What if Harald Hardrada won the Battle of Stamford Bridge?

He would no doubt have gone on the face his Norman cousins under William. What do you guys think would have happened in a battle between these two Viking descendants? How would their fighting styles have compared?
 

trajen777

Banned
I think they would have split britan. If in a battle hard would be at an initial disadvantage having taken severe losses. However if he could have recovered his forces, his experience fighting Normans, Turks, and other forces with the byz and in Norway would have given him the edge.
 
Most likely, William is able to take London first, while Harald consolidates his hold on the North. I suspect that a fair number of Anglo-Saxon nobles are going to end up falling into Harald's camp and there will probably be a decisive battle once the winter ends and the roads are clear. Its probably a bit of a 50/50 over who would win, but lets say its the Norwegians; because that is far more fun and interesting.

As I've stated in other posts, Harald had left his son as King in Norway and that will probably continue to be the situation as Harald consolidates his rule over England. I'd suspect the English probably look to Harald as another Cnut and there isn't a fundamental restructuring of the government in England. Now, after the Hard Ruler passes, England will probably go to his second son Olaf. Things get interesting is Magnus dies as he did in OTL, and Olaf becomes king of both England and Norway.

In OTL, Olaf was known as a city builder, and I doubt this will change in the ATL. What will change, however, is that he now has experience in England which has a number of urban centers. Whatever cities he founds in Norway will probably be based on the English model and may even be settled by Englishmen invited over for just that purpose. This means that the English might serve a similar role and function in Scandinavia as German burghers did in Central and Eastern Europe. This will, of course, facilitate further trade between England and Scandinavia and probably ties England permanently into the world of Northern Europe (where it will be THE leading power), rather than Western Europe - though they will, of course, continue to maintain connections with the Low Countries across the channel.
 
On a side note: Harald has a Tostig problem. He got Tostig Godwinson on his side, after Harold Godwinson stripped his brother's title of Jarl of Northumbria. So, you may say, Harald could just give Northumbria back to Tostig in repayment for the later betraying his brother. The problem with this, though, is that Tostig was deeply unpopular in Northumbria and had been stripped of his title there because of constant rebellions against his rule. Since Northumberland and the rest of the old Danelaw is likely to be a major base of support for Harald, he's not going to be able to risk angering them by restoring Tostig to his old position.
 
He would no doubt have gone on the face his Norman cousins under William.
This is actually a bit debatale : while the ties between the courts of Norway and Normandy were effectively meager at this point, there were still an acknowledgement from Normandy's role for Norses (less due to a really thin Anglo-Scandinavian heritage in Normandy, that Normans played a key role into Christianisation of Norway).
It's is quite possible that part of Norway's bishops were consecrated in Normandy in the decades before the Norman conquest of England, and it have been hypothesized that the events of 1066 were based on a roughly joint attack on Harold, with good reasons IMO
On this perspective, we could see Danes and Normans splitting up England in a North-South division reminiscent of other shared kingship in the Xth and XIth centuries. How it would unfold from there is anyne's guess, altough the unstability of Scandinavian transoceanic kingship would make me think that Anglo-Normans would have better chances winning it all eventually.

What do you guys think would have happened in a battle between these two Viking descendants? How would their fighting styles have compared?
At this point Normans were essentially French : not only due to a Scandinavian settlement (or rather, a mix of Anglo-Danish and Hiberno-Norse settlement, more than Vikings in the sense of settled raiding bands) being fairly limited to the coastline; but also culturally as they were in relations and eventually mixed with Neustrian nobility even before the treaty of 911.
In 1066, Normans considered themselves as Franci, French. Of course, a special regional kind of Franci and not as a proto-national ground but that's true of virtually any region of France at this point too.
There were simply no real interest from Norman court to Scandinavia after (and probably during) Rollo's reign and the last skald visiting Normandy in the 1020's was essentially about an aged duke's remembrances at best.

When it comes to warfare, Norman fighting was as "french" (or, really, continental) you could get in Champagne, Anjou or Flanders.

Now, let's imagine a later conflict between Norses and Normans.
I mentioned it above, but "North Sea empires" à la Canute's aren't really stable and actually to crumble easily under their own weight : not only because regional elites had their own political culture and interests on which kings had to stress their authority to mobilize enough forces and resources to defeat local/regional uprising or kingship claimants which generally tended to prove too much after a while.
It's of course complexified by a certain tendency of scandinavian kingship to aggregate titles not as much dynastically but as themselves : roughly, a Dane king without relation to his predecessor and even managing to stress its independence towards the "regular" successor of the hegemon would still consider the titles of the previous kings as amalgamated to his one.
Hence why both Norse and Dane king could claim the kingship of England regardless of their ties with the last scandinavian king of England.

Meanwhile, Normans benefited from ruling a fairly unified principality in the XIth century (especially compared to their neighbours), and a fairly populated one with that, with a lot of mercenaries/vassals/fighters to be found not only in Normandy but, as it happened in 1066, in Brittany and Flanders.
Giving the alleged ethnic hatred between Saxons and Normans should be nuanced (Normans didn't oust Saxon nobility because they were Saxons, they ousted them because they wanted their place and/or get rid of a traditionally rebellious nobility they already dealt with at home), it's not even a given that Saxons would join with Danes or Norses just because. Especially when a good part of the Saxon political identity in the Xth and XIth century was "not Scandinavian".

Honestly, strategically (and possibly tactically, even if it's really not a given), Normans have far better chances to take the whole of English kingship at this point, but as it would happen on very different grounds than IOTL, probably with important changes.
 
Last edited:
Maybe Harald would have offered Tostig a new territory.
That's possible, but Tostig was notoriously unreliable and anything too much south and in contacts with Normans would only increase the possibility of the earl scheming his way up (and probably failing at that, he doesn't seems to have been hugely competent). and as @DanMcCollum said, most of territories he could have settled him were too important to be given away. The only parts he could have received, eventually, were either what he asked for, as in Northumbria, with all the problems it implies (even if people as Cposi seems to indicate he still had some network and clientele there) ; or western peripheral territories held by Edwin which would be technically safer but giving that Tostig did raided these areas before, that he had barely a foot there, that it wasn't a really profitable territory and that eventually Harald can't piss too much Saxon magnates out of their earldoms...

In spite of all the problems it would cause, I think Tostig would get Northumbria ITTL because any other choice is creating more problems. At least in a first time.
Then, when his winning personality would kick in again, either as ousted by local revolts or in an open revolt with other earls against Haralda, there would be room for changes, at least locally.
 
In OTL, Olaf was known as a city builder, and I doubt this will change in the ATL. What will change, however, is that he now has experience in England which has a number of urban centers. Whatever cities he founds in Norway will probably be based on the English model and may even be settled by Englishmen invited over for just that purpose. This means that the English might serve a similar role and function in Scandinavia as German burghers did in Central and Eastern Europe. This will, of course, facilitate further trade between England and Scandinavia and probably ties England permanently into the world of Northern Europe (where it will be THE leading power), rather than Western Europe - though they will, of course, continue to maintain connections with the Low Countries across the channel.
Now I wanna read this
 
Top