No, Iceland's still independent and not really worth conquering. The Faeroes are his though, for what little that's worth.
Harald Hardrada wins the crown: Collaborative timeline
- Thread starter The_Last_Plantagenet
- Start date
No, Iceland's still independent and not really worth conquering. The Faeroes are his though, for what little that's worth.
So if he or one of his sons/grandsons manages to unite the scandanavian states, then it will be the largest state in europe at the time?
Ok, so lets put up some maps so we know where we are.
This is wales at about 1066. There's about 6 or 7 kingdoms.
Now this is England at the death of Edward the Confessor.
He had influence in north wales but no control. But that bit in red is what Harald will get if he can take it and hold it.
Now in our time this is what the norwegian empire looked like in 1102.
That's the peak of norwegian power in the british isles in otl.
This is wales at about 1066. There's about 6 or 7 kingdoms.
Now this is England at the death of Edward the Confessor.
He had influence in north wales but no control. But that bit in red is what Harald will get if he can take it and hold it.
Now in our time this is what the norwegian empire looked like in 1102.
That's the peak of norwegian power in the british isles in otl.
So he controls a good swathe of europe, any idea how strong those welsh kingdoms were?
So important british people in 1066.
North Wales was ruled by two allied kings, Bleddyn ap Cynfyn in Gwynedd and his brother Rhiwallon ap Cynfyn in Powys. They'd been placed on those thrones by Harold Godwinson in return for agreeing to be vassals and allies of Edward the Confessor.
They apparently took this vow seriously enough that after William's conquest they joined up with the saxon rebels and helped the fight against William.
However Harald has an in here which William did not. His son Magnus had fought in Wales in 1062, possibly alongside the ap Cynfyn brothers and definitely alongside the man who's throne they usurped. Gruffydd ap Llywelyn who's two sons (Maredudd and Idwal) would later try and regain their father's kingdom and attack the ap Cynfyns.
Again Magnus should know all these people and might be able to make a deal with one of them on behalf of his father.
South Wales seems much weaker. The only king of note there is Caradog ap Gruffydd who tried but failed to unite all of south wales. Wales was undercut massively by constant fighting between the petty kingdoms while also facing invasion from Norman England in otl, you'd imagine the same would be true here. One of the kings, Maredudd, seems to have even gone over to the normans willingly in return for land in England so there's no reason he wouldn't also make a deal with Harald.
In terms of Saxon Rebels, the main noble opposition (not just random rebels like Eadric the wild or Herewood the wake) came from mercia and Northumbria, where another pair of bothers, Edwin and Morcar were in charge. They were the first people Harald fought and beat in his invasion so they'd probably be just as opposed to a Norwegian England as a Norman one. If he leaves them in power they'd be trouble. But he has less reason to do so than William as Tostig and Copsi, who were on Haralds side, had previously run Northumbria. Northumbria was the heart of the rebellion against William but it might actually be more comfortable with a norse king given how many danes lived there.
Then there's Edgar the Aethling, who was chosen as the new saxon king while in his early teens in 1066 and surrendered without a fight. He would probably also rebel if left alive as he did against William.
He in otl had the support of the second most powerful king in the british isles, Malcolm III of Scotland. Now Malcolm was a constant thorn in William's side (recognizing norman overlordship one day and then raiding Northumbria the next) but he was married to Harald's niece and had harboured Tostig prior to Tostig's alliance with Harald so he might be less hostile vs Harald (or he might be more so as harald will have him surrounded in a way William did not).
All of which underlines the main advantage Harald has which William did not. Harald was already an established part of british politics. He had prior relationships with the danes (it's much harder to see Sweyn attacking Harald in England the way he did William) and the scots and the irish and the welsh. Which means he's likely to have less hostile relationships with the other british kingdoms than William did.
I actually think for a bunch of reasons (Normandy was more rebellious than Norway, there had been norse kings of England before, etc.) Harald is going to find ruling England easier politically than William did.
The question is militarily. The Norman's were much better castle builders and cavalry men than the Norwegians. Even if they face less opposition they still might be less successful than the normans.
North Wales was ruled by two allied kings, Bleddyn ap Cynfyn in Gwynedd and his brother Rhiwallon ap Cynfyn in Powys. They'd been placed on those thrones by Harold Godwinson in return for agreeing to be vassals and allies of Edward the Confessor.
They apparently took this vow seriously enough that after William's conquest they joined up with the saxon rebels and helped the fight against William.
However Harald has an in here which William did not. His son Magnus had fought in Wales in 1062, possibly alongside the ap Cynfyn brothers and definitely alongside the man who's throne they usurped. Gruffydd ap Llywelyn who's two sons (Maredudd and Idwal) would later try and regain their father's kingdom and attack the ap Cynfyns.
Again Magnus should know all these people and might be able to make a deal with one of them on behalf of his father.
South Wales seems much weaker. The only king of note there is Caradog ap Gruffydd who tried but failed to unite all of south wales. Wales was undercut massively by constant fighting between the petty kingdoms while also facing invasion from Norman England in otl, you'd imagine the same would be true here. One of the kings, Maredudd, seems to have even gone over to the normans willingly in return for land in England so there's no reason he wouldn't also make a deal with Harald.
In terms of Saxon Rebels, the main noble opposition (not just random rebels like Eadric the wild or Herewood the wake) came from mercia and Northumbria, where another pair of bothers, Edwin and Morcar were in charge. They were the first people Harald fought and beat in his invasion so they'd probably be just as opposed to a Norwegian England as a Norman one. If he leaves them in power they'd be trouble. But he has less reason to do so than William as Tostig and Copsi, who were on Haralds side, had previously run Northumbria. Northumbria was the heart of the rebellion against William but it might actually be more comfortable with a norse king given how many danes lived there.
Then there's Edgar the Aethling, who was chosen as the new saxon king while in his early teens in 1066 and surrendered without a fight. He would probably also rebel if left alive as he did against William.
He in otl had the support of the second most powerful king in the british isles, Malcolm III of Scotland. Now Malcolm was a constant thorn in William's side (recognizing norman overlordship one day and then raiding Northumbria the next) but he was married to Harald's niece and had harboured Tostig prior to Tostig's alliance with Harald so he might be less hostile vs Harald (or he might be more so as harald will have him surrounded in a way William did not).
All of which underlines the main advantage Harald has which William did not. Harald was already an established part of british politics. He had prior relationships with the danes (it's much harder to see Sweyn attacking Harald in England the way he did William) and the scots and the irish and the welsh. Which means he's likely to have less hostile relationships with the other british kingdoms than William did.
I actually think for a bunch of reasons (Normandy was more rebellious than Norway, there had been norse kings of England before, etc.) Harald is going to find ruling England easier politically than William did.
The question is militarily. The Norman's were much better castle builders and cavalry men than the Norwegians. Even if they face less opposition they still might be less successful than the normans.
jahenders
Banned
While it's certainly possible for Harald to have won at the bridge, that still leaves the nuisance of William of Normandy out there.
I think it works out cleaner if you just allow William to invade when he wanted to (Jun-Jul). He was continually delayed by adverse winds and couldn't invade until September.
As summer turned toward fall, most of the Saxon fleet and fyrd returned home for the harvest. Had William invaded in July, he would have had a much harder time and would likely have lost. The Saxon fleet would battle his invading fleet, causing some degree of loss. Then, he'd land to be met at Hastings by Harold and a Saxon army not weakened by the recent battle against Harald. Harold would thus have his Huscarls and fyrd at full strength. Since Hastings was a close thing IOTL, with Norman losses at sea and a stronger Saxon army, I'd give Harold strong odds for winning. However, the Saxons would certainly suffer considerably in their victory, the Huscarls and fyrd weakened and some of the fyrd sent home for other duties.
THEN, after all that Harald invades up North and Harold has to rush North with a weakened army. THAT definitely improves Harald's odds at the bridge.
I think it works out cleaner if you just allow William to invade when he wanted to (Jun-Jul). He was continually delayed by adverse winds and couldn't invade until September.
As summer turned toward fall, most of the Saxon fleet and fyrd returned home for the harvest. Had William invaded in July, he would have had a much harder time and would likely have lost. The Saxon fleet would battle his invading fleet, causing some degree of loss. Then, he'd land to be met at Hastings by Harold and a Saxon army not weakened by the recent battle against Harald. Harold would thus have his Huscarls and fyrd at full strength. Since Hastings was a close thing IOTL, with Norman losses at sea and a stronger Saxon army, I'd give Harold strong odds for winning. However, the Saxons would certainly suffer considerably in their victory, the Huscarls and fyrd weakened and some of the fyrd sent home for other duties.
THEN, after all that Harald invades up North and Harold has to rush North with a weakened army. THAT definitely improves Harald's odds at the bridge.
This isn't my thread and I don't want to talk too much, I feel like I'm already just talking to myself here. But essentially William and Harald invade there are a series of battles which result in a) the death of harold and his brothers and the destruction of the saxon army and b) the detah of william and the destruction of the normans. That could be harald defeating both, it could be harald just defeating the winner of a battle between the two, whatever.
The point is Harald becomes King of England.
And then, you have to ask, how succesful is he at holding onto that? There had been norse kings of england before and it had never translated into long term domination. Castles held england for normans and the norwegians have no history of building them. Likewise militarily in terms of cavalry in particular they're not of the same class. See the complete arsekicking they got in otl when norwegian troops tried to take Dublin from the normans in the 1100s.
The intresting questions to me are if he does form a long term dynasty in england what does that england look like. The normans created the england we know, a norwegian england is going to be very different.
And what does the rest of britain look like? Scotland, Wales and Ireland were changed massively by the normans. Either by being conquered or by trying to rebuild their government among norman lines (david of scotland). I feel like an inevitable consequence is for the norse irish sea (Dublin, Mann etc) to be draggged into the english orbit much sooner than otl.
And for that matter what does france look like. One of the french kings most ambitious vassals is dead. That will leave a power vaccumn which his other vassals will try and fill.
And the big one is what does this England's foreign policy look like. In OTl it was dominated by France for the next 900 years. Now France is still just there and richer land than scandinavia but the king is norwegian rather than a vassal of the french king.
And if we do see an english foreign policy pointed northwards how would that effect the balance of power in scandinavia. Will iceland and it's greenland colonies still be bought into the norwegian throne? Will norway's wars against denmark and sweden go better? Will the northern crusades against the finns and the baltics begin sooner thanks to greater power in scandinavia?
The point is Harald becomes King of England.
And then, you have to ask, how succesful is he at holding onto that? There had been norse kings of england before and it had never translated into long term domination. Castles held england for normans and the norwegians have no history of building them. Likewise militarily in terms of cavalry in particular they're not of the same class. See the complete arsekicking they got in otl when norwegian troops tried to take Dublin from the normans in the 1100s.
The intresting questions to me are if he does form a long term dynasty in england what does that england look like. The normans created the england we know, a norwegian england is going to be very different.
And what does the rest of britain look like? Scotland, Wales and Ireland were changed massively by the normans. Either by being conquered or by trying to rebuild their government among norman lines (david of scotland). I feel like an inevitable consequence is for the norse irish sea (Dublin, Mann etc) to be draggged into the english orbit much sooner than otl.
And for that matter what does france look like. One of the french kings most ambitious vassals is dead. That will leave a power vaccumn which his other vassals will try and fill.
And the big one is what does this England's foreign policy look like. In OTl it was dominated by France for the next 900 years. Now France is still just there and richer land than scandinavia but the king is norwegian rather than a vassal of the french king.
And if we do see an english foreign policy pointed northwards how would that effect the balance of power in scandinavia. Will iceland and it's greenland colonies still be bought into the norwegian throne? Will norway's wars against denmark and sweden go better? Will the northern crusades against the finns and the baltics begin sooner thanks to greater power in scandinavia?
Don't worry, mate. I wasn't having a go at you. I just don't want to take over your thread, you know?
Get well soon, anyway, your health is much more important than online forums.
Yeh, 5 crushed ribs, a deflated lung, and a stopped heart are all sterling things to keep me going 
Another point, is that there is a very good chance that, upon his death, the Kingdoms of Norway and England will likely be split between his sons; Magnus and Olaf. As to which gets which I am unable to say.
Now: if you want to get in depth on some cultural and economic stuff, I believe Olaf in OTL was very interested in encouraging the creation of urban centers in Norway. So, if Magnus were to die early and the two kingdoms be United again, then Olaf may try to encourage urban centers in Norway as a way to increase the trade and wealth of that Kingdom. And who best to settle in these new towns? Why not his more urban English citizens?
Now you have further cultural and economic ties between the two nations. Would these ties be enough to really bind the two kingdoms together? I'm not sure. Would they put Norway in a better position against their main rival of Denmark? Possibly.
Now: if you want to get in depth on some cultural and economic stuff, I believe Olaf in OTL was very interested in encouraging the creation of urban centers in Norway. So, if Magnus were to die early and the two kingdoms be United again, then Olaf may try to encourage urban centers in Norway as a way to increase the trade and wealth of that Kingdom. And who best to settle in these new towns? Why not his more urban English citizens?
Now you have further cultural and economic ties between the two nations. Would these ties be enough to really bind the two kingdoms together? I'm not sure. Would they put Norway in a better position against their main rival of Denmark? Possibly.
Yeh, 5 crushed ribs, a deflated lung, and a stopped heart are all sterling things to keep me going
Dear lord! I hope you make a speedy recovery. Sorry to hear about that!
Thanks
i was hit by a smoke grenade in the left side of my chest, it had just been launxhed out of a UGLAccording to wiki Magnus was declared King of Norway before Stamford Bridge.
As in 1066, Harald made peace with Denmark, declared Magnus King of Norway in his absence and then sailed off to England with Olaf.
Then Olaf came back with what was left with the army, him and magnus, who seemed to have got on reasonably well, decided to declare themselves co rulers and ran Norway together until magnus died of illness in 1069.
So in a harald wins timeline. Magnus is still king of Norway. Olaf and Harald set up shop in England. Harald makes himself king of england and stays there dealing with his new kingdom so norway remains run by his son as regent. Then magnus dies three years later. Olaf goes home to run Norway for harald like Magnus did. And if that becomes the tradition you've essentially got Norway as Wales. A training program for the heir to the throne to learn governing.
So there would the position of Prince/king of Norway instead of Prince of Wales
yes, except looser. Though I would expect that if the union continues later Kings will retain the title of Norway and send their sons as Vicars/Viceroys/Governors
(Speedy recovery btw!)
Thanks prof ive been on here for a couple of days now and i can fell myself twitching now
ive been on here for a couple of days now and i can fell myself twitching now I think a lot depends on when Harald dies. He's 51 in 1066 and his two grandsons were born when he would be 53 and 58.
You probably need one of them to be of a decent age when Harald dies and Olaf takes over if the tradition of a single realm with England ran by the senior King and Norway by his heir is to take off.
I think the two kingdoms being split at some point between two competing heirs is inevitable (I mean both england and norway were divided into two halfs run by different kings during this time span let alone a realm consisting of both of them) but that can easily be temporary with the next strong king reuniting his realm (as it was in both England and Norway).
Didn't Olaf or Magnus take over Denmark or am I just remembering a thread I saw on here once?
Anyway a brief outline and timeline of the area before the pod.
1017- Cnut becomes king of England.
1018- Cnut becomes king of Denmark.
1028- Cnut becomes king of Norway and some of Sweden.
Cnut is now the second most powerful man in Europe after the Holy Roman Emperor.
1030 - Harald Hardrada fights against Cnut to restore an independent Norway. He loses and goes into exile to greece.
1031- Cnut attacks Ireland and Scotland and gets acknowledgment of his supremacy from the local rulers, many of whom are norse.
1035- Cnut dies and his empire crumbles. Each of his kingdoms is claimed by a different son. Sven claims Norway, Harthacnut denmark and harald England. Sven is driven out by the norwegian Magnus I (Harald Hardrada's nephew).
1040- Harald (cnut's son) dies, Harthacnut becomes king of both England and Denmark.
1042- Harthacnut dies, Edward the confessor becomes the first English king of England since 1017. Magnus 1 seizes denmark, becoming king of both denmark and norway. Harald Hardrada leaves the byzantine emprie to come home.
1046- Harald forms an alliance with the king of sweden and a danish rebel called sweyn. In response Magnus makes a peace where upon magnus' death sweyn is to inherit denmark and harald norway.
1047- Magnus dies. Harald goes to war with his old ally sweyn to reunite denmark and norway.
1049- Harald beats Sweyn in battle.
1052- Echmarcach mac Ragnaill, Norse King of Dublin, is driven out by the irish king Diarmait mac Máel. Diarmait's son Murchad is made king of the foreigners. Echmarcach retreats to the isle of Man.
1057- Gruffydd ap Llywelyn unites wales into a single kingdom for the only time. Malcolm kills Macbeth and becomes king of Scotland.
1058- Harald sends his son (Magnus II), to the isle of man. He is involved in fighting against the english in wales.
1059- Malcolm of Scotland marries Harald's niece Ingibourg making piece with the norwegians.
1061- Murchad of Ireland attacks the isle of man. The irish take control of the southern norwegian settlements in the irish Sea.
1062- Harald beats Sweyn again but can't press his advantage.
1063- The English defeat Grufydd and wales splinters into multiple kingdoms. North Wales swears fealty and alliance to Saxon England.
1064- Harald takes varmland from Sweden and agrees to a white peace with Sweyn of Denmark.
1065- Tostig, Harold Godwinsons brother, is exiled after a rebellion in northumbria. He flees to Scotland. Together Tostig and Malcolm convince Harald to invade England. Thorfinn the Mighty, norwegian vassal who ruled most of northern scotland dies. His two sons and heirs join with Harald. Echmarcach, last norse king of dublin and mann, dies in Rome. His fellow exiles from norse Dublin and Mann also join with Harald.
1066- Edward the Confessor dies. Harold Godwinson becomes King of England. William of Normandy and Harald Hardrada both invade.
And from then on things go different.
1017- Cnut becomes king of England.
1018- Cnut becomes king of Denmark.
1028- Cnut becomes king of Norway and some of Sweden.
Cnut is now the second most powerful man in Europe after the Holy Roman Emperor.
1030 - Harald Hardrada fights against Cnut to restore an independent Norway. He loses and goes into exile to greece.
1031- Cnut attacks Ireland and Scotland and gets acknowledgment of his supremacy from the local rulers, many of whom are norse.
1035- Cnut dies and his empire crumbles. Each of his kingdoms is claimed by a different son. Sven claims Norway, Harthacnut denmark and harald England. Sven is driven out by the norwegian Magnus I (Harald Hardrada's nephew).
1040- Harald (cnut's son) dies, Harthacnut becomes king of both England and Denmark.
1042- Harthacnut dies, Edward the confessor becomes the first English king of England since 1017. Magnus 1 seizes denmark, becoming king of both denmark and norway. Harald Hardrada leaves the byzantine emprie to come home.
1046- Harald forms an alliance with the king of sweden and a danish rebel called sweyn. In response Magnus makes a peace where upon magnus' death sweyn is to inherit denmark and harald norway.
1047- Magnus dies. Harald goes to war with his old ally sweyn to reunite denmark and norway.
1049- Harald beats Sweyn in battle.
1052- Echmarcach mac Ragnaill, Norse King of Dublin, is driven out by the irish king Diarmait mac Máel. Diarmait's son Murchad is made king of the foreigners. Echmarcach retreats to the isle of Man.
1057- Gruffydd ap Llywelyn unites wales into a single kingdom for the only time. Malcolm kills Macbeth and becomes king of Scotland.
1058- Harald sends his son (Magnus II), to the isle of man. He is involved in fighting against the english in wales.
1059- Malcolm of Scotland marries Harald's niece Ingibourg making piece with the norwegians.
1061- Murchad of Ireland attacks the isle of man. The irish take control of the southern norwegian settlements in the irish Sea.
1062- Harald beats Sweyn again but can't press his advantage.
1063- The English defeat Grufydd and wales splinters into multiple kingdoms. North Wales swears fealty and alliance to Saxon England.
1064- Harald takes varmland from Sweden and agrees to a white peace with Sweyn of Denmark.
1065- Tostig, Harold Godwinsons brother, is exiled after a rebellion in northumbria. He flees to Scotland. Together Tostig and Malcolm convince Harald to invade England. Thorfinn the Mighty, norwegian vassal who ruled most of northern scotland dies. His two sons and heirs join with Harald. Echmarcach, last norse king of dublin and mann, dies in Rome. His fellow exiles from norse Dublin and Mann also join with Harald.
1066- Edward the Confessor dies. Harold Godwinson becomes King of England. William of Normandy and Harald Hardrada both invade.
And from then on things go different.