If the Swedes could have

if the Kalmar union or Swedish empire got in a war with Novgorod / Russia, and they were winning by a lot, would the Swedes have taken the Kola + Karelia in peace? or would it be more likely for them to leave it to the Russians?
 

Rockingham

Banned
If they win buy a lot, and they don't take the throne Moscow and the throne of Russia itself, they still have bigger fish to fry then Kola Peninsula...
 
I always do, when I play Europa Universalis...:D

Seriously speaking, from what I gather, they were always more interested in the Russian trading cities close to Estonia (Pskov, Novgorod etc). Kola was basically a frozen wasteland of no value whatsoever, so it didn't hold quite the appeal it might have in later years.
 
but let's say in a war, that Sweden occupies all that area, and is in a good position to sue for peace...

would they take Karelia and leave Kola to the Russians? or just not take ANY of that area at all?
 
As I recall, Sweden once captured Archangel (or tried to) and tried to annex it, but were stopped by England (and France, I think) because it would hinder trade with Russia...

LordInsane (or anyone else) - a little help here? :confused:
 

Oddball

Monthly Donor
if the Kalmar union or Swedish empire got in a war with Novgorod / Russia, and they were winning by a lot, would the Swedes have taken the Kola + Karelia in peace? or would it be more likely for them to leave it to the Russians?

The Swedes defenetly would have take it.

Try my ATL in my sig ;):)
 

Oddball

Monthly Donor
As I recall, Sweden once captured Archangel (or tried to) and tried to annex it, but were stopped by England (and France, I think) because it would hinder trade with Russia...

LordInsane (or anyone else) - a little help here? :confused:

There are claims that the Swedes unsuccesfully besieged Kholmogory (downstream from Archangel) during the Times of Trouble, but it has not been verified
 
but let's say in a war, that Sweden occupies all that area, and is in a good position to sue for peace...

would they take Karelia and leave Kola to the Russians? or just not take ANY of that area at all?

Karelia they would probably like, but IIRC it wouldn't be the main objective. However, if they did take it, Kola would likely be thrown in as well, since neither side would want it cut off behind Swedish lines.

(Note: my historical knowledge of Swedish foreign policy comprises mostly the 1600s onwards. I don't know what they might have tried in the 16th century.)
 
I always do, when I play Europa Universalis...:D

Seriously speaking, from what I gather, they were always more interested in the Russian trading cities close to Estonia (Pskov, Novgorod etc). Kola was basically a frozen wasteland of no value whatsoever, so it didn't hold quite the appeal it might have in later years.

Big it looks so cool and powerful being big and blue on the map!!11111 :p
 

Oddball

Monthly Donor
(Note: my historical knowledge of Swedish foreign policy comprises mostly the 1600s onwards. I don't know what they might have tried in the 16th century.)

Wich is pretty crucial :)

Sweden in the 14th and 15th century is something completely different ;)

Finland and Karelia, and to a lesser extent Ingria and Estonia was on the top list. And as you say, if Sweden gets Karelia, Kola follows by itself (if not the Danes takes it).
 

Rockingham

Banned
I always do, when I play Europa Universalis...:D

Seriously speaking, from what I gather, they were always more interested in the Russian trading cities close to Estonia (Pskov, Novgorod etc). Kola was basically a frozen wasteland of no value whatsoever, so it didn't hold quite the appeal it might have in later years.
But with Kola, they controlled the entire trade route of western trade with Russia, far better then a city:p
 
Wich is pretty crucial :)

Sweden in the 14th and 15th century is something completely different ;)

Finland and Karelia, and to a lesser extent Ingria and Estonia was on the top list. And as you say, if Sweden gets Karelia, Kola follows by itself (if not the Danes takes it).


wouldn't a Danish Kola and Swedish Karelia be a little... unwieldy?
 

Oddball

Monthly Donor
wouldn't a Danish Kola and Swedish Karelia be a little... unwieldy?

Not more than northern parts of Norway.

Access to Kola back then was easier with boat from north than overland from south.

Denmark had an outpost in Vardø, Finnmark, Norway that represented their interrests in the nort,

So no problem with Danish Kola and a Swedish Karelia :)
 

Oddball

Monthly Donor
But with Kola, they controlled the entire trade route of western trade with Russia, far better then a city:p

Nope, you dont controll the trade one Archangel with posession of Kola. Kola back then had no cities and was just populated by Sami nomads.

Posession of the Norwegian coast OTOH grants you atleast some leverage.
 
Top