Denmark absorbed by Sweden

[Shinsu]

In the treaty of Kiel that ended the was between Denmark-Norway and Sweden (as well as Great Britain) Denmark was forced to cede Norway to Sweden in exchange for Swedish Pomerania. Denmark kept possession of the Faeroe Islands and Greenland during this exchange. But is their anyway that Denmark as a whole could be either annexed for put into a political union with Sweden and Norway?
What effects would this have as time-went on if this union was kept alive? Could it have survived under one ruler?

 

[Umbral]

Sweden got Norway off Denmark because it was on the winning side in the Napoleonic wars, allied to Great Britain and Russia. A Sweden that absorbs Denmark, however, is very much not in the interests of the UK and Russia. Especially Russia.

The resulting Kingdom would control the straits out of the Baltic, and from there, Baltic trade and shipping. Financially the resulting creation would be stronger than the sum of its parts. Also, Sweden has a history as an exceptionally aggressive military power. Adding the power of Denmark and better finances is not something that was desirable to other great powers.

 

[Westphalian]

Not to open another thread with a mirror question: Could there have been any chance that in the spirit of budding Scandinavism the estates of Sweden elected the King of Denmark Frederik VI. after deposing Gustav IV Adolf in 1809, with a clear constituional distinction of the realms?

 

[mattep74]

Treaty of Kiel was to late. Bernadotte had no intrest to take more than he got. You need to delay the treaty of Roskilde a few days and have Charles X manage to take Copenhagen OR a better plan for the war that he restarted a year after Roskilde

 

[Shinsu]

Could there have been any chance that in the spirit of budding Scandinavism the estates of Sweden elected the King of Denmark Frederik VI. after deposing Gustav IV Adolf in 1809, with a clear constituional distinction of the realms?

I don't think that the Swedish population/governing body would allow something along that line to happen. That would require a complete and total take-over of Sweden by Denmark (possibly with Russian assistance that would need to track all the way across Finland) to do so. The British had the Gulf of Finland blocked off and made the Russian fleet hunker down at Kronstad. Frederik and Gustav were actually very un-willing to go to war with each other and Frederik's goals were only to take territory lost in the Treaty of Roskilde which would be Skåne, Blekinge and Bohuslän.

Treaty of Kiel was to late. Bernadotte had no intrest to take more than he got. You need to delay the treaty of Roskilde a few days and have Charles X manage to take Copenhagen OR a better plan for the war that he restarted a year after Roskilde

I'm trying to have Sweden keep an empire in this TL. Denmark was just a place that I thought would be the easiest and most likely to take-over and keep compared to anywhere else. Would it be possible for Denmark to stay under Swedish rule for a long period of time?

 

[Blackfox5]

Sweden got Norway off Denmark because it was on the winning side in the Napoleonic wars, allied to Great Britain and Russia. A Sweden that absorbs Denmark, however, is very much not in the interests of the UK and Russia. Especially Russia.

What if the POD came later? Scandinavism (the desire to unite all the Scandinavian peoples in one country) was very popular in the 19th century. It declined only after Sweden declined to support Denmark in the Second Schleswig War of 1864. What if Sweden supports Denmark? Denmark is still defeated, but the Danes don't feel abandoned. It is even possible that Scandinavism is boosted with the idea that if they were one country, they could have fought better.

The trend builds, and eventually geopolitics allows all the Scandinavian countries to join. Perhaps it happens in a WWI scenario where the defeat of Germany and collapse of Russia removes most of the objections to a united Scandinavia by the other great powers. Or perhaps Scandinavian union is agreed to in the late 1800s provided some internationalization of the straits are allowed to pacify the Russians?

 

[Shinsu]

What if the POD came later? Scandinavism (the desire to unite all the Scandinavian peoples in one country) was very popular in the 19th century. It declined only after Sweden declined to support Denmark in the Second Schleswig War of 1864. What if Sweden supports Denmark? Denmark is still defeated, but the Danes don't feel abandoned. It is even possible that Scandinavism is boosted with the idea that if they were one country, they could have fought better.

That could also work. They did establish a monetary Union in 1873 so the idea of working together wasn't something out of the question. The politics may have allowed something akin to the Swedish-Norway force that was sent into Denmark during the first war, just not an active ally.
Having a union right after the second Schleswig War or right after the Six-Weeks War could bring the best chances of working. France would support the union as it'd give a "powerful" ally to the North to combat Prussian dominance in the region.

Russia may not be the most keen on the idea however, having a large power in control of the straits may push Russia to joining Prussia's side. Unless Sweden and Russia can come to an agreement of lower tariffs. It was control of the major Baltic River trade routes during the 17th century that produced the biggest amount of income for Sweden. Would a union be able to bring Sweden back to economical height?

 

[Alon]

Russia may not be the most keen on the idea however, having a large power in control of the straits may push Russia to joining Prussia's side. Unless Sweden and Russia can come to an agreement of lower tariffs. It was control of the major Baltic River trade routes during the 17th century that produced the biggest amount of income for Sweden. Would a union be able to bring Sweden back to economical height?

Well, Sweden is just about the richest EU member state today - going by IMF estimates for GDP per capita, it ranks fourth. It may not have colonies in the Baltic or in northern Germany, but it's doing fine, thank you very much.

In a Scandinavist TL, it'd be even richer, because of the oil. Norway was the poorest Scandinavian country before it discovered oil, and when it was exploring, it asked Sweden for help and offered it a substantial share of the proceeds, since there was more technical expertise in Sweden. Sweden refused, and Norway's reaped a windfall since.

The one hitch is that Stockholm is a poor choice for a pan-Scandinavian capital, especially if Finland is still under Russian control. I can see Denmark and Sweden compromise on Oslo as a national capital, or alternatively choose a smaller city at the border between two countries, probably Malmö. They might even put each branch of government in a separate city, like South Africa.

 

[Shinsu]

The one hitch is that Stockholm is a poor choice for a pan-Scandinavian capital, especially if Finland is still under Russian control. I can see Denmark and Sweden compromise on Oslo as a national capital, or alternatively choose a smaller city at the border between two countries, probably Malmö. They might even put each branch of government in a separate city, like South Africa.

Do you think that it would be much along the lines of the U.K system with each nation having it's own provisional capital? Oslo might be a good comprising choice since it would be in the center of the entire union. Would this new union take part in the Scramble for Africa?

 

[Alon]

Do you think that it would be much along the lines of the U.K system with each nation having it's own provisional capital? Oslo might be a good comprising choice since it would be in the center of the entire union. Would this new union take part in the Scramble for Africa?

I really don't think the UK is a good example, since it has asymmetric devolution - Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have autonomy, but England has the same government as the entire UK. In a united Scandinavia, any federalism would be symmetric, since Sweden would not demographically dominate the union the way England dominates the UK.

As for the Scramble for Africa... honestly, I doubt it. The Netherlands didn't take part, and Belgium only participated as a personal project of the king rather than as organized state colonialism. Denmark, which was more ocean-maritime than Sweden, made a halting attempt at Caribbean colonization, gave up, and sold the islands to the US.