How could we keep the Swedish Empire as a Great Power into at least the 20th century?

[alexmilman]

certainly such an agreement would obviously have as a basic requirement, that Sweden ceases to be an ally of France and the minor German princes, with the former not being very happy about this, because it means that the imperials can now focus more on it, but leaving this detail aside, it would be interesting to see how this greater Swedish interest in the politics of the Reich could develop later, in particular if the Habsburgs, in the event of a very important victory in the war, used another idea of theirs ( also very difficult to be able to apply Otl, except with a previous modification during the Peace of Augsburg ), i.e. to create special areas where Protestantism is recognized and tolerated ( in practice confining it to certain regions, mainly if possible in the possessions of electors or foreign princes ) therefore we will have a surplus of people moving towards the Swedish possessions in the north, increasing the population exponentially ( of course the same would happen to the Danish dominions in the HRE, in Saxony and in Brandenburg ) but this raises two further questions how religion would develop Lutheran, if its major exponents can be counted on the fingers of one hand, and geographically very close to each other, we will still see a push towards the strengthening of princely power or a greater search for cooperation / integration at an interstate level, the religious fragmentation of Will OTL still be so present or will greater state control contain it ?

AFAIK, there is no clear uniform opinion regarding GAs plans in the 30YW. In what I read, the authors’ opinions are varying in a wide range including: him being a selfless defender of a Protestant faith against Hapsburg oppression, him trying to create a Protestant version of the HRE with him as an emperor, him just trying to secure strategically important pieces of the German territory to turn Baltic into the Swedish Lake, him not having any clear political idea and fighting for the fighting (and looting sake) and I probably missed few more. And after his death figuring out the goals is even more difficult.

So, unless there is a reasonable consensus on what he and after him Oxenstierna had in mind, it is rather difficult to figure a long-term survival model. “Protestant Empire” is seemingly the most reliable long-term solution but it implies a willing cooperation of the German Protestant rulers and GA tended to use the methods which tended to produce an opposite reaction even in a rather short range and his military successors tended to act as the plain and rather indiscriminate looters.

Purely territorial acquisitions model close to OTL is rather shaky: no matter how you slice and dice it, Sweden did not have enough population to provide a big Swedish demographic presence on the German and Baltic territories (something like the Russian imperial model) and its financial situation hardly would improve to a degree allowing to play a role of the best master possible. So sooner or later the system was almost doomed to crush. If not Prussia, and Russia then it would be somebody else but as far as the Baltic provinces are involved, it probably will be Russia: the consistent attempts to get them go back to at least Ivan IV, disparity of the resources is obvious and idea that the Russian state will freeze its development is not too realistic.

There can be scenarios under which a compromise and cooperation are achieved thus saving most of the Baltic territories but they are not very realistic and GA did everything in his power for them not to happen.

 

[Nuraghe]

AFAIK, there is no clear uniform opinion regarding GAs plans in the 30YW. In what I read, the authors’ opinions are varying in a wide range including: him being a selfless defender of a Protestant faith against Hapsburg oppression, him trying to create a Protestant version of the HRE with him as an emperor, him just trying to secure strategically important pieces of the German territory to turn Baltic into the Swedish Lake, him not having any clear political idea and fighting for the fighting (and looting sake) and I probably missed few more. And after his death figuring out the goals is even more difficult.

So, unless there is a reasonable consensus on what he and after him Oxenstierna had in mind, it is rather difficult to figure a long-term survival model. “Protestant Empire” is seemingly the most reliable long-term solution but it implies a willing cooperation of the German Protestant rulers and GA tended to use the methods which tended to produce an opposite reaction even in a rather short range and his military successors tended to act as the plain and rather indiscriminate looters.

Purely territorial acquisitions model close to OTL is rather shaky: no matter how you slice and dice it, Sweden did not have enough population to provide a big Swedish demographic presence on the German and Baltic territories (something like the Russian imperial model) and its financial situation hardly would improve to a degree allowing to play a role of the best master possible. So sooner or later the system was almost doomed to crush. If not Prussia, and Russia then it would be somebody else but as far as the Baltic provinces are involved, it probably will be Russia: the consistent attempts to get them go back to at least Ivan IV, disparity of the resources is obvious and idea that the Russian state will freeze its development is not too realistic.

There can be scenarios under which a compromise and cooperation are achieved thus saving most of the Baltic territories but they are not very realistic and GA did everything in his power for them not to happen.

I fully agree with your analysis, actually GA and his successors did everything to shoot themselves in the foot, thus compromising their chances of finding themselves with larger domains respect a Otl without requiring a greater and prolonged military commitment, accepting that plan would have been an excellent compromise, but GA and then his ministers were extremely convinced that they could aim higher.....and we have all seen the results of their decision

 

[Jürgen]

All this true but the point is that Ivan IV “upgraded” status of the Russian rulers to “tsar” and this upgrade was not universally acknowledged on the West even by the time of Peter I. Taking into an account that “Great Prince” was inferior to the “king”, not to mention “emperor”, from the Russian point of view, this was humiliating and the whole thing had been rubbed in by the quarrels about the diplomatic protocol, especially with the Hapsburgs, who kept insisting upon the details which would position Tsardom as Emperor’s inferior or even subject and not an equal state. It may look now as a complete nonsense but these things had been taken quite seriously.

As a side note, title “Velikii Kniaz” existed on the Russian territories since XII century and simple “kniaz” much earlier, most probably even prior to Rurik, so it did not mean too much: number of the “princes” had been countless and did not require any royal blood. The minor Tatar chieftains coming to the Russian service had been getting this title but getting as a present the Grand Duke’s/Tsar’s overcoat was a much greater honor. 😂

I think if Russians had claimed to be king, it would have been much wider accepted, the problem with the title Caesar is that it was far to grand for the country Russia was until after the Great Northern War, it was only really when Russia showed itself to be a European great power the title was accepted. We need to remember titles and heraldry were something you waged war about, the casus belli for the Northern Seven Year War as example was the Swedish use of the Three Crown heraldry. People outside Russia not accepting the use of the title Caesar was to be expected, and that left them to use the old title.

 

[alexmilman]

I think if Russians had claimed to be king, it would have been much wider accepted, the problem with the title Caesar is that it was far to grand for the country Russia was until after the Great Northern War, it was only really when Russia showed itself to be a European great power the title was accepted.

Indeed. Even then acceptance was anything but immediate. Change of the title was declared in 1721. Prussia and Netherlands immediately recognized the new title, Sweden in 1723, Turkey in 1739, Great Britain and Austria in 1742, France in 1745, Spain in 1759 and finally the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1764.

We need to remember titles and heraldry were something you waged war about, the casus belli for the Northern Seven Year War as example was the Swedish use of the Three Crown heraldry.

And, IIRC, one of the issues of the “Deluge” was a titular claim to the throne of Sweden by the Polish Vasas. Similarly, one of few items won by the Tsardom as a result of the lost Smolensk War was a denouncement by Wladislav his claim to the Russian throne. So the titles, even formal, were not an empty sound.

People outside Russia not accepting the use of the title Caesar was to be expected, and that left them to use the old title.

Or, eventually, a new imperial one, at least on the official level.

 

[alexmilman]

I fully agree with your analysis, actually GA and his successors did everything to shoot themselves in the foot, thus compromising their chances of finding themselves with larger domains respect a Otl without requiring a greater and prolonged military commitment, accepting that plan would have been an excellent compromise, but GA and then his ministers were extremely convinced that they could aim higher.....and we have all seen the results of their decision

Don’t remember who, made a remark that out of all the participants only Wallenstein had some “imperial” ideas (in terms of making the HRE into a meaningful German state). Perhaps this is an exaggeration but he definitely ended up being hated by both sides.

 

[Nuraghe]

Don’t remember who, made a remark that out of all the participants only Wallenstein had some “imperial” ideas (in terms of making the HRE into a meaningful German state). Perhaps this is an exaggeration but he definitely ended up being hated by both sides.

well but this is because Wallenstein saw the situation from a purely German point of view ( on the contrary the Habsburgs saw it from the confessional and international one, for them Germany did not concretely exist, as an actual state, furthermore the Empire still included Italy, which the princes refused to recognize since at least the middle of the 15th century, considering these adventures as mere dynastic matters of the Habsburgs, furthermore the Reformation had seriously affected the government system, so they rightly wanted to reform it, but this time to also include the areas left out by Max I's reform due to various ) while the princes saw the war as a defense of their privileges and rights as well as of a religious nature, they knew well that a successful restoration edict would meaning that the Habsburgs, through the Catholic Church, could also actively influence the North of the Reich by weakening local princely control, which was unforgivable for them

 

[Nuraghe]

well but this is because Wallenstein saw the situation from a purely German point of view ( on the contrary the Habsburgs saw it from the confessional and international one, for them Germany did not concretely exist, as an actual state, furthermore the Empire still included Italy, which the princes refused to recognize since at least the middle of the 15th century, considering these adventures as mere dynastic matters of the Habsburgs, furthermore the Reformation had seriously affected the government system, so they rightly wanted to reform it, but this time to also include the areas left out by Max I's reform due to various ) while the princes saw the war as a defense of their privileges and rights as well as of a religious nature, they knew well that a successful restoration edict would meaning that the Habsburgs, through the Catholic Church, could also actively influence the North of the Reich by weakening local princely control, which was unforgivable for them

for example the Habsburgs had thought from Ferdinand I onwards how to stem the spread of the Reformation, which was eroding their ability to govern the Reich, during the first phase of 30YW, there was a proposal which envisaged two things mainly, a categorical imperial victory and the solution to the problem of the Calvinists, in practice the Habsburgs wanted to divide HRE into 6 parts, the first was obviously the dynastic territories ( including the Spanish Netherlands ), the second was an expanded ecclesiastical circle ( which would have included all the ecclesiastical territories of the empire, Italy excluded ), the third was the creation of a territory for the Lutherans ( usually located in the north of the Empire, mainly it would have occupied the territories of Saxony, Thuringia, Brandenburg and a piece of the Guelph dominions ), the fourth saw a reasoning similar to the previous one but for the Calvinists ( who would have been reunited in a duchy destined for the descendants of the winter royals, aka the children of Elizabeth Stuart, located between the Palatinate and Hesse Otl ) finally the latter envisaged the creation of a state buffer between Habsburg and France, of Catholic confession is to be destined to a younger son of a great dynasty ( a Stuart was thought for this ), and the modification of the remaining imperial Kries ( with Bavaria, Lorraine and the Danish king imperial dominion as main pre-conflict states remained as Otl, more or less ) furthermore this solution would have also seen Italy integrated into it, what they then tried to propose to the Swedes was a version suited to the ongoing war developments, but the basis was what was described above, they also tried to convince France to accept it, promising to be able to annex some minor territories already occupied by Paris during the conflict, now returning to the topic, Sweden has actually lived Otl of wasted time, wasting every opportunity it had at its disposal to fortify its position as a power, certainly the countless wars including Denmark and the PLC have drained its already limited resources, then having dealing with Russia was literally their death knell, so in theory to give her a better chance she would need to continue pitting Russia and Poland against each other and then concentrate on eliminating Denmark once and for all, so so as not to find itself attacked on multiple fronts at the same time, certainly its greater interest in Germany would be useful, but a different leadership would be needed, more capable of understanding when to actually stop to collect the results obtained, so as to be able to digest them calmly and catch their breath before a possible new challenge

 

[von Adler]

There are two things needed to keep Sweden a grand power - and both require some major changes. You either need to neuter the Russian rise to a prominent power and then a grand power in European affairs - because Sweden is in the way of Russian access to the sea, and a powerful Russia will not accept Sweden putting tolls on their trade forever. Or you can do as @alexmilman did in his "Peter goes south" - make Sweden and Russia close allies and friends.

The second part is to neuter the development of a strong northern German state capable of uniting northern Germany.

As for the Swedish outlying territories - Pommerania and Ingria were net sinks on the Swedish treasure, but both were also important territory to hold. Pommerania allowed Sweden to intervene in northern Germany at its leisure and provided access to the German mercenary market - certainly an important point should you want to compensate for the lack of manpower.

Ingria protected both Finland and Estonia from incursions from the east. One can note that throughout the 21 years of the Great Northern War, the Swedish core territory was never devastated by invasion. The Russians devastated Finland, and did some raids in the archipelagos, and Denmark landed an army to try to retake Scania (which was quickly dispatched), but Sweden proper never suffered invading armies, which was part of the reason why Sweden could keep on fighting for 21 years. Ingria and Pommerania protected Sweden from attacks, even if they were poor money sinks.

Bremen, on the other hand, was very proditable due to the tolls on the Weser river, and paid for the investments, fortification efforts and the standing garrison of ~8 000 men in Sweden's German provinces.

Now, if Russia and Sweden are friends, and you neuter Brandenburg-Prussia's rise to prominence (perhaps by having the Hannovrians not inhering Britain and German leadership being contested by Austria, Brandenburg-Prussia, Hannover and Saxony) Sweden might be seen as the best option to fund to contest French influence in Germany by Britain.

Manpower can always be had by German mercenaries, and if enough money is available, the Swedish state should not have a problem fielding competent armies - after all, it can raise them, train them and THEN ship them to Germany to fight. Frederick the Great did not have that kind of strategic depth.

If Germany remains divided and Russia friendly, Sweden could very well remain the strongest power in northern Europe.

 

[Nuraghe]

There are two things needed to keep Sweden a grand power - and both require some major changes. You either need to neuter the Russian rise to a prominent power and then a grand power in European affairs - because Sweden is in the way of Russian access to the sea, and a powerful Russia will not accept Sweden putting tolls on their trade forever. Or you can do as @alexmilman did in his "Peter goes south" - make Sweden and Russia close allies and friends.

The second part is to neuter the development of a strong northern German state capable of uniting northern Germany.

As for the Swedish outlying territories - Pommerania and Ingria were net sinks on the Swedish treasure, but both were also important territory to hold. Pommerania allowed Sweden to intervene in northern Germany at its leisure and provided access to the German mercenary market - certainly an important point should you want to compensate for the lack of manpower.

Ingria protected both Finland and Estonia from incursions from the east. One can note that throughout the 21 years of the Great Northern War, the Swedish core territory was never devastated by invasion. The Russians devastated Finland, and did some raids in the archipelagos, and Denmark landed an army to try to retake Scania (which was quickly dispatched), but Sweden proper never suffered invading armies, which was part of the reason why Sweden could keep on fighting for 21 years. Ingria and Pommerania protected Sweden from attacks, even if they were poor money sinks.

Bremen, on the other hand, was very proditable due to the tolls on the Weser river, and paid for the investments, fortification efforts and the standing garrison of ~8 000 men in Sweden's German provinces.

Now, if Russia and Sweden are friends, and you neuter Brandenburg-Prussia's rise to prominence (perhaps by having the Hannovrians not inhering Britain and German leadership being contested by Austria, Brandenburg-Prussia, Hannover and Saxony) Sweden might be seen as the best option to fund to contest French influence in Germany by Britain.

Manpower can always be had by German mercenaries, and if enough money is available, the Swedish state should not have a problem fielding competent armies - after all, it can raise them, train them and THEN ship them to Germany to fight. Frederick the Great did not have that kind of strategic depth.

If Germany remains divided and Russia friendly, Sweden could very well remain the strongest power in northern Europe.

I totally agree, but Otl Sweden as I have already mentioned, risked for a number of reasons becoming ( itself ) the fulcrum of a strong German / Lutheran state in the northern regions of the HRE, even in this case with approval although forced by Vienna ( and to a lesser extent Dresden ) but the eagerness of GA and his circle prevented him from exploiting the favorable opportunity, also because Vienna saw little concrete results in further entanglement in a region hostile to them, so they were strangely quite willing to negotiate the "cession" of the Northern region of Reich with control over southern-central Germany

 

[Flavius Iulius Maiorianus]

There are two things needed to keep Sweden a grand power - and both require some major changes. You either need to neuter the Russian rise to a prominent power and then a grand power in European affairs - because Sweden is in the way of Russian access to the sea, and a powerful Russia will not accept Sweden putting tolls on their trade forever. Or you can do as @alexmilman did in his "Peter goes south" - make Sweden and Russia close allies and friends.

The second part is to neuter the development of a strong northern German state capable of uniting northern Germany.

As for the Swedish outlying territories - Pommerania and Ingria were net sinks on the Swedish treasure, but both were also important territory to hold. Pommerania allowed Sweden to intervene in northern Germany at its leisure and provided access to the German mercenary market - certainly an important point should you want to compensate for the lack of manpower.

Ingria protected both Finland and Estonia from incursions from the east. One can note that throughout the 21 years of the Great Northern War, the Swedish core territory was never devastated by invasion. The Russians devastated Finland, and did some raids in the archipelagos, and Denmark landed an army to try to retake Scania (which was quickly dispatched), but Sweden proper never suffered invading armies, which was part of the reason why Sweden could keep on fighting for 21 years. Ingria and Pommerania protected Sweden from attacks, even if they were poor money sinks.

Bremen, on the other hand, was very proditable due to the tolls on the Weser river, and paid for the investments, fortification efforts and the standing garrison of ~8 000 men in Sweden's German provinces.

Now, if Russia and Sweden are friends, and you neuter Brandenburg-Prussia's rise to prominence (perhaps by having the Hannovrians not inhering Britain and German leadership being contested by Austria, Brandenburg-Prussia, Hannover and Saxony) Sweden might be seen as the best option to fund to contest French influence in Germany by Britain.

Manpower can always be had by German mercenaries, and if enough money is available, the Swedish state should not have a problem fielding competent armies - after all, it can raise them, train them and THEN ship them to Germany to fight. Frederick the Great did not have that kind of strategic depth.

If Germany remains divided and Russia friendly, Sweden could very well remain the strongest power in northern Europe.

The problem, though, is that sooner or later Russia WILL become a great power, and I don't see Germany being divided forever. At some point Sweden has to increase its population.
Also, I think that Prussia could be a valuable ally for Sweden. Having a strong ally on the continent would be a good thing for Sweden. Having Poland-Lithuania survive as a Swedish ally or client could also allow them to import more food, which will help with the population problem.

 

[Nuraghe]

The problem, though, is that sooner or later Russia WILL become a great power, and I don't see Germany being divided forever. At some point Sweden has to increase its population.
Also, I think that Prussia could be a valuable ally for Sweden. Having a strong ally on the continent would be a good thing for Sweden. Having Poland-Lithuania survive as a Swedish ally or client could also allow them to import more food, which will help with the population problem.

in reality Prussia is not an excellent ally, as has in fact been demonstrated by Otl, in reality any medium-sized German state could represent a threat to Swedish ambitions, especially if post 30YW, because it means that said potentate was a victim or spectator of Swedish politics in HRE, scandalously bad and extremely counterproductive, so he will be naturally inclined not to trust Stockholm, ergo it would have been better if Sweden itself could have consolidated and subsequently expanded its roots in the Reich, weakening every possible challenger in the area ( without incurring in the wrath of the Emperor or a coalition of princes )

 

[Legofan4]

The problem I see with Sweden staying a Great Power into the 20th century is just the ever increasing requirement of what it means to be a Great Power. I just don't think Sweden can conquer enough territory (and remain "Swedish" enough to not just be Germany with some northern territory) to be in the same club as the 20th century Great Powers. Which by the 20th century means that either you have a global empire (ala the UK or France) or are a large continental power with substantial population and industry (ala the U.S. or Russia). I just don't see Sweden having a large enough population to maintain a colonial empire or maintain the high level of economic output relative to the rest of the world needed to be a Great Power. Most of Sweden's Great Power status was down to the fact that it was the large state in Northern Europe at the right time (when Poland was weak, Denmark had recently lost to the Hapsburgs, and Russia was recovering from the Time of Troubles etc.)

 

[von Adler]

The problem, though, is that sooner or later Russia WILL become a great power, and I don't see Germany being divided forever. At some point Sweden has to increase its population.
Also, I think that Prussia could be a valuable ally for Sweden. Having a strong ally on the continent would be a good thing for Sweden. Having Poland-Lithuania survive as a Swedish ally or client could also allow them to import more food, which will help with the population problem.

Sweden was self-sufficient in food, even in times of famine, especially after the addition of Scania. Having more food does not solve the problem on how to get it to people - before the construction of canals and railroads, the only place you can bring large amount of foods to are ports.

The Dutch could import large amounts of Polish grain because it could be shipped on the Vistula/Weichsel river to Gdansk/Danzig and then by ship to the Dutch ports and up their rivers and canals. Sweden does not have those rivers or canals.

A horse-pulled cart can load about 250kg per horse and gets about 30km per day. A draft horse eats about 10kg per day. If you load up on grain (and hay, since the horse needs both in order to be healthy), you can go 375km before the horse eats half the load and needs to other half to go back. The ability to deliver food by horse-cart is simply limited and will not affect population growth in any real sense.

Prussia desired Swedish Pommerania. Sweden needed to retain it to be able to claim to be a grand power. These do not mix for a long-term alliance.

 

[alexmilman]

The problem I see with Sweden staying a Great Power into the 20th century is just the ever increasing requirement of what it means to be a Great Power. I just don't think Sweden can conquer enough territory (and remain "Swedish" enough to not just be Germany with some northern territory) to be in the same club as the 20th century Great Powers. Which by the 20th century means that either you have a global empire (ala the UK or France) or are a large continental power with substantial population and industry (ala the U.S. or Russia). I just don't see Sweden having a large enough population to maintain a colonial empire or maintain the high level of economic output relative to the rest of the world needed to be a Great Power.

Even colonial empire would npt be a solution: the Netherlands had it but ceased to be a Great Power well before XX century. IMO, the only plausible scenario would be union with one of the OTL Great Powers. Such an opportunity was missed few times:
a. chance of the surviving Swedish-Polish union under the Vasa dynasty (the problems are a long term PLC survival as the Great Power and religion )
b. Swedish Tsar during Time of Troubles (religion issue)
c. Peter III as Emperor of Russia and King of Sweden (religion issue).

Most of Sweden's Great Power status was down to the fact that it was the large state in Northern Europe at the right time (when Poland was weak, Denmark had recently lost to the Hapsburgs, and Russia was recovering from the Time of Troubles etc.)

Other than that Swedish-Danish-Norwegian union would keep it as a regional (not Great) power.

 

[Xgentis]

Even if Sweden managed to unite Scandinavia and keep it, it still would not be a great power, they just lack the population for it.
I can't see them managing to conquer any land in northern germany and keeping it for long.

 

[Jürgen]

Even if Sweden managed to unite Scandinavia and keep it, it still would not be a great power, they just lack the population for it.
I can't see them managing to conquer any land in northern germany and keeping it for long.

Which is why I think the important focus should be on population increase, Sweden would be quite able to feed larger population if potatoes was introduced earlier (potatoes really only became a thing in the 19th century in Sweden, through it had already been introduced in 1658) and it have the raw material to turn into a major manufacturing hub earlier with a far greater urban population. While Sweden + Finland is unlikely to be able to rival powers like UK, France or Italy in population, you would likely see a population rivaling Spain’s.

 

[Giant Man Eating Rabbits]

Sweden’s problem is very simple, they have too low population.

Beat me to it.

Would having a French or German States size of population help?

 

[Legofan4]

Which is why I think the important focus should be on population increase, Sweden would be quite able to feed larger population if potatoes was introduced earlier (potatoes really only became a thing in the 19th century in Sweden, through it had already been introduced in 1658) and it have the raw material to turn into a major manufacturing hub earlier with a far greater urban population. While Sweden + Finland is unlikely to be able to rival powers like UK, France or Italy in population, you would likely see a population rivaling Spain’s.

Even having a population on the level of Spain wouldn't keep Sweden a great power. By the end of the otl Napoleonic wars Spain had fallen far from its heights under Philip II and was definitely not a great power.

Beat me to it.

Would having a French or German States size of population help?

If they could get that many people they would be a great power but how is the question.

 

[Flavius Iulius Maiorianus]

I think some people are misunderstanding what I meant by great power. Sweden was never going to be as powerful as Russia, Germany, the UK, or France. However, could we make them as powerful as say, Austria-Hungary was in OTL 1914?

 

[Jürgen]

Even having a population on the level of Spain wouldn't keep Sweden a great power. By the end of the otl Napoleonic wars Spain had fallen far from its heights under Philip II and was definitely not a great power.

To be a great power you need a mix of population and economic power, Spain‘s main problem was not population but a bad economy. Sweden is much better geared to become a manufacturing hub, they already were one in OTL. Spain with a strong economy would have been a much bigger factor in Europe.

If they could get that many people they would be a great power but how is the question.

If we look at Irish population growth thanks to the potato it would be the answer, the problem is that Sweden still need to get the peasant to eat it, but also incentivize population growth, Ireland was not the only place the potato spread, but few places it resulted in as radical population growth. In Ireland the main cause was likely that the extreme poverty incentive early marriage, while Scandinavians married far later. I do have some idea how Denmark could have incentivize population growth sadly difference in the status of the peasantry means they don’t really translate well to Sweden.