WI Harald Hardrada is NOT taken by surprise at Stamford Bridge (1066)?

The generally accepted view is that Harold's Anglo-Saxons took Harald Hardrada's Norwegians by surprise, catching them dispersed and without much of their armor and heavy equipment (as the Vikings had stowed these on their ships, not expecting another battle for days/weeks). Even with these advantages, the Anglo-Saxons supposedly had a very tough time of it with the battle lasting most of the day. In fact by some claims the Anglo-Saxons lost up to 40 men trying to overcome the first Viking warrior they came across (who was holding the bridge alone), although I can certainly understand that this bridge story may have been exaggerated somewhat.

So, what if the Norwegians had received advanced warning of the Anglo-Saxon army's approach? I suppose a key part of this question must relate to what exactly happened in OTL, e.g. were the Norwegians really caught without their chainmail byrnies and so on or was this just an attempt by Scandinavian sources to explain the defeat? And also of course how much of a disadvantage it would have been to be unarmored in the first place.

Assuming that the "generally accepted" version of the tale is more or less true (i.e. the Norwegians were widely dispersed in two or more groups, and mostly unarmored and/or suboptimally equipped), I would say that Hardrada would definitely have a good chance of prevailing at Stamford Bridge. And if this happened, although the waiting Normans would of course have benefited (as they did in OTL) from sitting out the first bloody battle, perhaps Hardrada could have counted on rallying some support from the North of England? If this was feasible then I also give Hardrada a good chance against the Normans, although if this was not possible then I doubt the Norwegians and the Normans would rush towards each other so the campaign could in any case have dragged on for quite some time, with the outcome by no means certain. Thoughts?
 
A few thoughts.

As you stated, it does depend on whether or not the norwegian army was armored in OTL. Personally, I think that they were not ready for battle, although the exact for that this takes is debatable. However, for the rest of this post, i will assume that the Norwegians were unarmored in OTL, but are armored ITTL.

I think that a fully armed and ready Norwegian army could have broken the english under harold. The numbers would have been roughly equal. The english army would have been a core of heavily armored Huscarls along with assorted fyrd picked up by Harold along his march. I'm less certain about Harold Hardrada's army, but am fairly sure that it would have been a more seasoned and generally tougher force, and on average better armed then the english fyrd. The fighting styles of both sides are similar, so a head-to-head confrontation will devolve into an Infantry melee. My personal interpretation is that, in OTL, the norwegians lost because they could not stop the huscarls. They were probably more then a match for the fyrd, but a mix of disorder and dispersion, and being unarmored, meant that the huscarls could deliver a killing blow. Here, the vikings are ready, and can probably crush the fyrd and then overwheld the huscarls. I think the Norwegians win the day, due to better quality troops, and morale (early successes + dead if they lose). Let's say that Harold Godwinson and his brothers (except tostig) fall, as at hastings, and the saxon army breaks.

What next? Well, harold hardrada has to move south, and quickly, for the same reasons that godwinson and William marched quickly after stanford bridge and hastings, respectivly. But he doesn't have to move nearly as fast as Harold, and can take time to recover from his loses and build support. And support he will have. Given a choice between harold Hardrada, who has a decent claim, a victorious army, defeated his challenger, better historical and cultural ties, and an alliance with Harold's last brother, or William, who has a claim and a french army, I think most of the Saxon lords (those who pick a side) will rally around Harold and Tostig. So they march south, and meet william in a battle near and similar to Hastings. I would personally favor Harold to triumph, but either way it would be an interesting result.
 
My own thoughts on the relative quality of the two forces are much like yours, i.e. I have the impression that the Norwegians would have the edge man-for-man, based on the rather limited knowledge I have on the subject. I am assuming that Harald Hardrada had with him an elite core of former Varangian Guard veterans who served alongside him in his years fighting as a mercenary for the Byzantine Empire. Unless Harold Godwinson's housecarls had similar experience fighting as foreign mercenaries I imagine they had far less battle experience than Hardrada's elite companions.

I am also curious as to how large a difference it would make to fight unarmored, as both of us are assuming many Norwegians did. I'm wondering if two evenly-matched 11th-century fighters typically took multiple hits to chainmail before a fight was decided? I would normally have said yes but I remember coming across lots of pessimistic sources stating that chainmail is terrible at stopping pointed weapons like arrows and spears, as well as for instance the Danish axe which both sides employed. Also, I believe some sources claim that the Norwegian reinforcements even discarded their armor(!) to be less encumbered, although I would be very surprised if wearing chainmail actually conferred an overall disadvantage!

I agree about Hardrada having more time to gather support and prepare for the next battle with the Normans than Godwinson did in OTL. You put forward some good reasons as to why most of the natives may end up choosing Hardrada over William. Although based on claim alone Hardrada had the more tenuous one IMO, overall I also rate him as having more potential for gaining local support.

As to the final battle between the Vikings and Normans, would it necessarily be the Vikings marching south? Given Hardrada's conduct in the days before Stamford Bridge in OTL (sacking Scarborough, the comparatively leisurely demanding of hostages and supplies from York, even sunbathing apparently :cool:), I don't see him moving south with any great haste. And would William march up to him? He may instead be tempted to advance on London? In any case he would certainly move on from the Hastings area soon since it had already been thoroughly pillaged by his army.
 
Top