WI: Harad wins at Stamford Bridge

What if King Hadrada of Norway didn't move some of his army up North and instead keeps them in York? Would he be able to fend off the Anglo-Saxon attack? If so would he be able to seize the English Crown? What would happen if he did? How would the Normans respond?
 
I would assume that he would lose against The Normans. Probably his namebrother, Harold Godwinson, had a better chance against the Normans, as he would get more local support.
 

jahenders

Banned
As a slight variant to that idea, imagine if he had made it to York (where they were apparently headed) and walled up there, instead of being caught on the road. If that happened, Harold might have had to prepare for a seige to starve them out. However, just as he's getting entrenched, he gets word of the Normans.

At that point, what does he do? Ignore the Norwegians, ignore the Normans, or try to deal with both?

It's hard to say, but suppose he puts out word to raise all of they fyrd, leaves some of the fyrd to try to maintain the seige and moves the rest of his army (including all his Huscarls) to face William. Assuming he can still meet William on some good ground, I'd say there's a good chance he'll win as the strength and discipline of the Huscarls could easily make the difference.

Assuming he wins and kills William, his force is damaged and now has to deal with Harald. Quite likely the Norwegians have broken out of York (either destroying the guarding fyrd or driving them back) and is moving toward Harold.

So, if they meet again, can Harold still win or does it become a case of Harald winning Stamford Bridge (but just a few weeks later)?
 
Had Harald Sigurdsson defeated Harold Godwinson then there was a fair chance that he would get the support for the English throne rather than Wilgelm le Batard.
I doubt that he would rush to the Kentish coast but stop to be crowned and acclaimed in London. By which time both the Norwegian and English forces would be assembled in a good order to meet and defeat Wilgelm. Thus the English throne would be back in Scandinavian hands. I don't see Harald making the legal and social changes of Wilgelm but rather keeping the status quo in England. Possibly it would become a North Sea centred empire rather than a Channel based culture but that would depend upon his successors.
 

Dirk

Banned
If Harald is still at large when Harold hears of William's landing, he'll stay at large for a while. Harold's base of power was in southern England, the Thames and the Channel coast, and he wouldn't bother to defend the north with such a huge, Pope-sanctioned invasion to the south.

The Danes owned all of England just fifty years before the invasion, and the English people, culture, and language were much closer to the Norwegians than the Normans. So yulzari is correct, if William defeats Harold in an alternate Hastings where Harold's men are fresh and unblooded, Harald would get the support. However, the battle was pretty close even in OTL, so Harold would probably defeat William and keep all the Englishmen's support. Though Harald would then have superior force of arms.

If Harald does succeed in the end, I'm sure that his "North Sea Empire" will split at the end of his death, just like Knut the Great's did, with his sons tearing each other apart for control of England (a much wealthier, at least more temperate, land than Norway).
 
It's probable that Harald and William had some sort of agreement or at least half-hearted strategical alliance. The links between the courts of Normandy and Norway are known, even if there's not much to be known about, and the preparatives (as well the campaigns' schedule) could point that.

Now, what form would have taken this agreement?

I think it would have led to a dual kingship, as it was already made before (think Edgar/Knut). As in two kings of England, each one ruling his own (there was a discussion some time ago about it, my take is that the separation would have been somewhere in Mercia or along Wessex lines).

Giving that Anglo-Saxon forces wouldn't be beaten only by Stamford Bridge's defeat, unlike Hastings that cut Godwinssons and other pretenders from the better holdings of the kingdom, William would still have to deal with at least Wessex and Sussex conquest.
Granted it would be easier than IOTL, meaning William would have more fresh and more well revitailed troops than Harald.

Eventually, I think both would keep their word (for the time being, after that, you'd end with another war of unification) because the gambit wouldn't be worth the possible losses.

As for Harald being warmly welcomed by Anglo-Saxons this is highly implausible. Granted, Scandinavian have a long history in England by this point. But it should be remembered that this history definitely didn't end well for them, and that one of the decisive points of the newborn English identity was "not Scandinavian" (not only since Alfred the Great, but as well after the struggles of the XIth century). They simply let a bad memory and no one would be really thrilled to see them back in charge (Totsig revolt can be explained less by a love of Harald than being shunned by other Anglo-Saxons lords and doing a great "take that" to them)

At best, the Anglo-Saxon nobility would try to play the Norwegians against Normans (that, eventually, had as well a claim of common history with England, seeing that the massive part of Scandinavian settlers of Normandy were probably Anglo-Scandinavians).

As for Harald's dominion over his share of England, I simply don't see it lasting.

Scandinavian kings never really managed to get a lasting hold on England, mostly because they had to deal with multiple rebelling realms (England, Danemark mostly), and a Norwegian England that doesn't include the most populated and wealthy regions of the isle have its days counted.
 
Could you plausibly switch the sequence of the battles? Hastings first, Stamford Bridge second?

That should not be too difficult. Harald Hardrada would not even have to know about the Norman plans. He could just be delayed for some reason.
 

jahenders

Banned
VERY easily. Williams wanted to sail as early as June, but was prevented from doing so by contrary winds and rough seas.

During the summer, Harold has his full Huscarls ready, his full fyrd called up, AND his fleet on patrol in the channel. If William had invaded when he wanted, I think Harold would likely have beaten him soundly. First, the Saxon fleet does some damage to the invading Normans, sinking some ships or, at the very least, causing chaos. So then William (at 80-90% strength) is met by a Saxon army 1.5-2 times as strong as IOTL and with a lot more professional Huscarls. Harold's army is just waiting for them and hasn't (as IOTL) just marched for days after a tough battle. Since ITOL Hastings was a very near-run thing, improving things in Harold's favor by all these things will almost certainly mean Harold wins.


Could you plausibly switch the sequence of the battles? Hastings first, Stamford Bridge second?
 
The Norwegians could certainly have done much better at Stamford Bridge. They had no idea that the English army was anywhere close, and had to fight without their full armor.

If Harald wins out in a three-way contest for the English throne, I doubt that his empire will hold together for too long. He had plenty of enemies who could combine against him, and even if he could keep his empire in one piece during his lifetime, Norway's ill-defined succession rules virtually guaranteed a eventual dynastic civil war and probable fragmentation.
 
Top