Could the Kalmar Union partition the British Isles if they are allied with France or Spain? Conversely, if they are allied with the British, could the Scandinavians acquire a good slice of North America? For a different Reformation, could the Netherlands play a decisive role or would a different German state have to play a role at all?
The problems are the different interests of the three kingdoms. Take foreign policy. Norway is west oriented, the concern is to protect her Atlantic possessions. Denmark's main interest is to expand in North Germany, while Sweden's interest is to protect the eastern border, and possibly expand in that direction.
What I want to know is, how is the Kalmar Union going to be governed - there was talk about a different location for the capital, but if the king is still Denmark-centric, the Union still has that eating away at it.
I think that perhaps a Swedish dynasty claiming the throne after a major Danish defeat in Germany is possible, provided concessions are made for the Danes and the capital remains in Copenhagen. Allot of times personal unions seem to work out best when a weaker ruler inherits a strong state, like the Habsburgs(three times) or the Stuarts, so a Swedish noble house ruling over the stronger Denmark might actually be good for the union.
A significant problem with Scandinavia a-colonizin' - either as the Kalmar Union or any combination of two of the three kingdoms.
England is in the way.
Just as with the Dutch, the Scandinavians have to either sail around it or sail through the Channel, if facing a hostile England. Neither of which are very practical.
And while England = THE naval power is not a given, England certainly has a pretty good chance of being able to inconvenience the Scandinavians (the three kingdoms have a total population at best comparable to England).
This isn't insurmountable, but it is going to have to be addressed.
Norway is by far the smallest in the scandinavian threesome, and have allways been ... most of the wars in scandinavia have been between Denmark and Sweden for superiority in the region
Do not forget that Norway at the time included Iceland, Greenland, Orkney, the Isle of Man, the Færoes, Shetland and rather vast areas that today is part of Sweden.
Um...I suspect this is influenced by the power and size of England during its later history, not what it was at the time. To be brutally honest, being in Scandinavias way, is a far larger problem for England, Scandinavias old punching bag, than it is for Scandinavia.
That's hardly "many areas". That's a few scattered minor islands.Historically, conflict between England and a single Scandinavian nation always involved Scandinavian troops in England, and often with the very existence of England threatened. And this was not really old history at the time. Many areas that we today think of as part of the UK was Scandinavian at the time, the Shetlands, Orkneys, and the Isle of Man.
England does have naval supplies of its own, you know. And those island positions are barely significant enough to be worth snatching up.In any conflict, England will find itself in an very precarious position. Strategically, it is quite short of the materials to build a navy, which Scandinavia has in abundance. It is also surrounded on three sides, in the north and west by Scandinavian island posessions, and in the east by Scandinavia itself. Populationwise it may just barely manage to keep up with Scandinavia itself, but when we throw in the other Nordics and the Scandinavian parts of the British Isles, it may well fall behind.
No, unless we look at actual England with a larger population and a stronger, more developed economy, instead of of looking at the 9th and 10th centuries and comparing them to the 15th.In short, it is an near-ideal setup for Scandinavia to keep England from ever becoming a naval power. candinavia has the supplies, the bases, the geographic position, the secondary natural defenses and the maritime tradition. All things England at the time were sorely lacking in. For England to restrict Scandinavian naval development would be nearly impossible, unless England were allowed to start with overwhelming naval superiority and a maritime tradition.
"The Baltic trade" =/= "the wealth of Scandinavia", even if that's true.As far as economy goes, it is harder to find estimates, but I am highly dubious of England measuring up to the Baltic trade in any meaningful way at this point in its history.
Yeah, there's no incentive for England to invade the Scandinavian countries, so there's no comparison to be made on how well a 15th century English army would do in Denmark.England is short of natural defenses if it does not control the seas. There is a reason why the big question in fights between England and a Scandinavian country was whether England would be so badly beaten that it never got up again.
(Tactically, England seemed to be spending the time making enemies of its other neighbours, fighting Scotland and France, putting down rebellions in Wales. Of course a united Scandinavia is likely to have its own distractions in the east.)
Your thoughts appear to be based on the idea that England is still in the position it was five centuries earlier.For a Scandinavia which got its act together, England would be rather a low-hanging fruit for a few centuries, I think. To the old punching-bag of Scandinavia, almost being able to match the population and having nothing else going for it is...not good, in its geographic position. I think England would find its room to develop squeezed badly, possibly with breathing spaces when Scandinavia got heavily engaged with Russia.
Could England and Scandinavia have something to gain from being allies, rather than being enemies? Given the fact that England would have a big edge over the Scandinavian countries in pretty much everything, if they were to wage war against each other over a long period of time, eventually it will get a bit less interesting. A protracted war against England would actually accelerate the collapse of the Kalmar Union.
Besides the usual colonial trade benefits? If they can't ally with each other, then I guess the Kalmar Union was doomed to collapse since England will always be in the way of everything for Scandinavia. I mean, the lands around OTL Newfoundland could always remain under Scandinavian hands.
No, this is influenced by the fact that by the 15th century, England is larger and stronger than the Scandinavian countries.
That's hardly "many areas". That's a few scattered minor islands.
England does have naval supplies of its own, you know. And those island positions are barely significant enough to be worth snatching up.
On population,
England's population in 1400-ish: 2.1 million
Sweden: 500,000 as of the black plague, lost 200,000.
Denmark: About twice that if memory serves (I don't have information at my fingertips).
Norway: About the same as Sweden.
And "maritime tradition"? Yeah, let's just ignore all English commerce off the island (and a tradition from centuries ago isn't relevant to power now). Meanwhile, Scandinavia's natural defenses are irrelevant when it comes to dealing with England's naval presence (which will exist in any situation it becomes necessary) fighting off attempts at dominating the North Sea.
"The Baltic trade" =/= "the wealth of Scandinavia", even if that's true.
And given that two centuries after the Kalmar Union, 95% of Sweden's population (less than a million I note) is described as "self-sufficient peasants", that does not indicate much wealth.
Yeah, there's no incentive for England to invade the Scandinavian countries, so there's no comparison to be made on how well a 15th century English army would do in Denmark.
Comparing the 9th and 10th centuries to the 15th and beyond is misleading.
Your thoughts appear to be based on the idea that England is still in the position it was five centuries earlier.
I have a book on medieval Scandinavia around here in my mess somewhere with population figures (the ones above are from looking it up online and memory), but they're not favorable.
Could the Kalmar Union also survive without having to colonize at all? Say Scandinavia can import goods that they can't make but England can and in return, England can import goods that Scandinavia can create. I'm sure the fur trade could be the main focus here, as well as Scandinavian iron exports that are not meant for German imports.
The individual ones, yes, Unlike the 10th century, when Norway or Denmark individually was a lethal threat. The aggregate that no longer expends resources on intercine conflicts...not so much. And it retains its problem of positioning.
Well off by what standards?While it was no longer the Kingdom of Mann, the Isle of Man was actually quite well off. The other islands primary value is that they were excellent bases.
Quite enough. And no, they're not very useful, when your enemy doesn't need to do very much to take those islands.Not a lot, sad to say. Nothing like Scandinavia. And island positions are very, very useful in naval warfare. Especially if the nearly surround your enemy.
http://anthropology.tamu.edu/papers/Yoder-PhD2006.pdfRoughly 2 million total for Norway, Sweden and Denmark seem in line with the estimates I've read. Add in about 30 or 50 thousand for Iceland, and a bit for Finland, Man and other posessions. So yes, About even.
I think that the concept that England is a helpless target ignores the reality of the situation in 1400, and that England is as isolated as 1850 Japan is even less believable.I disagree. When the Kalmar Union started up in 1397, English naval tradition, commerce and power was...not comparable to the combined Scandinavian power. The depth of continous Danish and Norwegian maritime tradition at the time alone...As for the notion that English Naval power and tradition will spring into existence in any situation it is needed, I think that ignores the concept of AH.
Less than accurate to the point of "accuracy downright dubious".That is true enough. I was less than accurate I fear. Trade out the Øresund straits would be a big economic advantage, but Scandinavia had other sources of trade.
Not enough to justify this inflated vision of Scandinavia. Its not as if England was pacific in this period, but it didn't have such a feeble economy and underwhelming population.Do you know how many wars Sweden fought in those three centuries? How much it expended in conflict with Denmark?
It's bloody irrelevant when England doesn't need to invade Denmark (say). English troops did not have to occupy Paris to gain French colonies, for instance - picked as a historical rival.No incentive? Really? Its got a superior fleet in the Noth Sea, and the ability to strike against the posessor is not relevant?
Not even close. It isn't divided (even the Wars of the Roses barely merit the name), it has a a successful military tradition against stronger opponents than any of the Scandinavian countries. . . .Actually a lot of the same problems face England.
Not so limited as you think, nor are those islands "bases" that threaten England - they're more like convenient targets for England to snatch and Scandinavia to have little it can do about it.It is, in terms of geography. It hasn't moved to the tropics or anything.
And that position is, Scandinavian bases around it, limited materials for a navy. No natural defenses beyond the sea. That means that is is far easier for Scandinavia to invade England than the other way around. Always has been. It is easier for Scandinavia to build a navy. Easier to rebuild it.
England can land armies and move them. England can afford to lose battles and naval engagements.Scandinavia can land armies and move them. Scandinavia can afford to lose battles and naval engagements. Englant can't do either. That is a massive strategic superiority.
When I dig it up I'll quote it. Even if we're off by say 10-30%, we're not looking at totals that are anything better than around equal, and the trend is very much not favoring Scandinavia.I'd be grateful if I could have the title, I've found population figures very hard to hunt down and often highly varible myself. Had a long search for a TL once.
Island bases that your enemy can easily snatch are not the same as island bases you can use to threaten him.The facts are, though, island bases are important in naval warfare. And England does not autmatically develop a navy and maritime tradition whenever it is needed.
Maybe. Although I'm not sure if a "Swedish" ruler would necessarily be more in touch with Swedish feelings if all he shares is blood.
If he's treating the kingdom of Denmark's needs and wants as primary, it doesn't matter where he hails from - Eric (forget his original name) of Pommerania comes to mind.
Of course, one could claim "Eric was a bad king", but he was bad in a way that weakened the union's unity.