Without continental commitments England cements its place as hegemon of Britain much earlier, especially without France propping up Scotland. This would put it in a great place to focus on maritime commerce, which would make it focus more on naval endeavors, including exploration. It's likely that the recent voyages of Leif Erikson would be known to an England that has cultural affinity with Scandinavia, and once it controls Ireland there isn't much keeping it from doing naval voyages westward along the northern route. We could see an early English presence in North America.
In the real timeline, Scotland was only able to drive out the English invaders because England would sooner of later start a war with France which would mean England switching itmilitary might away from Scotland. So it is highly possiblethat Scotand would not exist today if the Normans had not won. I also think that most of Western Europe (including Germany) would now be speaking French if the Normans had not won.
I agree with this, because the English were tied more to Scandinavian interests than continental European. I suspect an alliance of sorts between the Danish/Norwegian/Swedish families with their English and Scottish and Irish colonies, would earlier exploit the discovery of Vineland and Greenland.
I don't see England even trying to control Ireland. The imperial mindset is Roman, and it was the Normans who Imperilased England, seeing themselves (as the French did at the time) as the inheritors of Rome, with the Franks actively Romanising themselves. There is no beef between Anglo-Saxon England and Ireland. Ireland was 'anglicised' to some degree because a few Irish warlords invited the Normans (of all the predators in Europe!) in to Ireland in the 12th century.
Please see my post elsewhere for why it's a major assumption that Saxon England post 1066 would have dominated Britain. The means of consolidating control over a hostile territory - castles - wasn't something the Saxons had developed as the Normans had, and Scotland in particular was a vast land mass covered in mountains and forest that could not be easily dominated. Wales was also extremely hostile terrain and the Anglo-Saxons had not previously been able to conquer it fully despite defeating its rulers in battle due to this factor. Also, I do believe it's likely there would have been more continental attempts to attack England, regardless of whether it had territories in France - William had basically invented a claim out of nothing because he knew he had a powerful army and had a chance of victory.
Eh i dont see the french being able to centralize quicker. Just because willaim is dead doesn't mean that the French kings would get the duchy. The French king was only 14 by the time of the norman conquest. Willaim still had his sons who a faction of the nobility would rely behind while other claimants would pop up. The royal French power was much to weak to actually just flat out take Normandy. Not to mention that prior to that Willaim humbled the king of France.
Yeah, being honest, I have absolutely no idea what was going on with France back then, I was just looking for an interesting scenario because realism is really difficult and some unrealistic scenarios are quite fun
I think England would be a weak country if Harold Godwinson defeated William. I cant explain why, but if we compare England during the Anglo-Saxon period and England in the pos-norman conquest, he can clearly see a diference. Anglo-Saxon England was a irrelevant country in the Medieval Geopolitics. However, after that, England become one of the more important countries in Europe. For example, some English Kings were leaders in the Cruzader Armies. An anglo-saxon king would never be a leader in a Cruzade army. I am not underrating Anglo-Saxon kings. Alfred, for example, was one of the greatest king in the History of England.
@semideiaspranome England actually got weaker during the reign of willaim. His harying of the north destroyed a prosperous earldom of Northumbria and killed upwards of 100,000 English subjects which would be a staggering amount when England only had 1.6 million people living it at that point. He also adopted much of the Anglo saxon methods of government. For example the Anglo Saxons are one of the only kingdoms with a royal treasure in Winchester. They had a efficient tax system. The Anglo Saxons could also assemble huge armies for the time period. Harold assembled a army of 15,000 men to face Herold Hadrada. The only department they'd be weaker in is lacking the heavy cavalry that the rest of Europe fielded. Although housecurls were still pretty good infantry
I agree. William's death will probably not be fatal for the Duchy of Normandy - and actually, without the Normans in control of their own state, there could be even less impetous for France to centralize - since they're no longer locked in a life or death battle with Norman England. Speaking of which, the Normans introduced a very continental form of decentralized feudalism to England, which essentially shackled and suppressed Anglo-Saxon culture into near oblivion, but it came with major economic costs, since only Normans were really allowed to do business, almost the entire Saxon Freemen class had to be subjugated into Serfdom, which in otl had been very unpopular with the Saxon freeholders and resulted in several major rebellions and the eventual harrowing of the north by the Normans, something which had been so destructive the socio-economic balance between northern and southern england is still apparent today. Had the Normans failed to conquer England, the Anglo-Saxons may have developed more in-line with the scandinavian kingdoms, or the dutch, or something in-between the two - whatever the case, England would come to dominate the British Isles much sooner than in otl and would also dominate trade throughout the North Sea, and would have been pretty much uninterested in continental politics. France would still be France, and it would have it's hand in the politics of every country within reach - earlier than in otl. Since England is no longer an existential threat, they would be a massive thorn in the side of the HRE, the Iberians, Italians and maybe even the Arab states and the Eastern Romans, there would be no effective counter-balance in the early 12th Century - although that may change. There might be more impetus within the HRE to get their act together lest they come to kneel down to another Charlemagne - something that various princelings, bishops, and whatnot might not be too keen on. Anyway my 2 cents.
The Domesday Book was not a compilation of laws and customs - it was a detailed census or survey of the kingdom, recording population, land ownership etc.
Huh, I don't know what happened there, when I first researched it, I was told that it was a compilations of laws and customs Now, I searched it up again and it gave me different results? Regardless, you're right, and thanks a lot for the correction!
Honestly this is a great video, maps good, the storytelling is good despite the time period, i see this channel being popular one day, keep up the great work you gained yourself a new sub! I look forward to your next video
I'm a bit late to the party here, but I'd like to propose as a scenario what if Gian Galeazzo Visconti, the duke of Milan who almost conquered all of northern Italy, didn't die from disease at the siege of Florence, the last major opposer to the dukedom. Anyways, great video as always!
The 100 years war between England and France sped up French centralisation because all / most of the French Nobles died at Agincourt and their heirs were too inexperienced to push back against the kings attempt at centralisation. So I would argue that France would take longer to centralise or possibly if unforeseen events occur may even turn into another HRE or even be taken over by the dukes of Burgundy.
yeah I admit the scenario is pretty flawed, mainly due to the fact that the medieval ages are a part of history which I am not too read up on and I did this scenario as a challenge for myself I may make a remastered version in the future but for now this is what I did Regardless, you're right and I don't really disagree with that
Loved you're video. You have a lot of potential and im sure with time you will be a Huge content creator. Video Idea: What if Novgorod united Russia instead of Muscovy
HARLOD GODWINSON LAST KING OF THE ENGLISH! HARLOD GODWINSON ENEMIES CAME FROM ALL SIDES! HARLOD GODWINSON GOD HAVE MERCY ON HIS SOUL! HARLOD GODWINSON HE FOUGHT FOR A FREE ENGLAND! lyrics by the skaldic bard
Regarding the conquest of Wales and Scotland, it is worth noting that it took the Angevin Empire (ie all of England and, at its peak, half of France) 220 years to conquer Wales, while Scotland was never fully conquered despite being a client state for a brief period. It's worth looking at how Wales was actually finally subdued after many failed English campaigns, some of which involved royal armies of English kings being defeated by combination of terrain and guerilla warfare - castles. Edward I built a series of castles in north Wales, which provided a permanent basis for preventing the Welsh from simply melting away when the English brought an army, only to attack again when the English army left. Also prior to the Norman conquest it had taken Harold Godwinson many, many years to bring the Welsh king of Gwynedd, Gruffudd, to heel in a campaign, the end result of which was the installation of Bleddyn and Rhiwallon ap Cynfyn as kings in Gwynedd and Powys as allies of Godwinson, a situation that Harold saw as necessary because he would have known that Wales would not have accepted English rule and it was impossible to impose royal rule without a permanent royal army stationed in Wales. People forget that Anglo-Saxon England derived its armies from the fyrd, a system of levying troops for limited periods, and that the Normans were undoubtedly militarily advanced (the Saxon armies used very little cavalry and archers, which were hugely influential in European warfare in the coming centuries). The Normans used a system of marcher lordships with strong fortifications to establish control in the south over many decades and then launched a successful conquest of the north, however in 1066 England lacked the means to permanently conquer Wales, and it's by no means inevitable this would have been the case if Godwinson had won. People will say that without continental commitments England would have conquered Scotland and Wales more quickly, but we don't know that would have been the case. Anglo-Saxon England, had they won, would still have needed to evolve militarily and culturally to achieve this goal. Also we have no way of knowing that Scandinavian or French rules would not have continued claims on English territory, or would not have been involved in wars against Anglo-Saxon England, had it survived. In all honesty there are a lot of possibilities, my own personal view is that Anglo-Saxon England would have needed to change its military culture to thrive, otherwise it would have declined as the Scandinavian nations did and may well have been invaded by what could well have been a stronger French crown in a timeline without English claims on its territory and an English crown that held territories in Normandy and Aquitaine. In other words, instead of France being torn apart by the Hundred Years' War, it could have been England.
There are lots of interpretations I've learnt in school that William used the feigned retreat tactic - pretending to run away so that the enemy lose their position Williams army had done this before and succeeded. In 1066 they did the same and the Anglo-Saxons were not disciplined and ran to kill them, losing their shield wall.
Ye I am aware that historical consensis differs and there are versions of the story that claim that William did that on purpose to deceive the Saxons I used the version that denies that to make the alternate history easier to achieve
Where do we start in corrections? An Anglo-Saxon King was elected King by the Witan, a council of nobles. So William could never be made heir by the previous King.
I read, somewhere (I can't recall where now) that England was in the beginning of a Cultural Renaissance just prior to the Norman invasion... But this was stopped by the Normans & their Mercenaries If so, & the Normans lost at Hastings, the renaissance would've continued and been based more in England than Continental Europe... Quick advances in Sailing Ships could lead to colonies set up on the East Coasts of the Americas in the 1200s meaning Both Continents become known as the New England Empire. You would end up with a MAJOR power that even the Francofied HRE couldn't stand against *on the oceans* but wouldn't be able to push it's own claims *on Continental Europe.* Of course this is a hypothetical scenario and I'm sure some would have valid points against it... but I believe it could be plausible *IF Harold defeated both Harald & William*
The north of England would likely also be much stronger without Williams gensides killing half the population this might lead to Scotland being easier to conquer. at this time Harold might have also invaded Wales as a few years earlier Wales had been United under one Kingdom but Harold had invaded and split it into lots of rival client states but if Harold lived longer he might have consolidated his rule over the region. the failure of the Norman conquest might have made England more closely aligned to Scandinavia because of Williams genside of the Norse population in the north and Williams introduction of the federal system. This might have lead to England being seen as a Nordic or Scandinavian country.
England was already heavily aligned with the Scandinavian orbit - Harold himself was Anglo-Danish, for example. But the Norman/Continental influence was growing and Norse power declining, moreso after Harold's victory at Stamford Bridge. So, even if William had been defeated at Hastings, England would have gradually aligned more with the continent, except that it would have done so in its own way, and with its own native aristocracy in charge. A far better outcome all round, IMHO :)
@@Westwoodii Canut IV would've invaded England in the 1080's if he wasn't killed during a peasant revolt. It is quite fair to say he could've succeeded as he had a huge army, support from the norwegians and frisians, and the norms were not liked.
Great video! I am mostly in line with your assumptions, and a French-led HRE is both interesting and hilarious. I'll suggest this for a new video... Harald wins the battle of Stamford Bridge! Will Normans and Scandinavians fight each other, or partition the island?
If Harald Hardrada had won at Stamford Bridge, unless the entire Saxon line had also died as it did at Hastings, the war would likely continue, and Hardrada would have had to defeat further English armies. At Hastings every senior member of the royal line was killed, leaving Edgar Aetheling, a boy, as the closest Saxon claimant. As to whether there would have been partition if it was Hardrada and William left standing, I don't think it was in either man's personality to settle for half a kingdom.
A suggestion for a scenario I haven’t seen anyone else do. What if Robert and Edward Bruce united Ireland and Scotland into a single Gaelic state at the start of the 14th century?
Interesting scenario, but it would not have been a single Gaelic state. Robert Bruce spoke French and many in the Scottish lowlands spoke Scots, a dialect related to English.
woah! really interesting scenario! very interesting. Though england wasnt fully centralised either, just more then france, the normans centralised england alot as well.
There would have been no WW1. Upon his accession in 1916, FF would have tried to reorganise the AH Empire into a Imperial Federation against strong Hungarian resistance. However, the French-Russian Entente would still exist and so would the German army's paranoia regarding Russia. There would have been no Russian Revolution, no Fascism and no Nazism. Russia would still covet the Straits and would still intrigue against AH in the Balkans. Serbia would still seek an Adriatic port and the unification of Serbdom. The development of the aeroplane and the tank would be retarded. However, all the pieces would still be in place, waiting for a different "damned fool thing in the Balkans" to set them off.
@@Sizzler-z3r That would be interesting! But also the 1848-49 againist the Austro-Hungarian Empire would be nice. It's affect on WW1 if succeeded in breaking up the Empire that early. That was lost by Russian intervention too. The region is just not lucky with the Russians...
Two years ago following an accident I was forced to spend a week in Pont de L'Arche on the River Seine in France. The French built a fortified bridge here to stop the Normans who held Rouen from going up river and taking Paris. When the Normans attacked in 885 Pont de l'Arche fell and the Normans sieged Paris. Maybe if Pont de L'Arche had stood strong and the Norman's had been unable to siege Paris they would not have attempted the invasion of England in 1066.
The battle of Hastings is very similar to the battle of Uhud. Both armies thought they won, left their post then the opposing army regrouped and won a decisive victory.
It’s a fascinating subject, thank you. Without the Norma conquest, I believe England would have gravitated naturally towards the Scandinavian sphere. The Danish influence was already strong, Danish Vikings had held the east of England (the Danelaw) under Guthrum until King Alfred brought it under his realm; the Saxon and Danish royalty were closely connected and a Danish king had sat on the throne of England. How that would have affected subsequent history is anyoneʼs guess although it’s possible that the British Empire would never have existed if we believe that the Normans, who were more outward-looking with ambitions beyond their shores, galvanised the country (for better or worse) and infused it with their appetite for power. Ireland is an interesting point, because it was the arrival of the Normans that marked the beginning of England’s involvement there (after the conquest of England, some Norman knights were invited by Celtic chiefs to Ireland, to help them defeat their neighbours in regional territorial disputes.) They settled there and assimilated, but still owed fealty to the English crown, prompting a suspicious English king to bring them to heel and paving the way for the crown to exert its dominance there. One way or the other I suspect Ireland would always have been a flashpoint due to its strategic position for competing powers, but on the other hand there may have been greater affinity with the Saxons as they would have continued to share the same Catholic faith, since Henry VIII would never have existed.
The only thing I have to add is that, after Harold Godwinson wins, he’s definitely riding high as the defender of England and I’m sure he will be succeeded by his sons and grandsons, but I feel like one of them might try to avenge the attack on engine by invading Normandy. But since William died I’m not sure if they will
It's possible but not likely in my opinion, in that frame of mind they may as well have a claim to Norway which I doubt they'd want to attempt to invade
I'm interested in how England would have developed culturally rather than politically. What would England have been like without the laws and centralisation that the Normans brought? Would national development have been slowed significantly? Would England have been better off without the dynastic wars that lasted for so long? I think myself that a Saxon England would have been a rather unique place within a feudal Europe.
One potential issue that a surviving Anglo-Saxon England will probably have to deal with eventually is the frankly ludicrously-sized earldoms they had been saddled with by Canute. Obviously intended for a North Sea Empire that covered multiple kingdoms, the entire country was essentially under the control of just 5 people, each ruling kingdom-sized territories that had immense power and influence. Weak kings like Edward the Confessor were at the mercy of the the strongest ones like earls Godwin and Harold, which meant that anybody but the most shrewd of kings were highly likely to become nothing more than a puppet (or at least see their effective royal authority greatly diminished). The time between Canute and William was short enough that England didn't get to see the worst consequences of this system but, in my opinion, it was not sustainable in the long run and would have inevitably led to a political crisis. In our time line, the Normans effectively served as one big political reset, a _'get out of jail free'_ card that allowed for a top-down reform of the English political system without effective resistance. They killed the Godwin earls at Hastings and then dispossessed the northern earls a few years later, destroying their power and dividing up their former territories into dozens of smaller ones so that no single one of them could effectively challenge the king. Not to mention that the death and displacement of most of the English nobility meant that William was able to parcel out lands to his loyal followers while also being able to hoard large parts of the country for himself, further strengthening the position and authority of the crown. In this alternate timeline, England would have to deal with this problem the hard way and while Harold Godwinson would have probably been able to keep the situation stable for the duration of his reign (however long that may be), there is nothing to say his successor would have had the competency to do the same. I can easily see a situation where England, paradoxically, ends up like France. Where the earls, through a series of weak kings, become _de facto_ independent rulers, paying lip service to a powerless English king who's effective rule doesn't extend much beyond the Thames Estuary.
From what I'm aware of of late Anglo-Saxon England, the earldoms were periodically re-drawn by Saxon kings with sometimes very different boundaries, and it seems to have been relatively easy for the king to revoke land holdings from those who held them, without major rebellions. Nonetheless I certainly agree with your broad argument, that the earldoms were large and powerful, and would have presented a major barrier to effective long-term royal power. One of many reasons I don't believe it's certain an Anglo-Saxon England would have dominated the whole of Britain within a shorter space of time than the Normans did. Another issue may have been the elective system for Anglo-Saxon kingship, which again, placed more emphasis on kings having to have the support of their nobles, rather than having a strong centralised royal authority and hereditary rulership. It is of course possible that this elective model could have produced Scandinavian or even French kings. this is a major difficulty in making projections about how Saxon England may have fared.
England and Scandinavia would have probably formed some sort of union in the future given how mixed the nobility was with each other, Harold's Grandfather was Danish. which would have the English and Scandinavian union a dominant especially as a naval trading power and with the stability and subsequent population bloom Vinland would be more important and maybe heavily colonised way before Columbus
Don't forget, by 1066 the Anglo Saxon nobility was really in large part Anglo Danish - for example Harold Godwinson's Mother was Gytha Thorkelsdottir. Yes, a Norse name, so what? Just that her brother Ulf was married to Estrid Svensdatter, daughter of King Sweyn Forkbeard first Danish king of England, sister of Canute the Great, and mother of Sweyn the Second of Denmark. The French connection only really came about because Aethelred the Unready fled to France when Sweyn invaded - 1066 and all that really stemmed from that. The probability is that England would, if not exactly Canute's North Sea Empire, have had intimate ties with Scandinavia - looking North and East, not South towards France.
Very late to commenting, but the lack of a Norman conquest of England would also have a massive impact upon the population of the region; and by extension the development of England. This is because William faced several rebellions from the native Anglo-Saxon elite and aristocracy, along with revolts from vast amounts of the Anglo-Saxon common people; which ultimately led to mass atrocities, especially in the North of England, which caused the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives, maybe even a million if I remember correctly. England, therefore, would very likely have a larger population; leading to a more prosperous Northern England, and more prosperous population centers in general. The increase in the population may also, over time, cause Anglo-Saxon migrations into the less populated regions of the Scottish Lowlands, Wales and Ireland; likely dramatically shifting the ethnic and cultural makeup of the local Celtic populations. The Scottish Lowlander culture would probably be permanently altered, as it already in our own history had major Anglo-Saxon influences. Anglo-Saxon migrants to the area would very likely turn the Lowlands into a center of Anglo-Saxon culture, though the Scottish Highlands would likely remain a center of Highlander Gaelic culture. Wales is more tricky to predict, as is Ireland; though I imagine much of the eastern Irish coast, especially around the Pale, Cork and Ulster, would eventually gain a significant Anglo-Saxon population, with the eastern coastal cities becoming centers of Anglo-Saxon culture.
Without the Normanised English weakening France with hundreds of years of warfare the French may have united and grown much stronger much earlier. As such they might have been strong enough to invade and conquer Anglo-Saxon England later on in the middle ages, as well as conquering most of Western Europe. The French might have missed out on their chance at dominating the world when William won in 1066.
Given that in our timeline not a single country managed to "dominate the world" (that is, being stronger than all others combined even without alliances), I don't see why it would have been different. Considering the countless worst-case scenarios, France, just like England, did pretty well already.
I think even if Harold had been victorious at Hastings problems would have remained. Edgar Aethling, the Wessex claimant, would become a focal point for opposition to the Godwinsons and with royal blood would have strong backing. Much would depend on Harold’s diplomatic skills especially with the Viking world.
good video, on the other hand I don't think that France would have taken over from the HRE. I mean I don't think the loss of a duchy would have weakened France enough for them to be unable to take over from the HRE. Obviously the arrival of the Normans in England had a huge impact on French history but I don't think that without it France would have been a power as great as mentioned in the video. I think that history would have especially changed the history of England in itself. even if obviously I understand that it is very hard to project this and that a fictional scenario in this genre would be "fantastic" because otherwise its series is too vague
Ye, I am experiementing with that now, mainly because coming up with realistic scenarios is really stressful due to the amount of research that I need to put into it After all I am just a teen with interest in history, nowhere near to a real historian lol
Well, mainly because in the video it is shown the England conquers a majority of Britain, and since the other states were weak, they would fall under the English sphere of influence as for Ireland, they'd conquer that eventually and it looks better for the thumbnail lol
@@justagreekhistorian I get it, and we don't know what would've happened if the Battle of Hastings had turned out differently, even though the Kingdom of Alba/Scotland (a unification of the Picts and the Scots) had been long since been established. But the basic question is this: would you like your nation with a foreign flag across it on a thumbnail?! ;)
@@DABmonger Well if it's an alternate history video with for example a great Ottoman Empire, sure lmao If there's no political agenda being pushed in the video and it's purely for entertainment, then absolutely lol I am just making alternate history content and I am giving my opinion on what would have happened the battle of Hastings went differently It's just a video, nothing more
@@justagreekhistorianThat's it 💯!!! I was thinking exactly that, either a flag of the Ottoman Empire or Turkey across Greece: 😂 As you're ok with that in an alternative reality, then I'm fine with your thumbnail! :) I've subscribed to your channel, so I'm not fkd off or anything!
Just subscribed. Video Idea- What if the USSR had annexed Mongolia? Mongolia asked to join the Soviet Union, but was rejected out of concerns about Communist China.
“There is practically nothing stopping the French from reuniting the Frankish empire if they play their cards right” I very much would argue there is… the Holy Roman Empire. This was the time of the Stauffer dynasty, the most powerful holy Roman dynasty and at the time the HRE was more centralized and significantly more powerful than France. This is the time where Europes stood at the balance of being dominated by the Stauffer HRE or by the Catholic Church, a conflict that the Catholic Church pyrically won. And these are also times where the holy Roman emperors could call upon the largest army ever at the disposal of a feudal overlord, specifically under the famous emperor Barbarossa. The HRE was beginning to centralize into a pseudo Byzantine state during barbarossas lifetime but that was stopped by his death in the crusades and the conflicts with the church, where the church allied with other nobles.
The video is kind of vague on the time period, but this was meant to take place at like the mid 1200s I don't really know what happened to the timeline there, I really need to be more specific when it comes to that Regardless, judged by the info given in the video, you are correct and the HRE would indeed pose a threat but this was meant to be like way later Like France would finish centralizing by the early 1200s and would set their sights on the HRE then But yeah anyways, thanks for the information pointed out here!
@@justagreekhistorian yeah thats before the Interregnum, when the Stauffer dynasty had some of their strongest emperors. And at the time its domination became its downfall as the princes didnt think they needed a strong emperor to protect them so allied with the Chruch against the ever more powerful emperor. Attempts by france to expand into the Freigrafschaft Burgund would lead the stauffers to turn west and crush france. The HRE as we know it, the weak decentralized coalition. simply didnt exist at the time. Other then that great video.
The people who survived the Roman invasion in Scotland and Wales were Gaelic. The peoples living in England before during and after the Roman invasions were Gaelic. They were not Celts. The Celts lived in a completely different part of the world.
The people who survived the Roman invasions of what is now Scotland and Wales were 'Brythonic', speaking a P-Celtic language (or languages, as Pictish was said by Bede to be separate). Those who were there before the Romans were also Brythonic. The Gaels of Ireland and the Western seaboard of Scotland were Goidelic and spoke a Q-Celtic language (said to be older than P-Celtic). Both groups are considered 'celtic' mainly because of their languages, though their art is also similar. There were also Celts in NW France, Iberia and Turkiye.
That is complete and utter nonsense, firstly the Gaels were Celts, but they were not the native peoples of Scotland and Wales (and have never been in Wales). The native people of northern Scotland were the Picts, possibly speaking a language loosely related to those of the Britons, who were eventually culturally absorbed by Gaelic speaking Irish who formed kingdoms on the western isles of Scotland from the 6th century. The native people of lowland Scotland and Wales were Britons who spoke various Brythonic languages. ALL OF THE AFOREMENTIONED PEOPLES WERE AND ARE CELTIC.
Since we're on medieval english history: what if the idea that king john of england offered to convert to islam not only was real but actually happened?
@@justagreekhistorian I believe it would transform greece into a monarchical fiefdom of sorts and the palace would get more power in the military and politics as a result.The ottomans wouldn't suffer the loss of Crete and after their loss in 1913 , wouldn't recognise the greek liberation ,just like the Eastern Aegean.
I cant see england being able to dominate scotland that easily, after the the war with the norwegians and normans. Scotland would likely seize the opportunity to invade the north of england whilst the english were trying to recover from the norman war. Scotland would also likely not sign an alliance with france as france would have no reason to fight england as the english arent in france.
I mostly said in the video 1100s, but I wanted to mean the late 1100s, by that time I expect England to have recovered Also the fact that Scotland would invade is also a possibility but I can see England being able to push them back eventually
@justagreekhistorian aye fair enough. I didnt hear the late 1100s sorry. An invasion from scotland during or after the norman war could be devastating to the english economy. At this time the north of england was the economic centre of the country and having it under scottish control or pillaged, when england came out of a expensive norman and norwegian war could be a crisis for england. This could further escalate with the welsh raiding their border with the english. However i dont see a feasible welsh invasion.
After the conquest, all of this actually happened in real life. William *did* invade Scotland in 1069 (after harrying the North of England) and took Edinburgh (not yet the capital, of course) as well as crossing the Forth. Malcolm III of Scotland signed the Treaty of Abernethy in 1072, swearing allegiance to William and preventing him from harbouring Edgar the Aetheling, the Anglo-Saxon claimant to the English throne. In 1093, the Scots broke the treaty and invaded England to try to conquer Cumbria and Northumberland. Malcolm III was killed at Alnwick and buried at Tynemouth near Newcastle. There was trouble between the the nations right tgroigh the 1100s until William the Lion, King of Scotland was captured at Alnwick in England again and, undrr the Treaty of Falaise handed Scotland over to Henry II of England who granted it back to him as a fiefdom. One of the reasons why Rome and the medieval English kings did not bother to annex Scotland was that there was little there worth having and it would have been more trouble than it was worth.
Personally I think the French would have attacked England, because in this timeline France would be militarily stronger than England, and regardless of the lack of obvious casus belli, eventually some French king would have come up with some bluster and fabricated a reason to start a war. However it's less obvious there would have been an alliance between France and Scotland, since the cultural ties between Scotland and France (French speaking elite) would not have existed without the Norman conquest. Do agree that Scotland would try to invade the north of England if England was occupied in a war with France, however.
@@roberthudson3386The French weren't powerful in 1066: the French kings were only nominally in control of the territories which pledged allegiance to them e.g. Normandy. They were strong enough to invade at the end of King John's reign in the real timeline in 1215 but were pushed out after a couple of years so not that strong even then - and that was under the infant king, Henry III, a king with a long but not terribly stable reign. Scots' history would have changed significantly as the Aethelings would not have fled to Scotland from the Normans and would have remained in England so Malcolm Canmore would not have married St Margaret, he would not have been killed invading Norman England and his sons by Margaret would not have reigned one after the other: Duncan II, Edgar, Alexander I and David I (an important king).
I dont know reconquering lands from the english helped actually put them direcly under the french crown The 100 years war helped a lot france centralizing Soo in a world without it france remains decentralized or takes longer to centralize, much less likely is too so easly centralize the whole HRE
Basically, in our timeline, England got rid of the kings/dukes over those territories, so when France reconquered them, they could annex the territory directly Now, as for this timeline, France would still be able to centralize as did most states. The difference is the fact that France now has a 300 year head start, which is why I predict them being able to also centralize the HRE in this timeline
The French were starting to centralize after the end of the 100 years' war, while the HRE grew more and more dysfunctional, eventually leading to the 30 years' war, which after it, the HRE was practically gone as all states basically became independent
I doubt France would centralize quickly and dominate the HRE. Without the countless wars with the English/Angevin, proper French identity would, in this scenario, develop much slower than in our timeline. I would argue that France will experience issues comparable to those of the HRE, if not more so. I.E.: weak central authority, basically a king in name only with no actual power or only power in their small royal domain. Without a constant threat on their own turf, the French Kings are, in my opinion, not able to subdue most of their vassals. Instead, the vassals start acting more independently, just as they did in the actual world for a while. In my opinion, the HRE emperors might intervene in the chaos that is France and act as kingmakers, or they might choose to back the magnates that they find most appealing. France would develop into a playground for the Emperors and maybe even the English (although I don't see them actually conquering the region, as the emperors often had a lot of problems with their own vassals and the empire was kind of overextended). But, of course, that's only my opinion. The constant intervention of foreign powers might actually strengthen French national identity, or the capetians might be lucky, like in our timeline, and inherit a lot of lands from their vassals, consolidating power quickly
Wow. What you leave out of this video could fill volumes. All you talk about is how the lines on the maps would be different. Bo-ring. What about English culture? How does it change or stay the same? What about the Magna Carta? Would that still be a thing? What about the English Civil War and Glorious Revolution? Would they still happen? What about the First British Empire? Would that still be a thing? Would America still be a thing? These are the questions I wanted answered, but all you talk about are lines on maps. What a waste of time...
You complain about lines on a map, yet your suggestions are talking about more lines on a map "English Civil War" "Glorious Revolution" "British Empire" All of these are equally changes to the map as what I talked in the video I also very much talked about English culture and all, just you don't seem to really care about the first 200 years I talked about and instead want something more recent; something that would be unrealistic considering just how far the scenario changes Also, yes America would be a thing? But how it is discovered, I don't know, I am not a fortune teller IF I did give you a bunch of speculations, then that would more or less be a waste of time instead, since I'd basically be pontificating information, which is probably not something I want to do.
Such kind of videos are often made by ppl who have little knowledge of history. Let me tell you one fact which is the most important... The Bastard had already defeated the French King twice in pitched battle even before he met his uncle who promised him the English throne. So if he didn't become the English king it is very likely he will become the French King. If not from here then the Burgundian faction will take over France. If not them then Aquitaine, Blois or even Toulouse. The French state was strong was the French King was so weak that any of his dukes could easily depose him
Absolutely Old English would like develop like most languages, changing quite little Yet again, who knows, maybe the Great Vowel Shift still happens and English just comes to sound really akin to ours regardless
If the Saxons had defeated the Normans England would have remained a more equal fair country for the population Saxon laws meant everyone had a value, from highest to the lowest, a wereguild . Everything else is pure speculation. What happened was Saxons were owned, Norman and other landowners built castles and ruled their land like mini countries. It was the worst possible outcome. A Viking defeat , being ruled by Harold hardrada would have been much better than ruled by Normans. Viking laws were similar to Saxon.
awesome video! do I think France consolidates sooner. yes Philip I was no great man but without William the Conqueror round things are going to be easier. his support for the Crusade might be a bit more but not too much more he'll probably still get excommunicated. his son Louis VI might have an easier time with the robber barons to so. I can see France though being fully unified before 1400 easily. sadly I don't see them reforming the Charlemagne Empire🥲 Anglo-Saxon Britain will have no desire to get into the fairs of Europe outside of supporting the Crusades with token forces. House of Godwin pretty much secured its rule over England after destroying two enemy claimants I can see the house rule over England lasting at least a century if not 2 I also see the island of Great Britain being unified a lot sooner possibly before 1300. reason I see this happening sooner is the Anglo-Saxons aren't foreign Nobles they are descendants of the Celts. also not to mention most of the great European powers won't care what's going on in the Backwater of Britain
Well, it's not really a French defeat Though it is shown in the map that France has Normandy puppeted, the reality is Normandy was basically independent The French kings didn't really play any role in the conquest of England
As a full Englishman, if the Normans didn’t win, I wouldn’t have been born, because my family actually fought for the Normans. Without the Normans winning my family wouldn’t have been given land in England and my ancestors would never have met and I would never have been born
I think you makeseveral false assumptions. The first is to look upon 1066 as a foreign invasion rather than just a dynastic squabble. Nobody liked Harold and there is plenty of evidence that the most popular language in southern England was already French before 1066. Harold would not have reigned long. Secondly you suggest this would have weakened Normandy and accelerated the union of France - on the contrary the lack of a struggle against England would probably have delayed French unification. It might never have unified at all. Alternately, it might have unified with a French speaking England. Third you think England would have taken over Scotland, why? Many of England's troubles with Scotland were due to its alliance with France. In fact you portray "England" as a belligerant state attacking smaller neighbours but in reality England was a collection of dukedoms whose loyalties frequently changed and repeatedly swapped sides - as was Wales, Scotland and Ireland. Nations in the modern sense did not exist therefore these divisions did not exist either. Nor were they divided by language - none of them was linguistically uniform. Actually I think a Norman failure in 1066 would have changed very little.
hey, thanks a lot for the information! I am trying to learn history through this channel whilst also having fun, so whenever I make major mistakes like in this video, it's really nice to see people correcting me! I am still learning obviously and I still have a long way's to go so thanks a lot!
"Nobody liked Harold and there is plenty of evidence that the most popular language in southern England was already French before 1066". Where is the evidence that people were speaking French in England before the Conquest? I'll take any evidence, go ahead.
@@roberthudson3386 I don't work in the field I only monitor new academic papers and findings so research it for yourself. Basically I believe we have plenty of British documents written in French (and Latin) but virtually nothing in English. Also, the "English" aristocracy before 1066 were substantially non-English in ethnic origin and spent much of their lives in France or other French speaking continental courts and circles. There was also a recent genetics paper that concluded that the people of southern England are indistinguishable from those of northern France. Really the onus should be on those claiming an "Anglosaxon" pedigree to provide evidence because they never do.
@@kubhlaikhan2015 We have few documents in Old English because few survive from the Anglo-Saxon period. Those that do such as Bede's Ecclesiastical History prove that the language of elites in England was very much Old English and not French. There is no evidence of French being widely spoken in England before the Conquest. Now it is true that some of the Anglo-Saxon aristocracy was in fact Danish and Anglo-Saxon culture was influenced by Scandinavian culture, due to marriage and so on. But there is very very limited French influence, and people did not speak French. Any Normans or French in the court of Anglo-Saxon England would have spoken English in public life and French only among themselves. NB I should add genetics is another issue altogether, since the Normans were originally Scandinavian (Norman = "north men") then they would likely be genetically similar to the Anglo-Saxons, some populations of which migrated from what is now Denmark, others from Saxony, others from Frisia, so all sharing genetic links to northern Europe. Also genetics are a highly disputed subject with research by different studies coming to very different conclusions - the same debate exists regarding how genetically different the English are the Celtic populations of Britain - some studies show a very stark and clear difference along the modern day borders of Wales and Cornwall, other studies argue no difference or very little difference. But speech and culture are insdisputable. There is absolutely zero evidence that in the Anglo Saxon period either the elites or the commoners spoke French. it's nonsense.
@@roberthudson3386 "We have few documents because few survive"... These statements are pure supposition and assertion. We have few documents because there weren't any. Since Middle English - a very different language compared to Old English - did not spread until the 10th century it is not surprising. And since the vocabulary of Middle English is almost 50% French in origin it is Middle English itself, ironically, that attests to the widespread prior use of French in England,
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
Without continental commitments England cements its place as hegemon of Britain much earlier, especially without France propping up Scotland. This would put it in a great place to focus on maritime commerce, which would make it focus more on naval endeavors, including exploration. It's likely that the recent voyages of Leif Erikson would be known to an England that has cultural affinity with Scandinavia, and once it controls Ireland there isn't much keeping it from doing naval voyages westward along the northern route. We could see an early English presence in North America.
In the real timeline, Scotland was only able to drive out the English invaders because England would sooner of later start a war with France which would mean England switching itmilitary might away from Scotland. So it is highly possiblethat Scotand would not exist today if the Normans had not won. I also think that most of Western Europe (including Germany) would now be speaking French if the Normans had not won.
I agree with this, because the English were tied more to Scandinavian interests than continental European. I suspect an alliance of sorts between the Danish/Norwegian/Swedish families with their English and Scottish and Irish colonies, would earlier exploit the discovery of Vineland and Greenland.
Talking pish you Muppet@@molecatcher3383
I don't see England even trying to control Ireland. The imperial mindset is Roman, and it was the Normans who Imperilased England, seeing themselves (as the French did at the time) as the inheritors of Rome, with the Franks actively Romanising themselves. There is no beef between Anglo-Saxon England and Ireland. Ireland was 'anglicised' to some degree because a few Irish warlords invited the Normans (of all the predators in Europe!) in to Ireland in the 12th century.
Please see my post elsewhere for why it's a major assumption that Saxon England post 1066 would have dominated Britain. The means of consolidating control over a hostile territory - castles - wasn't something the Saxons had developed as the Normans had, and Scotland in particular was a vast land mass covered in mountains and forest that could not be easily dominated. Wales was also extremely hostile terrain and the Anglo-Saxons had not previously been able to conquer it fully despite defeating its rulers in battle due to this factor. Also, I do believe it's likely there would have been more continental attempts to attack England, regardless of whether it had territories in France - William had basically invented a claim out of nothing because he knew he had a powerful army and had a chance of victory.
Eh i dont see the french being able to centralize quicker. Just because willaim is dead doesn't mean that the French kings would get the duchy. The French king was only 14 by the time of the norman conquest. Willaim still had his sons who a faction of the nobility would rely behind while other claimants would pop up. The royal French power was much to weak to actually just flat out take Normandy. Not to mention that prior to that Willaim humbled the king of France.
Yeah, being honest, I have absolutely no idea what was going on with France back then, I was just looking for an interesting scenario because realism is really difficult and some unrealistic scenarios are quite fun
I think England would be a weak country if Harold Godwinson defeated William. I cant explain why, but if we compare England during the Anglo-Saxon period and England in the pos-norman conquest, he can clearly see a diference. Anglo-Saxon England was a irrelevant country in the Medieval Geopolitics. However, after that, England become one of the more important countries in Europe. For example, some English Kings were leaders in the Cruzader Armies. An anglo-saxon king would never be a leader in a Cruzade army. I am not underrating Anglo-Saxon kings. Alfred, for example, was one of the greatest king in the History of England.
@@justagreekhistorian Fair enough can't blame you for having fun
@semideiaspranome England actually got weaker during the reign of willaim. His harying of the north destroyed a prosperous earldom of Northumbria and killed upwards of 100,000 English subjects which would be a staggering amount when England only had 1.6 million people living it at that point. He also adopted much of the Anglo saxon methods of government. For example the Anglo Saxons are one of the only kingdoms with a royal treasure in Winchester. They had a efficient tax system. The Anglo Saxons could also assemble huge armies for the time period. Harold assembled a army of 15,000 men to face Herold Hadrada. The only department they'd be weaker in is lacking the heavy cavalry that the rest of Europe fielded. Although housecurls were still pretty good infantry
I agree. William's death will probably not be fatal for the Duchy of Normandy - and actually, without the Normans in control of their own state, there could be even less impetous for France to centralize - since they're no longer locked in a life or death battle with Norman England. Speaking of which, the Normans introduced a very continental form of decentralized feudalism to England, which essentially shackled and suppressed Anglo-Saxon culture into near oblivion, but it came with major economic costs, since only Normans were really allowed to do business, almost the entire Saxon Freemen class had to be subjugated into Serfdom, which in otl had been very unpopular with the Saxon freeholders and resulted in several major rebellions and the eventual harrowing of the north by the Normans, something which had been so destructive the socio-economic balance between northern and southern england is still apparent today. Had the Normans failed to conquer England, the Anglo-Saxons may have developed more in-line with the scandinavian kingdoms, or the dutch, or something in-between the two - whatever the case, England would come to dominate the British Isles much sooner than in otl and would also dominate trade throughout the North Sea, and would have been pretty much uninterested in continental politics.
France would still be France, and it would have it's hand in the politics of every country within reach - earlier than in otl. Since England is no longer an existential threat, they would be a massive thorn in the side of the HRE, the Iberians, Italians and maybe even the Arab states and the Eastern Romans, there would be no effective counter-balance in the early 12th Century - although that may change. There might be more impetus within the HRE to get their act together lest they come to kneel down to another Charlemagne - something that various princelings, bishops, and whatnot might not be too keen on. Anyway my 2 cents.
The Domesday Book was not a compilation of laws and customs - it was a detailed census or survey of the kingdom, recording population, land ownership etc.
Huh, I don't know what happened there, when I first researched it, I was told that it was a compilations of laws and customs
Now, I searched it up again and it gave me different results?
Regardless, you're right, and thanks a lot for the correction!
It was.
And England was essentially peopled by Africans.
I've seen it on Channel 4 & the BBC. 😊
Honestly this is a great video, maps good, the storytelling is good despite the time period, i see this channel being popular one day, keep up the great work you gained yourself a new sub! I look forward to your next video
Thanks a lot for the support my friend! I surely hope to grow one day, I will keep up the content the highest quality I can for people like you!
Nice video again! I look forward to the next video.
Thanks a lot for the support mate!
I'm a bit late to the party here, but I'd like to propose as a scenario what if Gian Galeazzo Visconti, the duke of Milan who almost conquered all of northern Italy, didn't die from disease at the siege of Florence, the last major opposer to the dukedom. Anyways, great video as always!
Wouldn't have to do quite a bit of research since I am not very well researched in this topic, but I will try!
you have the best channel of alternative history
Thanks a lot man! It really means a lot to me!
@@justagreekhistorianyour are not an archeolegist like your bullshit video
The 100 years war between England and France sped up French centralisation because all / most of the French Nobles died at Agincourt and their heirs were too inexperienced to push back against the kings attempt at centralisation.
So I would argue that France would take longer to centralise or possibly if unforeseen events occur may even turn into another HRE or even be taken over by the dukes of Burgundy.
yeah I admit the scenario is pretty flawed, mainly due to the fact that the medieval ages are a part of history which I am not too read up on and I did this scenario as a challenge for myself
I may make a remastered version in the future but for now this is what I did
Regardless, you're right and I don't really disagree with that
@@justagreekhistorian
Yes it is flawed but with alternated history you may never know.
Great to see you doing so well on RUclips, you're growing really fast lol.
I really like your channel, it has potential!
Loved you're video. You have a lot of potential and im sure with time you will be a Huge content creator.
Video Idea: What if Novgorod united Russia instead of Muscovy
Interesting idea, I will see what I can do with that
HARLOD GODWINSON
LAST KING OF THE ENGLISH!
HARLOD GODWINSON
ENEMIES CAME FROM ALL SIDES!
HARLOD GODWINSON
GOD HAVE MERCY ON HIS SOUL!
HARLOD GODWINSON
HE FOUGHT FOR A FREE ENGLAND!
lyrics by the skaldic bard
I got inspired to make this video for this exact song haha
“Harold” not “Harlod”
Great video. 👍🏻
Scenario: What if The Monarchy was restored in Germany in the 20s or early 30s?
Regarding the conquest of Wales and Scotland, it is worth noting that it took the Angevin Empire (ie all of England and, at its peak, half of France) 220 years to conquer Wales, while Scotland was never fully conquered despite being a client state for a brief period. It's worth looking at how Wales was actually finally subdued after many failed English campaigns, some of which involved royal armies of English kings being defeated by combination of terrain and guerilla warfare - castles. Edward I built a series of castles in north Wales, which provided a permanent basis for preventing the Welsh from simply melting away when the English brought an army, only to attack again when the English army left. Also prior to the Norman conquest it had taken Harold Godwinson many, many years to bring the Welsh king of Gwynedd, Gruffudd, to heel in a campaign, the end result of which was the installation of Bleddyn and Rhiwallon ap Cynfyn as kings in Gwynedd and Powys as allies of Godwinson, a situation that Harold saw as necessary because he would have known that Wales would not have accepted English rule and it was impossible to impose royal rule without a permanent royal army stationed in Wales. People forget that Anglo-Saxon England derived its armies from the fyrd, a system of levying troops for limited periods, and that the Normans were undoubtedly militarily advanced (the Saxon armies used very little cavalry and archers, which were hugely influential in European warfare in the coming centuries). The Normans used a system of marcher lordships with strong fortifications to establish control in the south over many decades and then launched a successful conquest of the north, however in 1066 England lacked the means to permanently conquer Wales, and it's by no means inevitable this would have been the case if Godwinson had won.
People will say that without continental commitments England would have conquered Scotland and Wales more quickly, but we don't know that would have been the case. Anglo-Saxon England, had they won, would still have needed to evolve militarily and culturally to achieve this goal. Also we have no way of knowing that Scandinavian or French rules would not have continued claims on English territory, or would not have been involved in wars against Anglo-Saxon England, had it survived.
In all honesty there are a lot of possibilities, my own personal view is that Anglo-Saxon England would have needed to change its military culture to thrive, otherwise it would have declined as the Scandinavian nations did and may well have been invaded by what could well have been a stronger French crown in a timeline without English claims on its territory and an English crown that held territories in Normandy and Aquitaine. In other words, instead of France being torn apart by the Hundred Years' War, it could have been England.
Congrats on 1k Subs 🎉🎉🎉
There are lots of interpretations I've learnt in school that William used the feigned retreat tactic - pretending to run away so that the enemy lose their position
Williams army had done this before and succeeded. In 1066 they did the same and the Anglo-Saxons were not disciplined and ran to kill them, losing their shield wall.
Ye I am aware that historical consensis differs and there are versions of the story that claim that William did that on purpose to deceive the Saxons
I used the version that denies that to make the alternate history easier to achieve
Great video!
Where do we start in corrections? An Anglo-Saxon King was elected King by the Witan, a council of nobles. So William could never be made heir by the previous King.
I read, somewhere (I can't recall where now) that England was in the beginning of a Cultural Renaissance just prior to the Norman invasion... But this was stopped by the Normans & their Mercenaries
If so, & the Normans lost at Hastings, the renaissance would've continued and been based more in England than Continental Europe...
Quick advances in Sailing Ships could lead to colonies set up on the East Coasts of the Americas in the 1200s meaning Both Continents become known as the New England Empire.
You would end up with a MAJOR power that even the Francofied HRE couldn't stand against *on the oceans* but wouldn't be able to push it's own claims *on Continental Europe.*
Of course this is a hypothetical scenario and I'm sure some would have valid points against it... but I believe it could be plausible *IF Harold defeated both Harald & William*
CONGRATS AT 1K SUBS!!!!!
Thanks a lot!! I am so greatful right now, it has been really fun to grow this channel and I plan to continue doing so!
@@justagreekhistorian Fr you make really good content, keep improving and you'll make it to the top!
Nice video earned my sub
The north of England would likely also be much stronger without Williams gensides killing half the population this might lead to Scotland being easier to conquer. at this time Harold might have also invaded Wales as a few years earlier Wales had been United under one Kingdom but Harold had invaded and split it into lots of rival client states but if Harold lived longer he might have consolidated his rule over the region. the failure of the Norman conquest might have made England more closely aligned to Scandinavia because of Williams genside of the Norse population in the north and Williams introduction of the federal system. This might have lead to England being seen as a Nordic or Scandinavian country.
That would be an interesting outcome, a Nordic England? Yeah that sounds plausible!
England was already heavily aligned with the Scandinavian orbit - Harold himself was Anglo-Danish, for example. But the Norman/Continental influence was growing and Norse power declining, moreso after Harold's victory at Stamford Bridge. So, even if William had been defeated at Hastings, England would have gradually aligned more with the continent, except that it would have done so in its own way, and with its own native aristocracy in charge. A far better outcome all round, IMHO :)
England was never Nordic anyway, but one with a Germanic culture from the Saxons.
@@Westwoodii Canut IV would've invaded England in the 1080's if he wasn't killed during a peasant revolt. It is quite fair to say he could've succeeded as he had a huge army, support from the norwegians and frisians, and the norms were not liked.
Great video! I am mostly in line with your assumptions, and a French-led HRE is both interesting and hilarious. I'll suggest this for a new video... Harald wins the battle of Stamford Bridge! Will Normans and Scandinavians fight each other, or partition the island?
If Harald Hardrada had won at Stamford Bridge, unless the entire Saxon line had also died as it did at Hastings, the war would likely continue, and Hardrada would have had to defeat further English armies. At Hastings every senior member of the royal line was killed, leaving Edgar Aetheling, a boy, as the closest Saxon claimant. As to whether there would have been partition if it was Hardrada and William left standing, I don't think it was in either man's personality to settle for half a kingdom.
Sounds good! Would like to also improve this video since I've made many errors and I think that that scenario is similar enough where I can work with
A suggestion for a scenario I haven’t seen anyone else do. What if Robert and Edward Bruce united Ireland and Scotland into a single Gaelic state at the start of the 14th century?
And today's Ireland was called Scotia= Land of the Scots in the 2nd century.
Interesting scenario, but it would not have been a single Gaelic state. Robert Bruce spoke French and many in the Scottish lowlands spoke Scots, a dialect related to English.
woah! really interesting scenario! very interesting. Though england wasnt fully centralised either, just more then france, the normans centralised england alot as well.
Yeah, I am aware but I didn't really have a lot to say about that so yeah
Thanks for the clarification
What if the assassination attempt on Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria had failed in 1914?
There would have been no WW1. Upon his accession in 1916, FF would have tried to reorganise the AH Empire into a Imperial Federation against strong Hungarian resistance. However, the French-Russian Entente would still exist and so would the German army's paranoia regarding Russia. There would have been no Russian Revolution, no Fascism and no Nazism. Russia would still covet the Straits and would still intrigue against AH in the Balkans. Serbia would still seek an Adriatic port and the unification of Serbdom. The development of the aeroplane and the tank would be retarded. However, all the pieces would still be in place, waiting for a different "damned fool thing in the Balkans" to set them off.
Just subbed great content! You should do a video on if the Hungarian revolution succeeded.
Which one?
@@marrs1013 the one against the Soviets
@@Sizzler-z3r
That would be interesting! But also the 1848-49 againist the Austro-Hungarian Empire would be nice. It's affect on WW1 if succeeded in breaking up the Empire that early. That was lost by Russian intervention too. The region is just not lucky with the Russians...
@@marrs1013 I do agree with you
@@Sizzler-z3r Still upset with Soviets kicking Austrian painter Army azz
i love how detailed your map is,i have a pretty ambitious idea;what if genghis khan never got in power and died young?
You are literally in my mind! I was already planning on that haha
Yeah, it should be interesting and probably become my longest video by far
Your style is really good
Thanks a lot mate!
Two years ago following an accident I was forced to spend a week in Pont de L'Arche on the River Seine in France.
The French built a fortified bridge here to stop the Normans who held Rouen from going up river and taking Paris.
When the Normans attacked in 885 Pont de l'Arche fell and the Normans sieged Paris.
Maybe if Pont de L'Arche had stood strong and the Norman's had been unable to siege Paris they would not have attempted the invasion of England in 1066.
I would be interested in your thoughts on what would have happened if Harold Hardrada had defeated Harold Godwinson at Stamford Bridge?
You deserve more views
The battle of Hastings is very similar to the battle of Uhud. Both armies thought they won, left their post then the opposing army regrouped and won a decisive victory.
Absolutely haha
It’s a fascinating subject, thank you. Without the Norma conquest, I believe England would have gravitated naturally towards the Scandinavian sphere. The Danish influence was already strong, Danish Vikings had held the east of England (the Danelaw) under Guthrum until King Alfred brought it under his realm; the Saxon and Danish royalty were closely connected and a Danish king had sat on the throne of England. How that would have affected subsequent history is anyoneʼs guess although it’s possible that the British Empire would never have existed if we believe that the Normans, who were more outward-looking with ambitions beyond their shores, galvanised the country (for better or worse) and infused it with their appetite for power. Ireland is an interesting point, because it was the arrival of the Normans that marked the beginning of England’s involvement there (after the conquest of England, some Norman knights were invited by Celtic chiefs to Ireland, to help them defeat their neighbours in regional territorial disputes.) They settled there and assimilated, but still owed fealty to the English crown, prompting a suspicious English king to bring them to heel and paving the way for the crown to exert its dominance there. One way or the other I suspect Ireland would always have been a flashpoint due to its strategic position for competing powers, but on the other hand there may have been greater affinity with the Saxons as they would have continued to share the same Catholic faith, since Henry VIII would never have existed.
The only thing I have to add is that, after Harold Godwinson wins, he’s definitely riding high as the defender of England and I’m sure he will be succeeded by his sons and grandsons, but I feel like one of them might try to avenge the attack on engine by invading Normandy. But since William died I’m not sure if they will
It's possible but not likely in my opinion, in that frame of mind they may as well have a claim to Norway which I doubt they'd want to attempt to invade
I learned abt this in history class 🇬🇧🏴🇬🇧
What if Bessarion became pope of Rome? Would he make a crusade to liberate Greece as Callixtus III intented?
Rather than Godwinson beating William, what if William landed first, but Hardrade cleaned up and conquered England?
That'd be interesting
I'd probably cover that at some point
I'm interested in how England would have developed culturally rather than politically. What would England have been like without the laws and centralisation that the Normans brought? Would national development have been slowed significantly? Would England have been better off without the dynastic wars that lasted for so long? I think myself that a Saxon England would have been a rather unique place within a feudal Europe.
One potential issue that a surviving Anglo-Saxon England will probably have to deal with eventually is the frankly ludicrously-sized earldoms they had been saddled with by Canute. Obviously intended for a North Sea Empire that covered multiple kingdoms, the entire country was essentially under the control of just 5 people, each ruling kingdom-sized territories that had immense power and influence. Weak kings like Edward the Confessor were at the mercy of the the strongest ones like earls Godwin and Harold, which meant that anybody but the most shrewd of kings were highly likely to become nothing more than a puppet (or at least see their effective royal authority greatly diminished). The time between Canute and William was short enough that England didn't get to see the worst consequences of this system but, in my opinion, it was not sustainable in the long run and would have inevitably led to a political crisis.
In our time line, the Normans effectively served as one big political reset, a _'get out of jail free'_ card that allowed for a top-down reform of the English political system without effective resistance. They killed the Godwin earls at Hastings and then dispossessed the northern earls a few years later, destroying their power and dividing up their former territories into dozens of smaller ones so that no single one of them could effectively challenge the king. Not to mention that the death and displacement of most of the English nobility meant that William was able to parcel out lands to his loyal followers while also being able to hoard large parts of the country for himself, further strengthening the position and authority of the crown.
In this alternate timeline, England would have to deal with this problem the hard way and while Harold Godwinson would have probably been able to keep the situation stable for the duration of his reign (however long that may be), there is nothing to say his successor would have had the competency to do the same. I can easily see a situation where England, paradoxically, ends up like France. Where the earls, through a series of weak kings, become _de facto_ independent rulers, paying lip service to a powerless English king who's effective rule doesn't extend much beyond the Thames Estuary.
From what I'm aware of of late Anglo-Saxon England, the earldoms were periodically re-drawn by Saxon kings with sometimes very different boundaries, and it seems to have been relatively easy for the king to revoke land holdings from those who held them, without major rebellions. Nonetheless I certainly agree with your broad argument, that the earldoms were large and powerful, and would have presented a major barrier to effective long-term royal power. One of many reasons I don't believe it's certain an Anglo-Saxon England would have dominated the whole of Britain within a shorter space of time than the Normans did.
Another issue may have been the elective system for Anglo-Saxon kingship, which again, placed more emphasis on kings having to have the support of their nobles, rather than having a strong centralised royal authority and hereditary rulership.
It is of course possible that this elective model could have produced Scandinavian or even French kings. this is a major difficulty in making projections about how Saxon England may have fared.
England and Scandinavia would have probably formed some sort of union in the future given how mixed the nobility was with each other, Harold's Grandfather was Danish. which would have the English and Scandinavian union a dominant especially as a naval trading power and with the stability and subsequent population bloom Vinland would be more important and maybe heavily colonised way before Columbus
Seems a bit far fetched for a full blown political union, but close relations between the two states is very possible
It didn't work after Canute: his empire fell apart swiftly. The geography would work against such a thing: too much water in between.
Harold's mum was a Dane. Father was Anglo-Saxon
@@MrBulky992 It didn't work because of unfortunate deaths. The geography being a problem is a joke.
Don't forget, by 1066 the Anglo Saxon nobility was really in large part Anglo Danish - for example Harold Godwinson's Mother was Gytha Thorkelsdottir.
Yes, a Norse name, so what?
Just that her brother Ulf was married to Estrid Svensdatter, daughter of King Sweyn Forkbeard first Danish king of England, sister of Canute the Great, and mother of Sweyn the Second of Denmark.
The French connection only really came about because Aethelred the Unready fled to France when Sweyn invaded - 1066 and all that really stemmed from that.
The probability is that England would, if not exactly Canute's North Sea Empire, have had intimate ties with Scandinavia - looking North and East, not South towards France.
You’d also have to think about the 3rd crusade and the Portuguese history
Here's a fun one: what if Charlemagne conquered the Iberian peninsula??? Ive always wondered that
Very late to commenting, but the lack of a Norman conquest of England would also have a massive impact upon the population of the region; and by extension the development of England. This is because William faced several rebellions from the native Anglo-Saxon elite and aristocracy, along with revolts from vast amounts of the Anglo-Saxon common people; which ultimately led to mass atrocities, especially in the North of England, which caused the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives, maybe even a million if I remember correctly.
England, therefore, would very likely have a larger population; leading to a more prosperous Northern England, and more prosperous population centers in general. The increase in the population may also, over time, cause Anglo-Saxon migrations into the less populated regions of the Scottish Lowlands, Wales and Ireland; likely dramatically shifting the ethnic and cultural makeup of the local Celtic populations.
The Scottish Lowlander culture would probably be permanently altered, as it already in our own history had major Anglo-Saxon influences. Anglo-Saxon migrants to the area would very likely turn the Lowlands into a center of Anglo-Saxon culture, though the Scottish Highlands would likely remain a center of Highlander Gaelic culture. Wales is more tricky to predict, as is Ireland; though I imagine much of the eastern Irish coast, especially around the Pale, Cork and Ulster, would eventually gain a significant Anglo-Saxon population, with the eastern coastal cities becoming centers of Anglo-Saxon culture.
Without the Normanised English weakening France with hundreds of years of warfare the French may have united and grown much stronger much earlier. As such they might have been strong enough to invade and conquer Anglo-Saxon England later on in the middle ages, as well as conquering most of Western Europe. The French might have missed out on their chance at dominating the world when William won in 1066.
Given that in our timeline not a single country managed to "dominate the world" (that is, being stronger than all others combined even without alliances), I don't see why it would have been different. Considering the countless worst-case scenarios, France, just like England, did pretty well already.
do a what if the Renovatioo Imperii of Justianian I work overtime
I think even if Harold had been victorious at Hastings problems would have remained. Edgar Aethling, the Wessex claimant, would become a focal point for opposition to the Godwinsons and with royal blood would have strong backing. Much would depend on Harold’s diplomatic skills especially with the Viking world.
A faster centralisation of France might had led to a delay in the renaissance period.
Maybe a cool senario: what if the Dutch republic continued to survive?
good video, on the other hand I don't think that France would have taken over from the HRE. I mean I don't think the loss of a duchy would have weakened France enough for them to be unable to take over from the HRE. Obviously the arrival of the Normans in England had a huge impact on French history but I don't think that without it France would have been a power as great as mentioned in the video. I think that history would have especially changed the history of England in itself. even if obviously I understand that it is very hard to project this and that a fictional scenario in this genre would be "fantastic" because otherwise its series is too vague
Good vid, don't be worried about making unrealistic scenerios.
Ye, I am experiementing with that now, mainly because coming up with realistic scenarios is really stressful due to the amount of research that I need to put into it
After all I am just a teen with interest in history, nowhere near to a real historian lol
Why a cross of St George over the British Isles, when this video pertains only to England?
Well, mainly because in the video it is shown the England conquers a majority of Britain, and since the other states were weak, they would fall under the English sphere of influence
as for Ireland, they'd conquer that eventually and it looks better for the thumbnail lol
@@justagreekhistorian I get it, and we don't know what would've happened if the Battle of Hastings had turned out differently, even though the Kingdom of Alba/Scotland (a unification of the Picts and the Scots) had been long since been established.
But the basic question is this: would you like your nation with a foreign flag across it on a thumbnail?! ;)
@@DABmonger Well if it's an alternate history video with for example a great Ottoman Empire, sure lmao
If there's no political agenda being pushed in the video and it's purely for entertainment, then absolutely lol
I am just making alternate history content and I am giving my opinion on what would have happened the battle of Hastings went differently
It's just a video, nothing more
@@justagreekhistorianThat's it 💯!!! I was thinking exactly that, either a flag of the Ottoman Empire or Turkey across Greece: 😂
As you're ok with that in an alternative reality, then I'm fine with your thumbnail! :)
I've subscribed to your channel, so I'm not fkd off or anything!
Just subscribed. Video Idea- What if the USSR had annexed Mongolia? Mongolia asked to join the Soviet Union, but was rejected out of concerns about Communist China.
This actually sounds like a good idea! I can already think of the implications this entails
epic!😎
My guess is we would be eating cow instead of beef and sheep instead of mutton.
With no norman yolk, we would've rayped the world... With norman yolk, we still rayped the world...
“There is practically nothing stopping the French from reuniting the Frankish empire if they play their cards right” I very much would argue there is… the Holy Roman Empire. This was the time of the Stauffer dynasty, the most powerful holy Roman dynasty and at the time the HRE was more centralized and significantly more powerful than France. This is the time where Europes stood at the balance of being dominated by the Stauffer HRE or by the Catholic Church, a conflict that the Catholic Church pyrically won. And these are also times where the holy Roman emperors could call upon the largest army ever at the disposal of a feudal overlord, specifically under the famous emperor Barbarossa. The HRE was beginning to centralize into a pseudo Byzantine state during barbarossas lifetime but that was stopped by his death in the crusades and the conflicts with the church, where the church allied with other nobles.
The video is kind of vague on the time period, but this was meant to take place at like the mid 1200s
I don't really know what happened to the timeline there, I really need to be more specific when it comes to that
Regardless, judged by the info given in the video, you are correct and the HRE would indeed pose a threat but this was meant to be like way later
Like France would finish centralizing by the early 1200s and would set their sights on the HRE then
But yeah anyways, thanks for the information pointed out here!
@@justagreekhistorian yeah thats before the Interregnum, when the Stauffer dynasty had some of their strongest emperors. And at the time its domination became its downfall as the princes didnt think they needed a strong emperor to protect them so allied with the Chruch against the ever more powerful emperor. Attempts by france to expand into the Freigrafschaft Burgund would lead the stauffers to turn west and crush france. The HRE as we know it, the weak decentralized coalition. simply didnt exist at the time. Other then that great video.
The people who survived the Roman invasion in Scotland and Wales were Gaelic. The peoples living in England before during and after the Roman invasions were Gaelic. They were not Celts. The Celts lived in a completely different part of the world.
The people who survived the Roman invasions of what is now Scotland and Wales were 'Brythonic', speaking a P-Celtic language (or languages, as Pictish was said by Bede to be separate). Those who were there before the Romans were also Brythonic. The Gaels of Ireland and the Western seaboard of Scotland were Goidelic and spoke a Q-Celtic language (said to be older than P-Celtic). Both groups are considered 'celtic' mainly because of their languages, though their art is also similar. There were also Celts in NW France, Iberia and Turkiye.
That is complete and utter nonsense, firstly the Gaels were Celts, but they were not the native peoples of Scotland and Wales (and have never been in Wales).
The native people of northern Scotland were the Picts, possibly speaking a language loosely related to those of the Britons, who were eventually culturally absorbed by Gaelic speaking Irish who formed kingdoms on the western isles of Scotland from the 6th century. The native people of lowland Scotland and Wales were Britons who spoke various Brythonic languages. ALL OF THE AFOREMENTIONED PEOPLES WERE AND ARE CELTIC.
Interesting thought, Maybe more of Scotland would have come under English Rule and more of wales and Irland
Sounds like a mix of Spanish and Scottish?
I understand if Harold would have waited his army would have been too big for William too win.
Well Normans conqured England, and 600 years later James 6th of Scotland took over England ❤
Harold should have won the battle, but the incompetence of his army was his downfall
I’m an American with 98% British Isles DNA. I wonder if I’m Celtic, Anglo Saxon, Norman, or a mixture of all. Guess there is no way to know.
Normans Conquered England, and colonised parts of Wales and Ireland, but Scotland was never on the cards, though some were invited in as nobility
Since we're on medieval english history: what if the idea that king john of england offered to convert to islam not only was real but actually happened?
He'd have been beaten in a crusade
King John (or Caliph John) would likely have been very swiftly overthrown by his subjects in such a scenario.
What if the unfortunate war of 1897 never had happened?
Hmm, not sure really what this would change long term but I will try to give it a shot
@@justagreekhistorian I believe it would transform greece into a monarchical fiefdom of sorts and the palace would get more power in the military and politics as a result.The ottomans wouldn't suffer the loss of Crete and after their loss in 1913 , wouldn't recognise the greek liberation ,just like the Eastern Aegean.
I cant see england being able to dominate scotland that easily, after the the war with the norwegians and normans.
Scotland would likely seize the opportunity to invade the north of england whilst the english were trying to recover from the norman war.
Scotland would also likely not sign an alliance with france as france would have no reason to fight england as the english arent in france.
I mostly said in the video 1100s, but I wanted to mean the late 1100s, by that time I expect England to have recovered
Also the fact that Scotland would invade is also a possibility but I can see England being able to push them back eventually
@justagreekhistorian aye fair enough. I didnt hear the late 1100s sorry.
An invasion from scotland during or after the norman war could be devastating to the english economy.
At this time the north of england was the economic centre of the country and having it under scottish control or pillaged, when england came out of a expensive norman and norwegian war could be a crisis for england.
This could further escalate with the welsh raiding their border with the english. However i dont see a feasible welsh invasion.
After the conquest, all of this actually happened in real life. William *did* invade Scotland in 1069 (after harrying the North of England) and took Edinburgh (not yet the capital, of course) as well as crossing the Forth. Malcolm III of Scotland signed the Treaty of Abernethy in 1072, swearing allegiance to William and preventing him from harbouring Edgar the Aetheling, the Anglo-Saxon claimant to the English throne.
In 1093, the Scots broke the treaty and invaded England to try to conquer Cumbria and Northumberland. Malcolm III was killed at Alnwick and buried at Tynemouth near Newcastle. There was trouble between the the nations right tgroigh the 1100s until William the Lion, King of Scotland was captured at Alnwick in England again and, undrr the Treaty of Falaise handed Scotland over to Henry II of England who granted it back to him as a fiefdom.
One of the reasons why Rome and the medieval English kings did not bother to annex Scotland was that there was little there worth having and it would have been more trouble than it was worth.
Personally I think the French would have attacked England, because in this timeline France would be militarily stronger than England, and regardless of the lack of obvious casus belli, eventually some French king would have come up with some bluster and fabricated a reason to start a war.
However it's less obvious there would have been an alliance between France and Scotland, since the cultural ties between Scotland and France (French speaking elite) would not have existed without the Norman conquest.
Do agree that Scotland would try to invade the north of England if England was occupied in a war with France, however.
@@roberthudson3386The French weren't powerful in 1066: the French kings were only nominally in control of the territories which pledged allegiance to them e.g. Normandy. They were strong enough to invade at the end of King John's reign in the real timeline in 1215 but were pushed out after a couple of years so not that strong even then - and that was under the infant king, Henry III, a king with a long but not terribly stable reign.
Scots' history would have changed significantly as the Aethelings would not have fled to Scotland from the Normans and would have remained in England so Malcolm Canmore would not have married St Margaret, he would not have been killed invading Norman England and his sons by Margaret would not have reigned one after the other: Duncan II, Edgar, Alexander I and David I (an important king).
Do what if the Kalmar union ever fell
Great video
What if Mexico won the Mexican-American war
Sounds good!
We could even see a much earlier unification of Germany due to growing aggression of France.
I dont know reconquering lands from the english helped actually put them direcly under the french crown
The 100 years war helped a lot france centralizing
Soo in a world without it france remains decentralized or takes longer to centralize, much less likely is too so easly centralize the whole HRE
Basically, in our timeline, England got rid of the kings/dukes over those territories, so when France reconquered them, they could annex the territory directly
Now, as for this timeline, France would still be able to centralize as did most states. The difference is the fact that France now has a 300 year head start, which is why I predict them being able to also centralize the HRE in this timeline
France eclipsed HRE? When?
The French were starting to centralize after the end of the 100 years' war, while the HRE grew more and more dysfunctional, eventually leading to the 30 years' war, which after it, the HRE was practically gone as all states basically became independent
William was a duke not the king of the Norman’s
If I said otherwise that was probably a mistake
Thanks for the correction!
Small errors in script writing lol
What if they HAD failed?
What if they HAD failed,3rd conditional
And of course the English language without a strong French influence would be totally different.
Linguistic purism would have happened 😊
facts facts
Old english still had a lot of latin in its langauge
#DumbestChoiceInEnglishHistoryIn1066 2:12
facts facts
I doubt France would centralize quickly and dominate the HRE. Without the countless wars with the English/Angevin, proper French identity would, in this scenario, develop much slower than in our timeline. I would argue that France will experience issues comparable to those of the HRE, if not more so. I.E.: weak central authority, basically a king in name only with no actual power or only power in their small royal domain. Without a constant threat on their own turf, the French Kings are, in my opinion, not able to subdue most of their vassals. Instead, the vassals start acting more independently, just as they did in the actual world for a while. In my opinion, the HRE emperors might intervene in the chaos that is France and act as kingmakers, or they might choose to back the magnates that they find most appealing. France would develop into a playground for the Emperors and maybe even the English (although I don't see them actually conquering the region, as the emperors often had a lot of problems with their own vassals and the empire was kind of overextended). But, of course, that's only my opinion. The constant intervention of foreign powers might actually strengthen French national identity, or the capetians might be lucky, like in our timeline, and inherit a lot of lands from their vassals, consolidating power quickly
Wow. What you leave out of this video could fill volumes. All you talk about is how the lines on the maps would be different. Bo-ring. What about English culture? How does it change or stay the same? What about the Magna Carta? Would that still be a thing? What about the English Civil War and Glorious Revolution? Would they still happen? What about the First British Empire? Would that still be a thing? Would America still be a thing? These are the questions I wanted answered, but all you talk about are lines on maps. What a waste of time...
You complain about lines on a map, yet your suggestions are talking about more lines on a map
"English Civil War" "Glorious Revolution" "British Empire" All of these are equally changes to the map as what I talked in the video
I also very much talked about English culture and all, just you don't seem to really care about the first 200 years I talked about and instead want something more recent; something that would be unrealistic considering just how far the scenario changes
Also, yes America would be a thing? But how it is discovered, I don't know, I am not a fortune teller
IF I did give you a bunch of speculations, then that would more or less be a waste of time instead, since I'd basically be pontificating information, which is probably not something I want to do.
What if yer ma wis yer da?
What? I understood what you mean but it doesn't make sense?
@@justagreekhistorian it's a local term that's used in response to "what if" questions. Similar to "if your grandma had wheels she'd be a bike".
@@justagreekhistorian it's not meant to make sense, just like the premise.
@@Pete9Tails Ah, I see
Such kind of videos are often made by ppl who have little knowledge of history.
Let me tell you one fact which is the most important... The Bastard had already defeated the French King twice in pitched battle even before he met his uncle who promised him the English throne.
So if he didn't become the English king it is very likely he will become the French King.
If not from here then the Burgundian faction will take over France. If not them then Aquitaine, Blois or even Toulouse.
The French state was strong was the French King was so weak that any of his dukes could easily depose him
Yo mama
HAHAHAHAHA I really didn't expect that
If William had been defeated,then the English language would be closer in speech to its German origins
Absolutely
Old English would like develop like most languages, changing quite little
Yet again, who knows, maybe the Great Vowel Shift still happens and English just comes to sound really akin to ours regardless
This comment is algorithm fodder. Have a nice day.
If the Saxons had defeated the Normans England would have remained a more equal fair country for the population
Saxon laws meant everyone had a value, from highest to the lowest, a wereguild .
Everything else is pure speculation.
What happened was Saxons were owned, Norman and other landowners built castles and ruled their land like mini countries.
It was the worst possible outcome.
A Viking defeat , being ruled by Harold hardrada would have been much better than ruled by Normans.
Viking laws were similar to Saxon.
Slavery may have continued.....not what I would call "equal".
What if the French Revolution dident happen
awesome video!
do I think France consolidates sooner. yes
Philip I was no great man but without William the Conqueror round things are going to be easier.
his support for the Crusade might be a bit more but not too much more he'll probably still get excommunicated.
his son Louis VI might have an easier time with the robber barons to so.
I can see France though being fully unified before 1400 easily.
sadly I don't see them reforming the Charlemagne Empire🥲
Anglo-Saxon Britain will have no desire to get into the fairs of Europe outside of supporting the Crusades with token forces. House of Godwin pretty much secured its rule over England after destroying two enemy claimants I can see the house rule over England lasting at least a century if not 2 I also see the island of Great Britain being unified a lot sooner possibly before 1300. reason I see this happening sooner is the Anglo-Saxons aren't foreign Nobles they are descendants of the Celts. also not to mention most of the great European powers won't care what's going on in the Backwater of Britain
interesting that a french defeat empowers france by a lot
Well, it's not really a French defeat
Though it is shown in the map that France has Normandy puppeted, the reality is Normandy was basically independent
The French kings didn't really play any role in the conquest of England
enable earnings now
Um, Britain did win the war of 1812!
!
We would not be speaking the current English dialect.
What if Hitler didn't die
Absolutely
Whoo cares
As a full Englishman, if the Normans didn’t win, I wouldn’t have been born, because my family actually fought for the Normans. Without the Normans winning my family wouldn’t have been given land in England and my ancestors would never have met and I would never have been born
To be fair, an event this drastic kinda means that everyone who is alive today would not have been born
What if the Norman Conquest HAD failed? You may know a bit of history, but your English is lamentable!
I think you makeseveral false assumptions. The first is to look upon 1066 as a foreign invasion rather than just a dynastic squabble. Nobody liked Harold and there is plenty of evidence that the most popular language in southern England was already French before 1066. Harold would not have reigned long. Secondly you suggest this would have weakened Normandy and accelerated the union of France - on the contrary the lack of a struggle against England would probably have delayed French unification. It might never have unified at all. Alternately, it might have unified with a French speaking England. Third you think England would have taken over Scotland, why? Many of England's troubles with Scotland were due to its alliance with France. In fact you portray "England" as a belligerant state attacking smaller neighbours but in reality England was a collection of dukedoms whose loyalties frequently changed and repeatedly swapped sides - as was Wales, Scotland and Ireland. Nations in the modern sense did not exist therefore these divisions did not exist either. Nor were they divided by language - none of them was linguistically uniform. Actually I think a Norman failure in 1066 would have changed very little.
hey, thanks a lot for the information! I am trying to learn history through this channel whilst also having fun, so whenever I make major mistakes like in this video, it's really nice to see people correcting me! I am still learning obviously and I still have a long way's to go so thanks a lot!
"Nobody liked Harold and there is plenty of evidence that the most popular language in southern England was already French before 1066".
Where is the evidence that people were speaking French in England before the Conquest?
I'll take any evidence, go ahead.
@@roberthudson3386 I don't work in the field I only monitor new academic papers and findings so research it for yourself. Basically I believe we have plenty of British documents written in French (and Latin) but virtually nothing in English. Also, the "English" aristocracy before 1066 were substantially non-English in ethnic origin and spent much of their lives in France or other French speaking continental courts and circles. There was also a recent genetics paper that concluded that the people of southern England are indistinguishable from those of northern France. Really the onus should be on those claiming an "Anglosaxon" pedigree to provide evidence because they never do.
@@kubhlaikhan2015 We have few documents in Old English because few survive from the Anglo-Saxon period. Those that do such as Bede's Ecclesiastical History prove that the language of elites in England was very much Old English and not French. There is no evidence of French being widely spoken in England before the Conquest. Now it is true that some of the Anglo-Saxon aristocracy was in fact Danish and Anglo-Saxon culture was influenced by Scandinavian culture, due to marriage and so on. But there is very very limited French influence, and people did not speak French. Any Normans or French in the court of Anglo-Saxon England would have spoken English in public life and French only among themselves.
NB I should add genetics is another issue altogether, since the Normans were originally Scandinavian (Norman = "north men") then they would likely be genetically similar to the Anglo-Saxons, some populations of which migrated from what is now Denmark, others from Saxony, others from Frisia, so all sharing genetic links to northern Europe. Also genetics are a highly disputed subject with research by different studies coming to very different conclusions - the same debate exists regarding how genetically different the English are the Celtic populations of Britain - some studies show a very stark and clear difference along the modern day borders of Wales and Cornwall, other studies argue no difference or very little difference.
But speech and culture are insdisputable. There is absolutely zero evidence that in the Anglo Saxon period either the elites or the commoners spoke French. it's nonsense.
@@roberthudson3386 "We have few documents because few survive"... These statements are pure supposition and assertion. We have few documents because there weren't any. Since Middle English - a very different language compared to Old English - did not spread until the 10th century it is not surprising. And since the vocabulary of Middle English is almost 50% French in origin it is Middle English itself, ironically, that attests to the widespread prior use of French in England,