I'm having a little bit of trouble remembering just when events started to diverge in Scandinavia. I know Denmark was able to trade Oldenburg for the Holstein-Gottorp territories, but I can't remember if there was any change in the Scanian War. I don't think so. I also can't remember if there's been any change in the raising of Brandenburg-Prussia to a kingdom under Frederick I.
The Danish-Swedish rivalry is obviously still there, but I'm not so sure anything will come of it here. While the two royal families had marriage ties IOTL before the Great Northern War, even more directly than their indirect connection through Britannia here, but this time there isn't a major international alliance forming against Sweden to encourage Denmark. Denmark's long time knife in the back, the Dukes of Holstein-Gottorp are out of their hair, but the lost provinces of Skaneland haven't been Danish for decades and were scoured years before by Charles XI. Without international aid against Sweden, I'm not so sure Denmark would go for them. In fact, attacking would potentially harm relations with Britannia. This largely fits with how King Frederick behaved here. He's not going to go on the attack. I'd imagine Danish attention is turning west. With relations good with Britannia, I'd imagine Denmark would focus more on the colonial game. East is Sweden, and west is the war in the Spanish Netherlands would give them nothing but better relations with the Dutch and British. South might be possible, but the Holy Roman Empire is messy and traditionally hasn't gone well for Denmark. The marriage to the Mecklenburgs firms up their southern flank, but that is it. Overseas is the remaining option, especially as the Dutch are currently devoting a great deal towards the ongoing war.
Sweden, meanwhile. If I'm not incorrect, I believe the Swedish have already received exemption from the Sound Dues and the Danish probably couldn't even enforce said dues with Skaneland in Swedish hands. That removes a major incentive for war between them. While Sweden of course wants Norway, it isn't necessary for ocean access and would be more for cutting down the Danish. Based on Charles XII's OTL behavior, it's clear he wants a war to earn battlefield prestige. I assume the maneuvers mentioned were basically him taunting a traditional enemy, hoping to goad them into charging. With both Sweden and Denmark tied to Britannia and reluctant to risk relations, Sweden would probably want the blame for the war to fall on Denmark. Since that hasn't happened, I assume Charles would look elsewhere. Russia is still viewed as a backwater of little interest to Charles.
So I'd say his next target would be Prussia. Assuming there weren't changes ITTL, then Frederick I got his crown in 1701. However that was done only in return for Prussian aid in the WoSS, and I'm not sure if Prussia has done so yet. Regardless, Prussia has been an enemy of Sweden multiple times in the past half century. The Second Northern War and the Scanian War, and gaining the entirety of Pomerania was a long time goal of Prussia that had led to it aiming for Swedish Pomerania in both those wars. Prussia was notably anti-French at this time so a war on Prussia would be in French interests and could allow the continuation of French subsidies to Sweden. Meanwhile unless Prussia is participating in the war against France, through its territories in Cleves, then Britannia would have little reason to interfere.
A Swedish-Prussian war at this point is a very interesting possibility. At this point the Swedish were a well formed military, but Prussia had established a standing army of 25-30,000 troops by 1688. The latter were probably slightly better off from a better foundation, while the Swedish Empire relied on foreign subsidies and tolls from its German territories. If Sweden is a brittle empire that still has a good chance to reform and stabilize, Prussia was a growing power but one that still wasn't quite on the level. Arguably, the winner of such a conflict would become TTL's Prussia (the regional military power that expanded slowly through said military power till it became great). A quick look shows the Swedes fielded 75,000 men in the Great Northern War while Prussia fielded 50,000, so the Swedes had numerical superiority still. Frederick I was also not his father in military matters, nor his son or grandson.
Sweden getting revenge for past defeats to Prussia while also kicking down a growing military power provides prestige, and there are also limited territorial goals that would really help. Sweden was reliant on toll profits from Bremen-Verden, Wismar, and the Oder to support its army. Sweden conquering Farther Pomerania would really strengthen Swedish Pomerania, and fully kick Brandenburg out of the Baltic. However this would really need them to kick Prussia's teeth in, as Pomerania was long a goal of Brandenburg so would ensure its long term enmity. Another option is taking the Memel territory from Ducal Prussia, allowing them to collect tolls on the Memel River. This too means almost certain war in the future, but would strengthen Sweden in preparation for that. Probably only possible if Poland helps Sweden, as the King in Prussia move was not popular among the Polism Sejm. Parts of Farther Pomerania would be more likely. Chopping Prussia-Brandenburg down and claiming Farther Pomerania would certainly reinforce Swedish domination of the Baltic.
A rather random note to make is that Sweden has been given time to recover from the Great Famine of 1695-1697 that very much left the Swedes weakened by the start of the Great Northern War. With a decade having passed here they are in a better position. Plagues are active in Poland-Lithuania by this point, and Prussia will be hit by 1708, Brandenburg, Pomerania, Livonia, and Estonia by 1709, and finally Finland and Sweden in 1710. It was the devastation, high taxes, and movement of people and troops during the great Northern War that really made it so devastating. Well, that and the Great Frost of 1709. If conflict can be delayed just three or four more years, a lot less people could die. Not sure Charles XII will last that long though.
..And now I;v' just written a lot on these topics when the real center of the story is England. Woops.
I mean colonially. Fighting in the Spanish Netherlands would build up better ties with the Dutch, British, and Spanish, but would probably not actually give them any tangible rewards. Although it might be possible for Denmark to negotiate a colony from one of them in return for that aid. Or it could help in the war by taking French colonies.In regards to Denmark looking west, do you mean getting active in the Southern Netherlands or colonially?
Not too sure there. Despite Brandenburg-Prussia rising partially with the support of outside forces as a counterbalance to the Hasburgs, at this time they actually cooperated well. Both Frederick III, the Great Elector, and King Frederick I were generally anti-France but also were very opportunistic against their neighbors. They generally went wherever the rewards were greatest, and they weren't going to pick a fight with the Hasburgs yet.On the Prussian front, I'm not sure whether Frederick I would be given the Kingly title given that it was in support of the Habsburgs in the War of the Spanish Succession, and said war didn't happen here, though I suppose he could've leveraged it in order to support the Austrians in their war against the Turks or also to aid in the fighting in the SOuthern Netherlands. Also, with the current Polish King being Joseph I's uncle, he might try to play on that to regain certain things.
I mean colonially. Fighting in the Spanish Netherlands would build up better ties with the Dutch, British, and Spanish, but would probably not actually give them any tangible rewards. Although it might be possible for Denmark to negotiate a colony from one of them in return for that aid. Or it could help in the war by taking French colonies.
Huh, I was originally thinking it was an either-or situation but actually the Danish sending troops to Brussels while its navy and more irregular soldiers go and attack French colonies isn't unlikely. The warfare between the colonial empires is something you've generally not elaborated on so far in this conflict. Yet the Treaty of Utrect IOTL cost the French Nova Scotia, Hudson Bay, and Newfoundland. So I assume there have been colonial skirmishes. That could be a goal for Denmark. French Canada only had a population of 16,000 in 1706, while Newfoundland and Arcadia had populations in the hundreds. It actually wasn't till after the WoSS that New France started to flourish. However French Louisiana might be an easier target. It was barely inhabited at all. Southern Illinois only had 2,000 settlers in 1750, and New Orleans wasn't even founded till 1718. 1700 is still early enough in the colonial game.
Not too sure there. Despite Brandenburg-Prussia rising partially with the support of outside forces as a counterbalance to the Hasburgs, at this time they actually cooperated well. Both Frederick III, the Great Elector, and King Frederick I were generally anti-France but also were very opportunistic against their neighbors. They generally went wherever the rewards were greatest, and they weren't going to pick a fight with the Hasburgs yet.
Frederick however bought his crown with 8,000 Prussian soldiers for the Hasburgs to use against the French, but he was also known for basically leasing out Prussian soldiers as mercenaries wherever. That gave the Hohenzollerns immense influence during the massive War of Spanish Succession, but less so during more limited conflicts like ITTL. I doubt Prussian soldiers would be valued against the Ottomans, especially when there seems to be an alliance between Russia, Austria, and Poland-Lithuania. One issue is that there might be less international support recognizing a King in Prussia. IOTL King Augustus of Poland, Denmark-Norway, and Russia all recognized the title near immediately in an effort to gain Prussian aid against Sweden (an effort that only actually bore fruit after Poltava destroyed the Swedes) while the Dutch and English did the same for the Prussian soldiers in the WoSS. Some of those aren't relevant in this scenario. Neither Russia nor Denmark-Norway have a reason to acknowledge another king, and the Polish Sejm has even less reason to allow the former duchy to raise itself to kingdom status.
I'd say Frederick would still wrangle the title. Everything is there, but I'd assume it would take longer and require more resources and effort on his part. He'd also achieve less international recognition early on. The Dutch and British would probably prefer Imperial or Danish aid to break the stalemate, but if that doesn't work or isn't enough they might acknowledge it in return for Prussian troop reinforcements. The Polish, especially if they are starting to resent Hasburg interference in Polish affairs, might move against him. Even work with Charles XII. So everything would just be messier compared with the cakewalk where 8,000 soldiers bought Frederick a crown, and half of Europe recognized him as such immediately in hopes he'd help them win their wars (which he never did, instead selling his troops as mercenaries, and only piling on Sweden with everyone else after Russia did the hard part). He's probably doing just about all he can to receive more acknowledgement of his title outside the Hasburgs and the German princes.
Not sure how successful they'd be, the Mississippi River Basin wasn't an easy place for European settlers, but success at settler colonialism was not dependent on the population of the home nation. If Denmark focused much of its efforts on it, it could certainly do more with the territory than France ever did. France losing Louisiana could also have interesting effects on French Canada. Especially if they don't lose Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and Hudson Bay to England. Maybe Britannia is less focused on colonial affairs here, with less internal discord from no Glorious Revolution.A Danish presence in the new world would be fascinating, Louisiana being Danish, now that would be a game changer I think.
His son is already alive, and while still young (18 in 1706) the Soldier King could keep Brandenburg relevant unless it is truly crushed.And agreed with regards to Prussia, I think Frederick's going to have a hard bargain. His son or grandson might succeed in getting proper recognition though. And seeing Poland allied with Sweden against Prussia would be fascinating.
Not sure how successful they'd be, the Mississippi River Basin wasn't an easy place for European settlers, but success at settler colonialism was not dependent on the population of the home nation. If Denmark focused much of its efforts on it, it could certainly do more with the territory than France ever did. France losing Louisiana could also have interesting effects on French Canada. Especially if they don't lose Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and Hudson Bay to England. Maybe Britannia is less focused on colonial affairs here, with less internal discord from no Glorious Revolution.
His son is already alive, and while still young (18 in 1706) the Soldier King could keep Brandenburg relevant unless it is truly crushed.
It was only like half a century before that the Duchy of Prussia was a fief of the Polish Crown. There are much less tenuous claims that have been used as casus belli to start wars. Might depend on how the war against the Turks is going. The Swedes haven't been exactly allies of Poland either. If Poland can't divert enough troops to make a serious attempt at Prussia, it would probably stay out of it rather then hope Sweden doesn't take everything it can. A war where Poland takes Ducal Prussia and Sweden Pomerania would be interesting though.
A few token aspects of the Danish pov. as I see them.
The trade of Oldenburg for Holstein will likely be considered a masterstroke by later Danish Historians, simply put when the great northern war broke out, the immediate goal was to secure Gottorp-Holstein as it was a dagger in the back of any Danish war efforts towards Sweden. With this "dagger" removed Danish opportunistic expansion order will change.
So it is important to mention that I don't think Frederik IV was particular war hungry, but he did join in on the Great Northern War twice if this is opportunistic or because it is a way to improve the security of the Danish realm I'm unsure about.
But certainly of the most desired land grab for Denmark is now solely Skånelandene (Skåne, Blekinge & Halland), Sweden, however, does have a reputation so Denmark is unlikely to declare war without a coalition in its back. After this, the territories on the wishlist will be (Swedish Bremen-Verden) during the second Danish participation in the Great Northern War, Danish soldiers overran Bremen-Verden without much trouble, it was ceded to England for their participation. After that, you will likely see Rügen+Stralsund (ancient Danish claim, the area at this point still use Danish church law I believe) and then Wismar.
Now all these lands grabs are of course not something Frederik IV is gunning for, but if he is not busy elsewhere I'm quite certain he will join a coalition, which I don't think you have butterflied away?
The interesting part of the discussion about Danish participation in the Spanish Succession War is that Danish soldiers did participate.
In short: Denmark prepared for the Great Northern War by raising a relatively large force of around 40.000 (discounting garrison troops) with nearly all deployed towards Holstein-Gottorp.
Now I don't know if enough has changed, but it is likely that this force is still being prepared, with a bunch of these centered around Copenhagen. Instead of the majority in Holstein.
OTL. A Swedish-English-Dutch fleet forced the sound (The Danish Fleet is larger than the Swedish but..) and landed on Zealand forcing Denmark out of the war.
The interesting part is Frederik IV this not disarm his large army, because he wanted the ability to go to war with Sweden if an opportunity arose.
After this large part of the Danish army was made into two Auxilary corps
One in the service of the Anglo-Dutch (1701-1714). Around twelve-thousand men. fighting under Marlborough
the other one in the service of the Habsburg(1701-1709). Around ten-thousand men fighting under Eugene of Savoy in Northern Italy (and maybe Germany too), and later in Hungary.
I think it is important to note that the events that have precluded all this, is to a degree butterflied. On the other hand, the underlying conflict (Swedish supremacy) is not removed so I don't think it is unlikely for it to happen albeit different.
To put Denmark into perspective during this age, it is an absolute monarchy, which is described 100 years later at the peace of Vienna, as the most absolute monarchy in Europe.
It is heavily militarised to the same degrees as Sweden and Prussia, it is simply not remembered as such (IMO), because it does not have a great age like the latter two (Sweden during its great power time 1611-1721) and later Prussia. It is simply overshadowed.
During the Great Northern War when Denmark reentered the war in 1710, Denmark invaded Skåne with 14.000 troops, this is while the larger of the two auxiliary corps are deployed in Flanders, and I believe the Habsburg one is still returning. Sweden was able to barely match these numbers, and on the eve of the battle, the Danish commander fell ill. My point with this is that Denmark might not be a great power, but it is knee's deep into North European affairs, and some of the engines for this have been butterflied, others not!
I hope my post has shredded some light on the actor that Denmark is during this period, and I'm looking forward to seeing what you do with it, or if you ignore it !