Like it says in the tin-how can we get the area of the Kingdom of Scotland to fall under direct control of the Danes, Norwegians, or Swedes for a prolonged period of time (long enough to at least have the potential of staying under their control to the modern day)?
AHC: Scandinavian Scotland
- Thread starter Shtudmuffin
- Start date
yourworstnightmare
Banned
Crackpot idea taken from the Victoria 2 Mod: A Point Divergence:
The Union of Kalmar survives, but for some reason the House of Stuart get Scandinavian throne, and thus Scotland enter the Union.
The Union of Kalmar survives, but for some reason the House of Stuart get Scandinavian throne, and thus Scotland enter the Union.
Perhaps with a c. 1600 POD.
First, avert personal union between Scotland and England upon the Death of Queen Elizabeth, or end the personal union early. The former could be accomplished by having Elizabeth officially adopt one of the other major potential claimants as her heir (most likely Arabella Stuart, but perhaps Edward Seymour or Anne Stanley). The latter could be accomplished by a successful gunpowder plot, leaving James and his children dead (James's elder son Henry Frederick would likely have been present at Parliament, and the plotters had planned to assassinate Prince Charles seperately and kidnap Princess Elizabeth), with the English throne passing to one of the other claimants and the Scottish throne passing to the Duke of Lennox, the Earl of Moray, or the Earl of Arran.
IOTL, Sweden tried in the early 1600s to arrange a marriage between their young crown prince Gustavus Adolphus and Princess Elizabeth Stuart, but were rebuffed, and Gustavus instead married the daughter of the Elector of Brandenburg. Had Scotland not been in personal union with England, Sweden might have tried Scotland next after England.
With Gustavus Adolphus married to our hypothetical Scottish princess, we have only to have any brothers die off prematurely, and Scotland would eventually wind up in personal union with Sweden.
You also might be able to accomplish this with a much earlier POD. I don't know much detail about the formation of the Danelaw in Northern England, but perhaps it might be possible to have Danish settlement in the British isles take place in Scotland rather than Northumbria and Mercia. They'd probably have a better shot and sticking long-term, eventually forming Scotland into a Scandinavian land. I doubt political union would last longer than the OTL Kalmar Union, but lasting cultural and institutional merging would make it more likely that political ties might re-form later.
First, avert personal union between Scotland and England upon the Death of Queen Elizabeth, or end the personal union early. The former could be accomplished by having Elizabeth officially adopt one of the other major potential claimants as her heir (most likely Arabella Stuart, but perhaps Edward Seymour or Anne Stanley). The latter could be accomplished by a successful gunpowder plot, leaving James and his children dead (James's elder son Henry Frederick would likely have been present at Parliament, and the plotters had planned to assassinate Prince Charles seperately and kidnap Princess Elizabeth), with the English throne passing to one of the other claimants and the Scottish throne passing to the Duke of Lennox, the Earl of Moray, or the Earl of Arran.
IOTL, Sweden tried in the early 1600s to arrange a marriage between their young crown prince Gustavus Adolphus and Princess Elizabeth Stuart, but were rebuffed, and Gustavus instead married the daughter of the Elector of Brandenburg. Had Scotland not been in personal union with England, Sweden might have tried Scotland next after England.
With Gustavus Adolphus married to our hypothetical Scottish princess, we have only to have any brothers die off prematurely, and Scotland would eventually wind up in personal union with Sweden.
You also might be able to accomplish this with a much earlier POD. I don't know much detail about the formation of the Danelaw in Northern England, but perhaps it might be possible to have Danish settlement in the British isles take place in Scotland rather than Northumbria and Mercia. They'd probably have a better shot and sticking long-term, eventually forming Scotland into a Scandinavian land. I doubt political union would last longer than the OTL Kalmar Union, but lasting cultural and institutional merging would make it more likely that political ties might re-form later.
Well, I mean, a lot of England was under Danish domain for a pretty significant period of time. Have that dominion extend to all of Britain, and then have the Norse hole up in Scotland if the Normans succeed in taking England. Bonus: they might also be able to take and keep Wales!
Erik XIV of Sweden tried to marry Mary Stuart in the 1560s. That did not happen, and both ended imprisoned and killed. 
Margret of Norway was queen of scotland in th 13th century, perhaps you could do something with that?
The thing is if William Holds the South and Harald the North, there will be a round two down the line. Harald might agree to a permanent split, but there's no way that William will agree to split a potential conquest for any amount of time longer than what it would take him to consolidate his gains and rebuild his army.
As to a rebellion in Kent, William wouldn't deal with it personally, he'd let one of his generals do it. "mere rebels" are not a glorious enough foe for William to justify stepping onto the field himself and there's no way that rebels are getting into a Norman Style Motte and Bailey as anything other than prisoners or dead men.
Other than that I could see Canute doing something more than Vassalizing Scotland to his Empire. Gods know that if he decided to invade, the Scots aren't stopping him. The problem is what happens after Canute's Death. OTL his realm was split amongst his sons and they fought each other for total control until they died or the natives replaced the dynasty (like they did in England)
Avoid this happening, (maybe most of Canute's sons end up dead, or a few go off to Byzantium to serve in the Varangian Guard and thus are unable to inherit by Scandinavian law.) and you get a scenario where the North Sea Empire now with 100% more Scotland stays together.
MarshalBraginsky
Banned
My timeline Ivangorod Prosperous ver. 2.0 covers a dynastic marriage between John Vasa of Sweden (who never becomes king in my TL) and Mary, Queen of the Scots, though I had a PoD way back, meaning that Elizabeth never becomes the Queen of England.
A Scandinavian controlled Scotland would ensure either Denmark or Sweden an additional leverage in attempting to take Iceland from Denmark if the Swedes established a Vasa dynasty in Scotland.
Alexander III's daughter, who's name escapes me at the moment (Margaret, I think), was married to King Eric II of Norway.
She died giving birth to a daughter. If that daughter had been a son or if she had lived to birth a son later on, and if that son, butterflies permitting, had become King of Scotland as well as King of Norway...
You see where I'm going with this?
She died giving birth to a daughter. If that daughter had been a son or if she had lived to birth a son later on, and if that son, butterflies permitting, had become King of Scotland as well as King of Norway...
You see where I'm going with this?
I do like the idea of a three way split, that lasts more than a few months. Assuming we do go with a slight reversal in order - William tries first against Harold, then Harald arrives soon after, then a pyrrhic Norman victory over Harold, do we then see Harald destroying William, or the two standing off against each other?
If William's forces are fatally weakened then he will have far more trouble cementing control over what he holds, which could make an AS revolt more likely to be at least partially successful, but then why on earth wouldn't Harald move in for the kill?
If William's forces are fatally weakened then he will have far more trouble cementing control over what he holds, which could make an AS revolt more likely to be at least partially successful, but then why on earth wouldn't Harald move in for the kill?
If I recall correctly Harald had the smallest of the three armies, and whilst his Vikingr would probably be heads and shoulders above most troops seen on the field, I doubt he could conquer all of England as it is. At best he might win some victories against William and keep the northern half (maybe York and Northumberland?) of the country. From there he might go about uniting his realm with the Scots.
Of course this could also go very badly if Harald tries to march south and William uses his cavalry to decimate him so badly that there is no coming back from it.
Of course this could also go very badly if Harald tries to march south and William uses his cavalry to decimate him so badly that there is no coming back from it.
Having Margaret the Maid as male seems fairly appropriate and would butterfly Kalmar - perhaps a longer Danish-Swedish union vs a Scottish-Norwegian one?
On a related note, what are people's thoughts on the viability of a *Northern Britain/Greater Scotland based around Scotland +NE/NW (Greater Yorkshire) England*?
Viable in relation to what scenario?
Or do you mean a single nation as any Scotland + Northern England after 1400s is still a Union situation: Scotland PLUS Northern England.
Perhaps evolving out of a surviving Northumbria (perhaps with merely a Danish Norman-Conquest type thing)
It is possible - for much of it's pre-Robert the Bruce history Kings of Scotland were constantly looking to edge the border south. During the reign of Stephen the Scottish King David looked to take advantage of the struggle between the King and the Empress Matilda leading to the Battle of the Standard at Northallerton where David was captured.
And even after Bruce the Scottish would still look to exploit any English instability - the Battle of Flodden for example - to edge the border south.
Last edited: