Most Significant Battle In Britain.

[phil25]

I think the introduction of the feudal system into England was indeed a major event. I don't think the Anglo-saxon system was the same, or that they would have adopted the continental model voluntarily. On the other hand the feudal system remains very much at the heart of Scots property law, in a way it doesn't south of the border - odd that!!

 

Points you make well taken though.

 

Phil

[Skarr]

As you have probably worked out I voted for Hastings: the battle instigated the rise of a new ruling dynasty, which has lasted to this very day still coated in rich history.

 

I also voted for Hastings, as modern Britain would not exist today if it were not for the all powerful influence the Normans exerted over every aspect of their lives.

[WotWotius]

I wonder why somebody has voted for Stamford Bridge (1066 AD), I know it was officially the last Viking raid, but if the Vikings won surely William the Conqueror would have ultimately defeated them. Thus transferring the island

[Rameses the Great]

I wonder why somebody has voted for Stamford Bridge (1066 AD), I know it was officially the last Viking raid, but if the Vikings won surely William the Conqueror would have ultimately defeated them. Thus transferring the island

[longbow]

The Vikings were not even equipped at that battle.

 

Of course they were,do you think Hardrada would would offer battle to Godwinson without equipment?The 'Vikings' were fully armed,even with Crossbows which the Saxons had never faced before.

 

They though the Duke of York was just going to surrender

 

Who was the Duke of York? Hardrada had allready fought with the Earles Edwin (Mercia) and Morcar (Northumbria),York was in Northumbria at the time and fell under Morcars juristiction.On this map you'll see Northumbria goes as far north as Edinburgh and as far south as hull.Allthough its a earlier than the 11 CE York still fell into Northumbria i just dont have a Saxon 11Ce map on my PC.

 

However he sent an army that was heavily armoured and defeated the advance of those scary, conquering Vikings.

Godwinson was the one who defeated the Norwegians at Stamford bridge,he didnt send anybody in his stead, he fought in the front rank like he allways did.The scary conquering 'Vikings' were no match for the Saxon Huscarls,they'd fought many battles before and the Saxons were the better troops.

 

L

 

Edit to fix quotes.

Edited August 17, 2006 by longbow

[P.Clodius]

Also, remember that the Vikings were great navigators who pillaged towns and sailed on. They did claim uninhabited lands but never conquered lands that were occupied.

So in essence you're saying that Danelaw, a massive piece of land stretching approximately from South Yorkshire to Northumbria was previously unoccupied?

[tflex]

If the Battle of Britian was lost it still would not have changed the outcome of WW2. First, the Germans might have been able to occupy England, but I doubt they could hold on to it. You have to understand British mentality and patriotism at the time, they certainly weren't going to bag up like the French. I just don't see a scenario were the Germans could have controlled Britain to the extent were the benefit would have exceeded the cost. The outcome would probably have been the same as in Russia, which cost the German army dearly. Plus, lets not forget the U.S. who would have tried everything within it's power to liberate Britian.

 

So, thats why I can't pick the Battle of Britian as the most significant, Germany would have been defeated anyway and thrown out of England.

Edited August 29, 2006 by tflex

[phil25]

So tflex - the french threw out the Germans in the 40s without outside help did they - just through the efforts of the Maquis/resistance?

 

With Britain occupied there was no where for anyone to invade from, even if the US had not turned further into isolationism or been preoccupied with a Pacific war. Would the US have supplied a british independence movement/resistance? I doubt it, frankly. Indeed, the US might have got a pro-German government at some stage if the Reich had been successful.

 

I don't agree your analysis at all.

 

Ramses - your British history is flawed - England had already had a Danish king - Cnut (or Canute as he used to be called - the one who tried to hold back the waves!!). It didn't change our system, and his reign was only around a generation before the Conquest.

 

Phil

[Gaius Octavius]

Very silly but: Had the Spanish Armada not been defeated, Protestantism would not have succeeded. The entire western world would be completely different. The colonial world would have been split up between Spain and Portugal.

 

The Battle of Britain was a waste of German resources and only managed to tick off the Brits and Americans. However, had Britain been occupied, the U.S. (and the U.S.S.R.), so long as it had a toe hold in Africa, would have defeated Germany. (Rommel warned the Germans of this.) The alleged 'soft under belly' of Europe would have been attacked as Churchill held. Germany, Italy, Japan and their allies combined, could not match the economic resources of the U.S., U.S.S.R. and the Americas in any way.

[Kosmo]

I have voted for BoB, but now I've changed my mind.

There was no way that Luftwaffe could have won against RAF in such a way to keep RN out of the game, so a different outcome of BoB would not have to much impact.

In the same way, even if Armada would have defeat the english fleet it did not had a deep water port to load an army that was not there.

So, my option now it's for Hastings as a norman defeat would have made both England and France very different.

With Hastings the germanic invasions that came in waves for 600 years were stopped and England started to look toward France for many centuries instead of Scandinavia.

The medieval England adopted many things from the developed and structured society of feudal Normandie that would not be possible just from influence.

It would have been interesting to see what Harald Hardrada would have done as he was a travelled man that he was an important person in Kiev and the Byzantine empire (leader of the varangian guard)

[phil25]

GO - If Hitler had won the BoB then britain would have surrendered. There would have been no British Forces in North Africa.

 

In 1940 the US had not joined the war - it did not land in North Africa until 1943 and even when it did the Mediterranean strategy was largely the brainchild of the british Chief of the Imperial General Staff - Sir Alan Brooke. Why would the US land in North Africa anyway if Alamein had not happened and the Germans/Italians were not distracted?

 

Surely there is a VERY large chance that with the UK defeated, the US would have negotiated a peace with Hitler - pre-occupied as they were with the Pacific? The pro-German lobby in the USA was considerable and influential (Lindburgh, Joe Kennedy etc). As it was, FDR would have had difficulty declaring war on Germany in 1941 (Japan was no problem after Pearl Harbor) and only Hitler's stupidity in declaring war on the US gave him the opportunity. Had The Fuhrer restrained himself FDR would have faced great opposition to getting involved - and it was the brits who persuaded him to give pre-eminence initially to the European theatre.

 

So I do question your analysis I'm afraid.

 

Phil

[Gaius Octavius]

GO - If Hitler had won the BoB then britain would have surrendered. There would have been no British Forces in North Africa.

 

This, of course, presupposes a successful landing by the Germans without the ships and material needed. And of course the British would have surrendered their empire.

 

In 1940 the US had not joined the war - it did not land in North Africa until 1943 and even when it did the Mediterranean strategy was largely the brainchild of the british Chief of the Imperial General Staff - Sir Alan Brooke. Why would the US land in North Africa anyway if Alamein had not happened and the Germans/Italians were not distracted?

 

Montgomery's victory at El Alamein was as a result of the U.S. supplying the British with a massive amount of supplies and Sherman tanks. Rommel had to fight with what he had as he could not call upon any reserves. Once again, Rommel held that so long as the U.S. had a toe hold in Africa, Germany was finished - and he told Hitler so.

 

Surely there is a VERY large chance that with the UK defeated, the US would have negotiated a peace with Hitler - pre-occupied as they were with the Pacific? The pro-German lobby in the USA was considerable and influential (Lindburgh, Joe Kennedy etc). As it was, FDR would have had difficulty declaring war on Germany in 1941 (Japan was no problem after Pearl Harbor) and only Hitler's stupidity in declaring war on the US gave him the opportunity. Had The Fuhrer restrained himself FDR would have faced great opposition to getting involved - and it was the brits who persuaded him to give pre-eminence initially to the European theatre.

 

The Pacific war was a side show to America and the Allies. There is absolutely no chance whatsoever that the U.S. would have negotiated a peace with Germany or anyone else. The U. S. would never leave its oil and other raw material supplies in the hands of an enemy. Nor would The U.S. leave its markets in their hands. Winning the war was simply a matter of time. The U.S. was in the war prior to any 'declarations'. Supplies and Lend-Lease. Sunken freighters. The pro-German lobby would have been managed. The Axis powers lost the war the day they started it. They had no chance of winning against the most powerful economy in the world.

 

So I do question your analysis I'm afraid.

 

Feel free to question me at any time. As you may have seen in the past, I am willing to admit that I am wrong.

 

Phil

[Primus Pilus]

In 1940 the US had not joined the war - it did not land in North Africa until 1943 and even when it did the Mediterranean strategy was largely the brainchild of the british Chief of the Imperial General Staff - Sir Alan Brooke. Why would the US land in North Africa anyway if Alamein had not happened and the Germans/Italians were not distracted?

 

Just a correction on a technicality. Operation Torch was actually November of '42. The US actually preferred a direct invasion of Europe, as urged by the Russians. The British convinced the Americans that a more peripheral approach was prudent. It proved to work, but we'll never what might have happened with an earlier direct assault on France.

 

As for your analysis of American opposition to direct war with Hitler. Evidence of support 'or at least tolerance' for Hitler among some American leaders (Henry Ford being the most notable in my locality) is voluminus, but the lend-lease program (initiated many months prior to Pearl Harbor) supporting the allied efforts does provide some contrary evidence for the government as a whole. Again, conjecture is difficult, but I suspect American indifference may have been jostled out of inactivity with a German ground force assault on Britain (assuming other factors would've allowed such an event to take place, of course).

[phil25]

But lend lease was very much of a Roosevelt-Churchill deal.

 

Would FDR have been able to justify such a deal with a pro-German/ appeasing Government in London under Halifax or Moseley for instance? I doubt either would have asked for such aid.

 

Without the 8th Army in Eqypt, or the threat from the Uk, Rommel would have been less starved of supplies. Indeed Hitler and OKW might have given him MORE as an attempt to drive across the Canal and up into Russia from the south - or to seize the Persian oilfields.

 

On thew whole, I still find your arguments confusing GO.

 

For instance, you state:

 

This, of course, presupposes a successful landing by the Germans without the ships and material needed. And of course the British would have surrendered their empire.

 

But if britain had lost the BofB there is no need to pre-suppose an invasion. Or not an immediate one. A halifax Government for instance, would probably have sued for peace, got favourable terms - free hand for Germany in Europe but retention of the empire. There would have been a cessation of hostilities. British forces might even have joined the invasion of Russia. We might have had Edward VIII back as King with Queen Wallis at his side!!

 

So no immediate occupation. That might have followed, perhaps by invitation, if a pro-fascist Government under (say) Moseley had replaced Halifax; or with edward VIII as king. It would match the Anschluss as a tactic.

 

You then argue: Montgomery's victory at El Alamein was as a result of the U.S. supplying the British with a massive amount of supplies and Sherman tanks. Rommel had to fight with what he had as he could not call upon any reserves. Once again, Rommel held that so long as the U.S. had a toe hold in Africa, Germany was finished - and he told Hitler so.

 

I have already partly dealt with the Rommel argument earlier in the post. But with UK out of the war, there would have been no Montgomery to supply.

 

The Pacific war was a side show to America and the Allies. Perhaps to the UK, but not, I think, to the US. Britain was successful in arguing that Germany presented the pre-eminent immediate threat, but no one suggested the Far east was not important.

 

There is absolutely no chance whatsoever that the U.S. would have negotiated a peace with Germany or anyone else.

 

I simply disagree with you here. There would have been no need for a negotiated peace with Germany, if there had been no declaration of war. And what would have been the casus belli for that from the US perspective? I would also argue that with Europe at peace, and Hitler secure, the US would have started to trade again sooner or later.

 

The U. S. would never leave its oil and other raw material supplies in the hands of an enemy. What oil and raw materials in the early 40s? Nor would The U.S. leave its markets in their hands. What markets? The Greater Reich might have offered even greater markets and rewards?

 

Winning the war was simply a matter of time. But what war in 1940 after the loss of the Bof B?

 

The U.S. was in the war prior to any 'declarations'. Supplies and Lend-Lease. Sunken freighters. I have discussed this above.

 

The pro-German lobby would have been managed. Would they, with a victorious germany. The US had eugenics policies in many states. The isolationist lobby prevented FDR from joining the war earlier. I would suggest the pro-German lobby would have swelled in influence if britain was knocked out.

 

The Axis powers lost the war the day they started it. They had no chance of winning against the most powerful economy in the world.

 

But in 1940 Hitler was not engaged with the US and he HAD won. It was only the resilience of Churchill and the victory of the RAF that kept resistance afloat. And Churchill was nearly toppled in late May 1940. Peace feelers may have been extended again by appeasrers in 1941 around the time of the hess flight.

 

I think in short, you wear rose-tinted spectacles and are not realistic in your assessment of real-politic.

 

Isolationism has always been attractive to the US.

 

Phil

[M. Porcius Cato]

Isolationism has always been attractive to the US.

 

True enough, but never when attacked. Given Pearl Harbor, the US would have declared war on the Axis irrespective of how the Battle of Britain turned out. Hitler would have had to have abandoned his Japanese allies entirely or fight the US.

 

BTW, I thought the defeat of the Spanish Armada was the most important event. Without it, there would have been no Scottish Enlightenment, no John Locke, and no Adam Smith.

 

Although...maybe Holland would then be what Britain is today? Perhaps the American Dutch colonies would have declared independence from Mother Netherlands? Hugo Grotius and William of Orange standing in the places of John Locke and Elizabeth? West Indies Trading Company Day in the US instead of Thanksgiving? Spinoza instead of Puritans? Hmmm....maybe the defeat of the Spanish Armada wasn't ALL good.