Harald Hardrada alliance with Macbeth

I am currently working on a timeline where Macbeth King of Scots (1040-1057) survives and defeats Malcolm Canmore in 1057, and ends up surviving as king of scots and ends up having his son Macbeatha marry Ingerged daughter of Harald Hardrada in the early 1060s. When Harald invades England in 1066, Macbeth comes south, invading the northern part of England and helping contribute to defeating the armies of Morcar Earl of Northumbria and Harold Godwinson.

What I am wondering is would this alliance be enough to defeat William the Conqueror at Hastings, or in another battle?
 
I'd be amused if everyone ends up dying at the Hastings equivalent leaving the Isles in a huge power vacuum.
 
The major battles would not be in the south of England but more probably somewhere between London and York depending on circumstances. Could Harald/Macbeth defeat William? Of course they could but so much depends on whether the southern Saxon Lords support William. They must know that he needs to give their lands to pay off his supporters but he is more in tune with them than Harald and certainly more than Macbeth.
As has been discussed in other similar threads the short term outcome is a division of England but this time 3 ways. William the South, Harald most of the old Danelaw and Macbeth probably gets all of Cumbria and perhaps down to the wall in the east (if he's very lucky down to the Tees).
However the situation would not be stable then its up to you how it goes.
 
Trying to look at the balance of forces, Godwinsson has a serious defenders' advantage; he has a mobile army that can probably do the job itself, but if he is given time in one area, he will be able to rally the local fyrd to him.

This is the key to the operations of Hastings, incidentally- Harold had enough of his household troops to contain the beach head, but not enough to squeeze it out; he wanted to hold William in place until the fyrd could rally, and William took a long shot on breaking out before that could happen.

Back to the North. With an allied Scots army in tow- competently led, but with the usual characteristic flaws of a Scots army, the terrible tendency to gamble for victory combined with the stubbornness of refusing to admit it hasn't gone well, and doubling up on a losing bet- Fulford's a stroll.

How well the Scots behave- whether they are an asset or a problem in lands that are already full of reasons to hate them- debatable, but under good officers (anachronism but you know what I mean), York and environs are taken and held.

There are so many false starts in 1066, William tried and failed to make the Channel crossing several times before actually succeeding; there's a butterfly to be had there. If not, well.

Hardrada was a wild man in his youth, but some time in Byzantine politics seasoned him; the impression I always got was that he would have been happy to winter at York, spending time on the civil reconstruction of the Danelaw, before moving for London in early spring.

Stamford was a strategic ambush; Godwinsson was not expected, which in itself is odd- perhaps the presence of the Scots changes that, simply because of the larger army having to be billeted over a larger area, more foragers out, or perhaps highland warfare has taught lessons and they have proper pickets out.

So it turns into a proper stand up fight, which the Norse-Scots Alliance wins, but then what? The army's not going to move the way Godwinsson's did, by land. That's what the drakkar are for. Faster, too.

Coming south by ship, once persuaded of the necessity, there are three things the alliance can do; head for the capital, take and hold before William can, and strike out from there;
land in the Thames estuary and March to intercept William, which could mean a meeting engagement around the lakes to the west of Ashford;
or gazump William's beach head, land at Hastings themselves and take the stores, horses and so on William's already collected for himself, and roll the Normans up from the rear.

You're going to be writing it, but I would reckon that after surviving Stamford, Hardrada's blood will be up and he will be spoiling for a fight. Yes, should be enough.
 
Trying to look at the balance of forces, Godwinsson has a serious defenders' advantage; he has a mobile army that can probably do the job itself, but if he is given time in one area, he will be able to rally the local fyrd to him.

This is the key to the operations of Hastings, incidentally- Harold had enough of his household troops to contain the beach head, but not enough to squeeze it out; he wanted to hold William in place until the fyrd could rally, and William took a long shot on breaking out before that could happen.

Back to the North. With an allied Scots army in tow- competently led, but with the usual characteristic flaws of a Scots army, the terrible tendency to gamble for victory combined with the stubbornness of refusing to admit it hasn't gone well, and doubling up on a losing bet- Fulford's a stroll.

How well the Scots behave- whether they are an asset or a problem in lands that are already full of reasons to hate them- debatable, but under good officers (anachronism but you know what I mean), York and environs are taken and held.

There are so many false starts in 1066, William tried and failed to make the Channel crossing several times before actually succeeding; there's a butterfly to be had there. If not, well.

Hardrada was a wild man in his youth, but some time in Byzantine politics seasoned him; the impression I always got was that he would have been happy to winter at York, spending time on the civil reconstruction of the Danelaw, before moving for London in early spring.

Stamford was a strategic ambush; Godwinsson was not expected, which in itself is odd- perhaps the presence of the Scots changes that, simply because of the larger army having to be billeted over a larger area, more foragers out, or perhaps highland warfare has taught lessons and they have proper pickets out.

So it turns into a proper stand up fight, which the Norse-Scots Alliance wins, but then what? The army's not going to move the way Godwinsson's did, by land. That's what the drakkar are for. Faster, too.

Coming south by ship, once persuaded of the necessity, there are three things the alliance can do; head for the capital, take and hold before William can, and strike out from there;
land in the Thames estuary and March to intercept William, which could mean a meeting engagement around the lakes to the west of Ashford;
or gazump William's beach head, land at Hastings themselves and take the stores, horses and so on William's already collected for himself, and roll the Normans up from the rear.

You're going to be writing it, but I would reckon that after surviving Stamford, Hardrada's blood will be up and he will be spoiling for a fight. Yes, should be enough.

Okay interesting, very interesting, so you think he'd win against William the Conqueror then? Interesting
 
The major battles would not be in the south of England but more probably somewhere between London and York depending on circumstances. Could Harald/Macbeth defeat William? Of course they could but so much depends on whether the southern Saxon Lords support William. They must know that he needs to give their lands to pay off his supporters but he is more in tune with them than Harald and certainly more than Macbeth.
As has been discussed in other similar threads the short term outcome is a division of England but this time 3 ways. William the South, Harald most of the old Danelaw and Macbeth probably gets all of Cumbria and perhaps down to the wall in the east (if he's very lucky down to the Tees).
However the situation would not be stable then its up to you how it goes.

Okay interesting, very interesting, what makes you think Harald would not go full out and try and defeat William and take the south?
 
Okay interesting, very interesting, what makes you think Harald would not go full out and try and defeat William and take the south?

He won't be completely certain that Edwin and Morcar will keep their word and will need to keep troops in the north ( a bit dodgy just using the Scots for that).
If the English resist William he has no need to hurry and can weigh up his options. The south will not welcome him as much as the north so wait and see. If William comes for him then fine but William will probably be making the same calculations but in reverse. The south will be too much hassle for Harald and the north likewise for William at least in the short term.

there are two problems
1. The south is RICH and William has that.
2. What does Macbeth want?
 
He won't be completely certain that Edwin and Morcar will keep their word and will need to keep troops in the north ( a bit dodgy just using the Scots for that).
If the English resist William he has no need to hurry and can weigh up his options. The south will not welcome him as much as the north so wait and see. If William comes for him then fine but William will probably be making the same calculations but in reverse. The south will be too much hassle for Harald and the north likewise for William at least in the short term.

there are two problems
1. The south is RICH and William has that.
2. What does Macbeth want?

Okay interesting, well in the timeline edwin and morcar are dead by the finishing of stafford bridge. Due to fights with scots and norse beforehand.
 

trajen777

Banned
Look forward to the POD -- HH was caught without armor and only part of his troops. If the army is large enough with the Scots i am not sure Godwenson marches north right away or consolidates his troops.

By this time William arrives and Godwensons best troops are rested and not depleted by the battle with HH. So Godwenson has a much better chance of defeating William. After this you have a reversal. You have HH marching south with some of the Northumbrean troops loyal to Godwensons brother - who is with HH - and the Scotts.

HH has the Scots, some Brits, fully armed and armored Norse, and if he does not fall into a trap a hi probability of success against G.
 
Look forward to the POD -- HH was caught without armor and only part of his troops. If the army is large enough with the Scots i am not sure Godwenson marches north right away or consolidates his troops.

By this time William arrives and Godwensons best troops are rested and not depleted by the battle with HH. So Godwenson has a much better chance of defeating William. After this you have a reversal. You have HH marching south with some of the Northumbrean troops loyal to Godwensons brother - who is with HH - and the Scotts.

HH has the Scots, some Brits, fully armed and armored Norse, and if he does not fall into a trap a hi probability of success against G.

OKay interesting :)
 
Top