AHC: Danish Domination

Your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to make Denmark very powerful/dominant in northern Europe by 1300.

Parameters:
1: A union in which Denmark is an equal member is acceptable
2: They must have at least 5 regions outside of Denmark, Scania, &Schleswig-Holstein- Finland, Ireland, Wales, and Iceland count as 1/2, Scotland, Norway, Sweden, the whole modern Baltic triad count as one, England as two, France and Germany as three, etc.

Bonuses(Largely mutually exclusive):
1: Make at least the majority of Denmark and the rulers pagan, if not the whole empire.
2: POD after 1066
3: Danish Constantinople


Am I asking too much? Is it outside plausibility?
 
I'm confused by the whole regions bit. Could you clarify?

An earlier Kalmar Union might satisfy the OP but at a certain point the country isn't really Denmark anymore it's the "Kalmar Union ", "Kingdom of Scandinavia",etc.
 

Deleted member 67076

Danish Constantinople is beyond ASB, unless you mean you want an emperor of Danish descent.
 
Your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to make Denmark very powerful/dominant in northern Europe by 1300.

Parameters:
1: A union in which Denmark is an equal member is acceptable
2: They must have at least 5 regions outside of Denmark, Scania, &Schleswig-Holstein- Finland, Ireland, Wales, and Iceland count as 1/2, Scotland, Norway, Sweden, the whole modern Baltic triad count as one, England as two, France and Germany as three, etc.

Bonuses(Largely mutually exclusive):
1: Make at least the majority of Denmark and the rulers pagan, if not the whole empire.
2: POD after 1066
3: Danish Constantinople


Am I asking too much? Is it outside plausibility?

Making the majority of the rulers pagan is going to be very difficult considering the lateness of the PoD.

Danish Constantinople... could it be a client, instead of direct rule? You could put a Varangian on the throne there in a sort of Latin Empire variant...
 
More succesful Cnut VI / Valdemar II in terms of solidifying their control of North Germany (everything north of Elbe, to around Wittenberge) ... this could be followed by a good bet on continuing the capture of the Baltic coast through Poland and Lithuania to bordering the teutonic sword brethren on both sites ... followed by buying their coastal lands (as they now would control lands within an established Christian-Catholic nation's reach, I don't believe it would be implausible that they would be willing to pioneer new 'hunting grounds', given even light 'pressure'/'greasing')

Then you have a pan-Baltic Denmark which have good chances of eating Sweden and Norway at some point ...

otherwise ... Kingdom of the North ?
 
I'm confused by the whole regions bit. Could you clarify?

An earlier Kalmar Union might satisfy the OP but at a certain point the country isn't really Denmark anymore it's the "Kalmar Union ", "Kingdom of Scandinavia",etc.
I did say that a Union e.g. Kalmar is acceptable. As for the regions, if they controlled Scandinavia and Germany it succeeds, or Norway, Baltica three, England, Iceland & Finland. Basically each region has a certain value, and their total value must be 5+. Also they needn't control a whole territory, as north Germany or Normandy+Brittany would be sufficient for a point. Was that clear?
Danish Constantinople is beyond ASB, unless you mean you want an emperor of Danish descent.
I was thinking conquest of Russia and a Varangian dominance of sorts. Nearing ASB but not quite there I think, though I'm rather new.
Making the majority of the rulers pagan is going to be very difficult considering the lateness of the PoD.

Danish Constantinople... could it be a client, instead of direct rule? You could put a Varangian on the throne there in a sort of Latin Empire variant...
As I said, paganism and 1066 are not required and admittedly basically mutually exclusive.
Yes, a client state could work.
 
Push PoD to 878 and crushing Alfred the Great in Wessex, then the rest of England falls for good. You know, more or less.

Dublin was founded in 841 by the Vikings themselves, and was a huge slave market due to Ireland being their bitch. Just give them that extra push to break the tuatha into easy to swallow bits. If Alfred the Great falls, England remains a focus, and Ireland gets more attention.

Dal Riada destroyed in 839, the Picts conquered by the Scots a couple of years later. Perhaps formalize an alliance with the devastated Picts prior to this so that the Scots are caught between hammer and anvil. Not destroyed, but kept disunited and a Pictish element as a Danish puppet/ally. Over time, pull 'em down in full.

From 850-875, Iceland begins to be settled.

Rurikid Dynasty established in Novgorod in 862, a Varangian dynasty, the rulers of Kievan Rus to Grand Duchy of Moscow to Tsardom. Form a strong and lasting Dynastic Union. Vladimir I baptized to Christianity in 988.

863-879 East-West Christian Schism; do some fancy footwork and have larger swathes of Northeastern Europe go Catholic; perhaps with that Rurik tie, predate the Northern Crusades of the Baltic states. (Final Schism not until 11th century, and that's assuming Catholicism follows the same basic path.)

900s - Normans, though if Alfred the Great is defeated and Britain stays Danish, the Normans might not 'go native' and Denmark retains a strong hold. Maybe keeps them likelier to stay a vassal... maybe. Not sure what that means for relations with France later on. Also would preclude Norman conquest of England. At least in the "Hastings" sense...

**(Possibly, but harder, to retain relations with Italian Normans. Truthfully, not really sure how the Normans were related to Danes/Vikings. If relations remain, opens up much Mediterranean opportunity for Danish shenanigans.)

1001 - Vinland, Newfoundland. Leif Eriksson. All that jazz.

1035/1066 - Avoid ALL breaking of the empire between claimants, heirs, rivals, etc, throughout the history, such as witnessed with Canute's death and that of Edward the Confessor. This is also assuming some guy doesn't go "I'm King of Scotland now" and seek to break away. Or at least not very well, maybe retains puppet/vassal status.

1095-1099 - Danes join Crusades, pick up some... something. I dunno. Gives them a foothold down there for trade, tacked on to the via-Russia-route. Including Constantinople, which by this time is freaking out due the Seljuks. Always in need of good Varangian mercenaries!

1107-1111 - Another round of Crusading fun. And in 1145. And... you get the idea.

1147 - Wendish Crusade in N.Germany. Of course, this might have been done earlier if the Danes were more religiously motivated or gave a care for more continental dealings. (Same as Livonia, etc)

1204 - OTL Latin Empire formation; butterflies could change that to a Danish-related one earlier. I mean, not Copenhagen-ruled, but related somehow, as I mentioned Varangians ealier.

.......

Meh, whatever, I'm sleepy.
 
Ooh, I love it. What with the fairly early union with Russia, it would logically be Orthodox (Denmark didn't have a special connection with the Catholics, right?) and they would, as such, have good relations with the Byzantines. When the crusades roll around, the second prince of Denmark goes down and does some viking army ass-kicking, conquering a portion of the Levant (we'll say the kingdom of Aleppo). He becomes the king of this kingdom, and marries the first princess of a 2-prince constantinople. The second prince (of Constantinople) died in the crusade, while the first catches a disease and dies before he has children, leaving the 2nd King of Aleppo the Imperial throne. Now, while his father was a great general, he is an expert politician. The current king of Danmark, his cousin, has married a very young girl, not yet old enough to bear children. The emperor secretly has him assassinated, and now we have a unified Byzantium and Danish empire, with a friendly, dynastically related Rus. A bit of a wank? Sure. Implausible? No.
 
Top