WI: King Harald Harada of England?

read this on Tvtropes:
Duke William of Normandy invaded England and killed King Harold Godwinson, the last Anglo-Saxon King. William was motivated by the fact that he was Edward the Confessor's cousin (Edward the Confessor was the King of England before Harold Godwinson for those paying attention). King Harold Godwinson's daughter married Prince Vladimir Monomakh of Kiev (whose own mother was the daughter of Constantine IX Monomachus of Byzantium). The Russians, assisted by large numbers of Scandanavians, invaded Byzantium in 1043. Harald Hadrada ("the Ruthless"), who later became king of Norway, joined the Byzantine army with a large following of northmen ("Varanger"), campaigned widely, and ripped out the eyes of the Byzantine emperor Michael Caliphates in 1042. King Harald Hadrada of Norway invaded England in 1066, on the pretext that it was promissed to his family by Harthacnut who's father was Cnut The Great, Viking King of Norway, Denmark, and England from 1018-1035. Harthacnut's mother was also Emma of Normandy, William of Normandy's grandmother. Harald Hadrada was killed by King Harold Godwinson, who was himself killed by Duke William at the Battle of Hastings, thus ending the Saxon period, and leading to centurys of French rulers on the English throne. All at a time when most people never got further than 3 miles from their birth place.
Got me to thinking, What if Harada beat out both Godwinson and William the conqueror for the title of king?
 
ArKhan

Probably the simplest way to arrange this would be that Harald doesn't defeat both but simply that William arrives earlier, then Harad defeats the weakened winner of that encounter. [Probably Harold as his force would have been markedly stronger without having the hurried march north to fight the Vikings].

Not sure where Harald would have gone from there. Most of what I've read sounded more like he was out for loot rather than any lasting control. Also with a kingdom in Norway and continued claim on Denmark he would probably select a trusted underling for the day to day government of England. From there so many butterflies as to which way it could go.

Also if William and most of his men are killed in the failed invasion, whether by either opponent, what state would Normandy be in? Would have lost a lot of manpower, as would have some neighbouring states and possibly have had a succession crisis.

Steve
 
Depends if you believe Haraldssaga...

A historian of the time (whose name eludes me for a moment, but maybe Michael Psellus) did not give Harald much credence. He achieved a rank roughly translating as 'belt wearer', maybe as a lieutenant in the Varangian Guard. Whether Calaphates was blinded or not, it's by no means certain that Harald was involved. The most disgraceful thing he did was to behave like a pirate in the very Empire he was supposed to protect.

If Harald had defeated Harold Godwinesson at Stamford Bridge, he would have had to intercept and destroy the army of William the Bastard, which probably would give William enough time to land in Sussex and head for London or Winchester. Bad news all round, for Harald's Viking army (plus a portion of English levies) would have had to fight William when he had re-supplied his army and got his mounted knights into good order.

Result : Harald Hardrada would probably be creamed along with a good part of his army, when approaching London. Even if William was weakened by defeating Harold. If Harold defeated William, then had to face Harald, the situation's more unclear, but it depends whether Harold of England could get enough levies together to fight an Alfred-style Viking and Saxon battle.

Sorry folks - if Harold of England had only done as his brothers wanted, waiting in London for my ancestors in the Cheshire and Gloucester levies - then his army could have creamed the Bastard. The idea was that Harold's brothers would take a force to keep William bottled up south of Senlac and attrit his invasion force. Then Harold of England would bring down an overwhelming force and drive the Normans/Flemings/scaff and raff of Europe into the sea. Simples, as Alexander would say.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ArKhan

Probably the simplest way to arrange this would be that Harald doesn't defeat both but simply that William arrives earlier, then Harad defeats the weakened winner of that encounter. [Probably Harold as his force would have been markedly stronger without having the hurried march north to fight the Vikings].

Not sure where Harald would have gone from there.
Steve


Probably nowhere much. He was aged about fifty, by contemporary standards an old man.

Most likely, he rules England for about as long as Sweyn Forkbeard did half a century before, after which, it's a question of where Olaf Kyrre goes from there.
.
 
Top