WI:Harald & Tostig beat Harald & William the Conqueror

If Harald of Norway and Tostig Godwinson had managed to defeat Harald of England and William of Normandy in 1065-1066, could we have seen a large Norwegian Empire?
 
If Harald of Norway and Tostig Godwinson had managed to defeat Harald of England and William of Normandy in 1065-1066, could we have seen a large Norwegian Empire?

Depends who kills who first. England will move towards the Scandinavian sphere of influence.
 
For the record, it should be Harold Godwinson with an O. I don't mean to be picky. The title of the thread looked a little off to me.
An empire of England and Norway set up by Harald Hardrada would not long outlive him. Harald was no spring chicken (he was about fifty in 1066), and had spent the best years of his life in exile, fighting in Byzantine service.
 
Norwegian England...

I assume Hardrada would have been crowned King of England and would probably made Tostig his Regent when he returned to Norway.

Tostig was a thoroughly unpleasant character and I think it unlikely he could have ruled England for long without facing some kind of rebellion from the Anglo-Saxon aristocracy or other elements of the Godwinson clan or possibly Edgar Aetheling.

It would probably have hung together while Hardrada lived but his death would have seen his sons Magnus and Olaf battle Tostig for control.

My suspicion is Tostig would have been ousted and the Norwegians forced to withdraw leaving the Saxons in control whether with the Aetheling or some other noble as the new King.
 
I'd imagine as suggested Hadrada becomes king with Tostig as regent. By 1075, he'll probably be dead. Tostig claims throne, major rebellions with Aetheling as the figurehead (whether he likes it or not!). Half-hearted Norwegian efforts to reclaim throne, leading to a defeat on English soil. Edgar crowned king. However what kind of king he would be is interesting and very hard to figure. Would he be a new Alfred, throwing the enemy into the sea or just a puppet for the aristocracy to fight over.

Interesting tangent, if William dies on campaign, what effect will it have on Norman power? Most of his army were French/Breton auxiliaries working 'in hand' until suitable spoils could be won in England, Id imagine the survivors would be pissed off. Civil war for the Dukedom is very possible and wont help matters. Will the eventual winner look to England again or will Normandy be severly weakened? Will the Normans be able spread their influence into the Mediterranean and Holy Lands?

Without a cross-channel dynasty I imagine Anglo-French relations will be VERY different. Will the English conquer the British Isles sooner? Will Norman power focused on the continent weaken the French kings' efforts to centralise?
 
Without the Norman conquest of England in 1066, there is still the autonomous Norman-ruled counties and dukedoms in southern Italy and Sicily. Robert Guiscard and Roger I of Sicily were contemporaries of Duke William, and one of the commanders of the First Crusade was Prince Bohemond of Taranto, the son of Robert Guiscard. So in a manner of speaking, there would still be figures of Norman extraction or descent making their mark outside of the Duchy of Normandy. But without the military acquisition of England, the heir to Normandy would be either Robert Curthose, William Rufus, or Henry Beauclerc (King Henry I of England).

Harald Hardrada's Anglo-Norwegian kingdom may be divided between Magnus II and Olaf Kyrre.
 
A case has been made that Tostig was mentally ill and the deterioration would not have been seen on short notice but someone who knew him well and then met him after a period of years would barely recognize the man. Certainly many of his actions in his last year or two do not speak of great rationality.

Not to mention that if Harold is beaten but survives he might yet choose to honor his oath to William, though it was given under duress. Better an earl and key ally then dead. Or perhaps the other prominent men of England might embrace William over Harald Hardrada and the despised Tostig.


Incidentally while Harold's victory over Tostig and Hardrada was impressive both that and his defeat at Hastings suggest his position was not nearly as secure as was thought, as he twice rushed into battle with a fraction of what England could have fielded despite advice to do otherwise.
 
Guys

I would have preferred Harold winning:D but, although Harald H seems to have been pretty bloody I think it still would have been far better for England [and the neighbouring kingdoms] than William the Vile winning.

If nothing else I can't see a prolonged royal union at this period and you wouldn't have seen the wholesale destruction of the English establishment.

Steve
 
Top