WI: Hardrada goes for Scotland

I'm sure most of you are familiar with the year 1066 - the year that both the Vikings and the Normans both invaded England, culminating in the death of the Viking and English kings and the crowning of William the Conqueror, the first Norman king of England.

And, of course, with Britain becoming such an influence later on, I think it's safe to say it's one of the biggest events in post-Roman history, if not one of the biggest events in all history.

But what if Harald Hardrada, the Viking king, had gone for Scotland instead?

The Vikings will most likely win in Scotland, resulting in a later end to the "Viking Age" and more widespread Viking influence. If they don't win, it'll most likely be like what happened OTL with the "fall" of the Vikings.

Of course, the Vikings not meddling with England has major impact on the Norman conquest. Harold of England never has to divert his troops to stop the Viking invasion, and they have more ability to stop Duke William and the rest of Normandy when they land on the south coast of England. Whether they win or not is still important, but a Viking Scotland is still interesting to think about.

What do you think? Is the premise of the Vikings invading Scotland rather than England plausible or just ASB? Without the Vikings in the equation, would the Normans or the English win? What would the effect of a Viking Scotland be on history?
 
Last edited:
There's a major problem with Hardrada claiming Scotland, it's because Hardrada's actually did have a claim of sorts to England, but none whatsoever for Scotland.
 
I don't think it's ASB as much as "Why would he pick
Scotland, which is poorer, over England?"
There's a major problem with Hardrada claiming Scotland, it's because Hardrada's actually did have a claim of sorts to England, but none whatsoever for Scotland.

I was thinking of something with the Normans invading sooner, and proving themselves to be much stronger than England anyway (even with the bigger English army - possibly the Normans rally a stronger army, or England winds up with bad command), which then makes the Vikings wary of invading England and instead invading Scotland to get a foothold on the British Isles, planning to stockpile forces on the border and eventually thrashing the Normans while they're putting down rebellions from the native Anglo-Saxons.

Of course, I don't know if they would plan something like that, but it's a possibility, I'd say. And Scotland, while less valuable than England, is worth something. Everything is worth something, either economically, strategically, militarily, or something else - population crowding comes to mind, though I doubt the Vikings were plagued by that.
 
I was thinking of something with the Normans invading sooner, and proving themselves to be much stronger than England anyway (even with the bigger English army - possibly the Normans rally a stronger army, or England winds up with bad command), which then makes the Vikings wary of invading England and instead invading Scotland to get a foothold on the British Isles, planning to stockpile forces on the border and eventually thrashing the Normans while they're putting down rebellions from the native Anglo-Saxons.

Of course, I don't know if they would plan something like that, but it's a possibility, I'd say. And Scotland, while less valuable than England, is worth something. Everything is worth something, either economically, strategically, militarily, or something else - population crowding comes to mind, though I doubt the Vikings were plagued by that.

If England is off the table Harald III would most likely try for Denmark again, his other claim. It is also closer and richer than Scotland, and even if he cant take the whole of the kingdom, it might cement his earlier conquests from the Danes.
 
There's a major problem with Hardrada claiming Scotland, it's because Hardrada's actually did have a claim of sorts to England, but none whatsoever for Scotland.
Yes

I don't think it's ASB as much as "Why would he pick Scotland, which is poorer, over England?"
Also true

If England is off the table Harald III would most likely try for Denmark again, his other claim. It is also closer and richer than Scotland, and even if he cant take the whole of the kingdom, it might cement his earlier conquests from the Danes.

Even more so.


Besides, a quibble from the first post, there arent any picts left, the scots have tken all of 'scotland' by now.
 
If England is off the table Harald III would most likely try for Denmark again, his other claim. It is also closer and richer than Scotland, and even if he cant take the whole of the kingdom, it might cement his earlier conquests from the Danes.

He'd been trying and failing to capture Denmark, even after the whole Magnus thing. In 1064 (or 1065, depending on your source) he'd signed a peace treaty with his ally-turned-enemy Sweyn. Denmark was off the table as well. He could always break the treaty and reinvade, but he invaded Denmark pretty much yearly from 1048 to 1064 without success. Scotland isn't a claim of his, but with the whole England claim, especially with the Anglo-Saxon King's own brother allying with Harald, it seems like he'd be willing to work his way into England. The one major obstacle I see is the fact that he doesn't have a claim on Scotland.

Of course, maybe I'm pushing to hard for Scotland. Harald, as the King of Norway, seemed to be bent on taking Denmark and England - the two countries he had a claim on. I'm just seeing the Norman Conquest as a major turning point in history, and I'm trying to play around with it.
 
I doubt Norman conquest would scare Harald, in fact I'd think that would encourage him and give him a window where he really has a chance to get the English nobility on his side. In most situations where the choice is William a man who has repeatedly proven himself hostile to english custom and law and Harald a Norwegian conqueror who ultimately is a situation the English nobility could feel much more comfortable in (and have much more chance of throwing off, in the end a united English opposition to Norway's rule could easily topple Haralds line) they may not like it but in a choice between the two they will almost certainly go for the viking versus the self important French duke.
 
He could always break the treaty and reinvade, but he invaded Denmark pretty much yearly from 1048 to 1064 without success.

I would not call the east of today's Norway without success. And is earlier actions points to Harald III as being pragmatic, ruthless and not overly concerns with treaty's. He saw an opportunity in England, take away that, Denmark looks good. Not many other decent targets close enough too home (and he can`t really stray away to fare or too long, there are still Trønderer)
 
I doubt Norman conquest would scare Harald, in fact I'd think that would encourage him and give him a window where he really has a chance to get the English nobility on his side. In most situations where the choice is William a man who has repeatedly proven himself hostile to english custom and law and Harald a Norwegian conqueror who ultimately is a situation the English nobility could feel much more comfortable in (and have much more chance of throwing off, in the end a united English opposition to Norway's rule could easily topple Haralds line) they may not like it but in a choice between the two they will almost certainly go for the viking versus the self important French duke.

I can see that happening. William invades from Normandy a few months earlier and Harald offers the English nobles an alliance (in exchange for joint-leadership of England). While the Normans were strong, they wouldn't be able to take on both the English and Norwegian armies at the same time. I can see something in this scenario where, after the defeat of William, the English and the Vikings finally subdue Denmark, as Harald III had at least some of the Anglo-Saxons on his side.

I would not call the east of today's Norway without success. And is earlier actions points to Harald III as being pragmatic, ruthless and not overly concerns with treaty's. He saw an opportunity in England, take away that, Denmark looks good. Not many other decent targets close enough too home (and he can`t really stray away to fare or too long, there are still Trønderer)

If Harald had invaded Denmark rather than England in 1066, would he be more or less successful than his, well, unsuccessful (life-ending) escapades in England?
 
I can see that happening. William invades from Normandy a few months earlier and Harald offers the English nobles an alliance (in exchange for joint-leadership of England). While the Normans were strong, they wouldn't be able to take on both the English and Norwegian armies at the same time. I can see something in this scenario where, after the defeat of William, the English and the Vikings finally subdue Denmark, as Harald III had at least some of the Anglo-Saxons on his side.

Joint rulership is probably a bit much, they'd probably simply go for the reinstating of the Wittan, possibly with more power put in its hands to run England in the absence of Harold. The English nobility and freemen are kind of fucked without this and if he gives them something close to status quo they may jump at it anyway. But yeah if he gets England he probably also gets Denmark in the long run (or if he dies before it can happen his son claims Denmark).
 
Top