United Scandinavia + colones?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

What effect would a united scandinavia by 1600 have on the colonial race?
 

Deleted member 1487

That is precisely why I asked the question about a UNITED Scandinavia. That would mean no destruction caused by fighting each other and the resources of the Swedish empire and the Danish empire. I was hoping that they would have a greater chance to take on the English and Dutch in the colonies, perhaps redirecting the emigrating populations to OTL Canada and Northeast America, which would have great effects down the line on a united northern Europe.
 
One would assume any extra land in OTL Norway and Finland would instead be begging to be filled up-and whatever population 'surplus' Sweden had would go there instead-why make colonies when you have natural, barely-filled lands to exploit in your own backyard?

Delaware would thus remain Dutch till New Netherland was captured by England anyways.
 

Deleted member 1487

Profit and leverage against other power. England only had about 4 million people at the time and a lot of land to fill, but they made sure to colonize America.
 
Here's my question about the prompt: we assume that together Denmark and Sweden could accomplish more, and perhaps for limited historical purposes this might be true considering the harm the dysfunctionality of their relationship did the Protestant side in the Thirty Years War. But at the same time might it also be possible that their competition had a productive effect: if there was one trans-scandinavian monarchy, would a state that held the straits also be as interested in establishing footholds in Ingermanland, Livonia, Prussia and Poland?

Also, in the end one kingdom means one dynasty (probably the House of Oldenburg). So to a certain extent it means shutting down the ingenuity and strengths of another dynasty with its own set of goals and grievances (probably the Vasas, and oh what goals and grievances they have!).

Maybe the better hypothetical would be for Sweden to focus on goals other than aggressive warfare against the neighbors. This would be great for the neighbors (because the Deluge wrecked Poland, triggering all sorts of horrible results on its own), great for Sweden (because the monarchy doesn't bankrupt itself fighting them) and interesting for the colonization process (probably the wars were competing for cash against the colonies, and winning).

Still another cool hypothetical would just be for Gustavus Adophus to get his son, leaving Christina free to be the oddball philosopher darling of Catholic Europe without reigning in Sweden (as best as I can tell, she wasn't very good handling the books, and that created a bit of a mess for Charles X).

Although if you persist in the idea of one Scandinavia under one crown, you could allow Charles X to live long enough to conquer Denmark, then use its wealth from the straits to both to right Sweden's finances and start colonial expansion.
 

Deleted member 1487

I am sorely tempted to write a TL about Christina being born a boy. I have research to do...
 
That is precisely why I asked the question about a UNITED Scandinavia. That would mean no destruction caused by fighting each other and the resources of the Swedish empire and the Danish empire. I was hoping that they would have a greater chance to take on the English and Dutch in the colonies, perhaps redirecting the emigrating populations to OTL Canada and Northeast America, which would have great effects down the line on a united northern Europe.

By the time established, England is pretty well onits way in Virginia and New England. The French are already on the St. Lawrence and in Acadia and New Netherland is already started as well.. that leaves the Delaware River or further south in the Carolinas. Depending on when your supposing this union to occur then perhaps you could have the Scandinavians on the Hudson instead of the Dutch and claiming all the land between Virginia and New England instead. but the effort would not be much more than that of the Dutch and Swedes combined unless the united entity has some influence in the north of the HRE. Which it would no doubt have..so there might be a small pool of German colonists to draw on as well

Assuming that is correct you would probably have 3 colonies...Ny Danemark Nya Sverige and Neu Schleswig or Holstein or both. (Pennsylvania to the Susquehanna). All would be only as lightly held as the French perhaps, perhaps a bit better but not much.
 
Here's something about Swedosh overseas colonies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_overseas_colonies

Sweden possessed overseas colonies from 1638 to 1663 and from 1784 to 1878.

The former Swedish colonies in Africa were:

* Swedish Gold Coast (1650-1663; lost to Denmark and the Dutch) Including the Cape Coast (1649-1663) consisting of the following settlements:

Apollonia, presently Benin: 1655-1657.
Fort Christiansborg/Fort Frederiksborg, which became the capital, presently Osu: 1652-1658
Fort Batenstein, presently Butri: 1649-1656.
Fort Witsen, presently Takoradi: 1653-1658.
Carolusborg: April 1650 - January/February 1658, 10 December 1660- 22 April 1663

The former Swedish colonies in America:

* Guadeloupe (1813-1814; returned to France)
* Saint-Barthélemy (1784-1878; sold to France)
* New Sweden (1638-1655; lost to the Dutch)
* Tobago (1733; lost to the British)
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Even a united Scandinavia could not become a major colonial player due to manpower, there are way too few people in Scandinavia for any chance of massive colonization.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Even a united Scandinavia could not become a major colonial player due to manpower, there are way too few people in Scandinavia for any chance of massive colonization.

France had three times as many people as either Spain or England, funny enough we aren't discussing this in French.

This unified state will have around half of Englands population, but I still don't think it will colonise North America in any major way, simply because their focus will be on Baltic dominans rather than on oversea possesions.
 
One would assume any extra land in OTL Norway and Finland would instead be begging to be filled up-and whatever population 'surplus' Sweden had would go there instead-why make colonies when you have natural, barely-filled lands to exploit in your own backyard?

I don't know about Finland, but through history, Norway has traditionally produced a surplus population that has had a strong tradition for emigrating.

Also, most emigration goes towards the more favorable climate.

I expect a united Scandinavia might, as mentioned have more of a Baltic focus, and continue feuding with Russia. I suspect it would depend a bit on which nation dominated the union. A dominant Denmark/Norway would probably be more oriented to the west.

In any case I could see a side venture to Newfoundland for the fish stocks. It just seems somewhere the Norwegian population could naturally slide.

Another point is that the extra power wielded by such a union could lead to decisive success in Baltic ventures. We are dealing with hundreds of years here, and there could be a long period of surplus to turn at least partially westwards.

Though Russia would probably keep a significant bit of attention.
 

Redbeard

Banned
I wonder if this unified Scandinavia could/would be a player in the various Scotish/English strides?

Not in the sense of Scandinavia "taking over the British Isles by a Scotish proxy" thing, but rather by keeping Scotland long enough in the game to have England's attention be turned away from overseas affairs. Would give the French and Spaniards a lot of opportunities lost in OTL. Next it will be interesting who the Scandinavians will side with in the Dutch-English strides of the 17th century - could very well be the Dutch - and we are suddenly approaching a very effective contain the English strategy - if that wouldn't effect the colonial distribution!?

The most important "threat" to this ATL is however, as Valdemar pointed out, that the Baltic will be an important competitor for Scandinavian attention. By the 17th century there however would be no threats to Scandinavia from the Baltic, the Hansa had long cesed to be a factor and Denmark/Sweden were united, it would mainly be a matter of where the best opportunities appeared to be. Across the Baltic Poles might have appeared a tough fight for little gain, whereas fighting to the last Scots/Dutchman to keep British merchants and colonists at home would appear tempting.

I guess it would be important how Scandinavia was united. If around Sweden-Finland it speaks for a Baltic focus and if around Denmark-Norway it speaks for a North Sea focus. A unification by 1600 or earlier is most likely around Denmark-Norway. After 1620 (and Christian IV of Denmark-Norway's defeat in 30 years war) most likely around Sweden.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 

Deleted member 1487

Could a Swedish led Scandinavia held the Baltic territories against Russia? In modern times obviously not, but back in the 1700's and 1800's why not?
 

Redbeard

Banned
Could a Swedish led Scandinavia held the Baltic territories against Russia? In modern times obviously not, but back in the 1700's and 1800's why not?

Certainly.

Although huge, Russia's problem until very recent time was that she couldn't focus a very large part of her resources at any place, and certainly not in the periphery. Paul Kennedy in "Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" has some interesting chapters and numbers on this.

In the Baltic a Scandinavian power not distracted by fighting other Scandinavian powers OTOH have some natural advantages. In short the plan could be:

Fortify a number of cities/ports on the south Baltic coast and prepare and train for operating your armies from these strongpoints. If the Russians lay siege to a fortress it can easily be supplied from the sea while the besieging army starves. It was much more difficult to keep a besieging army supplied than a marching (see Van Creefeld: Supplying War). The besieging army next risk to be attacked by a Scandinavian army landed in and supplied from the fortress or the neigbouring one. Back then the territory between the Baltic coast and the Russian heartland was relatively poor and difficult to live off for an army. Supplying an army over land for long distances was impossible before 20th century (see Van Creefeld).

For the Scandinavians the major value of the Baltic area probably would be the trade from the fortified cities (Riga was huge up until this time), which would have made it easier to execute a "scortched earth" policy in the lands surrounding the fortified cities and making it even more difficult to operate in for an enemy army.

In a very drawn out attritional war the Russians could of course have drawn on manpower bigger on a factor 10 scale, but operating in the Baltic area also easily could have cost them losses on a similar scale.

For the Scandinavians it would however be very important to avoid the temptation of striking deep into Russia.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
What effect would a united scandinavia by 1600 have on the colonial race?

Denmark PLUS Sweden PLUS Norway PLUS Finland PLUS Iceland would be sizable and militarily very strong for the time, at least on land.
I can envision such a colonial empire by 1700, likely date for a war that would frgment/reduce this Nordic empire:
- control over Estonia, Courland as vassal. Ingermanland controlled, maybe even the Kola peninsula, with de facto monopoly over the Russian trade in furs to the west (plus the Sound Levy in the Baltic straits).
- Bremen
- Hamburg
- Schleswig and Holstein
- Vorpommern
- Greenland, maybe reconnaissance and Christianization before the OTL 1721 date?
-Newfoundland (island only), taken from the British after some victorious conflict over the Russian trade in the first 1600s.
- New Sweden, recognized as such and modestly but efficiently colonized, with full rights of passage and free trade for the surrounding English. Pennsylvania could be a shared colony if relations remain good.
- Trinidad & Tobago
- Suriname, taken from the Netherlands in some conflict over the Sound Levy.
- Gold Coast (Ghana), strong coastal presence with local allies
- a colony in southern Madagascar
- a couple towns in eastern India
- a developing interest toward those isolated big islands down there at the Antipodes, that New Zealand so reminiscent of Norway with those little-explored fjords...
 
Would they really care about a colonial empire though? I'd imagine they'd be more cocentrated on German and the Baltic.
 
Regarding overseas colonies, a united Scandinavia might have been able to acquire and hold onto considerable colonial territory if there was a strong interest in it and if they had allies. A Scandinavian-Dutch alliance in the 17th century against England is not out of the question - such an alliance might have been strong enough to hold on to both New Netherland and New Sweden and separate England's northern and southern colonies in North America, with a huge impact on the future history of that continent. All of this presupposes, though, that the rulers of this Scandinavia were strongly interested in overseas colonies, which would divert resources from other priorities closer to home such as controlling the Baltic and/or the northern German states.
 
Top