Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Some alternative histories came to mind and I wonder how they would of turned out if they had happened (ignoring classic WW2 ones if possible).

How would the US of turned out if the Vikings had maintained a foot hold? Given that they were very good at integrating over time, would the US of become a mixed society of Native Americans and Norse invaders?

If Harold had not died at Hastings how different would English society of been?

In the Saxon themed stories by Bernard Cornwall, the main character Uhtred, passes comment on the ruined Roman stone buildings. Basically pointing out that the Saxons don't really make use of them and use the stone for other things. If Saxon society had somehow kept these building skills, would that of had an impact of the development of society at the time?

Don't walk the dog without music to distract you, that's al I can say!

There's a pretty good little book out there called "If the South had won at Gettysburg". Some of the conclusions they draw at the end are food for thought. The cover features the moon landing with the Stars and Bars planted instead of the US flag.

 Wolfstan wrote:


How would the US of turned out if the Vikings had maintained a foot hold? Given that they were very good at integrating over time, would the US of become a mixed society of Native Americans and Norse invaders?

Actually, it would pretty much be the same. The Vikings never exploited their holdings for long and even if they did, given where they had landed and explored, it would still be like today Columbus is credited with opening up the New World to Europe and finding out later the Nords from Skyrim had indeed found the New World first.

Great idea for a thread! Hypothetical history is something I enjoy a lot, much to the chagrin of my history teachers

Regarding the Hastings one, it's an interesting thing to look into. Assuming you mean Harold dying meant William lost, then things would be very different.

For a start, the English language would be totally different. So many of our words came from the Norman/early French language, which became the language of the upper classes, and slowly filtered down from there. Even such basic stuff as 'beef' came from the French', whereas we called it the cow. One then came to mean the meat while the other became the animal, so if the invasion had failed, we would have a 'cow burger' rather than a beef burger! Just look at some Chaucer to see how like French Middle English was at that point, it's really quite remarkable.

Of course, assuming William survived, then there's no certainty he wouldn't attack again, but it would take a while and Harold Godwinson would have far more time to establish legitimacy as a king. Two successful military campaigns (don't forget beating the Norse at Stamford) does a lot for one's reputation.

I think there's also a possibility that we would lose out because of it. It's very difficult to predict close to a millennium of history, but I can see that us remaining alienated from Europe could have meant we lost out on a lot of technological, artistic and architectural advantages and developments. I imagine English science, arts and politics may well have stagnated a little for a century or two without the continental input. This is all just a shot in the dark though, I've not got much to back this up.

Once more, very interesting thread.

Cool idea, OP!

I remember reading somewhere that Tolkien was very upset about the French invasion, because otherwise England would have a much richer mythology. The Rohan in Lord Of The Rings are supposed to be the Saxons but with cavalry, which Harold didn't have.

 Tappers wrote:
Cool idea, OP!

I remember reading somewhere that Tolkien was very upset about the French invasion, because otherwise England would have a much richer mythology. The Rohan in Lord Of The Rings are supposed to be the Saxons but with cavalry, which Harold didn't have.

That's certainly true. While the closer ties to Europe did bring us more artistic and technological advancements, the vast majority of old English/Saxon culture was all-but-eradicated by the Normans.

Oh nice, this thread seems wonderful. My question is that what would have happened if the central countries had won in WWI? I wonder would the germans have pushed and taken France or would they have made a similar treaty to the one that was made in real world just the sides switched? Also would WWII have happened? Maybe everybody would speak German then now-days?

One of things I've always wondered is how the later half the 20th century would have looked had Nazi Germany not been dismantled as a state (this would require the US not to embrace unconditional surrender). The Cold War could have turned out in a really twisted way, with the US and UK turning a blind eye to the Nazi's crimes in order to use the country as a buffer against Soviet Russia during the cold war.

Talk about grim dark.

 snurl wrote:
There's a pretty good little book out there called "If the South had won at Gettysburg". Some of the conclusions they draw at the end are food for thought. The cover features the moon landing with the Stars and Bars planted instead of the US flag.

Sorry, but even if Gettysburg had gone a different way, the ACW would have ended up the same. These sorts of books are from the deranged minds of Southerners who are collectively known as "Lost Causers"





As to WW1, Germany would have needed to actually get its Navy moving early in the war, before they could get blockaded in, and later mutiny when called to action. As the whole thing seems to end in an odd stalemate truce of sorts, I don't think any additional land would have been taken on the Western Front, However, I think things get a whole lot more interesting on the Eastern front, if we assume that the Soviet Revolution doesn't take place, or if it takes place earlier. If it never happened, one would have to almost assume that Germany would still lose WW1, but may have gotten better terms, for fighting a multiple front war for longer. If it took place earlier, then Germany consolidates whatever gains in the East, and moves additional forces to the Western front earlier, which aid them in at a minimum, holding what they had in France. Ultimately, it is my belief that, even without the assassination of the Archduke, WW1 would have kicked off, it's just a matter of how much further down the road it would have (I personally feel that it couldn't have been more than another 2-5 years, with Europe's political climates in those days).

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Sorry, but even if Gettysburg had gone a different way, the ACW would have ended up the same. These sorts of books are from the deranged minds of Southerners who are collectively known as "Lost Causers"

This. Gettysburg was not that important a battle. It was a big and bloody battle, but the war never hung in the balance. The idea that the war did was the sole invention of one Daniel Sickles, who made it more important a decade after the battle when he was a politician. Vicksburg, Fredricksburg, and the Overland Campaign were all much more important. The value of Gettysburg in US history is really in how important it was to the development of our national parks, not in any weight it carried during the Civil War.

The Saxons essentially obliterated most of the technological progress the Romans had imparted to Britain when they took over. Most of the Roman's technological advances only survived due to the Christian church. (One in Rome and another in Ireland) This basically means the Saxons didn't have much of an effect on technological development... well not in the face of the fall of the roman empire... that was much worse.

Sienisoturi wrote:Oh nice, this thread seems wonderful. My question is that what would have happened if the central countries had won in WWI? I wonder would the germans have pushed and taken France or would they have made a similar treaty to the one that was made in real world just the sides switched? Also would WWII have happened? Maybe everybody would speak German then now-days?

Given that the German/French part of the war was largely over territorial rather than ideological issues, and particularity the Alcase-Lorraine area, I imagine France would have probably lost that land, and potentially been amalgamated into the German Empire completely. In fact, I think that the Central Power winning WW1 would have changed the dynamic of Europe considerably, as with Austia-Hungary, Turkey and Germany all in alliance, there was even a potential for a united European state, or at least one far less divided. That said, I imagine Britain would not have been invaded but rather left alone. The Kaiser was cousin of king George, after all, and I almost doubt whether the Germans would have much interest in Britain, and I can't see the British attempting or pulling off a recapture of France with the Russians out of the War. Also, without aircraft playing a significant role, the only way to take Britain would be naval invasion, and any attempt to beat the British navy in that era was destined to fail.

The Russians would still probably have gone Communist/Leninist, as it was the losing nature of the war that largely prompted the 2 revolutions in 1917 that brought the Bolsheviks to power. France would probably lose a lot of land on the Franco-German border and would probably be added to the German Empire. England and the British Empire would probably not be able to retake Europe, but would keep its international territories relatively unscathed (maybe with losses in Africa assuming French African Territories went German).

As for WW2, I somehow doubt it would happen in the same way, if at all. Hitler was able to come to power on the basis of promising economic recovery after the Wall Street crash and Great Depression (which, if a European superpower still existed, may not have happened) and on overturning the 'harsh' conditions of the post-WW1 treaties. I'd almost certainly say the Nazis would never have gained a foothold, as the pre-ww1 system would not have collapsed given a winning war.

Actually, and this is pure conjecture, I almost think the British Empire (or France if it were left independant) would end up being the aggressor in any future global conflict, as Germany, Austria and Turkey (who would end up controlling most of Europe) would be unlikely to fight each other. Russia would probably still be in the Civil War until 1921, and hen you only have 3 years of Lenin before Stalin comes in and swaps 'perpetual revolution' for 'Socialism in one country' (a far more insular and less aggressive Communism). The USA would want to remain isolationist, or would end up trading with the (German) Europe, and potentially side against Britain. More likely they would stay out of it though.

Hope that wasn't too complicated to follow, it is very confusing given how many variables there are to account for. I could probably give an entirely different answer on a different day, it's so varied.

LordofHats wrote:One of things I've always wondered is how the later half the 20th century would have looked had Nazi Germany not been dismantled as a state (this would require the US not to embrace unconditional surrender). The Cold War could have turned out in a really twisted way, with the US and UK turning a blind eye to the Nazi's crimes in order to use the country as a buffer against Soviet Russia during the cold war.

Talk about grim dark.

Good question. Considering how quickly Communism became the 'big bad' after ww2, and how many new territories it took over, I think any kind of buffer would have been accepted by the West. A large factor in the policy of appeasement before WW2 was the idea that a capitalist, if fascist, Germany would be so opposed to Communism that it was tolerable. It was only after the unprovoked attack on Poland that brought Britain and France into the war, and before this, the Allies had been prepared to make all kinds of compromises, basically handing over Czechoslovakia and parts of Austria without a fight, so yeah, I'd say there would be a certain amount of turning a blind eye.

At the post-war conferences, Stalin was very much after grabbing as much land as possible and screwing for Germany for all it had, clearly being more aggressive, while Truman was focused on preventing another war and Atlee wanted funds to rebuild Britain and Europe. There would have to be some kind of public denouncing of the Nazis, to keep the people happy, but I think, given how lenient the USA and UK were, and also how fast they tried to rebuild Germany (which really became the front lines of the early Cold War) I think more than a few concessions could have been made. The West were scared and horrified by Communist expansion, and with the Nazis no longer a threat, I think they would have become the 'lesser of two evils', especially with Hitler gone and Doenitz in power (and easily replaceable if he were too provocative).

You can't really argue with the fact that Germany became a puppet for both East and West, and I think that was always going to happen, Nazi or occupied.

In a similar vein, something fairly obscure I was considering the other day: in 1950, the USA adopted the policy of Total Commitment to halting any Communist advance, which then led to the events in Korea and Vietnam being far more military in nature. In 1949, the Chinese had a Communist revolution, and what I was wondering is if, had the Total Commitment policy been adopted earlier, or the Chinese revolution been later, would America have done in China what they did in Vietnam and Korea, and what consequences would this have had for the future world?

Obviously, the conflict would be on a larger scale that Korea or Vietnam, but I wonder if the USA would even have gone nuclear? General MacArthur threatened to nuke China on several occasions over the course of the Korean war, and with Eisenhower electing to focus more on nuclear arms than conventional weapons, would this have become a reality. If it didn't how long would the war between two of the world's largest nations gone? Would the UK, Europe and the Commonwealth come in on the USA's side, while Russia and Eastern Europe backed up the Chinese? Basically, would this have been the start of World War 3?

The one thing about Gettysburg (or Antietam) turning out differently is that it might have prompted the British to join in on the side of the South. I don't know how seriously Britain was in terms of jumping in, but there were some negotiations going on. IIRC, one of the things Britain wanted to see was the South win a battle in the North, since while they were beating up the North all throughout the South early in the war, they couldn't march north.

Some other historical things:
- What if the Romans had developed steam engines further, as opposed to thinking they were toys?
- What if Tesla hadn't been completely screwed over at pretty much every step of life?
- What if Lincoln/JFK/many other major historical figures hadn't died?
- What if Michael Jackson hadn't gotten his hair lit on fire during the filming of that Pepsi commercial, which caused his addiction to painkillers?

British to join in on the side of the South.

Britain was never going to join the war. Claims that it would come solely from the realm of pseudo-history*. Britain simply liked the egg the south on to prolong the conflict while they stole the foreign markets for cotton and tobacco (and by 1864 this goal was complete). The war was all they needed. Whoever won was irrelevant to their interests.

*And this is a aspect of pseudo-history that's particularly jarring. Why would Britain, a country that banned slavery in 1834, join a war to in America, one of the biggest market competitors to their colony in India, so that the cash crop producing via slave labor south could win? That's about as far from British interests as one can imagine. It best served British interests for the South to lose the war, but after suffering the effects of the war a few years.

 Wolfstan wrote:
would of turned out

Oh no.

How would the US of turned out

OH NO.

would the US of become a mixed society

GOOD GOD, IT WON'T GO AWAY.

English society of been?

You are CRUEL.

would that of had an impact

This is certainly the worst of all possible worlds.

Rubiksnoob broaches an important point- had we never had WWII, would we have called them Grammar Commies, or Grammar Fascists?

For that matter, had we not standardized spelling and stagnated our language under the cruel tutelage of the dictionary, what phenomenal tongues could we be speaking now?

 DogofWar1 wrote:

- What if Tesla hadn't been completely screwed over at pretty much every step of life?
- What if Lincoln/JFK/many other major historical figures hadn't died?

-I think Tesla's problem was not that he was "screwed over" at every turn in his life, it was that he had a genuine outlook for the future of mankind. Wireless power, and all these things that would provide electricity to people for free in a hugely capitalist dominated society were so alien, that it really ultimately lead to his dying a man with no money. NOW, if he were to, say, patent, and prove his Death Ray worked (some theorists believe he did), and many of his other inventions, he may see more of the credit that he is only now coming in to. Not to mention, the Radio and other inventions would have seen him earn a fair buck for his work.



As for Lincoln/JFK... well, if they didn't die, then I'd suppose it's possible that Lincoln could have lead the US through WW1 and WW2, and been the longest "ruling" president in US history... which in theory would mean that JFK was never president either

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 DogofWar1 wrote:

- What if Tesla hadn't been completely screwed over at pretty much every step of life?
- What if Lincoln/JFK/many other major historical figures hadn't died?

-I think Tesla's problem was not that he was "screwed over" at every turn in his life, it was that he had a genuine outlook for the future of mankind. Wireless power, and all these things that would provide electricity to people for free in a hugely capitalist dominated society were so alien, that it really ultimately lead to his dying a man with no money. NOW, if he were to, say, patent, and prove his Death Ray worked (some theorists believe he did), and many of his other inventions, he may see more of the credit that he is only now coming in to. Not to mention, the Radio and other inventions would have seen him earn a fair buck for his work.



As for Lincoln/JFK... well, if they didn't die, then I'd suppose it's possible that Lincoln could have lead the US through WW1 and WW2, and been the longest "ruling" president in US history... which in theory would mean that JFK was never president either

Ole Abe would have been 110 by the end of WW1.

 djones520 wrote:


Ole Abe would have been 110 by the end of WW1.

In vampire terms, he'd barely be a couple years old by then

 Tappers wrote:
Cool idea, OP!

I remember reading somewhere that Tolkien was very upset about the French invasion, because otherwise England would have a much richer mythology. The Rohan in Lord Of The Rings are supposed to be the Saxons but with cavalry, which Harold didn't have.

As I recall the Saxons definitely did have cavalry. But not as many as the Normans did, nor did they have stirrups.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:



-I think Tesla's problem was not that he was "screwed over" at every turn in his life, it was that he had a genuine outlook for the future of mankind. Wireless power, and all these things that would provide electricity to people for free in a hugely capitalist dominated society were so alien, that it really ultimately lead to his dying a man with no money. NOW, if he were to, say, patent, and prove his Death Ray worked (some theorists believe he did), and many of his other inventions, he may see more of the credit that he is only now coming in to. Not to mention, the Radio and other inventions would have seen him earn a fair buck for his work.

Tesla's problem was twofold.

First, that whole "free electricity" idea was simply impossible. No free lunches, ever! It's as inviolable a law as gravity. You need to pay for stuff somehow and his refusal to do that, admirable as it may be, scuttled his work.

Secondly, his ideas were way too ahead of the times. Not to mention many were simply crazy. If his wireless electricity ideas had any merit they'd have long ago been tapped.

Tesla was NOT the genius he is cracked up to be. Most of his accomplishments are simply crazy theories that don't actually work the way he thought they might. Brilliant he was, but not to what legend says.

Just gonna leave this here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Victory_Series

Pretty awesome read even if the 245th mentioning of how Southern tobacco is better than yank tobacco gets old.

As I recall the Saxons definitely did have cavalry. But not as many as the Normans did, nor did they have stirrups.

I think the distinction is that the Saxon's lacked charge cavalry. Like many they had men who rode on horseback and then dismounted and attacked (this was the most common use of 'cavalry' historically prior to the creation of stirrups).

Though the Companions and Kataphracts existed for a while prior, Knights as used by William were still somewhat of an alien concept. It was very rare for there to be soldiers who fought solely from horseback in battle. Prior to the stirrup no one could reliably remain on their horse for longer than an initial charge, and a weak one at that since they didn't want to be thrown off their horse. The usual tactic was to charge, break the line, this dismount completely and fight on foot from there. Knights dropped the dismount part because they could reliably stay on their horse.

EDIT: More simply, it could be chalked up to Tolkein not knowing that the Saxons had any cavalry. it might not be something that was known at the time. A lot of historical stuff didn't really get worked out until the 50's and 60's for the middle ages.

 Paradigm wrote:
Great idea for a thread! Hypothetical history is something I enjoy a lot, much to the chagrin of my history teachers

Regarding the Hastings one, it's an interesting thing to look into. Assuming you mean Harold dying meant William lost, then things would be very different.

For a start, the English language would be totally different. So many of our words came from the Norman/early French language, which became the language of the upper classes, and slowly filtered down from there. Even such basic stuff as 'beef' came from the French', whereas we called it the cow. One then came to mean the meat while the other became the animal, so if the invasion had failed, we would have a 'cow burger' rather than a beef burger! Just look at some Chaucer to see how like French Middle English was at that point, it's really quite remarkable.

Of course, assuming William survived, then there's no certainty he wouldn't attack again, but it would take a while and Harold Godwinson would have far more time to establish legitimacy as a king. Two successful military campaigns (don't forget beating the Norse at Stamford) does a lot for one's reputation.

I think there's also a possibility that we would lose out because of it. It's very difficult to predict close to a millennium of history, but I can see that us remaining alienated from Europe could have meant we lost out on a lot of technological, artistic and architectural advantages and developments. I imagine English science, arts and politics may well have stagnated a little for a century or two without the continental input. This is all just a shot in the dark though, I've not got much to back this up.

Once more, very interesting thread.

How do you think England's relationship to Germany would have been?

Alternate history? Two words:

Harry. Turtledove.

I'm not big into alternate history myself, but I have a friend who will swear on a stack of bibles that he is the best thing going in alternate history writing. He certainly is prolific, considering how many titles of his I shelved back when I worked at the book store. His longest-running series (I believe) is the one where the South does, indeed, win the Civil War...

WWI looks a lot different when the USA is allied to Germany against the CSA and Britain. (Like most alternate historians, Turtledove makes the mistake of thinking England would have allied with the CSA)

He also has a downright trippy series of books where aliens invade Earth just as WWII is starting to get swinging. That series is filed under really, REALLY alternate history.

Relapse wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
Great idea for a thread! Hypothetical history is something I enjoy a lot, much to the chagrin of my history teachers

Regarding the Hastings one, it's an interesting thing to look into. Assuming you mean Harold dying meant William lost, then things would be very different.

For a start, the English language would be totally different. So many of our words came from the Norman/early French language, which became the language of the upper classes, and slowly filtered down from there. Even such basic stuff as 'beef' came from the French', whereas we called it the cow. One then came to mean the meat while the other became the animal, so if the invasion had failed, we would have a 'cow burger' rather than a beef burger! Just look at some Chaucer to see how like French Middle English was at that point, it's really quite remarkable.

Of course, assuming William survived, then there's no certainty he wouldn't attack again, but it would take a while and Harold Godwinson would have far more time to establish legitimacy as a king. Two successful military campaigns (don't forget beating the Norse at Stamford) does a lot for one's reputation.

I think there's also a possibility that we would lose out because of it. It's very difficult to predict close to a millennium of history, but I can see that us remaining alienated from Europe could have meant we lost out on a lot of technological, artistic and architectural advantages and developments. I imagine English science, arts and politics may well have stagnated a little for a century or two without the continental input. This is all just a shot in the dark though, I've not got much to back this up.

Once more, very interesting thread.

How do you think England's relationship to Germany would have been?

I'm not sure. I think that, as a nation, we would be further removed from Europe as a whole, but I don't really know much about the state Germany was in at that point in history. Wasn't it largely unified regions with no real rulers, and not really an international player at all? I doubt there would be much interaction between them and England.

 Paradigm wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
Great idea for a thread! Hypothetical history is something I enjoy a lot, much to the chagrin of my history teachers

Regarding the Hastings one, it's an interesting thing to look into. Assuming you mean Harold dying meant William lost, then things would be very different.

For a start, the English language would be totally different. So many of our words came from the Norman/early French language, which became the language of the upper classes, and slowly filtered down from there. Even such basic stuff as 'beef' came from the French', whereas we called it the cow. One then came to mean the meat while the other became the animal, so if the invasion had failed, we would have a 'cow burger' rather than a beef burger! Just look at some Chaucer to see how like French Middle English was at that point, it's really quite remarkable.

Of course, assuming William survived, then there's no certainty he wouldn't attack again, but it would take a while and Harold Godwinson would have far more time to establish legitimacy as a king. Two successful military campaigns (don't forget beating the Norse at Stamford) does a lot for one's reputation.

I think there's also a possibility that we would lose out because of it. It's very difficult to predict close to a millennium of history, but I can see that us remaining alienated from Europe could have meant we lost out on a lot of technological, artistic and architectural advantages and developments. I imagine English science, arts and politics may well have stagnated a little for a century or two without the continental input. This is all just a shot in the dark though, I've not got much to back this up.

Once more, very interesting thread.

How do you think England's relationship to Germany would have been?

I'm not sure. I think that, as a nation, we would be further removed from Europe as a whole, but I don't really know much about the state Germany was in at that point in history. Wasn't it largely unified regions with no real rulers, and not really an international player at all? I doubt there would be much interaction between them and England.

There was no state Germany at all until the 19th century. The area of present-day Germany was a collection of independent fiefdoms that were unified in the Holy Roman Empire, which was a very loose confederacy, sorta like the EU today.
The nobles of the HRE in theory all had to listen to the Kaiser, but the Kaiser was elected by the nobles, therefore his power was only limited and there often was internal strife between nobles to expand their power/influence. The most powerful nobles could even ignore the Kaiser altogether, and at one point here was even a noble who became so powerful that he was able to give orders to the Kaiser instead of the other way around.
Despite the internal rivalries however, the Holy Roman Empire was by far the most powerful state in Europe at the time.

England's relations with the HRE and Germany in case of the Normans not taking over would likely not be very different as the HRE was very much focussed on it's internal affairs to begin with and England would probably be even more of a island weirdo than it is today.
They would probably be a lot closer culturally though, which could possibly have influenced relations in later times.



Also, a thread on alternate history just begs for this:

Raises an interesting point, failure of the Norman Conquest. So much would have changed. Would the 100 year war began? All the eventual French and English animosity over the following centuries?

We talk about how WW1 and 2 may have shaped up with that, but honestly I doubt they ever would have occured. WW1 was the result of ties between nations. How drastically different would those ties have been had England remained "isolated" a couple centuries longer?

The Years of Rice and Salt.

An alternative history of the world if the black death had wiped out Europe and we never had the European expansions and empires. Very good book.

I wonder what would've happened if the US had lost the First Gulf War. Would we be as emboldened to take down every dictatorship we saw in the Middle East?

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I wonder what would've happened if the US had lost the First Gulf War. Would we be as emboldened to take down every dictatorship we saw in the Middle East?

Like we've done with Syria, and Iran?

Yeah, we just steamroll through the middle east. *rolls eyes*

At any rate there is no "what if" the Gulf War had been a loss of the coalition. That was an impossible outcome.

Hitler could have not ordered the advance at Dunkirk be stopped. Charles Martel could have slipped from his horse and broken his neck. There are a ton of pivotal "moments" that could have changed our world today. What happened in Desert Storm was not a single pivotal moment type of thing. The coalition outclassed the Iraqi's in every category, several times over. The only difference that there truly could have been in that conflict was a higher casualty rate, but the conclusion was assured.