What if Harald Hardrada conquered England?

[@WhatifAltHist]

Link to Total Battle's Website totalbattle.com/en/lp/city9alike/3?ref=ads_PR_KZbin_whatifalt

[@Gallo4]

But you have to consider that danish and norwegian cultures Arent all that different, especially at this time.

[@naggu1243]

We really aren’t that different now, because of the 433 years of danish rule in Norway

[@naggu1243]

What about Them?

[@oliverstianhugaas7493]

*N O R S E* Culture was the best, individual Scandinavian culture was a mistake.

[@emperorconstantinexipalaio4121]

Kyle Philipe Lmao

[@fairhair5423]

Gallo 4 the cultures between Norway & Denmark were pretty big in the 10th century, keep in mind that all of Denmark had converted to Christianity by this time, even thoug faith in Jesus had already reached many settlements in coastal Norway, the more remote inlands still worshipped the norse gods.

[@yoshimitsu8922]

What if the emu war never happened? What would Australian borders be like? What would Australian culture be like?

[@batuhancilingirler1050]

Yoshimitsu it would be emuish

[@gillespoilvet5342]

good one

[@Bob-ht7pl]

Thats too unpredictable for even the greatest historians to theorize about, no body will ever know...

[@alfalafelstine1536]

What if the Emus conquered Australia, and encouraged revolution among the flightless birds of the world? I bet they would use airplane hijackings.

[@potatogod975]

@@alfalafelstine1536 the emu empire and the penguin confederacy

[@Kubinda12345]

What if the German revolution of 1848 succeeded and Germany united at that time?

[@milanhefka2154]

Good one

[@maxzilla5987]

Cool

[@tntsummers926]

That would change the politics of Europe for centuries, even perhaps a Deutschland welt?

[@siulseven1096]

Basically,germany would be sort of republican,1910 borders,except it wouldnt own alsace or schleswig holstein

[@davidrosner6267]

@@siulseven1096, what kind of relationship would this German Republic have with Austria? Would the Austria-Hungarian Empire have survived the Revolution of 1848?

[@a.w.sawtooth9469]

Dear Harry Turtledove.. Please, please- pretty please- write a novel about this scenario. I would love to see what a Viking-controlled England would have looked like after 1066!

[@PtolemyJones]

I was taught that the Romans were very close to subduing Scotland before they started pulling out troops and more significantly fleets. One has to wonder if the British Isle might have been a more homogeneous cultural entity with no separate Scottish identity developing.

[@hersirivarr1236]

The Roman conquest of Scotland would of made relatively little change. The Scottish lived in Ireland during the Classical period. Northern Britain was populated by Caledonians, who were related to the Welsh. The Scottish crossed the Irish Sea and entered the Hebrides at roughly the same time the Saxons came to England. Scotland only became Scottish several hundred years after the fall of the Roman Empire. And even then, it was only the interior of northern Scotland that was Scottish as the Lowlands were either Northumbrian English or Stratclyde Welsh and the islands were Norwegian.

[@Wasserkaktus]

Scotland isn't one single identity though: Modern Scotland is pretty much divided between the largely Anglo-Saxon derived Lowlanders and the Gaelic Highlanders.

[@arzhvr9259]

The Romans pulled out in 410 and for the last few decades Britain and Gaul were under breakaway emperors

[@andyleighton6969]

Modern Scottish identity has more to do with Calvin and the Presbyterian Kirk than anything historical. Many of the great Scottish families were actually Norman in origin - brought North to provide King David with the muscle to push through his agenda and richly rewarded, they held extensive estates North and South of the border. The Bruces [from Brix, Normandy], the Comyns, the Grahams, Frazers and Grants among many others all have strong Anglo/Norman links. Robert Bruce et all - who, demonstrating his strong connections in England, celebrated his second marriage on his ancestral estate at Writtle in Essex - were just your normal medieval warlord squabbles, much romanticised later.

[@dinoman6123]

what if the Turkish migration into Anatolia never happened?

[@hazzmati]

the roman empire would have lived on

[@hazzmati]

goran gruev not really since they'd be facing a united and strong roman empire. Roman empire was a mess after the 4th crusade so the serbians and bulgarians were able to take advantage of that not to mention the turks were slowly advancing towards the west

[@hazzmati]

+Asmoh '' another people will come and migrate there '' oh really, which people was that? Well turkey exists today does it? Even if the empire was dissolved another similar state would have taken its place just as how turkey is the successor to the ottoman empire

[@dinoman6123]

no the Mongols never had a population problem or great leaders to organize them.

[@suluayran121]

What if Byzantine stopped persecuting scientists and stting all day around as lazy as they are and recover from shithole they lived in?

[@AdamTheSpeaker]

I watch all of your videos, and am generally of the opinion that your videos have among the highest historical quality in the alternate history genre. Two things: 1) You asked for opinions on the ad. I say, you do what you need to do. You put a lot of work into these videos, don’t feel bad about monetizing them. Just continue to deliver content that justifies them. 2) I appreciate the specificity and relative obscurity of your points of historical digression, and I think this video was my favorite example of that.

[@eoinharrington2692]

In this timeline Ireland would remain Irish , in our timeline Vikings almost caused Ireland to unite and with more Vikings and the rise of France earlier ( they would compete with Norway so would ally with their rivals and enemies ) Ireland would have more support in their uprisings and they would be more universal rebellions rather than just a single clan rebelling they would unite as an independent country earlier , and if not fully the non-Dublin part of the island would

[@InfernosReaper]

Yeah, I love how he brings up how France rises sooner, but France doesn't really do much of what France would realistically do in that situation, conquer a bunch of latin countries and ally with others against its biggest threats.

[@Xochiyolotl]

Well, it’s either that or the Normans go straight for Ireland instead of England. Ireland would be much easier to conquer for them Than England was. In fact, the Normans are the reason the English went to Ireland in the first place.

[@sorcererberoll4641]

I’d much rather be Viking than French but that’s probably my English speaking😏

[@goroakechi6126]

Anything but Belgian.

[@InterestsparkedTV]

Hear hear

[@adamhastie8439]

Indeed

[@ap6480]

The weak don't get to choose how and by who they are conquered

[@WurrzagsMorkyMischeif]

@@ap6480 except it was luck that won william the throne, not power. Had he landed early then either he would've been beaten by the anglo saxons or he would've beaten them and then Harold would've mopped up what was left and the englishmen that remained would've supported Haralf against william

[@haleffect9011]

I feel like half of Europe's history is "Oh shit France, we need to contain the big blue blob!" And the other half is "What the fuck is going on in the HRE?"

[@ap6480]

Bruh definetly not

[@carlosayala5955]

You do excellent work thank you for your channel.

[@rataflechera]

That Anglo-Danish kingdom at the end would control a good deal of what OTL was the Hanseatic league. It would seem that it would actually replace the German-dominated Hansa for an Anglo-Danish one.

[@emperorconstantinexipalaio4121]

rataflechera Not if Germany centralizes, which is implied.

[@myohmy9000]

What if a Kurdish state was included in the Sykes-Picot agreement?

[@Melnek1]

Chris Ramsey But it was, not explicitly, the idea was for all of Turkey to be colonized, with Italy, Greece, Russia and France being the beneficiaries. But as the Turks won their war of independence in the 1920s, the plans failed.

[@emperorofholyrome5403]

What if the Taiping rebellion succeeded?

[@ArcticTemper]

Emperor of Holy Rome great idea!

[@edenli6421]

Yassssss

[@emperorconstantinexipalaio4121]

Emperor of Holy Rome How are all those duchies looking imposter?

[@aarohalme1020]

In our timeline denmark directly controlled norway after the swede's seperated and this lasted for about 300 year's so they would be even less likely to lose it. Also, novgorod would likely be finno-ugric if it wasent east slavic.

[@eoinharrington2692]

What if celtic Christianity survived and spread

[@emperorconstantinexipalaio4121]

Ozer Harry As a Christian, this is very interesting and cool to me, but I find it very unlikely unless the church is somehow weakened and localized Christianity rises, like based on the region and the state’s interpretation of the Bible, sorta like post-Reformation.

[@michaelhowze8198]

@@emperorconstantinexipalaio4121 If the Muslims conquered Italy and thus Rome. That might decentralize the Church enough for it to work.

[@Grant_Scarboro]

What if the Monica Lewinsky scandal never happened?

[@Solon1581]

What if the old Norse pantheon became an axial age religion.

[@theomnissiah-9120]

Odin vult

[@TheWazzoGames]

Impossible lol. Norse mythology predated the axial age. And only made sense within a society that valued war above all else

[@menesebastiao2468]

Gabe02 this is an incredibly angloid oversimplification of Norse society.

[@TheWazzoGames]

@@menesebastiao2468 where are the modern believers in Norse mythology? We all know the only reason they believe it is due to it being a religion that is tied to their ethnicity. They believe In alt right principles more than they do “Norse Principles.” I suppose in some sense, maybe, it could’ve survived to become an axial age religion, but you’d have to understand how radically different it’d be from the Norse mythology we know of today.

[@Emmet-sd8og]

"Few know this was only one of two invasions of England that took place in that year" -British History Curriculum

[@samuelturner1668]

Hmmm, as an Englishman I'm not sure how I feel about this one. While we'd still be Protestant in this timeline because of Demark/Norway, would we still be a colonial power if tied to Scandinavia?

[@risyanthbalaji805]

As an indian i hope England doesn't become a colonial power atleast in this timeline.

[@Wasserkaktus]

@@risyanthbalaji805 India would have been conquered by a European power regardless: It was way too disunited beforehand.

[@hoi-polloi1863]

Yes, because we simply HAVE to see dragon-prowed longboats sailing up the St Lawrence river.

[@FrankOceanLover3169]

1)What if the ottomans conquered persia 2)What if the seljuks converted to orthodoxy instead of islam and created a turkic christian state in iran 3)What if the Polish had colonies in america

[@beurteilung713]

If the Polish had colonies, they would probably lose them.

[@willlomas7213]

What if England never lost its lands in France

[@hamarbiljungskile8953]

What are we talking about here? Just Calais or the whole thing from Normandy to Gascony? Besides, technically, England per se never had lands in France (the Pale notwithstanding). Some French noblemen happened to have an odd possession outside of France proper, and it happened to be a kingdom. So, we're probably talking about them becoming the ruling dynasty in France eventually. Secondly, what would be the turning point? SIege of Orleans? The Black Prince not dying? My take is that England would become second fiddle to France in a personal union. English nationalism was kind of born from the Hundred Years' War (gross oversimplification, but you get my meaning), so England would be more... French. Maybe England would eventually fight for independence (or be given), with the Yorks taking the lead? Burgundy might push for independence, as well.

[@JediAcolyte94]

What if Braveheart's rebellion succeeded? What if King Richard the Lionheart survived and stayed ruler of England?

[@hazzmati]

JediAcolyte22 william wallace's rebellion did succeed

[@markant9534]

Then Scotland wouldn`t be as poor as it is today!

[@markant9534]

They killed Wallace!

[@PtolemyJones]

Well for one thing, Richard would be about 860 years old... I think that would change a lot about how we see the world...

[@HsienKoMeiLingFormerYANG]

JediAcolyte22 King Robert "the Braveheart" of House Bruce already won Scot independence war.

[@maxzilla5987]

What if normandy and the vikings invaded england same time

[@emperorconstantinexipalaio4121]

Max gameplay They... did... though...

[@south3774]

@@emperorconstantinexipalaio4121 I think he meant more that they landed at the same time relatively surrounding the english force

[@emperorconstantinexipalaio4121]

Oh yeah yeah They kinda did when you get down to it. The Normans were already raiding the coasts of England by the time the Saxons and Norwegians fought. William the Bastard was already beginning to set up.

[@MichaelSidneyTimpson]

What if Harold Godwinson WON both against Hardrada and William?

[@HaydenOsbornePerc]

North sea empire video

[@hazzmati]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/iIu5qqZ7lNiJhq8

[@sirnilsolav6646]

I don't think that Harald conquering England would make much difference. In Norway, lands were distributed equally between sons. Harald had two sons so one would inherit England and the other Norway. However, his first born son died and Olaf was thus the only one left. Still the problem would only pass to Olaf. Unless Harald or Olaf becomes powerful enough to enforce Primogeniture, I think the biggest difference would be language and less disputes with France.

[@Alex.af.Nordheim]

yeah the morden day English would sounds more germanic

[@emperorconstantinexipalaio4121]

Sir Nils Olav Maybe not in the isles, but consider the rest of the world.

[@barsaydn4233]

Mongols invaded Anatolia way before Ottomans existed

[@DanS044]

This video was Awesome. It was engaging from start to finish! I expected this from million sub channels. I subbed. Keep up the good work!

[@marconatrix]

'Hard-rada' = 'hard in council' i.e. "the tough negotiator" :-)

[@catooksnes4545]

Harråde not hard rada He was called hard ruler/ hard advicer. It means both...

[@Shadow.24772]

this put everything into a new light...i always thought the english were a bit dumb to force themselves into keeping their french holdings, when simply stamping out the scottish and securing their rear would have been a better option, but populations is what brings the taxes and bodies for armies...

[@Wasserkaktus]

England considered its holdings in France to be even more valuable than what was actually in England.

[@thedreadtyger]

glad you got the sponsorship!

[@jaojao1768]

What if the 14 points was the Versaille treaty

[@swagmund_freud6669]

This video was a really good one of yours.

[@loganwilson7433]

What if Vladimir Lenin didn't die when he did?

[@loganwilson7433]

Or maybe what if Trotsky came to power?

[@alfalafelstine1536]

Alt History Hub already did one, but I'd like to see him try.

[@naggu1243]

Cody made too many mistakes in that video. If you don’t believe me watch the Finnish Bolshevik’s Video on him

[@oftomatobypotato9513]

Logan Wilson, if he didnt die than he prolly would die the day, month or year after.

[@lerneanlion]

What if Habsburg Austria won the War of Spanish Succession?

[@matthewneuendorf5763]

A couple of things to remember: Harald was a great ally to medieval Rome. A northern European empire that was an open ally with firm trade relations with the empire might well have been key in supporting Constantinople against its foes, while anything that cuts short Norman expansion would have ramifications for Roman Sicily, Italy, and Greece. If the Mongols were more successful, that also probably helps the Romans, since in real history the repeated Mongol invasions always passed Constantinople by and radically weakened their biggest enemies. Giving the master diplomats of Constantinople access to a stronger and more permanent Mongol occupation could be decisive in the middle east.

[@ThatIcelandicDude]

Only Harald was no true friend of Rome. In the end he had been imprisoned by the emperor. Which led to him not only escaping but staging a varangian revolt against the emperor being blinded and exiled. A new emperor was put on the throne but Harald wanted to return to Norway. His request to leave the service was refused by the emperor, which led to him sneaking out of constantinople in the cover of Darkness. Making him for a second time a traitor to the Emperor.

[@Wasserkaktus]

@@ThatIcelandicDude Any Emperor in Constantinople would forgive Harald for doing that if it meant he became king of multiple kingdoms in Northern Europe.

[@ThatIcelandicDude]

@@Wasserkaktus With that logic they would have sent him in his way to claim Norway. They didn't, they banned him from leaving. Also I question how useful and longlived such an alliance would be. Firstly he wasnt alligned to rome, he was just a mercenary, He propably didn't care for an alliance and neither did they, secondly their empires are a continent apart so even in the unlikely schenario where they enter an alliance it likely would not have lasted long, I can garentee the byzentine empire would not be sending troops tp Northern europe to come to Haralds aid and I find it unlikely he would give them help when he wont recieve any back, thirdly such an alliance would probably not survive multiple generations, Scandinavian diplomacy at the time rarely lasted more than a generation and last but not least the byzentine empire pretty much never alligned itself with anyone exept when in dyre need because they were still had a strong sence of Roman elitism where they saw everyone outside their boarders as barbarians.

[@Wasserkaktus]

@@ThatIcelandicDude How do you know the Romans were somehow astutely aware of Harald's claim and ability to claim Norway? Even if he had a strong claim and had the will to take it, why would Constantinople choose to invest so much in him to take a throne where the return on investment for them would be nowhere near their level of investment? No... In this circumstance, they had no clue that Harald's will to take Norway was so strong, and once he took it, opening the door to Harald for a good relationship was literally of no consequence to Constantinople at all.

[@ThatIcelandicDude]

@@Wasserkaktus He literally asked leave so he could press his claim on Norway. They refused. Its simple as that anything else is just speculation and so far I see absolutely no reason for this "Alliance" to eve rhavr become a thing. The byzentines had nothing to gain from an alliance, Harald jade nothing to gain from an alliance and Harald had special relation with the byzentines beyond serving as a mercenary. If you know anything about the politics and history of the time you'd realise just how childish the motion of such an alliance would be. Harald would not have sought an alliance with the byzentines (nor did he ever atampt to in his 10 year reign) , nor would the byzentines have sought one with him.

[@davidbrewer9030]

Very interesting ideas. I have read that Hardhrada means Hard Counsel, "rada" being the Norse equivalent to modern German "rat" or counsel as in "Rathaus" or counsel house. Also, the next to the last Anglosaxon king, Aethelraed the Unready, was called that from the Old English "unraede" meaning un-counseled or ill-counseled.

[@saguntum-iberian-greekkons7014]

Even without the norman territorial claims there was still the many duchies, vassals and principalities inside modern day France, in the time of Louis IX he only controlled some part of Paris, not even the whole region, the territories he controlled was called "France" then "lille"

[@emperorconstantinexipalaio4121]

Saguntum-Iberian-Greek Konstantinopoli So Philip Augustus was just sitting on his ass when he restored much of France’s power?

[@RayAkuma]

The English Longbow Doomed the Vikings xD

[@kubawaw4716]

What if the partitions of Poland never happened?

[@marcus4046]

which ones XD

[@GT-fl9gf]

@@marcus4046 haha

[@PolskiHetman]

@@marcus4046 there were only 4, three in the 1700s post 1772 and the one in 1939. Poland was a strong state before the 1650s and still carried on being strong post 1650. Actually the partitions happened because the Nieghbours of Poland saw that it was recovering and attacked. Your attempt at a joke was poor made

[@kieronstump]

8.45 At that time I’m pretty sure men and women of Ireland would have been closer to the Viking

[@tomrusson6126]

It's so great to hear an American pronounce Edinburgh properly

[@RayAkuma]

Kingdom come deliverance but instead of Cumans, the Vikings attack.

[@Via-Media2024]

I knew of the 1066 viking invasion of England because of Age of Empires II...... lol

[@cyberceltic]

- What if Robert Kennedy wasn’t assassinated and became president? -What if the 1916 Easter Rising was a success? -What if Prohibition never happened? -What if the US had also purchased Cuba from Spain at the same time it purchased Florida? -What if the Indian Removal Act was never passed? -What if the Dredd Scott Decision was reversed?

[@jesushchrist2261]

What if the Vikings permanently settled North America?

[@beurteilung713]

North America would be better

[@markj2305]

Maybe we would have had a phonetic language!

[@SpiderMan-gv2gd]

Another great video!

[@TheCreator901]

You should redo some of your older videos. As a long time subscriber, it would be nice to see

[@thinkingmouse2751]

Atlasium like what video? New scenarios are cooler.

[@kiaikarate5387]

You rock!!

[@jnsnmnhn]

Another great video! Glad to see you are making money off of them, but would prefer to have the sponsorships be more skippable (perhaps at the end of the vid)

[@mysterythekitsune2988]

What if the Teutonic knights were able to conquer eastern Europe with the Livonia Brothers.

[@TheGorillaGang]

My history teacher says the Normans would have won most likely. If the battle is short, the Vikings win. However, in a long battle (more likely) 8-10 hours the Normans win because of their cavalry advantage and because they are more organised and disciplined.

[@nicholasbishop6731]

What if Harald met William in battle after beating Harold of England.

[@solberg7049]

HardrÅdE But anyways love your videos, stay legendary!

[@antoniomariamacri7500]

4:23 I think that's valid for all thing you say when you introduce yourself as someone from the future of another timeline.

[@torinjones3221]

Then a few weeks later the Normans would've arrived and if they were beaten then Hereward wouldn't returned from exile and started the same rebellion he has under the Normans though he'd have most likely won against Harald.

[@dean1039]

As a Briton I'd have personally preferred England to have remained Scandinavian/Germanic over Norman. We would not have been the powerhouse and influential presence in history we were in our timeline. But, take a look at modern day Britain, and modern day Scandinavia, and I think it's safe to say which culture prevailed in the long run.

[@The_Alt_Vault]

that's not particularly accurate if this Anglo-Scandinavian Empire came about there would still be a British empire here (in the fact that Britain would be a world superpower) since the Anglo-Scandinavian empire would dominate the British isles Scandinavia and the Baltic, this extra manpower and strong naval culture would lead to a similar situation as in our timeline with France being the Continental power which would be trapped and constantly prevented from growing too powerful overseas by this much larger Royal Navy. All of this would mean that Anglo-Scandinavian culture and society baring language wouldn't be too different from our own but a lot of this will be due to what happens in this timeline.

[@Wasserkaktus]

No, you're wrong. Modern Day Scandinavia is nothing more than a welfare state for its citizens, and has almost no power projection worldwide: Are you sure that is what you would have wanted Britain to be, instead of arguably the most influential nation/culture on Earth today?

[@damiendiem]

If you're talking about the greater English heritage then the US, UK, Canada, Australia, etc. is a pretty banger line up. Basically ruled the world through all of modern history.

[@Wasserkaktus]

@@damiendiem England only became what it became due to the Norman Invasion and its subsequent close links with the main parts of the European Continent.

[@damiendiem]

@@Wasserkaktus Agreed. Also the feud between England and France started by the Normans probably contributed to accelerated development as well.

[@sillylittlemonkey7130]

What if Celtic culture persisted in Britain?

[@The_Alt_Vault]

it does in wales and Cornwall

[@danielprudhoe647]

What about the Kalmar Union? Danish kings literally ruled Scandinavia....and if it's an Anglo-Danish Kingdom, you'd imagine the Anglo-Danish monarch would rule over the Kalmar Union.

[@augustuslegs5148]

But I still wonder how it would have been if you didn't bring up Denmark... Norway never willingly went into a union with them you know, it was because they were threatened, which wouldn't happen in this timeline.

[@garthmcripfist2944]

Awesome vid dude, only one minor note, I'm pretty sure the Scottish government was operating out of scone/Perth at this point as opposed to Edinburgh. Still a great alt hist vid though dude, keep up the great work :)

[@cryoraptora303tm2]

Funny how William losing the Battle of Hastings leads to Islam reforming and modernising hundreds of years earlier than in our timeline. The butterfly effect in motion.

[@thinkingmouse2751]

What if Brazil conquered Argentina thanks to RE civil war in Argentina?

[@saguntum-iberian-greekkons7014]

What if the Byzantines gave lands to Varangian Guards as the same logic that the franks give it to the danish norse in our timeline? Imagine, a Hellenized Varangian Dukedom fighting the seljuks or the bulgarians or pecheneg-cumans

[@ラインライン-y2u]

You should put this up on alternative history.com

[@austenkeith8891]

@7.02 you mentioned the Scottish Government in Edinburgh, Perth at that time was the seat of power in Scotland until 1437 not Edinburgh

[@vukanraznatovic2452]

What if Empire of Nicaea did not reconquer Constantinipole and lived on as a seperate empire?

[@emperorconstantinexipalaio4121]

Vukan Ražnatović No real long term effect. Ottomans still crash in.

[@breezysteel385]

How about a video about a Greek Empire that's not Macedonia

[@emperorconstantinexipalaio4121]

Black Steele Well the Macedonians were Greek but okay.

[@jadenk1409]

@@emperorconstantinexipalaio4121 maybe Sparta wasn't just glorified North Korea like in our timeline, Hellenic union might have been possible,and with that, Greeks might solve the dispute over Magna Gracia with Carthaginians. Frankly Sparta didn't care about rest of Hellenic world as long as they weren't threatened by someone. If they were diplomatically active and weren't xenophobic jerks like in our timeline, Greece could have been unified in a form of federation. I know that Spartan military was strong due to their xenophobic views and them being paranoid about helots and separating themselves with other Greeks. But if they weren't and regarded themselves as "the head of Dorian Greeks". they would have felt the needs to "welcome them(other Doric Greeks) under our banner to secure Dorian dominance" they would be able to conquer/unify their ways to make Spartan empire instead of tons of Hellenic polis under Spartan hegemony like in our timeline.

[@emperorconstantinexipalaio4121]

jaden k Spartans really weren’t that special, nor were they expansionist. Their very isolated nature also made them very stagnant. The Romans made a theme park out of them though because they loved Greece and Sparta, but Sparta was virtually irrelevant during the Roman Conquest of Greece. And the rest of the Greeks hated Sparta. No Spartan hold over Greece would last. The Macedonians were honestly the best Greeks to get it done. They weren’t war torn like the south, and they were very expansionist.

[@jadenk1409]

@@emperorconstantinexipalaio4121 I said "If Spartans weren't jerk like in our timeline, and regarded themselves as the head of Doric Greeks. Their hold over Greece would be tenuous, yes, but still relatively stable like Assyrian empire." And Sparta was the hegemon of Greece before the Greco-Persian war. The shahansha,Cyrus himself met with no major Greek ambassador except Spartan ones. But they became irrelevant after the Peloponnesian war(or arguably after the Greco-Persian war and subsequent rise of Athens to dominance). I totally agree Sparta was shithole, jerks and totally irrelevant after they lost to Thebes. But they were the hegemon of Greece during the archaic to early classical era. I'm talking about "if Sparta wasn't jerky shithole like in our timeline. And they started absorbing other Doric Greeks,then most Greeks in Greek heartland during the period between archaic era and before the fall of Lydia. They could have formed Hellenic empire as some sort of federation under Doric dominance and expand further into Hellenic world,like Magna Gracia,Aeolia& Ionia (Anatolian west coast),and Crete." My timeline diverged from reality not in late classical era,but from early archaic era.

[@emperorconstantinexipalaio4121]

jaden k Yeah, possible, but Macedon is still going to be there, and I don’t think Sparta would ever conquer it, so it would probably still prosper and the two would be competitors. I don’t see them stopping Rome though.

[@Monkeh516]

What if the ottoman empire never blocked the road of the spice trades

[@lastofrwby8395]

What if the vikings united? Would they try conquer all Britain and would they have the Norse religion

[@lastofrwby8395]

This would been the early 800's

[@ThatIcelandicDude]

Honestly not much would change. The population of England outnumbered the combined Scandinavian population almost 2-1 and the vikings were on multiple occasions somewhat united. with Denmark conquering Norway twice and Norway conquering Denmark once. Every now and then Sweden Allied with one of the kingdoms so there were a few occasions where Scandinavians were almost fully united,

[@ThatIcelandicDude]

By the 800's? No not even close. You don't start to notice major christian influences in Scandinavia until after 950 at the earliest. Ólafr Tryggvason was one of the main driving forces of Christianity in Scandinavia and he was king of Norway 995-1000.

[@lastofrwby8395]

Yoshifan9511 no way man they were still followed their gods and were no way close to to becoming Christian.

[@lastofrwby8395]

Óðinn what if they gathered a big army of 5-10,000 soldiers, didn't England almost fall with 3 out of the 4 kingdoms being conquered by the great heathen army?

[@silveryphoenix44]

North sea Empire 2: Electric Boogaloo

[@jjdoss21]

I want to see a video on what if the White army was able to save Czar Nicholas and his family before they where executed.

[@davidcooke8005]

In my estimation William would have defeated Hardraade eventually. Tostig had too many enemies to be re-installed as Earl, so Hardraade would never have been able to leave the north as he'd be fighting constant rebellion with an army already weakened at Fulford. William would have landed unopposed (as he did anyhow), but there would be no Hastings. He'd march to London and he'd have clear supply lines all the way back to Normandy, which Hardraade would not, over 200 miles of the North Sea in Winter. In the end, the history of England was shaped by those last few minutes on Octobver14th. If Harold had hung on until dark, the Normans would have failed. Hardraade was a spoiler, but not the end boss.

[@makedonas_ellhnas]

If the Ottoman empire was weaker then I predict that they would lose their grip on the balkans earlier and its not unlikely that there would greek and south slavic states in this timeline by the time of renesaince or early enlightment

[@cyberceltic]

What if Operation Valkyrie succeeded?

[@saguntum-iberian-greekkons7014]

What if the Viking Kingdoms remained Pagans!?

[@d.l.hemmingway3758]

The trouble was that there was a Danish/ Norwegian claim to the English Throne and a Norman and the Anglo-Saxon King had to fight a two front war. If Harald Hardrada had won and had to fave William the Congeror I suspect Hastings or another location would have seen a battle with similar results as Hardrada's army would have made a similar forced march as had the Anglo-Saxon King's army. William's army would have been rested and waiting while Hardrada's army would have been exhausted.

[@samuelturner1668]

His voice is so high-pitched in this video. He sounds about 13. Wonder how old he is now, 4 years later.

[@sethbrisby9312]

can you do what if Russia won the Crimean War?

[@rhysdavies4596]

When did the English conquer Wales in this timeline?

[@xxbillmegaxxpokemonsanchez6671]

The beginning of the video is kind surprises but that kind cool

[@danni2746]

What if Trotsky came to power

[@myohmy9000]

What if the Rashidun Calphate failed to expand

[@o-o2399]

We would have a better world

[@virtueleague2005]

In end of 15th century France invaded Italy so I think that Italy will become French

[@emperorconstantinexipalaio4121]

SEM MRKVIČKA No, because then the other powers would have to centralize.

[@Desmuu]

What if the great lakes were one big inland sea??

[@glen1555]

If he had controlled Northumbria then William's harrying of the north would not have happened

[@jgavin8283]

I wish hardrada won instead.

[@howardlanus8610]

What if Daniel O'Conner undid the Act of Unification and Ireland became independent in 1848? What if the Spanish Armada defeated the English? What if the An Shu Rebellion failed? What if the Polynesians colonized Australia (or why didn't they in our timeline)? What if Gran Colombia survived instead of collapsing? What if the Persians and the Byzantines were friends instead of rivals (Justin I, Justinian's uncle, nearly adopted Khosrau as his son)? What if WWI happened later? What if the Carolingian Empire survived for longer? What if the Mali Empire colonized the Americas? What if John Law's Company of the West succeeded in developing Louisiana? What if the Sepoy Mutiny succeeded? What if Ned Kelly won at Glenrowan? What if France won the Franco-Prussian War? What if Japan never became isolationist? What if the Tang Dynasty won the Battle of Talas?

[@kevcaratacus9428]

The people in England would have been better off with a viking ruler than a Norman one. The viking laws were similar to Saxon laws, The worst outcome for the population was a Norman victory , each baron built his castle and ruled their areas like mini kingdoms. Owning the people on their lands like slaves

[@youtischia]

You need to use correct English in your titles. You should use the past perfect instead of the past tense so - What if Harald HAD conquered England ?

[@jozefmasny8349]

What if Native Americans colonized Europe first?

[@zach-ul7et]

What if the bay of pigs succeeded

[@RowanProductions]

What if the US never annexed Hawaii?

[@ryancarlsen5203]

Denili Eaglelooking4theway are you kidding me? Japan wanted control of the Pacific. They invaded every island chain from the Aleutians to Papua New Guinea. If America hadn't already controlled Hawaii there would have been a race for it between those two powers. If Japan could rest control of Hawaii, the mainland would have been within bomber range and America's fleets would have been pinned in their West Coast harbors. Locals would have been slaughtered and portions of the islands would still be a wasteland today. What America did in stealing Hawaii from it's people was absolutely wrong, but we only have to look at what the Japanese actually did to Natives inhabiting strategic Islands throughout the Pacific to see exactly what would have happened to Hawaii if America hadn't been there first.

[@Nina_hasina]

England: Good Ending

[@cohortConnor]

What would the Anglo-Scandinavian armies look like in an era dominated by heavy cavalry? Unless I’m wrong, the Nordic kingdoms didn’t have very many knights. Would this change if they had England? Were knights even a thing in Ængland?

[@overdriveoutershaxson1837]

4:21 I wonder where else I heard someone from another timeline

[@sandrosaladze8095]

What if northen crusades never happened?

[@theJellyjoker]

How would this effect the Americas?