Economic effects of the Baltic Sea under one Power?

Let's say that Sweden in the 17-18th centuries manages to gain all the coast around the Baltic Sea (Denmark,Pomerania,etc). Let's throw in a loose confederation of North German states led by Sweden as well. How does this "Rome of the North" do? Is the sum greater than the whole of its parts? Is it an unworkable kludge or a synergistic whole?
 
Control of the all important Baltic timber trade during the Napoleonic wars! If that nation was to be dominated by Napoleon, the Denial of markets to GB would be that more complete........
 
Control of the all important Baltic timber trade during the Napoleonic wars! If that nation was to be dominated by Napoleon, the Denial of markets to GB would be that more complete........

Certainly that reason alone would be enough to ensure that Sweden's control of the Baltic Sea would come under constant pressure from Day One (nobody likes a monopoly...), which would wipe out any accrued economic advantage in the long-run as Sweden would be dragged into various Great Northern Wars to defend its territory.

OTL attempts by Denmark and the Hanseatic League to tighten control over Baltic trade invited intervention from various N European powers (England and the Dutch among them), so Sweden's attempts will engender similar reaction. There's also the wars from countries (i.e. Poland, Russia) who would want to obtain a coastline on the nearest accessible sea.

The problem is control of the Baltic Sea is economically lucrative enough that countries would be willing to fight over it, yet controlling it does not confer on a country the sort of hegemonic status that say, controlling the Med would.

Also, strictly speaking control of the Baltic trade would likely also require controlling German ports on the North Sea, especially the Lubeck-Hamburg route which was the main trading route out of the Baltic during the Middle Ages (Skagen at the tip of Jutland being too treacherous). An overland route from Russia > Poland > Germany > Hamburg, using inland rivers, portages and later canals, could be an option (like in pre-Teutonic Order times) if Sweden abuses its control of the Baltic.
 
Last edited:
Some sort of super Sweden would be a nightmare for Russia so I can see very shaky relations there. They could really put a crimp on Russian trade so that would be interesting.

Dominating the timber trade would make them a powerful player in Martime affairs and I could see that making them either a coveted ally or rival of Britain.

Similarly controlling the Baltic grain trade would be a good thing, and eventually iron ore too.

So to my mind this makes this a very economically stable country with some significant pull with its two strong neighbours.
 
I don't think it would last. Too many people would have eyes on getting a slice of the Baltic trade for themselves. At a minimum super-Sweden would have to deal with a grumbling Russia, which also wants ports for the fur trade. They'd also probably get a ton of Poland-Lithuania aggro - or just Poland if you're positing Swedish control of Vilnius, though that might give you a super-Russia which moves into the rest of old Rus'.

I can see Russia finding allies even in the western parts of Europe willing to work with them to break Swedish hegemony in the Baltic.
 
Could this MegaSweden get GB onside enough so it doesn't actively assist in bringing it down?

Well OTL Sweden during the 17th-18thC had a close-ish relationship with France, so probably not.

But even if Sweden had GB as an ally, said alliance itself would still very likely generate a counter-alliance involving another bunch of Baltic interests (Netherlands, Brandenburg, Poland, Russia etc.)
 
I don't think Swedish hegemony over the Baltic would last either. The European powers would want to maintain some sort of balance and a larger Swedish Empire wouldn't be a part of that plan. If I recall correctly the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth also had ties with the Hapsburgs through Sigismund III Vasa's wives. They very well could get involved in this struggle.
 
In terms of lasting I'm inclined to agree with others here. The treat of hegemony in the Batlic would be too great to ignore.

I could see some skilled politicians pushing the competing interests of other states against each other for a time, but Sweden would have to get very lucky to stave off defeats and territorial losses forever.

Most likely they lose this Baltic hegemony somewhere before or at the start of the 19th century.
 
(Skagen at the tip of Jutland being too treacherous)

If i recall correctly its not as much Skagerak (the ocean between northern Jutland and Norway) that is the issue, but rather Kattegat (between Jutland, Zealand and Sweden), which is quite shallow at places. Etymologically, that name came from dutch traders opining it was as a 'cats hole' so tight that even a cat would have difficult passing through (at one point the passable waters are a scant 4km wide, and that's a place where there is some 60km between the coasts). And the fact that Denmark for quite a long while, demanded Sound dues under threat of bombarding the ships with cannons based off Elsinore. Both of these things laid it to be cheaper and easier to redirect a lot of the trade to Lübeck and Kiel and from there to Hamburg and onwards.
 
One of the other problems is that Swedes would be severely outnumbered, making rebellions possible rather dangerous. Would it not be better to have an early PoD where the population have a chance to change more favorable ?
 
I don't have the numbers as far as population goes but it would be difficult to create a large population that could compete with the likes of Russia, France, etc. The climate isn't exactly the best when you push further inland and a lot of the population was close to the coast. If I remember correctly, the Swedish had to rely on help from mercenaries during the Thirty Years War. When I have access to my computer I could post figures but at the moment I am using my cellular phone.
 
Modern day population near the baltic: 51,806,765 numbers taken from Wikipedia:

Denmark: 5,707,251
Norway: 5,214,900
Sweden: 9,875,378
Finland: 5,488,543
Germany:
Schleswig-Holstein: 2,830,864
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern: 1,652,000
Poland:
West Pommeranian: 1,721,405
Pomeranian 2,290,070
Warmian-Masurian: 1,450,697
Podlaskie: 1,198,690
Estonia: 1,315,944
Latvia: 1,973,700
Lithuania: 2,875,593
Russia:
Kalingrad: 963,128
Pskov: 656,561
Leningrad: 1,716,868
St. Petersburg: 4,879,566

Biggest population group being Swedish, Russian and Polish.

And obviously one of the bigger problems: the population resides in 10 different countries ;)
 
Lets do a comparison from around the 17th century:

France: 1600 - 20,000,000
1670 - 18,000,000
1700 - 21,000,000
England (proper): 1600 - 4,110,000
1650 - 5,310,000
1700 - 5,200,000
Sweden: 1570 - 900,000
1650 - 1,225,000
1700 - 1,485,000

To put it simply, other countries had more land suitable for agriculture and a larger population to draw from during this time period. Gustav II Adolf did make strides in modernizing the military but if Sweden did try to create a Baltic Empire of sorts then they would be hard pressed to hold its possessions. Yes, France did help Sweden in the Thirty Years War but how long would that tenuous alliance hold?

During the Thirty Years War, Sweden only landed roughly 13,000 troops in northern Germany and another 24,600 were left to defend Sweden. The other 33,000 was contributed by Saxony (early on in Sweden's involvement), Scotland, and France (during the later stages of the war). France provided money to recruit mercenaries. I have no doubt that Sweden could field more troops but with the wars against Russia, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and Denmark prior to the Thirty Years War, Sweden ended up needing funds.

Also, as evidenced by the sinking of the Vasa and the Kronan, they needed to make adjustments to how they built their ships. I understand that the art of shipbuilding was still evolving but if they are to have a monopoly on Baltic trade then naval power is essential.
 
Top