Alternate history - What if? United Scandinavians

[Tran]

Time for another alternate history series. Scandinavia (except northern part of present-day Sweden and Finland), Denmark, Iceland, and Greenland once united under the banner of Kalmar Union (http://www.tacitus.nu/historical-atlas/scandinavia/union.htm).

The Kalmar Union was a series of personal unions, from 1397 to 1524, that united the three kingdoms of Denmark, Norway (with Iceland and Greenland) and Sweden (including some of Finland) under a single monarch. The countries had given up their sovereignty, but not their independence, and diverging interests (especially Swedish nobility's dissatisfaction over the dominant role played by Denmark and Holstein) gave rise to a conflict that would hamper it from the 1430s until the union's breakup in 1523 when Gustav Vasa became king of Sweden. The union was formally dissolved the following year. Norway and her overseas dependencies, however, continued to remain a part of the realm of Denmark-Norway under the Oldenburg dynasty for several centuries after the dissolution.

What do you think:

1. Is it actually possible for the Kalmar Union to continue to exist as an entity? Perhaps if Olav (son of Queen Margaret) didn't die at young age, he could actually do something? Or was it a union destined to doom since its inception?

2. Supposedly the Union continue to exist and managed to stop internal unrest. Will it actually become a strong entity? Will it able to resist and prevent annexation by its neighbours? How large do you think the military compared to other European kingdoms or states?

3. Will they attempt to expand their boundaries? Will there be race with other European kingdoms making colonies in the 'New World'?

4. How do other European states view this (big and strong entity?) Will continental European states (and perhaps England) at one time unite and attempt to destroy it? Or will this 'Scandinavian Union' smartly play the nations of Europe one against another, creating vassals, etc? What if major wars in Europe (Seven Years War, War of Spanish Succession, Thirty Years War) still occurred? Stay neutral? Who is the most likely allies and enemy?

5. Will it drastically change the political look of Europe at 20th century? A great power with many colonies worldwide? All of northern Europe under Scandinavian domination?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/Skandinavism.jpg

[Randarkmaan]

1. Is it actually possible for the Kalmar Union to continue to exist as an entity? Perhaps if Olav (son of Queen Margaret) didn't die at young age, he could actually do something? Or was it a union destined to doom since its inception?

Possibly, but the trouble would be that Danes and Swedes would undoubtedly continue arguing over who should be the dominant ones. Norway would not be so important was too weak as it's population was way too small (smaller than both Denmark and Sweden) and far too scattered, not to mention separated by mountains running down the country. If the Swedes and the Danes could somehow reconcile, the Union might be preserved.


2. Supposedly the Union continue to exist and managed to stop internal unrest. Will it actually become a strong entity? Will it able to resist and prevent annexation by its neighbours? How large do you think the military compared to other European kingdoms or states?

I think that they would not be strong enough on land, but strong enough to challenge complete Russian (and other foreign powers') domination of the sea with the combined fleets of Denmark-Norway (counted as one entity I'd say) and Sweden. I don't think the military would be that large, but I think Sweden had quite a competent military in the 17th century, if they came to dominate military matters and also had in their resources the manpower of Denmark and Norway (perhaps not from Norway, due to the long time it would take to recruit even a small army from there)


3. Will they attempt to expand their boundaries? Will there be race with other European kingdoms making colonies in the 'New World'?

Seeing as Denmark and Norway has always had relatively large merchant navies and good sailors, I don't see why not, especially since they could use their colonies on Iceland and Greenland as docking bases and such. Due to the nature of the winds and the location of those countries, I think, if they were successful in colonizing and able to keep up with competition from other European states, they would probable colonize Northern and Eastern parts of Canada. Would probably receive mostly Norwegian and Danish settlers.


4. How do other European states view this (big and strong entity?) Will continental European states (and perhaps England) at one time unite and attempt to destroy it? Or will this 'Scandinavian Union' smartly play the nations of Europe one against another, creating vassals, etc? What if major wars in Europe (Seven Years War, War of Spanish Succession, Thirty Years War) still occurred? Stay neutral? Who is the most likely allies and enemy?

I'll let someone else answer


5. Will it drastically change the political look of Europe at 20th century? A great power with many colonies worldwide? All of northern Europe under Scandinavian domination?

I'll let someone else answer

Are you Scandinavian by the way, Tran?

[Gurkhal]

1.
Is it actually possible for the Kalmar Union to continue to exist as an entity? Perhaps if Olav (son of Queen Margaret) didn't die at young age, he could actually do something? Or was it a union destined to doom since its inception?

Like it was already stated, if the nobles of Sweden and Denmark could somehow manage to keep together it might work. However I think that one of them would have to be the dominant, and thus provoce the other to resist, or they risk squabbeling since none can force the other to obey. But if the kings of the Union somehow manage to walk that fine balance between the many various sides and groups who wanted to be dominant, then I think it might well have a good chance.


2. Supposedly the Union continue to exist and managed to stop internal unrest. Will it actually become a strong entity? Will it able to resist and prevent annexation by its neighbours? How large do you think the military compared to other European kingdoms or states?

If everything would go as it went with a divided Scandinavia, then yes I think that the Kalmar Union could dominate Northern Europe. Seeing as Sweden did so for some time, I do not belive that the Union would manage any less with even greater resources. Both Sweden's great military landstrenght, Denmark-Norways naval power and controll over the sea-connection between the Baltic Sea and the Atlantic I think it COULD be a very powerful creature.


3. Will they attempt to expand their boundaries? Will there be race with other European kingdoms making colonies in the 'New World'?

Of course they would. Both Sweden and Denmark-Norway attempted with various degrees of success to do that, both in Europe and outside. If they worked together than I belive that they could well have manage to gain both lands within the Old and New World. To which degree they would also mange to keep these conquests better than they did in reality is however a different matter.


4. How do other European states view this (big and strong entity?) Will continental European states (and perhaps England) at one time unite and attempt to destroy it? Or will this 'Scandinavian Union' smartly play the nations of Europe one against another, creating vassals, etc? What if major wars in Europe (Seven Years War, War of Spanish Succession, Thirty Years War) still occurred? Stay neutral? Who is the most likely allies and enemy?

I think that many Baltic and Northern states would feel very threatend by a such political ententity. The Dutch, the Hansen, Russia, Poland and the Teutonic Templars to name a few I think might see a united Scandinavia as a great threat, either in time or after having seen a such power's imperialism up-close. So yes, I think that alot of people would dearly want to see the Union destroyed for various resons. If they would manage it is however a different point. Also, I think that it would more likly be about cheaking the advancement of this great state, rather than destroying it. Look at France. Coalition after coalition have fought against her with different outcomes. However, although the French have been stopped at various points, I can't think of a single time when it was actually a matter of France's surivival, with the Hundred Year's War as the big exception. I only that that the Union might face true danger of destruction from within.


5. Will it drastically change the political look of Europe at 20th century? A great power with many colonies worldwide? All of northern Europe under Scandinavian domination?

That would depend entirly upon how the state survived the 19th centuary, and the history before. Would it survive its (probably) many external enemies? Would it mange to avoid being split up like so many other old states in the waves of nationalism? It could be a titan on the political scene, or the broken remaint of a state which once, a long time ago, mattered in the world.

[Lord Winter]

Won't answer one since I don't know enough about that time.


2. Supposedly the Union continue to exist and managed to stop internal unrest. Will it actually become a strong entity? Will it able to resist and prevent annexation by its neighbours? How large do you think the military compared to other European kingdoms or states?

It would proably be faily strong since its only realy threat would be Poland. (Russia was behind the times and occupided in the south with the Ottomans and the HRE, being the indesive mass it was. If it could overcome Poland which I think it could as it did historicly it would be a very decisve power in european history.


3. Will they attempt to expand their boundaries? Will there be race with other European kingdoms making colonies in the 'New World'?

I think it would defently take Swedens historical lands around the gulf of Finland and possiably Prussia. However I think France and England would end up dominanating the colonies. The north just dosn't have enough resources to fight some preaty bloody land wars and a huge naval power at the same time. It may also make enimies of the french, one of their natural allies.


4. How do other European states view this (big and strong entity?) Will continental European states (and perhaps England) at one time unite and attempt to destroy it? Or will this 'Scandinavian Union' smartly play the nations of Europe one against another, creating vassals, etc? What if major wars in Europe (Seven Years War, War of Spanish Succession, Thirty Years War) still occurred? Stay neutral? Who is the most likely allies and enemy

An alliance with France would proably follow historcial patterns as France would still want the obvious enemy of the Hasburgs in it's camp. Victory in the 30's years war would then be certain andboth Scandinavia and France would reside as Supper powers. From their who knows? Does France win the WSS and become the domminant power? Or does the balance of power holds and Scandinavia just becomes another European nation? It's hard to say.



5. Will it drastically change the political look of Europe at 20th century? A great power with many colonies worldwide? All of northern Europe under Scandinavian domination?

Hard to say, have to agree with Gurkhal.

[Innocentius]

It would proably be faily strong since its only realy threat would be Poland. (Russia was behind the times and occupided in the south with the Ottomans and the HRE, being the indesive mass it was. If it could overcome Poland which I think it could as it did historicly it would be a very decisve power in european history.

The Ottomans? Russia had no problem with the Ottomans until the 16th or 17th century. The main issue for the Russians by this time (early 15th century) was the fragmentation of what is modern Russia, and the overlordship of the Golden Horde. They had no business with the HRE except for profitable trade.
Poland on the other hand was busy fighting Turks and the Teutonic Order by this time, and I don't see what interest a Scandinavian union would have in invadin any land at all. Invading and conquering land was something you just didn't do, unless it was unorganized pagans, there was no money to do so nor the motivation: why wage war upon your catholic brethren who you can't defeat anyway?


I think it would defently take Swedens historical lands around the gulf of Finland and possiably Prussia. However I think France and England would end up dominanating the colonies. The north just dosn't have enough resources to fight some preaty bloody land wars and a huge naval power at the same time. It may also make enimies of the french, one of their natural allies.

The lands around the gulf of Finland was in the hands of the Teutonic Order, and it is very possible that they might have remained in power if supported by the Kalmar Union (Queen Margareta was at times at war with the Teutons, but for most part they engaged in very lucrative trading). Had they lost their power, I don't think the lands would have been conquered anyway. The expansionist mentality of the 17th century didn't exist by this time. Possibly if the Union remained stabile until the early modern era, then perhaps their attention would turn to the east, but who knows?

This is what I don't like about "alternate history", it poses too many "what if"s to answer. A minor change in history can change a lot (such as an untimely death).


An alliance with France would proably follow historcial patterns as France would still want the obvious enemy of the Hasburgs in it's camp. Victory in the 30's years war would then be certain andboth Scandinavia and France would reside as Supper powers. From their who knows? Does France win the WSS and become the domminant power? Or does the balance of power holds and Scandinavia just becomes another European nation? It's hard to say.

What gives the Thirty Years' War to even occur if there was a unified north? Suppose Luther comes up with his ideas in any case, what gives they would be adopted by the north? Why would the Kalmar Union, if it remained Catholic, interfere in some distant war in Bohemia were the Catholics were obviously winning?

[Innocentius]

1. Is it actually possible for the Kalmar Union to continue to exist as an entity? Perhaps if Olav (son of Queen Margaret) didn't die at young age, he could actually do something? Or was it a union destined to doom since its inception?

On the last question: Yes, most likely so. Historically, foreign intervention and lords were not very popular in Sweden and Finland. I hate to bring up the cliché of the free and independent men of the north, but it's true in a way. Swedish peasantry didn't hesitate to voice their opinion if they were displeased, and they were never serfs like peasants in many other European kingdoms.


2. Supposedly the Union continue to exist and managed to stop internal unrest. Will it actually become a strong entity? Will it able to resist and prevent annexation by its neighbours? How large do you think the military compared to other European kingdoms or states?

Strong to the degree of self-preservation and possibly some expansion to the east, given that the Union lasts until the theories and way of thinking of the renaissance and early modern period came about. The military would probably always be rather small, as the population of the Union would be too small. Economic limitations would prevent any massive expansion.


3. Will they attempt to expand their boundaries? Will there be race with other European kingdoms making colonies in the 'New World'?

In a later era: yes and yes. Still in the medieval period: conquest of the pagan lands of Karelia and Ingermanland was a hot topic for Sweden at least as late as the 1490-ies, I think the Norwegians fought in the Kola peninsula and along the coasts of the White Sea, but anyone with more knowledge about this may correct me. Other than winning pagan and possibly Orthodox lands in the name of Christ, I don't think there would be much expansion for the first two hundred years of the Union's supposed existance.


4. How do other European states view this (big and strong entity?) Will continental European states (and perhaps England) at one time unite and attempt to destroy it? Or will this 'Scandinavian Union' smartly play the nations of Europe one against another, creating vassals, etc? What if major wars in Europe (Seven Years War, War of Spanish Succession, Thirty Years War) still occurred? Stay neutral? Who is the most likely allies and enemy?

European powers such as England, France and the HRE had too many problems of their own to bother with the Kalmar Union, but the Öresund duty would probably be a hot topic. English (and later Dutch) merchants were always interested in balancing the power around Öresund to avoid overly high customs. A great Union to the north, in control of both shores of Öresund, might be a serious threat to their trading abilties with the entire Baltic Sea!

In the end, I'll go with the rest of the previous posters and say that yes, the Union would've acquired many enemies in time. Early on though, during the first quarter of the 15th century, no-one would have the time or power to attempt to overthrow such a union. Possibly they would solve their own conflicts to deal with this threat instead though...


5. Will it drastically change the political look of Europe at 20th century? A great power with many colonies worldwide? All of northern Europe under Scandinavian domination?

Don't know, this question is way too big for an amatheur like me to speculate on.

[Lord Winter]

@ Innocentius, I was taking more of a longer term veiw in my analyisis at about 1600-1700 hundered and how Swedens golden age would have been affected.



The Ottomans? Russia had no problem with the Ottomans until the 16th or 17th century. The main issue for the Russians by this time (early 15th century) was the fragmentation of what is modern Russia, and the overlordship of the Golden Horde. They had no business with the HRE except for profitable trade.
Poland on the other hand was busy fighting Turks and the Teutonic Order by this time, and I don't see what interest a Scandinavian union would have in invadin any land at all. Invading and conquering land was something you just didn't do, unless it was unorganized pagans, there was no money to do so nor the motivation: why wage war upon your catholic brethren who you can't defeat anyway?


My point with that post was that their was nothing to stop Scandinavia, if the union was kept intact, from taking the hisotical Swedish empire. Espicaly sence the threat of denmark to the south would not exsist.



This is what I don't like about "alternate history", it poses too many "what if"s to answer. A minor change in history can change a lot (such as an untimely death).

Agreed, we can speculate all we want but theirs to many veriables to say for certain.


What gives the Thirty Years' War to even occur if there was a unified north? Suppose Luther comes up with his ideas in any case, what gives they would be adopted by the north? Why would the Kalmar Union, if it remained Catholic, interfere in some distant war in Bohemia were the Catholics were obviously winning?

The rout cause was still their, the peace of Ausburg would have still been disputed thus leading to a wide war in Germany from their France would still be egear to limit the power of the Haspburgs and the Scandinaivas would be a natural ally to have.

[Tran]

Possibly, but the trouble would be that Danes and Swedes would undoubtedly continue arguing over who should be the dominant ones. Norway would not be so important was too weak as it's population was way too small (smaller than both Denmark and Sweden) and far too scattered, not to mention separated by mountains running down the country. If the Swedes and the Danes could somehow reconcile, the Union might be preserved.

1. Like it was already stated, if the nobles of Sweden and Denmark could somehow manage to keep together it might work. However I think that one of them would have to be the dominant, and thus provoce the other to resist, or they risk squabbeling since none can force the other to obey. But if the kings of the Union somehow manage to walk that fine balance between the many various sides and groups who wanted to be dominant, then I think it might well have a good chance.

On the last question: Yes, most likely so. Historically, foreign intervention and lords were not very popular in Sweden and Finland. I hate to bring up the cliché of the free and independent men of the north, but it's true in a way. Swedish peasantry didn't hesitate to voice their opinion if they were displeased, and they were never serfs like peasants in many other European kingdoms.
Wouldn't marriage alliance stop this quarrel? If you have a heir or king/queen with Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian blood in it, wouldn't that appease the Danes and Swedes? And with the relocation of Union's capital?



I think that they would not be strong enough on land, but strong enough to challenge complete Russian (and other foreign powers') domination of the sea with the combined fleets of Denmark-Norway (counted as one entity I'd say) and Sweden. I don't think the military would be that large, but I think Sweden had quite a competent military in the 17th century, if they came to dominate military matters and also had in their resources the manpower of Denmark and Norway (perhaps not from Norway, due to the long time it would take to recruit even a small army from there)

If everything would go as it went with a divided Scandinavia, then yes I think that the Kalmar Union could dominate Northern Europe. Seeing as Sweden did so for some time, I do not belive that the Union would manage any less with even greater resources. Both Sweden's great military landstrenght, Denmark-Norways naval power and controll over the sea-connection between the Baltic Sea and the Atlantic I think it COULD be a very powerful creature.

It would proably be faily strong since its only realy threat would be Poland. (Russia was behind the times and occupided in the south with the Ottomans and the HRE, being the indesive mass it was. If it could overcome Poland which I think it could as it did historicly it would be a very decisve power in european history.

Strong to the degree of self-preservation and possibly some expansion to the east, given that the Union lasts until the theories and way of thinking of the renaissance and early modern period came about. The military would probably always be rather small, as the population of the Union would be too small. Economic limitations would prevent any massive expansion.
The Russia (Principality of Muscovy) in 15th century isn't big either, but when you look 200 years later, it had become big and quite powerful. It also took many wars for Russia to expand its borders. Why can't a united Scandinavia did the same? On the plus side, it already had a fairly strong navy.



Seeing as Denmark and Norway has always had relatively large merchant navies and good sailors, I don't see why not, especially since they could use their colonies on Iceland and Greenland as docking bases and such. Due to the nature of the winds and the location of those countries, I think, if they were successful in colonizing and able to keep up with competition from other European states, they would probable colonize Northern and Eastern parts of Canada. Would probably receive mostly Norwegian and Danish settlers.

Of course they would. Both Sweden and Denmark-Norway attempted with various degrees of success to do that, both in Europe and outside. If they worked together than I belive that they could well have manage to gain both lands within the Old and New World. To which degree they would also mange to keep these conquests better than they did in reality is however a different matter.

I think it would defently take Swedens historical lands around the gulf of Finland and possiably Prussia. However I think France and England would end up dominanating the colonies. The north just dosn't have enough resources to fight some preaty bloody land wars and a huge naval power at the same time. It may also make enimies of the french, one of their natural allies.

In a later era: yes and yes. Still in the medieval period: conquest of the pagan lands of Karelia and Ingermanland was a hot topic for Sweden at least as late as the 1490-ies, I think the Norwegians fought in the Kola peninsula and along the coasts of the White Sea, but anyone with more knowledge about this may correct me. Other than winning pagan and possibly Orthodox lands in the name of Christ, I don't think there would be much expansion for the first two hundred years of the Union's supposed existance.
I tend to agree with Randarkmaan and Gurkhal here. They already colonized Iceland and Greenland, so I tend to believe that they'll be able to colonize at least part of northern America. Also, since historically Sweden managed to control sizeable areas around the Gulf of Finland (like Estonia) by 17th century like DoH said, I also believe that by similar centuries, the Union would eventually did so.



I think that many Baltic and Northern states would feel very threatend by a such political ententity. The Dutch, the Hansen, Russia, Poland and the Teutonic Templars to name a few I think might see a united Scandinavia as a great threat, either in time or after having seen a such power's imperialism up-close. So yes, I think that alot of people would dearly want to see the Union destroyed for various resons. If they would manage it is however a different point. Also, I think that it would more likly be about cheaking the advancement of this great state, rather than destroying it. Look at France. Coalition after coalition have fought against her with different outcomes. However, although the French have been stopped at various points, I can't think of a single time when it was actually a matter of France's surivival, with the Hundred Year's War as the big exception. I only that that the Union might face true danger of destruction from within.

An alliance with France would proably follow historcial patterns as France would still want the obvious enemy of the Hasburgs in it's camp. Victory in the 30's years war would then be certain andboth Scandinavia and France would reside as Supper powers. From their who knows? Does France win the WSS and become the domminant power? Or does the balance of power holds and Scandinavia just becomes another European nation? It's hard to say.

European powers such as England, France and the HRE had too many problems of their own to bother with the Kalmar Union, but the Öresund duty would probably be a hot topic. English (and later Dutch) merchants were always interested in balancing the power around Öresund to avoid overly high customs. A great Union to the north, in control of both shores of Öresund, might be a serious threat to their trading abilties with the entire Baltic Sea!

In the end, I'll go with the rest of the previous posters and say that yes, the Union would've acquired many enemies in time. Early on though, during the first quarter of the 15th century, no-one would have the time or power to attempt to overthrow such a union. Possibly they would solve their own conflicts to deal with this threat instead though...
Interesting! But then, many countries would have to cross the sea between Scandinavia and Denmark before they can really defeat the entity. I don't think that would be easy with a strong united Scandinavian navy. Maybe they'd be able to conquer part of Denmark and driven back later.



That would depend entirly upon how the state survived the 19th centuary, and the history before. Would it survive its (probably) many external enemies? Would it mange to avoid being split up like so many other old states in the waves of nationalism? It could be a titan on the political scene, or the broken remaint of a state which once, a long time ago, mattered in the world.
Let's say, the world went as in our timeline until year 1900...(except Scandinavia of course) Any chance of World War I involving Scandinavias? As for the 'nationalism', well , Germany was formed through Bismarck's campaign in which he managed to unite the small states scattered throughout central Europe into one single state. Italy, despite the many different speaks and cultures, was united too into a single state. I don't really think nationalism will weaken Scandinavia, maybe strengthen it instead?



Are you Scandinavian by the way, Tran?
:beam:

[Gurkhal]

Wouldn't marriage alliance stop this quarrel? If you have a heir or king/queen with Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian blood in it, wouldn't that appease the Danes and Swedes? And with the relocation of Union's capital?

I find it hard to belive that a royal marriage would be enough. The king would still need somewhere to reign, and the ones who didn’t get him wouldn’t be to happy about it. Also, when trying to appese both, the king would run the risk of making none happy. But let’s also remember that the cause of strife within the union wasn’t about natioanlism in the modern sense. To my knowledge, Engelbrecht, who is considered a hero in his rebellion against the Danes wasn’t intressted in abolish the union for some “Swedish freedom from the foreigners” but rather angry that the royal offcials were taxing to heavy, and that Erik of Mecklemburg’s war against the Hanse (spelling?) was hurting his and his fellow Bergmens’ export to Germnay. The great threat I think was from ambicious Swedish nobles who wanted to be king, and that the Union monarch ruled with a hand to heavy, while waging a war in northern Germany. So I think that a royal marriage MIGHT have made things easier. But for all in heaven I don’t think it would be guaranteed. Might insteed set the stage for a grand civil war about who should be the new union king. If you take a look at Swedish middle age politics, I think that you’ll quickly find that it’s a mess, to take it easy. There were constantly nobles stabbing each other in the back, rivalery between the kings of Denmark and of Sweden as well as almost constant, more or less direct war between various nobles. Damned, what we called civil war, I get the feeling, was the normal state of affairs at the time. And the same I am sure could be told about Denmark.

I could be wrong, but that’s the impression I’ve got from what I’ve read.


The Russia (Principality of Muscovy) in 15th century isn't big either, but when you look 200 years later, it had become big and quite powerful. It also took many wars for Russia to expand its borders. Why can't a united Scandinavia did the same? On the plus side, it already had a fairly strong navy.

I’m not really sure I understand what you’re aiming at. Could you elaborate and precise the question?


Interesting! But then, many countries would have to cross the sea between Scandinavia and Denmark before they can really defeat the entity. I don't think that would be easy with a strong united Scandinavian navy. Maybe they'd be able to conquer part of Denmark and driven back later.

But if they can strike at Denmark, then it’s alot eaiser to get too. Denmark lies while open for attacks from the continental powers, while Balticum is open for attacks from both Poland and Russia and Russia could also strike against Finland. On the seas, I’m sure that a united Scandinavia could challange almost anyone within the Baltic Sea. But outside I’m not sure. I am also not entirly sure that Scandinavia would have the resources to protect a true empire for several centuries, although I could be wrong here.


Let's say, the world went as in our timeline until year 1900...(except Scandinavia of course) Any chance of World War I involving Scandinavias? As for the 'nationalism', well , Germany was formed through Bismarck's campaign in which he managed to unite the small states scattered throughout central Europe into one single state. Italy, despite the many different speaks and cultures, was united too into a single state. I don't really think nationalism will weaken Scandinavia, maybe strengthen it instead?

Most certainly Scandinavia could be involved in World War I. Russia to the east would be a huge threat, and considering the warm relations that Sweden had with Germany I think Scandinavia and Germany could well end up on the same sides.

Regarding nationalism I think that Scandiavia would have more problems than help from it. Thinking how Norweigans, Danes, Sweds, Finns, Balts and also potential Geman/Russian or Polish areas would crave for independence. I think that rather than looking at Germany and Italy, Austeria-Hungary, Imperial Russia and the Ottoman Empire would be more similer to a united Scandinavia. Lots of minor ethnic groups waiting to get a chance of indepence. Then, it’s not entirly sure that such wishes would result in anything pracitical without the aid of outside powers. But then I could easily see both Russia, Germany and England having intreassts in splitting a united Scandinavia open into minor states.

Remember how it went with the union between Norway and Sweden in the same period. :wall:

[Tran]

I’m not really sure I understand what you’re aiming at. Could you elaborate and precise the question?
I think these two maps explain well:
Year 1400 (http://www.euratlas.com/history_europe/europe_map_1400.html)
Year 1600 (http://www.euratlas.com/history_europe/europe_map_1600.html)

If you look at Muscovy (top right) in 1400, you'll see it's a relatively small state with many larger neighbors surrounding it. But 200 years later in 1600, it acquired many territories and grew large, even larger than its neighbors, and continued to expand its territories into 1700 (http://www.euratlas.com/history_europe/europe_map_1700.html), and beyond. Of course there were many wars fought for the expansion, but still Muscovy prevailed. So why can't a united Scandinavia did the same? It already had an advantage of sea power to begin with.

[Kagemusha]

Would this coalition include Finland? Or are you counting it part of Sweden during the period? We should remember that Finland counted as major part of Swedish manpower. Just look at the thirty years war to see what impact the Finnish troops had on the Swedish army. Also it was a buffer against first Novgorod and then Muscovy, with countless clashes that had very limited amount of Swedish included.

[Innocentius]

Would this coalition include Finland? Or are you counting it part of Sweden during the period? We should remember that Finland counted as major part of Swedish manpower. Just look at the thirty years war to see what impact the Finnish troops had on the Swedish army. Also it was a buffer against first Novgorod and then Muscovy, with countless clashes that had very limited amount of Swedish included.

I don't think you have to worry, by mentioning Sweden as it was 1400 AD Finland is indeed included.

[Gurkhal]

Tran: I see you pictures, and I can follow you in theory, but somehow I get the feeling that the expansion which Moscowe(sp?) managed in Russia would not easily be followed within Central and Northern Europe. I will however agree that my knowledge during this period is limited, and that I might well underestimate the population, the economical, political and military strenght of the areas.

I do however belive that the coalitions which Sweden might go up against probably would be more powerful than those opposing Moscowe. Once again I might of course be wrong. I mean, except Novgorod, I can't think of any Russian state that could match Moscowe. Perhaps Poland or Lithuania, but they weren't really Russian and to my knowledge didn't have ambitions in the area.

I wonder also if not Scandinavia would lack the resouces to defend an extensive European, or colonial empire for a great lenght of time. I base this on the fall of Sweden from the position as a major power since the resources of Sweden were litterary born away through exhaustment more than anything else. Scandinavia does frankly have a rather small population when comparing with the Continential lands.

[Innocentius]

I think these two maps explain well:
Year 1400 (http://www.euratlas.com/history_europe/europe_map_1400.html)
Year 1600 (http://www.euratlas.com/history_europe/europe_map_1600.html)

If you look at Muscovy (top right) in 1400, you'll see it's a relatively small state with many larger neighbors surrounding it. But 200 years later in 1600, it acquired many territories and grew large, even larger than its neighbors, and continued to expand its territories into 1700 (http://www.euratlas.com/history_europe/europe_map_1700.html), and beyond. Of course there were many wars fought for the expansion, but still Muscovy prevailed. So why can't a united Scandinavia did the same? It already had an advantage of sea power to begin with.

Cultural differencies would be part of the explanation. Muscovy shared the same culture as most other Russian principalities (like Novgorod) and there was a common feeling of "Mongol opression" in the latter half of the 14th century. The expansion of Muscovy was thus made easy by the fact that they were uniting a divided people (the "Russians"), not conquering a lot of new land.

A united Scandinavia could probably grow along the coasts of the Baltic Sea, but not very far inland. Still, controlling the entire Baltic would have made any kingdom a late-medieval superpower.

[Watchman]

AFAIK Muscovy had to do quite a bit of fighting with the other Russian principalities/Golden Horde vassals to entice them to come into the fold - and see off the more powerful Horde fragments on the side.

And of course once they took over Novgorod's old stomping grounds in the Baltics and eastern Finland, they immediately had a pending issue with the Swedes and everyone else who liked the idea of controlling the wealthy cities that dominated the major river outlets and, therefore, Baltic trade. It was just the lure of those taxes that sent the Swedes into their conquest spree in the 1600s, and was the root cause of quite a few other conflicts as well (between, among others, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the remnants of the Teutonic Knights, Muscovite Russia, presumably an odd ambitious German prince, and occasionally minor players like the contested old Hanseatic cities themselves, as they were usually free cities with their own armies).

Plus Poland-Lithuania at times stretched as far into Russia as whatwasitnow, Kiev; the Swedes occupied Novgorod for several years in one early-1600s war, and so on. One should not underestimate the attraction those trade routes and rich farmlands held to all comers.


Poland on the other hand was busy fighting Turks and the Teutonic Order by this time, and I don't see what interest a Scandinavian union would have in invadin any land at all. Invading and conquering land was something you just didn't do, unless it was unorganized pagans, there was no money to do so nor the motivation: why wage war upon your catholic brethren who you can't defeat anyway?I don't think you understand the feudal frame of thinking here. We're talking about a fairly primitive pattern of economy; the equation was basically "land = wealth", and wealth was always good. Moreover the very raison d'être of the warrior aristocracy calling the shots just about everywhere was warfare, and profiting from it. Not that the occasional more-or-less republican freetowns and merchant states (eg. some Northern Italian ones) were markedly more peaceable - anything but, if their means only allowed they were only too happy to pursue further largesse with military power, or just undermine their enemies and competitors.

Even if your income wasn't derived directly from farmland in the grand old manoralist-feudal fashion, it was more likely than not derived from control of trade routes, toll booths, mines and so on. The merchant paid his taxes to whomever owned the territory he took his goods through, after all. Ergo, such golden geese were fought over with a passion.

To reverse your question, why not wage war on your fellow Catholics/Protestants/whoever if you only thought you could pull it off ? Medieval European history largely consists of exactly such activity anyway, and things don't get much different later - in the Thirty Years' War the quite Catholic French crown was quite happily funding the campaigns of godless Protestant heretics, German and Swedish both, against the Catholic German Emperor, and in the end put its own armies to field against both (*very* Catholic) Spain and the Emperor...

[Innocentius]

I don't think you understand the feudal frame of thinking here. We're talking about a fairly primitive pattern of economy; the equation was basically "land = wealth", and wealth was always good. Moreover the very raison d'être of the warrior aristocracy calling the shots just about everywhere was warfare, and profiting from it. Not that the occasional more-or-less republican freetowns and merchant states (eg. some Northern Italian ones) were markedly more peaceable - anything but, if their means only allowed they were only too happy to pursue further largesse with military power, or just undermine their enemies and competitors.

Even if your income wasn't derived directly from farmland in the grand old manoralist-feudal fashion, it was more likely than not derived from control of trade routes, toll booths, mines and so on. The merchant paid his taxes to whomever owned the territory he took his goods through, after all. Ergo, such golden geese were fought over with a passion.

To reverse your question, why not wage war on your fellow Catholics/Protestants/whoever if you only thought you could pull it off ? Medieval European history largely consists of exactly such activity anyway, and things don't get much different later - in the Thirty Years' War the quite Catholic French crown was quite happily funding the campaigns of godless Protestant heretics, German and Swedish both, against the Catholic German Emperor, and in the end put its own armies to field against both (*very* Catholic) Spain and the Emperor...

Well, judging from what I know of at least Swedish and Norwegian medieval mentality, conquering land was simply not on the menu of politics. Claiming land in the name of Christ while baptizing a few pagans while doing so was always a good idea of course, but there was no way that a war against an organized enemy could be funded (if the aim was to claim his lands, that is).

During the early medieval period, tribute was the more common way of waging war. Conquering land was too much of a risk and meant too much of an effort, so you just raided (or simply fought) your enemy until he succumbed and paid you tribute. The only event I can think of when Scandinavians actually fought over land more than other reasons would be the wars of the early 1360-ies, when Valdemar III of Denmark reclaimed the lands (Terra Scania etc.) king Magnus of Sweden and Noway bought in 1332.
Denmark I think was the only kingdom of what would later become the Kalmar Union that had a high/dense enough population and the money needed to wage more extensive wars during the medieval period (take for example the Danish conquest of parts of Pomerania and Estonia). Your mentioning of France and other kingdom's activities during later centuries is beside the point: no Scandinavian kingdom (with the possible exception of Denmark) in the medieval era had enough people or funds to successfully wage war against the Order State, the Holy Roman Empire etc, as is evident when we look at what actually happened. No doubt they would have done if they had the chance, though.

I think I do understand the feudal frame of thinking: they weren't more stupid than to abstain from projects they could not succeed in:clown:

Edit: Just realised you could summarize this post as follows:

Your question is Why not do it if you can?
While the question I was/am talking about was/is Why do it if you can't?

[Watchman]

...excuse me, but are you actually trying to tell me them Medieval folks would not opportunistically wage war on each other For Fun And Profit(tm) the second they saw a juicy opening, just because the other guy happened to share their confessional affiliation and there were some pagans and/or infidels nearby you could fight instead ?

Absurd.

[Innocentius]

...excuse me, but are you actually trying to tell me them Medieval folks would not opportunistically wage war on each other For Fun And Profit(tm) the second they saw a juicy opening, just because the other guy happened to share their confessional affiliation and there were some pagans and/or infidels nearby you could fight instead ?

Absurd.

...excuse me, but did you read the summation of my post? People have always waged war on each other For Fun And Profit(tm), and that concept has little to do specifically with the medieval era - it's applicable to all human history.

Like I said, Why start a fight you can't win (especially when there's much easier prey nearby, earning you praisings if you kill/convert them)?

[Watchman]

For example, because the easier targets don't happen to possess something of value to you ?

As a random side note, how much "praise" the sword-conversion of the Baltic pagans earned the Schwertbruder and Teutonic Order is more than a little questionable, as at times they were almost in open war with the Pope (who in at least one occasion sent Papal troops to defend the pagans from the predations of the Germans) over the matter... The Swedes and Danes preferred more peaceful (and cost-effective) missionary work, normally only bringing military force to bear if the pagans engaged in violence against the preachers and converts (which was the original idea of Christian "just war", ie. retroactive defense of the faithful) - nevermind now that the missionaries tended to be the harbingers of royal authority, laws and taxes. Although I know the Swedes also conquered at least one part of the northern Finnish coastline for no other reason than subduing the annoying pirates operating from there.