• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

unmerged(8691)

Second Lieutenant
Apr 12, 2002
142
0
Visit site
Originally posted by STGeorge


The Saxon policy of buying off invaders or having to constantly react as opposed to being pro-active in defending themselves (harold showing any balls to do so).....is quite frankly primative and cowardly in the case of Æthelred II. You can in truth say that that Harolds (saxons) lack of foresight in building defendable castles probably aided William in conquering england so quickly. There was no forified pockets of resistance or secure supply line for any rebels. Protect themselves from saxons, hah, i laugh in your general direction, they are keystones for securing land and dominance over a people. The saxons were a defeated people, thanks to their kings!


Buying of invaders is perfectly acceptable and often cheaper than fighting, although I admit I don't support it. You seem to be digressing into previous Kings here, this is supposed to be about the year 1066 after all. But I will answer this one anyway. Firstly, Harold showed plenty of balls in defending himself. He put his fleet (the best in europe at that time - thanks to Alfred) into the channel and only withdrew them due to attrition (I think we can all understand that one...). He reacted so fast to the Norwegain invasion he caught Hadrada completely unprepared. Next, he stormed south again to face William and in so doing was himself not fully prepared for battle (I shall explain further below answering another of your points). This does not show a 'lack of balls' perhaps you could explain why you think he did show a lack of balls. Furthermore, the Saxons did have some castles, it's a common misconception that they didn't. Castle building (in stone) was a new technology and even the Normans didn't have a large number of them although they were very quick to take it up. The Saxons also had a defensive network, the Burghs, these allowed for the intake of local population and goods in such an event (again I will explain further below). These were positioned so that no one was more than 50 miles from protection and I think show a major difference in thinking between Saxon and Norman. That is the Saxon wanted to protect the people as well as themselves, whereas the Normans were only interested in placing a statement of individual power on the landscape and protecting the themselves.



Running to the Hills, i refer to Williams later campaigns 1067-1072 including Harolds illegitimate sons landing from ireland in somerset! (most of the resistance was Celtic) William defeated all before him, Bleddyn of Wales, York surrendered, Malcolm of Scotland made peace. On all of these campaigns William erected castles securing his rear as he went. Lets face it by 1070 the Normans had broken any saxon spirit of resistance, except for the Anglians (angles, not saxons) in the fens, under the command of Earl Morcar (dane). By 1072 england was under total Norman rule.

Apart of course from the repeated rebellions that dragged on for years...

Your point about the battle, i agree it was close, very close, but if the saxons had put in place adequate defences or structure (not just material) in the north and south the Vikings and the Normans would have suffered, imagine if Harold had arrived on the field of hastings with a full strength army (even though saxons outnumbered the Normans by 1000men), with castles at his rear(but he didn't) thus proving the lack of foresight or provision in defending his kingdom (the saxons didn't move with the times they learnt nothing) royal seal & mints and a formed legal system is very nice but whats the point if you cant defend those institutions.

As I said in my post beginning this thread 'if Harold had been more prepared' then yes he would have won, I have no doubt about that whatsoever (I shall expand below). And as I said above there was a defensive network. I don't see how you can claim the Saxons didn't move with the times, they were respected throughout Europe. They had the best infantry in Europe, the best fleet, European monarchs were sending their son's to the Saxon court to learn how it was done. Williams own advisors thought he was mad attempting an invasion because the Saxons were so feared!

Im interested in why you think Harold lost the Battle!! (even though i have heard you recount the battle over the past 6-7 years of knowing you)

OK. There are several contributing factors. The bulk of the Fyrd was left at Stamford Bridge, not a huge problem because he was gathering another to face William, but, he did not complete this task. So he only went to face William with his Huscarls and a Fyrd he had not yet completed and didn't know properly. The reason he did not complete the Fyrd is that William was goading him into presumptous action by burning the Godwins own villages. Harolds advisors warned him to wait but he didn't. We can only guess why he didn't but I would assume he was flushed with success after the slaughter at Stamford Bridge and angry with William for the burnings. I will freely admit here that Harold was wrong to do this, his ability as a commander failed at this point, but then hindsight is a wonderful thing...
Also by marching to face William instead of relying on the defensive network of burghs was a mistake. But you need to understand the Saxon mentality, when someone is burning villages, you attack them, you don't hide behind walls like a Norman. Also the lack of Cavalry, the Saxons did not fight on horseback, they considered it cowardly. Again I think this was a failing and contributed to their downfall. And finally the the lack of discipline in the new Fyrd (remember he had not had time to instill it yet) and the resulting attack downhill which of course has a famous outcome (whether it was Norman trickery or not). Had this not happened the Saxons could have held out long enough for the rest of the Fyrd to arrive and the Normans would have been finished. Instead of hating Harold for his failings I admire him for reacting the way he did because it proves he was a human being. I cannot however say the same for William. I also admire Hadrada for his failings that year, I think they were both true warrior kings, whereas William was to frightened to face Harold personally on the field despite claiming beforehand that he would...
 

STGeorge

Major
33 Badges
Jul 6, 2001
605
106
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • War of the Roses
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Rome Gold
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Crusader Kings Complete
  • Steel Division: Normand 44 Sign-up
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
"The Saxon policy of buying off invaders or having to constantly react as opposed to being pro-active in defending themselves (harold showing any balls to do so)"..................

You misunderstand me, out of all the saxons kings i admit Harold showed balls!!! but perhaps he showed them too much! (images of William kicking them in)

Onto the battle, I am perplex as to why these legendary saxons warriors lost this battle. They outnumbered the Normans, had the better ground and knew of reinforcements were on there way and were commanded by a great leader, but yet they were beaten and their king lay totally cut to pieces and all by these so called cowardly Normans.

when someone is burning villages, you attack them, you don't hide behind walls like a Norman.

I put it to you that William proved the better general by a number of factors. The act of burning the villages around Sedlecombe was a calculated act to draw the fight (which worked) to discribe it as a wonderful thing, to be so drawn shows weakness, harold by now was being ruled by his heart not his head. William now knew Harolds mind.

And if you lose that fight then what, Normans dont take that chance.....if we dont beat you today, tactical retreat, then we'll beat you tomorrow. Its not hiding, its a sound military tactic.

Also the lack of Cavalry, the Saxons did not fight on horseback, they considered it cowardly. Again I think this was a failing and contributed to their downfall.

I agree, even though the battle field didn't lend itself to cavarly. Something that surprises me you haven't mentioned the overwhelming number of Norman archers & crossbowmen, numbering some 1500 men which as we know would have had a huge effect in combat. The Normans were said to have started martial archery in england....thank you Normans!!! we know what that did for England "but thats another story"

And finally the the lack of discipline in the new Fyrd (remember he had not had time to instill it yet) and the resulting attack downhill which of course has a famous outcome (whether it was Norman trickery or not).

Again though professional in Martial skill the saxons appeared to suffer from that "red mist" which i thought was a Celtic failing!! trickery or a tactical feign i suppose if your saxon, trickery seems more appealling. Again the Normans excelled at these tactics, riding CONROI's (a band of knights who trained and fought together) upto the shieldwall to draw them out and then being able to outrun, recover and attack their pursuers is a effective tactic, that worked in many a pre-invasion campaign.

As the day wore on William mastered the field with archers firing high down into the shieldwall, conroi's riding to engage the Huscarls and Norman infantry relentlessly attacking the remainder......the saxons were out fought.

whereas William was to frightened to face Harold personally on the field despite claiming beforehand that he would...

History tells many tales, Ive read accounts that William + 3 knights broke through the wall and hack Harold down. Nodoubt you will disagree, we'll never know for certain but at the end of the day Harold was beaten and by the better general. The final humilation being the Fabled Dragon banner of Wessex was captured and sent to the pope with thanks. Now thats got to hurt!!!!!!!!!
 
Last edited:

unmerged(8691)

Second Lieutenant
Apr 12, 2002
142
0
Visit site
St George: So basically you seem to agree with me on why the Saxons lost the battle, it certainly sounds like it. I didn't mention the Archers as I don't feel they were as effective as their later counterparts.
However we have been dragging each other into a fight over who was the 'better' man, and as you have stated, there is no way we will ever know the answer to that one. The point of my thread was supposed to be what if...
 

unmerged(8690)

Sergeant
Apr 12, 2002
58
0
Seems to me, Harold and George, that you're both agreeing that Harold was the better king, and William the better military commander.
N'est pas?
(going back to my Norman french speaking viking roots).
 

STGeorge

Major
33 Badges
Jul 6, 2001
605
106
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • War of the Roses
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Rome Gold
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Crusader Kings Complete
  • Steel Division: Normand 44 Sign-up
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
Originally posted by Harold, King
St George: So basically you seem to agree with me on why the Saxons lost the battle, it certainly sounds like it. I didn't mention the Archers as I don't feel they were as effective as their later counterparts.
However we have been dragging each other into a fight over who was the 'better' man, and as you have stated, there is no way we will ever know the answer to that one. The point of my thread was supposed to be what if...

Yes, i do if you if you think on the day the Saxons were outmatched and outfought!!! As for the archers yes they certainly weren't as effective as the english of later years, but still they must have played a role in the final result.

What if? thats easy, France united, Invaded England (which consisted of the southern counties) to the north "NorfthaneBastardmark" a viking nation.England would win of course!! and then England would drift in and out of history with whimpers and occasional snarls, only to finally sign a formal alliaince with its cousin Germany and win the WAR!!!
 

Aetius

Nitpicker
15 Badges
Jan 11, 2001
9.204
1
Visit site
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Sengoku
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • 500k Club
  • Hearts of Iron II: Beta
I think the Normans were at least rather adventurous. Robert Guiscard's conquest of Southern Italy and his attempt to conquer the Byzantine empire was at audacious :)
 

unmerged(8691)

Second Lieutenant
Apr 12, 2002
142
0
Visit site
Originally posted by STGeorge


Yes, i do if you if you think on the day the Saxons were outmatched and outfought!!! As for the archers yes they certainly weren't as effective as the english of later years, but still they must have played a role in the final result.

What if? thats easy, France united, Invaded England (which consisted of the southern counties) to the north "NorfthaneBastardmark" a viking nation.England would win of course!! and then England would drift in and out of history with whimpers and occasional snarls, only to finally sign a formal alliaince with its cousin Germany and win the WAR!!!

Outmatched? No. Outfought? well, on that day clearly yes.

As for your second paragraph, what are talking about? I couldn't understand a word of it...
 

unmerged(8691)

Second Lieutenant
Apr 12, 2002
142
0
Visit site
Originally posted by Aetius
I think the Normans were at least rather adventurous. Robert Guiscard's conquest of Southern Italy and his attempt to conquer the Byzantine empire was at audacious :)

Thats because he still had the Viking blood in him, he didn't like the settled life of the Normandy life style. :D
 

unmerged(8691)

Second Lieutenant
Apr 12, 2002
142
0
Visit site
Here's one for you.
Normans, descended from Vikings.
Anglo-Saxons descended from northern Germanic states and then interbred with the Danes.
Hmmmm...
Now lets have a Norwegian invasion aswell...
Could some enlightened Norwegian or Dane tell me this one, are Danes and Norwegains interbred aswell from the ups and downs you both experianced in this period? It seems to me this would have happened.
So, to conclude, who exactly is who at the point of 1066...
;)
 

Aetius

Nitpicker
15 Badges
Jan 11, 2001
9.204
1
Visit site
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Sengoku
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • 500k Club
  • Hearts of Iron II: Beta
The Norweigans, the Swedes and the Danes are basically the same people, thus very well interbred. The northern bit of Scotland was Norweigan at some point I think. The isles in the north were for sure norweigan
 

unmerged(8691)

Second Lieutenant
Apr 12, 2002
142
0
Visit site
Originally posted by Aetius
The Norweigans, the Swedes and the Danes are basically the same people, thus very well interbred. The northern bit of Scotland was Norweigan at some point I think. The isles in the north were for sure norweigan

Thankyou Aetius, so well and truly mixed up blood at this point then.
 

STGeorge

Major
33 Badges
Jul 6, 2001
605
106
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • War of the Roses
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Rome Gold
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Crusader Kings Complete
  • Steel Division: Normand 44 Sign-up
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
Originally posted by Harold, King


Thats because he still had the Viking blood in him, he didn't like the settled life of the Normandy life style. :D

They all had some degree of viking blood in them and as for the settled Normandy life style is that the same life style that had extended from England, Ireland, Italy, Sicily, Athens, Tripoli, Tunis, Byzantium and the Norman state of Antioch. They sound quite restless to me.................
 

unmerged(8691)

Second Lieutenant
Apr 12, 2002
142
0
Visit site
Originally posted by STGeorge


They all had some degree of viking blood in them and as for the settled Normandy life style is that the same life style that had extended from England, Ireland, Italy, Sicily, Athens, Tripoli, Tunis, Byzantium and the Norman state of Antioch. They sound quite restless to me.................

Well, it was a joke but never mind...

And I have read somewhere that these were not state backed but individual leaders who disagreed with the way the Norman state was progressing and set of to do it there way. :p
 

unmerged(8691)

Second Lieutenant
Apr 12, 2002
142
0
Visit site
Enough of this foolishness! Like I said, this was intended as a what if not a breakdown of the battle or a who's got a better leader competition.
What I'd like to know is what the Norwegians think. I know about Stamford Bridge, but I'm interested to know what the background was, and indeed the Norwegian version of events, as they say history is written by the winners and most of the battle accounts I've read are written by English or American historians.
What are your thoughts Norway?
And what if Hadrada had won and gone on to fight the Normans?

Don't let the 'hostility' between St George and myself put you off, thats just because we know each other and this is a long standing arguement between us (usualy over a beer or two). At the end of the day no one can be certain of anything in this period of history, we just like arguing with each other. :D
 

STGeorge

Major
33 Badges
Jul 6, 2001
605
106
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • War of the Roses
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Rome Gold
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Crusader Kings Complete
  • Steel Division: Normand 44 Sign-up
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
Originally posted by Harold, King


Don't let the 'hostility' between St George and myself put you off, thats just because we know each other and this is a long standing arguement between us (usualy over a beer or two). At the end of the day no one can be certain of anything in this period of history, we just like arguing with each other. :D

Aint dat da trut (in my best NewYork accent).........:D
 

STGeorge

Major
33 Badges
Jul 6, 2001
605
106
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • War of the Roses
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Rome Gold
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Crusader Kings Complete
  • Steel Division: Normand 44 Sign-up
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
Good point Harold!! i too would be very interested in knowing what "The Vikings" think of the events around 1066!!!

How did the Viking's fare in other pitched battles?

Did they have a favoured tactic? or an elite unit. (e.g. Saxon Huscarl or Norman Knight)?
 

Havard

Dark Power
49 Badges
Jun 28, 2001
15.686
170
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
Why did the Norwegians invade England in 1066? (long)

In 1028 the Danish king knud the Mighty (aka Canute :rolleyes: ) managed to force king Olav the Saint into exile. He was at this point king of Denmark, England and Norway. Norway was governe through his son Sven Alfivason. Olav returned and was killed in battle in 1030 and his son Magnus was raised at the court of Yarislav i Holmgard (Russia). In 1035 Magnus returned and was proclaimed king, forcing Sven to flee back to Denmark where his brother Hardaknud ruled.

The following year knud died, and his son Harald became king of England, while Hardaknud ruled Denmark.


Magnus and Hardaknud levied the army the next year, and news was there would be a great battle. Instead messengers were sent and they met:
"It thus was brought about that there was a friendly meeting
between the kings, and in this meeting a peace was proposed;
and the peace was to be a brotherly union under oath to keep
the peace towards each other to the end of their lives; and if
one of them should die without leaving a son, the longest liver
should succeed to the whole land and people. Twelve of the
principal men in each kingdom swore to the kings that this
treaty should be observed, so long as any one of them was in
life. Then the kings separated, and each returned home to his
kingdom; and the treaty was kept as long as both lived."

(Snorri: Saga of Magnus the Good)

The following year Knud died, and his son Harald became king of England. When Harald died in 1040 Hardaknud became king of both Denmark and England until he died two years later, leaving no children. Now Magnus claimed his right to the Danish throne, and went south with a large force to back the claim. He was then made king of Denmark in 1042. Meanwhile, the English had chosen Edward the Good as their king.

King Magnus sent ambassadors over to England to King Edward, who brought to him King Magnus's letter and seal:

-- "Ye must have heard of the agreement which I and Hardaknut
made, that he of us two who survived the other should have all
the land and people which the deceased had possessed. Now it has
so turned out, as ye have no doubt heard, that I have taken the
Danish dominions as my heritage after Hardaknut. But before he
departed this life he had England as well as Denmark; therefore I
consider myself now, in consequence of my rights by this agreement,
to own England also. Now I will therefore that thou deliver to me
the kingdom; otherwise I will seek to take it by arms, both from
Denmark and Norway; and let him rule the land to whom fate gives
the victory."
(Snorri: Saga of Magnus the Good)

King edward replied:
-- "It is known to all men in this country that King Ethelred,
my father, was udal-born to this kingdom, both after the old and
new law of inheritance. We were four sons after him; and when he
by death left the throne my brother Edmund took the government
and kingdom; for he was the oldest of us brothers, and I was well
satisfied that it was so. And after him my stepfather, Canute
the Great, took the kingdom, and as long as he lived there was no
access to it. After him my brother Harald was king as long as he
lived; and after him my brother Hardaknut took the kingdoms both
of Denmark and England; for he thought that a just brotherly
division that he should have both England and Denmark, and that I
should have no kingdom at all. Now he died, and then it was the
resolution of all the people of the country to take me for king
here in England. So long as I had no kingly title I served only
superiors in all respects, like those who had no claims by birth
to land or kingdom. Now, however, I have received the kingly
title, and am consecrated king. I have established my royal
dignity and authority, as my father before me; and while I live I
will not renounce my title. If King Magnus come here with an
army, I will gather no army against him; but he shall only get
the opportunity of taking England when he has taken my life.
Tell him these words of mine."
(Snorri: Saga of Magnus the Good)

King Magnus reflected a while, and answered thus:
-- "I think it wisest, and will succeed best, to let King Edward
have his kingdom in peace for me, and that I keep the kingdoms
God has put into my hands."


In 1045, king Magnus' uncle Harald (Hardrade) returned from his journeys:

"It was also told that King Harald was stronger and stouter
than other men, and so wise withal that nothing was impossible
to him, and he had always the victory when he fought a battle;
and he was also so rich in gold that no man could compare with
him in wealth."
(Snorri: Saga of Harald Hardrade)

When they met, Magnus made Harald king of half of Norway, Harald gave Magnus half his treasure that he brought with him.

Magnus and Harald shared the throne (1046), and when Magnus died the same year Harald became king of Norway. Magnus gave Denmark to Svend Ulfsson.

Harald disputed Svends claim and attacked, Denmark several times between 1046 and 1064, until peace finally was made:

"At last the best men, and those who were the wisest, came between
the kings, and settled the peace thus: -- that Harald should have
Norway, and Svein Denmark, according to the boundaries of old
established between Denmark and Norway; neither of them should
pay to the other for any damage sustained; the war should cease
as it now stood, each retaining what he had got; and this peace
should endure as long as they were kings. This peace was
confirmed by oath."
(Snorri: Saga of Harald Hardrade)

His invasion of England was based on the claim his predecessor Magnus had to the English crown, and was incited by Jarl Toste, brother of king Harold.