Swedish Trondheim

Valdemar II · Jan 20, 2008

I got an idea from Knight Templars glorious map.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?p=1453040#post1453040

What if Trondheim stayed Swedish after 1660. It could mean that Sweden owned Norway north of Röros even today.

Shadow Knight · Jan 20, 2008

What was the population of Norwegians that far north?

Fabilius · Jan 20, 2008

Shadow Knight said:
What was the population of Norwegians that far north?

Very low I'd expect, and probably a lot of it Samish.

Valdemar II · Jan 20, 2008

Shadow Knight said:
What was the population of Norwegians that far north?

Very small even today I would be surprised if more than a half million lived there.

Valdemar II · Jan 20, 2008

Valdemar II said:
Very small even today I would be surprised if more than a half million lived there.

I was wrong it is home to around 600000 people,

Shadow Knight · Jan 20, 2008

Valdemar II said:
I was wrong it is home to around 600000 people,

Well then I'd say if Sweden really wanted to keep the area they probably could but it would likely be a hot region for quite a bit.

Valdemar II · Jan 20, 2008

Shadow Knight said:
Well then I'd say if Sweden really wanted to keep the area they probably could but it would likely be a hot region for quite a bit.

It did rebel in OTL. But Swedes was excellent at ethnic cleansing, colonization and random terror to crush the loyalist base, Scania is a beautifull examble of that.

Oddball · Jan 21, 2008

Valdemar II said:
It did rebel in OTL. But Swedes was excellent at ethnic cleansing, colonization and random terror to crush the loyalist base, Scania is a beautifull examble of that.

In the area close to Trondheim, the Swedes could probably copy Scania if they realy wanted.

But further north the access from Sweden was realy limited back then. You realy had to controll the sea, and the Danes/Norwegians had the upper hand there.

Lord Insane · Jan 21, 2008

Valdemar II said:
It did rebel in OTL. But Swedes was excellent at ethnic cleansing, colonization and random terror to crush the loyalist base, Scania is a beautifull examble of that.

Scanialand, yes, Scania, not as much as the Danes wants to say. Or rather, the Danes helped them in keeping Scania loyal by doing a burned ground strategy after the war was lost and over. That's one of the reason why Scania still speaks something relatively similar to East Danish, while the rest of Swedish Scanialand doesn't.

Oddball · Jan 21, 2008

LordInsane said:
Scanialand, yes, Scania, not as much as the Danes wants to say. Or rather, the Danes helped them in keeping Scania loyal by doing a burned ground strategy after the war was lost and over. That's one of the reason why Scania still speaks something relatively similar to East Danish, while the rest of Swedish Scanialand doesn't.

Oh, just you wait until Redbeard comes around

We have had this discussion previousley...

corourke · Jan 21, 2008

Shadow Knight said:
Well then I'd say if Sweden really wanted to keep the area they probably could but it would likely be a hot region for quite a bit.

I am pretty sure that he means there are 600000 people living there today. In those days I bet it wasn't more than 100000 and probably quite a bit less.

Does anyone know the circumstances of Sweden's control over this territory? Did they conquer it in a war or what?

Valdemar II · Jan 21, 2008

corourke said:
I am pretty sure that he means there are 600000 people living there today. In those days I bet it wasn't more than 100000 and probably quite a bit less.

Does anyone know the circumstances of Sweden's control over this territory? Did they conquer it in a war or what?

Yes correct 600 000 today in the entire norway north of Röros (400 000 of them in the area Sweden controlled in 1658-60).

And yes they got the area in 1658 together with Scania, Blekinge and Bohus.

Oddball · Jan 21, 2008

corourke said:
I am pretty sure that he means there are 600000 people living there today. In those days I bet it wasn't more than 100000 and probably quite a bit less.

Does anyone know the circumstances of Sweden's control over this territory? Did they conquer it in a war or what?

The part around Trondheim they partly conquered and partly recived as a part of a peace treaty.

The area further north they never had neither de facto nor de jure.

Valdemar II · Jan 21, 2008

Oddball said:
The part around Trondheim they partly conquered and partly recived as a part of a peace treaty.

The area further north they never had neither de facto nor de jure.

Would that area stay Danish or Norvegian if Sweden owned Trondheim?

Oddball · Jan 21, 2008

It would stay Norwegian for the time beeing.

But if Sweden manages to keep Trondheim, and make a naval presence in the Atlantic, I would presume that the north will become Swedish also in time.

arctic warrior · Jan 23, 2008

Oddball said:
It would stay Norwegian for the time beeing.

But if Sweden manages to keep Trondheim, and make a naval presence in the Atlantic, I would presume that the north will become Swedish also in time.

And that would be the cause for many a war to come between Denmark-Norway and Sweden for the possession of Trondhiem and naval supremacy in the area...

corourke · Jan 23, 2008

How possible is travel between Sweden proper and Trondheim at this time? Does it have to be by sea, or is there a land route?

Assuming Sweden retains Trondheim, can it be used as a way to project sea power, or is it essentially an overseas possession in and of itself? (Sorta like the Russian far east before the trans-Siberian railway, this is an imperfect analogy).

I understand its utility as a seaport/stopover, but can it really be used to functionally connect Sweden to the Atlantic in this time period? Assume the straits are impassable at the moment, can Trondheim be used to supply Sweden?

Oddball · Jan 23, 2008

There was (and is

) a land route. Not as bad as your Russian excample, but surley no modern highway either.

But Trondheim could be supplied from Sweden overland. And yes, it would make a good place to project naval power from.

I fail to see why Sweden would need to be supplied from Trondheim tough...

IMHO that would be rather difficult anyway

corourke · Jan 23, 2008

Oddball said:
But Trondheim could be supplied from Sweden overland. And yes, it would make a good place to project naval power from.

I fail to see why Sweden would need to be supplied from Trondheim tough... IMHO that would be rather difficult anyway

I guess what I'm curious about is if it could be realistically be used to project naval power in times of war, for instance, is it well connected enough to the rest of Sweden to be a place where ships are built (even in times of war where it is impossible to transport goods there by ship), instead of simply resupplied?

If it's essentially an island, it would be of limited use to Sweden, but if it could be used as an Atlantic base, it would be very valuable.

arctic warrior · Jan 23, 2008

corourke said:
I guess what I'm curious about is if it could be realistically be used to project naval power in times of war, for instance, is it well connected enough to the rest of Sweden to be a place where ships are built (even in times of war where it is impossible to transport goods there by ship), instead of simply resupplied?

If it's essentially an island, it would be of limited use to Sweden, but if it could be used as an Atlantic base, it would be very valuable.

In any war between Denmark-Norway and Sweden it would be a valuable base to Sweden provided they'd be able to base warships there - and they'd probably be in times of peace... That would require some Danish-Norwegian naval resources to be earmarked for that area and the major role of the army of Norway would be to retake the area.

Resupply in times of war might be possible if the blockade isn't total.