POD to change Europe:Nordic Seven Year War

Valdemar II · Dec 27, 2009

From 1563-1570 a alliance of Denmark, Poland and Lübeck fought Sweden over control of Estonia and Latvia. Sweden did well thanks to bad luck and some incompetence on the side of the alliance, but a secondary war with Russia made the Swedes make peace.

Potential PODs:
Much of the Danish fleet was lost in a storm near Gotland in 1566, which premited the Swedes to cut the Danish of in the east and gain grain from Germany. Continued Danish naval dominans would likely result in Estonia (together with the Bishopric of Ösel being in the hands of the Danish kings brother) going to Denmark, Courland to Poland and Livonia/Livland staying independent, and of course Elfborg(Göteborg) to Denmark.

Another POD are more interesting:
The peace treaty are kept, Denmark should according to the peace treaty receive Estonia as a fief, but as part of the HRE (against Sweden receiving money from the Emperor). In the end the Emperor didn't pay and Estonia ended up Swedish. The consequences of this are likely much like the early treaty except Courland, Livonia, Ösel and Estonia end up part of HRE. This isn't a bad deal for the emperor, the imperial fiefs still paid a imperial tax at the time (the princes collected it, and kept a significant part of it themself).

In both PODs we end up with a strong Danish presence in the area, especially because Magnus died childless in OTL, which mean that his territories end up back to his brother. Sweden lose the money of the Baltic trade, and likely Danish control of Baltic Sea are going to complete. Denmark and Poland will likely end up fighting over Livonia and Courland. While a poorer Sweden are much more limited in foreign adventures.

Nikephoros · Dec 27, 2009

Well, Susano will be happy to say the least

abas · Dec 28, 2009

The earlier end of war with Sweden would put GDL in better bargaining position in Lublin.

Theodoric · Dec 28, 2009

Valdemar II said:
While a poorer Sweden are much more limited in foreign adventures.

Well, I'd imagine that the Dutch would still buy up a significant amount of resources (erhaps even more). If that were to be restricted (Danish naval dminance of the region could halt it), it would severely hamper the amount of firearms the Dutch had access to during the Revolt and later times.

I know, not very important, but nice to consider if you want some extra mayhem.

Faeelin · Dec 31, 2009

Valdemar II said:
Another POD are more interesting:
The peace treaty are kept, Denmark should according to the peace treaty receive Estonia as a fief, but as part of the HRE (against Sweden receiving money from the Emperor). In the end the Emperor didn't pay and Estonia ended up Swedish. The consequences of this are likely much like the early treaty except Courland, Livonia, Ösel and Estonia end up part of HRE. This isn't a bad deal for the emperor, the imperial fiefs still paid a imperial tax at the time (the princes collected it, and kept a significant part of it themself).

This is the Turk Tax, no?

In both PODs we end up with a strong Danish presence in the area, especially because Magnus died childless in OTL, which mean that his territories end up back to his brother. Sweden lose the money of the Baltic trade, and likely Danish control of Baltic Sea are going to complete. Denmark and Poland will likely end up fighting over Livonia and Courland. While a poorer Sweden are much more limited in foreign adventures.

Of course, more money for Denmark might have knock on effects elsewhere. Hamburg's status, for instance, was unclear; the Danes tried to conquer it in 1603, IIRC. And of course in 1621 they gained control of the archbishop of Bremen.

Hrmm. But would Sweden be that much worse off?

Valdemar II · Dec 31, 2009

Faeelin said:
This is the Turk Tax, no?

Yes

Of course, more money for Denmark might have knock on effects elsewhere. Hamburg's status, for instance, was unclear; the Danes tried to conquer it in 1603, IIRC. And of course in 1621 they gained control of the archbishop of Bremen.

Sorry Denmark didn't try to conquer Hamburg in 1603, Hamburg "crowned" the Dukes of Holstein (The Danish King and the Gottorp Duke), but the validity of the crowning would only be be fully valid, if the Dukes won the court case which was happening in Regentsburg (it had been underway since around 1550). It was a way for Hamburg to suck up to Christian IV of Denmark while for him it was a way to raise the status of his brother in law and paternal cousin the Duke of Gottorp (thereby making peace with mom).

Hrmm. But would Sweden be that much worse off?

Oh yes Estonia was the most important grain regions of Sweden at the time, while Narva gave them control of much of the Russian trade. Sweden would be a lot poorer without the money from these possesions. It would especially limit the size of the Swedish navy, meaning that grain poor Sweden could be cut of in case of war.

Faeelin · Jan 1, 2010

Valdemar II said:
Sorry Denmark didn't try to conquer Hamburg in 1603, Hamburg "crowned" the Dukes of Holstein (The Danish King and the Gottorp Duke), but the validity of the crowning would only be be fully valid, if the Dukes won the court case which was happening in Regentsburg (it had been underway since around 1550). It was a way for Hamburg to suck up to Christian IV of Denmark while for him it was a way to raise the status of his brother in law and paternal cousin the Duke of Gottorp (thereby making peace with mom).

Hrmm. My understanding is that the Danes deployed troops as well, so there was a bit of coercion going on as well. No?

I guess I'm just seeing it as part of a Danish desire to dominate the Weser and Elbe estuaries, to dominate the Hansa Towns.

Ph yes Estonia was the most important grain regions of Sweden at the time, while Narva gave them control of much of the Russian trade. Sweden would be a lot poorer without the money from these possesions. It would especially limit the size of the Swedish navy, meaning that grain poor Sweden could be cut of in case of war.

Hrmm. Then I'm confused. I got a book on the Tihrty Years War for Christmas, and it mentions the following about the Swedish state:

"Tolls only produced 6.7% of state revenue in 1623, indciating both the lack of indigenous commerce and Danish control of the Sound. Just over 23% came from the profits of the copper trade... while nearly 45% still came directly from royal domains.

Valdemar II · Jan 1, 2010

Faeelin said:
Hrmm. My understanding is that the Danes deployed troops as well, so there was a bit of coercion going on as well. No?

There was a reason they wished to suck up to him

, beside the trade of course. Ironic the primary reason was to strengthen the prestige of his brother in law (and more important his sister), which made his mother happy (which was important because she was one of the richest womens in Europe and at her death the richest woman in Europe and Christians biggest creditor).

I guess I'm just seeing it as part of a Danish desire to dominate the Weser and Elbe estuaries, to dominate the Hansa Towns.

Yes some of Christians primary goals was to dominate the Elb and Weser trade, and lessen the importance of the Hansa in the Baltic trade especially in his own domains (which was a great succes).

Hrmm. Then I'm confused. I got a book on the Tihrty Years War for Christmas, and it mentions the following about the Swedish state:

"Tolls only produced 6.7% of state revenue in 1623, indciating both the lack of indigenous commerce and Danish control of the Sound. Just over 23% came from the profits of the copper trade... while nearly 45% still came directly from royal domains.

Interesting every source I have read say that Estonia was important source of Swedish grain (the question how much of Estonia was royal domains), through 6,7% of the budget are also significant aspect (the Sound Dues only made up around 20% of the royal Danish budget*, and the Sound was a lot more important than Narva). Through another aspect this was the age of Mercantilism, and the importance of positive balance of trade (something which are hard when you have to import grain), so the loss mean more than just the loss of revenues it also have a negative effect on the import and supply of hard valuta (which was important for hiring foreign experts), upkeep a large navy. Meaning that in case of war Denmark can very well starve Sweden to surrender (not a good position))

By the way I'm looking for books on the 1520-1648 periode of German and Baltic history, do you have any suggestions?

*Quite large, but compared to that it was the major Baltic trade route you would think it was a bigger part of the royal budget.

Faeelin · Jan 2, 2010

Valdemar II said:
By the way I'm looking for books on the 1520-1648 periode of German and Baltic history, do you have any suggestions?

*Quite large, but compared to that it was the major Baltic trade route you would think it was a bigger part of the royal budget.

Mmm. I just finished The Thirty Years War, by Peter Wilson It does a pretty good job with the leadup to the war, and it discusses Swedish, Polish, Danish,, Spanish goals pretty well. It also describes confessional tensins pretty well. I's not perfect (I'd prefer more about how the Empire was run), but it's probably the best you can do that's published recently.