Norway longer independent

[Max Sinister]

IOTL, Norway wasn't independent for more than half a millenium.

How would have changed Northern European history if they had stayed independent instead of being ruled by Denmark? Would Sweden reconquer its southern tip from Denmark earlier? Would Norway try to control the Sund toll? How much of a role could they play at all, since their population was pretty low?

 

[Nicole]

It may be more likely to keep the Jamtland...

 

[Andrei]

We might not have a Kalmar Union then. Albert of Mecklenburg could have remained king of Sweden.

If the Norwegians manage to recover from the disasters of the XIVth century they might be able to resettle Greenland and Newfoundland , but they might still lose Jamtland and Bohus , because the Swedes would be stronger.

 

[Oddball]

In short perspective yes, but

A POD were Norway does not join the Kalmar Union is IMHO more likely than what happened OTL.

Problem is only that a resurgent Sweden would gobbel us up in no time, come the 17th century. And with more time "swedenise" us, likelihood of independent Norway today is less.

Before hydropower and oil, Norway had little show as a independent nation with a territorial hungry neighbour.

 

[Redbeard]

A POD were Norway does not join the Kalmar Union is IMHO more likely than what happened OTL.

Problem is only that a resurgent Sweden would gobbel us up in no time, come the 17th century. And with more time "swedenise" us, likelihood of independent Norway today is less.

Before hydropower and oil, Norway had little show as a independent nation with a territorial hungry neighbour.

But a Norway somehow not suffering as much in medieval times (plague etc.) would not be as easy to dominate, from Denmark or Sweden. I could imagine a "third leg" in Scandinavian history, and one being much more oriented to the west. Scotland and Ireland will be much more "Norwegian", and why not a Scottish-Norwegian Union at some time? With a more thriwing Norway the likelyhood of the Greenland settelments is less, and as soon as that happens the step to Newfoundland is not that far.

The world might be difficult to recognise...

Regards

Steffen

 

[Andrei]

Maybe Norway would agree to pay tribute to Sweden to be left alone , to focus on the Atlantic , or would play Denmark and Sweden against each other.

IMO the history of Europe would have been more interesting with an independent Norway.

 

[Oddball]

The population base in Norway is just too small to have Norway as a force to be reconed with.

Ofcource you could put a Norwegian king on several thrones and thus get a powerfull union/alliance were norwegians have power. But a independent Norway with modern borders are just too smal and insignificant.

Sweden will eat us before anyone could say cake, and none but the Danes would care...

 

[Andrei]

Why would Sweden waste money and time to conquer Norway ?
In this case Norway won't be a part of a strong rival kingdom as in OTL and the Swedes would have more important objectives on their agenda ( Scania , Livonia , Karelia , Poland , northern Germany , the Baltic Sea in general ).
Norway will not be to valuable to the Swedes because her population is low and the terrain is rough , but Norwegian tribute could be useful.
However , I don't think that Norway would become a great power , as Denmark or Sweden once were.

 

[Oddball]

Why would Sweden waste money and time to conquer Norway ?
In this case Norway won't be a part of a strong rival kingdom as in OTL and the Swedes would have more important objectives on their agenda ( Scania , Livonia , Karelia , Poland , northern Germany , the Baltic Sea in general ).
Norway will not be to valuable to the Swedes because her population is low and the terrain is rough , but Norwegian tribute could be useful.

Well in this case I must sadly say that you are plain wrong. The Swedish kings were ALWAYS interested in Norway. Right from the dissoluton of the Kalmar Union and until our independece in 1905.

However , I don't think that Norway would become a great power , as Denmark or Sweden once were.

Well, here you are spot on

 

[Andrei]

Well in this case I must sadly say that you are plain wrong. The Swedish kings were ALWAYS interested in Norway. Right from the dissoluton of the Kalmar Union and until our independece in 1905.

I know that the Swedes had invaded Norway several times during the XVIIth and the XVIIIth centuries , and even held Trondelag for a short period of time , but I thought they did this because Norway was a part of the Danish kingdom , an enemy of Sweden.

During history , having a bigger neibghour hadn't necesarily implied the loss of independence.

 

[Oddball]

During history , having a bigger neibghour hadn't necesarily implied the loss of independence.

No, but if your "big" neighbour is expansionistic, and you dont have a influencial allied AND something to offer, it usualy does...

 

[Umbral]

If I may, Norway during the 13th century was a strong power, holding Iceland, Greenland and several island posessions. The rough terrain and superior naval power, combined with the naval advantage of the narrow passage from the baltic is a strong base for independence.

After all, over a millenium of conflict, Sweden and Denmark never gobbled eatch other up. I could easily see an even more stable situation where two of the three scandinavian countries would join forces every time the third grew too strong.

 

[Oddball]

If I may, Norway during the 13th century was a strong power, holding Iceland, Greenland and several island posessions. The rough terrain and superior naval power, combined with the naval advantage of the narrow passage from the baltic is a strong base for independence.

After all, over a millenium of conflict, Sweden and Denmark never gobbled eatch other up. I could easily see an even more stable situation where two of the three scandinavian countries would join forces every time the third grew too strong.

What can I say? Times are changing and along with it technology. Come late 14th century, Norway was a poor and backwards naton. IMHO, when tech reaches a certain level, you just have to have a certain population and resource base to be an expansive power.

The reason why none of Denmark or Sweden annexed eachother was alliances with nations outside Scandinavia. OTOH there were several times that the de facto situation were that one of them had the other her knee, but peace treaties negotiated by others always secured that they stayed apart.

 

[arctic warrior]

But then Norway ended up as part of the kingdom of Denmark by coincidence. Valdemar 4. youngest daughter Margrethe was married to norwegian king Haakon 6. in 1363 and in 1370 they had their only son Oluf. In 1375 Valdemar 4. dies and Oluf is reconized as king overruling the son of Margrethes older sister. Margrethe is made regent and in 1380 Haakon 6. dies and Oluf is also made king of Norway with Margrethe as regent. Then in 1385 the swedish king dies heirless and Oluf is yet again chosen as king with Margrethe as regent.
So the Kalmar Union is instituted and last for 126 years! Great ruler, diplomat and shrewd politician Margrethe was. WI Haakon 6. had lived on after 1370 with Margrethe as his queen? Kalmar Union with Norway as the leading power? Maybe that could have held both the Danes and the Swedes in check.

As anside:
later on Norway would be in need of grain from Jutland to sustain her population as was seen in the famine of 1801 - 1815, and later during wwII. The grain trade had been there since the stone age!
But at least from sometime before 1801 Denmark and Norway had equal size population, i.e. Denmark without the dutchies and Scania.

So the norwegians had the population and the aggressivenes to become a great nation early on, but got stopped in the tracks by Margrethe and later ended in the back-yard of Europe.
Actually I think that even the Danish kings didn't fully reconize Norwegian resources, but I'm going to have a closer look at that. In combination Denmark and Norway had the resources for early civilization: timber, iron, copper, silver, agricultural produce and ability to navigate the seas. What they missed were the population surplus that went to England and got taken away from them with the Norman conquest.

Regards

arctic warrior

 

[arctic warrior]

IOTL, Norway wasn't independent for more than half a millenium.

How would have changed Northern European history if they had stayed independent instead of being ruled by Denmark? Would Sweden reconquer its southern tip from Denmark earlier? Would Norway try to control the Sund toll? How much of a role could they play at all, since their population was pretty low?

I think the norwegians would have a longer time of westwards expansion. But after 1380 at some point they would be gobbled up by territory hungry Denmark or Sweden. Or they would dynastically merge with Denmark, as in OTL.

Well it wasn't a swedish reconquest of 1658. The lands had from almost antiquity been part of Denmark. At least lower Scania was part of Denmark in early viking era. Blekinga in the south east was independent and Halland later added to danish rule. Sweden was actually fracmented until ca. 1200! There were three main powers: West Götaland between the great lakes, often during medieval times having a dane as ruler or nominal king, East Götaland between the lakes and eastern shore and Svealand around Stockholm (Mälaran). In the end East Götaland would unite Sweden. In between Sweden and the danish areas were large, almost impenetreble forests, where the population remained pagan for a long time after the conversion of the Nordic lands. Occational "crusades" were undertaken against these peoples to get slaves!

At least Zealand was occupied by the norwegians a few times in the viking era, but the Sundtold wasn't established until the first half of the 1400's, so I can't see the Norwegians controlling it, unless they would have Margrethe build the Kalmar Union from Norway. Could be interesting though.

But carry on and let's see what develops

Regards

arctic warrior

 

[Oddball]

Then in 1385 the swedish king dies heirless and Oluf is yet again chosen as king with Margrethe as regent.

Nope, he was desposed. No dying involved...

Kalmar Union with Norway as the leading power? Maybe that could have held both the Danes and the Swedes in check.

Well, that was kinda what happened. The hereditary throne of Norway was used as a way to gain the other two thrones. But if you by leading power mean that the king mostly sits in Norway and the Norwegian aristocracy have a heavy influence on union matters, I sincerly doubt it.

 

[arctic warrior]

Nope, he was desposed. No dying involved...

Red you are absolutely right - comes from hasty looking up of the wrong source. But the formerly deposed king Magnus of Sweden, grandfather of Olaf died that year and Olaf was reconized as heir to the Swedish throne!

I think I did stress that norwegian overlordship would be for a limited time.

 

[Oddball]

But the formerly deposed king Magnus of Sweden, grandfather of Olaf died that year and Olaf was reconized as heir to the Swedish throne!

Nope

Magnus (grandfather) died in 1374 & Haakon (father) died in 1380.

 

[arctic warrior]

Nope

Magnus (grandfather) died in 1374 & Haakon (father) died in 1380.

Well had to look closer into this.
Magnus is king of Sweden until 1364, when he is dethroned. His son Haakon is king of Norway and married to Margrethe. Their son Olaf is born 1371. Magnus retain his claim to the swedish throne until his death in 1374. When Haakon dies 1380 Olaf is reconized as king of Norway with Margrethe as regent. 1385 Olaf come of age and renew Magnus' claim to Sweden. Olaf dies 1387 and Margrethe is elected regent of Sweden 1388.

Did I get it right Red?

 

[Oddball]

Thats pretty mutch correct

Yepp, no we are going somewere...

Hate yo be picky, but Iv just studied this time in Nordic history for my own Kalmar Union ATL