Plausibility Check: Surviving Kalmar Union

[MarshalBraginsky]

Could the Kalmar Union partition the British Isles if they are allied with France or Spain? Conversely, if they are allied with the British, could the Scandinavians acquire a good slice of North America? For a different Reformation, could the Netherlands play a decisive role or would a different German state have to play a role at all?

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by MarshalBraginsky

Could the Kalmar Union partition the British Isles if they are allied with France or Spain? Conversely, if they are allied with the British, could the Scandinavians acquire a good slice of North America? For a different Reformation, could the Netherlands play a decisive role or would a different German state have to play a role at all?

1) Maybe? I kind of doubt it.

2) Given their very low population (again, England>all of Scandinavia), claiming a good chunk isn't likely to be more than on paper.

3) Decisive role in what? Keep in mind that the idea of the Netherlands as one identity (as distinct from several distinct counties which just happened to have all fallen to the same heir) emerged in this era, so it might not necessarily play any role.

What I want to know is, how is the Kalmar Union going to be governed - there was talk about a different location for the capital, but if the king is still Denmark-centric, the Union still has that eating away at it.

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by yourworstnightmare

The problems are the different interests of the three kingdoms. Take foreign policy. Norway is west oriented, the concern is to protect her Atlantic possessions. Denmark's main interest is to expand in North Germany, while Sweden's interest is to protect the eastern border, and possibly expand in that direction.

I'm not sure there's that big of a difference; the Swedes ending up with German territory, and the Danes wanted Estonia and control of the Baltic, no?

[MarshalBraginsky]

There's also the roles of Norway and Finland and how they are going to fit intot he Kalmar Union's goals.

[Avitus]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

What I want to know is, how is the Kalmar Union going to be governed - there was talk about a different location for the capital, but if the king is still Denmark-centric, the Union still has that eating away at it.

I think that perhaps a Swedish dynasty claiming the throne after a major Danish defeat in Germany is possible, provided concessions are made for the Danes and the capital remains in Copenhagen. Allot of times personal unions seem to work out best when a weaker ruler inherits a strong state, like the Habsburgs(three times) or the Stuarts, so a Swedish noble house ruling over the stronger Denmark might actually be good for the union.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Avitus

I think that perhaps a Swedish dynasty claiming the throne after a major Danish defeat in Germany is possible, provided concessions are made for the Danes and the capital remains in Copenhagen. Allot of times personal unions seem to work out best when a weaker ruler inherits a strong state, like the Habsburgs(three times) or the Stuarts, so a Swedish noble house ruling over the stronger Denmark might actually be good for the union.

Maybe. Although I'm not sure if a "Swedish" ruler would necessarily be more in touch with Swedish feelings if all he shares is blood.

If he's treating the kingdom of Denmark's needs and wants as primary, it doesn't matter where he hails from - Eric (forget his original name) of Pommerania comes to mind.

Of course, one could claim "Eric was a bad king", but he was bad in a way that weakened the union's unity.

[MarshalBraginsky]

What would an Anglo-Kalmar alliance have an effect on the political landscape in Europe? I remember seeing a thread named 'A Scandinavian on the Throne of Britain' or something like that, though I haven't read its full contents yet.

[Umbral]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

A significant problem with Scandinavia a-colonizin' - either as the Kalmar Union or any combination of two of the three kingdoms.

England is in the way.

Just as with the Dutch, the Scandinavians have to either sail around it or sail through the Channel, if facing a hostile England. Neither of which are very practical.

And while England = THE naval power is not a given, England certainly has a pretty good chance of being able to inconvenience the Scandinavians (the three kingdoms have a total population at best comparable to England).

This isn't insurmountable, but it is going to have to be addressed.

Um...I suspect this is influenced by the power and size of England during its later history, not what it was at the time. To be brutally honest, being in Scandinavias way, is a far larger problem for England, Scandinavias old punching bag, than it is for Scandinavia.

Historically, conflict between England and a single Scandinavian nation always involved Scandinavian troops in England, and often with the very existence of England threatened. And this was not really old history at the time. Many areas that we today think of as part of the UK was Scandinavian at the time, the Shetlands, Orkneys, and the Isle of Man.

In any conflict, England will find itself in an very precarious position. Strategically, it is quite short of the materials to build a navy, which Scandinavia has in abundance. It is also surrounded on three sides, in the north and west by Scandinavian island posessions, and in the east by Scandinavia itself. Populationwise it may just barely manage to keep up with Scandinavia itself, but when we throw in the other Nordics and the Scandinavian parts of the British Isles, it may well fall behind.

In short, it is an near-ideal setup for Scandinavia to keep England from ever becoming a naval power. candinavia has the supplies, the bases, the geographic position, the secondary natural defenses and the maritime tradition. All things England at the time were sorely lacking in. For England to restrict Scandinavian naval development would be nearly impossible, unless England were allowed to start with overwhelming naval superiority and a maritime tradition.

As far as economy goes, it is harder to find estimates, but I am highly dubious of England measuring up to the Baltic trade in any meaningful way at this point in its history.

England is short of natural defenses if it does not control the seas. There is a reason why the big question in fights between England and a Scandinavian country was whether England would be so badly beaten that it never got up again.

(Tactically, England seemed to be spending the time making enemies of its other neighbours, fighting Scotland and France, putting down rebellions in Wales. Of course a united Scandinavia is likely to have its own distractions in the east.)

For a Scandinavia which got its act together, England would be rather a low-hanging fruit for a few centuries, I think. To the old punching-bag of Scandinavia, almost being able to match the population and having nothing else going for it is...not good, in its geographic position. I think England would find its room to develop squeezed badly, possibly with breathing spaces when Scandinavia got heavily engaged with Russia.

Originally Posted by Sian

Norway is by far the smallest in the scandinavian threesome, and have allways been ... most of the wars in scandinavia have been between Denmark and Sweden for superiority in the region

Do not forget that Norway at the time included Iceland, Greenland, Orkney, the Isle of Man, the Færoes, Shetland and rather vast areas that today is part of Sweden.

[imperialaquila]

Originally Posted by Umbral

Do not forget that Norway at the time included Iceland, Greenland, Orkney, the Isle of Man, the Færoes, Shetland and rather vast areas that today is part of Sweden.

All of which are very thinly inhabited and very poor. Norway may be large geographically at the time, but in terms of population and wealth it is well behind Sweden and Norway.

[Umbral]

Is it? Places like the Isle of Man were not doing badly, and historically Norways carrying capacity in its present form matches Denmark quite well. I would be suprprised if the pre-plague numbers for Norway + posessions + lots of todays Sweden did not exceed Denmarks population.

Of course it was far less urbanized, but the trade links were pretty good, handling a far larger spread of goods.

EDIT, actually, I see Denmark did exceed Norway and Sweden at the time.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Umbral

Um...I suspect this is influenced by the power and size of England during its later history, not what it was at the time. To be brutally honest, being in Scandinavias way, is a far larger problem for England, Scandinavias old punching bag, than it is for Scandinavia.

No, this is influenced by the fact that by the 15th century, England is larger and stronger than the Scandinavian countries.

I'm not looking at anything past the early 17th century.

Historically, conflict between England and a single Scandinavian nation always involved Scandinavian troops in England, and often with the very existence of England threatened. And this was not really old history at the time. Many areas that we today think of as part of the UK was Scandinavian at the time, the Shetlands, Orkneys, and the Isle of Man.

That's hardly "many areas". That's a few scattered minor islands.

In any conflict, England will find itself in an very precarious position. Strategically, it is quite short of the materials to build a navy, which Scandinavia has in abundance. It is also surrounded on three sides, in the north and west by Scandinavian island posessions, and in the east by Scandinavia itself. Populationwise it may just barely manage to keep up with Scandinavia itself, but when we throw in the other Nordics and the Scandinavian parts of the British Isles, it may well fall behind.

England does have naval supplies of its own, you know. And those island positions are barely significant enough to be worth snatching up.

On population,
England's population in 1400-ish: 2.1 million
Sweden: 500,000 as of the black plague, lost 200,000.
Denmark: About twice that if memory serves (I don't have information at my fingertips).
Norway: About the same as Sweden.

And this is only going to get worse, not better.

In short, it is an near-ideal setup for Scandinavia to keep England from ever becoming a naval power. candinavia has the supplies, the bases, the geographic position, the secondary natural defenses and the maritime tradition. All things England at the time were sorely lacking in. For England to restrict Scandinavian naval development would be nearly impossible, unless England were allowed to start with overwhelming naval superiority and a maritime tradition.

No, unless we look at actual England with a larger population and a stronger, more developed economy, instead of of looking at the 9th and 10th centuries and comparing them to the 15th.

And "maritime tradition"? Yeah, let's just ignore all English commerce off the island (and a tradition from centuries ago isn't relevant to power now). Meanwhile, Scandinavia's natural defenses are irrelevant when it comes to dealing with England's naval presence (which will exist in any situation it becomes necessary) fighting off attempts at dominating the North Sea - or being the ones dominating the North Sea.

England doesn't have to invade Scandinavia to frustrate its colonial ambitions.

As far as economy goes, it is harder to find estimates, but I am highly dubious of England measuring up to the Baltic trade in any meaningful way at this point in its history.

"The Baltic trade" =/= "the wealth of Scandinavia", even if that's true.

And given that two centuries after the Kalmar Union, 95% of Sweden's population (less than a million I note) is described as "self-sufficient peasants", that does not indicate much wealth or commerce.

England is short of natural defenses if it does not control the seas. There is a reason why the big question in fights between England and a Scandinavian country was whether England would be so badly beaten that it never got up again.

(Tactically, England seemed to be spending the time making enemies of its other neighbours, fighting Scotland and France, putting down rebellions in Wales. Of course a united Scandinavia is likely to have its own distractions in the east.)

Yeah, there's no incentive for England to invade the Scandinavian countries, so there's no comparison to be made on how well a 15th century English army would do in Denmark.

Comparing the 9th and 10th centuries to the 15th and beyond is misleading.

For a Scandinavia which got its act together, England would be rather a low-hanging fruit for a few centuries, I think. To the old punching-bag of Scandinavia, almost being able to match the population and having nothing else going for it is...not good, in its geographic position. I think England would find its room to develop squeezed badly, possibly with breathing spaces when Scandinavia got heavily engaged with Russia.

Your thoughts appear to be based on the idea that England is still in the position it was five centuries earlier.

I have a book on medieval Scandinavia around here in my mess somewhere with population figures (the ones above are from looking it up online and memory), but they're not favorable.

[MarshalBraginsky]

Could England and Scandinavia have something to gain from being allies, rather than being enemies? Given the fact that England would have a big edge over the Scandinavian countries in pretty much everything, if they were to wage war against each other over a long period of time, eventually it will get a bit less interesting. A protracted war against England would actually accelerate the collapse of the Kalmar Union.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by MarshalBraginsky

Could England and Scandinavia have something to gain from being allies, rather than being enemies? Given the fact that England would have a big edge over the Scandinavian countries in pretty much everything, if they were to wage war against each other over a long period of time, eventually it will get a bit less interesting. A protracted war against England would actually accelerate the collapse of the Kalmar Union.

What do they gain from being allied?

What interests of England are served by Scandinavian allies that would be worth (whatever Scandinavia wants)?

Or vice-versa.

I'm personally assuming no great animosity - just rivalry over things they both want, like most powers had for other powers.

[MarshalBraginsky]

Besides the usual colonial trade benefits? If they can't ally with each other, then I guess the Kalmar Union was doomed to collapse since England will always be in the way of everything for Scandinavia. I mean, the lands around OTL Newfoundland could always remain under Scandinavian hands.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by MarshalBraginsky

Besides the usual colonial trade benefits? If they can't ally with each other, then I guess the Kalmar Union was doomed to collapse since England will always be in the way of everything for Scandinavia. I mean, the lands around OTL Newfoundland could always remain under Scandinavian hands.

If the fate of the Kalmar Union depends on colonizing, I don't envy its chances even if could treat England as a punching bag.

[MarshalBraginsky]

Could the Kalmar Union also survive without having to colonize at all? Say Scandinavia can import goods that they can't make but England can and in return, England can import goods that Scandinavia can create. I'm sure the fur trade could be the main focus here, as well as Scandinavian iron exports that are not meant for German imports.

[Umbral]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

No, this is influenced by the fact that by the 15th century, England is larger and stronger than the Scandinavian countries.

The individual ones, yes, Unlike the 10th century, when Norway or Denmark individually was a lethal threat. The aggregate that no longer expends resources on intercine conflicts...not so much. And it retains its problem of positioning.

Originally Posted by Elfwine

That's hardly "many areas". That's a few scattered minor islands.

While it was no longer the Kingdom of Mann, the Isle of Man was actually quite well off. The other islands primary value is that they were excellent bases.

Originally Posted by Elfwine

England does have naval supplies of its own, you know. And those island positions are barely significant enough to be worth snatching up.

Not a lot, sad to say. Nothing like Scandinavia. And island positions are very, very useful in naval warfare. Especially if the nearly surround your enemy.

Originally Posted by Elfwine

On population,
England's population in 1400-ish: 2.1 million
Sweden: 500,000 as of the black plague, lost 200,000.
Denmark: About twice that if memory serves (I don't have information at my fingertips).
Norway: About the same as Sweden.

Roughly 2 million total for Norway, Sweden and Denmark seem in line with the estimates I've read. Add in about 30 or 50 thousand for Iceland, and a bit for Finland, Man and other posessions. So yes, About even.

Originally Posted by Elfwine

And "maritime tradition"? Yeah, let's just ignore all English commerce off the island (and a tradition from centuries ago isn't relevant to power now). Meanwhile, Scandinavia's natural defenses are irrelevant when it comes to dealing with England's naval presence (which will exist in any situation it becomes necessary) fighting off attempts at dominating the North Sea.

I disagree. When the Kalmar Union started up in 1397, English naval tradition, commerce and power was...not comparable to the combined Scandinavian power. The depth of continous Danish and Norwegian maritime tradition at the time alone...As for the notion that English Naval power and tradition will spring into existence in any situation it is needed, I think that ignores the concept of AH.

Originally Posted by Elfwine

"The Baltic trade" =/= "the wealth of Scandinavia", even if that's true.

That is true enough. I was less than accurate I fear. Trade out the Øresund straits would be a big economic advantage, but Scandinavia had other sources of trade.

Originally Posted by Elfwine

And given that two centuries after the Kalmar Union, 95% of Sweden's population (less than a million I note) is described as "self-sufficient peasants", that does not indicate much wealth.

Do you know how many wars Sweden fought in those three centuries? How much it expended in conflict with Denmark?

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Yeah, there's no incentive for England to invade the Scandinavian countries, so there's no comparison to be made on how well a 15th century English army would do in Denmark.

No incentive? Really? Its got a superior fleet in the Noth Sea, and the ability to strike against the posessor is not relevant?

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Comparing the 9th and 10th centuries to the 15th and beyond is misleading.

Actually a lot of the same problems face England.

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Your thoughts appear to be based on the idea that England is still in the position it was five centuries earlier.

It is, in terms of geography. It hasn't moved to the tropics or anything.

And that position is, Scandinavian bases around it, limited materials for a navy. No natural defenses beyond the sea. That means that is is far easier for Scandinavia to invade England than the other way around. Always has been. It is easier for Scandinavia to build a navy. Easier to rebuild it.

Scandinavia can land armies and move them. Scandinavia can afford to lose battles and naval engagements. Englant can't do either. That is a massive strategic superiority.

Originally Posted by Elfwine

I have a book on medieval Scandinavia around here in my mess somewhere with population figures (the ones above are from looking it up online and memory), but they're not favorable.

I'd be grateful if I could have the title, I've found population figures very hard to hunt down and often highly varible myself. Had a long search for a TL once.

The facts are, though, island bases are important in naval warfare. And England does not autmatically develop a navy and maritime tradition whenever it is needed.

[Umbral]

Originally Posted by MarshalBraginsky

Could the Kalmar Union also survive without having to colonize at all? Say Scandinavia can import goods that they can't make but England can and in return, England can import goods that Scandinavia can create. I'm sure the fur trade could be the main focus here, as well as Scandinavian iron exports that are not meant for German imports.

Well, the Scandinavian countries seem to be able to survive today...anyway, the Kalmar Union could have spent more effort on Vinland. Techincally, they had trade with America at inception. Higly implausible, though.

Less implausible, a union which is cut off in the west and must focus on the east may decisivly beat Russia at some point. Sweden almost did on its own. If Russia loses access to all northern ports, the White Sea and the Baltic ones, Scandinavia may go east. Also the are we traditionally think of as Scandinavia may come to incorporate much of Estonia and Latvia.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Umbral

The individual ones, yes, Unlike the 10th century, when Norway or Denmark individually was a lethal threat. The aggregate that no longer expends resources on intercine conflicts...not so much. And it retains its problem of positioning.

The aggregate isn't a lethal threat either. At worst it is a serious rival, at best (for England) its not important.

While it was no longer the Kingdom of Mann, the Isle of Man was actually quite well off. The other islands primary value is that they were excellent bases.

Well off by what standards?

Not a lot, sad to say. Nothing like Scandinavia. And island positions are very, very useful in naval warfare. Especially if the nearly surround your enemy.

Quite enough. And no, they're not very useful, when your enemy doesn't need to do very much to take those islands.

Roughly 2 million total for Norway, Sweden and Denmark seem in line with the estimates I've read. Add in about 30 or 50 thousand for Iceland, and a bit for Finland, Man and other posessions. So yes, About even.

http://anthropology.tamu.edu/papers/Yoder-PhD2006.pdf

This mentions 1.5 million pre-plague - vs. England's 5 million.

Assuming Denmark suffered the European average population loss (about a quarter to a third), that would mean around an even million for calculation's sake. That means that Sweden and Norway have to average half a million each, despite Sweden dropping from 500,000 to 300,000 from the plague.

http://www.algonet.se/~hogman/sljordbruk_eng.htm

So for this to work, that means Norway has to have almost as large a population as Denmark - after losing two thirds or more of its population to plague. Color me disbelieving, to put it as politely as I can.

Meanwhile, Iceland is just a touch isolated.

I disagree. When the Kalmar Union started up in 1397, English naval tradition, commerce and power was...not comparable to the combined Scandinavian power. The depth of continous Danish and Norwegian maritime tradition at the time alone...As for the notion that English Naval power and tradition will spring into existence in any situation it is needed, I think that ignores the concept of AH.

I think that the concept that England is a helpless target ignores the reality of the situation in 1400, and that England is as isolated as 1850 Japan is even less believable.

That is true enough. I was less than accurate I fear. Trade out the Øresund straits would be a big economic advantage, but Scandinavia had other sources of trade.

Less than accurate to the point of "accuracy downright dubious".

Sure, there's money to be made here - but it's not as if its only going to Scandinavia even with Sound dues.

Do you know how many wars Sweden fought in those three centuries? How much it expended in conflict with Denmark?

Not enough to justify this inflated vision of Scandinavia. Its not as if England was pacific in this period, but it didn't have such a feeble economy and underwhelming population.

No incentive? Really? Its got a superior fleet in the Noth Sea, and the ability to strike against the posessor is not relevant?

It's bloody irrelevant when England doesn't need to invade Denmark (say). English troops did not have to occupy Paris to gain French colonies, for instance - picked as a historical rival.

Actually a lot of the same problems face England.

Not even close. It isn't divided (even the Wars of the Roses barely merit the name), it has a a successful military tradition against stronger opponents than any of the Scandinavian countries. . . .

It is, in terms of geography. It hasn't moved to the tropics or anything.

And that position is, Scandinavian bases around it, limited materials for a navy. No natural defenses beyond the sea. That means that is is far easier for Scandinavia to invade England than the other way around. Always has been. It is easier for Scandinavia to build a navy. Easier to rebuild it.

Not so limited as you think, nor are those islands "bases" that threaten England - they're more like convenient targets for England to snatch and Scandinavia to have little it can do about it.

Scandinavia can land armies and move them. Scandinavia can afford to lose battles and naval engagements. Englant can't do either. That is a massive strategic superiority.

England can land armies and move them. England can afford to lose battles and naval engagements.

This is not the 9th century, and "England" is not a divided set of kingdoms that don't get along with no economic development over that of their eastern neighbors.

I'd be grateful if I could have the title, I've found population figures very hard to hunt down and often highly varible myself. Had a long search for a TL once.

When I dig it up I'll quote it. Even if we're off by say 10-30%, we're not looking at totals that are anything better than around equal, and the trend is very much not favoring Scandinavia.

The facts are, though, island bases are important in naval warfare. And England does not autmatically develop a navy and maritime tradition whenever it is needed.

Island bases that your enemy can easily snatch are not the same as island bases you can use to threaten him.

It's not about automatic, it's about the fact that England already has a maritime tradition and has every interest in developing a strong navy in any situation where one is needed.

If it could face the far more formidable threat of Philip II, it can face . . . whoever the Scandinavians settle on.

[Avitus]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Maybe. Although I'm not sure if a "Swedish" ruler would necessarily be more in touch with Swedish feelings if all he shares is blood.

If he's treating the kingdom of Denmark's needs and wants as primary, it doesn't matter where he hails from - Eric (forget his original name) of Pommerania comes to mind.

Of course, one could claim "Eric was a bad king", but he was bad in a way that weakened the union's unity.

I was thinking along the lines of someone born and raised in Sweden, with a Swedish noble father and a Danish noble mother (or some similar blood mix), who is elected to the Danish throne first, then uses Swedish political knowhow to bribe and coerce the Swedish nobility into supporting him as their monarch too. After his election, this king takes a very conciliatory attitude towards the Danes, while still emphasizing his "son of Sweden" status. It would take some very favorable circumstances, namely the heirless death of the previous monarch and the presence of a capable compromise candidate, but those are hardly deal breakers.

Otherwise, you could always have a Danish monarch who just decides he's had enough of Swedish politics and abolishes their elective monarchy, and therafter defeats the rebels that are sure to come around the second such a plan is voiced. Probably worse for the state in every way, but you may still eventually get a strongly united Kalmar union out of it.

As for colonising, I think you can expect Portugal level performance out of the Kalmar Union, with one large american colony, and several other outpost style colonies throughout the world. If they take Canada early on, they could have a near monopoly on major naval supply sources in the northern atlantic, so they would probably make quite a chunk of change off of that.