Emperor Sigismund actually supported the Danish claim to Schleswig. He just had approximately no influence in the region.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
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
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.
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.
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.
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'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)?
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.