Plausibility Check: Surviving Kalmar Union

[MarshalBraginsky]

I came across a thread on the question of how to keep the Kalmar Union around, but it seems to be a dead thread, so I'm making a new one here. The real question is: how can the Kalmar Union be kept around long after Margaret of Denmark has passed away? Could they survive past 1521, heading into the Reformation period? I'm thinking that the Kalmar Union can be the center of a Scandinavian Reformation movement if it survived. Another thing: can the Kalmar Union become a colonial power as well? OTL Denmark and Sweden had some colonies overseas, but were not kept for long.

[Sian]

the disargeements between the (Danish) royal house and the swedish nobles have to be handled to stop Kalmar from disintegrating

the Royals was playing war in northen HRE, based in their personal duchy of Holstein, souring the relationship for Swedens attempts to trade Iron from their mines to merchants from Northen HRE ...

Make the Danish Kings disinterested in warring in HRE (one way or another ... arranging for splinting off Duchy of Holstein so it aren't held by the king but a cadet branch might work). And the relationship between them should be less vitrolic and more likely to stay strong ... maybe also centralizing the power a more neutral place than Copenhagen (building a new city in northenmost Halland, or around present day Gothenborg might do the trick)

as for colonization power ... Given that Scandinavia as a whole was one of the protentially stronger Naval powers at its time, i could certainly see them carving out a good part of Northeastern American, and the odd colony otherwise (the gold/ivory/slave coasts for one, given less intrarelational conflict i can see Scandinavia getter a more solid grab on the area)

[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.

[Justin Green]

Wouldnt they have Iceland though? That should help them getting around England.

[imperialaquila]

The thing is, Scandinavia was the source of many if not most of the supplies that you needed to build a good navy in the 17th and 18th centuries; wood, resin, other stuff that I don't remember the name of. That alone makes them formidable, and dangerous for Britain to mess with.

[Sian]

well ... the dutch had the same problems and didn't have any major issues ...

and both Denmark and Sweden did manage some colonization both in the Americas and coastal forts around Africa and India ...

depending on the specific POD, Kalmar might still own Orkney and Shetland islands (dowry to James III of Scotland in 1468 as security for money that never arrived), and before the union of the crowns in 1603 England doesn't have the power to enforce any kind of naval blockade if Kalmar wants to to around scotland, which would be the wisest as long as they were aiming for America, using Bergen as their primary port to sail from

[Sian]

Hell, even after 18'th Century (if Kalmar lives that far) they still have most of the needed goods given the iron mines in northen Sweden.

Given peace to develop they have an at least as large, if not larger protential in naval capablibities, than England have, going from the outlook at the POD

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Justin Green

Wouldnt they have Iceland though? That should help them getting around England.

Not really, given how underpopulated and under-resourced Iceland is.

IA: Sure. But England being in the way is an obstacle that they have to face in a way that a power that doesn't have it in the way doesn't.

Sian: Um, actually, it was a problem for the Dutch. I'd quote Kennedy here, but I think it might be just as useful to point to just point at the map.

I'm not saying they're going to invariably lose - far from it - but they're in a more awkward position for Atlantic exploration with England in the way than they would be without it.

Meanwhile, while they may have all those resources, they also have a pitiful population and not a whole lot of urbanization - this might change with a POD in the 1400s, but it isn't one of the most developed areas of Europe (not especially primitive, just that there isn't much drawing it away from rural-and-agricultural - even by Gustatus Adolphus's time 95% of the Swedish population is in the "peasantry" category, and trade revenue is "a fraction" of the United Provinces or England/Great Britain in the 17th century).

Not sure how much that would really change with the kingdoms united. It might not be quite as extreme, but it would still be far from ideal.

So I don't think we can say their situation is going to be better than England's on the strength of anything we see OTL economically.


Oh, sailing 'round Scotland just means choosing to face the absolutely ideal (dripping with sarcasm if you can't tell) sailing conditions of the North Atlantic instead of facing the English fleet. You -really- sure you prefer that?

[Sian]

where did i say that Dutch didn't have any problems? ... i said that the Dutch didn't have any major issues to the degree that they were unable to do it.

It was first really after the colonization and the unification of the crowns that England started having superior navies, beyond what could be arranged by Scandinavian navies, given otherwise equal oputunities.

up untill colonization started out in earnest Denmark was arguebly the strongest naval power north of biscay (winning naval battles against Lübeck and the hanseanic league more often than not)

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Sian

where did i say that Dutch didn't have any problems? ... i said that the Dutch didn't have any major issues to the degree that they were unable to do it.

It was first really after the colonization and the unification of the crowns that England started having superior navies, beyond what could be arranged by Scandinavian navies, given otherwise equal oputunities.

up untill colonization started out in earnest Denmark was arguebly the strongest naval power north of biscay (winning naval battles against Lübeck and the hanseanic league more often than not)

The problem is, the argument I'm making isn't "they can't do it", the argument is that it will present an obstacle - and you seem to think that the Dutch just evaded that obstacle, thus my response.

And with all due respect to the Scots, England alone is comparable (I'm not sure on exact figures, but it's certainly different enough to matter significantly whether the Scots are counted or not) to the three Scandinavian kingdoms - they are that thinly populated, no matter how much timber there is (and a low, largely rural, population will not create much of an economy to generate much power on sea or land). That England OTL was not a major naval power in the 15th century (I'd argue it was at least "a" power in the 16th) says more for who was than for England vs. the underpopulated, underurbanized Norse kingdoms.

IMO, for any century after the 13th at the latest, England has the opportunity to be a superior naval power to the Scandinavians - the fact that it was busy on land (including the mess under the heading of "The Wars of the Roses") in the 15th century obscures this, but I don't think the Scandinavians can hope for more than a fighting chance for very long.

Doesn't mean they'll lose everything, but Scandinavian North American colonies are likely to go the way of New Amsterdam (captured by the Britons), not the way of Mexico (held by Spain until it revolted).

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

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).

England didn't really stop the Dutch until it was the naval power though. England didn't stop the Dutch from seizing the East Indies in the 17th century, after all.

[Paul MacQ]

Mind an expanded Kalmar Union.

Pick a Scottish Royal that Marries to a Danish Royal get a close union Possibly during a Wars of the Roses event that allied to or even add Scotland to the Union suddenly the position is stronger.

These Northern States go Protestant while England is aligned with Catholics for a while. Have an Early Anglo Dutch War the Union sides with the Dutch. London is hobbled for a while. Many things could happen. “Never say never”

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

England didn't really stop the Dutch until it was the naval power though. England didn't stop the Dutch from seizing the East Indies in the 17th century, after all.

Again, I'm not saying "stop outright" levels, I'm saying "this is going to make things more difficult" - enough so to be a serious issue in any potential timeline.

Also, the English were on good terms with the Dutch - or at least we-share-enemies terms - prior to the mid-18th century - something that isn't at all a given for the Scandinavians.


Paul: A Kalmar Union + Scotland is going to be awfully stretched trying to handle the divergent interests and nobility and other problems of four kingdoms.

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Also, the English were on good terms with the Dutch - or at least we-share-enemies terms - prior to the mid-18th century - something that isn't at all a given for the Scandinavians.

...Really?

I mean leaving aside the low-level warfare in Indonesia that was a constant during this period (I mean, the Massacre of Amboyna isn't something you do to friends), there were three Anglo-Dutch Wars between 1652 and 1674.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

...Really?

I mean leaving aside the low-level warfare in Indonesia that was a constant during this period (I mean, the Massacre of Amboyna isn't something you do to friends), there were three Anglo-Dutch Wars between 1652 and 1674.

My bad, I meant mid-17th.

Point still stands, though. The point in which the Dutch were building a colonial empire and ignoring England being 'in the way" is the period they either had naval superiority or English friendship.

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

My bad, I meant mid-17th.

Point still stands, though. The point in which the Dutch were building a colonial empire and ignoring England being 'in the way" is the period they either had naval superiority or English friendship.

I think you could say that for any power, though. The Spanish were able to suppress English and French settlements in the Americas when they had naval superiority, after all.

Moreover, a Kalmar Union would have control over Europe's naval supplies during the early modern period, which would, one imagines, weaken England and strengthen them.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

I think you could say that for any power, though. The Spanish were able to suppress English and French settlements in the Americas when they had naval superiority, after all.

Moreover, a Kalmar Union would have control over Europe's naval supplies during the early modern period, which would, one imagines, weaken England and strengthen them.

The problem is that there's a huge difference between Spain and France, which do not have to sail past England (Spain more so than France, but its true for both) just to reach their colonies, and the Kalmar Union or the Netherlands (or the HRE/Germany, while we're listing powers) - which do.

On naval supplies:

Sure, it's a plus for the Kalmar Union - but it's still fighting against all the weaknesses involved.

And being financially weaker is a huge one.

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

And being financially weaker is a huge one.

Nah. They'll coopt the Hansa when the King of the North frees Protestant Germany from the Habsburgs during the Twenty-five Years War.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

Nah. They'll coopt the Hansa when the King of the North frees Protestant Germany from the Habsburgs during the Twenty-five Years War.

And everything will go as they wish because . . . um . . .

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

And everything will go as they wish because . . . um . . .

I'm joking.

But I don't think the idea of a stronger Scandinavian state exerting more permanent control in North Germany is implausible. Even in OTL the Danes controlled Holstein and tried to seize Hamburg; the Swedes ruled Pomerania. A united state would have more influence.