Battle of Stamford Bridge: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
|commander2=[[Harold Godwinson]] <br> |
|commander2=[[Harold Godwinson]] <br> |
||
|strength1=Around 7,500 |
|strength1=Around 7,500 |
||
|strength2=Around |
|strength2=Around 20,000 |
||
|casualties1=Unknown, around 7,000 |
|casualties1=Unknown, around 7,000 |
||
|casualties2=Unknown, around |
|casualties2=Unknown, around 10,000-12,000 |
||
|}} |
|}} |
||
Revision as of 04:01, 17 August 2007
| Battle of Stamford Bridge | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Part of the Viking invasion of England | |||||||
 Painting by Norwegian artist Peter Nicolai Arbo (1831–1892). | |||||||
| |||||||
| Belligerents | |||||||
|
Norwegians, Northumbrian rebels, Scots | Anglo-Saxon England | ||||||
| Commanders and leaders | |||||||
| Tostig Godwinson† |
Harold Godwinson | ||||||
| Strength | |||||||
| Around 7,500 | Around 20,000 | ||||||
| Casualties and losses | |||||||
| Unknown, around 7,000 | Unknown, around 10,000-12,000 | ||||||
The Battle of Stamford Bridge in England is often considered to mark the end of the Viking era in England.[1] It took place on September 25 1066, shortly after an invading Norwegian army under King Harald Hardrada defeated the army of the northern earls Edwin of Mercia and Morcar of Northumbria at Gate Fulford two miles south of York.
King Harold Godwinson of England met Harald with an army of his own, taking him by surprise, unarmoured and unprepared[2], after a legendary forced march from the south of the kingdom.
According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (SA 1066), but not mentioned in earlier versions, the Stamford Bridge was immediately held by a Norwegian berserker, armed with an axe, and wearing no armor. This berserker was of enormous stature, dwarfing even Harold Hardrada (putting him over 2 metres) and he terrified the English army. He held the bridge for an hour, hewing down anyone who attempted to cross, until finally the English put out a small boat with men who positioned themselves under the bridge and killed the berserker with a spear.
This delay gave Harald Hardråde time to form his army in a circle on high ground and let the English approach uphill with their backs to the river.[2] After a stubborn battle with losses on both sides, although particularly bad for the unarmoured Norwegians, Harald Hardråde and Earl Tostig, Harold's brother, both fell. The arrival of Norwegian reinforcements prolonged the battle, but in the end the Norwegian army was decisively defeated. King Harold Godwinson accepted a truce with the surviving Norwegians, including Hardråde's son Olaf and they were allowed to leave after giving pledges not to attack England again.
King Harold's success was not to last, however. Little more than a fortnight after the battle, on October 14, after having marched his army all the way from Yorkshire, he was defeated and killed by Norman forces under William the Conqueror, at the Battle of Hastings. This began the Norman Conquest of England.
Monument to the battle
In the village of Stamford Bridge a monument to the battle stands, which reads in English:
1066
The Battle of Stamford Bridge
King Harold of England defeated his brother Tostig and Harald Hardrada of Norway here on 25 September 1066
Notes
- ^ This fits badly within Scandinavian definitions of the period and the nature of the Norwegian invasion — Harald Hardråde was pursuing dynastic claims with an army of Norwegians, Norwegians vassals, and allies, with the intent of conquest, not raiding or colonization.
- ^ a b In his saga of Harald III of Norway which was written around 1225, Snorri Sturluson described the disposition of the Norwegian troops and also claimed that the Norwegians had left their byrnies at the ships and thus had to fight with only shield, spear and helmets (Snorri, From the Sagas of the Norse Kings, Dreyer Forlag, 1984). The sagas, however, are historical fiction which Snorri admits in his Prologue, "although we do not know the truth of these, we know, however, of occasions when wise old men have reckoned such things as true" (Snorri, p11). It is probably not possible to separate fact from fiction in his story and thus the distrust of modern historians for the details in the sagas.