What if there was no Battle of Stamford Bridge in 1066?

(1)I do not understand what you are trying to say.

(2) I would say that if the English could beat the Vikings and that the Normans beat the English, then the Normans could beat the Vikings. The Vikings were all infantry. They would have been mercilessly bombarded by archers, and then probably surrounded by cavalry on the flanks and infantry in the front.

 

1. The battle of Hasting was one of the closest fought battles in History, 30-50% more Saxon troops, the rest being well rested having not travelled to York and back. I think they would start favourites.

2. Harald had the most powerful army in Europe supposedly. The question is how much would be left after Stanford Bridge, assuming he won. Would it be the overwhelming win Harold inflicted upon him or a close run thing leaving his army in pieces against Freshb Normans.

3. One more possibility. What if the Normans landed first, beat the Saxons, then marched to York to face Harald, would they have enough left to beat him?

Well I agree with the others in saying that had the Norweigans not invaded then Harold Godwinson would probably have repulsed William of Normandy.

On the question of it Harald Hardrade won, I believe that after Stamford it would have come down as to who is more appealing to the English and can gain their support. The man who is able to get the English fyrd (county militias) on his side is the man who has the numbers to decisively capture the whole country. William of Normandy waged a campaign of terror in England to gain the throne,  sacking, pillaging, raping as he progressed through the country. This suggests that the English populace would more likely have chosen the Norwegian to aid protect them. Also, the Viking links in the east of England would surely have made Harald more endearing to the English than the Norman/mercenary army of William.

1. Harold would have crushed the Normans.

2. If the Vikings had one Stamford bridge and confronted the Norman's they would have been wearing their armor, unlike at Stamford Bridge. As to who would win: I would bet on the Vikings.

Originally posted by Athanasios I think that  if Harald Hardrade was alive after the battle, he would go back to Constantinopole(if he was not killed by the embarrashed nobel warriors) and re-join the Varangian guard  enjoying the sunny weather of Byzantium...

Could be. There are bound to be variations of the myth, Syria sounds familiar as well...

Harold would have been soundly beaten at Hastings regardless of whether he had to fight stanford bridge or not. Harold was not beaten because of his army being tired, he was beaten because he deployed an all-infantry army to fight Williams well rounded force. The turning point of Hastings was not a melee where Williams fresher troops proved superior, the turning point was when William decided to use his archers correctly.

If you ask me William was a fool not to have decisively routed Harold eariler in the day. William had superior mobility with his cavalry, he had a ranged attack while Harold didn't. William should've pressed his advantages, instead he nearly handed Harold the battle by fighting him where Harold wanted to be fought.

-As for a Dane-Norman clash, same result, the Dane army had an identical fighting style to the Saxons. Houscarls were great Heavy Infantry, but they lack mobility and range, which William had in his cavalry and archers.


Edited by Omar al Hashim - 31-Jan-2007 at 22:11