Kalmar Union survived until today

The Kalmar Union between Denmark, Sweden and Norway lasted from 1397 to 1523, at which time Sweden broke out of the union. Later there were several wars between Sweden and Denmark-Norway, until finally after the Napoleonic wars Sweden got control over Norway. The union between Sweden and Norway lasted until 1905. Could the Kalmar Union possibly have survived until modern day, which would have implied a united Scandinavian state, or would the conflict between Sweden and Denmark have made this impossible or at least unlikely?
 
The Kalmar Union between Denmark, Sweden and Norway lasted from 1397 to 1523, at which time Sweden broke out of the union. Later there were several wars between Sweden and Denmark-Norway, until finally after the Napoleonic wars Sweden got control over Norway. The union between Sweden and Norway lasted until 1905. Could the Kalmar Union possibly have survived until modern day, which would have implied a united Scandinavian state, or would the conflict between Sweden and Denmark have made this impossible or at least unlikely?

Well the problem is Denmark, or more specifically how Denmark tried to govern Sweden. Remember that Denmark, Sweden and Norway were all independent (will nominally for Norway over the next few centuries) in personal union, and the shared King happened to live in Copenhagen. The Danish tended to forget that and acted as though Sweden was a direct part of their kingdom. Get the King and his advisers to treat Sweden better and the union might have a chance. Of course, on the other hand, the Swedish nobility hated being ruled by a foreign monarch, so there is a chance that they would rebel either way.
 
Sweden succeeds conquering Norway, possibly also Denmark

Another possibility is that the Kalmar Union does not last, but that Sweden sometimes in the 1600s succeeds in conquering Norway, possibly also Denmark. If it had conquered Norway at this time, and not as late as 1814, the bonds between Norway and Sweden would most likely have been stronger, probably stronger than the bonds between Norway and Denmark were in OTL because of the long border between Norway and Sweden. I would think that the two countries would have been more integrated than Norway and Denmark. In fact, the geograhic barriers between Eastern Norway and Western Norway are larger than those between Eastern Norway and Western Sweden because of the mountains in Norway. Even if Sweden had not been able to take control of Denmark, maybe the Scandinavist forces in the 1800s would have been stronger, making a Scandinavian state more likely.
 
Well the problem is Denmark, or more specifically how Denmark tried to govern Sweden. Remember that Denmark, Sweden and Norway were all independent (will nominally for Norway over the next few centuries) in personal union, and the shared King happened to live in Copenhagen. The Danish tended to forget that and acted as though Sweden was a direct part of their kingdom. Get the King and his advisers to treat Sweden better and the union might have a chance. Of course, on the other hand, the Swedish nobility hated being ruled by a foreign monarch, so there is a chance that they would rebel either way.

Would it be plausible for Danish Kings to adopt a policy of giving important nobles territories in all three kingdoms, and maybe encourage inter-marriage between them, in order to try and give them more of a vested interest in preserving the Union?
 
Problem was that the different nobilities (Mainly the Danish and Swedish as the Norwegian were largely eradicated by plagues) had very different views on how the king should act, specially in terms of relations with the North Germanic duchies north of Elbe and its tributary Havel

Danish Nobles (with the King in the lead) for the most part had all sorts of preceived and real claims on them and were itching to go to war for them, trying to recreate the Realm of Valdemar (II) the Conquerer. Swedish Nobles on the other hand was of a more mercantile bend and were looking at North Germany as a place to unload their Iron Ore and other trade goods, and a war between the king (which ruled them) and North Germany was bad for business, and neither Poland nor Norvograd was viable trading partners due to lack of interesting goods to trade for.

You'd need some way to sort this out, either by making the Danish less interested in conquering the area (point them towards Wadden Sea might work), succeding to conquer the area instead of near constant skirmishing and smallscale warring, and/or making the swedish either more willing to trade with other countries.

Knocking out the Swedish nobility with a plague just like the norwegian died from, might be a viable way as well, although i'm not certain the circumstances facilitating the death of the norwegian nobility and what could have been done to the swedish are similar enough for it to be viable
 
While butterflies must be galore after 1523 (and probably before) many other countries might be interested; in real history, most North Sea nations had something to say about it, the Hansa cared, and Russia/Poland did too. When the Swedes first rebelled only the Hansa had a serious chance to care (and even then it was in decline) but by 1650 there might just be an English or Dutch fleet sailing into the Sound to help the Swedes, or an Imperial army marching up through Jutland after a nasty Scandinavian loss in some conflict.

It might still work, same as Hungary and Bohemia were kept united with Austria despite rebellions, but rebellion seems a given unless the history is really out of whack - and given the value of the Baltic (especially in trade) this WILL involve others.
 
While butterflies must be galore after 1523 (and probably before) many other countries might be interested; in real history, most North Sea nations had something to say about it, the Hansa cared, and Russia/Poland did too. When the Swedes first rebelled only the Hansa had a serious chance to care (and even then it was in decline) but by 1650 there might just be an English or Dutch fleet sailing into the Sound to help the Swedes, or an Imperial army marching up through Jutland after a nasty Scandinavian loss in some conflict.

It might still work, same as Hungary and Bohemia were kept united with Austria despite rebellions, but rebellion seems a given unless the history is really out of whack - and given the value of the Baltic (especially in trade) this WILL involve others.

Would rebellions really be a given, though? AFAIK the Scandinavian languages are pretty similar IOTL, and if the Kalmar Union manages to become a "proper" (rather than personal) union and keep going till the present, the three peoples might well be considered one.
 
Would rebellions really be a given, though? AFAIK the Scandinavian languages are pretty similar IOTL, and if the Kalmar Union manages to become a "proper" (rather than personal) union and keep going till the present, the three peoples might well be considered one.

Well, they seem to have been a given historically in almost every personal union. Aragon, Portugal, Hungary, Scotland, Ireland and Bohemia all rebelled. Sweden rebelled plenty of times historically, too.

It may be avoidable, but it'll be tough.
 
Well, they seem to have been a given historically in almost every personal union. Aragon, Portugal, Hungary, Scotland, Ireland and Bohemia all rebelled. Sweden rebelled plenty of times historically, too.

It may be avoidable, but it'll be tough.

Maybe some kind of agreement can be reached a la the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
 
Top