If Sweden-Norway joins the Second Schleswig War, could it led to a united Scandinavia ?

[walmart]

Despite Charles XV's promise to send troops, Sweden-Norway refused to aid Denmark. Consequently, the pan-Scandinavism movement focused on literature and language rather than political unification. Likewise, the war proved to be a diplomatic setback for the British government, whose attempts to mediate the conflict and deter Prussia were rebuffed.[24]

Say Charles XV follows through on his promise and joins Denmark in the Second Schleswig War. Would it possible to pressure the Danish government into joining a united Scandinavia under Swedish leadership? I assume despite Swedish involvement, that the war would still be a defeat but possibly on better terms seeing something around the modern border. A Swedish entrance would increase Pan-Scandinavism among the Danish population along with the presence of Swedish troops could apply pressure on the Danish government. I imagine a united Scandinavia would be a federal state along the lines of the German Empire.

Second Schleswig War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Terço]

Pan-Scandinavism lost popularity in Denmark due to the refusal of Charles XV to join the war ,so even a "united" defeat would help further a set of reforms that would probably led to the establishment of closer ties .
The question to me is how do you organized a union when you have two kings ?
And Norway will want more influence so three kings ?
United Kingdoms of Scandinavia ?

 

[Fabius Maximus]

The question to me is how do you organized a union when you have two kings ?

They could do a Sparta, and have two royal families and two kings.

Alternatively, I believe there have been states where different branches of the royal family provided monarchs alternately, so maybe something like that could work.

Or, perhaps more likely -- get the closest unmarried male relative of one king to marry the closest unmarried female relative of another, then both the current monarchs resign in their favour.

 

[Ajobek]

They could do a Sparta, and have two royal families and two kings.

Alternatively, I believe there have been states where different branches of the royal family provided monarchs alternately, so maybe something like that could work.

Or, perhaps more likely -- get the closest unmarried male relative of one king to marry the closest unmarried female relative of another, then both the current monarchs resign in their favour.

Or follow German model, Charles XV is emperor of Scandinavia, and Denmark keep their king like Bavaria and Saxony.

 

[Atterdag]

Depends, there are a lot of factors at play here.

A big reason CXV didn't join otl is that he felt there would be too much international backlash - in particular he feared Russia might get involved. The question is then, would Russia have done so? And how would France and Britain respond if they did? Because that's a very different scenario than Sweden-Norway simply joining the war.

It's also a question of what Sweden-Norway joining means. In the first war, Swedish and Norwegian troops on Funen and a stark warning that Prussia better not move any further north was enough that most of them never actually had to see combat. If it comes to blows, then yes Prussia in all likelyhood defeats the combined Scandinavian forces, but their presence could also entice Prussia back to the negotiation table, in which we might see a partition of Schleswig.

So as ever, the devil is in the details, but I certainly think it could lead to some kind of Scandinavian union. Bismarck was actually in favor of this otl, he (probably correctly) identified that if Schleswig could be resolved Scandinavia could easily be turned German-friendly and be a useful northern buffer against Russia. It’s a bit like with Alsace-Lorraine where he opposed full annexation, but just like there the more severe demands won out in Schleswig-Holstein. S-H is probably easier to find a compromise to than France.

Or follow German model, Charles XV is emperor of Scandinavia, and Denmark keep their king like Bavaria and Saxony.

That worked in Germany because there was a long tradition of an Emperor ruling over highly autonomous states going back to the HRE. In Scandinavia there’s no tradition of powerful vassals, but there’s a long tradition of conglomerate states that are a bunch of personal unions, the Danish helstat and Sweden-Norway being most relevant here. Prussia was also way stronger in comparison to the other German states than Sweden-Norway is in comparison to Denmark. Easiest way for Scandinavian unity is a personal union, which unfortunately for Christian IX means the deposition of the Glücksburgs.

 

[Pauh the federalist]

It does not mean a lot but a united scandinavia might see itself as a minor power like Portugal or the Neatherlands and decide to retain Saint Barthélemy as a prestige colony and naval base outside of the north sea.

Swedish colony of Saint Barthélemy - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

It's a shame the Danish sold thier african colonys just prior to the second Schleswig war becuse with greater influance after unification existing colonys would add to scandinavias legitimacy if they decided to participate in the Berlin conference to carve out a stronger stake in the Gold Coast or wider gulf of guinea prehapse around the size of otl german Togoland which would give them a small but manageable empire in one of the areas of africa that was net profitable from what i understand.

Danish Gold Coast - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Scramble for Africa - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Berlin Conference - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Gulf of Guinea - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Togoland - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

In order to change this you would probably need a pod around the first schleswig war to have denmark decide to retain it.

First Schleswig War - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Atterdag]

It does not mean a lot but a united scandinavia might see itself as a minor power like Portugal or the Neatherlands and decide to retain Saint Barthélemy as a prestige colony and naval base outside of the north sea.

St Barthelemy had long stopped being seen as a useful colony for Sweden by 1864, in fact it had been an embarrassment for the illegal slave trade that happened on it long after Sweden supposedly banned it. By 1864 Sweden was trying to on one hand ignore the colony, on the other hand get rid of it. Denmark was also trying to get rid of its West Indian possessions around the same time, but failed to find a willing buyer. I do wonder if a Scandinavian union would mean the Danish West Indies going to France around the time St Barths did, or if it might mean St Barths becomes part of the US Virgin Islands down the line. It might of course not be either of that.

It's a shame the Danish sold thier african colonys just prior to the second Schleswig war becuse with greater influance after unification existing colonys would add to scandinavias legitimacy if they decided to participate in the Berlin conference to carve out a stronger stake in the Gold Coast or wider gulf of guinea prehapse around the size of otl german Togoland which would give them a small but manageable empire in one of the areas of africa that was net profitable from what i understand.

Doubt it. A unified Scandinavia is too strong to be a compromise candidate like Belgium, but not established enough to stop the great powers from seizing their holdings. If Denmark keeps the Gold Coast prior to unification I think Britain more than likely rolls up sooner or later with a polite offer of purchase and a lot of loaded cannons.

 

[Jurgen Wullenwever]

Pan-Scandinavism lost popularity in Denmark due to the refusal of Charles XV to join the war ,so even a "united" defeat would help further a set of reforms that would probably led to the establishment of closer ties .
The question to me is how do you organized a union when you have two kings ?
And Norway will want more influence so three kings ?
United Kingdoms of Scandinavia ?

They could do a Sparta, and have two royal families and two kings.

Alternatively, I believe there have been states where different branches of the royal family provided monarchs alternately, so maybe something like that could work.

Or, perhaps more likely -- get the closest unmarried male relative of one king to marry the closest unmarried female relative of another, then both the current monarchs resign in their favour.

Or follow German model, Charles XV is emperor of Scandinavia, and Denmark keep their king like Bavaria and Saxony.

Depends, there are a lot of factors at play here.

A big reason CXV didn't join otl is that he felt there would be too much international backlash - in particular he feared Russia might get involved. The question is then, would Russia have done so? And how would France and Britain respond if they did? Because that's a very different scenario than Sweden-Norway simply joining the war.

It's also a question of what Sweden-Norway joining means. In the first war, Swedish and Norwegian troops on Funen and a stark warning that Prussia better not move any further north was enough that most of them never actually had to see combat. If it comes to blows, then yes Prussia in all likelyhood defeats the combined Scandinavian forces, but their presence could also entice Prussia back to the negotiation table, in which we might see a partition of Schleswig.

So as ever, the devil is in the details, but I certainly think it could lead to some kind of Scandinavian union. Bismarck was actually in favor of this otl, he (probably correctly) identified that if Schleswig could be resolved Scandinavia could easily be turned German-friendly and be a useful northern buffer against Russia. It’s a bit like with Alsace-Lorraine where he opposed full annexation, but just like there the more severe demands won out in Schleswig-Holstein. S-H is probably easier to find a compromise to than France.


That worked in Germany because there was a long tradition of an Emperor ruling over highly autonomous states going back to the HRE. In Scandinavia there’s no tradition of powerful vassals, but there’s a long tradition of conglomerate states that are a bunch of personal unions, the Danish helstat and Sweden-Norway being most relevant here. Prussia was also way stronger in comparison to the other German states than Sweden-Norway is in comparison to Denmark. Easiest way for Scandinavian unity is a personal union, which unfortunately for Christian IX means the deposition of the Glücksburgs.

Instead of dealing with kings in a hierarchy with one another, it might be easier to keep three separate states in the union, with their own kings and parliaments, but have a FIRM commitment that all decisions must be the same. We will have thorough negotiations before every decision so all parliaments have a secured majority beforehand. The three parliaments become three chambers of one parliament.

OTL they could not even agree on a common spelling. In this case they must be forced to get agreement, every time, in each parliament, so all objections and obstructions must be dealt with to achieve three majorities.

All three kingdoms keep their own flags and their own heads of state, and their own three capitals. They do not keep their own spellings, or their own different developments, so we get a converging system.

 

[mattep74]

Say Charles XV follows through on his promise and joins Denmark in the Second Schleswig War. Would it possible to pressure the Danish government into joining a united Scandinavia under Swedish leadership? I assume despite Swedish involvement, that the war would still be a defeat but possibly on better terms seeing something around the modern border. A Swedish entrance would increase Pan-Scandinavism among the Danish population along with the presence of Swedish troops could apply pressure on the Danish government. I imagine a united Scandinavia would be a federal state along the lines of the German Empire.

Second Schleswig War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The goverment had no intrest of going to war and Karl the 15th would have faced a constitutional crisis and a goverment crisis if he wanted to go to war. And what would the Swedish army use? The same weapons it used in the war against Napoleon?

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

They could do a Sparta, and have two royal families and two kings.

Alternatively, I believe there have been states where different branches of the royal family provided monarchs alternately, so maybe something like that could work.

Or, perhaps more likely -- get the closest unmarried male relative of one king to marry the closest unmarried female relative of another, then both the current monarchs resign in their favour.

Current day Malaysia has numerous royal families which rotate to hold the ”federal” monarchy. Each is Sultan (I think that’s the term) in their own state.

Joint Kingship could be a thing.

 

[Atterdag]

Instead of dealing with kings in a hierarchy with one another, it might be easier to keep three separate states in the union, with their own kings and parliaments, but have a FIRM commitment that all decisions must be the same. We will have thorough negotiations before every decision so all parliaments have a secured majority beforehand. The three parliaments become three chambers of one parliament.

This would mean all the drawbacks of a unitary state - I.e that decisions must be the same, but none of the benefits of it I.e a single governing body. In a weird way, everyone would lose out in it.

Scandinavists couldn’t agree on much in otl, but one that that pretty much everyone accepted was that a single head of state - whether hereditary or elected, would be part of the unity.

 

[Jurgen Wullenwever]

This would mean all the drawbacks of a unitary state - I.e that decisions must be the same, but none of the benefits of it I.e a single governing body. In a weird way, everyone would lose out in it.

The three parliaments will be one single governing body. Just geographically distant.

Scandinavists couldn’t agree on much in otl, but one that that pretty much everyone accepted was that a single head of state - whether hereditary or elected, would be part of the unity.

And they failed, apparently. You must have the will to do something, and prioritise it. In this case unity. If everyone goes their own way you get OTL, with separatists all around, and outside forces holding all power.

 

[Sian]

IIRC (been quite a while since i looked into it so might well be wrong) there were mentions of using the intermarriage between the two houses via the OTL bethotal between Frederik VIII of Denmark and Princess Louise of Sweden (only child of Carl XV, and who Carl unsuccessfully tried having recognized as his primary heir, instead of his brother) as to de-facto unite the nations.