Why? The Norman Invasion as well as everything else that happened to peoples living on the British Island, set in motion all the events that made England (and the UK) what it is today... In an alternate universe, people are talking about "what if the Norman invasion of 1066 succeeded". It's all an endless loop. In fact, it's the Normans that were the catalyst to the emergence of England becoming a global power.
As an Englishman, my feelings are: the Scandinavians, Dutch, and Germans, are the most similar to the English. Our languages, cultures, and blood, are intertwined. Past is the past.
@@aiojcxs0932czxlkmI mean, they basically did. The North Sea Empire was basically a Danish realm, just with a lot of Anglo-Saxon influence. The Norse certainly left their mark.
I would much rather have had the Norwegians take it over than the Normans. The Normans imposing French on the people really messed up the English language.
Why is this guy so underrated? He has so many unique and interesting scenarios, really great maps/graphics/animations, and is so knowledgeable! He definitely deserves more recognition in the alt-hist community!
Nice scenario, one notable addition for the next part: with a stronger france and scandinavian nations, it would stand to reason that an emporer of the HRE would have/gain the authority to centrelize the realm more than in our history. They wouldn't just sit idly by and slowly get conquered by france.
that would just be this scenario but 200yrs earlier, also before you start thinking about a pagan England, England historically converted to Christianity twice, so the great heathen army would maybe delay its reconversion back by a few decades at most. Probably seeing Scandinavia converting to Christianity faster and earlier
@@JohnSmith-rk7zy Worst timeline, Kelts would just divide "England" between Welsch and Irische, Irische could use that advantage and conquer iceland and scandinavia and denmark while wales with all south england and its resources and brothers in britanny conquers north france benelux and north germany, maybe even irish and welch conquer north spain?
It's absolutely right to say that Hardrada's chance came with William landing first, and if he had done so I think William would have lost. I do wonder though if Godwinson would have charged north in such circumstances. Of course he did in the real timeline, but he knew he faced two enemies and could not afford them both at large in the country. Its also true that he did charge South to take on William in haste, but there are two crucial differences. The first was personal, William was pillaging Harold's personal estates, Sussex was his base, the North did not have the same attachment for him. The other was strategic, holding the South was the key to holding England, Viking kingdoms based at York were not exactly unusual, and could be dealt with later, he had no need to be reckless.
England would've fallen anyways. The Normans genocided the north, removed Anglo-scandinavian nobility, and paid the Danes to leave. Canute IV had a huge army and ships ready to invade England (with support from Norway and the Frisians) in the 1080s but was killed by a peasant revolt. No Normans means an eventual Scandinavian ruler of England.
imagine a norse-germanic EU type deal spanning from Scandinavia to Vinland, ever in competition with the Norman French empire; maybe it's the french and not the english that try to court trade deals with the asian powers like china or japan in this world.
I just bought the ck3 culture dlc to do the Norway campaign yesterday this is the 2nd time I started a ck3 campaign for you to make a vid on it the day after feels like it's meant to be
I like this scenario. Presumably with an earlier, yet initially smaller presence in the Americas it give native peoples a few generations to recover from old world diseases that had been carried across the Atlantic. This could mean that in some area a distinct Indo-Norse culture may have developed.
There was no intermixing between the Norse and natives in Greenland despite interaction and trade (genetic examination of remains)-- from this, among other evidence and examples, it is quite unlikely that the anglo-Scandinavians would intermix with other native groups, especially as North America was not organized or heavily populated like Mexico and South America. The introduction of livestock and general interaction between the two would mean disease wipes out the natives as it did in our timeline. We know that at least 30,000 Danes settled in England (bringing their wives and families)-- the norse would follow the same structure here.
Disease wiped out natives in the Americas in a similar way as it wipes out people in war. Without the constant and huge pressure that modern era colonial states could exact, much of the native populations would recover. Certainly by the time they get to the Mississippi basin the natives would have recovered and adopted several innovations like iron working and calvary.
@@ikengaspirit3063 Completely unfounded. They were so sparsely populated near Newfoundland that by the time there is successful colonization outside of Newfoundland, the other European powers won't be too far behind. They would wipe out many of these eastern tribes before they could infect other tribes anyways. Even if 75-95% of a tribe was wiped out, somehow gained complete immunity, and had 200 years of peaceful existence, a tribe reduced to 4,000 members would only recover to about 7,000-8,000 under optimal conditions. Despite Europeans interacting with smallpox since the 6th century BCE, having extensive relations with zoonotic diseases, and the resultant natural selection, it remained highly lethal. Hell, the Smallpox mortality rate was 30% until 19th-century vaccines and eradication programs turned the tide. Europe was affected by three waves of the Yersinia pestis bacterium which killed hundreds of millions of them between the 6th and 20th centuries BCE. There is no mass recovery or immunity of North American natives to diseases just because some white boys made contact 200-300 years earlier. There is no British morality in this timeline either- Scandinavian nationalism was brutal and Sweden practiced eugenics until the 1970s. There is no Britain preventing colonists from settling out west or unorganized and profit-driven, male-only French and Iberian colonization of North America. You will have a true settler state of Anglo-Scandinavians and an earlier ‘manifest destiny.’ The Anglo-Scandinavians will also have a monopoly in North America- there is no France or Britain arming native tribes with European fire arms and providing European consultancy. Perhaps the Spanish may do something similar in Mexico or the Caribbean, but, irrelevant.
@@aiojcxs0932czxlkm that 95% death rate is recorded with colonial violence taken into account. They're not over populated like Europe during the black death either so with some exceptions (granted, the coast next to Europeans will be one such exception) death rate would range say 40-75%. As for immunity, immunity isn't just purely genetic it is also epigenetic. This is why when Britain tried to establish colonies in the Caribbean, the weak Hispanic colonies and countries were able to resist because they had acquired some immunity from surviving there and passing it to their children while British wholly unused to it were decimated. As long as the disease doesn't just burn out of the environment, subsequent outbreaks will have significantly lower mortality. Native adaptation to European advantages is well seen, the Commanches are famous for the destruction of their raids on the Spanish and Texans. There is no need for anyone to arm them, OTL they themselves adopted horse riding and iron use. And there is no modern army tactics or modern era technology in this timeline either. Some Viking in partial armour is going fare much worse against the Commanche horseman than a Conquistador in full plate armour would. So we have a longer time period for natives to recover, adopt European technology and increase their technological sophistication to a similar extent as they did OTL, all while the Europeans here are less numerous, less technologically advanced and with slower growing populations. The furtherest Vinland makes it is the Ohio basin.
@@ikengaspirit3063 False. You have no understanding of immunology and the spread and development of viruses. Them not being overpopulated is not an advantage, especially in your fantasy of somehow developing immunity. Epigenetics are trivial-- stop spreading misinformation. I provided with you an actual history of diseases and a basic introduction. If you cannot infer from my comment that many thousands of years of interaction with various viruses and zoonotic cohabitation is required for even a sliver of hope, then, oh well..... Your claim about quick immunity is based on extremely weak viruses like COVID-19-- this is not happening with smallpox or measles, LOL. No matter how much you want Native Americans to defeat whitey. Smallpox killed 30% of Northwestern Native Americans and 130,000 Plains Indians during the 1770s-1780s. Cholera outbreaks were devastating to Native Americans in the 1830s. A smallpox outbreak occurred among the Native Americans in the 1830s as well, despite vaccination programs for them already existing. Another Cholera outbreak among the Natives in the 1850s and 1860s. When Europeans introduced firearms to Hawaii, it devastated the local population as conflicts were now much more lethal-- even if some of the surviving tribes adopted European tactics and developed their own, it only serves to wipe out more natives and provoke European settlers. The Comanche numbered 20,000-40,000. You can have them number 100,000 and they'll still be conquered. There were 15,000 Spaniards + Indians that were settled in areas affected by the Comanche. 3,000 in Texas. With earlier colonization, you have White New England birthrates and the introduction of the potato. Whites in New England had an annual population growth rate of 2.5-3% (not including immigration)-- with this and a much larger populace in Europe, you have far more settlers. Also, the 'Vikings' are not going to be anywhere near the Comanche; the Vikings will stay settled in the Newfoundland region until their population size is sufficient to start expanding-- this will occur by around the year 1400. By the time they start fully colonizing New England and such, they will have firearms and modern tactics. The Vikings will utterly crush any native American tribes they encounter on the East Coast, however. I do not know why you think they would want to expand so far so early on. Their population growth would be rather exponential and the advent of various technologies would culminate in rapid and unfettered expansion in the 16-19th centuries. This time, there is only one player in North America (north of Mexico, and excluding the Caribbean.)
@@ikengaspirit3063 False. You have no understanding of immunology and the spread and development of viruses. Them not being overpopulated is not an advantage, especially in your fantasy of somehow developing immunity. Epigenetics are trivial-- stop spreading misinformation. I provided with you an actual history of diseases and a basic introduction. If you cannot infer from my comment that many thousands of years of interaction with various viruses and zoonotic cohabitation is required for even a sliver of hope, then, oh well..... Your claim about quick immunity is based on extremely weak viruses like COVID-19-- this is not happening with smallpox or measles, LOL. No matter how much you want Native Americans to defeat whitey. Smallpox killed 30% of Northwestern Native Americans and 130,000 Plains Indians during the 1770s-1780s. Cholera outbreaks were devastating to Native Americans in the 1830s. A smallpox outbreak occurred among the Native Americans in the 1830s as well, despite vaccination programs for them already existing. Another Cholera outbreak among the Natives in the 1850s and 1860s. When Europeans introduced firearms to Hawaii, it devastated the local population as conflicts were now much more lethal-- even if some of the surviving tribes adopted European tactics and developed their own, it only serves to wipe out more natives and provoke European settlers. The Comanche numbered 20,000-40,000. You can have them number 100,000 and they'll still be conquered. There were 15,000 Spaniards + Indians that were settled in areas affected by the Comanche. 3,000 in Texas. With earlier colonization, you have White New England birthrates and the introduction of the potato. Whites in New England had an annual population growth rate of 2.5-3% (not including immigration)-- with this and a much larger populace in Europe, you have far more settlers. Also, the 'Vikings' are not going to be anywhere near the Comanche; the Vikings will stay settled in the Newfoundland region until their population size is sufficient to start expanding-- this will occur by around the year 1400. By the time they start fully colonizing New England and such, they will have firearms and modern tactics. The Vikings will utterly crush any native American tribes they encounter on the East Coast, however. I do not know why you think they would want to expand so far so early on. Their population growth would be rather exponential and the advent of various technologies would culminate in rapid and unfettered expansion in the 16-19th centuries. This time, there is only one player in North America (north of Mexico, and excluding the Caribbean.)
I've heard people talk about this. It's kind of similar to this video, only they kept ruling themselves rather than being ruled by Norway. Their relations would be more with Scandinavia and less with France.
Without the English/French competition for the Crown of France to create a rivalry there would be no power struggle propelling England (later Britain) and France to develop military and technology. Interesting if an early colonisation of the Americas can counter the lack of an arms race in Europe to see which ends up with the higher development! Although I suppose you get a Britain/Scandinavian rivalry with the HRE rather than France to compensate? ... interesting times if you extrapolate this to modern eras.
Could have included a bit about Denmark if you let Harald live to 1078. He had a claim to the Danish crown too and the 1064 treaty with Svein (Denmark) would likely be out the window once rebellions in England were dealt with.
LOL, but the Vikings most certainly did conquer England in 1066. That they were nouveau riche French speakers doesn't really change what the Normans still were.
If they continued the expansion into the americas, i have a feeling they would do viking conquests similarly to what happened in europe in the 800s. Settlements would probably trickle down the east coast of america but i dont think they would go past cuba or louisiana. btw loved the video you should do more of these what ifs
Y'all are saying this is impossible or another way (Europe being colonised) is impossible. Mf it's *Alternate* History, you can do whatever tf you want. Sure, it'll be very unlikely, but don't complain about it being impossible when you're talking about an Alternate Timeline.
Normans were pretty much Vikings too though. They were from Normandy, which were lands given away by France as a way to appease the Vikings. Norman literally means “man from north”
The Norse that settled in North West France stopped being Vikings(raiders), when they settled in What became Normandy. They adopted Christianity and married French locals becoming Norman French. By the time the Normans conquered England, they definitely were not still Vikings in any sense of the word.
Video Suggestions: *What IF Roman Empire Didn't Evacuate Britannia in 410???* *What IF Byzantine Empire WON Battle of the Yarmuk (636) ?* *What IF Crassus won Battle of Carrhae (53 BC) ??* *What IF Valens ( East Roman Emperor ) won Battle of Adrianople (378) ??* *What IF Majorian remained in power as West Roman Emperor and thwarted Ricimer’s schemes ??* *What IF Theodosius The Great lost The Battle of the Frigidus (394) ??* *What IF Saint King Louis IX of France survived Tunisian Crusade (1270)??* *What IF Richard The Lionheart survived and won the siege of the Châlus castle (1199)??* *What IF Sassanian Persians defeated Muslim Arabs and survived its invasions ???* *What IF Constantius III survived Honorius and remained Emperor?!? *What IF Hungarians won Battle of Mohács (1526)??*
I imagine the Anglo Vikings would probably settle Newfoundland and Arcadia and go as far down as maybe New York and into Michigan. The French would probably find out and settle the south and the mid Atlantic coast, and the Spanish would come last but still probably conquer much of the Caribbean basin. Coastal regions. But with no Incan Empire at this stage they probably wouldn’t have any foothold in South America and technological proliferation hundreds of years in advance would potentially lead to a more advanced Andean Empire and more dangerous Native American tribes who have longer to develop immunity and longer to adopt European technology. I think colonization would probably happen much slower in this timeline be because of the distances, management of Empire and technological factors.
Can you do a scenario where Charles the bold doesn't die at the Burgundian wars, and centralizes Burgundian culture, language, and unites the patchwork of duchies into a formidable Kingdom?
Ridiculous precept for this video: What if VIKINGS Conquered ENGLAND in 1066? Ridiculous because the Normans who "conquered" England were Vikings themselves - admittedly with a few French thrown in. After 3 or 4 generations of conquering and living in Normandy (named Normandy because they were North Men - i.e., Vikings) they spoke Norman French, but otherwise were from an older Viking origin.
A number of innovations we would consider modern or preceding modern innovations occur first in England after the Norman conquest, so England would most certainly be less developed and less individualistic. Another example is here 13:46 less focus on the calvary in the medieval era means being mogged on the battlefield constantly. But I guess they're not trying to expand into Europe. I am a bit in doubt of Norman rule in Tunisia cuz OTL they lost to the Almoahads and just more men won't necessarily net them victory. However, Latins worked for the Almoravids as Mercenaries, mainly Hispanian Iberians and their main general when the Almoahads took over was a Barcelonian. Entirely possible that Normans serve in Morocco in great numbers, maybe enough to stem the Almohads from either rising or from completely taking over. I also do doubt the conquest of Egypt but I guess the conquest of Eastern Rome is more likely. 14:20 I don't fully buy this cuz the riches would be in land not in gold and the like and Sagas from what I have seen focus on moveable concentrated wealth like gold and not farming land. Which also makes this very dissimilar to the Spanish colonization, motivated by gold. But with all that said, the colonization showed in this video is very unSpanish likez taking centuries to even hold the Beothuk Island so, this criticism may not actually hold to what is depicted.
Tolkein said that the worst catastrophe in English history was the Norman Invasion of 1066.
100% agree.
of course he would say that, he was an old english scholar. is it true that it is a catastrophe? who can say
Why? The Norman Invasion as well as everything else that happened to peoples living on the British Island, set in motion all the events that made England (and the UK) what it is today... In an alternate universe, people are talking about "what if the Norman invasion of 1066 succeeded". It's all an endless loop. In fact, it's the Normans that were the catalyst to the emergence of England becoming a global power.
@@junefranklin458 then we would still be speaking (modern) Old English, a lot of things would be different
As a German I‘m always happy when our brothers in the north have a good timeline
Aren't the english your brother to?
@@szabolcsmate7790 Of course. I‘m happy if they get one too.
@@Julianist Well it would be interesting but come to think of it we got the timeline where the english had there fun
As an Englishman, my feelings are: the Scandinavians, Dutch, and Germans, are the most similar to the English. Our languages, cultures, and blood, are intertwined.
Past is the past.
The Norman’s had Norwegian ancestry.
This is an amazing video! I’d love to see a part 2 of Norse England!
I need roman Britain part two...
Yes 🙏
Yes
Yes!
Me too man, me too
This needs to happen
As a Norwegian, it hurts to see how close my ancestors were to take over England and reshape history as we know it.
The Norwegians were close to fully ruling England, as were the Danes. And the Swedes were close to fully rulling Russia.
@@aiojcxs0932czxlkmI mean, they basically did. The North Sea Empire was basically a Danish realm, just with a lot of Anglo-Saxon influence. The Norse certainly left their mark.
@@JackJanuary Of course. I mean that they were close to ruling for centuries and establishing a permanent and close tie to Scandianvia.
I would much rather have had the Norwegians take it over than the Normans. The Normans imposing French on the people really messed up the English language.
@@Sindraug25 the only thing they messed up was the spelling and French words entering English
I love these scenarios in this time period, because i dont see it very often. Well done!👍
Glad you enjoy it!
Nice pfp
@@Videntis.History bro where is the finale of berlin's conference?😢
@@waterwatereverywhere3574that what I'm saying
@@Videntis.Historywhat If Sweden remains in control of the rus
Why is this guy so underrated? He has so many unique and interesting scenarios, really great maps/graphics/animations, and is so knowledgeable! He definitely deserves more recognition in the alt-hist community!
I think he's getting there, I'm seeing more of his videos suggested lately
thanks so much for the kind words, its a tough genre tbh
Agree
You answered your own question. The best treasures are hidden, popularity ruins everything.
As a Norwegian i approve of this video
jeg og
Enig
Same
As an American with English heritage, so do I.
Nice scenario, one notable addition for the next part: with a stronger france and scandinavian nations, it would stand to reason that an emporer of the HRE would have/gain the authority to centrelize the realm more than in our history. They wouldn't just sit idly by and slowly get conquered by france.
Cool video.
hope you make a part 2
William the Conqueror was the descendent of Rollo the Viking, so technically the Vikings *did* conquer England in 1066...sort of.
Harold godwinson was half Dane.
it's funny how the Franks, Normans, etc. were all Germanic peoples with different names
This video is very interesting, even more than I thought (also I love a beefy Norman Sicily).
Great job !
I WAS WAITING FOR THIS VIDEO FOR SOOOOO LONG
THANK YOU 😊 SO MUCH 😊
Love your content videntis! Thanks For this 🎉🎉🎉🎉
If you have any questions or want the music choices, leave a comment and I will answer as soon as I can.
You're the Best! Loved the music!
Any plans for continuing the Crusades series?
i love this video, thank you for making it and thank you for your hard work as well.
Song - Some Skaldic bard songs
This is interesting, do you think you’d do a scenario on the great heathen army beating Alfred the Great 200 years earlier and conquering England?
that would just be this scenario but 200yrs earlier, also before you start thinking about a pagan England, England historically converted to Christianity twice, so the great heathen army would maybe delay its reconversion back by a few decades at most. Probably seeing Scandinavia converting to Christianity faster and earlier
@@bossy1496 yeah it wouldn’t change the religion but remove the idea of an England.
@@JohnSmith-rk7zy Worst timeline, Kelts would just divide "England" between Welsch and Irische, Irische could use that advantage and conquer iceland and scandinavia and denmark while wales with all south england and its resources and brothers in britanny conquers north france benelux and north germany, maybe even irish and welch conquer north spain?
It's absolutely right to say that Hardrada's chance came with William landing first, and if he had done so I think William would have lost. I do wonder though if Godwinson would have charged north in such circumstances. Of course he did in the real timeline, but he knew he faced two enemies and could not afford them both at large in the country. Its also true that he did charge South to take on William in haste, but there are two crucial differences. The first was personal, William was pillaging Harold's personal estates, Sussex was his base, the North did not have the same attachment for him. The other was strategic, holding the South was the key to holding England, Viking kingdoms based at York were not exactly unusual, and could be dealt with later, he had no need to be reckless.
England would've fallen anyways. The Normans genocided the north, removed Anglo-scandinavian nobility, and paid the Danes to leave. Canute IV had a huge army and ships ready to invade England (with support from Norway and the Frisians) in the 1080s but was killed by a peasant revolt. No Normans means an eventual Scandinavian ruler of England.
Excellent as always. Looking forward to part 2 :)
Love Skaldic Bard's work.
Already liked and commented! You're amazing 😊😊😊😊
imagine a norse-germanic EU type deal spanning from Scandinavia to Vinland, ever in competition with the Norman French empire; maybe it's the french and not the english that try to court trade deals with the asian powers like china or japan in this world.
Love the @SkaldBard playing in the background
Another great video
imagine if Harold pulled of a 2v1
I just bought the ck3 culture dlc to do the Norway campaign yesterday this is the 2nd time I started a ck3 campaign for you to make a vid on it the day after feels like it's meant to be
My version of Norwegian England focused on conquering France still, starting with marrying into Aquitaine
The vikings would use the Welsh longbow then in all their wars.
I like this scenario. Presumably with an earlier, yet initially smaller presence in the Americas it give native peoples a few generations to recover from old world diseases that had been carried across the Atlantic.
This could mean that in some area a distinct Indo-Norse culture may have developed.
There was no intermixing between the Norse and natives in Greenland despite interaction and trade (genetic examination of remains)-- from this, among other evidence and examples, it is quite unlikely that the anglo-Scandinavians would intermix with other native groups, especially as North America was not organized or heavily populated like Mexico and South America. The introduction of livestock and general interaction between the two would mean disease wipes out the natives as it did in our timeline. We know that at least 30,000 Danes settled in England (bringing their wives and families)-- the norse would follow the same structure here.
Disease wiped out natives in the Americas in a similar way as it wipes out people in war.
Without the constant and huge pressure that modern era colonial states could exact, much of the native populations would recover. Certainly by the time they get to the Mississippi basin the natives would have recovered and adopted several innovations like iron working and calvary.
@@ikengaspirit3063
Completely unfounded. They were so sparsely populated near Newfoundland that by the time there is successful colonization outside of Newfoundland, the other European powers won't be too far behind.
They would wipe out many of these eastern tribes before they could infect other tribes anyways. Even if 75-95% of a tribe was wiped out, somehow gained complete immunity, and had 200 years of peaceful existence, a tribe reduced to 4,000 members would only recover to about 7,000-8,000 under optimal conditions. Despite Europeans interacting with smallpox since the 6th century BCE, having extensive relations with zoonotic diseases, and the resultant natural selection, it remained highly lethal. Hell, the Smallpox mortality rate was 30% until 19th-century vaccines and eradication programs turned the tide. Europe was affected by three waves of the Yersinia pestis bacterium which killed hundreds of millions of them between the 6th and 20th centuries BCE. There is no mass recovery or immunity of North American natives to diseases just because some white boys made contact 200-300 years earlier. There is no British morality in this timeline either- Scandinavian nationalism was brutal and Sweden practiced eugenics until the 1970s. There is no Britain preventing colonists from settling out west or unorganized and profit-driven, male-only French and Iberian colonization of North America. You will have a true settler state of Anglo-Scandinavians and an earlier ‘manifest destiny.’
The Anglo-Scandinavians will also have a monopoly in North America- there is no France or Britain arming native tribes with European fire arms and providing European consultancy. Perhaps the Spanish may do something similar in Mexico or the Caribbean, but, irrelevant.
@@aiojcxs0932czxlkm that 95% death rate is recorded with colonial violence taken into account. They're not over populated like Europe during the black death either so with some exceptions (granted, the coast next to Europeans will be one such exception) death rate would range say 40-75%.
As for immunity, immunity isn't just purely genetic it is also epigenetic. This is why when Britain tried to establish colonies in the Caribbean, the weak Hispanic colonies and countries were able to resist because they had acquired some immunity from surviving there and passing it to their children while British wholly unused to it were decimated. As long as the disease doesn't just burn out of the environment, subsequent outbreaks will have significantly lower mortality.
Native adaptation to European advantages is well seen, the Commanches are famous for the destruction of their raids on the Spanish and Texans. There is no need for anyone to arm them, OTL they themselves adopted horse riding and iron use.
And there is no modern army tactics or modern era technology in this timeline either. Some Viking in partial armour is going fare much worse against the Commanche horseman than a Conquistador in full plate armour would.
So we have a longer time period for natives to recover, adopt European technology and increase their technological sophistication to a similar extent as they did OTL, all while the Europeans here are less numerous, less technologically advanced and with slower growing populations.
The furtherest Vinland makes it is the Ohio basin.
@@ikengaspirit3063 False. You have no understanding of immunology and the spread and development of viruses. Them not being overpopulated is not an advantage, especially in your fantasy of somehow developing immunity. Epigenetics are trivial-- stop spreading misinformation. I provided with you an actual history of diseases and a basic introduction. If you cannot infer from my comment that many thousands of years of interaction with various viruses and zoonotic cohabitation is required for even a sliver of hope, then, oh well..... Your claim about quick immunity is based on extremely weak viruses like COVID-19-- this is not happening with smallpox or measles, LOL. No matter how much you want Native Americans to defeat whitey. Smallpox killed 30% of Northwestern Native Americans and 130,000 Plains Indians during the 1770s-1780s. Cholera outbreaks were devastating to Native Americans in the 1830s. A smallpox outbreak occurred among the Native Americans in the 1830s as well, despite vaccination programs for them already existing. Another Cholera outbreak among the Natives in the 1850s and 1860s.
When Europeans introduced firearms to Hawaii, it devastated the local population as conflicts were now much more lethal-- even if some of the surviving tribes adopted European tactics and developed their own, it only serves to wipe out more natives and provoke European settlers. The Comanche numbered 20,000-40,000. You can have them number 100,000 and they'll still be conquered. There were 15,000 Spaniards + Indians that were settled in areas affected by the Comanche. 3,000 in Texas. With earlier colonization, you have White New England birthrates and the introduction of the potato. Whites in New England had an annual population growth rate of 2.5-3% (not including immigration)-- with this and a much larger populace in Europe, you have far more settlers. Also, the 'Vikings' are not going to be anywhere near the Comanche; the Vikings will stay settled in the Newfoundland region until their population size is sufficient to start expanding-- this will occur by around the year 1400. By the time they start fully colonizing New England and such, they will have firearms and modern tactics. The Vikings will utterly crush any native American tribes they encounter on the East Coast, however.
I do not know why you think they would want to expand so far so early on. Their population growth would be rather exponential and the advent of various technologies would culminate in rapid and unfettered expansion in the 16-19th centuries. This time, there is only one player in North America (north of Mexico, and excluding the Caribbean.)
@@ikengaspirit3063 False. You have no understanding of immunology and the spread and development of viruses. Them not being overpopulated is not an advantage, especially in your fantasy of somehow developing immunity. Epigenetics are trivial-- stop spreading misinformation. I provided with you an actual history of diseases and a basic introduction. If you cannot infer from my comment that many thousands of years of interaction with various viruses and zoonotic cohabitation is required for even a sliver of hope, then, oh well..... Your claim about quick immunity is based on extremely weak viruses like COVID-19-- this is not happening with smallpox or measles, LOL. No matter how much you want Native Americans to defeat whitey. Smallpox killed 30% of Northwestern Native Americans and 130,000 Plains Indians during the 1770s-1780s. Cholera outbreaks were devastating to Native Americans in the 1830s. A smallpox outbreak occurred among the Native Americans in the 1830s as well, despite vaccination programs for them already existing. Another Cholera outbreak among the Natives in the 1850s and 1860s.
When Europeans introduced firearms to Hawaii, it devastated the local population as conflicts were now much more lethal-- even if some of the surviving tribes adopted European tactics and developed their own, it only serves to wipe out more natives and provoke European settlers. The Comanche numbered 20,000-40,000. You can have them number 100,000 and they'll still be conquered. There were 15,000 Spaniards + Indians that were settled in areas affected by the Comanche. 3,000 in Texas. With earlier colonization, you have White New England birthrates and the introduction of the potato. Whites in New England had an annual population growth rate of 2.5-3% (not including immigration)-- with this and a much larger populace in Europe, you have far more settlers. Also, the 'Vikings' are not going to be anywhere near the Comanche; the Vikings will stay settled in the Newfoundland region until their population size is sufficient to start expanding-- this will occur by around the year 1400. By the time they start fully colonizing New England and such, they will have firearms and modern tactics. The Vikings will utterly crush any native American tribes they encounter on the East Coast, however.
I do not know why you think they would want to expand so far so early on. Their population growth would be rather exponential and the advent of various technologies would culminate in rapid and unfettered expansion in the 16-19th centuries. This time, there is only one player in North America (north of Mexico, and excluding the Caribbean.)
Just one small error. The Varangians were mostly Swedes, who never joined the attack on the British Isles. So that would still have been a thing.
Love your videos
As a Norwegian, I can safely say that this video pumped a high amount of nationalism straight into my veins🇧🇻🇧🇻🇧🇻
Vote properly now😂
Fun scenario, hopefully we get a part 2
As an Irish person, I would rather be conquered by Norwegians than Normans
now we need "what if the celts became dominant in the Isles
remained*
Better than the Normans...
Fr
Normans made England into a powerful country
@@ommsterlitz1805 After a literal genocide of the North.
Buhu
@ommsterlitz1805 Would be interesting though, without the 100 years wars, England could be more populous and richer. Because of, well, no war.
Yes to part 2 of this!
Pretty Good Video
Great video!
Would love a part 2
a world where England didn't become civilized until 1600
cool video! Really like this scenario!
ive always seen videos like this what if the vikings conquered england but ive never seen anyone talk abt what if the anglo-saxons survived
I've heard people talk about this. It's kind of similar to this video, only they kept ruling themselves rather than being ruled by Norway. Their relations would be more with Scandinavia and less with France.
They did .The Normans were the descendants of Norwegian Vikings and the locals of West Francia . Norseman.
9:08 that map looks strangely familiar
Omg this is such a good idea!! I studied 1066 at school!!
We need a roman britain part 2!
Part 2 and subscribed
Normans were more viking than they were french...
What if you finish up the scramble for Africa series?
yesss
That ‘s what I’m saying
The Norman French were from Norway a long time ago, so Normans conquered England in 1066 and they spoke French!!!
Without the English/French competition for the Crown of France to create a rivalry there would be no power struggle propelling England (later Britain) and France to develop military and technology. Interesting if an early colonisation of the Americas can counter the lack of an arms race in Europe to see which ends up with the higher development!
Although I suppose you get a Britain/Scandinavian rivalry with the HRE rather than France to compensate? ... interesting times if you extrapolate this to modern eras.
Videntis! Question: Which is your favorite viking?
Sigurd the Crusader
@@Videntis.History cool! Mine is rollo the walker.
Haha I was wondering about this yesterday, I was trying to make a alternate history fantasy map
To summarize, completaly perfect. I gonna do it in CK2 RN lfmao
Keep going!
Could have included a bit about Denmark if you let Harald live to 1078. He had a claim to the Danish crown too and the 1064 treaty with Svein (Denmark) would likely be out the window once rebellions in England were dealt with.
So, basically, everybody better off if Harald Hardrada won. Even the Normans. Eh, seems possible.
*Virgin Normans VS. Chad Vikings*
Can continue the Eastern Roman video please?
A Cymro-Norse Wales would mean my home city (Swansea) would probably keep it's original name (Sweyne's Eye) for longer ;)
If only your videos got more liked
Please do the crusades part 2
The Vikings conquered England. What do you think the Normans were, they were Danish Vikings. It was just that the Danish Vikings won.
LOL, but the Vikings most certainly did conquer England in 1066. That they were nouveau riche French speakers doesn't really change what the Normans still were.
If they continued the expansion into the americas, i have a feeling they would do viking conquests similarly to what happened in europe in the 800s. Settlements would probably trickle down the east coast of america but i dont think they would go past cuba or louisiana. btw loved the video you should do more of these what ifs
Cool Video🎉🎉🎉🎉
As a norwegian I immediately came when I saw those borders
'What if the Vikings conquered England in 1066' thumbnail shows England - and *Wales* .🤦♂️
Yay I finally helped make a video
Can you do a what if European colonialization never happened video
Impossible
Will do you one better. What if europe was colonized?
Have a look at althisthubs what if the black death wiped out europe. Its waht basically heppens in that timeline.@alexandrub8786
@@alexandrub8786 there is shrimply no way this would've happened
Y'all are saying this is impossible or another way (Europe being colonised) is impossible. Mf it's *Alternate* History, you can do whatever tf you want. Sure, it'll be very unlikely, but don't complain about it being impossible when you're talking about an Alternate Timeline.
What if British make peace in 1066 or 1745 it’s not 1588 and 1940
Normans were pretty much Vikings too though. They were from Normandy, which were lands given away by France as a way to appease the Vikings. Norman literally means “man from north”
The Norse that settled in North West France stopped being Vikings(raiders), when they settled in What became Normandy. They adopted Christianity and married French locals becoming Norman French. By the time the Normans conquered England, they definitely were not still Vikings in any sense of the word.
In the same way that Vikings who settled in Ireland, and adopted Gaelic and intermarried with the locals, becoming Irish and no longer Viking.
The Normans were Vikings and conquered England
More like the love child of the Franks and Viikings 😅
Video Suggestions:
*What IF Roman Empire Didn't Evacuate Britannia in 410???*
*What IF Byzantine Empire WON Battle of the Yarmuk (636) ?*
*What IF Crassus won Battle of Carrhae (53 BC) ??*
*What IF Valens ( East Roman Emperor ) won Battle of Adrianople (378) ??*
*What IF Majorian remained in power as West Roman Emperor and thwarted Ricimer’s schemes ??*
*What IF Theodosius The Great lost The Battle of the Frigidus (394) ??*
*What IF Saint King Louis IX of France survived Tunisian Crusade (1270)??*
*What IF Richard The Lionheart survived and won the siege of the Châlus castle (1199)??*
*What IF Sassanian Persians defeated Muslim Arabs and survived its invasions ???*
*What IF Constantius III survived Honorius and remained Emperor?!?
*What IF Hungarians won Battle of Mohács (1526)??*
I imagine the Anglo Vikings would probably settle Newfoundland and Arcadia and go as far down as maybe New York and into Michigan. The French would probably find out and settle the south and the mid Atlantic coast, and the Spanish would come last but still probably conquer much of the Caribbean basin. Coastal regions. But with no Incan Empire at this stage they probably wouldn’t have any foothold in South America and technological proliferation hundreds of years in advance would potentially lead to a more advanced Andean Empire and more dangerous Native American tribes who have longer to develop immunity and longer to adopt European technology. I think colonization would probably happen much slower in this timeline be because of the distances, management of Empire and technological factors.
Why fight wars, when you can marry into the English crown like the Danish.
i would love to see a more Viking America
I'ma need a part two
Any plans to do a Crusades Part2?
Can you do a scenario where Charles the bold doesn't die at the Burgundian wars, and centralizes Burgundian culture, language, and unites the patchwork of duchies into a formidable Kingdom?
Can you do:
If the Western Roman Empire survived in Italy?
holy shit ending it all now he made a video about my 2 nationalities
Would play an EU4 alt history mod for this.
Ridiculous precept for this video: What if VIKINGS Conquered ENGLAND in 1066? Ridiculous because the Normans who "conquered" England were Vikings themselves - admittedly with a few French thrown in. After 3 or 4 generations of conquering and living in Normandy (named Normandy because they were North Men - i.e., Vikings) they spoke Norman French, but otherwise were from an older Viking origin.
Woooo Norman conquest part 2
LETS GET A PART 2 CMON GUYS
I mean
The normans are a viking kindom that was geting part of France
They did.
Can your next video be what if Videntis made a pt2 of what if Roman Britain survived please? 🤣
I need a Byzantium Alt History part 3 🙌
Coming soon 🤫
Ngl I had kinda hoped you had the 9th century Vikings defeat Mercia and Wessex before they were able to strike back
A number of innovations we would consider modern or preceding modern innovations occur first in England after the Norman conquest, so England would most certainly be less developed and less individualistic.
Another example is here 13:46 less focus on the calvary in the medieval era means being mogged on the battlefield constantly. But I guess they're not trying to expand into Europe.
I am a bit in doubt of Norman rule in Tunisia cuz OTL they lost to the Almoahads and just more men won't necessarily net them victory. However, Latins worked for the Almoravids as Mercenaries, mainly Hispanian Iberians and their main general when the Almoahads took over was a Barcelonian.
Entirely possible that Normans serve in Morocco in great numbers, maybe enough to stem the Almohads from either rising or from completely taking over.
I also do doubt the conquest of Egypt but I guess the conquest of Eastern Rome is more likely.
14:20 I don't fully buy this cuz the riches would be in land not in gold and the like and Sagas from what I have seen focus on moveable concentrated wealth like gold and not farming land. Which also makes this very dissimilar to the Spanish colonization, motivated by gold. But with all that said, the colonization showed in this video is very unSpanish likez taking centuries to even hold the Beothuk Island so, this criticism may not actually hold to what is depicted.
Love it but I stead of Byzantium Fallin to the Norman's it would have been Iberia would've been interesting but still really good video.
very good scenario
Canute had already done that …
I still waiting for the Spain empire video part 2 if spain and Portugal United
Byz part 3 when
Suggestion:
What if the good relations of the USA and Russian empire turned into a full on alliance after the sale of Alaska?
Lore of What if VIKINGS Conquered ENGLAND? Momentum 100