Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Harold defeated at Stamford Bridge

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Harold defeated at Stamford Bridge

    1066 and all that. Harold is defeated and killed at Stamford Bridge. William lands in the South virtually unopposed to find a Scandinavian army is advancing from the North. Do the Saxons
    1. try to stay out of it until they can see who is going to win
    2. join William in opposing the Scandies
    3. join the Scandies in trying to defeat William
    4. adopt some other approach?
    What does William do?
    Last edited by MarkV; 09 Apr 19, 13:53.
    Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
    Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

  • #2
    William would celebrate. He would believe that the country would be in chaos and would advance to crush Hadrada. The vikings fought in a similar manner to the Saxons. No reason to believe that they would have been more successful than Harold.

    "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

    Comment


    • #3
      Thinking about it Harold losing at Stanfordbridge may have benefited the Saxons in the long run. If William played it right he could have been welcomed as a liberator and been reinforced by the remnants of the Saxon army who would almost certainly willingly acknowledge him as their king.
      "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Surrey View Post
        William would celebrate. He would believe that the country would be in chaos and would advance to crush Hadrada. The vikings fought in a similar manner to the Saxons. No reason to believe that they would have been more successful than Harold.
        In which case William would be very foolish, not a characteristic one associates with him. Contrary to popular belief it took some hard fighting and campaigning to secure Southern England after Hastings and much longer before the North was subdued. Advancing to meet Hadrada through potentially hostile territory would be the height of idiocy and would be only sensible if he could get the Saxons on side. There were some Saxon noblemen like Turchil son of Alwyne, Earl of Warwick who were willing to turn coat but only if they were sure that William would come out on top. How would you advise he brought them on side pray?
        Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
        Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by MarkV View Post

          In which case William would be very foolish, not a characteristic one associates with him. Contrary to popular belief it took some hard fighting and campaigning to secure Southern England after Hastings and much longer before the North was subdued. Advancing to meet Hadrada through potentially hostile territory would be the height of idiocy and would be only sensible if he could get the Saxons on side. There were some Saxon noblemen like Turchil son of Alwyne, Earl of Warwick who were willing to turn coat but only if they were sure that William would come out on top. How would you advise he brought them on side pray?
          He would start off favourably as it would be Hardrada who had killed the English king, not him. Thus what was left of Harold's forces would more or less automatically side with him.
          "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

          Comment


          • #6
            I think that's true, I think the Saxons would have benefited if Harold was killed by Hardrada. Hadn't the Confessor already designated William as his heir? If the remaining Saxon forces had joined up with William there would have been much better relations between the two groups. I have always been on Harold's side since I had read "Harold was my King" when a young teenager. William comes off as a real stinker in the book.

            2298301._UY200_.jpg

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Surrey View Post

              He would start off favourably as it would be Hardrada who had killed the English king, not him. Thus what was left of Harold's forces would more or less automatically side with him.
              Not if it meant William giving their lands to his own supporters as he had promised (that's essentially how he raised an invasion force in the first place) Turchil, who I mentioned, was the Saxon equivalent of Quisling/Petain had 64 manors spread across England and came over to William on condition that he was allowed to keep them. He Normanised his name to Turchillus de Eardene. However once William had the South under control he despoiled Turchil's lands handing 62 of those manors to his own supporters, the Conquerer was William's own appellation for himself, he was known at the time as William the Bastard and I don't think this was solely a comment on his parents marital status. Be that as it may the point is only a fraction of the Saxon fighting strength had been mobilised in Harold's army and William couldn't buy them all off even temporally without shorting his own supporters. What he was able to do after Hastings was defeat them in detail through a series of sieges and castle building but it took time.

              The first part of Hardrada's advance South would be through the old Dane Law where he might be expected to pick up some support.
              Last edited by MarkV; 10 Apr 19, 05:46.
              Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
              Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

              Comment

              Latest Topics

              Collapse

              Working...
              X