Talk:Battle of Stamford Bridge

The phrase "English" seems anachronistic

It seems like referring to the Anglo-Saxons as "the English" is an anachronism, and one that has some nationalist undercurrents. For instance, they would not have called them selves the English, or spoken modern English, and there were plenty of Danes from earlier invasions/migrations who lived in what is now England (are they not English as well, if the Saxons at this time were?) and people descended from the Normans are undoubtedly "English" as well. So shouldn't it read "Anglo-Saxon" where it currently reads "English"?76.168.157.147 (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussed at some length in the Hastings talk page - [1] Ian Dalziel (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

By this point there is compelling evidence they referred to themselves as English, though it would certainly have been spelt different. Alooulla (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

And the leader of the "English" is the brother of the one of the leaders of the "Norwegians"? Does not make any sense at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.92.33.212 (talk) 09:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Source of Harold quote

Anonymous user, what is the source of the quote? From which historicial record or chronicler did it originate, and what date? Quotational dialouges from the 11th century are rare, and this one reads like fiction. My guess is it is later embelishment that has turned into popular legend. I may be wrong, but without attribution, it needs to be verified. We also have an ongoing problem with anonymous users intentionally inserting false information as a game. Please do not revert a 3rd time without addressing the source of the quote. Thanks!! Stbalbach 15:57, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's probably a popularized & garbled version of this passage from Heimskringla[2]

The earl replies, "This is something different from the enmity and scorn he offered last winter; and if this had been offered then it would have saved many a man's life who now is dead, and it would have been better for the kingdom of England. But if I accept of this offer, what will he give King Harald Sigurdson for his trouble?"

The horseman replied, "He has also spoken of this; and will give him seven feet of English ground, or as much more as he may be taller than other men."

It's a fairly well known quote I think, so it perhaps deserve mention on that accord Fornadan 23:46, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In the proper context that it is 1) from a Norse saga 2) a secondary source 100s of years after the fact. The "moral of the story" gives it a mythological feel, than of a neutral historical account of what actually happened or was said. Stbalbach 01:04, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You guys can still put it in, you just need to mention that it existed only in Snorri's imagination. Augustulus 01:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Source of naked and bathing information

What is the source of the "naked and bathing, ..." information. This sounds like fictional detail and is not present in the sources I have checked (Jones, History of the Vikings, Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, etc). Snorri in his historical fiction has the Norwegian army moving toward Stamford Bridge when they sight the English army and makes no mention of the although he does say the Norwegians were without their Byrnies, bringing only helmets, shields, spears and swords. If (when) this information is restored, please include source information. Thanks. WPB

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Harald Hardråde's claim

It should be mentioned that king Harald of Norway had a claim for the English throne, based on the treaty between the kings of Norway and Denmark after the death of king Knut (Canute). — Linkomfod (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC) The Saxon Chronicle was written mainly by King Alfred's Spin doctor Asser, who was empolyed specifically to glorify Alfred and his hot headed family.If you read these accounts you cannot help but realise that they are consistently repetitive with differing battle results.Alfred always defeats a vast army of Danes and afterwards the Danes retain 'retain the field'The chronology is blown to pieces and they omit any reference to the Greatest of all the Kings, that being King Offa the truly GREAT.The time factor, the ability to collect an Army together and march to Yorkshire, feeding yourselves on the way across open country crossing rivers and obstacles then defeating the mighty Danes is a load of utter codswallop. For one thing you could walk ocross the river at Stamford bridge without getting yor knees wet.No one can find any debris in that area or close to it. The 300 ships at Riccall would be similar to 300 aircraft carriers in the thames.Each Viking ship required to be manned by 120 men, sails were only of use use in open sea or at certain times. 300 x 120 = 36000 men According to this story they slew these 36000 battle hardened warriors after marching 300 miles but were held up one warrior on his own. They couldn't cross the bridge but they had a boat.After the bloody slaughter they allowed Tostig to leave peaceably with three ships that were at Riccall near Selby. I would love to have seen 300 ships in the river at Riccall, it would have been better than Pericles and Darius.The facts are that they went on a wild goose chase set up by William the Bastard.No battle took place, they had to save face, The story belongs to the Oxford History of Liars along with Piltdown man, the White horse, Crop circles and Hitler Diaries. They wouudn't know the truth if it was hanging on the end of their noses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.11.189 (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Re the above: in 1066 the River Derwent would have been very much larger than it is today, because it's flow has been reduced by large-scale water abstraction; moreover river levels have been controlled by a number of cut-off channels (such as the New Cut near Scarborough), to reduce the risk of flooding. Even so (as shown by the picture on the relevant Wikipedia page), it is quite a substantial river in its lower reaches, and would certainly have been enough to prevent an army from crossing - hence the very important bridge!

the game

shouldn't a metion be made to the online game 1066 where this is a battle?--99.178.202.142 (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.96.54 (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Geographically challenged?

"The invaders sailed up the Humber and burned Scarborough before advancing on York."

They may well have sailed up the Humber on their way to York, but unless they stopped at Hull and caught the train, there is no way they burned Scarborough during their excursion up the Humber. Scarborough is more than 50 miles from the mouth of the Humber and therefore must have been burned long before the invaders reached the Humber. 83.104.135.68 (talk) 05:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is cited - that doesn't mention Scarborough as far as I can see. It also mentions the Ouse rather than the Humber in the context of Fulford. (Not that there's any way to get a longship into the Ouse without using the Humber, or the York and North Midland Railway as you suggest). Changed the text to match, anyway. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 11:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

End of the Viking Age?

The following assert does not correspond with the informations showed elsewhere (for instance at Viking Age):

The battle has traditionally been presented as symbolising the end of the Viking Age, although in fact major Scandinavian campaigns in Britain and Ireland occurred in the following decades, notably those of King Sweyn Estrithson of Denmark in 1069–70 and King Magnus Barefoot of Norway in 1098 and 1102–03.

It should either show some sources and then be copied on said page, or removed otherwise. I lack any further knowlegde to solve this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.5.203.228 (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Legend of the Norwegian Axeman

A vignette about the Norse axeman at the Stamford bridge battle also appears in King Harald's Saga by Snorri Sturlasson, according to my recollection of my reading of that saga. I don't have access to it at the moment and so cannot confirm. Thomasee73 (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2016

Search for 'guardingthe'. There should be a space between the two words.

15.211.201.85 (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Done --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 18:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2016

Correct spelling "Hadrata's" as "Hardrata's" In the last line of the 2nd paragraph under Background. Gramaticus (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

done. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Battle of Stamford Bridge/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

. Inline references required Keith D 22:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 22:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 09:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Spears and bridges

Has anyone else noticed the similarity between the Battle of Boroughbridge#Battle: "was killed as he crossed the bridge by a pikeman hiding underneath, who thrust his spear up through the Earl's anus" and the Battle of Stamford Bridge#Battle: "when an English soldier floated under the bridge in a half-barrel and thrust his spear through the planks in the bridge, mortally wounding the axeman". The incidents may be 250 years apart, but only 30 miles distance. Is there a chance that a good story was being reused? Maybe just idle speculation - anyone else go any thoughts? (This question is duplicated at the other talk page) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Marc Morris in The Norman Conquest chapter 11 29:46 (audible) points out this story was added to the chronicle on the 12th century. So entirely possible that this is an embellishment here or elsewhere in similar battle anecdotes Cgwhitehead (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

historical marker

the section about "battle flats" might benefit from the fact there've put up a historical marker. Here it is in Google Maps Street View. 172.58.142.156 (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2020

I would like to add a legacy section for the Battle of Stamford Bridge as it has been honoured by Swedish metal band Amon Amarth in a song titled “The Berserker At Stamford Bridge” of their 2019 album “Berserker” Jsharp666 (talk) 09:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. - QuadColour (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2021

Manuscripts C, D and E of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle all mention Stamford Bridge by name. Manuscript C contains a passage which states "... came upon them beyond the bridge ....".[10] Add the following: Recent scholarship suggests the battle was fought west of the bridge at Halifax Meadow.

Blundell, Michael C. "A Mislocated Battlefield? Battle Flats: The Battle of Stamford Bridge, 1066." In Journal of Medieval Military History: Volume XIX, edited by FRANCE JOHN, DeVRIES KELLY, and ROGERS CLIFFORD J., 21-42. Woodbridge, Suffolk; Rochester, NY: Boydell & Brewer, 2021. Visitor1970 (talk) 10:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

 Question: @Visitor1970: is this not covered by There are indications of a meadow on the west side of the river? Is your addition something that would be better off incorporated into that phrase, rather than standing alone? FDW777 (talk) 10:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The phrase "There are indications of a meadow on the west side of the river" is pretty non-specific. In contrast, the arguments outlined in the referenced article provide specific original source documentation. Additionally, the second half of the existing sentence, "and higher ground on the eastern side" is misleading. There is no reference in any of the original sources that the main battle occurred east of the Derwent. It is simply based on local tradition.

I suggest the following:

Change: There are indications of a meadow on the west side of the river and higher ground on the eastern side.

To: Although local tradition holds that the battle was fought on high ground east of the river, recent scholarship suggests it may have been fought in a meadow west of Stamford Bridge. Visitor1970 (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Fought the same year as Battle of Hastings?

just wondering if they were connected 🙂 82.40.30.83 (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Read the Aftermath section? Ian Dalziel (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2024

Change: He made the journey from London to Yorkshire, a distance of about 185 miles (298 km), in only four days, enabling him to take the Norwegians completely by surprise.

To: Gathering an army along the way, Harold traveled north at a rate of between 15 to 20 miles per day, the average rate of march for medieval armies, reaching Tadcaster in approximately 10 days. Mccn67b (talk) 11:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Please convert the sources into citations (also see referencing for beginners guide). Additionally, I object with this change as I am not provided with a reason for this change which changes what information the article provides. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 06:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Reason for the change: The original sentence states the English army traveled about 185 miles in "only four days" and that this enabled Harold "to take the Norwegians completely by surprise."

1. This suggests a rate of march of ~ 46 miles per day. There is no reference cited to back up this claim. Available references which discuss rates of march for medieval armies state that 15 miles per day was the average and 20 miles per day would be considered "a long day's march". Hence, it was likely closer to 10 days of march. Even if, which is unlikely, the entire force was mounted, the average rate provided in sources is between 30 to 35 miles per day. Finally, the distance from London to Tadcaster is closer to 200 miles.

2. The statement that Harold took the Norwegians completely by surprise misstates the actual source and implies there was a surprise attack by the English. There was no surprise attack. In his translation of MS D, Swanton chooses to translate on unwær as "by surprise". However, it can also be translated as "unexpectedly". This changes the dynamic of the initial encounter. Since this is a debatable statement, I chose to leave it out of the sentence.

Mccn67b (talk) 10:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Change: He made the journey from London to Yorkshire, a distance of about 185 miles (298 km), in only four days, enabling him to take the Norwegians completely by surprise.

To: Gathering an army along the way, Harold traveled north at a rate of between 15 to 20 miles per day, the average rate of march for medieval armies , reaching Tadcaster in approximately 10 days. Mccn67b (talk) 10:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. @Mccn67b: You account is now autoconfirmed, so you can do the edits yourself RudolfRed (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2024 (2)

Change: According to Snorri Sturluson, before the battle a single man rode up alone to Harald Hardrada and Tostig. He gave no name, but spoke to Tostig, offering the return of his earldom if he would turn against Hardrada

To: According to the saga accounts, twenty armored English horsemen approached the Norwegian line for a parley. One of the horsemen spoke with Tostig and told him that his brother King Harold offered him a truce and all of Northumbria if he would turn against Harald Hardrada. Mccn67b (talk) 11:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above explanation. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 06:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Change: According to Snorri Sturluson, before the battle a single man rode up alone to Harald Hardrada and Tostig. He gave no name, but spoke to Tostig, offering the return of his earldom if he would turn against Hardrada

To: According to the saga accounts, twenty armored English horsemen approached the Norwegian line for a parley. One of the horsemen spoke with Tostig and told him that his brother King Harold offered him a truce and all of Northumbria if he would turn against Harald Hardrada. Mccn67b (talk) 10:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. @Mccn67b: You account is now autoconfirmed, so you can do the edits yourself RudolfRed (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2024 (3)

Change: The sudden appearance of the English army caught the Norwegians by surprise.

To: The sudden appearance of the English army caught the Norwegians by surprise west of the Derwent River. As the MS C account in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles states, "Then Harold, king of the English, came upon them beyond the bridge by surprise; and there they joined battle and were fighting very hard long in the day". Mccn67b (talk) 11:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Per the explanation at the 1st request. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 06:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Change: The sudden appearance of the English army caught the Norwegians by surprise.

To: The sudden appearance of the English army caught the Norwegians by surprise west of the Derwent River. As the MS C account in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles states, "Then Harold, king of the English, came upon them beyond the bridge by surprise; and there they joined battle and were fighting very hard long in the day". Though often interpreted to mean the main battle took place east of the Derwent River after the English army had crossed the bridge, Charles Plummer explains that the phrase “beyond the bridge” must be viewed “from the point of view of the enemy. To the English coming from York, they [the Norwegians] would be on the hither [near] side of the bridge”. Mccn67b (talk) 10:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. @Mccn67b: You account is now autoconfirmed, so you can do the edits yourself RudolfRed (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Incorrect English casualties

There’s no reliable source for English casualties. The one cited is just some random site that lists the casualties as “key facts” with no primary source to back it up NooneEtAl (talk) 09:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)