What if there was no Battle of Stamford Bridge in 1066?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: All Empires Community
Forum Name: Historical Amusement
Forum Discription: For role playing and alternative history discussions.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=7774
Printed Date: 29-May-2024 at 03:09
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: What if there was no Battle of Stamford Bridge in 1066?
Posted By: Roberts
Subject: What if there was no Battle of Stamford Bridge in 1066?
Date Posted: 21-Dec-2005 at 10:47
|
What if Norvegians didn't want to attack England in 1066? 1.Could Harold Godwinson defeat Norman invaders then without losing any man at Stamford Bridge battle which would not happen, also the fast cross would not happen through all England which tired Harold's men before the battle of Hastings. 2. Or in the other case what if Harald Hadrada won the battle of Stamford Bridge? Was he able to defeat Normans then? |
Replies:
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 21-Dec-2005 at 12:56
|
(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.
------------- 
|
Posted By: vespasian
Date Posted: 30-Dec-2005 at 18:42
I believe point #1 is that the troops would be well rested on the battle of Hastings because they would not have fought the battle of Stamford Bridge, and therefore would not have spent the previous 2 weeks running (literally) from one end of England to the other. Does that make sense? I had a long day at work, so I'm not sure if I am.  ------------- Is someone going to tell Triple H that someone beat him to the title "King of Kings"? |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 30-Dec-2005 at 19:01
|
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? ------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 30-Dec-2005 at 19:32
|
I've always believed that if Stamford bridge had not taken place that the Saxons would have prevailed at Hastings without doubt. The fact the Saxon army marched so far so fast fought a major battle against Hardrada during which they suffered heavy casualties against some of the most feared men in Europe then marched all the way back down to the South of England in rapid speed to face yet another fearsome enemy in the form of William of Normandy and come painfully close to winning. All suggests that had the Vikings not been an issue then William of Normandy would have been repulsed by the Saxons and the Norman conquest would never have taken place, certainly not in 1066 anyway. ------------- A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough. |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 31-Dec-2005 at 03:03
|
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Athanasios
Date Posted: 29-Jan-2007 at 10:24
Difficult to say. The certain thing is that Norwegians would suffer one defeat less.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 ...oh, and Chelsea's stadium whould have a different name such as Gas-prom stadium or something...------------- 
|
Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 29-Jan-2007 at 17:32
|
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. ------------- Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail. Edward Abbey |
Posted By: Slick
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2007 at 04:52
|
Well, this just goes to show that the battles often lauded by middle-school history teachers as "extremely important" are often insignificant if you don't look at the broad picture of things.
If it's true that Godwinson could have pushed back the Norman conquest had the Battle of Stamford Bridge not occurred, it makes the Battle of Stamford Bridge pivotally important in Britain's history, perhaps nearly as important as Hastings. In a sense, it makes Godwinson's victory at Stamford Bridge somewhat Pyrric (yeah, I slaughtered the spelling of the word...) in nature. ------------- "Dai Ichi Dai Man Dai Kichi" |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2007 at 08:13
Funny you should mention that. There apparently is an Icelandic (!) legend about Harold Godwinson not having died at Hastings, but having retreated to a hermit's cell in Canterbury, known only to a loyal Norwegian servant, where he died of an illness four years later. The same sort of legend exists about Olaf Tryggvasson, who is said to have gone to Greece to be a hermit there...
------------- 
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: Timotheus
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2007 at 20:05
|
The way I heard it, Olaf Trygvesson went to Syria...
------------- Opium is the religion of the masses. From each according to his need, to each according to his ability. |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 06:04
|
Could be. There are bound to be variations of the myth, Syria sounds familiar as well... -------------
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: vulkan02
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 18:08
|
According to Snorre he grew up in Gardarik(Russia), then went raiding and to Poland, then also in England and Ireland IIRC.
------------- The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 22:08
|
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. ------------- |