I Built A Time Machine Trivia Quiz

Answer: The Battle of Hastings

What would have happened had Harold been victorious at Hastings? The changes in English history would be considerable. For a start, it is highly improbable that the words I am typing would be comprehensible to anyone, as the English language would have evolved in a very different way. The influence of Norman French and, through it, Latin is considerable in the modern tongue. Without William's victory, the great works of English literature - Shakespeare, Marlowe, Chaucer - would have all appeared very differently, if they had appeared at all.

There are stories that suggest that Harold did indeed survive the battle. The body that was identified as his, was said to be that of another noble and that Harold had fled to Wales and lived out his life as a hermit. Quite why he would have chosen to do that has not been satisfactorily explained.

Answer: The Spanish Armada

History can turn on the smallest of factors. It is perfectly possible to envisage a history where the Armada had been successful based on only one small change; the wind blowing in a different direction. Had the English fireships not blown towards the Spanish fleet, but been blown away from them then the Duke of Parma's Armada could have landed at Margate and marched on London. England's best chance of avoiding defeat would have been lost.

The consequences of defeat could have been considerable. Philip II of Spain had given orders as to what to demand of Elizabeth; to allow Catholics to practice their faith, to stop all English ships travelling to the New World and abandoning all towns and cities that the English held in the Netherlands. This would have left the Spanish with two great advantages. They would have been free to colonise North America and also, without the necessity of committing large numbers of troops to the Netherlands to keep control, they would have had license to accelerate the counter-reformation and possibly have rid mainland Europe of Protestantism.

However, these twin opportunities would probably have made England difficult, and possibly undesirable, to hold on to for long. Once Philip had re-established Catholicism in the kingdom, he might have considered his job there done, and handed the crown on.

Furthermore, the possession of England combined with the open goal of the New World would almost certainly have led to large-scale conflict between France and Spain and inevitable war between the two nations. Who would have been the victors in such a war, and thereby defined the shape of the world from the sixteenth century onwards, is difficult to predict.

In the event, the fireships were effective in disrupting the Spanish fleet and causing them to scatter, thus giving the English ships an advantage in the ensuing battle. The victory that the English achieved was the spur to a golden age in cultural terms and was built on militarily to establish a maritime supremacy that allowed England to become a major world power and empire builder.

Answer: Charles I

The Gunpowder Plot of 1605 was an assassination attempt on King James I of England and many of the leading Protestant nobles and clergy of the day. It was planned by a number of leading Catholics in England following the rejection of religious reform by King James at Hampton Court the previous year.

The state opening of Parliament in 1605 had been scheduled for October 3rd but had been delayed because of an outbreak of the bubonic plague in London. This delay was crucial to the eventual failure of the Gunpowder Plot for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, one of the conspirators anonymously sent a letter to Lord Monteagle, a leading Catholic noble, in late October to warn him to stay away from Parliament that day thereby allowing the plot to be uncovered. Secondly, the extra month that the gunpowder had stayed in the cellar of the Houses of Parliament had meant it had become decayed and would not have been effective as an explosive.

Had the plot been successful, James, his queen Anne and eldest son Henry would have been killed. The plotters intended to imprison the infant Charles and use the king's nine-year-old daughter Elizabeth as the figurehead of a Catholic uprising. However, it would appear that this plan would not have worked even with a successful assassination. The rebels returned from London claiming that the king was dead, even though he wasn't, but were not joined by many willing to take up the fight nevertheless.

The realistic outcome of a successful plot would be a rising up of Protestants alarmed by the events in London, leading to savage reprisals against the Catholic population. King Charles would most likely be a stronger king than he was, fervently anti-Catholic and thereby popular with his subjects. His policies, that in the real timeline were influenced by a desire to distance himself from his father, would have been less likely to provoke the antagonism that led to the Civil War. England would most likely be a very different place today.

Answer: Boston

The Townshend Acts, named after the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, Charles Townshend, were a series of revenue-raising laws that applied to the North American colonies. Amongst the duties imposed was the duty on the trading of tea in British America.

Without the tea duty, there would be no Boston Tea Party. Without the build up of troops in Boston that the enforcement of the Townshend Acts prompted, it is significantly less likely that the Boston Massacre would have taken place. Without these key events, revolution in British America would have been less likely to take place and almost certainly would have not have taken place as early as 1776.

If Britain had held on to its colonies then what would have been the likely future for North America? Many would suggest that independence for the United States was inevitable at some point, though this is often tied to the concept of manifest destiny, popularised in the 19th century. Britain had the capability to retain its North American colonies beyond the end of the 18th century, although the issue of slavery may well have still had a significant part to play in the development of North American history in the mid-18th century.

Other countries would also have been significantly affected by an altered outcome in British America. The 18th century French political commentator, Turgot, believed that the British retention of its colonies would have led to the expulsion of France and Spain from North America, resulting in a British sphere of influence "from Newfoundland to Panama". Without the burden of its American colonies, the French government would, most likely, not have fallen in 1788/9.

However, the failure of the Duke of Grafton, the British First Lord of the Treasury, to persuade his cabinet colleagues to repeal the tea duty in May 1769, unlike the other duties imposed by the Townshend Acts, kicked off the chain of events that led to the declaration of American independence in 1776 and victory in the War of Independence seven years later.

Answer: Special Order no. 191

Special Order no. 191 was General Robert E. Lee's "lost order". The order was a strategic plan for the upcoming campaigns, including the movement of the Army of Northern Virginia into Maryland. A copy of the order was found (along with the cigars) by Corporal Barton Mitchell of the Union forces and was passed up the chain of the command before reaching General McClellan (minus the cigars). The information contained with the order gave McClellan a huge tactical advantage and allowed him to launch an attack against Lee's army, in what was the start of the Battle of Antietam.

McClellan was a naturally cautious and conservative general and, even with the help of the intelligence he had acquired, he only narrowly won victory at Antietam. The victory allowed the Union to re-gain the upper hand in the Civil War and ended Lee's invasion of Northern territory. In the aftermath of the battle, President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Declaration.

Had McClellan not received the orders, Antietam might not have happened and the Union might have been on the back foot. A subsequent defeat, coming as it would have done, on the back of defeat at Battle of Second Manassas might have placed the Confederacy firmly in the ascendant, bringing recognition from Britain and France and prompting the Union to accept an independent CSA. This recognition had not been forthcoming after the Battle of Antietam as Britain and France had been dissuaded by the issuing of the Emancipation Proclamation.

Where North American history would have gone from there has been the subject of many fictional treatments from Harry Turtledove's "Timeline-191" books to the mockumentary film "The Confederate States of America" which sees the CSA maintain slavery well into the twentieth century and join both World Wars on the side of Germany, with the USA on the opposite side.

Answer: Kaiser Wilhelm II

Annie Oakley, apparently, often told the story of how she could have prevented World War I. The Wild West Show was travelling through Europe and made a stop in Berlin. Part of the act of Oakley, renowned as a sharp shooter, was to invite a member of the audience to have a cigarette shot out of their mouth. Normally, no-one volunteered so Oakley's husband was placed in the audience as a stooge and came forward as a "volunteer". However, in Berlin, the new kaiser, who had only succeeded his father's 99-day reign a few months previously, decided that he wanted to be part of the show. Realising who her volunteer was, Oakley was nervous but managed to successfully shoot the ashes off the end of Wilhelm's cigar. Oakley claims that when World War I started, she sent a telegram to the kaiser to request another try but received no reply.

Had Kaiser Wilhelm died so early in his reign, it is possible that his policy of Weltpolitik that began in 1896/7 and led directly to so much conflict in Europe, may never have been embarked upon. The idea behind Weltpolitik was that Germany deserved its "place in the sun" as a great industrial and military power. This meant the development of a great empire and the accumulation of great naval power and authority. This brought Germany into direct conflict with the United Kingdom and split the continent of Europe into two diplomatic entities, the Triple Entente (France, Russia and the UK) and the Axis Powers (Germany, Austro-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire), both formalised by self-protecting treaties. Without these treaties, it is unlikely that conflict in Europe would have escalated to the scale it did in World War I.

Without the First World War, the remainder of the twentieth century would have looked very different. No World War I would likely mean no rise of Fascism and no World War II. Likewise, no conflict on the Eastern Front would likely mean no Bolshevik revolution in Russia. Britain would not have been heavily in debt to the US, meaning it could have held onto its empire for longer and America would not have become a pre-eminent power so early in the century.

If only Annie had aimed slightly to her right.

Answer: Vladimir Lenin

Could there have been a successful Bolshevik revolution in Russia without Lenin? His force of will and obsessive pursuit of power galvanised his party which, without his ideological vision and his ruthless determination, was unlikely to have followed the path it did. Lenin seemed uniquely aware that the events of early 1917 represented a singular opportunity to begin the worldwide Marxist revolution that he craved.

When the Russian tsar was forced to abdicate in the February revolution of 1917, Lenin was in exile in Zurich, where had been based since leaving Russia in 1907. His journey back to Russia was a difficult prospect as it required crossing Germany and Austro-Hungary, both of which were at war with Russia. His path was eased by the German government, who agreed to allow him to pass in a sealed train, in the hope that his return to Russia would destabilise the country and prompt the withdrawal of its forces from the Eastern front. The train, protected by diplomatic privilege and unmolested by enemy forces, passed through to the north of Germany where a ferry was waiting to take Lenin to Sweden. From there, he journeyed to the Finland Station in St. Petersburg and the events leading to the October Revolution began.

Had Lenin been abducted in Switzerland and not made it to St Petersburg (or Petrograd as it was then known), then the infant democracy that had existed since the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II, may have had more time to establish itself. Prior to Lenin's arrival, the Bolsheviks had shown willingness to compromise with other socialists within the Duma and this would most likely have continued in Lenin's absence. Lenin, however, would not countenance such actions, which demonstrated weakness in his eyes. He was only interested in following one path and without the polemical battles that he enjoyed with his political opponents after his return, the Bolshevik cause would not have acquired the momentum and numerous followers necessary to spark the second revolution that ushered in the Communist era.

Answer: Winston Churchill

Winston Churchill was hit by a car in New York in 1931 when he looked the wrong way whilst crossing Fifth Avenue. In reality, of course, he survived the incident and went on to be named Prime Minister of the UK in 1940. As Britain's war leader he confounded the expectations of Hitler and took the fight back to him, helping the Allies to ultimate victory.

Had Churchill not been around in 1940 and had the rest of the build-up to that moment in time unfolded in the way that we know it did now, then there would have been few alternative choices for PM than Lord Halifax, Neville Chamberlain's foreign secretary and favoured successor. Quite how Halifax would have acted as PM is, of course, a matter of conjecture but it is known that he was amongst those discussing an approach to Mussolini with a view to finding a peace with Hitler in mid-1940. It was Churchill's determination not to give in to German aggression that won that argument and, without him there, the outcome may well have been resolved in favour of accepting a peace settlement.

Historian Andrew Roberts argues, in his essay "Prime Minister Halifax", that the point of Britain's surrender would have come on May 25, 1940, the day that the Battle of Dunkirk was to start. Rather than take on Germany at Dunkirk, Halifax would have declared an immediate armistice and the withdrawal of the British Expeditionary Force from the continent would have begun the next day. By accepting a peace deal at this point, it would have been considered the best opportunity as, if the BEF had been captured at Dunkirk, as was presumed likely, any terms offered after this would have been far less generous.

The non-aggression pact between the UK, Italy and Germany would have allowed Hitler to also make peace with France, with Germany remaining as an occupying force in the north of the country. World War II (as it would probably no longer be known) would have been over. Germany would have been free to concentrate on its fight against the Soviet Union with both the US and the UK staying out of the conflict and concentrating separately on their own issues with an aggressive Japan. Had the Soviets proved successful in their battle then, with no Anglo-American presence in Europe, their march west would have met little resistance, possibly all the way to Paris, as Stalin claimed all the conquests that Hitler had achieved before him.

Answer: Lee Oswald

What would have been the consequences of a continued Kennedy government? It seems likely that he would not have escalated the war in Vietnam as his successor, LBJ did. More likely is that he would have scaled down the military effort and attempted to take the diplomatic route. On the back of the assassination attempt, Kennedy most likely would have seen renewed support from the public and would have won re-election in 1964 by a large margin. On the back of a significant mandate, many historians would argue that he would have pushed through civil rights legislations that outlawed discrimination and segregation on the basis of colour, gender or religion.

Quite possibly, a surviving Kennedy may have led to 16 years of Kennedys in the White House with Robert most likely being primed to succeed him. RFK would most likely be more radically liberal than his brother, with welfare reform being top of his agenda.

In reality, Oswald's bullets met their target (don't let conspiracy theorists tell you otherwise) and the Kennedy era came to an abrupt end after little more than one thousand days. The government of LBJ had difficulties following him, many of them caused by the escalation of the war in Vietnam and the domestic disquiet that resulted. Though, the assassination of Robert Kennedy was also a huge factor in the denouement of the 1968 election, a failure of the 1963 assassination may well have avoided a Nixon presidency and the cynicism and distrust of government that his actions in office in the 1970s prompted.

Answer: Mikhail Gorbachev

The fall of Communism in Eastern Europe came swiftly and unexpectedly. Why did it happen in 1989 when previous popular revolts had failed? Mikhail Gorbachev's attempts to modernise the Soviet Union were undoubtedly a massively significant part of its fall. The two watchwords of the modernisation project were "glasnost" meaning openness and "perestroika" meaning restructuring. The concepts were intended to develop the Soviet Union economically and socially, making it more prosperous whilst reducing corruption. The combination of the two concepts, however, provoked a change that Gorbachev had not anticipated. The economic reforms were disastrous, leading to food shortages. Openness meant that the media was free to report accurately what was happening and openly criticise the government, thereby undermining Gorbachev's authority.

The wider geopolitical consequence was seen in the Eastern Bloc. Previous uprisings in Hungary (1956), Czechoslovakia (1968) and Poland (1980) had been brutally suppressed by Soviet political and military might. Had Gorbachev (or another leader) chosen to suppress the uprisings in the Warsaw Pact countries in 1989, the Soviet Union was still perfectly capable of doing so. However, the culture of "glasnost" encouraged a non-interventionist stance by the Soviet Union that was ultimately to prove fatal to its empire and, within two years, its existence.

In 1991, Gorbachev was placed under house arrest by disaffected conservatives within the Communist party. Though he was released unharmed, Gorbachev's authority had been fatally damaged and many of the constituent republics of the Soviet Union pushed for independence. Following a referendum in the Ukraine in December 1991, which showed overwhelming support for independence, the Soviet Union was formally dissolved.

Gorbachev resigned as leader on Christmas Day 1991. Had he been removed by hardliners prior to the events of 1989, the Soviet empire and with it the Cold War may have continued for decades to come.