What if Harald Hardråde lands in England at the 15th of October

What if Harald Hardråde (Hard-Ruler) lands outside of York on the 15th of October 1066, a day after the battle of Hastings? How would history go if that happened? Who would have won the battle of Hastings, as Harald Godwinson's army, even though they won at Stamford Bridge, was depleted and tired after the fighting at stamford bridge. And of course there is the forced march from the south up to the north and then down south again to meet William.
 
Last edited:
I think Godwinsons army stands a good chance of beating either of the invasions but having to fight both within a couple of months is near impossible. If Hardrada landed later then I think he would stand a good chance of winning and if Godwinson delays heading north after Hastings then Hardrada may be able to win support from Yorkshire which had a lot of Viking settlers
 
I think Godwinsons army stands a good chance of beating either of the invasions but having to fight both within a couple of months is near impossible. If Hardrada landed later then I think he would stand a good chance of winning and if Godwinson delays heading north after Hastings then Hardrada may be able to win support from Yorkshire which had a lot of Viking settlers

The Fyrd was perfectly capably of defeating either army but both invasions together makes it very difficult depending on how soon the 2nd one was.
I'll also point out that Harold's forces were holding their own for most of Hastings until an unfortunate error that ended with that fateful charge.
 

jahenders

Banned
If Harold (Godwinson) faces William before Harold has to deal with Harald, William is in DEEP trouble. Hastings was a near run thing IOTL. If Harold has his Huscarls at full strength, his fyrd at full strength, and all his forces are relatively well rested (NOT just having rushed South after a battle), the odds change strong in Harold's favor. I think he'll defeat William pretty soundly and force him to withdraw.

William and his remaining forces can then play for time and either pull back toward his ships or choose some defensible terrain and try to force Harold to attack him. In either case, his situation is improved when Harold gets work that Hardrada has landed up North.

In this situation, Harold probably leaves a holding/harassing force to either hold William in place or force him to flee by ship. He takes the core of his force up North to face Hardrada, but he probably takes more time.

Depending on what forces he's able to bring North, he may not attack Hardrada immediately -- he may wait to build up strength and/or resolve the situation with William. He could be faced with having to split his forces and having two enemies where can't afford to attack either one.

Ultimately, I think William will have to withdraw -- his forces are bloodied, supplies are thin, they're in unfriendly territory, and William and his knights have to worry about issues back in Normandy (including lands of fellow lords/knights that fell at Hastings).

With William gone, Harold can marshall enough forces to crush Hardrada.

So, ultimately this is better for Harold, but not as good as if William had landed back in Jun/Jul as he wanted to. Had William landed in July, he would have been crushed. His fleet would have been attacked/harried by the Saxon fleet before landing. Then, his somewhat weakened force would have met Harold at full strength. Once he loses, his survivors are going to be harrassed as they get to their ships and then again once they're at sea. Meanwhile, Harold would have time to build back up before Harald Hardrada appears.

What if Harald Hardråde (Hard-Ruler) lands outside of York on the 15th of October 1066, a day after the battle of Hastings? How would history go if that happened? Who would have won the battle of Hastings, as Harald Godwinson's army, even though they won at Stamford Bridge, was depleted and tired after the fighting at stamford bridge. And of course there is the forced march from the south up to the north and then down south again to meet William.
 
This is kind of building off the OP but what if Harold still died at Hastings (unfortunate arrow incident maybe?) and then William and Harald had to duke it out for England?
 
The biggest problem for both William and Harold when facing Hardrada, is that, as we see during the battle of Stamford bridge, that the norsemen held their own when numbering 6000 (3000 more would join at a later stage) against Harold's 15000 men, ending up killing 5000 of those with 6000 as losses. So if both the armies had been gathered, and the problem with the main army not being split, I do really think that Harald, being the most experienced leader of the three, could have a fair chance of winning against the winner amongts those two, or even both. Also, everything went very bad for the Norwegians, as during the battle:

*The army was split between both sides of the bridge
*They were lightly armoured as they did not expect any large English army coming up from the south so fast.
*The Normans held the only high ground in the area
*Harald was killed when he got an arrow to the windpipe
*The reinforcements which came to the Norwegians aid was exhausted, but still put up a good counter attack, but then their leader died and everything went south.

And even so the 9000 Norwegians (3000 whom arrived late) held up a very good defence against Harolds army, but was in great disadvantage

What went good for them:

*Allegedly there was this one Berserker whom held the bridge for a while so the Norwegians could form up a shield wall to better defend themselves.
*They were in a defensive position with a bridge between them and Harold.

Though the bridge was narrow and for some reason, the Norwegians let the English cross and form up a shield wall before they charged at them.
 
Egil Ingesson wrote:

The biggest problem for both William and Harold when facing Hardrada, is that, as we see during the battle of Stamford bridge, that the norsemen held their own when numbering 6000 (3000 more would join at a later stage) against Harold's 15000 men, ending up killing 5000 of those with 6000 as losses.

Citation needed.
 
Egil Ingesson wrote:



Citation needed.

I am citating from wikipedia right now, but if someone knows any better sources please hit me with it to enlighten my view of battle and Norwegian Invasion.

The Battle of Stamford Bridge

Wikipedia, background
the Norwegians assembled a fleet of 300 ships to invade England. The authors, however, did not seem to differentiate between warships and supply ships. In King Harald's Saga, Snorri Sturluson states, "... it is said that King Harald had over two hundred ships, apart from supply ships and smaller craft."[2] Combined with reinforcements received in Orkney, the Norwegian army most likely numbered between 7,000 to 9,000 men. Arriving off the English coast in September he was joined by further forces recruited in Flanders and Scotland by Tostig Godwinson.

Also, Wikipedia lists the English army to be around 15000 men, and Harald had:

In the later stages of the battle, the Norwegians were reinforced by troops who had been left behind to guard the ships at Riccall, led by Eystein Orre, Hardrada's daughter's fiancé

As you see here, there were reinforcements which arrived at a later date during the battle. It does not list the amount of men here, but further up on the top right corner.

For the losses my only source atm., (as I forgot the book on Norwegian history at hom) is from the source up in the corner.
 
Top