AH Challenge: Swedish Fiji
- Thread starter simonbp
- Start date
Tricky. A POD before the Great Northern War would be more doable.
Lessee. I'm consulting the Britannica... Alright, in OTL Sweden rushed into war against Napoleon in 1805 and found itself caught between two Napoleonic allies, Denmark and Russia. Sweden was quickly defeated by 1809 and had to hand Finland and Åland over to Russia. When the king died in 1810, he was replaced with Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte, Prince of Pontecorvo. Suffice to say he was not a Swede. But, like many others, including the Czar, Bernadotte turned against Napoleon in the end, attacking Denmark and getting Norway added to the Kingdom as a thank-you gift from the Brits.
Suppose that in 1805, Sweden remained neutral. So Sweden keeps its full territory. With King Charles' death in 1810, Frederick of Denmark and Norway is the logical heir - a second Scandinavian union. Frederick was also a Napoleonic ally, but acquiring a border with Russia and a country full of people who did not fancy the Little Corporal, he was persuaded to turn against France and join the final offensive. As a reward, Scandinavia received some land in Africa and the rest of the Virgin Islands.
Denmark/Scandinavia now had more incentive to hold on to its trading ports in India. By mid-century, Scandinavians were important and active traders in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. The government actively sought expansion in Oceania. When Britain declined to annex Fiji in 1858, Scandinavia stepped in in 1869, signing a treaty and claiming the islands.
The European situation was very different with Scandinavia as a "medium-large" power. The colonies in Africa were definitely expanded late in the 19th century, and Danish-Swedish troops intervened against Prussia as well, acting as a balance against the rising German Empire.
There was a World War at some point. Definitely different time, place, and circumstances, but just as heinous. The conditions of the Northern Front in Schleswig horrified the Danes, and not long after the war the government fell apart. When the dust settled, Denmark was a republic, and Sweden-Finland-Norway remained in possession of the colonies.
As the 20th century drew on, Finns and colonials resented Scandinavian rule. Norway was actually all right with it, since Norwegians had much better representation than minorities at the high levels of power. Finland broke away in the 1930s, and the colonies were let go or transformed to dominion-type entities over the next several decades. Today, King Christian XI of Sweden and Norway is also King of Fiji, although the Swedish-Norwegian government has not had any say in the islands since the 1980s.
Lessee. I'm consulting the Britannica... Alright, in OTL Sweden rushed into war against Napoleon in 1805 and found itself caught between two Napoleonic allies, Denmark and Russia. Sweden was quickly defeated by 1809 and had to hand Finland and Åland over to Russia. When the king died in 1810, he was replaced with Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte, Prince of Pontecorvo. Suffice to say he was not a Swede. But, like many others, including the Czar, Bernadotte turned against Napoleon in the end, attacking Denmark and getting Norway added to the Kingdom as a thank-you gift from the Brits.
Suppose that in 1805, Sweden remained neutral. So Sweden keeps its full territory. With King Charles' death in 1810, Frederick of Denmark and Norway is the logical heir - a second Scandinavian union. Frederick was also a Napoleonic ally, but acquiring a border with Russia and a country full of people who did not fancy the Little Corporal, he was persuaded to turn against France and join the final offensive. As a reward, Scandinavia received some land in Africa and the rest of the Virgin Islands.
Denmark/Scandinavia now had more incentive to hold on to its trading ports in India. By mid-century, Scandinavians were important and active traders in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. The government actively sought expansion in Oceania. When Britain declined to annex Fiji in 1858, Scandinavia stepped in in 1869, signing a treaty and claiming the islands.
The European situation was very different with Scandinavia as a "medium-large" power. The colonies in Africa were definitely expanded late in the 19th century, and Danish-Swedish troops intervened against Prussia as well, acting as a balance against the rising German Empire.
There was a World War at some point. Definitely different time, place, and circumstances, but just as heinous. The conditions of the Northern Front in Schleswig horrified the Danes, and not long after the war the government fell apart. When the dust settled, Denmark was a republic, and Sweden-Finland-Norway remained in possession of the colonies.
As the 20th century drew on, Finns and colonials resented Scandinavian rule. Norway was actually all right with it, since Norwegians had much better representation than minorities at the high levels of power. Finland broke away in the 1930s, and the colonies were let go or transformed to dominion-type entities over the next several decades. Today, King Christian XI of Sweden and Norway is also King of Fiji, although the Swedish-Norwegian government has not had any say in the islands since the 1980s.
Last edited:
Now I hope my scenario fits the challenge. I have a federated Scandinavia ruling Fiji for ~60 years, Sweden-Norway ruling it for ~50 years, and the King of Sweden-Norway ruling as a figurehead monarch for ~25 years up to the present.