Scandinavian Siberia

I know this seems very unlikely due to the nordics not having that much need to expand as the russians did, but anyway. With any PoD after the Viking Age, how could, and what would be like, if a nordic country (let's say Sweden for example, after conquering Finland and asserting dominance over Novgorod etc) tried to launch a "conquest of the steppes", similarly to Russia? Could they succeed as much?

Also, it would be nice if it could be a "traditional scandinavian" country, so no Rus pretending to be norse instead of romans.
 
Have the Scandinavians take over the White sea area from Norvograd (or maybe even earlier) instead of Muscovy doing so, and let them move along the Arctic coast, and down along the Ob, Yenisei and/or Lena River systems ... probably in an attempt to find the source of the eastern trade with silk and spice
 
Last edited:

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
I know this seems very unlikely due to the nordics not having that much need to expand as the russians did, but anyway. With any PoD after the Viking Age, how could, and what would be like, if a nordic country (let's say Sweden for example, after conquering Finland and asserting dominance over Novgorod etc) tried to launch a "conquest of the steppes", similarly to Russia? Could they succeed as much?
Please make up your mind - either the steppe belt or Siberia. Or is it both?
 
Please make up your mind - either the steppe belt or Siberia. Or is it both?

It can be both. Not sure how feasible would it be to go as down as Kazakhstan, but then again, but then again, if they got the work to go over the Urals, why not? But the main point is getting to the Pacific.
 
Where do you think would the border between Novgorod-Sweden and Muscovy go?

Maybe around St. Petersburg and Karelia? I don't think it's particularly hard to make those lands "proper nordic" on the long term in a PoD before the Northern War. But even if the russian states remain weak, i'm concerned about how weird would it be for the swedes to have to go around Chud and other wastelands and only then head east.

Maybe that could go better in a TL were the proto-russians are basically subjected to Poland and Sweden, and then the ethnic swedes end up colonizing the east, even if eventually the russians got their independence back?
 
Maybe around St. Petersburg and Karelia? I don't think it's particularly hard to make those lands "proper nordic" on the long term in a PoD before the Northern War. But even if the russian states remain weak, i'm concerned about how weird would it be for the swedes to have to go around Chud and other wastelands and only then head east.

Maybe that could go better in a TL were the proto-russians are basically subjected to Poland and Sweden, and then the ethnic swedes end up colonizing the east, even if eventually the russians got their independence back?

I think a earlier POD would be better. Let's say that Christian II doesn't decide to reduce the number of Swedish noblemen and as such we doesn't see the Vasa rebellion. Christian II decides to go Protestant and the increase in Royal land and the bribes to local noble ensure the stability the rest of his reign. When he finally die, the union have been united and at peace for 40years and his son take over. He decide to push into Livonia this keep the Swedes happy and they don't rebel. This united Nordic state have the population to go against Russia and deliver the colonist to go to Siberia.
 
I think a earlier POD would be better. Let's say that Christian II doesn't decide to reduce the number of Swedish noblemen and as such we doesn't see the Vasa rebellion. Christian II decides to go Protestant and the increase in Royal land and the bribes to local noble ensure the stability the rest of his reign. When he finally die, the union have been united and at peace for 40years and his son take over. He decide to push into Livonia this keep the Swedes happy and they don't rebel. This united Nordic state have the population to go against Russia and deliver the colonist to go to Siberia.

... but WHY would colonists pack up to go to Siberia? For the Russians, it was natural expansion into the neighboring valley in a slow steady pace, alongside expansion led by Cossaks following their nomadic way of life and chasing sable furs. The Swedes have no such motive
 
... but WHY would colonists pack up to go to Siberia? For the Russians, it was natural expansion into the neighboring valley in a slow steady pace, alongside expansion led by Cossaks following their nomadic way of life and chasing sable furs. The Swedes have no such motive

The Urals are rich in mineral wealth. If the Norse can get entrenched along the arctic coast of Russia, might the combined draw of furs and gold attract settlement?
 
The Urals are rich in mineral wealth. If the Norse can get entrenched along the arctic coast of Russia, might the combined draw of furs and gold attract settlement?

Both of those are "Gold Rush" commodities that aren't going to produce the kind of permanent settlement that would allow for long-term power projection into the steppes. Scandinavia itself has more than enough domestic copper and iron to make colonial sources of those base metals to be profitable, particularly if they have to pay tundra prices for shipping, laying down of infastructure, importation of food, ect., which might provide for a more long-term economic basis, while I don't think I need to explain why agriculture is unlikely to take root. Furthermore, Scandinavia itself has a much smaller population basis meaning the pressure on labor in the homeland is going to be less, decreasing the drive to take the risk of pursuing economic oppritunities in a strange, uncomfortable edge of the world.
 
Controlling the copper sources of the Urals would give Sweden a near monopoly on European copper for many years. Not particularly plausible to get that far into the Urals, though.
 
Maybe around St. Petersburg and Karelia? I don't think it's particularly hard to make those lands "proper nordic" on the long term in a PoD before the Northern War. But even if the russian states remain weak, i'm concerned about how weird would it be for the swedes to have to go around Chud and other wastelands and only then head east.
Um, that would leave Novgorod on the other side.
 
Russia both had a massive population, and eastward expansion was its natural direction of conquest for the long time landlocked Russia. Neither of those is the case for Scandinavia. It also doesn't help that unless the White Sea area and the areas east of the White Sea before Novgorod, so the 11th-12th century, Nordic expansion east directly requires Novgorod to be reduced. That is not an easy task. Moscow was lucky in that Novgorod was reliant on grain from Vladimir, so inevitably became dependent when Moscow expanded to that area. Sweden warred with Novogord a lot, and while certainly had the upper hand at time never truly beat Novgorod. A decisive enough defeat would either require an incredible military leader focusing entirely on Novgorod, and not Denmark/Norway/Livonia/northern Germany, or a case of Scandinavia uniting somehow. However even then there'd have to be some reason for this United Scandinavia to turn east instead of the places I just outlined. Then unless they really improved their agriculture to support a greater populace or avoided the Black Death, it still wouldn't be able to actually settle the vast amount of land to the east. They'd only be establishing trade outposts and vassalizing the natives. It also doesn't help that unless somehow this all occurs before Kievan Rus' conversion to Orthodox Christianity, Catholic/Lutheran Scandinavia holding Novgorod would all but guarantee Moscow, which came to view itself as the successor to Constantinople as the head of Eastern Orthodoxy and so would be compelled at some point to 'liberate' Novgorod.

To not only hold Novgorod but beat Moscow (or an alt-Russian kingdom) to Siberia is just unlikely. It's more than its simply hard. It simply wasn't a series of events that any of the Scandinavian kingdoms would pursue. Sweden at best looked to East Karelia, but otherwise focused on Estonia, Livonia, and Denmark-Norway. Denmark-Norway focused on Sweden, Holstein, Estonia. Both were pursuing dominance of the Baltic. If somehow one achieved that, they'd probably then focus on the North Sea. Geographically, all were focused on maintaining sea power. With Siberia not being the most accessible by water, Scandinavia getting involved in such a land venture makes little to no sense. It might be possible for Scandinavia to 'skip' Novgorod by water and simply go as far east as possible on water till the Arctic freezes and start from there, but their hold would never survive when the Russians expand into the area with actual force.

A scenario that might work is Scandinavia converting to Eastern Orthodoxy instead of Catholicism. If it was more connected and friendlier with Kievan Rus early in its history, it would be reasonably possible for it to fill the gap when the Mongols come and wreck the Rus. They could then follow Lithuania's example. Novgorod allies with Scandinavia against the Golden Horde, and over the centuries pushes the Golden Horde out of Rus. It also out-competes Lithuania, which had a goal of taking over as much Ruthenian land as possible till Moscow rose to oppose it. So a Scandinavian-aligned Novgorod united the Rus, and expands east.

Really, that would be more altering the Nordic identity than anything so it aligns more firmly with the Rus.
 
Scandinavians were actually expanding heavily into what later became Russia during the Viking age. You need something that at least halts the Slavic expansion. Then Russia never develops and further Norse expansin eastwars simply follows the trajectory.
 
So how would 14th...15th century conflicts between Moscow and Novgorod pan out if Novgorod can call up Sweden for assistance?
A lot of Orthodox Russians accepted heathen Lithuanians as overlords. So how about Novgorod accepting Sweden?
 
So how would 14th...15th century conflicts between Moscow and Novgorod pan out if Novgorod can call up Sweden for assistance?
A lot of Orthodox Russians accepted heathen Lithuanians as overlords. So how about Novgorod accepting Sweden?
The main problem here is that Novgorod has historically clashed with Sweden quite a bit in Finland/Karelia. They are a long time historical enemy and competitor of Novgorod. You'd need to tweak quite a few things to allow an alliance to come to pass. Plus, economics would play a part. Novgorod was naturally heavily dependent on east-west trade, and the Hanseatic League was the main middleman of this time. The Hanseatic League didn't want territorial states gaining too much control on such critical trade areas, and so would in its own way do its best to prevent such a thing (Sweden's growth as a power was one of the reasons the Hanseatic League weakened OTL).

Novgorod did attempt in the end to ally with Lithuania to avoid being taken over by Moscow, which ironically enough ended up being the justification Ivan III needed for the conquest as Lithuania was Catholic by that point and Ivan acted in the name of Orthodoxy.
 
The main problem here is that Novgorod has historically clashed with Sweden quite a bit in Finland/Karelia. They are a long time historical enemy and competitor of Novgorod. You'd need to tweak quite a few things to allow an alliance to come to pass. Plus, economics would play a part. Novgorod was naturally heavily dependent on east-west trade, and the Hanseatic League was the main middleman of this time. The Hanseatic League didn't want territorial states gaining too much control on such critical trade areas, and so would in its own way do its best to prevent such a thing (Sweden's growth as a power was one of the reasons the Hanseatic League weakened OTL).
How would an alliance of Sweden and Novgorod against Hanseatic League work? Do Sweden and Novgorod have any common interests here?
 
How would an alliance of Sweden and Novgorod against Hanseatic League work? Do Sweden and Novgorod have any common interests here?
Rather unlikely. The Hanseatic League had a kontor is Novgorod, and was very prominent as middlemen in trading the goods of Novgorod to north Germany and even further past Denmark. Novgorod survived on trade, so it was a natural cooperation since I don't think Novgorod ever really had a particularly strong Baltic navy or trade fleet by this point. Sweden by contrast is a kingdom that can pose a threat to the Novgorod Republic. The Hanseatic League just wants trading privileges. The Hanseatic League grew and became so powerful during this time of expanding trade because its policy of collective security and bargaining power allowed trade to flourish and the princes and kings weren't too strong at the time. The Hanseatic League declined when those rulers grew stronger, and finally had the power to not allow merchants to demand trade and political privileges from them, rich cities in their territories to be all but autonomous, and national navies and armies surpassed the forces the rich Hanseatic cities could field. In many ways, Novgorod's fall to Moscow could be viewed relatively similarly to the Hanseatic League's decline. Just earlier. The trade republics/city-states falling under the influence of centralizing and growing countries.

So a Hanseatic-Novgorod alliance seems more likely. Unless you do an early POD and really change stuff in the 12th century.

Having Sweden get lucky in a war against Novgorod or have an incredible military leader would be more probably, Sweden just outright conquering Novgorod.
 
Top