|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Feb 1, 2019 16:31:58 GMT
So in this case it might become an alt-Danelaw where the Scottish lowlands would become a part of it, and the potential for a larger Nordic settlement in Scotland.
There was a map made in the AH MotF that involved a reversal of roles of sorts, and one of those maps involved a larger Wales and a smaller England, basically a reversal of OTL.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,857 
Likes: 13,240
|
Post by stevep on Feb 2, 2019 0:44:22 GMT
So in this case it might become an alt-Danelaw where the Scottish lowlands would become a part of it, and the potential for a larger Nordic settlement in Scotland. There was a map made in the AH MotF that involved a reversal of roles of sorts, and one of those maps involved a larger Wales and a smaller England, basically a reversal of OTL.
That might be possible and over time it could absorb the highlands, since the Norse were prominant in much of the north, although they often weren't on the best of terms with the Danes. Especially if the Danes took over Lothian from Northumbria before the Scots did that would considerably reduce the resources available to the Scots as that was by some way their most useful territory for much of its history. Its only really in the more recent centuries that the Strathcylde region become demographically and economically more important.
To get that you really need to go back to the early days of the English settlement in Britain as the conquest seems to have happened largely within a century or so. Not too sure why the Britons were so weak in comparison but within about a century the bulk of the richer lowlands were
|
|
|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Feb 2, 2019 3:46:03 GMT
So in this case it might become an alt-Danelaw where the Scottish lowlands would become a part of it, and the potential for a larger Nordic settlement in Scotland. There was a map made in the AH MotF that involved a reversal of roles of sorts, and one of those maps involved a larger Wales and a smaller England, basically a reversal of OTL.
That might be possible and over time it could absorb the highlands, since the Norse were prominant in much of the north, although they often weren't on the best of terms with the Danes. Especially if the Danes took over Lothian from Northumbria before the Scots did that would considerably reduce the resources available to the Scots as that was by some way their most useful territory for much of its history. Its only really in the more recent centuries that the Strathcylde region become demographically and economically more important.
To get that you really need to go back to the early days of the English settlement in Britain as the conquest seems to have happened largely within a century or so. Not too sure why the Britons were so weak in comparison but within about a century the bulk of the richer lowlands were
Here is the map for what I meant, with a PoD around the 600 ADs: www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/motf-141-a-conquest-of-irony.393098/#post-12803425AS for the Norse or later Norwegians, I'm just wondering as to why Harald Hardrada never made an attempt at conquering Scotland and focused on England. It would have been a good asset for Norway because Scotland and Northumbria under Norwegian control would have secured the sea lanes between Norway, Iceland and Shetland, plus it would also be a good route towards North America. It could be a good alternate scenario: Harald Hardrada controlling Scotland and either Harold Godwinson or William the Bastard/Conqueror controlling England. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,240
|
Post by stevep on Feb 2, 2019 10:00:47 GMT
That might be possible and over time it could absorb the highlands, since the Norse were prominant in much of the north, although they often weren't on the best of terms with the Danes. Especially if the Danes took over Lothian from Northumbria before the Scots did that would considerably reduce the resources available to the Scots as that was by some way their most useful territory for much of its history. Its only really in the more recent centuries that the Strathcylde region become demographically and economically more important.
To get that you really need to go back to the early days of the English settlement in Britain as the conquest seems to have happened largely within a century or so. Not too sure why the Britons were so weak in comparison but within about a century the bulk of the richer lowlands were
Here is the map for what I meant, with a PoD around the 600 ADs: www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/motf-141-a-conquest-of-irony.393098/#post-12803425AS for the Norse or later Norwegians, I'm just wondering as to why Harald Hardrada never made an attempt at conquering Scotland and focused on England. It would have been a good asset for Norway because Scotland and Northumbria under Norwegian control would have secured the sea lanes between Norway, Iceland and Shetland, plus it would also be a good route towards North America. It could be a good alternate scenario: Harald Hardrada controlling Scotland and either Harold Godwinson or William the Bastard/Conqueror controlling England.
On that latter point I suspect that it was simply because England was very rich compared to Scotland. Similarly since Northumbria, which was richer than Scotland at the time, was seen as part of England such a division wouldn't have be stable as Harold [or William if he came 1st and still won] would have sought to reclaim it from the Harald if the latter had conquered it while Harold and William were fighting in the south. If he just went for Scotland possibly but its not only poorer but also a lot more rugged and hence more difficult to control.
At this point colonisation of N America wasn't really practical and would have been difficult and expensive while also I don't think the Vikings, let alone anyone else, would have any real idea of the size of the lands to the west.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Feb 3, 2019 23:03:29 GMT
I'm also wondering if there was a way for Harold Godwinson to make William the Bastard's attempted conquest a bit more difficult, like resorting to guerrilla warfare instead of rushing to meet him. Surprisingly enough, even with the Norman advantages in cavalry and archers, the Anglo-Saxons had repelled most of their attacks, but the death of Harold was the thing that made William's conquest much easier.
Similarly, was it possible for the Battle of Stamford Bridge to drag out a bit longer? Likewise, a surviving Harald Hardrada would have also made things difficult for Harold. However, I don't understand as to why Tostig Godwinson sided with Harald against his own brother.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,240
|
Post by stevep on Feb 3, 2019 23:37:14 GMT
I'm also wondering if there was a way for Harold Godwinson to make William the Bastard's attempted conquest a bit more difficult, like resorting to guerrilla warfare instead of rushing to meet him. Surprisingly enough, even with the Norman advantages in cavalry and archers, the Anglo-Saxons had repelled most of their attacks, but the death of Harold was the thing that made William's conquest much easier. Similarly, was it possible for the Battle of Stamford Bridge to drag out a bit longer? Likewise, a surviving Harald Hardrada would have also made things difficult for Harold. However, I don't understand as to why Tostig Godwinson sided with Harald against his own brother.
It would have been quite easy for the English to win at Hastings as it nearly happened. One of the retreats, real or feinted that occurred drawing men off the hill to be isolated and cut down being avoided might have been enough, or as you say Harold not dying when he did. Unlike the Normans the English still had more reinforcements on the way while as long as the hill was held the invaders are isolated on a relatively small peninsula and will run out of supplies quickly even if they didn't run out of men first.
An alternative is one of his brothers suggested he led the army, with Harold staying in London to raise more troops. Even if a slightly weaker English force had been defeated at Hastings that would still have meant heavy Norman losses while England would have had a clear and successful leader. London could have stood siege as it had done ~50 years earlier against Canute's Danes and the Normans would have lacked the men and resources to maintain such a siege long even without more forces being raised to oppose them in the north and west.
I doubt a longer Stamford Bridge would have helped avoid the Norman conquest as whoever won would have suffered greater losses. A shorter even more decisive English victory or just possibly [although difficult to see] very quick and cheap Norwegian victory might haven the victor the additional strength to defeat the Normans. Mind you Harald was more of a raider and looter than a conqueror so he's unlikely to dash south to block the Normans quickly like Harold did and might either seek a partition of England, which William might accept [for a short while only I suspect] or simply take what loot he could and leave. Especially since while there are a lot of people of Viking descent in northern England their overwhelming Danish, while Harald has been raiding and looting that country annually for about a decade by this time so if they did decide on changing their loyalties he's not someone their likely to trust.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Feb 4, 2019 6:48:31 GMT
Why did Tostig supported Harald over his own brother in the first place?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,240
|
Post by stevep on Feb 4, 2019 10:43:59 GMT
Why did Tostig supported Harald over his own brother in the first place?
Tostig had been briefly Earl of Northumbria but his rule had prompted serious unrest in the earldom. Apparently he tried to have the same sort of centralised rule and taxation regime that existed in the southern lands, which the poorer north, used to defending privileges strongly disliked. Although some other sources suggest that it was more due to the rival earls Edwin and Morcar provoking unrest. Tostig was a favourite of king Edward and had negotiated an agreement with Malcolm the Scottish king which, for the moment, stopped their raids on Northumbria. However the situation got so bad that Tostig had to be exiled and the earldom ended up under Morcar's rule. Harold, as Edward's leading general had to enforce this and Tostig took this as a personal insult.
There is the story that in the immediate run up to Stamford Bridge Harold offered to return Tostig to Northumbria but the latter refused. However since by most accounts the Viking force was caught by surprise by Harold's rapid march northwards that seems unlikely. Unless this offer was made earlier, shortly after Harold became king. Although the story says that Tostig having allied with Harald refused to go back on his commitment, which would date the offer to after Tostig allied with the Norwegians.
One important but little known fact was that before he allied with Harald Tostig with a number of ships raided the south coast of England but was beaten off. However it did mean that Harold felt obliged to summon the fyrd which could only be held in service for a set period of time - since a general muster of course took them away from their farms. As such they had to be dismissed shortly before Harald's attacks in the north and with Harold having to take the housecarls north to face Harald there was little immediate opposition to William's landing. Tostig retired northwards raiding the east coast but was repelled by Edwin and Morcar and deserted by many of his followers. He then sailed up to Scotland recruited new men - guessing mercenaries? and joined with Harald when he landed in England.
Hope that helps you understand some of the complex background to events going on.
One other point in that Edwin and Morcar were the sons of Ælfgar of Mercia, who in turn was the son of the earlier Mercian earl Leofric who died in 1057 and the family was the largest landowner in England outside the Godwin clan. As such there was some rivalry between the two and while Harold visited York early in his reign to try and secure their loyalty and then headed north to defeat Harald's invasion - after he had defeated the brothers at Fulton Gate there are a number of reports that they failed to support him with men when he marched north to face William. Possibly this was because their forces were in some disorder after their earlier defeat but while they marched south to London, arriving after Hastings they returned north after failing to get Edwin elected as the new king. Edgar the Aetheling, the last male member of the house of Cedric of Wessex was elected instead but as a 15 year old youth who had spent his early years outside England he had no real support after the northern earls deserted him and was quickly deposed.
|
|
