Battle of Stamford Bridge

The Battle of Stamford Bridge, depicted in the 13th century Vita Eduards the Confessor.

date	September 25, 1066
place	south of Stamford Bridge
output	English victory

Parties to the conflict
Kingdom of England	Kingdom of Norway and allies
Commander
Harald II	Harald III. † Tostig Godwinson †
Troop strength
unknown	over 8,000 men (estimate)
losses
unknown, but not inconsiderable	unknown, but very difficult

The Battle of Stamford Bridge took place on September 25, 1066 . The opponents were the English King Harald II , better known as Harald Godwinson , and the Norwegian King Harald III. , called Hardråde ( German: "the hard one"), opposite, who was supported by the brother of the English king, Earl Tostig Godwinson . The site south of the village of Stamford Bridge , known as the "Battle Flats", is considered to be the site of the battle . According to this localization , the battlefield is about eleven kilometers east of the city of York . The year of Harald Hardråde's defeat is also seen by many historians as the end of the Viking Age .

York

Stamford Bridge

Fulford

Hastings

London

The three battle sites of 1066.

Starting position

After Edward the Confessor died on January 5, 1066 without a legitimate heir, Harald Godwinson, the Earl of Wessex , was elected King of England. The Norwegian King Harald Hardråde also claimed the royal crown and allied with Harald's brother Tostig. A Norwegian fleet of allegedly 300 ships landed after the crossing in the middle of September 1066 in the area of Riccall (now part of the Selby District in North Yorkshire ), around 15 kilometers south of the city of York. Shortly after landing, the Norwegian army had defeated the Anglo-Saxon troops under Morcar , the Earl of Northumberland , and his brother Edwin , the Earl of Mercia , in the Battle of Fulford (about three kilometers south of York) on September 20, 1066 . Thus York was initially open as a starting point for the further action of the Norwegian king. Harald Hardråde was preparing for the handover of the city and was evidently of the opinion that he could take some time with his further steps. He didn't seem to have expected Harold Godwinson's reaction to be as rapid as it actually did.

procedure

Harald Godwinson's army faced the Norwegian king five days after his victory after a previous forced march. For the Norwegians, the completely unexpected appearance of the Anglo-Saxon army must have been a nasty surprise. The only option for action on the Norwegian side was now to face battle. In view of the fact that he had the element of surprise on his side, King Harald could have no interest in a non-fighting withdrawal of the Norwegians. For the Norwegian king, on the other hand, a withdrawal without a fight and without glory so soon after landing would have been associated with an irretrievable loss of his reputation .

The battle that followed is described very differently in various Anglo-Saxon and Norwegian sources, some of which only emerged some time after the events. With regard to their details, the descriptions of the slaughter from the various sources cannot actually be reconciled. According to the Heimskringla saga, the battle is said to have been balanced throughout the day, until Harald Hardråde was killed by an arrow shot or a stab in the neck, depending on the source. Harald Godwinson then offered his brother Tostig, who was fighting on the Norwegian side, to end the fighting. The latter is said to have rejected the offer, however, as he had relied on the reinforcement by the Norwegians who remained with the ships. But after another tough fight, in the course of which not only Tostig Godwinson was killed, but also many of the Norwegians who had come to aid from the ships and commanded by Eystein Orre , the victory fell to the Anglo-Saxons. The Heimskringla battle report clearly shows the intention to explain the death of the invincible "sea king" Harald Hardråde and to portray him as a radiant hero.

In contrast, the Anglo-Saxon reports are far more sober and tell significantly fewer details about the battle. In several Anglo-Saxon sources, however, the heroic achievement of a single Norwegian is reported, who managed to defend the wooden bridge over the River Derwent against the Anglo-Saxons for a long time. He killed 40 enemies before an Anglo-Saxon managed to get under the bridge unnoticed and kill him from there. This episode could have a real core insofar as the Norwegians actually managed to hold the bridge with a small contingent of troops until the rest of their army was ready for battle on the other bank. That would also explain why the battle was still long and bloody, despite the surprise appearance of the Anglo-Saxon army. Even if it will probably never be clear how exactly it happened, historians believe that the battle was indeed very bloody and that only a few Norwegians, including Olav , the son of Harald Hardråde, returned to their homeland.

Meaning and consequences

In operational terms Stamford Bridge was undoubtedly a decisive battle. The military test of strength between Harald Godwinson and Harald Hardråde was decided at the first direct encounter between the two opponents. With Harald's clear victory and the deaths of Harald Hardråde and Tostig, all threats in the north were ended with one blow. " The enormous extent [of the Norwegian] disaster was obvious ", summarizes the historian Jörg Peltzer - and it also had long-term consequences:

"Stamford Bridge was a crushing blow to Norse power. Neither of Harald's sons entertained any serious thoughts of reviving their father's claim to England despite the destruction of Anglo-Saxon military power at Hastings in October 1066 and the fragility of William of Normandy's hold on the kingdom down to 1069. Even had they considered such a move, their kingdom's military resources had been so depleted that it took almost a generation to recover from the slaughter of its warrior elite outside York. "

For the victorious army, the battle represented the final triumph of the old Anglo-Saxon army over an enemy force, before the continental European fighting style changed forever with the attack of armored horsemen in England . In English historiography, however, the Battle of Stamford Bridge is inextricably linked with the Battle of Hastings , which was fought barely three weeks later . Harald Godwinson's great victory over his Norwegian adversary ended the threat to his kingdom in the north once and for all, but in this context is mostly seen as the decisive disadvantage for the decisive battle that followed at Hastings. If, according to the common reading, Harald had not been forced to respond to the Norwegian challenge, he would have been able to face his second opponent, Wilhelm the Conqueror , at Hastings with a rested and, above all, much stronger force. The battle and with it the possible further course of English history could have taken a completely different course in this case. As it was, the Normans were confronted by an army that was clearly weakened by another forced march, this time to the south, and the losses of the previous battle at Stamford Bridge - and was defeated on October 14, 1066.

swell

The Anglo Saxon Chronicle . Translation by Rev. James Ingram (London, 1823), with additional readings from the translation of Dr. JA Giles (London, 1847). Available in Project Gutenberg .
Snorri Sturlason : Saga of Harald Hardrade . In: Heimskringla or The Chronickle of the Kings of Norway. Available in the Gutenberg project (English).
Symeon of Durham : Historia regum Anglorum et Dacorum. ( English translation by J. Stevenson: The Historical Works of Simeon of Durham. In: Church Historians of England, volume III, part II. 1855)

literature

Frank McLynn: 1066. The Year of the three Battles. Pimlico, London 1999, ISBN 978-0-7126-6672-5 .
Jörg Peltzer : 1066. The fight for England's crown. CH Beck, Munich 2016, ISBN 978-3-406-69750-0 , p. 212ff.
Kelly DeVries: The Norwegian Invasion of England in 1066 (= Warfare in History). The Boydell Press, Woodbridge 2003, ISBN 978-1-84383-027-6 .
Dominik Waßenhoven: 1066. England's conquest by the Normans (= CH Beck Wissen 2866). CH Beck, Munich 2016, ISBN 978-3-406-69844-6 .

Web links

Remarks

↑ The basis for all information on the army strength of the Norwegians are the numbers of ships called up in the sources, which range from 200 to over 500, the latter number being considered to be significantly excessive. Most historians assume that between 200 and 300 ships were available to Harald Hardråde for his invasion. The number of these (assumed) ships is then multiplied by an assumed number of crew members per ship. Corresponding data for the crew of a ship from the Viking Age can be derived from the ship finds of Roskilde and Skuldelev . See u. a. Peltzer (2016), pp. 203–206, who assumes that Harald Hardråde “ probably accompanied more than 8000 men to England ” (p. 206) and DeVries (2003), p. 241f. However, a number of mainly popular science authors also assume significantly higher figures for the Norwegian fleet and the crew members per ship. Accordingly, they have a Norwegian army strength of well over 10,000 men. McLynn (1999), p. 196, for example, assumes no fewer than 18,000 Norwegian fighters who are said to have landed in England in 1066.

↑ See Peltzer (2016), pp. 213–218.

↑ See DeVries (2003), p. 236f. and Peltzer (2016), p. 197, where it is pointed out that “ [t] he mechanisms of traditional Scandinavian politics to raise one's own honor through successful warfare and to increase one's following ... even for [Harald Hardrådes] royalty [ were valid]. "

↑ ^a ^b See Peltzer (2016), pp. 218–224, on the importance of York as a basis, especially pp. 213f., And Waßenhoven (2016), pp. 51–53.

↑ Peltzer (2016), p. 223.

↑ Angelo Forte, Richard Oram and Frederik Pedersen: Viking Empires. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge u. a. 2005, ISBN 978-0-521-82992-2 , p. 211.

↑ See Peltzer (2016), pp. 225–228 and Waßenhoven (2016), p. 55 and English Heritage Battlefield Report: Stamford Bridge 1066, p. 9f. DeVries (2003), p. 295, also speaks of a “ costly victory ” in connection with Stamford Bridge . "

53.988888888889 -0.90305555555556Coordinates: 53 ° 59 ′ 20 " N , 0 ° 54 ′ 11" W.

[1] The basis for all information on the army strength of the Norwegians are the numbers of ships called up in the sources, which range from 200 to over 500, the latter number being considered to be significantly excessive. Most historians assume that between 200 and 300 ships were available to Harald Hardråde for his invasion. The number of these (assumed) ships is then multiplied by an assumed number of crew members per ship. Corresponding data for the crew of a ship from the Viking Age can be derived from the ship finds of Roskilde and Skuldelev . See u. a. Peltzer (2016), pp. 203–206, who assumes that Harald Hardråde “ probably accompanied more than 8000 men to England ” (p. 206) and DeVries (2003), p. 241f. However, a number of mainly popular science authors also assume significantly higher figures for the Norwegian fleet and the crew members per ship. Accordingly, they have a Norwegian army strength of well over 10,000 men. McLynn (1999), p. 196, for example, assumes no fewer than 18,000 Norwegian fighters who are said to have landed in England in 1066.

[2] See Peltzer (2016), pp. 213–218.

[3] See DeVries (2003), p. 236f. and Peltzer (2016), p. 197, where it is pointed out that “ [t] he mechanisms of traditional Scandinavian politics to raise one's own honor through successful warfare and to increase one's following ... even for [Harald Hardrådes] royalty [ were valid]. "

[Peltzer_und_Waßenhoven-4] See Peltzer (2016), pp. 218–224, on the importance of York as a basis, especially pp. 213f., And Waßenhoven (2016), pp. 51–53.

[5] Peltzer (2016), p. 223.

[6] Angelo Forte, Richard Oram and Frederik Pedersen: Viking Empires. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge u. a. 2005, ISBN 978-0-521-82992-2 , p. 211.