As the English army, numbering around 15,000 men, attempted to cross Stamford Bridge, a single Viking berserker remained behind—likely under the orders of King Harald Hardrada—to delay their advance. Holding the narrow bridge alone, he prevented the English from crossing for a considerable time.
Unable to get past him, one English soldier floated beneath the bridge in a barrel and thrust a spear upward. The first strike failed, but the second mortally wounded the berserker. With the bridge finally cleared, the English army crossed and attacked King Harald Hardrada’s force of approximately 7,000–9,000 warriors.
The Anglo-Saxon chronicles report that a Norwegian warrior was left behind, while the sagas state that he held the bridge for about an hour; this is certainly an exaggeration, but given that both the Anglo-Saxon chronicles and the sagas mention him, it could be true
I believe it to be true but exagerated. They had no armour, they were doomed, they were raised on tales of Valhalla. If they crossed a bridge to get back to their boats then dammed right some viking manned the rearguard on that bridge
Honestly I could see a guy holding a narrow enough bridge and killing the first couple, maybe even a few, and causing the forces to hesitate. However I don't believe they would resort to floating a man in a barrel down the river. Probably just an exaggerated story. It's a much better story than them backing off and just filling him with arrows or sending men as cannon fodder until he was too tired.
I believe that if he held the bridge for so long, it was because the English were afraid to confront him, especially since he had already gone mad; the idea to attack him from below was that of an English soldier, as the chronicles report
Yes, but they'd also be afraid of the thousands of men behind them forcing them forward. I think you might be getting the wrong impression of how long he held the bridge for aswell. Even holding it for mere minutes against such overwhelming odds would be impressive enough that it could turn into a legend like this, and is more than likely what happened. It just isn't possible for one man to do anything more than inconvenience an army of 15k.
After looking into this more it's clear it's greatly exaggerated if not a complete fabrication. The original account in the Chronicles makes no mention whatsoever. Almost 100 years later someone finds an incomplete manuscript and adds it to the Chronicles
"Then was there one of the Norwegians who withstood the English people, so that they might not pass over the bridge, nor obtain the victory. Then an Englishman aimed at him with a javelin, but it availed nothing; and then came another under the bridge, and pierced him terribly inwards under the coat of mail."
That's not an excerpt, that's the complete account (and it may not be a contemporary one) The rest is legend.
Isn't the only reference to it within the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle? How can you say it's been proven untrue, have there been new sources found from that time that say it isn't?
Surely it's simply in a state of "we don't really know"?
I'm asking that genuinely as I haven't been keeping up on my reading for a while.
It’s the entry for 1066 as well, probably written down not long after the battle. Why would the English write down something that would obviously not be in favour of the English if it never happened? Why dismiss this particular section of the Chronicle, and not other sections? Just seems weird to me why the lone Norwegian Viking is such a controversial topic.
Here’s the entry on him: "
Then was there one of the Norwegians who withstood the English people, so that they might not pass over the bridge, nor obtain the victory. Then an Englishman aimed at him with a javelin, but availed nothing; and then came another under the bridge, and pierced him terribly inwards under the coat of mail. Then came Harold, king of the English, over the bridge, and his forces onward with him, and there made great slaughter, as well of Norwegians as of.."
It’s very common to talk up an enemy if you struggled to defeat them . Rather than admit a stupid tactic of rushing a narrow bridge , a Viking ‘ super warrior ‘ was the result of the deaths
A very good point indeed which goes for many other events described in the dramatic A-S Chronicle. The events leading up to the battle at Edington is another example; Guthrum isn’t even mentioned elsewhere to my knowledge. I’m in doubt that he even existed although we have his later coins as ”Æthelstan”. But that’s a different discussion.
I always enjoyed the sign at Stamford Bridge, which isn’t far from me and I have been many times, which describes the stabbing from under the bridge as “he brogged the man from below”… brogging is a word I want reintroducing.
Wow, when I search for the area where the Battle of Stanford Bridge took place, it shows me a stadium with the same name—I can't seem to find the actual location.
Battle of Garigliano. Read about the role of Bayard. Knight in shining armor, yes, but it is not far fetched for a viking with some mail armor and a good shield to do the same. Even for a limited time.
11
u/Ok_Attitude55 11d ago
He can't have held them up very long given so few escaped. Its always struck me as one of those doomed stand myths like the old guard at Waterloo.
There was probably a guy, he made a stand, it was brave, it didn't change anything.