Largest possible Norway
- Thread starter Will Kürlich Kerl
- Start date
About what it is now IOTL, I would think, barring perhaps a personal union with Sweden and/or Denmark.
I would say you should have a more stable reign of Olaf (having Knut being dead in the 1010's raids in England would help, but I'm not really sure it would translate efficiently into a political tension between his successors).
An alliance with Danemark could help to carve partially Svear lands, at least as zones of influences that could became marches or under-kingfoms (more or less as Finnmark).
You could end then with a Norway spawning from Groenland to southern Finland even if it wouldn't stand that much long (Norway was in the process of unification and christianisation, and I think it would have been too much for leading both issues on the same time).
An alliance with Danemark could help to carve partially Svear lands, at least as zones of influences that could became marches or under-kingfoms (more or less as Finnmark).
You could end then with a Norway spawning from Groenland to southern Finland even if it wouldn't stand that much long (Norway was in the process of unification and christianisation, and I think it would have been too much for leading both issues on the same time).
Delvestius
Banned
Uhh probably Greenland, Iceland, Faroe Islands, Suthreyjar, Orkney, Dublin... Which was it's greatest extent OTL. If we pushed it, maybe a little more territory around York and in Ireland. The empire wouldn't last too long though, they just didn't have the population to hold off the Danes and Swedes. Now perhaps the union between Norway and Denmark could be set up to be a bit more equal, allowing for a Norwegian dynasty to rule over the union, but that's all I can really think of.
If you mean the largest modern nation of Norway, I'm not as versed in later Scandinavian history so I dunno.
If you mean the largest modern nation of Norway, I'm not as versed in later Scandinavian history so I dunno.
Half of England (due to a much probable agreement with William) that I'm not really sure would stand long on Norway.
They could easily have kept Jämtland, Härjedalen and Bohuslän, if Denmark had not gone to war with Sweden in the mid-1600s. It is a little odd that they did not care about these areas during the union with Sweden 1814-1905.
Norway+Sweden+Denmark+Finland+Lithuania+Latvia+Estonia+NW Russia with it's outpost trading city of Moscow built by the Vikings and control of the Volga River to the edge of the Byzantine Empire as it's classic trade route so additional cities and towns along it. Add in retention of Ireland, Scotland, and England. Iceland and Greenland. Labrador, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, the St. Lawrence River Valley and some of the Great Lakes shorelines as well as ports and communities along the New England and Mid-Atlantic states. Normandy in France and maybe some of the Baltic Sea coast communities in Northern Germany and Poland. That'd basically be Viking era colonizations lasting beyond a few hundred years and growing further as communities, emigration destinations, natural population increase, and a vast trading network (we call it transitory when it lasted much longer than most modern states have so far.)
Avoid Torstenson's War, or have a different outcome of it, and you may see Jamtland, Harjedalen and Halland stay Norwegian. Fast-forward a century or two, and have Norway still split from Denmark but with her overseas holdings going along (Iceland, Faeroe and Greenland). Jan Mayen and Svalbard are acquired similar to OTL, maybe you may add Franz Joseph's land as a consequence of more Arctic committment and exploration.
With an earlier POD you could have a larger chunk of Lapland and the Kola peninsula added as well.
Maybe a Caribbean island or two.
More than that would be hard unless you consider a successful Vinland that becomes Norwegian, but that's unlikely and won't lead to anything recognizable as modern "Norway".
EDIT: Shetland and Orkney might also be doable, though a little unwieldy.
With an earlier POD you could have a larger chunk of Lapland and the Kola peninsula added as well.
Maybe a Caribbean island or two.
More than that would be hard unless you consider a successful Vinland that becomes Norwegian, but that's unlikely and won't lead to anything recognizable as modern "Norway".
EDIT: Shetland and Orkney might also be doable, though a little unwieldy.
That won't be "Norway" in any sense though. The likeliest centre of such an enormous empire (let alone how can it be kept from fracturing) would be in present day Denmark or England.
Agreed Falecius, sticking together and being governable like the farflung British, Spanish, Dutch, Portuguese, Roman, Mongol, or other empires would take remarkable luck although the Vikings had some (later proven) mechanisms in legal and parliamentary systems and beliefs that proved quite robust when adopted in part by the British and Americans (Common Law, Jury by Peers instead of a Lord, Due Process of Law/Rule of Law ("Law" is a Norwegian word), Private Property Rights/Man's Home is His Castle, Payment of Damages for Personal Injury, etc.) and a focus on trading and production with very diverse peoples like the Romans, Chinese, and British empires (and unlike the Spanish, Mohammedians, etc.) so it could have worked or been no more unlikely than any OTL empire (and a focus on water-based transportation would be an advantage like the Portuguese, Dutch, and English had.)
Where the capital of the empire would be is a good question and Copenhagen, Oslo, Edinburgh, Dublin could make as much sense as London but empires rarely have a capital in what would make the most sense at it's peak of expansion, it's more where they started from or where they were headquartered at the start of major expansion. Moving the U.S. capital to Kansas City or St. Louis or Chicago as a more central point would have made sense by a century ago but they just got major regional federal facilities which is probably what would happen with London, Konigsberg, Hamburg, Vilnius, Moscow, Helsinki, Dublin, Quebec, Boston, Portland, etc. as any place with a great natural harbor, with major rivers accessible from it would develop sizable Norse settlements over the centuries just like OTL.
I did take the original question/challenge as more about Norwegians/Norsemen than Norway as a country since it's relatively new as a unified political entity and of course was merged with Sweden for centuries too.
Where the capital of the empire would be is a good question and Copenhagen, Oslo, Edinburgh, Dublin could make as much sense as London but empires rarely have a capital in what would make the most sense at it's peak of expansion, it's more where they started from or where they were headquartered at the start of major expansion. Moving the U.S. capital to Kansas City or St. Louis or Chicago as a more central point would have made sense by a century ago but they just got major regional federal facilities which is probably what would happen with London, Konigsberg, Hamburg, Vilnius, Moscow, Helsinki, Dublin, Quebec, Boston, Portland, etc. as any place with a great natural harbor, with major rivers accessible from it would develop sizable Norse settlements over the centuries just like OTL.
I did take the original question/challenge as more about Norwegians/Norsemen than Norway as a country since it's relatively new as a unified political entity and of course was merged with Sweden for centuries too.
It was united by Harald Hårfager over a thousand years ago, and it was merged with Denmark for centuries (firehundreårsnatta), not Sweden (except for the 1814 union).
Obviously Greenland, Faroe Islands and Iceland can all be kept rather easily, avoid Danish inheritance. Jämtland, Härjedalen and Halland can also be kept, a bit harder, and imo requires screwing up Sweden more than helping Norway.
Other than that, is there any way to lessen the impact of the black death in Norway? And prevent Götaland and Svealand from "becoming" Sweden? If those are prevented I could see some expansion into what is today Dalsland, Värmland and Dalarna, maybe even into Västergötland.
Screw up the Swedish unification early enough, prevent Götaland from falling under Svealand and i can easily see Sweden/Svealand or whatever states are in central Scandinavia becoming the small boy next to Norway and Denmark. Norway might even grab some colonies.
On the other hand I do not believe Norway can keep control of much land on the British isles while remaining "Norwegian" (rather Norse/Scandinavian), Shetland (Does Shetland even count as a part of the British Isles?)and Orkney perhaps. It's simply too far away and too populated, the centre of power would quickly move west. Perhaps Scotland/The Highlands would be doable, it's close enough and sparsely populated enough. If good relationships can be kept with whoever rules in the south I think it can be kept, requires some fine diplomacy though.
Lappland could be colonized by Norway, the issue I see is that it's much more accessible from the Baltic. And Northern Norway will always be pretty sparsely populated regardless of the timeline.
Just the map, not exact borders just the general idea. I think it would require quite a bit of luck and Swedescrew to happen, but stranger things have happened in history.
Other than that, is there any way to lessen the impact of the black death in Norway? And prevent Götaland and Svealand from "becoming" Sweden? If those are prevented I could see some expansion into what is today Dalsland, Värmland and Dalarna, maybe even into Västergötland.
Screw up the Swedish unification early enough, prevent Götaland from falling under Svealand and i can easily see Sweden/Svealand or whatever states are in central Scandinavia becoming the small boy next to Norway and Denmark. Norway might even grab some colonies.
On the other hand I do not believe Norway can keep control of much land on the British isles while remaining "Norwegian" (rather Norse/Scandinavian), Shetland (Does Shetland even count as a part of the British Isles?)and Orkney perhaps. It's simply too far away and too populated, the centre of power would quickly move west. Perhaps Scotland/The Highlands would be doable, it's close enough and sparsely populated enough. If good relationships can be kept with whoever rules in the south I think it can be kept, requires some fine diplomacy though.
Lappland could be colonized by Norway, the issue I see is that it's much more accessible from the Baltic. And Northern Norway will always be pretty sparsely populated regardless of the timeline.
Just the map, not exact borders just the general idea. I think it would require quite a bit of luck and Swedescrew to happen, but stranger things have happened in history.
katchen
Banned
Expansion North-eastward into Kola Lapland, Bjarmland, the North Dvina and the Pechora at Novgorod's expense during the 1000s-1200s. would be the way to accomplish this. Norwegians reach the Ob River by 1550 and occupy Ugria. Then across to Evekia and Yakutia, perhaps all the way to the Pacific instead of the Russians.
Will Kürlich Kerl
Banned
Would they also establish colonies in the Americas? (Alaska, Rupert's Land, Patagonia, etc...)
Does Norway have the manpower to pull this off? It sounds like quite a feat. Now, maybe if the Norse develop or acquire something like the Arctic agricultural package that DValdron has imagined for his "Land of Ice and Mice", that would be easier...
I don't think that pre-modern Norway had ever more than about a million inhabitants at most, and what you are positing is a hell of a lot of space (not exactly accessible at that). Russia had far more people and distinct geographical advantages (as in, control of permanent the major routes to the south that don't freeze for half of the year). Accessing the northern coasts of Eurasia all the way to the Bering Strait, or even just Taimyr, through the Arctic sea, and regularly enough to establish some sort of permanent control, is quite a challenge even with a 1900-ish tech package. Doable, if there are incentives, but then, what would pull Norway to that? There are greener and closer pastures around (say, Scotland, Sweden, Newfoundland, dunno).
Well, yeah, in the right circumstances, a Norse empire this large is not impossible. I doubt it can last to the present day (it would have emerged probably in the tenth or eleventh century and none of the empires you mention, except maybe the Romans, lasted that long on any comparable expanse of space) but rule the waters in the North Atlantic and Northwestern Eurasia for a couple centuries, why not.
My bets for a capital would be somewhere near the Sund (Copenhagen, Malmo, Goteborg), or the British Isles: London has a lot of advantages, but assuming a Norse state I would go with York.
Norway would be an important part of such a state, and I don't rule out a capital there (Oslo, Bergen and Stavanger are somewhat suitably located, though not as good as the other places mentioned). But it would be a Norse empire, as opposed to a Norwegian one, simply because Norway alone is too small a manpower pool for such a massive state. By the way, the Norse in their age of expansion were notoriously a fractitious bunch, not very keen to submit to a central authority; they usually commanded very little surplus to sustain a large government structure, that was actually part of what drove their expansion and why they were sometimes part-time raiders. Now, this does not forbid a large Norse empire, although it's a challenge: the pre-Islamic Arabs and several steppe peoples who built far-flung (though rarely long-lasting) empires weren't exactly paragons of political cohesiveness or high surplus production.
I have taken the OP as calling for a specifically Norwegian larger state, however, and that puts narrower limits. Norway could have easily become larger than it is (unless you count her IOTL Antarctic claim, that is, well, massive) but not that much, not while still being Norway in any meaningful sense.
Historically, Norway was at its maximum extent during the 1200s, when Iceland, Greenland and parts of what is currently Sweden was Norwegian.
At the time, Norway did have expansion opportunities into both OTL northeastern Russia and North America.
On the subject of manpower, remember that what we OTL see as Norway isn't the definitive limits. If Norway includes fertile parts of Sweden, those parts will be considered Norway form the start. If Norway pushes into other fertile lands at the expens of the inhabitants, 100 years later, that is a Norwegain manpower pool for further expanison there.
The limit is areas such as the UK, where even if Norway manages to suppress the native population, it'll swing the center of population gravity too f Thats not going to work.
But something Thalassocractic centered on the North Atlantic could be both large and stable.
At the time, Norway did have expansion opportunities into both OTL northeastern Russia and North America.
On the subject of manpower, remember that what we OTL see as Norway isn't the definitive limits. If Norway includes fertile parts of Sweden, those parts will be considered Norway form the start. If Norway pushes into other fertile lands at the expens of the inhabitants, 100 years later, that is a Norwegain manpower pool for further expanison there.
The limit is areas such as the UK, where even if Norway manages to suppress the native population, it'll swing the center of population gravity too f Thats not going to work.
But something Thalassocractic centered on the North Atlantic could be both large and stable.