3 comments

  • atombender53 minutes ago
    <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.ph&#x2F;a1YN4" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.ph&#x2F;a1YN4</a>
  • ggm3 days ago
    Counterfactuals abound in this. What if Stamford Bridge had failed?<p>What if Harold had won?
    • jfengel2 days ago
      Likely, the long-term outcome would be the same. Harald wouldn&#x27;t have been in a great position to fight of William, either. He might have simply ceded southern England without even a fight.<p>And given William&#x27;s subsequent Harrying of the North, I don&#x27;t think that Harald would be able to hold on to it very long. He was intent on taking over the whole thing, and he had a much stronger force coming over the English Channel than over the North Sea.<p>Of course we can never really tell. I could spin a million other possible outcomes. But in this case, William really did have an overwhelming force. Godwinson had a home-field advantage, and might have won if he hadn&#x27;t exhausted his force just getting there. The Vikings weren&#x27;t going to fare better.
      • _0ffh45 minutes ago
        I was wondering a while ago what the outcome would have been if the order was reversed. Harold Godwinson might have fought off William of Normandy, but then be too exhausted to stop Harald Hardrada, all with just a few weeks of difference in timing.
  • jongjong6 minutes ago
    All I can say is that people do seem to overestimate the impact of losing a war. Just like they overestimate the need to wage war in the first place.<p>The main outcome of a war is loss of lives and infrastructure. Political changes are minor; maybe they will start teaching the language of the invader in schools as an elective... Maybe restaurants will get new foods added to the menu. Maybe taxes will go up a little...<p>But if you want a modern proof; look at Iraq and Afghanistan... Under US occupation for many years. They have the same people, same language, same culture, same everything as before... It&#x27;s like they never lost any battles. Look at Germany after they lost WW2; they still speak German. Their cultural identity is still very strong; maybe it affected their foreign policy a little but apart from that, it&#x27;s hard to tell.<p>War is truly useless except for those selling weapons and for a couple of big companies that are trying to acquire some mineral resources or securing some trade routes. There&#x27;s really no other purpose.<p>My ancestors are from a country which (during the French revolution) had voluntarily changed &#x27;ownership&#x27; from France to Britain and later back to France again. They still speak French. Nothing changed, at all, except for the fact that the elites conveniently avoided the Guillotine... Fast forward 300 years and you can&#x27;t tell any cultural or economic difference at all from the other neighboring nations which remained under France and had experienced the Guillotine; same GDP numbers, same culture, same everything.