Kalmar

If the Kalmar Union survived longer would it be possible for there to be only one Scandinavian Country, if so what would it be like?
 
very much depends on why Kalmar survive ... could be as simple as the HRE Emperor following a war signed off the North Germanic duchies that the Danish king was claiming (Elbe to Hamburg and from there northeast to Lübeck), which would negate the Danish 'want' for warring there, which in turn would stop the Swedish merchants (and in length the swedish nobility) being annoyed since it interfered with their ability to trade their iron deposits in that direction ... which would make for a ton less bickering and disagreement between the two parties
 
very much depends on why Kalmar survive ... could be as simple as the HRE Emperor following a war signed off the North Germanic duchies that the Danish king was claiming (Elbe to Hamburg and from there northeast to Lübeck), which would negate the Danish 'want' for warring there, which in turn would stop the Swedish merchants (and in length the swedish nobility) being annoyed since it interfered with their ability to trade their iron deposits in that direction ... which would make for a ton less bickering and disagreement between the two parties
Emperor Sigismund actually supported the Danish claim to Schleswig. He just had approximately no influence in the region.
 
Even if that somehow happens though, there's still the fact that the Swedes don't particularly like being ruled by a Danish king - and that the king of the three crowns is "Danish" is a major sticking point despite by blood and language being neutral (German).
 
Would a Swedo-Dane King be supported by both countries? Marrying the daughter of the biggest Swedish family to the King and waiting for the son?
 
Even if that somehow happens though, there's still the fact that the Swedes don't particularly like being ruled by a Danish king - and that the king of the three crowns is "Danish" is a major sticking point despite by blood and language being neutral (German).

Didn't say that it was a way to fix it all, but it would certainly be able to carry it a long way, prehaps making them more likely to accept sitting down and untangle their (now relatively minor) disagreements
 
Didn't say that it was a way to fix it all, but it would certainly be able to carry it a long way, prehaps making them more likely to accept sitting down and untangle their (now relatively minor) disagreements


The Sound Due, and the issue of the Swedish peasants not wanting to be serfs, or the Swedish nobles not particularly liking Danish rule are not minor issues.

Personal unions are a lot more fragile - and unpopular - than AH treats them as. Look at how much trouble the Habsburgs had at collecting taxes in one part of their lands to pay for wars and interests in other parts - and that's with most of those not having been rival kingdoms before hand the way Sweden, Denmark and Norway are.


There's just not a lot of Swedish interest in this being "worked out" so as to make it last - what's in it for them? What economic incentive is there to regard the Union as beneficial? What political reason? What security reason? It was stroke of fortune by a given dynasty that all three crowns had one heir - no more than that.
 

katchen

Banned
Yes, and as we saw when Eric attempted to reconstitute the Union of Kalmar under the House of Vasa, the Norwegians were not too keen on being ruled by the Swedes either. Which raises an interesting TL question.
Has anyone done a TL in which Norway breaks free of Denmark at about the same time Sweden does in the 1520s?
That would make an interesting TL. Denmark ruled Norway very oppressively OTL, preventing other nations from trading with Norway and keeping Norway stagnant. An independent Norway during the Early Modern Period might have had a very interesting history. Might have developed some colonies, too.
 

ingemann

Banned
The Sound Due, and the issue of the Swedish peasants not wanting to be serfs, or the Swedish nobles not particularly liking Danish rule are not minor issues.

I'm sorry the bolded part is a bunch of complete historical revisionism, beside that Denmark neither having anything which looked like serfhood at the time, we also suffer from the problem that the Danes neither attemped to limit Swedish peasants right, and the king they rebelled against in fact supported the strengthing of the peasant estate (Stände), seeing as the last peasant uprising in Denmark was to support his continued rule, of course it failed and the peasant estate was left outside influence, but this happened after the Swedish revolt and the peasantry still stayed free, just without influence in the estates.

Second even a superficial knowledge about the Denmark-Norway show how incredible ridiculous the 19th century Swedish claim that this was the reason for the collapse of the union are. In the Danish-Norwegian union, we see three distinct areas with different treatment of the peasantry, we have Holstein which have peasantry which are serf, we have Denmark proper which are dominated by renters, but have a significant miniority of land owning peasants (mostly in Halland, West Jutland and later Bornholm), we have Norway which was completely dominated by land owning peasantry. the between these three area seem based on the fact, that Holstein followed Saxon law, while Denmark followed traditional Scandinavian law, which left the peasantry as free men. The split between Denmark and Norway in land ownership, was simply a result of where economy of scale counted, in Denmark proper the clay and calcium rich soil, resulted in large estates being more effecient, while the acidic and rocky soil of Norway, meant that small far was more effiecient. Guess what category Sweden lies, yes they have rocky acidic soil, and for that reason alone, there would never have been a attempt to reduce them to serfs, or what else Swedish 19th century nationalists rambled about.

As for the Sound Tax, the Swedes kept paying it until 1857, while Danish citizens didn't pay it, so I guess it was a real good reason to rebel.

The last reason, that the right one, the Swedish didn't like to be the junior member in the Kalmar Union, they felt they should be no. 1 (which was why Norway prefered Copenhagen to Stockholm).

There's just not a lot of Swedish interest in this being "worked out" so as to make it last - what's in it for them? What economic incentive is there to regard the Union as beneficial? What political reason? What security reason? It was stroke of fortune by a given dynasty that all three crowns had one heir - no more than that.

Honestly if the union had lasted a two decade more, religion would have given the reason, as Catholism would have been the external threat, plus the union would have turned toward eastern conflict in the 16th century, as Denmark had more or less pushed their claim in Germany as much as they could.
 

ingemann

Banned
So here my suggestion to how the Un ion would work. Christian II doesn't massacre most of the Swedish nobility, which give him a few decades of calm.

He see that he either have to either embrace Lutheranism or risk it being the cause of his fall. So he convert and make it the state religion in the Kalmar Union. All Church property is confiscated, but he share it with the nobility both in Denmark and Sweden, against his son Hans (II) being crowned co-king and the crown being made heritable by his descendents in Denmark and Sweden (it already is in Norway). he still can't raise taxes without the premission of the estates. The only income he is free to raise is from the Sound Dues or through the royal estates.

The rest of the reign of Christian II is relative peaceful, ecept some non violent conflict with and between his cousins in Schleswig-Holstein (it end with OTL with the duchy being reduced to have two dukes, OTL Christian III as duke of Gottorp and Christian II as Duke of the Oldenburgian possession, while OTL Adolph of Gottorp and Hans the Elder instead gaining bishoprics in North Germany). After the death of Christian II, the new king Hans II decides to prove the strength of the union by gaining control over the Livonian Knights. It's the start of the three way Livonian War between Russia, Denmark-Sweden and the Commonwealth. it end with Denmark gaining Estonia, Ösel and Wiek, while Poland gain Courland as a vassal and annex Livonia.

It's the start of several Scandinavian-Polish Wars, which Poland mostly win in the 16th century. By 1600 the Russian time of trouble begin and Denmark-Sweden use the opportunity to annex Ingria and Bjarmland, to the anger of especially England as it give the Scandinavians control over the Russian export. As it benefit both Danes and Swedes it slowly help making the union closer.

it should be said that Denmark-Sweden have not made the Swedish military reforms, it have one of the strongest navies in Europe, but military it's still based mostly on mercenaries and a small militia mostly raised among peasant on crown land in Denmark. But as Denmark-Sweden have some success and is the leading Lutheran power, the mercenaries have a high quality.

When the Bohemian War hit, here Denmark-Sweden stay out, as they instead fight in Poland. DS end up with Livonia and Royal Prussia, while Courland and ducal Prussia change fealthy from Warsaw to Copenhagen, the change are mostly caused by the Polish nobility not finding the conflict worth the blockage of their export. in Germany Palatinate end up under Bavaria and Bohemia stay under the Habsburg, and Germany end up avoiding the 30YW.

Of course both the conflict in PL and the HRE have shown the necessarity of a army reform. Denmark-Sweden set up a primitive conscript system which mostly hit land owners, this hit the Finns, Geots and Norwegian especially hard, as the Danish-Swedish nobility mostly supply officer, while they are forced to supply infantry. At the same time Danish crown domain supply cavalry.

While not even close to as efficient as OTL Swedish army, it make up for it in higher quantity, and it show how powerful it is in the Deluge, Where Denmark-Sweden end up conquering a lot of border areas (Samogitia, Greater Poland and northern Mazovia), Russia regain the pre-Time of Trouble border and a Calvinist king is placed on the Polish throne and Calvinism are made Polish state religion.

So by 1660 Sweden-Norway is clearly one of the great powers of Europe.
 
I'm sorry the bolded part is a bunch of complete historical revisionism, beside that Denmark neither having anything which looked like serfhood at the time, we also suffer from the problem that the Danes neither attemped to limit Swedish peasants right, and the king they rebelled against in fact supported the strengthing of the peasant estate (Stände), seeing as the last peasant uprising in Denmark was to support his continued rule, of course it failed and the peasant estate was left outside influence, but this happened after the Swedish revolt and the peasantry still stayed free, just without influence in the estates.

I'm going to leave Von Alder to address that, because my comment there is based on previous posts of his.

Honestly if the union had lasted a two decade more, religion would have given the reason, as Catholism would have been the external threat, plus the union would have turned toward eastern conflict in the 16th century, as Denmark had more or less pushed their claim in Germany as much as they could.

I am not sure that it would have. Would the Swedes been as Protestant as OTL in this situation?

I'm not familiar with what made that happen OTL, thus asking.
 
I'm sorry the bolded part is a bunch of complete historical revisionism, beside that Denmark neither having anything which looked like serfhood at the time, we also suffer from the problem that the Danes neither attemped to limit Swedish peasants right, and the king they rebelled against in fact supported the strengthing of the peasant estate (Stände), seeing as the last peasant uprising in Denmark was to support his continued rule, of course it failed and the peasant estate was left outside influence, but this happened after the Swedish revolt and the peasantry still stayed free, just without influence in the estates.

Second even a superficial knowledge about the Denmark-Norway show how incredible ridiculous the 19th century Swedish claim that this was the reason for the collapse of the union are. In the Danish-Norwegian union, we see three distinct areas with different treatment of the peasantry, we have Holstein which have peasantry which are serf, we have Denmark proper which are dominated by renters, but have a significant miniority of land owning peasants (mostly in Halland, West Jutland and later Bornholm), we have Norway which was completely dominated by land owning peasantry. the between these three area seem based on the fact, that Holstein followed Saxon law, while Denmark followed traditional Scandinavian law, which left the peasantry as free men. The split between Denmark and Norway in land ownership, was simply a result of where economy of scale counted, in Denmark proper the clay and calcium rich soil, resulted in large estates being more effecient, while the acidic and rocky soil of Norway, meant that small far was more effiecient. Guess what category Sweden lies, yes they have rocky acidic soil, and for that reason alone, there would never have been a attempt to reduce them to serfs, or what else Swedish 19th century nationalists rambled about.

As for the Sound Tax, the Swedes kept paying it until 1857, while Danish citizens didn't pay it, so I guess it was a real good reason to rebel.

The last reason, that the right one, the Swedish didn't like to be the junior member in the Kalmar Union, they felt they should be no. 1 (which was why Norway prefered Copenhagen to Stockholm).



Honestly if the union had lasted a two decade more, religion would have given the reason, as Catholism would have been the external threat, plus the union would have turned toward eastern conflict in the 16th century, as Denmark had more or less pushed their claim in Germany as much as they could.

So Vornedskab was an invention of Swedish revisionism? Interesting
The practice of Union Kings to appoint Danes and Germans as Vogts in Sweden made them few friends as well.
Religon, well there was no burning desire among the broad populace for reformation in Sweden AFAIK but it was rather implemented from above to pay for the debts amassed during the liberation war and led to a number of revolts when the King started to be to greedy in the eyes of the populace (Klockupproret, Dackefejden, Västgöta herrarnas uppror).
Army reformation? Well that depends on the need of the state to save money, does the Kalmar Union need to reform or is the Union financially strong enough to continue the practice of hiring mercenaries when needed (a reform will probably come later like in the rest of Europe)?
 

ingemann

Banned
So Vornedskab was an invention of Swedish revisionism? Interesting

Vornedskab was a limited regional institution for Zealand, Falster and Lolland, and when it became possible to buy oneself free of it under Christian IV, there was 12 peasants who used the oppotunity, at the same time there was massive immigration to these three isles from Jutland and Scania (where Vornedskab didn't exist), whenever plagues opened up free farms on these isles. So yes to suggest that it was the fear of this rather limited institution, which the Danish crown was very hostile to, which caused the rebellion are pure historical revisionism by Swedish historians.

The practice of Union Kings to appoint Danes and Germans as Vogts in Sweden made them few friends as well.

Yes as the Danish king did in Denmark too, where Germans and Swedes was made administrator of the royal estates. It was how you ran a kingdom. It's post independence claim, yes the Swedes was likely against it before 1522, but it was not what caused the continued Swedish rebellions.

Religon, well there was no burning desire among the broad populace for reformation in Sweden AFAIK but it was rather implemented from above to pay for the debts amassed during the liberation war and led to a number of revolts when the King started to be to greedy in the eyes of the populace (Klockupproret, Dackefejden, Västgöta herrarnas uppror).

I see no reason for that to change, the conversion to Lutheranism are a easy way to get money to pay debt and bribe the estates.

Army reformation? Well that depends on the need of the state to save money, does the Kalmar Union need to reform or is the Union financially strong enough to continue the practice of hiring mercenaries when needed (a reform will probably come later like in the rest of Europe)?

The Scandinavian state will not push as early as Sweden did in OTL, but already in 1610s you see in OTL the Danish state begin the move toward a army based on conscription, with Scandinavian-Polish Wars I think the Danish-Swedish state will see a need for earlier reforms than Denmark in OTL, simply because so many small wars will begin to hurt the royal coffins, so there will be a need for cheaper soldiers.
 

ingemann

Banned
I'm going to leave Von Alder to address that, because my comment there is based on previous posts of his.

I am not sure that it would have. Would the Swedes been as Protestant as OTL in this situation?

I'm not familiar with what made that happen OTL, thus asking.

Protestantism was popular among the burgers in Denmark and Sweden, the rural population didn't care one way or another, only in Norway did you see a strong Catholic movement.
 
Top