Victorious Denmark becomes a colonial power

[Don Quijote]

What if Denmark decisively won the First and/or Second Schleswig War and remained a fairly strong power? Also, rather than just having Iceland, Greenland and a city or two in the East Indies, could it have taken part in the Scramble For Africa?(perhaps at Germany's expense)

 

[Zulfurium]

Denmark had various colonies in West Africa and India and were a major trading power and naval power up until the brits came and stole the Danish fleet during the Napoleonic Wars.

With a POD so early you would see a very different northern Europe. In the north it is generally a question of whether it is Sweden or Denmark that wins out, so if you have a more successful Denmark then by default Sweden will be significantly weaker. This in turn means a lessened involvement in Central and Eastern Europe for Sweden and a greater involvement for Denmark.

Denmark was a early colonizer, so a more successful Danish effort would probably see more gains in West Africa and India, perhaps to the loss of Britain (who knows if the UK are even a thing with all the butterflies that would be flapping) and the Netherlands would probably also face significant challenges if Denmark should try to challenge them in the East Indies.

Denmark had the Sond Toll which proved to be incredibly lucrative for a long time and allowed the monarchy to marginalize much of the aristocracy.

Hope this is helpful

 

[Don Quijote]

I was thinking of a POD of around 1850 which might have more of an effect on Prussia. But going back as far as 1800 means we could see Britain working with Denmark and maybe Russia, and Sweden as a common enemy. Denmark would retain Norway and get Scania as a reward for fighting pro-France Sweden.

 

[Sian]

yeah, one of the last realistic tipping points for bringing Denmark back to being considered a second tier power would be solving the Napoleonic wars in a different way ... One way or another Britain have to be stopped making an enemy out of Denmark, either by not considering attacking them in the first place, or by Russia pulling up aggessively telling them not to and point them towards what they did doing the first league of armed neutrality (doing American Revolution), and tell them that they wouldn't be scared of pulling the same tricks again, with Britain buying it as they would be aware that they wouldn't be able to fight everyone at the same time.

Long story short, stop Britain from forcing Denmark to ally France (or optionally, stop France from losing, prehaps by killing of Napoleon before he gets too greedy) and you're half-way there ... specially if you somehow manage to align Denmark and Russia against Sweden using the fact that the rest is to busy to bother, to carve up Sweden (Giving Russia Finland and Swedish baltics as otl, and Scania, Halland, Blekinge, Bohuslän, Jämtland and prehaps even Götland to Denmark)

 

[Westphalian]

What if Denmark decisively won the First and/or Second Schleswig War and remained a fairly strong power? Also, rather than just having Iceland, Greenland and a city or two in the East Indies, could it have taken part in the Scramble For Africa?(perhaps at Germany's expense)

Ignoring how such a decisive victory would have happened - please walk me through the reason why it would help the Danish state to keep in ~800,000 highly unwilling subjects (out of 2,6 million). Yes, losing 30% of your population hurts, but keeping them in by force is expensive, too.
[Note: I have not counted the ~200,000 ethnic Danes in northern Slesvig who did not want to leave.]

It might be a better PoD if there was some early attempt to reduce the power of the Holstein and Slesvig estates in favor of parliamentary democracy and either full integration into the Danish state (but that is hard under the provisions of the German Confederation) or some kind of Ausgleich with the creation of two states.
Create conditions where the Low German Schleswig-Holsteiners feel they can only lose rights and wealth by leaving the Danish state and joining a German nation state.

Also, why would it help Demark in any shape to occupy some more parts of Africa and subjugate the natives? This idea that painting a part of the map beyond Europe in the colors of a nation is somehow an advantage cannot vanish soon enough.

 

[Tyr]

Anyone could have taken part in the scramble for Africa really.
Most countries had more sense though.

 

[Don Quijote]

The territory had been Danish for some time before with no ill effects. If the POD is c.1800 you have the possibility of Denmark keeping Norway and maybe parts of southern Sweden. An alliance with Britain could have led to a more modern and better equipped army. Given that Denmark did win the first war 1848-1850, why not the second as well? Prussia wasn't yet as powerful as it would be in 1870.
On colonialism, it was more the idea of Denmark remaining a fairly strong power with a strong navy able to project power overseas in a way comparable to say Italy or Spain. Not a superpower, but not weak either.

 

[Sian]

actually ... i would suggest you went and read Disaster at Leuthen, The PoD date might be a bit out of your intention (being in 1757), But Denmark is quite the competent regional power, for whom the only reason they can't be considered second tier (GB who owns a top tier for themselves) is the lack of population. Oh and as a delicious bit, Great Britian get tangled into a violent civil war (not unalike the OTL Spanish) in the 1920s, between the royalist right-wing, and the popular elected left-wing

 

[Westphalian]

The territory had been Danish for some time before with no ill effects. If the POD is c.1800 you have the possibility of Denmark keeping Norway and maybe parts of southern Sweden. An alliance with Britain could have led to a more modern and better equipped army. Given that Denmark did win the first war 1848-1850, why not the second as well? Prussia wasn't yet as powerful as it would be in 1870.
On colonialism, it was more the idea of Denmark remaining a fairly strong power with a strong navy able to project power overseas in a way comparable to say Italy or Spain. Not a superpower, but not weak either.

The area of S-H has been connected to the Danish crown since the 15th century. That still does not answer what would lead to the German-speaking Schleswig-Holsteiners becoming (and regarding themselves as) loyal and patriotic subjects of the Danish king.

 

[La Rouge Beret]

yeah, one of the last realistic tipping points for bringing Denmark back to being considered a second tier power would be solving the Napoleonic wars in a different way ... One way or another Britain have to be stopped making an enemy out of Denmark, either by not considering attacking them in the first place, or by Russia pulling up aggessively telling them not to and point them towards what they did doing the first league of armed neutrality (doing American Revolution), and tell them that they wouldn't be scared of pulling the same tricks again, with Britain buying it as they would be aware that they wouldn't be able to fight everyone at the same time.

Long story short, stop Britain from forcing Denmark to ally France (or optionally, stop France from losing, prehaps by killing of Napoleon before he gets too greedy) and you're half-way there ... specially if you somehow manage to align Denmark and Russia against Sweden using the fact that the rest is to busy to bother, to carve up Sweden (Giving Russia Finland and Swedish baltics as otl, and Scania, Halland, Blekinge, Bohuslän, Jämtland and prehaps even Götland to Denmark)

I actually like that as a suggestion, how likely would it be for Denmark & Russia to dismember Sweden in the 19th Century however?

 

[Janprimus]

I actually like that as a suggestion, how likely would it be for Denmark & Russia to dismember Sweden in the 19th Century however?

If Denmark doesn't go beyond those parts of Sweden, which at that point in time had been Danish not too long before, then I can see Denmark getting away with that, provided they play their 'hand' right.

 

[Sian]

If Denmark doesn't go beyond those parts of Sweden, which at that point in time had been Danish not too long before, then I can see Denmark getting away with that, provided they play their 'hand' right.

Exactly why I'd limit it to those areas ... All of them is parts that the Danish or Norwegian Crowns have strong claims on qua them previously being under their rule up to or about 1648 ... Gotland probably being the longest shot since it was only under Danish rule for ~100 years IIRC, but the rest of them is all traditionally Danish/Norwegian lands.

If Russia and Denmark comes to an argeement and everyone else is to busy to care, while at the same time limit the greed to territory where their claim is undebatable, I think the majority of countries (and certainly all that could butt in) would accept it as fait accompli when they get their heads out of whatever they're to busy with.

... Oh, and the end of Napoleonic wars should probably end without Prussia coming out of it smelling like roses and getting large parts of Rhineland and Saxony

 

[Don Quijote]

actually ... i would suggest you went and read Disaster at Leuthen, The PoD date might be a bit out of your intention (being in 1757), But Denmark is quite the competent regional power, for whom the only reason they can't be considered second tier (GB who owns a top tier for themselves) is the lack of population. Oh and as a delicious bit, Great Britian get tangled into a violent civil war (not unalike the OTL Spanish) in the 1920s, between the royalist right-wing, and the popular elected left-wing

Why would Britain have a civil war in the 20s?

 

[wietze]

a danish congo

 

[Westphalian]

Exactly why I'd limit it to those areas ... All of them is parts that the Danish or Norwegian Crowns have strong claims on qua them previously being under their rule up to or about 1648 ... Gotland probably being the longest shot since it was only under Danish rule for ~100 years IIRC, but the rest of them is all traditionally Danish/Norwegian lands.

If Russia and Denmark comes to an argeement and everyone else is to busy to care, while at the same time limit the greed to territory where their claim is undebatable, I think the majority of countries (and certainly all that could butt in) would accept it as fait accompli when they get their heads out of whatever they're to busy with.

... Oh, and the end of Napoleonic wars should probably end without Prussia coming out of it smelling like roses and getting large parts of Rhineland and Saxony

Yes, it would be basically this:

Note that this Denmark completely controls access to and exit from the Baltic Sea. So it has to be either closely allied to Russia and serve at St.Petersburg's gatekeeper; OR it needs a strong ally to protect it from Russian attempts to gain this control. Since all Russian attacks will be naval, the best ally would be obviously the UK.

Perhaps there is a way in 1814/15: The Polish-Saxon question goes hot and Russia+Prussia fight against Austria and the UK. sweden is forced to join the Russian/Prussian side, while Denmark joins the British side. Wellington and Schwarzenberg somehow manage to beat the armies of Prussia and Sweden, while Russia retrets behind its 1812 borders.
Prussia remains small, while Denmark gains Bohuslän and Jämtland for Norway and Scania, Halland and Blekinge plus Gotland. They would probablya also keep Swedish Pomerania as Principality of Rügen with Stralsund and Greifswald - an ancient Danish fief from 1168 until 1325 and then again in 1715 until 1721 after all.
Norway will remai under the Danish king, but with much more autonomy than before 1814. This might become a good precedent for the organization of the German domains.

Becoming a factual British client/vassal so short after the Attack on Copenhagen might be difficult to swallow for many Danes, of course.

 

[Sian]

Why would Britain have a civil war in the 20s?

I suggest reading it ... it makes more sense in context, but long story short, they got the worst of a post-war depression and the pseudo-commies won the parliamentary election with the king and the right wing unwilling to accept the result

 

[Don Quijote]

I read page 1, saw no mention of Denmark, and didn't want to read 100 pages to get to 1920.
On the other hand, would Denmark have seen any benefit in joining the Seven Year's War against Prussia, or would that have been too risky?

 

[arctic warrior]

The Schleswig Wars is a bad time to try making a greater Denmark. At the time of the first Denmark was already intent on getting rid of its colonial "empire". Beet sugar was competing with West Indian cane sugar and the latter losing; plantations/farming was in its infancy on Gold Coast/Ghana but not deemed worth the effort due to tropical diseases. That could have changed in the long run.

1806 and France defeating Prussia could have been the last chance for Denmark to not end up opposing Britain. During the campaign French troops chased Prussian troops into Danish territory in Holstein encountering a Danish blocking force.
Cool heads prevented a French - Danish shootout but what if not; Denmark might have ended up fighting the French army. Jutland occupied by the French and the Danish Navy preventing an invasion of the Isles. No Spanish auxillary troops in Denmark poised on attacking Sweden and Denmark not entering the Neutrality League.

 

[Don Quijote]

OK I'll settle for a POD of about 1800. So the Danes get caught in accidental battle with the French in 1806. What next? A French invasion and occupation of Jutland would be begging for the Royal Navy to set off on one of those expeditions that are brilliant triumphs of improvisation or miserable failures.