Alternative histories

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.

**Paradigm**

Iron_Captain wrote:
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.

Spoiler:

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:

Spoiler:

Fascinating stuff about the HRE there, that era and area has certainly gone on my 'to research' list. I was aware it was not unified until the 19th Century, but I had no clue about the degree of internal politicking or the exact power dynamic. Sounds very, very interesting.

Also that Communist-book (CominFace? BookInform?) is hilarious.

**loki old fart**

WarOne wrote:
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.

Not quite true Norman is an abbreviation of Norseman. They effectively settled enough in France to build castles, knights and then invade England.

**Grey Templar**

loki old fart wrote:
WarOne wrote:
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.

Not quite true Norman is an abbreviation of Norseman. They effectively settled enough in France to build castles, knights and then invade England.

They even got as far as Sicily.

**djones520**

Where do you think the term Russia comes from?

**Iron_Captain**

djones520 wrote:
Where do you think the term Russia comes from?

From Leman Russ

Nah, just kidding. I know my history. Russia was founded by the Varangians. And the name Russia comes from the Finnish word for the Swedish people.
Nobody could resist the epic beards of the Vikings

**Pacific**

Excluding the alternative-WW2 ones (although I have just read a book called Dominion, by CJ Sansum, which was awesome!) would probably recommend 'The Years of Rice and Salt' by Kim Stanley Robinson. He's famous for the 'Red Mars' trilogy, but I think this book was one of his best; imagine that the populations of Europe were utterly destroyed by the black death in the middle ages - the first outriders of Ghenkis Khan find entire villages and townships destroyed. By extension, then a world that has developed with asia at its centre, and Europe and the West at the periphery. Some very, very interesting ideas, and beautifully written.

**sebster**

Wolfstan wrote:
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?

The Saxons didn't make use of the buildings because urban life basically collapsed once the Romans left. The interesting parallel is France, where urban life declined but didn't disappear completely. When trade revitalised based on sea travel instead of the old Roman roads, then Britain began forming new urban centres based on where it made the most economic sense - ports along the coast. Whereas in France, where there was pre-existing large urban areas, these were expanded... even though their locations were the centred around the old road network, and not optimal for the new sea trade.

This likely paid a major role in Britain's rise as the dominant naval power. You know, among a lot of other things

Leading on from that, what might have happened if the English had managed to keep a foothold in France, held on to Normandy? Could such a situation have ever stabilised, or was peace only achievable when a natural border sat between the two rival crowns?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Paradigm wrote:
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.

The Bolsheviks managing to sieze power despite being a pretty minor party is probably unlikely enough that any change should lead us to question that one. Had the Central Powers triumphed then Kerensky would have been much more likely to seek terms - he certainly wouldn't have continued the war alone. And if they reached terms then the major cause of continuing instability was gone, and that makes the Bolshevik coup much, much less likely.