AHC: Sweden Stays a European Power

Still I think by that point Russia will rise eventually. And even a medium strength Russia will be enough of a distraction to prevent Sweden from achieving its aims elsewhere in my opinion.

I don't think so. Without access to the Baltic and the establishment of St. Petersburg, you have a large, poor kingdom with such massive borders that it didn't matter how big of an army it could muster, because it was impossible to use it all. You had Cossacks, Lithuanians and Poles, and ever more aggressive peoples in Asia to contend with as well as the Swedes and the Ottomans. Russia's rise without Peter is far from inevitable, especially if the Great Northern War, or its analogue, goes bad for Russia. If Moscow is occupied or worse burned, Russia is doomed, and will implode.
 
I don't think so. Without access to the Baltic and the establishment of St. Petersburg, you have a large, poor kingdom with such massive borders that it didn't matter how big of an army it could muster, because it was impossible to use it all. You had Cossacks, Lithuanians and Poles, and ever more aggressive peoples in Asia to contend with as well as the Swedes and the Ottomans. Russia's rise without Peter is far from inevitable, especially if the Great Northern War, or its analogue, goes bad for Russia. If Moscow is occupied or worse burned, Russia is doomed, and will implode.

Yeah I suppose so. Though another Peter-analogue coming along later is possible. Sweden embroiled in a war with Denmark/Poland or whoever and this new Peter-like Tsar launches a Russian resurgence. There will always be the possibility of Russia emerging as a major power. This is why I feel an early POD would be better, sometime in the 16th Century. Though yes I agree with you a no Peter the Great will definitely help out Sweden greatly.
 
Russia was already modernizing its army as early as the mid 1600s. All Peter I did was rapidly reform the army as opposed to slowly modernizing. By 1700 its too late to stop Russia from becoming a great power they had reached the Pacific 50 years earlier. The Great Northern War is too late to keep Sweden a great power.

Even if Sweden does knock Russia out of the war and manages an armistice with the coalition Russia would reemerge.

Thats why the Second Northern War is the latest POD; sorry.
If somehow Sweden does better and Brandenburg never switching sides they could end up keeping Trondelag and occupying more of Poland during the deluge they could force a personal union on Poland-Lithuania; With Poland in personal union Sweden could take Russia on. This would prevent Russia taking Neva for sometime. Without St. Petersburg Russia could never have become the power it did during the 1700s and by 1800 could still be a backwards, pseudo-asian country. But by the Great Northern War the coalition had had it with Sweden and even the usually neutral countries and countries that never had any problems with Sweden jumped in to devour the Empire of the Swedes.
 

Delvestius

Banned
Russia was already modernizing its army as early as the mid 1600s. All Peter I did was rapidly reform the army as opposed to slowly modernizing. By 1700 its too late to stop Russia from becoming a great power they had reached the Pacific 50 years earlier. The Great Northern War is too late to keep Sweden a great power.

No Peter the Great means no Table of Ranks, which means continued inefficiency in conscription and military logistics.

The Boyars would still look like wizards and dwarfs would still be popping out of cakes.

Even if Sweden does knock Russia out of the war and manages an armistice with the coalition Russia would reemerge.

yeh maybe like 200 years later.

Thats why the Second Northern War is the latest POD; sorry.

Perhaps if we wank Sweden, but not if you screw Russia.
 
Well, until Gustaf Adolf died, the marriage of Kurprinz Friedrich Wilhelm (the later Great Elector) of Brandenburg and Crown Princess Kristina of Sweden was seriously considered. Assum GA lives longer and

- the <30-Year's-War ends earlier, with Sweden the formal leader of the corpus of protestant princes in the HRE
- the abovementioned marriage creates a personal union of Sweden-Brandenburg under King Fredrik Vilhelm I. Their first child, a son, is christened Johan Gustaf/Johann Gustav
- This helps solving the problems of conflicting claims/aims in Pomerania and Prussia.

Even the most embarrassing affair of Queen Kristina fleeing to France and publicly converting to Catholicism once her father is dead does not lead to the unseating of King F V.
 
Taking Norway away from the union with Denmark earlier would help, since their eastern border would now be secure.
This would of course create new problems(naval rivalry with Denmark, the UK, the Dutch), but if they weren't really interested in colonizing the new world they would now have more power to shift eastwards.

Perhaps this could make the Baltic an Swedish dominated lake with a more powerful navy and more manpower for the army?

Sweden would still be surrounded by enemies, but would now have a better bargaining position with other naval powers and powers interested in the Baltic trade. They could put more pressure on Russia to make them back down.
 
As opposed to just being a naval power in their own right?

Well, such a union would make Sweden the big brother, and her interests was securing the grain-rich territories of Ingria, Estonia etc(if I'm not mistaken)
Naturally gaining such a naval-friendly territory would change her perspective in time, but early in the 18th century she might refrain from changing the naval balance of power in return of concessions in other fields.

We should get Von Adler's opinion, this is his field of expertise!
 
an important problem when it comes to an early Sweden-Norway union is that the borderlands between the two areas is quite hilly/mountainous and unfriendly to expeditious communications and movement of armies... the only realistic communication link out of many towns in Norway (specially everything from Stavanger and north of their) was by sea, and out of Norway it was either to the west (towards scotland) or south following the Jutlandic west coast. And a union with a imperialistic/expansionistic sweden might well get issues trading in those directions, if not due to Denmark, then due to the French if they manage to piss them off (and other than hugging the norwegian coastline Skagerrak can get tricky from a naval point of view in terms of getting east)
 

elkarlo

Banned
Have Sweden have good relations with 1 neighbor? Denmark, Poland, and Russia were all pretty much hostile to Sweden. If they chose one to be friendly with, they might have had to fight all their neighbors all the time.
 
Have Sweden have good relations with 1 neighbor? Denmark, Poland, and Russia were all pretty much hostile to Sweden. If they chose one to be friendly with, they might have had to fight all their neighbors all the time.

Poland would by far be the easiest to get friendly relations with (them being 1 POD from being in longer Personal union with Sweden under Sigismund III Vasa), but still its a tough sell in any direction

Denmark is the ancestial enemy and until 1648 the primary regional power, and quite annoyed with Sweden breaking out of Kalmar

Poland have strong Catholic forces, and is probably from a pragmatic Point of View the least useful friend of their neighbors

Russia is sooner or later going to be to big to care all that much about being friendly with Sweden
 
It is quite possible to keep Sweden a grand power for quite some time.

We start by the Great Northern War. By 1708, things were looking bleak for Sweden's enemies.

Denmark was out, and was renting its army out to the naval powers and no threat.

August had been forced off the throne and a Swede-friendly King had been installed in Poland-Lithuania.

Russia had not won a single field battle against Sweden and had only managed to make inroads into Ingria - all attempts at Estonia and Livonia had been defeated and Russian armies sent to aid August in Poland-Lithuania had been more or less eradicated.

If we change the outcome of Lesnaya and Poltava to Swedish victories - which is not that hard, btw. The Swedish army had suffered during the winter 1708-09, but were still very much a competent force.

A Russian defeat in these two battles, especially if you add a successful Swedish pursuit might force Peter to sign a peace to placate his own conservative opposition.

Sweden retaining its territory, annexing Polish Livonia and the Duchy of Courland (from Poland-Lithuania) and Archangelsk, Far Karelia and Kola from Russia, probably holding Pskov or some other city as a guarantee of Russian war reparations.

After the death of Peter the Great (which will probably not be considered great in this timeline, after defeats against the Swedes and Ottomans) Russia OTL entered a minor times of trouble again, and it was only the institutions built by Peter that allowed Russia to remain a modern nation. If he has been forced to dismantle them, Russia could revert back to a semi-Asiatic power, permanently behind western powers in technology and organisation.

Sweden looking strong and Russia being weaker could have Russia look south, to fight the Crimean Khanate and the Ottomans, probably with less success than OTL.

Russia's ascension as a European grand power could be seriously delayed or even prevented completely by this.

Poland-Lithuania is in a state of decline and will probably use up the last of its power fighting the Ottomans and the Russians rather than the Swedes. It will not be a threat to Sweden.

Denmark will be in a permanently weaker position compared to Sweden, and will lack a strong ally on the other side of Sweden. It is possible that some kind of revanchist war will happen anyway, and Sweden emerging victorious, perhaps taking Norway.

German unification is not unavoidable. The extra weight of Sweden attempting to take more of Pommerania while still being strong could be enough to crush Prussia during the 7 years war. Germany will then be united more loosely, and from Austria. It is possible some northern German states will remain out (perhaps Hannover if under British rule) and Sweden keeps its German posessions.
 
What if king Charles X of Sweden had succeded in conquering Denmark
The swedish king Karl X Gustav offered England 2 towns in Holstein, Island, Bremen, western Jylland (Jutland)and all toll in Bergen, if England helped Sweden to conquer Denmark. Karl Gustav promised too completly destroy Copenhagen.

Another POD, Swedish trops did take Novgorod 1609 and 1611.
1611 did the city recognize swedish rule and offer Gustav II Adolf the Tsarcrown.
 
It is quite possible to keep Sweden a grand power for quite some time.

We start by the Great Northern War. By 1708, things were looking bleak for Sweden's enemies.

Denmark was out, and was renting its army out to the naval powers and no threat.

August had been forced off the throne and a Swede-friendly King had been installed in Poland-Lithuania.

Russia had not won a single field battle against Sweden and had only managed to make inroads into Ingria - all attempts at Estonia and Livonia had been defeated and Russian armies sent to aid August in Poland-Lithuania had been more or less eradicated.

If we change the outcome of Lesnaya and Poltava to Swedish victories - which is not that hard, btw. The Swedish army had suffered during the winter 1708-09, but were still very much a competent force.

A Russian defeat in these two battles, especially if you add a successful Swedish pursuit might force Peter to sign a peace to placate his own conservative opposition.

Sweden retaining its territory, annexing Polish Livonia and the Duchy of Courland (from Poland-Lithuania) and Archangelsk, Far Karelia and Kola from Russia, probably holding Pskov or some other city as a guarantee of Russian war reparations.

After the death of Peter the Great (which will probably not be considered great in this timeline, after defeats against the Swedes and Ottomans) Russia OTL entered a minor times of trouble again, and it was only the institutions built by Peter that allowed Russia to remain a modern nation. If he has been forced to dismantle them, Russia could revert back to a semi-Asiatic power, permanently behind western powers in technology and organisation.

Sweden looking strong and Russia being weaker could have Russia look south, to fight the Crimean Khanate and the Ottomans, probably with less success than OTL.

Russia's ascension as a European grand power could be seriously delayed or even prevented completely by this.

Poland-Lithuania is in a state of decline and will probably use up the last of its power fighting the Ottomans and the Russians rather than the Swedes. It will not be a threat to Sweden.

Denmark will be in a permanently weaker position compared to Sweden, and will lack a strong ally on the other side of Sweden. It is possible that some kind of revanchist war will happen anyway, and Sweden emerging victorious, perhaps taking Norway.

German unification is not unavoidable. The extra weight of Sweden attempting to take more of Pommerania while still being strong could be enough to crush Prussia during the 7 years war. Germany will then be united more loosely, and from Austria. It is possible some northern German states will remain out (perhaps Hannover if under British rule) and Sweden keeps its German posessions.
Assuming that Russia as a European power will not happen and they revert back to being a pseudo-Asiatic nation state, would a weaker Russia allow Poland-Lithuania and Sweden to grab some more territories than it has IOTL alongside the Ottomans?
 
Russia is still rather strong, and they will probably eclipse the Ottomans and Poland-Lithuania, both of which had problems during this era. But it will be uch slower and will probably never reach the heights of Russia during the Napoleonic wars (when they captured Paris).

The Criman Tatars, the Circassians, the Ottomans, the Central Asian Khanates, the Persians (in Azerbaijan) - all will take much longer time, and perhaps be out of reach for Russia.

Will the Donetsk basin be an integral Russian territory when the industrial revolution rolls around? It could be a border zone between Poland-Lithuania and the Criman Khanate still.

And the Caucasus oil? Forget it.
 
Given that we arguably live in a TL that is a Sweden-wank as it is, I think keeping Sweden a major power post 1800, or especially post 1900 would be a pretty epic wank. Von Adler gives a good account of what migh help, but at the end of the day we'd need not only a quite comprehensive Russia-screw to achieve continued Swedish dominance in the northern Baltic Sea area, but also Sweden doing everything right for a century or two, without times of internal struggle, incompetent leaders, overt imperial ambition or political/military/economic weakness, and so on.

The more areas Sweden controls around the core of the kingdom, less there will be actual Swedes to keep it together. A Sweden with Norway, Finland and Karelia, the Baltic provinces and large holdings in Germany would be a multiethnic, multicultural state with a lot on its plate. Can the Swedish elites control this area equitably and can they allow the smaller ethnicities the political and economic power they'll be sure to demand in the 19th century? Will the answer lie in explicit Swedification of the smaller nationalities, promoting national cohesion, or will such policies only make the minority peoples distrustful and rebellious against Stockholm?

A Sweden that constantly does everything right and keeps holding on to a large empire in the north runs the risk of becoming both overextended and too arrogant, too sure of itself. It will still necessarily be a giant on stilts, continually punching above its weight. At the end of that path the best case scenario would be an eventual federalization and at least some measure of breaking up. It might be more realistic, though, that this Sweden finally runs out of luck and breaks up after hubristically taking on too many enemies and/or falling to too much internal dissent and plurality that Stockholm can't manage anymore.
 
Last edited:

katchen

Banned
What Sweden needs to get right

Given that we arguably live in a TL that is a Sweden-wank as it is, I think keeping Sweden a major power post 1800, or especially post 1900 would be a pretty epic wank. Von Adler gives a good account of what migh help, but at the end of the day we'd need not only a quite comprehensive Russia-screw to achieve continued Swedish dominance in the northern Baltic Sea area, but also Sweden doing everything right for a century or two, without times of internal struggle, incompetent leaders, overt imperial ambition or political/military/economic weakness, and so on.

The more areas Sweden controls around the core of the kingdom, less there will be actual Swedes to keep it together. A Sweden with Norway, Finland and Karelia, the Baltic provinces and large holdings in Germany would be a multiethnic, multicultural state with a lot on its plate. Can the Swedish elites control this area equitably and can they allow the smaller ethnicities the political and economic power they'll be sure to demand in the 19th century? Will the answer lie in explicit Swedification of the smaller nationalities, promoting national cohesion, or will such policies only make the minority peoples distrustful and rebellious against Stockholm?

A Sweden that constantly does everything right and keeps holding on to a large empire in the north runs the risk of becoming both overextended and too arrogant, too sure of itself. It will still necessarily be a giant on stilts, continually punching above its weight. At the end of that path the best case scenario would be an eventual federalization and at least some measure of breaking up. It might be more realistic, though, that this Sweden finally runs out of luck and breaks up after hubristically taking on too many enemies and/or falling to too much internal dissent and plurality that Stockholm can't manage anymore.
In the 17th Century, Sweden is in the same position England was. Protestant England was potentially surrounded by close Catholic enemies, Scotland, France and if they could ever gain their independence, Ireland. Just as Sweden is surrounded by Denmark, Norway, Prussia and Russia.
England tried expanding into France in the 15th Century. It did not work out very well. Russia is to Sweden as France is to England. The more so, when we remember that while Russia had 5 million people to Sweden's 1 million people, the population ratio of French to English was somewhat higher than that.
So both nations need to unify their near abroad into one country and break out of encirclement. Thus England becomes the nucleus of Great Britain. And Sweden must become the nucleus of Great Scania.
If Swedes can assimilate the Finns and Lapps, who speak totally different languages, Norway and Denmark should be easily assimilated---if Sweden can get Norway and Denmark--or at least Norway.
And Sweden, once it breaks out of encirclement can build a navy approaching that of England.
Perhaps the best POD might be for Sweden under Charles IX (Gustavus Adolphus's father) to succeed in it's war with Denmark over Lapland in 1606. Norway may be resistant to Sweden but Norrland (Norway north of Trondheim) is a long coast which would be hardest for Denmark to hold on to. --very close to Swedish soil.
Perhaps the POD that makes all this possible is for Guy Fawkes's gunpowder to go off and England to have a new, young king who must now have a protestant queen (Catholics will no longer ever be acceptable again). Princess Catherine, Gustavus Adolphus's older sister would be an acceptable match who could solidify an alliance with England and Scotland (and tie the Stuarts to the Vasa) that could give Sweden the naval strength it needs to prevail over Denmark. From there, Sweden can build.
 
Top