Yeah, whould the protestant germans prefer to be ruled by the protestant swedes or the catholic germans? Not that nationalism was that important back then.
How could Sweden become a great power?
- Thread starter paxau
- Start date
Yeah, whould the protestant germans prefer to be ruled by the protestant swedes or the catholic germans? Not that nationalism was that important back then.
Poland is about the only plausible one. Germans weren't unified and about half of them were Protestant. The English, Dutch and Danes were all Protestant, and the French were on their side. Russia is also a possibility, but I don't know if they'd side with Catholics this early.
The danes wasn't exactly great friends with the swedes back then and I don't think neither England nor Netherland want a too strong Sweden.
I think that Sweden would benefit more from having colonies in Congo because Sweden have a lot more potential to become a great power than Belgium.
Belgium's population is a bit larger than Sweden's (in 1900: Belgium 6.7 million vs. 5.1 million for Sweden) and it started the industrial revolution on the European mainland. So at the time Congo became colonizable in the XIXth century, Belgium seems to be in a better position than Sweden.
The Netherlands survived first the Spanish (what alliance do you refer to?) and later the French in the 17th century. It was the one of the most advanced countries at the time and had for a time the most powerful navy in the world. Sweden's fleet would be sunk before it could exit the Baltic.
Nowadays not no, and neither is Sweden. But at the time it was effective enough to evict the Swedes from Denmark with an army of 15,000 men.
Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy
Banned
The Dutch found themselves fighting France alongside the Spanish in the late 17th century in OTL, and I guess that could be interpreted as an alliance. England and France are more likely Dutch allies in TTL, considering only the nearby countries.
I maintain that a Polish-Lithuanian-Swedish Commonwealth would be the ideal starting point. A very big chunk of land in Eastern Europe gained without any sweat, Muscovy no longer an issue, easy access to the heart of Europe, a great deal of control over the trade routes between the Black Sea and the Baltic, one less rival to fight, Silesian coal within reach that goes very well with Swedish iron. Of course, there's the issue of this state still qualifying as Sweden.
Last edited:
Immediatly after the Battle of Narva in the Great Northern War, Charles XII decides to march on Moscow instead of moving onto Poland. He would probably be able to take Moscow easily because of the Russian army being destroyed at Narva, and the feeling of panic throughout the Russian government. After taking Russia out of the war, he would only be faced by Poland and Saxony. Poland and Saxony are defeated, and Sweden gains more territory around the Baltic by the end of the war.
So Sweden is able to emerge as an even greater power after the end of the war.
So Sweden is able to emerge as an even greater power after the end of the war.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
I think I would disagree with those who think the key is control of Germany. That would never last long-term - the basis for Swedish Great Powerdom has to be in a Scandinavian Union. Control of the Baltic, no Russian outlet there, plus perhaps the power to retain more colonial possessions (like Manhattan?) and voila. Probably never quite as formidable as Britain, there just isn't the population for it - but maybe sort of a super-Netherlands.
Well, Wallenstein might do. Since he, ah, was a decent general. Ad it's not like the Swedes went home after Gustav died. The war lasted another decade and a half.
Here's the problem. The Protestants were bankrolled by the French, who wanted to see the Habsburgs broken. How does a Swedish ruled Germany help them? And why do the Protestant Nobles want this?
I'm not sure it is possible for a truly long-lasting great power status. I don't think Sweden has the population to swallow Russia, Poland, or Germany. In the real history, they tried each one and arguably succeeded in all three only to fail in the long term. They just didn't have the men and money. Amateurs deal in tactics while professionals talk about logistics and all that. That leaves Denmark, which i think probably was possible. Yet even with the extremely successful union of Kalmar described by Darkest, i don't see a long-lasting power. Or if it is possible, I'm not sure it would be of much benifit to Sweden.
One reason is that i have a hard time seeing any Sweden entering the colonization game in a big way, or even ever being a major naval power outside the Baltic. Both of these attributes (colonization and naval power) are shared by all the major empires.
Another is industry, which in the 18th century recquired lots of former agricultural workers, coal, and big cities. They've got the coal, but not the masses of people moving to big cities that was the real driving force of the industrial revolution.
Another reason is that any such uber-Sweden in control of Denmark would be unable to remain neutral in the Britain vs. France struggles that defined the 18th century in Europe, as the real Sweden did quite successfully. The possibilities for Sweden's involvement are of course endless, but range from Napoleon deciding to subsume this new power instead of attacking Russia to an angry Great Britain using its fleet to smash open the Baltic and its naval stores of pine and tar and hemp, establishing a permanent Gibraltar-like fort somewhere in northern Denmark. Or maybe something good for Sweden, though I really have difficulty seeing Sweden resisiting either major power.
To take it even further, how would such an uber-Sweden fare in the struggle between a resurgent Germany and Russia in the mid to late 19th and early 20th? Would it be ignored like in our history? I don't think so. Almost any possiblity I can think of for a poweful Sweden that holds Denmark forces it to become involved in the huge wars that tore up Europe and, probably, losing.
oops, i wrote an essay. Sorry. hope it makes some kind of sense.
One reason is that i have a hard time seeing any Sweden entering the colonization game in a big way, or even ever being a major naval power outside the Baltic. Both of these attributes (colonization and naval power) are shared by all the major empires.
Another is industry, which in the 18th century recquired lots of former agricultural workers, coal, and big cities. They've got the coal, but not the masses of people moving to big cities that was the real driving force of the industrial revolution.
Another reason is that any such uber-Sweden in control of Denmark would be unable to remain neutral in the Britain vs. France struggles that defined the 18th century in Europe, as the real Sweden did quite successfully. The possibilities for Sweden's involvement are of course endless, but range from Napoleon deciding to subsume this new power instead of attacking Russia to an angry Great Britain using its fleet to smash open the Baltic and its naval stores of pine and tar and hemp, establishing a permanent Gibraltar-like fort somewhere in northern Denmark. Or maybe something good for Sweden, though I really have difficulty seeing Sweden resisiting either major power.
To take it even further, how would such an uber-Sweden fare in the struggle between a resurgent Germany and Russia in the mid to late 19th and early 20th? Would it be ignored like in our history? I don't think so. Almost any possiblity I can think of for a poweful Sweden that holds Denmark forces it to become involved in the huge wars that tore up Europe and, probably, losing.
oops, i wrote an essay. Sorry. hope it makes some kind of sense.
You make good points and you´re right. If Sweden unites with Poland, more likely Sweden is the one that is swallowed up, but it´d probably be neither.
The most UberSweden I can realistically imagine would be one which after crushing Denmark gains Norway. Sweden should be able to swallow up Norway and Finland, and by staying neutral keep them. The Finns nearly got assimilated into Sweden OTL, if Russia hadn´t taken Finland I doubt Finland would be independent today.
Possibly this country could get to colonize some areas during the 19th century peacefully.
This however doesn´t meet up with the challenge that wanted an Ubersweden.
In that case, the only way I see Sweden being able to remain at their 17th century power longer, is if Muscovy never unites Russia. A divided Russia and the baltic is Sweden´s.
Oddball
Monthly Donor
To bad I missed this thread while away, but Abdul and Readbeard pretty much sums up my view
Sorry my Swedish siblings, but a lone and lasting Swedish empire is just pipe dreams...
Oddball
Monthly Donor
But to establish an empire you need to "swedify" (Best english word i could come up with.
To do such a thing would take two or three generations.
Oh yes it worked in Skåne
After several generations of "Swedification" with all its happy gatherings and kind persuations...
Like the rest of Scandinavia
And boy did the Swedes enjoy their time in the Kalmar Union...
More probably even without jesuits they didn't become fully protestant.
The Republic suffered from bad organization. They while had won most of battles still managed to loss wars with Sweden.
Also any POD which would prevent Augustus the Strong from becoming the king of the Republic of Both Nations more likely would save Swedes from defeat in Great Northen War.Redbeard, like your way of thinking:
A pod killing Peter the great could do the trick.
But also, any POD which would prevent Russia from uniting would be nice for Sweden as well. Imagine Sweden slowly going east, picking up one small state after the other.
Oddball
Monthly Donor
The polish king opted for religious freedom at first, but the Jesuits cohered him into prosecusion of the protestants
In the short term it is possible. But Sweden had made just to many enemies seeking revenge, so in the long term it wont matter
What king? While Vasas were more leaning to catholicism they had no power even to clean out protestants from senate.
I was also speaking about short terms.