AHC: make a powerful Swedish navy?

'Issue' is kinda that with Sweden having a stronger fleet in the baltics, England wouldn't be as willing to accept them getting Norway (either by not pushing it though Vienna, or by accepting Norway's wish to go independent if they can't bed with Denmark anymore), since it would effectively neuter Denmark as a foil against a Sweden 'owning' Baltic
 

katchen

Banned
We have seen from other attempted TLs from other countries the constraints that exist on building large navies. France was limited by a lack of good ports and the presence of England along much of it's coast. As was Germany and the Netherlands. Wheras England (and later Great Britain) had unrestricted access to the Atlantic on one side pulling them towards a strong navy and a peculiar economy that centered around manufacturing woolens for the rest of Northern Europe freezing it's butt off in the Little Ice Age, thereby resulting in sheep forcing farmers off their land pushing England on the other hand pushing England.
Scandinavia also was pushed, in this case, by the Little Ice Age causing repeated famines and crop failures (think Finland 1799) but because Scandinavia was divided between Sweden and a highly conservative and feudalistic Denmark that ruled Norway with an iron hand and tied Danes and Norwegians to their land, Swedes when they weren't starving quietly were expending their energies in futile wars against numerically stronger European powers such as the Holy Roman Empire, Poland, Prussia and Russia.
So the sooner Sweden can unify the Scandinavian Peninsula and build a navy that focuses outward rather than inward toward the Baltic, the stronger a navy Sweden can have,
So the best outcome is for Gustavus Vasa to win the Norwegian Lords to his side alongside the Swedish Lords in 1527 and maybe even take over the Union of Kalmar, lock stock and Denmark.
Failing that, Eric (XIV?) or Gustavus Adolphus are smart enough to concentrate on the easiest parts of Norway to conquer--Norrland, Tromso and Finnmark (Tromso, Bodo, Mo, Mosjoen and Namsos), then Trondelag. Having those ports will give Sweden the outlet onto the Norwegian Sea that it needs to build a navy and a naval tradition to compete with Great Britain. Somewhere along the line, Sweden can take Andalsenes and Romsdalen and work it's way south to Sognefjord, which almost bisects Norway over the course of the 17th Century. These ports can prosper and become Sweden's Liverpool and Bristol and Carlisle and Portsmouth. Sweden has the tall trees needed for tall ship's masts and plenty of wood to manufacture ships.
The longer Sweden waits, the more Sweden will be outpaced by other nations and the more Sweden will become used to stagnating and being small as in OTL. Actions Sweden takes toward developing a large navy will have far more impact in the 16th Century than in the 17th Century and in the 17th Century more than the 18th Century and the 18th Century more than the 19th Century, as with Great Britain.
And leave us not forget. If Sweden can act in the 16th Century and expand east into the Barents Sea, even if Sweden does not stay there, Sweden will encounter the Pomor--seafaring Russians whom the tsars will more or less exterminate in the 17th Century OTL out of fear that they will trade illicitly with Western Europeans. (Sort of a more successful version of the Manchu coastal depopulation policy against the Southern Ming in Taiwan at the same time). Those Pomor have invaluable skills in things like building koch boats that can navigate ice choked waters in places like Hudson's Bay and reindeer herding and fur trading that the Swedes will find critical if they decide to use one of their biggest assets in building a New World Empire--their greater ability to live and prosper in colder climates than any other seafaring Europeans. Swedes and Pomors together can claim and prosper in Newfoundland and Labrador and Hudson's Bay and work their way both inland and along the Northwest Passage, hundreds of years before Roald Amundsen IOTL despite the Little Ice Age. And hang onto "Svensylvania".
 
We have seen from other attempted TLs from other countries the constraints that exist on building large navies.
.....................
And hang onto "Svensylvania".
So comes in the question, "sweden-norway". wouldn't this help much if norway simply sided with denmark much earlier than IOTL?
and according to what I hear, wouldn't Sweden be in a better position than IOTL if it won the war against Russia in 1788-1790?
 
so the question is: why bother to put much effort at gaining access to the North Sea before 1800 when all Sweden needs to do is wait? Is it too late to develop a blue-navy after the Napoleonic wars?
 

katchen

Banned
Well, yes!
By that time, most of the prime prospects for mass Swedish colonization are in other nation's hands. All of North America, for example. So is Australia. And South Africa. It is those areas where exuberant population growth can occur. As is happening with English speaking people ITTL and IOTL. Corditeman believes that Patagonia can comfortably support only 5 million people.
What's left?
Confront the British over California, Oregon (New Caledonia)? Pay the Russians for Alaska- no love lost between Sweden and Russia. Western Australia? New Guinea, assuming Swedish explorers seize the Central Highlands?
The objective is to have as much of the world's people as possible speaking your language. And with a post-Napoleonic POD, that's hard to accomplish.
 
Well, yes!
By that time, most of the prime prospects for mass Swedish colonization are in other nation's hands. All of North America, for example. So is Australia. And South Africa. It is those areas where exuberant population growth can occur. As is happening with English speaking people ITTL and IOTL. Corditeman believes that Patagonia can comfortably support only 5 million people.
What's left?
Confront the British over California, Oregon (New Caledonia)? Pay the Russians for Alaska- no love lost between Sweden and Russia. Western Australia? New Guinea, assuming Swedish explorers seize the Central Highlands?
The objective is to have as much of the world's people as possible speaking your language. And with a post-Napoleonic POD, that's hard to accomplish.
sorry for late answer.
so, I understand that an OTL Sweden-Norway is too late for Sweden to do any colonization. Is there any possibility, then, of an earlier Sweden-Norway?
anyway, I understand your point of how a fleet would need to compete for dominance and Sweden would most probably suffer. But, I think this needs to be considered: France, for example, was not the best seafaring country and it competed against Britain. But it still managed to gain colonies in far-flung places (i.e. Vietnam, Society Islands). Yes, Sweden will have its naval capabilities hampered by Britain. But that doesn't mean it simply does not have any possibility of colonizing the world- like, for example, West Australia.
 
As I recall, the Swedes lost all naval battles. The only exception - the destruction of Russian rowing fleet in the second Rochensalmskom battle. But it was caused by idiotic orders of Russian commander of Nassau-Siegen.
 
Is there any possibility, then, of an earlier Sweden-Norway?

Not quite seeing a way other than a much more definitive win in 1648 ... but that would probably come with two major caveats, hostile population in a (for armies not supported by said population, or very effective logistic corps) hostile country that would likely revolt (or at least attempt to) at the drop of a hat, and much more awareness of the new strong player comming out in scandinavia and a effort from the old gang to keep the upstart off the goods
 
Top