Gone Medieval - Harald Hardrada

Episode Date: January 18, 2024

In the second of Gone Medieval’s series looking at the road to the Battle of Hastings, Matt Lewis focuses on another claimant to the English throne. Harald Hardrada was a legendary Viking warrior who sought to rebuild the North Sea Empire to which he believed himself heir. Harald invaded the north of England with 10,000 troops and 300 longships in September 1066. But the mission would not be plain sailing.Matt finds out more about him from Dr Caitlin Ellis, from the University of Oslo.This episode was edited by Ella Blaxill and produced by Rob Weinberg.Enjoy unlimited access to award-winning original documentaries that are released weekly and AD-FREE podcasts. Get a subscription for £1 per month for 3 months with code MEDIEVAL - sign up here.You can take part in our listener survey here. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From long-loss Viking ships and kings buried in unexpected places to tales of murder, power, faith, and the lives of ordinary people across medieval Europe and beyond. Join me, Matt Lewis, Dr. Eleanor Jarniger, and some of the world's leading historians as we bring history's most fascinating stories to life, only on history hit. With your subscription, you'll unlock hundreds of hours of exclusive documentaries

with a brand-new release every week exploring everything from the ancient world. to World War II. Just visit historyhit.com forward slash subscribe. As his fleet pushed its way west, the crashing of the cold North Sea against the bow of his ship was nothing new to this king. Having lived for half a century, the Viking knew the cold whip of the wind and the salt spray of the ocean. Like many of his countrymen, he knew far more besides. A shiver runs through his body as he remembers the warmth of the far south. As an exile, he'd lived the life of an adventurer, trading his way south through the lands of the ruse. He proved

himself a valuable asset as he honed his fighting skills. In Constantinople, he'd been fated, given rank and honour. The warm Mediterranean seas were where he'd plied his trade then. That trade had been war and business had been good. When home called him north again, he'd wrapped himself against the chill and used the skills he'd forged in the heat of the south to make himself king of his native Norway. That had been 20 years ago. Now he wants more. He'd claimed the crown of Denmark and now the throne of England beckoned.

Drawing his furs tighter, he fights off the thoughts of warmer days in younger years. There was cold, cruel work to be done. Some called him Hard Rada, the hard ruler. Others named him the thunderbolt of the north. He was King Harold, and England was about to witness the fury of the most legendary warrior of his age. As his ship's spot land, adrenaline drives out the chill and rolls back the years. What hope did England have against the return of the Vikings? This is the story of Harold Hardrada.

Welcome to this episode of Gone Medieval. I'm Matt Lewis. We're continuing our dive into the events of 1066 by trying to find out more about the other claimant, the one who deserves not to be overlooked. Dr Caitlin Ellis is an associate professor at the University of Oslo who focuses on Vikings, Normans, Britain and Ireland. And so it's pretty much the perfect guest to help us get to know Harold Hardrada. Welcome to God Medieval, Caitlin. Thank you. It's great to be back. It's wonderful to have you here, especially to talk about someone as, frankly amazing as Harold Hardrada. What do we know, to start us off with, about Harold's background?

Who are his parents? Is he born into royalty? So he is born into some form of royalty, but this is a period in kind of Norwegian history where it's not fully unified. We've kind of got lots of smaller kings. There's sort of been attempts to try and have one king, you know, compared to somewhere like England, for example, at this time, it's not quite the same situation. So his father is a petty king from Ringerika in southern Norway. So he's called Sigurd and his mother, Alster, also from quite an important family. And she had previously been married to a different petty king from a different part of Norway, from Vestfold.

And she's got a son from that marriage. So that's Olaf Haraldson. So he becomes the king of Norway, in a slightly broader sense, from 10.15. So then Harold is the half-brother of a king of Norway on his mother's side. So I suppose in comparison to proper prime identiture and other systems of succession, and especially in later medieval Europe, it's not necessarily the best claim, you know, when it's through the female line. But Olaf himself had become king, having basically been a Viking and been raiding in England,

got a lot of money and got support and followers and come back to Norway and able to take control that way. And when do we see Harold begin to emerge as a military figure? How early does he start his military career? Yeah, so we first see him when he's probably quite young, maybe in his teens, maybe around 15, we're not precisely sure. but in 1030 at the Battle of Stickler starred So that is involving the half-brother that I mentioned

is involving Olaf who'd actually kind of been forced out of Norway For a while he wasn't particularly popular In trying to expand his control Obviously you make enemies who are going to lose some of their own power And he'd been trying to convert people to Christianity But in 1030 you know he comes back and tries to reclaim the throne So it's quite an important battle in Norwegian history But it's a loss for Olaf side

He's killed in the battle. So that means it features quite prominently in a lot of our written sources because it's kind of the martyrdom of Olaf and leading to him becoming a saint later. And we're told that Harold, at least in the sagas, that he was kind of wounded in this battle, but that he manages to escape and sort of recovers from his wound in secret. So that's the first time that we really see him acting in his own right, as it were. It's interesting that he started his military career so young, but also fighting for his older brother to try and get the throne back into the first.

the family, I guess. Probably starting his military career at that age isn't too unusual. It compares to what we see for people like Olaf and Canute as well. How then does Harold, we're fast forwarding a little bit, but how does he end up then becoming an exile, but getting all the way to Constantinople in the Byzantine Empire? So the saga say that once he's recovered from these wounds, that first of all, he just crosses the border into Sweden, goes east and that then he goes to Russe, so the area that becomes kind of Ukraine, Russia, Belarus, sort of Eastern Europe, to Yaroslav, the prince of Kiev, and Olaf had previously been in exile there, so presumably he could expect a good reception there, and then from there to Constantinople,

so that's somewhere that had been in contact with Rousse as well. But we definitely know he was there from more contemporary sources, so he features in Byzantine Greek sources as well. I don't think this was really tell us kind of why he chose to go there, but perhaps it's just, well, it might just be a kind of sense of adventure and travel, but perhaps it's just a good place that you can go as a military leader with some followers, make your fortune it's somewhere that needs a lot of mercenaries, so that can maybe provide you with some good career prospects. Do you think to any extent he was kind of following Olaf's example? Because if Olaf went off raiding to England and came back with all of this wealth and following

and made himself a king, is perhaps Harold thinking he might do the same thing, a bit of time away, build up a reputation, get a following, get rich, come back and maybe stake his claim again? Yes, I think he might be thinking along those lines. definitely. As you say, it's a very similar process. It's just in sort of maybe a different area of Viking activity, sort of going east rather than west. And yet Olaf Trigvison had done the same thing before Olaf Haraldson by sort of raiding in Britain and Ireland. So, as you say, a fairly well-established way maybe of taking the kingship of Norway. The fathers of both Olaf and Harold claimed descent from this supposed first king of Norway from someone called Harold

Fairhair, who was supposed to be around in the 9th and 10th centuries. But he's very legendary. He's quite a sort of shadowy figure. A bit of a dodgy connection, in my opinion. Harold Fairhead ends up having so many sons so that all these different people can attach themselves to his genealogy. So there is a notional claim for that dynasty, but I think probably in reality, it was the practical things that mattered.

It was the strength and the support and the money. Sounds a bit like he's Norwegian King Arthur. You know, medieval kings are always keen to trace their lineage back to King Arthur to prove some kind of legitimacy. Yes, exactly. Maybe there was someone who had that sort of name, but it's so difficult now to try and reconstruct who he would have been and what his career would have been like.

How significant to Harold then is his involvement in the Varanjan Guard? It's this kind of elite, famous part of the Byzantine army. He must have gained an awful lot of experience, but also some prestige there as well. Yeah, definitely. He features in these sort of Byzantine Greek sources. So one of those is a kind of like advice manual in a way for emperors. And it includes Harold in an anecdote there.

it describes him as king of the Varanjans, so they might be using Varangian slightly generally to kind of mean Scandinavians, maybe at this point, but it probably maybe refers to his position in the Varangian guard, say the sort of elite, almost imperial bodyguard to an extent. It's sort of difficult to know how fully that existed as a distinct thing, as a unit, or sort of whether Harold himself and his followers kind of really bring that into force. But yes, he is sort of rewarded with various titles. Within the Byzantine Army, you know, he kind of rises up the ranks and becomes more of a commander.

So, yeah, the source describes him as having arrived with 500 men, and that he kind of ends up serving three different emperors. So, yeah, quite a long career and involves quite a lot of travel as well. We're sort of seeing different parts of the world. What kind of action do we see Harold getting involved in? Because he seems to be quite active around the Mediterranean during his time there. Yeah, definitely. So he is involved in the Nearbizant.

anti-in invasion of Sicily, which we sort of know is happening in the late 1030s and early 1040s, also various expeditions against the Bolgas as well. But as you say, a lot of it seems to be centred around the Mediterranean. Sicily is somewhere that's also quite a prize and is kind of being fought over. So he's described as taking various towns and subduing the whole island. So that's one of the things that he then gets rewarded for by the emperor and kind of gets a new position. But it's also in the north sources as well. Also in the Norse poetry, the Scaldic verse kind of in praise of Harold.

It talks a lot about all these victories. He has abroad. It also talks about him having victories in Sikh land, which literally would mean Saracen land. So he's also in contact with parts of the Islamic world as well and even maybe visits the River Jordan. He also attacks pirates in the Greek island, according to the sagas. So yeah, quite a varied and colourful career in definitely trying out his military prowess and strategising, giving him that real experience as a leader of men. Yeah, he sounds like a very busy man.

He's doing an awful lot. Yes, definitely. I mean, obviously it's difficult to know how much some of this has been slightly exaggerated by the writers to give him this kind of really illustrious career before he becomes king. But yeah, the fact that we have that Byzantine source as well, at least because of some corroboration for what's going on.

Do those Byzantine sources kind of give us an impression of Harold? So if he's in an advice manual, is the advice to get yourself someone like Harold who can fight for you? or is the advice to be wary of the Northmen who turn up 500 strong looking for a fight? I mean, the sagas maybe portray him in a slightly different way. So the reason sort of in the sagas that he leaves and goes back to Norway is that he gets involved with this royal woman, who's a relative of the Empress Zoe, but that she had really wanted him for herself. You know, she wanted to marry him.

So he's in this sort of awkward position and that's sort of why he maybe has to get out of that situation. Probably not much basis for that story, but it's an interesting one. Do we know then when, and I guess why Harold returns North, if it's maybe not to do with a love story, do we have any other ideas of why he might return to Norway? Yeah, so maybe there's some things on the Byzantine front that the Emperor Michael the 4th had died. So perhaps Harold was too associated with him, so the people after him might be a little bit wary of Harold's loyalties. People have also suggested that the Roos attack on Constantinople might also have made people a little bit suspicious of Harold if he's been associated with the Roos. as well. But yeah, as we were saying earlier, maybe he did kind of always have that ambition to return and to kind of make a claim. He might also, what he probably has heard, that his nephew,

so the son of Olaf, Howardson, who's called Magnus, has become the King of Norway. Magnus is quite young. He was only an infant when his father was killed. So maybe he thinks that now is the time to make an attempt. As someone who's interested in Richard III, the idea of going after the throne of young nephews, not something I want to hear too often. So how does Harold go about making himself King of Norway then? We know he will end up sitting on the throne. So, yeah, it's a slightly more roundabout way it's not necessarily a glorious conquest that we might expect, maybe. So yeah, initially he sort of is raiding in Denmark. It's a bit of a show of strength. And it seems like

at the beginning he allies with the Danish king, so kind of against Magnus. But basically in the end, he just comes to terms with his nephew. We could see as some form of affection between uncle and nephew or half-nephew as it were. I think probably Magnus realises that this is maybe the sensible course of action, you know, rather than risk kind of open warfare and risk a takeover. Maybe it's safest just to agree to kind of be co-rulers with Harold. Magnus is still fairly young himself. And then, you know, you suddenly get this kind of older male relative, even if his claim to the throne isn't necessarily the best genealogically. But, you know, he's obviously quite a good candidate in terms of here he is with all of this money and all of this support.

having acquired this reputation for military success. So initially they're both king, they're sharing, but then Magnus dies not that long after. So that's fairly convenient for Harold then. So from 1047, he's the only king of Norway. As someone who's interested in Richard III, I also don't want to hear about nephews conveniently dying and getting out of their uncle's way.

What kind of ruler then is Harold? So by the time he reaches 1066 and we're thinking about his arrival in England, he's been king of Norway for 20 years. And, you know, Hard Rada traditionally is said to mean the hard ruler. Does he deserve that title? What kind of king is he? Yeah, I mean, he does seem to be an effective king. As I said, we've got this idea of Norway being in the process of unifying.

So he definitely makes a lot of efforts to sort of consolidate his power. So, yeah, some of that obviously involves killing rivals and people who disagree with him. You know, he also sort of confiscates property in eastern Norway to build that support. So yes, in that way, maybe he does deserve that epiphyet. Translated in kind of various ways, we've sort of anglicised it into hardrada, but in Old Norse it would be hardrathi, which say harsh ruler or it's been translated to kind of harsh counsel, to sort of severe or resolute have been other translations that people have used. It doesn't seem to hesitate too much about kind of eliminating some of his enemies.

There's one story in the sagas. He sort of pretends that he wants to make peace with someone who rebelled against him and arranges a meeting, but then just has him assassinated anyway. He's not just a mindless thug, at least is the impression that we get. He's also being quite strategic in that way. But at the same time, he does have other achievements in his reign. So he really kind of promotes the cult of Olaf, of his half-brother that had been killed. So we get the sort of sense of the church and kind of royal power going hand-in-hand,

supporting one another. He also makes the first proper kind of national currency in Norway. So there had been some coins minted before then, but not in a regulated sense. And that might be something that he's almost been inspired by, from his time, sort of in a Byzantine Empire, to do that. So, you know, it helps with this sort of ideology of kingship, but it also makes him some money as well. He actually debases the coinage, you know, so we're sort of moving away from a system where it's just about how much silver is this individual coin worth if I was going to melt it down, you know, in the sort of bullying economy that we're sort of used to from a lot of the Viking age. that now you just have to trust that this is worth what Harold says it's worth, basically. So yeah, there are other aspects to it as well as the violence,

but I suppose it all combines to him being quite effective. Yeah, it sounds like he was, in medieval terms, quite a good king. With all of the ruthlessness that goes with that and the violence that is necessary to be a good medieval king, it sounds like he did a fairly good job for 20 years. Yeah, I think that's probably a fair description. I suppose if you were one of the enemies in certain parts of Norway, you might not agree. And as we also have Adam of Brayman's account, he's the one that describes him as Funderbolt of the North, which has obviously also got a vivid description. But Adam is not a fan of Harold

at all. So he calls him a tyrant. You know, he does have to admit that he's had all these kind of military victories. But I guess there's sort of two main reasons for that, partly because Harold won't accept the authority or the jurisdiction of the Church of Hamburg-Brahman of Germany. So, you know, There's quite a colourful episode where Adam describes Harold's sort of saying, you know, I recognise no archbishop and no other authority over Norway, apart from mine, you know, which is a nice episode. Adam O'Brahman kind of also seems to know personally, Sven Estritsyn, the King of Denmark. So Harold's rival in a lot of ways used him as a source for the history that he's writing.

We get quite a negative write-up, certainly from Adam O'Braman. That's not a bad name to be given, though, from someone who doesn't like you very much to be called the Thunderbolt of the North. That's really cool. Yeah, that's true. I mean, even the Harvahar, the Svary Jacobson, a modern historian, has sort of suggested that that might actually have been something that his enemies called him instead. But as you say, it still probably adds to this sort of, yeah, fearsome reputation, even if that was originally the case.

Some of our sources, contemporary sources, actually call him Fairhair, so Hawthagre, which I say is now what we associate with that kind of legendary, alpha-like figure that we mentioned earlier. So whether that's just sort of people getting genuinely confused between different haralds when they're writing and that Harfaga and Harthra are not so dissimilar, or that even this sort of earlier idea of a Harold, who's a very important King of Norway, is influenced by this later one. Might be part of it. But it's very often to sort of suggest that maybe Harold would have rather been the fair head rather than the resolute as it were.

I'm going to see if I can get all my enemies to call me the Thunderbolts of Wolverhampton from now on, though. Harold, not long before he comes to England, he does lay claim to the Danish crown too. Does he have a claim to the Danish throne or is this an act of conquest? Sort of. So he can just about make a claim. So Magnus, his half-nephew, the one that he shared the rulership with of Norway, he had actually been King of Denmark briefly. So this is after the death of half a Canute, so one of the sons of Canute the Great. So, you know, when Canute the Great, obviously being such an important figure with kind of a wide sphere of

fluent so when he dies things splinter between his sons so after the death of half a canoe magnus is able to actually rule Denmark normally the Danish kings have usually been in a better position versus Norway but now the Norwegian kings have maybe got a little bit more of a look at in so I suppose Harold could reasonably maybe expect to try and inherit Norway and Denmark from magnus but I suppose when Magnus dies he probably just needs to concentrate on kind of securing his control of Norway itself so this Sven Estritsen, who is a grandson of Sven Forkbeard, so a nephew of Canute the Great, but again, sort of more through the female lines, he's able to take back control of Denmark. So yeah, he has some claims, but again, as we've said, there's also just the element of

why would you not try and expand your power at this point if you're able to? If there's a throne going, why wouldn't you have a try? And how does he get on when he tries to make himself king of Denmark? He kind of raids quite a lot. There's quite a few battles between him and Sven, kind of almost like every year they're sort of at it again. Sven Esfretton obviously doesn't have this same heroic reputation that Harold does. He's not remembered to anywhere near the same extent. He doesn't maybe have so many great victories, but he seems to be a bit of a survivor. So he is able to kind of hold on as King of Denmark. He

will outlive Harold eventually as well. It seems to be a bit of a stalemate. So they kind of just come to terms. They just decide to stick to their own kingdoms rather than trying to take from each other. But Harold doesn't seem satisfied still with just Norway, because then in 10, 66, he will turn his gaze across the North Sea to the English throne and the upheaval that is going on there. Can Harold justify a claim to the English throne? What is his connection there? So it's partly an extension of these claims to Denmark that we've just been talking about, but a bit more tenuous again. So the later Norseaga accounts claimed that half a canoe and Magnus, because neither of them had male heirs, that they had come to an agreement that whichever one dies,

the survivor would take their phones in addition to the ones they already have. So that is the thing that maybe gives Magnus, if we believe that account, that would give Magnus a claim to England. There is also a suggestion that Magnus had thought about kind of assembling a fleet, but then was distracted by things that were going on in Scandinavia and wasn't really in a good enough position to be able to try and do that. And then, of course, we get Edward the Confessor as King of England instead, so restoring that previous line of English kings.

from before the Danish conquest. In a more immediate sense, and maybe the other claim that Harold can make is that he then allies with the brother of Harold Godwinson, with the new King of England in 1066. So with Tosty Godwinson, who is sort of fallen out with his brother because he's unhappy that he's been exiled himself,

so he goes looking for support. That's something else maybe that Harold can use as an excuse. Ultimately, in 1066, is Harold just being opportunistic? He's tried to lay claim to Denmark and that's failed, and now he's spotted an opportunity in England because there's some upheaval and unrest there. Is it just an opportunistic bid for another crown?

I think it's a bit of both. I think the timing is kind of opportunistic, but I think he might have had those sort of longer-term ambitions. From the English point of view, if he's got the support of Tosti and the death of Edwin-a-confessor after 20 or so years is not a bad time to make a claim. And sort of on the Scandinavian front,

as we've said, the fact that Sven, of Denmark and him had kind of finally agreed just to stay put in their own kingdoms. So the fact that they're not fighting anymore maybe means that he sort of feels more able to kind of launch an expedition abroad elsewhere. So in that sense, I think this is sort of the right time for several reasons. I think it is tempting to see him as trying to sort of recreate some broader Scandinavian rulership in the style of Knut. We also know from some of the British and Irish sources that Harold's son, who's also called Magnus, confusingly, that he had been around in British-Irish Isles in 1058 with a fleet. It doesn't really amount to that much in the long term where he kind of supports

some other things that are happening around that time, but I've always wondered if this is a testing the waters for future expeditions. And there's a lot of connections between Norway and the earldom of Orkney as well. So Harold first sails to Orkney and get some more ships and some more men And I guess strategically, that's quite a good place to pause and refuel and then continue further south to make an attempt on England. Yeah, and I suppose if you're an ambitious Scandinavian ruler, particularly if you've been struggling with a rival in Denmark, then trying to recreate what Canute had done has a great appeal. You know, Canute, obviously, is Canute the Great for a reason. He had this kind of North Sea empire going on. And I guess if you're an ambitious Scandinavian ruler, he's the person who you might look to to recreate what he'd done. Yeah, certainly, and this was just in general, you know, England is probably quite a tempting prize in this period. It's very wealthy.

You know, that's one of the reasons that Vikings attacked it so often was because, you know, they could get all this silver as a result of doing so. But yes, I suppose it might have been a little bit of a slap in the face for Sven Estritson if Harold was the one to take on Kanoet's legacy instead of him. Do the Scandinavians still view England as quite a soft touch at this point, an easy target? The sources don't describe the English in a particularly negative way. they're not saying, oh, they're all cowards or anything like that. I think maybe the sort of interesting thing with England in this period is that it's strong and unified means that in some ways you should think it would be able to marshal resources to mount a defense. But in other ways, the fact that it is sort of centralized maybe means that it can be easier to take over.

You know, there's only like one king to defeat and replace. Whereas in other parts of Europe, you know, if there's lots of different kind of regional rulers, any conquest is going to be a bit more piecemeal and kind of more complicated. that is maybe part of it. I suppose we haven't quite had the same level of attrition, I suppose, that we have in the wake of the Danish conquest. There's been a little bit of a lull in a way in terms of the English forces. I suppose someone like Howard Godwinton has probably been cutting his teeth more fighting against the Welsh and doing other things than against Scandinavians specifically. Harold then makes it onto English soil via Orkney.

How significant for his bid is his victory at the Battle of Fulford? I mean, it must have felt like a really good start. Yeah, exactly. It does look like a really good start. And I suppose obviously we have the benefit of hindsight knowing that it doesn't continue in that way. But at the time, it probably looked good, sort of started off his campaign well, that he's able to sort of defeat the northern forces under the earls, Edwin and Morca, that they themselves survive. That battle happens just sort of south of York. So then the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, or one of the versions at least, tells us that after that battle that Harold and Tosty are able to go to York and receive hostages and provisions. And that sort of seems particularly significant, given that York had earlier

been kind of very important, had this kind of central place within Scandinavian settlement in England in earlier periods, had had kings in its own right before, who were sort of opposed to the kings in the West Saxon dynasty and so on. Probably did look like it had made a good start. How then does the Battle of Stamford Bridge play out? Because we know, with the benefit of hindsight, that Harold will lose Stamford Bridge and he will lose his life there. I'm particularly interested I guess in, do you think that Harold makes some kind of mistake? I mean, he's an absolutely legendary warrior. He's got all of this experience behind him. He's already won one battle. What goes wrong at Stamford Bridge for him, I guess, is what I'm asking. So the Anglo-Saxon

Chronicle describes Harold's army as being taken by surprise by the attack that Harold Godwinson makes. Perhaps Harold, Hodrado of Norway, had got a little bit overconfident or just kind of wasn't expecting there to be such an attack. So in some of the Norse sagas in Hames-Kringler, it kind of describes Harold as he's had breakfast and then he's like leaving the ship with a few men. But the weather is really hot and warm, so they sort of decide that they don't need to wear their mail coats, which, you know, when they are then taking slightly unawares in this attack is not for the best than that they don't have that armour.

And I suppose one of the, going back to the Chronicle, at least one of the versions kind of gives the impression that he sort of has made peace or feels fairly secure in his position in the north and then is maybe just planning what the next move will be to take the rest of England to go further south. So I suppose Harold Godwinson brings the fight to him rather than waiting for the Norwegian forces to come south. So perhaps that's why Harold is a little bit on the back foot, as it were. I mean, it's still described as quite a long, hard fought battle, so not an easy victory for Harold Godwinson either. And I suppose there's that sort of fairly famous episode of the single Norwegian, the sort of nameless Norwegian that's able to hold off the English forces

for quite a while, so they're on the bridge, stopping anyone else, getting through until one of the Englishmen goes under the bridge and, you know, stabs him from below, stabs upwards. So, yeah, obviously casualties on both sides, but it was crucially the fact that Harold himself is killed, and Tosti as well. The two main leaders are then gone and removed, so that's probably the fatal blow. But then Harold's son, who had sort of been with him on the expedition, and the Earl of Orkney, they're able to kind of escape or perhaps Howard Godwinson allows them to do so. But it's, yeah, sort of described that a few ships leave with the survivors,

but it's not anywhere near the number of ships that had landed that had come to Britain in the first place. Do we get a sense in any of the chronicles or the sagas that this was a surprise, a shock? Were people expecting Harold Hardruder to win this fight? I suppose a lot of the sagas that we have are written by Icelanders. So given that Norway has had control over Iceland, for a lot of that period.

It's possible that sometimes the Isanders are slightly kind of warning the Norwegian Kings to stick to your own patch. Don't get too many ideas about expanding your control. So that's one way of looking at it, that, you know, he maybe just makes this sort of fatal miscalculation and he should have just stayed in Norway and continue to just be a good king there and focus on internal affairs. But yeah, they mostly just maybe focus on the fact that he was sort of taken a little bit unawares.

And I suppose that, you know, even maybe the most effective military commander I guess that there's no guarantees in warfare, right? Things can still go wrong. Unexpectedly, there's always going to be something beyond your control. There's maybe a little bit of criticism in some of the sources, but nothing too sort of explicit, I suppose. It almost feels like a lot of them are sort of making excuses for Harold, you know, the hot weather, he wasn't ready,

didn't have his armour on, you know, he takes the sneaky English, getting under a bridge to defeat the warrior. You know, it's kind of almost like making excuses for this legendary warrior to explain away the fact that he loses this battle to the English. And I suppose we do sometimes get the sense then afterwards that when there are sort of later attempts by Scandinavians in the British Iris Isles that Harold's grandson, Magnus Bearlegs, will launch a couple of expeditions and one of the sources there has someone kind of goading him into it saying, you know, you need to avenge your grandfather. And so maybe there's a sense at which they find it like a little bit embarrassing or something like that that they want to do better down the line. But again, I suppose with hindsight, we know that that doesn't really come to pass. Do away with hindsight just for one moment. If you're placing a bet in September 1066, you got your 10-pound note, I don't know what the odds are. Let's say it's evens on everyone. Who would your money be on? Out of Harold Hardrida, Harold Godwinson, and William, Duke of Normandy,

who would you think going into 1066 was the most likely to win? It is a tricky one in that all of them have experienced military leaders. So there's not one of them that you think, oh, well, obviously not. What's he doing there? Williams had to spend quite a lot of effort. I guess I'm getting control over Normandy. And as I say, Harold Godwinton had been fighting the Welsh. Harold of Norway probably is the most experienced relatively, definitely on that kind of international level.

I mean, maybe I would say that as the Scandinavian historian, that I would back him. I think that's fair. I think that's absolutely fair. I think I would probably put my money on Harold Hardrider as well, simply from the point of view that Harold Godwinson is going to be fighting a war on two fronts, which is going to be difficult. And William, yes, he's used to fighting for control of a little duchy in northern France,

but is that the same as fighting for a kingdom and fighting in the Varanjian Guard and all over the place that Harold has done? I would think on paper, Harold Hardrider must have looked like the most likely to win that kind of three-way fight in 1066. I mean, as we know, he would be the first one to lose. But I'd put my own Harold Hardrider, I think, if I was betting. Yeah, as you say, the fact that he sort of was involved in the invasion of Sicily and got all, of these victories in all these different lands would probably have normally lent some confidence. I suppose it's one of those what ifs of history, isn't it, as to what would have happened if William hadn't been delayed by the bad weather or if he'd got there first and so on,

but we'll obviously never know. And I guess particularly in Britain, we're guilty of remembering Harold Hardrada, if we remember him, as that kind of third person in 1066 who was knocked out first. What should we remember as Harold Hardrada's legacy? Yeah, as you say, he probably is overlooked. by being just the precursor to this bigger event. You know, which I'd say everyone's probably heard of 1066, but usually in terms of Hastings and William the Conqueror.

And in Norway, too, he's also probably a little bit overshadowed, but by his brother, by Olaf, especially the fact that he becomes a saint, you know, protector of Norway. Although Harold probably actually, you know, achieved a lot more during his reign, this kind of effective consolidating rule. And it was obviously for a longer period of time. Though, as I said, Howard was involved in that cult,

and it benefited him as well, you know, by association to this kind of saintly protected. So I suppose that's something that we could say that we should remember him for that legacy. I suppose he's often kind of seen as this last Viking or, you know, that maybe his death marks the end of the Viking age, maybe a little bit Anglo-centric of us. There are some attempts on England and sort of expeditions to the West after that. But I suppose yet, he's probably usually remembered for that slightly stereotype of a Viking spirit of adventure of somewhat, you know, because of all of these far-reaching travels.

And I suppose the fact that he spends so much time in the East, but then he dies in the West, so it's kind of bringing together these two main areas of Viking activity. But at the same time, I think it could be fair to say that he was the first King of Norway in any real meaningful sense. Definitely deserves to be remembered better than he probably is, I think, at least in Britain. We don't do him the justice he deserves, I think. It's been fascinating to talk to you, Caitlin. Thank you very, very much.

It's been great to learn more about the incredible Harold Hardrida. What are you working on at the moment? Where can people catch up with your work? So I've just had a co-edited volume come out of some collection of papers. about the Normans actually, but from a slightly more kind of maritime perspective. We sort of think about the Normans and their castles and land-based expansion, as it were. So that's called Maritime Exchange in the Making of Norman Worlds. And then, yeah, it's a few articles about 11th century, Scandinavia and Kings.

One of them is open access with historical research, and that was about all these expeditions to Britain Island in the 11th century, so quite relevant to today's topic. Wonderful. Well, thank you so much for joining us, Caitlin. It's been great to talk to you. There are a new episodes of Gone Medieval every Tuesday and Friday, so please do join us next time for more from the greatest millennium in human history.

Don't forget to also subscribe or follow us wherever you get your podcast from and to tell all of your friends and family that you've gone medieval. If you get a moment, please do drop us a review or rate us anywhere that you listen to your podcasts. It really does help new listeners to find us. Anyway, I'd better let you go. I've been Matt Lewis, and we've just gone medieval with history hits.