Challenge: US speaks Swedish

Interesting idea, though there's a couple of things which struck me. For one, even with a debilitating civil war I can't see the English colonies going renegade. They've only existed one generation at this point and didn't have the strength of trade to survive prolongued separation from the motherland. If they went rogue then they'd simply be starved to death, or possibly overrun by the natives, sensing an opportunity.

This is kind of what I'm counting on. I think the colonies, by 1648 (the earliest allowable PoD), would be capable of providing for themselves, but they'll need trade to stimulate their economy. Trade with England will be difficult, with the civil wars consuming all of England's attention. Sweden will be an obvious choice, since New Sweden's ports are so close; but Sweden will take steps to ensure that its own interests are served.

This will probably also make the English colonists more keen on maintaining good relations with the Native Americans.

Consequently, I think they'd all ne brought back on board as soon as England had itself a strong and uncontested government - and possibly sooner.

There are many ways around this. Many of the English colonists are persecuted political outgroups in England, and will be hesitant to return to the fold after having achieved self-determination. We could increase the likelihood of this by having the Royalists eventually win the English Civil Wars. Because the bulk of English colonists had Parliamentarian sentiments, they would have a motive to resist re-assimilation.

Falastur said:
The other thing is that I'm struggling to see how Sweden will continue to fight off France when it becomes their main target for colonial expansion. I can't see it being able to foster as strong a navy, and it would require a quite simply incredible diplomatic effort to charm the natives onside in enough numbers to ward off the French, especially since the French themselves would likely be looking to exploit any gap left by the departing English.
[/quote]

Here's is a major wrench in my plan. New Sweden will have the manpower advantage on the ground, with the English colonists siding with them. We'd just have to find a way to keep the French Navy out of the way.

Perhaps we could make an ATL version of the Triple Alliance that could stand up to the French Navy. Obviously they couldn't take on the French Army, though. But, France will also inevitably have enemies in the Habsburgs and the HRE, and the French Army could easily get bogged down in endless campaigns on the continent, leaving the Triple Alliance nations free to concentrate on taking out the French Navy.
 
Sweden will be an obvious choice, since New Sweden's ports are so close; but Sweden will take steps to ensure that its own interests are served.

There are many ways around this. Many of the English colonists are persecuted political outgroups in England, and will be hesitant to return to the fold after having achieved self-determination. We could increase the likelihood of this by having the Royalists eventually win the English Civil Wars. Because the bulk of English colonists had Parliamentarian sentiments, they would have a motive to resist re-assimilation.

Thing is, New Sweden would fleece them dry with huge levies and tariffs, and they'll still get some trade with England. Also, while many of the colonists were fleeing persecution for a new life in the west, that doesn't mean that they wanted to renounce their nationality, nor does it mean that they would be eager to defect to another nation which offered them a better deal. If they wanted to do that, they would have sailed to Sweden in the first place, rather than America. And the colonies still had a large population of loyal and patriotic Englishmen who travelled to America for the new money, and who didn't have anything in England to run from - those men would remember their lives in England are object to selling themselves out to Sweden, even if the alternative was a much harder life.

If I recall, the Civil War did indeed see (limited) fighting between the colonies, with those colonies largely consisting of Puritan emigrants clashing with those colonies more loyal to the King. Given that you've just escalated this whole situation by several times, I suspect the pro-English sympathies would be far larger, and the will of those who would not accept a reimposition of the King's government would be far weaker.

I don't know. I just find it very hard to believe that England could lose virtually their entire set of colonies not to a foreign army (that I could believe) but to them "going rogue" because the Civil War left England in a weak state. I think the colonies would all gladly rush back to England rather than defect to Sweden, and I certainly can't see any trying to go independent. That's 130 years too early.

Here's is a major wrench in my plan. New Sweden will have the manpower advantage on the ground, with the English colonists siding with them. We'd just have to find a way to keep the French Navy out of the way.

Perhaps we could make an ATL version of the Triple Alliance that could stand up to the French Navy. Obviously they couldn't take on the French Army, though. But, France will also inevitably have enemies in the Habsburgs and the HRE, and the French Army could easily get bogged down in endless campaigns on the continent, leaving the Triple Alliance nations free to concentrate on taking out the French Navy.

Problem with this is that A - you've just said that England has been destroyed as a power - their navy will be worthless for at least another generation and B - you need to keep the colonies Swedish for about 100 years before France will be too weak colonially to seize them, and that alliance will not even last 10 years. I'm struggling to see how France could be held in check, honestly.

That said, my viewpoint here is somewhat handicapped by that I just can't see it being realistic that the majority of North America could end up Swedish, or even just Swedophone. To my mind, it just doesn't add up.
 
...my viewpoint here is somewhat handicapped by that I just can't see it being realistic that the majority of North America could end up Swedish, or even just Swedophone. To my mind, it just doesn't add up.

This is only because it's not very realistic, at all. Stars have to align, essentially. That's why it's called a challenge. I'm glad to have the criticism (and yours has all been quite good): but if you're not interested in helping meet the challenge, this is going to quickly become a very irritating and ultimately pointless conversation for both of us.

I just find it very hard to believe that England could lose virtually their entire set of colonies not to a foreign army (that I could believe) but to them "going rogue" because the Civil War left England in a weak state.

Back up a bit. I never said "going rogue": I said "becoming essentially renegade," and I meant it in the sense of being isolated and having to operate without input from the crown. Their interests and the interests of the crown will inevitably diverge further the longer the colonies have to operate in this vacuum.

In this environment, I don't see Royalist sentiments surviving well. So, remarriage between colonies and crown after a decade or two of isolation will be far from natural, especially since the Royalist England that emerges from the Civil Wars will be weak, and the infrastructure for a coalition with the Swedish colonies will already be in place and Swedish will be spreading as a regional lingua franca.

Problem with this is that A - you've just said that England has been destroyed as a power - their navy will be worthless for at least another generation and B - you need to keep the colonies Swedish for about 100 years before France will be too weak colonially to seize them, and that alliance will not even last 10 years. I'm struggling to see how France could be held in check, honestly.

I don't see France as a particularly big issue. Their primary interest was in the European continent, and, due to their many enemies on the continent, their army always received priority in terms of funding, and the navy was often neglected. This probably isn't going to change in this ATL. Furthermore, the Swedish Navy was actually comparable in size to the French Navy as late as the 1660's, so it isn't really inconceivable that Sweden could pose a major threat to the French Navy, especially if she brought allies into the conflict.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Skitgod lycka är inte utomjordiska rymdfladdermöss. :D
It is. Sweden didn't have a population reserve big enough for massive colonization. Even with luck and Sweden claiming much territory, that territory would have a much lower population than British, French or Dutch settlements, or then it would just have a non- Swedish population (think St. Bartholomey).
 
ok, something similar to US in size, power and area, (may or may not include Alaska or various other states) exists in the year 2011 and speaks Swedish.

The pod must be after, 1648.:D

Yeah...post 1648 = ASB.

Having said that....
If the Three Kingdoms had stayed together (= If Christian II hadn't butchered the Swedish nobility, the remnants of which then united behind the upstart Vasa), and Scandinavia been truly united, this construction could have been a challenge to the other European powers, and MIGHT have had a chance of creating a vast empire, including one in the Americas.
...though it wouldn't exactly be SWEDISH they spoke...
But apart from that: ASB.
 
It is. Sweden didn't have a population reserve big enough for massive colonization. Even with luck and Sweden claiming much territory, that territory would have a much lower population than British, French or Dutch settlements, or then it would just have a non- Swedish population (think St. Bartholomey).

Keep in mind though, that the Scandinavian countries have been at war with eachother for centuries, the wars claiming untold numbers of lives; people that might well have lived and created a larger population.
I'd like to see how big England's population would be, if it had consisted of two or three smaller states that had warred constantly for centuries.
 
It is. Sweden didn't have a population reserve big enough for massive colonization. Even with luck and Sweden claiming much territory, that territory would have a much lower population than British, French or Dutch settlements, or then it would just have a non- Swedish population (think St. Bartholomey).

That's why I'm trying to make a scenario in which Swedish is used as an important vehicular language by the English colonies. I don't know how I'm going to get it to become a primary language, especially given Sweden's liberal language policy in the 1600's, but, one hurdle at a time.
 
Don't you think the English colonists would have simply moved somewhere else? That would free up land for Sweden to take over, though like a few people said, it would have to compete with France for that land. If Sweden takes over a larger territory and is economically successful, the greater New Sweden can take in immigrants from other countries, and probably get most of those immigrants to speak Swedish.
 
Don't you think the English colonists would have simply moved somewhere else?

I'm sure some of them would. But, travel across the Atlantic isn't cheap, and most of the colonists in North America won't be able to afford it.

But, if a mass abandonment of English colonies did happen, it would make it considerably easier for New Sweden to extend its influence over those that stayed behind.

That would free up land for Sweden to take over, though like a few people said, it would have to compete with France for that land. If Sweden takes over a larger territory and is economically successful, the greater New Sweden can take in immigrants from other countries, and probably get most of those immigrants to speak Swedish.

Sweden didn't have the manpower or the economic resources to make New Sweden profitable on its own. My scenario has the majority of English colonial trade also routed through Swedish ports, which would increase revenues for Sweden without requiring Swedish manpower in the production of the goods.
 
Last edited:
Top