In this edition of History FTW, I will try to examine what would happen if one thing happened differently. It is interesting to think about what would happen to the world, to our civilization, to our video games! We cannot truly determine what would have happened, but we can come up with some reasonable guesses. Obviously, other people will have different opinions, so they are welcome to post them here.
Today’s alternate ending: William the Conquered.
What if William the Conquerer simply remained William the Bastard? If, in 1066 during the battle of Hastings, the Norman army was driven back into the sea by King Harold’s Saxon soldiers, would history be different?
In reality, William the Conqueror’s victory was incredibly close. After several charges by his Norman warriors were repelled by the mighty Saxon shield wall on the hill above, William prepared for one last charge. His warriors charged up the hill, and clashed against the shield wall. As with every time before, the Saxons repelled his charge. Unlike the other times, the Saxon troops charged after William’s retreating troops against orders. William had something that Harold did not, primarily because of his experience with the French in Normandy: cavalry.
Harold’s infantry consisted almost entirely of infantry, in the traditional Scandinavian manner of fighting. The French, with whom William had been raised, had large numbers of heavy cavalry. William, seeing a good thing, adopted the French style, and had at his disposal a large cavalry force. One of the most difficult, but essential, challenges William faced was transporting his horses across the Channel. The invasion hinged upon the heavy cavalry. Harold’s army had few cavalrymen, the nobility preferring to fight on foot.
This superiority in cavalry meant that once William saw the Saxon infantry break their defensive line, his dream of conquest had been realized. The cavalry devastated the infantry that broke ranks, and the devastation led to the rest of Harold’s infantry to break ranks. In the end, Harold got shot in the face and William was victorious. But what if Harold’s soldiers hadn’t broken thier ranks? What if William’s troops had enough after their last charge and started to run back to their ships? History would be quite different.
For one thing, the English language would not exist in its current form. Modern English is heavily influenced by the French that William and the Normans spoke in 1066. The Latin-based words in English were gained after the invasion of 1066. If William had failed, we would be speaking something much closer to German.
English culture would have been much more Scandinavian and much less continental. Harold was related to various Scandinavian kings, and the culture of Britain was very much influenced by the Vikings and Saxons. The whole of Northern Europe, from Iceland to Russia, was under Scandinavian control. It was also the richest part of Europe at the time. The Scandinavians were incredible traders and master shipbuilders, creating ships that reached the coast of Canada and Alexandria, in Egypt. Their ships were shallow enough to travel upriver, but sturdy enough to brave the Atlantic. As a result of their wide-ranging trade routes, Scandinavians were very tolerant of other cultures and religions. Much more so than their continental neighbors. If William had not conquered England and blocked Scandinavia’s trade routes, then the wealth of the Northmen might not have waned as it did.
The Scandinavians were also some of the first practicioners of democracy since Athens in ancient Greece. Although kings and tyrants existed, large groups of democratic refugees set up colonies throughout Scandinavia, from Iceland to Finland. If the Scandinavians had enough wealth, they might have financed additional expeditions to the New World, which they had discovered long before Colombus ever had. If they had continued to expand beyond their initial attempts at colonization, then North America would be a very different place. Fights with Native Americans would not be so lopsided as they were in the 15th and 16th centuries. Alliances might have developed and respected between the Scandinavians and the Native Americans. The United States might not exist, at least not as it does today. A democratic power could have been well developed by the time the British started colonization attempts in our timeline.
This is obviously version that favors the Scandinavians. It is very possible that an alternative outcome is more realistic. That’s what the “Comments” section is for.
fiercemudcrab
thedeebo