welsh intervene on one side or the other forcing the armistice???

Thande · Mar 7, 2005

Most probably the Welsh are pissing themselves with laughter at seeing their old enemy (i.e., us) get the shed kicked out of us from two sides.

Norman · Mar 7, 2005

Thande said:
Most probably the Welsh are pissing themselves with laughter at seeing their old enemy (i.e., us) get the shed kicked out of us from two sides.

Exactly, making the whole thing more interesting.

G.Bone · Mar 7, 2005

I'd be interested in helping out this idea if you- F. & Norman- would need help-

Thande · Mar 7, 2005

Actually, come to think of it, as a Yorkshireman I should probably be rooting for Hardraada (given what the Normans did to us, no offence Norman

)

Norman · Mar 7, 2005

Thande said:
Actually, come to think of it, as a Yorkshireman I should probably be rooting for Hardraada (given what the Normans did to us, no offence Norman )

No offense taken, I'm actually Pennsyvania German with no 'Norman' Blood in me that I know.

From everything I've seen, despite the fact that Hardrada and Tostig Godwinson were at best 'difficult', they were both better in my mind than William. Still if William knew he had to compete for the affections of the English Thane, it is probable he would have been a bit 'nicer' than he was.

I do have a question, how much had the Anglo-Norse already acculturated the Scots and Irish at this point? From my research it appears as if all of the Celts, although maybe continuing to speak their language, were pretty well caught up in the whole Viking thing. (Consider Harold's defeat of the Welsh and what was given to him to mark the end of the rebellion.)

Thus, aside from their language, they were culturally pretty much alligned with the Viking thing.

Thande · Mar 7, 2005

Couldn't really tell you, apart from obvious things such as the fact that the Scots were engaged in a successful war to boot the Norwegians out of the Highlands (as depicted in Macbeth) a few decades before Hastings. I believe an independent Kingdom of Northumbria survived north of the Danelaw for a long time and shielded Scotland from much Danish influence, but I could be wrong there. The Welsh seem to have been pretty isolated from the Danes.

MerryPrankster · Mar 7, 2005

According to King Hereafter, Macbeth, King of Scotland, was a Viking prince of the Orkneys (the story holds that Macbeth is the baptismal name of Thorfinn of Orkney).

Though my family is descended from one of William the Conqueror's bishops (they didn't have celibacy of the clergy then, so it isn't that funny), I really don't like that guy. The Harrying of the North that Thande alluded to, plus the fact that it was the Normans who brought the infamous "jus primae noctae" to England.

Thande · Mar 8, 2005

As a Yorkshireman I feel the need to stand against the Normans because of the Harrying of the North, even though at the time my ancestors were actually fighting alongside (or possibly against...

) Macbeth in the Highlands.

Flocculencio · Mar 8, 2005

Sorry for not updating the TL, chaps. Will try and do so later today or tomorrow after getting the aforementioned book out of the library.

Great ideas, gentlemen, keep the flow going- the more input and criticism the better.

Just a question- are the Welsh united at this point in history? Because, if so, it would probably be in their best interests to ally with the Duchy of Angleterre, or at least threathen to do so in order to strengthen their position against the Anglo-Norse. Because of the treaty arrangements the Welsh are in the position of being able to cut off the West Country from the rest of England. Although, having said that, they'd better be careful because if they do make any moves against England, they might well have a Norse fleet from Ireland descending on their Western coast.

Flocculencio · Mar 11, 2005

Continued TL

1068-1079 with the ratification of the Treaty of Leicester, the Normans and the Anglo-Norse settled down to an uneasy peace that would last just over ten years. William (now taking the title of Grand Duke) engaged in sorting out his new duchy and distributing the captured lands among his own followers. Many of these knights were less happy than might have been expected as they felt that there was not enough land to go around. Indeed, many of the lesser nobles who had supported William recieved only token grants of land. North of the Thames, Harald, now King Harald III of England, Norway and Iceland was content to remain on the defensive. The Jarl of Oxford and the burghers of London were the main forces entrusted with the responsibility of defending the Thames and by royal decree, a process of fortification began along the North bank of the Thames. This was not outright castellation, as was beginning in the South under the Normans, but rather a line of forts between which river and shore patrols travelled.

During this time, Harald's foreign ambitions were directed elsewhere. King Macbeth of Scotland asked for support in keeping his throne. Harald assigned forces to him in return for acknowledgement of vassalage. More importantly, Harald successfully defeated the Danes, gaining vassalage over Denmark in 1076. He was succeeded by his son, Olaf Haraldsson Kyrre, Olaf I of England, Olaf III of Norway. Olaf preferred to conduct his court business from Norway leaving his nephew, Haakon Magnusson in York as viceroy of England. Olaf's own son Magnus Barefoot spent some time in Scotland at the court of Macbeth but was drowned at sea on the return voyage to Norway.

In 1079, affairs came to a head. Tensions had been growing along the border between England and Angleterre with peasant uprisings forcing Grand Duke William to crack down harshly on the recalitrant Duchy. With troops in place, he saw his chance to restart his abortive invasion of England.

On the 5th of May, 1079 a Norman army under the command of the Grand Duke swarmed across the Thames at London, overthrowing the defences. In the chaos of the fighting, a few buildings caught fire resulting in the Great Fire of London. The city was razed to the ground. Meanwhile a second army under Bishop Odo, Earl of Kent and William's half-brother set off to subdue the West Country. In the East, however, William marched further North towards the heart of the Midlands. Fast riders reached York, having spread the news behind them as they passed. Prince Haakon immediately set off for Nottingham where the English Fyrd would meet.

On the 12th of May, Haakon and his army set off to meet the Norman invaders as they marched on Peterborough. William had sorely underestimated the numbers that Haakon would be able to bring to bear. The battle was long and bloody but William found himself surrounded by Haakon's huscarls, the warriors of the Prince's personal bodyguard, many of whom had stood at Hastings ten years earlier. Although William was strong for a man in his seventies, he could not hope to prevail. The knights of his house stood their ground but they and their lord fell beneath the axes of the vengeful English. William's son, William Rufus rallied some units for an organised withdrawal but the majority of the Norman troops, many of whom were mercenaries either surrendered or fled.

Haakon used the momentum of victory well, marching southwards and crossing the Thames near the still smouldering ruins of London. Bishop Odo's campaign in the West had to be aborted as the churchman hurried back to support his nephew.

Although Odo and Rufus gradually withdrew towards Southampton where more of their troops were landing from Normandy, hoping to hold out there, their hopes were dashed as viking reinforcements from Ireland sailed up the Channel to land troops in their rear.

On the 15th of August, after a gruelling and bloody summer of combat Rufus gave up his claim to be the Duke of Angleterre and withdrew to Normandy to lick his wounds.

MerryPrankster · Mar 11, 2005

Good installment, Floculencio.

Thing is, Macbeth lost his throne thanks to English aid to Malcolm Canmore (Malcolm III, I believe). Does Harald aid Malcolm just enough to force Macbeth into subservience, or is there some other threat that Macbeth needs help with?