Biggest Possible Denmark (Not Scandinavian Union)

Denmark that Keeps part of Southern Sweden as well as controls the Baltic states and/or some of North Germany.
 
A realistic Denmark without Scandinavian union could hold:

  • Scania
  • Smaland
  • Gotland
  • Schelswig-Holstein
  • Pommerania
  • Norway
  • Iceland
  • Greenland
  • Those various West Indies Islands they had
  • Danish Africa (About as big as Ghana, maybe slightly larger)
That's all I can think of. Maybe other parts of the Baltic as well though.
 
Maybe something like the Danish-Congo esque territory in Africa? Several colonial powers but neither can afford to let the other get a leg up, so they give Denmark a chunk of Africa as it doesn't threaten the balance of power?
 
A realistic Denmark without Scandinavian union could hold:

  • Scania
  • Smaland
  • Gotland
  • Schelswig-Holstein
  • Pommerania
  • Norway
  • Iceland
  • Greenland
  • Those various West Indies Islands they had
  • Danish Africa (About as big as Ghana, maybe slightly larger)
That's all I can think of. Maybe other parts of the Baltic as well though.

Danish rather than Teutonic Knights Baltic Crusades? Early enough POD they might get a good bit of Canada: after all, to paraphrase Voltaire, who would get exercised over their ownership of a few acres of snow? :p

Bruce
 
Maybe something like the Danish-Congo esque territory in Africa? Several colonial powers but neither can afford to let the other get a leg up, so they give Denmark a chunk of Africa as it doesn't threaten the balance of power?

There's a question: do we count as part of Denmark areas that never, ever in a million years, be assimilated into Denmark?

Bruce
 
"Denmark during the reign of Valdemar II.":
scan0008%20Valdemar.jpg


The Danish rule over the HRE Baltic territories endet in 1227 after the Battle of Bornhöved, the last of a series of Danish defeats. So you might need a PoD near before 1200 to have .dk keep it.
Note that in these conflicts there often was an alliance of Denmark and the Guelphic Dukes against the regional counts (Holstein, Schwerin) and bishops.

For an overseas territory that might remain in Danish hends even if Danmark is no Great Power, I favor OTL'S Rupert's Land, ie the area whose rivers drain into Hudson's Bay. Not too valuable, so the bigger fishes might no think it worthwhile to swallow it.
image070.jpg
 
Last edited:
Holding onto Norway is easy (they wanted to stay Danish OTL). Ditto Schleswig-Holstein (although slightly more difficult). Further expansion into Germany is more difficult; a better showing in the 30 Years War would give them control of a decent chunk of Northern Germany, but I'm not sure how well they could hold it.

Various colonial territories can really only be kept if they're small or sparsely populated (e.g. Iceland, Greenland and the Danish Virgin Islands). Especially if they're not a great power, the more valuable desirable places are likely to be lost when they end up on the wrong side of a major war.
 

katchen

Banned
Denmark (or Sweden for that matter ) will be allowed to take and hold any territory north of the Strait of belle Isle in North America provided that the Danes at least build trading posts on it before someone else does. The British got Rupert's Land in 1670. However, I suspect that the Danes could have gotten Labrador , Baffin Island and even the coast of Hudson's Bay north of the Churchill River had they bothered to stake out a claim to it up to about 1800.
And closer to home, the Danes certainly could have started reclaiming good land from the sea between the Danish Islands, as the Dutch did. All they needed to do was build dikes.
My understanding of Denmark's problem is that Denmark lost out in the colonial sweepstakes (or even settlement and land reclamation) for reasons that were internal not external. Denmark was apparently an extremely conservative country until very late in the 19th Century. Denmark was rather tardy about abolishing serfdom, both within Denmark and in Norway well into the 17th Century, for instance. If most peasants are tied to the land, there will be few people available to settle any colonies or even run trading posts. Denmark did launch a voyage of discovery to the New World in the 16th Century apparently; nothing came of it. When Denmark settled Greenland, the place stayed in the hands of missionaries untio the 1920s. And all this conservatism resulted in limited opportunity and therefore a high average age of marriage and a stagnant population size as well.
 
A realistic Denmark without Scandinavian union could hold:

  • Scania
  • Smaland
  • Gotland
  • Schelswig-Holstein
  • Pommerania
  • Norway
  • Iceland
  • Greenland
  • Those various West Indies Islands they had
  • Danish Africa (About as big as Ghana, maybe slightly larger)
That's all I can think of. Maybe other parts of the Baltic as well though.
Maybe by agreement with Britain/Canada, some of the islands to the west of Greenland too?
Also, IOTL they had a few trading posts in India.

There could possibly have been circumstances under which Oldenburg would have been returned to the branch of the family that ruled Denmark.
 
Maybe by agreement with Britain/Canada, some of the islands to the west of Greenland too?
Also, IOTL they had a few trading posts in India.

There could possibly have been circumstances under which Oldenburg would have been returned to the branch of the family that ruled Denmark.

I didn't know about Indian trading posts.
I had forgotten to include Oldenburg, thanks.

Also, I like the idea of Danish-Dutch unions, but find them rather unlikely. Rupert's land is also possible, but I don't see Denmark being able to hold it to the Monroe Doctrine, let alone modern times. Maybe Once US starts to get pissy about it, Denmark lets go of Rupert's Land, In a UK style, keeping ties with the new nation. The Population of OTL Rupert's Land isn't possible for a nation, but if Denmark own all the lands I stated above, they might be able to get immigration, as well as from Sweden, Germany, Eastern Europe, and potentially Finland.
 
Last edited:
Top