In the Bluffing Game I posted a daffynition of "donnybrook" as being the battle won by King Harold prior to losing the Battle of Hastings.
Any well-schooled Brit knows the right answer (Stamford Bridge). Would the Stamford Bridge battle be considered a pyrrhic victory? In one sense it fits the definition, but I'm not sure it really qualifies. What say you?

This is an opinion from the peanut gallery...but I'd say no from what I've read about the Stamford Bridge Battle. I haven't read reams on it, though, so I could be convinced otherwise.

I asked this question because it seems to me that Harold must have had some inkling that things were stirring across the channel, yet chose to meet the Danes in the north instead of staying put. There is a parallel in the Battle of Tours, wherein Charles Martel prepared for a battle against the Saxons, but switched and went south against the seemingly more dangerous Umayyads from the south.

If a Pyrrhic victory is one won at such a great price that it was not worth winning, then Stamford Bridge fits the definition, but only if Harold was aware of the greater threat from Normandy. So, was it Pyrrhic, was it a horrific blunder, or is it unknowable?

It is unknowable since, upon his death, his Facebook account was deleted.

Harold knew about the expected invasion by William and was in the south of England with his army when he got news that the Norwegians had landed in the north. He force-marched to Yorkshire and took the invaders by surprise at Stamford Bridge; they thought he was still in the south of England.

Harold could hardly ignore Harold Hardrada's invasion, particularly as the Normans hadn't yet invaded. It did mean of course that his army was weakened to a great degree at Hastings, and, very likely, if he'd not had to fight at Stamford Bridge, the Saxons might have repelled William.

So then you would call it Pyrrhic? And the absolutely worst spot of bad luck on record as well!