HistoryExtra
type: channel
link: https://www.historyextra.com
description: Home of Britain’s bestselling history magazine and award-winning podcast
date: 2026-01-16T15:07:11.000Z
update period: hourly
update frequency: 1
update base: 2000-01-01T12:00+00:00
items: Medieval warhorses: 5 moments horsepower changed the course of history
items: Was JFK about to be re-elected? An expert weighs in on the president's lost second term
items: What if Hitler hadn't sent the Wehrmacht into the Soviet Union?
items: Conspiracy: did aliens land at Roswell?
items: Conspiracy: was Elizabeth I a man?
items: Conspiracy: who killed JFK?
items: Alternate history: what if James II and VII had kept his throne?
items: Alternate history: what if Charles II of Spain had produced an heir?
items: Alternate history: what if Henry V hadn't died in 1422?

Medieval warhorses: 5 moments horsepower changed the course of history
type: item
date: 2025-08-20T08:00:44.000Z
subject: Medieval
subject: Membership
subject: Period
subject: Medieval kings and queens
subject: Medieval life
description: From William the Conqueror’s battle-winning cavalry to Richard III’s fatal final charge, Oliver H Creighton and Robert Liddiard explore five moments when horsepower changed the course of medieval history
encoded: 1. 1066 and all that Horses were involved in King Harold’s defeat at Hastings – but also in the demise of his Norman conqueror It’s one of the most famous of all medieval images. Harold II stands upon the battlefield at Hastings, desperately grasping at an arrow lodged in his eye. This incident – depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry – is credited with ending the English king’s life and extinguishing centuries of Anglo-Saxon rule. Yet look to the right of Harold and you’ll find an image that arguably goes even further in explaining his defeat: it depicts a sword-wielding warrior mounted upon a horse. The Norman conquest of England in 1066 was an era-defining event – and its centrepiece was the battle of Hastings. That clash is graphically represented on the Bayeux Tapestry, most memorably in the image of mounted Norman knights charging the line of Anglo-Saxon warriors on foot. It’s a powerful rendition of horses making history – and for William, Duke of Normandy, those animals proved critical in securing his victory. William began the day of the pivotal action, 14 October, by ordering reconnaissance missions, receiving intelligence from returning mounted scouts on the whereabouts of Harold’s forces. When the two armies later closed in to do battle, the Bayeux Tapestry shows us, the duke mounted his warhorse and exhorted his knights to “prepare themselves manfully and wisely” as they cantered towards the forthcoming engagement. During the nine-hour struggle, William was in the thick of the fighting – and two, or possibly three, of his horses were killed beneath him. The crucial part of the battle came when a rumour spread among the Normans that their commander had been killed. The duke hurriedly rode among his now-fleeing troops, his helmet raised to prove that he was alive, so preventing a rout. At this key moment it was the mobility provided by his mount that allowed William to be in the right place at the right time, averting disaster (for him). Despite the oft-repeated…

dreamstimem35001631-217d8e2.jpg
width: 1884
height: 1256

Was JFK about to be re-elected? An expert weighs in on the president's lost second term
type: item
date: 2025-05-07T15:05:35.000Z
subject: 20th Century
subject: Period
subject: Discover / Apple News
subject: US presidents
description: Historian Mark White explores whether John F Kennedy would have defeated Barry Goldwater in 1964 – and how his second term might have changed history
encoded: On 22 November 1963, President John F Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas. At the time of his death, Kennedy had served fewer than three years as president, but within US politics, he was a figure who already loomed large, his reputation forged by savvy political instincts, his carefully formulated image, and his demonstrable grit as a statesman during the escalations of the Cold War. On that day in Dallas, it’s easy to suppose that Kennedy may have felt justifiably confident about the prospect of the 1964 election that loomed on the horizon. But would the president truly have been re-elected in a landslide? What would a second term have looked like? And how might the USA – and the world – have changed if he had lived? On the podcast | JFK: the man behind the myths “I think Kennedy […] would've beaten his opponent Barry Goldwater comfortably,” says historian Mark White, speaking on the HistoryExtra podcast. “He averaged 70% approval ratings,” which was “the highest of any president in modern recorded history.” A likely second term Heading into the 1964 presidential electoral campaign, Kennedy remained hugely popular. In particular, his handling of international crises had bolstered his image as a steady foreign policy leader – a necessary thing in the burgeoning nuclear age. Though his legislative progress domestically was widely perceived to be slower, his youthful energy and rhetorical appeal had galvanised much of the electorate, allowing them to be patient with the president’s initiatives. In contrast, his likely Republican challenger, Barry Goldwater, was a hardline conservative senator from Arizona whose campaign would later mark a sharp rightward shift in Republican politics. Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act, advocated for the use of tactical nuclear weapons, and promoted a minimal federal government – a platform that alienated many moderate voters (the kinds of voters that Richard Nixon had wooed in his hotly contested 1960 election battle agains…

GettyImages-515550684-d88812a-e1746629853579.jpg
width: 620
height: 416

What if Hitler hadn't sent the Wehrmacht into the Soviet Union?
type: item
date: 2024-06-20T08:05:21.000Z
subject: Membership
subject: Period
subject: Second World War
description: Professor Evan Mawdsley tells Nige Tassell about the direction that World War II may have taken had the Nazis not turned eastwards
encoded: The largest military offensive in history, Operation Barbarossa – which lasted from 22 June 1941 until 7 January – proved disastrous for Adolf Hitler and arguably signalled the beginning of his decline from power. Germany suffered more than 750,000 casualties. It was a game-changer. The course of the war altered, ending in Germany's defeat. But what would have happened had Hitler not sent the Wehrmacht, the nation’s unified armed forces, eastwards? Read more | Operation Barbarossa: why Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union was his greatest mistake "The only military alternative to invading the Soviet Union would have been to knock Britain out of the war." That's the view of Evan Mawdsley, honorary professorial research fellow in the School of Humanities at the University of Glasgow and author of many books on World War II, including Thunder in the East: the Nazi-Soviet War, 1941-1945 (Bloomsbury, 2015). In context In the early summer of 1941, Germany launched Operation Barbarossa, a huge invasion of the Soviet Union. The idea behind the operation was not only to diminish, and possibly demolish, Communist ideology in Europe, but also to create Lebensraum – or ‘living space’ – to which Germans could be relocated and from where the German way of life, as defined by Nazi rule, could be protected and advanced. But the campaign was a complete disaster for Hitler, a terrible miscalculation of how easy he thought the invasion would be. It is estimated that around 200,000 German soldiers lost their lives during Barbarossa’s deeply bloody six months. “Of course, Hitler could have settled for the stunning successes of 1938–1940, which gave ‘Greater Germany’ control over western and central continental Europe, from the Pyrenees to the Vistula River in Poland, and from Norway to the Alps. There was also an alliance with Italy, and compliance from a right-wing government of occupied France. But Hitler was in a hurry. He wanted to keep the initiative and stay in control of events.…

2AXW7FD-71bb55e.jpg
width: 1600
height: 1125

Conspiracy: did aliens land at Roswell?
type: item
date: 2024-02-07T07:09:42.000Z
creator: Rob Attar
subject: 20th Century
subject: Membership
subject: Period
description: Dr David Clarke investigates the conspiracy theory that says the US government has been hiding the existence of alien life from us all
encoded: In July 1947, some unusual debris was discovered at Roswell Army Air Field in New Mexico. Was this the remains of a crashed military balloon, or something from much, much further away? Has the US government spent the past 75 years hiding proof of alien life from us all? In this new bonus episode of Conspiracy (exclusively for HistoryExtra Plus subscribers), Dr David Carke gives Rob Attar the lowdown about the Roswell Incident and considers how it relates to the long history of UFO sightings. View Green Video on the source website

Conspiracy-2-WL-Roswell-cad247f.jpg
width: 620
height: 413

Conspiracy: was Elizabeth I a man?
type: item
date: 2024-01-25T08:08:25.000Z
creator: Tracy Borman
subject: Elizabethan
subject: Membership
subject: Period
subject: Tudor
description: Tudor historian Tracy Borman explores the conspiracy theory that the future Elizabeth I had been replaced by a young boy in her childhood
encoded: In her most famous speech, delivered on 9 August 1588, Queen Elizabeth I declared that she had the "heart and stomach of a king". Was that just rhetoric? Or could England’s iconic Tudor queen actually have been a man masquerading as a woman? In this new episode of Conspiracy, Tudor historian Tracy Borman speaks to Rob Attar about the bizarre 'Bisley Boy' conspiracy theory that was popularised by none other than Dracula author Bram Stoker. View Green Video on the source website

Conspiracy-2-WL-Elizabeth-I-ef675a7.jpg
width: 620
height: 413

Conspiracy: who killed JFK?
type: item
date: 2024-01-18T11:42:47.000Z
creator: Rob Attar
subject: 20th Century
subject: Membership
subject: Period
subject: US presidents
description: Investigative journalist Gerald Posner examines some of the many conspiracy theories surrounding the murder of the American president
encoded: On the 22 November 1963, President John F Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas. Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested and charged with the murder, but over the past 60 years millions of people have come to believe that Oswald was just a small cog in a wider plot to murder the president, orchestrated by a powerful group such as the CIA, the Mafia or the Cuban regime. In this new episode of Conspiracy, Rob Attar speaks to the journalist Gerald Posner whose landmark 1993 book Case Closed famously concluded that Oswald had indeed acted alone. Together they dissect the evidence from the assassination and consider why conspiracy theories about it have become so widespread.

Conspiracy-WL-d6f825c.jpg
width: 620
height: 413

Conspiracy: was Elizabeth I a man?
type: item
date: 2024-01-18T11:40:16.000Z
creator: Rob Attar
subject: Membership
subject: Period
subject: Tudor
description: Tudor historian Tracy Borman explores the conspiracy theory that the future Elizabeth I had been replaced by a young boy in her childhood
encoded: In her most famous speech, delivered on 9 August 1588, Queen Elizabeth I declared that she had the "heart and stomach of a king". Was that just rhetoric? Or could England’s iconic Tudor queen actually have been a man masquerading as a woman? In this new episode of Conspiracy, Tudor historian Tracy Borman speaks to Rob Attar about the bizarre 'Bisley Boy' conspiracy theory that was popularised by none other than Dracula author Bram Stoker.

Alternate history: what if James II and VII had kept his throne?
type: item
date: 2023-11-06T12:45:54.000Z
creator: Nige Tassell
subject: Membership
subject: Period
subject: Stuart
description: Nige Tassell asks Professor Ted Vallance about the future of both monarchy and state religion had James II and VII not been usurped in 1688
encoded: In late 1688, King James II of England and Ireland, James VII of Scotland, saw his near-four-year reign drift to an end, after which he disappeared into exile. Replacing him on the throne were his son-in-law William III of Orange, the leader of the Dutch Republic, and William’s wife, James’s daughter Mary II. In England, the change in monarchs, known as the Glorious Revolution, was achieved with little bloodshed. James chose to disband his army, allowing William and his troops, having landed in Devon, to make their way to London relatively unimpeded. It might have been a largely peaceful surrender of power, but it was a significant one, too. William and Mary’s joint reign broke the notion of the divine right of kings by introducing a ‘contract’ between the monarchy and the people, as represented by Parliament. James, in contrast, had favoured a tighter concentration of power within one individual: himself. Had James repelled William and Mary’s invasion, what kind of monarchy might have developed under him? In context: the rule of James II and VII James II and VII may have ruled for fewer than four years, but his reign marked a turbulent time, both politically and religiously. Aiming to both curb the powers of Parliament and strengthen the hand of his fellow Catholics, he encountered significant opposition from politicians and clergymen alike. This tumult was resolved by the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which saw James’s removal from the throne and his replacement by his daughter Mary and her husband, William III of Orange. England was once again under Protestant rule, and the notion of the divine right of kings was punctured forever. “First of all, we need to understand James’s aims for Parliament,” explains Professor Ted Vallance of the University of Roehampton and author of The Glorious Revolution: 1688 – Britain’s Fight For Liberty (Little, Brown, 2006). “He aimed to fashion a House of Commons that would vote for the repeal of the Penal Laws, which excluded Catho…

GettyImages2637997-91a16da.png
width: 620
height: 413

Alternate history: what if Charles II of Spain had produced an heir?
type: item
date: 2023-11-01T15:52:27.000Z
subject: Membership
subject: Period
subject: Stuart
description: Nige Tassell and Dr Adrian Pearce discuss how history may have been different had the king not named a young French duke as his successor
encoded: When Charles II of Spain died in 1700, his infertility – “he had a single testicle,” his autopsy reported, “black as coal” – left no heir to the throne. A dispute between the great nations of Europe then ensued. Charles had named the teenage Philip of Anjou as his successor, handing the crown to the House of Bourbon and strengthening the bonds between Spain and France. Such closer ties were met with deep concern in other quarters of Europe – in particular Britain, the Dutch Republic and the Holy Roman Empire – where the preferred choice was Charles III of Austria. This Grand Alliance aimed to maintain Europe’s delicate balance of power and reduce French influence on the Iberian Peninsula. The dispute mutated into the War of the Spanish Succession, a 13-year conflict that fractured the continent. In context: the death of Charles II On 1 November 1700, five days before his 39th birthday, Charles II of Spain died where he was born, in the Royal Alcázar of Madrid. Despite being twice married, the king failed to produce an heir to the crown, his infertility linked to serial inbreeding within the House of Habsburg. In the last weeks of his life, he had been persuaded to name the 16-year-old Philip of Anjou, the grandson of his elder sister and, most notably, Louis XIV of France, as his successor. This put the House of Bourbon on the Spanish throne, a move that precipitated the War of the Spanish Succession and significantly diverted the course of European history. “Had Charles had a child,” says Dr Adrian Pearce, associate professor in the School of European Languages, Culture and Society at University College London, “this war would not, of course, have taken place. It was Charles’s will that threatened the existing European balance of power by placing a scion of the French ruling dynasty on the throne of Spain.” The Grand Alliance could not have been blamed for going to war. “The concerns in Britain and elsewhere regarding a natural Franco-Spanish alliance were not enti…

GettyImages463895999-3f0bc0a.png
width: 619
height: 413

Alternate history: what if Henry V hadn't died in 1422?
type: item
date: 2023-08-31T11:54:48.000Z
subject: Medieval
subject: Period
description: Professor Anne Curry and Nige Tassell consider the future shape of English and French history had the victor of Agincourt lived longer
encoded: Since his unexpected victory at the battle of Agincourt in 1415, Henry V’s fortunes had been transformed. From being a monarch in fear of being deposed by those closest to him, within a handful of years he was heir to the French throne. His succession was set out in the treaty of Troyes in 1420, an agreement that also outlined his marriage to Catherine of Valois, daughter of the French king, Charles VI. With support from Burgundy, Henry continued in his campaign to win further support for Charles in Armagnac territory, which was resolute in its backing of the French king’s son, the Dauphin Charles, who had lost his inheritance rights when the treaty was signed. His power had also diminished by being implicated in the murder of John the Fearless, Duke of Burgundy. But before he could consolidate the remainder of the country, Henry died in August 1422 after contracting dysentery. His son, Henry, became king of England, and when Charles VI passed away a few weeks later, the young infant inherited the French crown too. He wasn’t yet a year old. In context: the death of Henry V The premature death of Henry V in 1422, aged just 35, was a significant loss for England. By then, Henry was heir to the French throne, thanks to the terms of the Treaty of Troyes and his marriage to Catherine of Valois, the daughter of French king Charles VI. He was a strong and capable leader, who could have brought the kingdoms of England and France together under a single monarch, but his death meant that the alliance was doomed in the following decades as his young son, Henry VI, took over. France would ultimately claim victory in the Hundred Years' War with many subsequent conflicts breaking out between the two countries across the centuries. Henry V’s premature death throws up a number of talking points. Had Henry outlived Charles VI and become dual king, what would the relationship between England and France have resembled – and what would have been the consequences for the rest of Europe …

GettyImages804458876-19f4486.png
width: 620
height: 413