Video games taught me that the historical shield wall is a myth. You want your enemy to see you tbag his buddies, and they can't see that if you do it behind a wall.
I love that little story of the unknown viking holding off an entire army on the bridge. Mad shit like that is why I love history. When that guy died, _that's_ when the age of vikings was over. On the spot. The rest of them just didn't know it yet. Great video guys. 👍
Missed the best part of his death. They couldn't get past him, so a few spearman took a small boat under the bridge and speared him through the groin to kill him.
Well if it's true. These sorts of stories always need to be taken with a pinch of salt. At best, it's like taking a real remarkable event, like Pavlov's House, and making it into a Schwarzenegger movie.
The ramifications of Stamford Bridge were actually huge. The victory was so comprehensive that when Harold let the survivors return home under oath that they and their heirs never return - the oath was actually kept and there was never a major viking campaign against England again. Most historians regard 1066 as the end of the viking age in Europe. In any other year, Stamford Bridge would rank alongside or even above the Battle of Britain (which ended the threat of Nazi Invasion) or Trafalgar (which ended the Napoleonic invasion threat) and Harold Goodwinson would probably be remembered as "the Great" who ended the centuries long threat of Viking invasions for all time. Instead, it's been kind of relegated to a footnote to the "main event" of 1066.
Actually the King of Denmark did send a warfleet to assist dispossessed Englishlords regain their holdings. William paid them off with stolen gold, however.
It is estimated that the loss of norways elite warriors was so impactful, that it took almost a generation ti recover. So they had no other choice than to keep their oaths.
There was actually plans of a triology starring Leonardo Di Caprio as Harald Hardråde some 10 years ago, but the project was scrapped. Guess the movie industry wanted to cash in on superhero-franchises instead...
Harold Godwinson made the 190 mile march North in an unprecedented 5 days.... he then marched the 190 miles back to London with the core of his weary army in about the same time, took a 2 day rest, and then marched them another 60+miles south to Hastings for their second battle, which he very nearly won. Pretty incredible.
The late XI th century is filled with those history defining dates. 1054, 1066, 1071, 1089, 1099 Nearly as filled to the brim as first half of XXth. I can only think of two other periods in history more decisive : -60 to -40 and 1773 to 1815
@@Cancoillotteman I can recognise the schism and the battle of Majikert, but just because I am Greek and I have delved in Byzantine history. But I don't know anything about 1089 or 1099 (crusades?), and I doubt that most people will know 1071 as well.
The theme for this week is : Jarls and Huskarls As always here are the TW: Thrones of Britannia mods that we used in this video: -Shieldwall overhaul mod -ReShade - Lux un Umbra preset. Best wishes, ڤمنه ملايو
So... Stamford Bridge: The Anglo Saxons feign a retreat. The Norwegians smell blood in the water and abandon the high ground. They are slaughtered to the last man. Hastings: The Normans feign a retreat. The Anglo Saxons smell blood in the water and abandon the high ground. They are slaughtered to the last man. I'm sensing a pattern here...
@@defenderofmen - I'm not aware Harold had any cavalry at Hastings which is odd when you consider how important they appear to have been to the victory at Stamford Bridge.
@Just Getting By Very dramatic the part with seven feet of English dirt, but part of the peace agreement between Harold and Olaf was the return of the bodies for burial. While most of the Norwegian dead were buried on site, the nobles, including the King, were returned to Norway and buried at Nidaros.
It should be remembered that Hardrada's force contained a good many Varangians with huge military experience. Hardrada's story is honestly fascinating, an exiled prince who goes off to fight for the Emperor of Rome in Constantinople, rises to become the leader of the Varangian guard, wins many battles against arabs, bulgars, pechenegs, and more, and upon seeing his friend the Emperor assassinated; escapes from the Roman world and its cunning Empress with a good deal of those great Varangian warriors who were loyal to him, returns to Norway from his exile and takes what is rightfully his. He then goes over to England and dies. The extreme experience of both Hadrada and his warriors needs to be stressed though. The fierceness and courage of the Anglo-Saxons is honestly quite amazing, and on paper almost everyone would have fought the Anglo-Saxons would have been destroyed.
@@chrisdaniels3929 the Fyrd really were not a bunch of mugs you know. Most people in England owned weapons and chainmail, it was a warrior society and it wasn't that difficult to come by chainmail and acquire a helmet. Every Englishman (there were exceptions but I won't get bogged down in the details) had to serve in the Fyrd for 2 months every year. Whilst there they were trained by the professional Huscarls in combat and tactics and formation fighting. They were not at the same level as a Huscarl but they were more than just a peasant levy, they were quite well trained and they would often be sent to the border of Scotland or Wales where they would intercept Scottish or Welsh warbands who would raid into England, so they also got alot of fighting experience. In modern terms I guess you could say they were like the National Guard in the US or Army Reservists
I think there is something special about the Anglo-Saxons. They were never defeated by the Romans. They took over Britain, became a world empire, took over North America, spread their language all over the world, started two world wars (Anglo-Saxons), and ended two world wars (Anglo-Americans), invented football, invented the computer and the internet, went to the moon, invented the car and the airplane.
I've written the screenplay. A ten hour mini-series that tells the entire tale of 1066. Sadly, neither Hollywood or the BBC has any interest in stories about white guys doing stuff. Giving it another year or three until ChatGPT makes Hollywood and the BBC obsolete and then I'm making it myself.
I always imagine two alter-scenarios: 1) Harold Godwinson loses at Stamford Bridge and England is divided in two, the Viking north and the Norman south. How would life and history be different? 2) What if Harold won at Hastings? How would England change. Our language, culture, history, even our first Kings would be different. Keeps me up at night...
I so wish that the Godwinson had won at Hastings. There would be no mass slaughter of civilians or the destruction of the Anglo Saxon institutions. Sure England remains more Anglo Saxon today than Norman. But England would be so much better without the new class system (which still lingers) and the brutal oppression throughout the early years of the Norman yoke. I'm Norwegian so I'm cheering Hardrada though.
But for fate (in this case, the channel winds), by rights Harold Godwinson should have won both battles. He was a fine general and everything indicated he would be a great king (including favoring justice over favoritism - the reason he fell out with Tostig in the first place - his brother was cruel, corrupt and hated by the people and Harold had his title stripped). His army was well set up, prepared and rested on the South Coast. If William had landed a month earlier as scheduled, he'd most likely have been crushed on the very beach where he was trying to disembark. As it was, Harold's army had two forced marches; up to York, a major battle, and back down again - his army losing men, material, freshness and combat effectiveness all the while - and had to choose a choke point inland (Hastings) ad hoc ... and still almost won.
@@perperson199 he means the first Noman kings... William, William II, Henry I, and Stephen. Of course, in actual fact, EVERY king would have been different, not just the first few. Every monarch following Hastings was a descendant of William. (And from Henry II onwards, a direct descendant of Alfred as well, which I find to be pretty cool).
It's said that they needed a ship dedicated to carrying his massive balls. Also, killing 40 men, while standing alone, without armor? I don't care if those 40 men were fucking peasants. That would be impressive, even in a video game where endurance isn't a factor.
@@sfp2290 No, this particular guy had armor. That’s why they had to stab him from below. An English soldier got in a barrel and drifted under the bridge, stabbing his spear up under the hirdman’s hauberk.
I always considered Harold Godwinson to be a softie compared to the likes of vikings or William the Conqueror, but that line about letting Hardråde have 7 feet of English land was ice cold.
@@raclark2730 Yeah too many people here watch Vikings, that show had a great story but the historical accuracy was vomit inducing. I guess most popular historical shows suffer the same problem.
On the contrary, King Harold was a harder warrior than the bastard duke William. At the time of King Edward the Confessor, Harold was basically commander of all the English forces. He utterly destroyed the Welsh and Wales as a kingdom for about two hundred years. In one region of Wales, the people cut off the head of their own king and sent it to Earl (for that is what he was before a king) Harold as a form of surrender, just because they'd heard he was on his way. He was still in England when he received the one fifth of the Welsh king. I.E his head! The bastard duke ONLY won Hasting because England had been rocked by two major battles in the space of a month, depleting English soldiers. Harold was waiting on the English South coast for the bastard duke when he got the news of Hardrada s landing in the North. So he marched over two hundred miles north, fought and beat them. Then had to make the same march South in an even shorter time to meet the bastard duke. William could never perform such a manoeuvre with battles at both ends. If King Harold had waited in London for more troops to arrive or even just ignored Harald Hardrada s invasion and slaughtered the bastard duke before he even got out of his boat history would be very different. William the bastard was not a great man, he wasn't a great warrior, he just got very very lucky and was in the right place at the right time.
A softie? He'd fucking eat you for breakfast. Have some respect. Force-marched to slaughter the vikings at Stamford, force-marched back and attacked the Normans with a depleted army and very nearly defeated them nonetheless. His loyal Housecarls fought to the death over his body.
So Harold Godwinson went from ending the era of viking invasions with one of the most impressive victories in English history, only to turn and hightail it into history as losing THE pivotal battle in English history to the Normans. Maybe the craziest three weeks in Medieval history.
@@brandonlu9280The bigger irony was Harold Godwinson himself was half Viking and related to King Cnut. You could say 1066 was a 3 way battle between 3 Norsemen descendants.
Banter aside, 2020 is a relatively uneventful year. No major conflicts or massive regime changes worldwide, and a virus that has killed less than 0.02% of the global population, a drop in the pool when compared to cardiovascular ailments during the same year.
@@beno1129 Well first of all the death count isn't the only thing about coronavirus (it has had massive economic impact for instance) and it also hasn't even gotten to its most intense part. Secondly there has been several regime changes and upheavals, especially in parts of latin america as well as escalations in conflicts in the middle east (remember when Trump assassinated a top Iran general for instance?). If anything is indicative of how crazy a year 2020 is it's the fact that we got 2 separate stories for which the most probable explanation is alien life and nobody batted an eye. I can keep listing shit if you want. Corona and Trump has absorbed a shit ton of public discourse and thanks to that a shit ton of shit has gone unnoticed.
Small mistake in the map. In the Netherlands region, you've put Flevoland within the Ijselmeer. The problem here is that Flevoland was artificially made in 1986...
The main difference, in my opinion, between both battles is that armies fielded at Hastings were vastly different in nature and compositions, whereas they were quite similar at Stamfordbridge. At Hastings, Harold's army was still a variant of anglo-norse armies, with huge infantry organised in a shield wall and axe-wielding housecarls... William's army, on the other hand, was a typical feudal army (early version) with a mix of spearmen, bowmen and most importantly, early mailed knights. As such, Hastings is one of the few instance of a battle between (early) feudal knights and a "viking"-like army. (There was also a battle between byzantine varangian guards and normans from Italy, slightly later on, where normans used for the first time the couched lances charge - witch proved devastating against isolated varangians).
@Jonny B Most likely he sensed a chance to strike at Harold’s position. With an outnumbered, unarmored force, and no idea how long it would take reinforcements to arrive, he ran a real risk of being whittled down by arrow fire and repeated charges. However, with Harold temporarily deprived of his cavalry and his forces still forming up, a boar’s snout formation might have a chance at punching through and killing Harold, ending the war then and there. This also explains why Harald’s banner was recovered very close to Harold’s position.
I first learned about these through a flash game called “1066” which was a strategy game about these two events and the Battle of Hastings. Good to see a video on it from you guys really fleshing it out.
i cant stress enough how good the music completes this awesome video, kudos to the team behind it, keep bringing us amazing history content and we will continue supporting you forever!!
True, I said the same thing earlier. They always have lovely music that reflects both the time period and geographical location that's been talked about
He also fought without helmet or chainmail, fighting with both hands around his sword in the front ranks. This huge defeat was incredibly unfortunate for a man who lived his entire life one of if not the greatest general of the age.
The events of 1066 are so fascinating and stunning. So much happens in a short period of time, peaking around the battles of Stamford Bridge and Hastings. When will someone make a decent TV show about this?
Stamford Bridge is one of those interesting "What if" historical moments. What if the vikings had deployed scouts and became aware of the army as it arrived and prepared for it? One simple thing can sometimes make the biggest difference.
Crazy how successful Godwinson was in the north and then he gets nearly an identical fate as Hardrade when he fights William in the south. This is an extremely interesting time in history.
This battle was over in an hour, the battle of Hastings lasted an entire day nearly and was noted as being exceptionally brutal, even for medieval standards; most battles each side would lose a few hundred men, at the battle of Hastings thousands of men were slain. The English just wouldn't give in and literally fought to the last man standing
@@keighlancoe5933 I just meant their own personal demises were very similar. But something I wonder about - the timing with Hardrade and William both attacking in such a short time span. Were they working together or they both just knew that the other one was thinking about it and thought it was an opportune time or what?
@@theredhunter4997 Oh and I just got what you meant... It's not _that_ much of a spoiler for anyone who doesn't know. Just a tantalizing clue. I spilled a lot more in my other reply but I edited it to be more vague - just in case it _actually_ was a spoiler to anyone.
@@RobitBender after a big lead and dirty fighting, the Chelsean Army fought back to create a ceasefire against the Tottenmanians. The Chelseans went on to conquer the Tottenmanians and the rest of England the next year 2016/17
"I used to be King of Norway. Then I got arrow in the throat." - King Harald Hardråde, entering Valhalla - Edit: This is what is called a joke. And repurpose of Ancient Skyrim Meme.
@@billdehappy1 He got an arrow in the eye, at least according to legend, and then a dozen or more Norman knights tried to slay him, so it's unknown who or what killed Harold Godwinson. He died in the Battle of Hastings, that's what we know.
Kings and generals have started telling stories along the battles. No matter how good the graphics is, only stories can make us completely understand history and how people of time thinks. Good job👍
More like, put on your armor even if you don't expect battle. There is even a old Norse saying: Våpni sine skal mann på vollen ikkje gange eit fet ifrå. Uvisst er å vita når pùå vegom ute det spørjast kan etter spjut. Basicly, a man should allways keep his weapons at close, unknown is the time he will be needing them.
Ive always wondered what would have happened had Harold lost the battle of Stamford Bridge.Would the Vikings and the Normans battled it out for the crown ?
Thanks for the great video. As awesome as always. But would like K & G to include the detail of "Orre's Storm" as 3000 desperate Viking Warriors had berserk into the thick of battle and briefly checked the advance of the Anglo-Saxon army. The last stand that is as epic as Custer's Last Stand in the battle of Little Big Horn and the Old Guard's last stand in the closing stage of the battle of Waterloo. And shout out to Tosteig, he had the honor to stand with his ally despite the promised benefits if he had switched sides.
@@ClarityA1 Yeah, my biggest lament with the Norman invasion is how they ruined our language, if it wasn't for them it would not have changed, and probably be mutually intelligible today with Dutch and German. The north of England would be more populated and richer as well, the Normans genocided 100.000 English people, man woman and child in the North, and this may well be why the North of England is still poorer than the South to this day
I am a Historian and wrote, as a History student then, a lengthy account of the events of 1066 including, of course, this epic battle at Stamford Bridge. Hardraada did not die right away, as it is said here, but with his last breaths told his skald, " I accept the piece of ground that was offered me" You see, the Saxon King Godwinson, before the major attack had begun, offered clemency to his brother Tostig, who was, ironically allied to the Norwegian invaders, asked, " What will you offer then to King Harald Hardradda?" Harold Godwinsson then is said to have responded, "I will give him as much English ground as he is taller than other men. " To understand this retort one must know that Hardraada stood seven feet tall! Anyway the obvious answer was "No Quarter" as regards to the Norwegian King.
I always feel bad about how things ended for Harold Godwinson. He fought smart and moved fast, and in the end he lost because his troops got too excited, disobeyed orders and charged healing into the Normans.
Great job once again, you guys are one of a kind and very good at doing this videos! I have one favour to ask you! Can u tell me from where did you find all the information aboult the battle of Stamford Bridge and Hastings? Im going to make my diploma for graduation from my university, and i really need more information aboult this two battles and i will be very greatfull to you if you can share something with me! Thank, you very much!
I will stand up and listen to "summon the heroes" trumpet solo for that courageous huskarl fought on the bridge. Those kind of brave men are never to be forgotten, especially by Kings and Generals team.
The events 1066 is a very unique situation since there is written accounts from all three sides written by people who were there and they are reporting the same unfolding of events. This almost never happens.
Wow I never knew that the battle of fulford was fought in Yorkshire and it’s interesting to me because I have English ancestors the Ickes and Seftons the seftons were from lancashire while the Ickes lived in Yorkshire and I am related to the Ickes because my paternal grandmothers 2x great grandfather who is my 4x great grandfather named Jacob weikert married an Ickes named Sarah and I am related to the seftons because my paternal grandmothers paternal grandmother named Mary Agnes Sefton married my 2x great grandfather Harry Grant Weikert
I've never heard about cavalry at Stamford Bridge before - do you have a source for that? There is also a legend that Eysteinn dropped dead from exhaustion the moment he arrived at the battlefield as he had just run fifteen miles in full armour. Not sure how true that one is!
To the lone viking, a tribute! Upon the sturdy Stanford Bridge he stood, A son of the North, carved of ice and wood, In his veins flowed the ancient Nordic blood, Lone, resolute, in the face of the flood. His axe gleamed under the morning sun's crown, A Viking warrior of immortal renown, One man against an army, he would not bow, With valor in his heart, he made a solemn vow. "Here on this bridge, I stake my final stand, No enemy shall pass, none shall tread our land, With Odin's might, I clutch my brother's brand, Against the foreign tide, immovable as sand." Echoed his roar across the steel-grey water, Stirring fear in the heart of the invading slaughter, Like Thor's thunder, his voice filled the air, A hymn of defiance, a warrior's prayer. His axe swung wide, his shield held firm, In his eyes, the Nordic fires did burn, Upon the bridge, the enemy took their turn, Only to meet their end, their fate confirmed. Bodies piled high, his shadow cast, Fierce and fearless, till his very last. His legend woven in the Nordic past, An epic tale, to the icy winds broadcast. Then came the arrow, unseen, unheard, Struck the Viking, swift as a bird, Yet his spirit, undaunted, undeterred, His final battle cry in the distance echoed. The Bridge of Stanford, painted in blood and strife, Witness to his end, but also his immortal life, In that final stand, in death's embrace, Lived the eternal glory of the Viking race. Through fjords and mountains, his legend rings, A tribute to the warrior, the echo sings, A Viking's oath, on raven's wings, In our hearts, the lone guardian forever clings. In the Northern sky, a new star gleamed, The warrior's soul, by Valhalla redeemed. His saga scribed in the Northern lights' beam, In his honor, we remember, and we dream. In the whispers of the wind, his tale is told, A lone Viking, bold and cold, Upon the Stanford Bridge, he forever holds, A symbol of courage, of a spirit uncontrolled. Raise your horns high, let the mead flow, To the lone Viking, a tribute we bestow, Sing his saga, let his memory glow, In our hearts, the seed of bravery sow. Forever, his story in the Nordic soul grows, In the frost-kissed lands where the cold wind blows.
Probably true. Having to march so far north and then back down to the south coast. If he had stayed put on the south coast, he could have incepted William much quicker...and been much stronger and fresher. Damn you Vikings, damn you Normans!
Damn, it sucks Hardrada was caugth off guard. Im sure he would've won if all his men would have been ready and loaded armor. But what a show of bravery tho. Truly the best King Norway has ever had, strong and fiecre.
I wonder if Hardrada could've had his men at the ships, armor up then jump on horses to get to the bridge. Then the guys without armor could ride back and get their armor and return. Sounds like there would've been time to do this, however I don't know if they had enough horses to pull that off. Oh well, its water under the bridge.
Well, mistakes such as splitting up the armor and leaving the armor behind, as well as not preparing for battle, were all made based on faulty information. Information such as where the english royal army was and all that. If none of those mistakes had been made, I am sure it would have been a close battle.
How dare he attempt to invade England! The scumbag thief. Whether he had a claim or not, he was bringing war and bloodshed to a proud sovereign nation...a country that had been terrorised for nearly 300 years by evil Viking raiders and armies. He deserved everything he got a Stamford Bridge. Sweet revenge for 300 years of attacks.
@@SantomPh The Huscarls in Harold's army were not Danes, they were English. The idea of Huscarls was adopted from the Danes but they were still English.
Englishmen! I am waiting here In my heart I know not an ounce of fear We are waiting here my trusted axe and me Just come at me, I will not flee Death! I know that it awaits Soon I will enter Valhalla's gates! -The Berserker at Stamford Bridge
That unknown Norse warrior on Stamford Bridge is truly one of my favorite last stand of the Viking age. Harald Hardrada may not have won the battle, but his warrior sure found a place in Valhalla. If it weren't for that Anglo-Saxon warrior who stabbed him in the groin from under the bridge, I'm sure he could have killed far more Anglo-Saxons and allowed Harald's forces to be reinforced.
@@stc3145 I mean, we can't know for sure if every Norse really converted fully to Christianity at the time. Despite the inevitable baptism of Scandinavia, many still kept some of their beliefs in secret, while some associated the cross for Thor's hammer. As long as you were a good warrior who died a noble or bloody death, you might as well ended up there, according to the Norse.
@@jakobtarrasericsson4295 At this time, the majority of Scandinavians where Christian, as is evidenced by burial practices, runestones, archeological finds and the numerous sagas and texts from the time
@@basedgodkyon Yeah, but they kept dualistic traditions for a fair while after Christianization, the more rural, the longer the old ways would have lingered.
There are certainly points where history turned on a dime. It's hard to imagine the impact it made upon the world when Harold Godwinson fell at Hastings, something that almost certainly couldn't have occurred if not for the fateful attack of the Vikings and the battle at Stamford Bridge.
I've been studying Germanic cultures and history for a decade now, I don't think that story is really true regarding the man holding off the bridge. Both Vikings and Saxons liked to exaggerate somewhat. There might be some truth to it, but as the story spread across meadhalls and was told time and again by drunken warriors, it probably got exaggerated and the details changed somewhat over time. If it was a 5'6" Viking who managed to kill 2 Saxons before being overcome himself, well...that's not as exciting a story as a 7'0" Viking killing 20 Saxons before being overcome himself. If there really was a man causing that much damage and being that much of a nuisance, the Saxons would have probably just peppered him with arrows or thrown their spears at him from a safe distance.
@@FuckGoogle2 Not necessarily, the Saxons and Vikings loved to boast and tell fantastical stories. And that is a perpetual myth, the Anglo-Saxons and Norse/Danes averaged the same height at 5'10", we know this because we have large amounts their skeletal remains and can measure them. The Anglo-Saxons, ethnically, were Germanic people and were directly related to the Norse/Danes. The Angles who make up the Anglo in Anglo-Saxon came from Denmark themselves originally. Harold Godwinson was over 6'0" tall himself. Alot of this was to do with both their diets, both groups of people consumed large amounts of protein and dairy which enabled them to grow very tall. After the Norman conquest, the English were banned from hunting in the woods and forests, and had to give large amounts of their harvest to the Normans, and the average height of an English person dropped 3 inches from 1066 - 1166 due to this because they ate much less than they did before the invasion. If you go to England today, you will notice they aren't exactly a short bunch of people on average
@@FuckGoogle2 Sorry, but myth making was very much part of Viking sagas, and Anglo-Saxon tales. And no, the Vikings were not huge giants as TV fiction likes to portray. They were average medieval height. Certainly not significantly taller than the English. Plenty of Viking and Anglo-Saxon era burial skeletons to back that up. Do some research before spouting tired-old cliche stories about the Vikings. There is a lot of modern shit you have to wade through in order to get to the truth. The lone Viking WAS a massive exaggeration, as Cedric says.
@ sounds doubtful I'm afraid, and you have no way of knowing that for a fact as the only bit of information we have regarding that at all is the legend itself, which details only that a large man held off the bridge and killed a large number of men before an English warrior supposedly waded underneath the bridge and stabbed him upwards through his private parts
Can you do a video on the battle of clontarf and what happened was in the late 8th century the Vikings began carrying out raids on Ireland but by 838 the Vikings have made a toehold on Ireland in a settlement that would later go on to become the capital of Ireland Dublin by the tenth century Viking Dublin evolved into the kingdom of Dublin but in the year 980 king Amlaib Cuaran was defeated by king Mael Sechniall mac Domniall but in 976 future high king of Ireland Brian boru king of Munster invaded Leinster but then in 1013 king Sigtrygg Silkbeard of Dublin went overseas to search for help in dealing with boru and he found help in Sigurd the stout earl of Orkney and sigtrygg promised Sigurd the kingship of Ireland if he defeated Brian boru but as the earl of Orkney sailed for Ireland Brian boru was gathering an army which marched on Dublin and they met at a place called clontarf in the front line of the Dublin army were foreign Vikings behind the Vikings were the men of Dublin commanded by Dubgall mac Amlaib behind them were Leinster troops under Mael Morda while Sigtrygg remained in Dublin with enough men to defend Dublin should the battle go against them and the king watched the battle from the walls of Dublin meanwhile in the front of the army of Brian Boru was Brian’s son murchad behind murchad was the men of Munster then behind them were troops from the kingdom of Connacht then on the right flank was Brian’s Viking alies then on the left flank was men from conmhaicne and the battle ended with a victory for king Sigtrygg with the Viking power in Ireland being broken and among the casualties were Brian boru Murchad Mael Morda and Sigurd the stout and this battle lasted only one day from sunrise to sunset
The lack of discipline among the Viking force is astounding. 1. They failed to maintain scout patrols that would've given them advance warning of enemy troop movements. 2. They marched through hostile territory without their armor. 3. They failed to recognize an approaching army as being hostile. 4. They forfeited their strategic advantage (the high ground). Contrast that to William's preparations for and conduct during the Battle of Hastings and it's easy to see why one army beat Harold and the other didn't.
they marched through the terroritory without armor because the weather was like really hot in england during that time, obviously not like the winter of norway
