What if/how could Sweden had/have won the Northern Seven Year's War?

(Newb here, first thread)
So, for all of you who don't know, the Northern Seven Year's War was a war between Sweden and a coalition of Poland-Lithuania and Denmark-Norway. Anyway, this war ended in a sort of stalemate, but it gave Sweden the largest standing army in Northern Europe.

So, my question is, what if Sweden had summoned that army earlier in the war, and pushed back the joint forces? I'm not saying a direct attack on Krakow/Vilnius is possible, but Sweden at that point could have invaded Norway and parts of Poland-Lithuania. Then, if the character of Claude Colbart were to have actually convinced the ruler of Hessen to ally with Sweden, the joint Sweden-Hessen force could have attacked Copenhagen. If Copenhagen fell, Poland-Lithuania would probably step out of the war to avoid an attack.

The main problem of this is that Denmark had hired 25,000 professional soldiers to fight on it's behalf, and then those soldiers took out Älvsborg. If the Swedes would have sensed a war coming after diplomatic relations fell out, Sweden could have defended Älvsborg a bit more effectively, possibly being able to hold it. If they were, they could then sell as much salt as possible, and try to hire the soldiers themselves If not, the force could have invaded Trondheim with larger numbers, splitting Norway, and the Norwegian fighting force, in half. If then the Swedes treat the natives with respect, they could have moved up and down, killing Denmark's revenue.

If that were to happen, the Kalmar Union would be still desolved, but it would have been replaced by a larger Sweden. If this were all to have happened, then we would get to look forward to a larger amount of Swedish supremacy. Now, this may be going off on a limb, but a larger Sweden might have been able to fight of Peter the Great's force, and retain supremacy. Also, the Swedish colony on the Delaware River would be larger, and more retained. The British would then have to concentrate their colonists either in Canada or (less likely) towards the south, having to deal with more problems with the French/Spanish, respectively.

I probably ran into a storm of butterflies, but that's my thoughts. Yours?
 
Even if Sweden Managed to hold on to Älvsborg with 'free' land access (which were between a rock and a hard place with Danish Armies able to attack from both north and south isolating it to the east if need be), they would still need to run a veritible gauntlet in Kattegat against Danish (with Lübecker support if need be) naval ships trying to blockade the fortress, so it surviving on short term might even be more damaging to Sweden than it would be annoying for Denmark to keep an eye out for.

The eternal issue for Sweden in terms of taking stabs at Norway is the mountains being a fairly effective roadblock leading them to certain areas, and that Naval superiority is a massive force multiplier, merely in terms of better army mobility. Other than Bohuslän and Jamtland (and further on from there to Trøndelag), its basicly impossible to take without naval superiority over the opponent, at least in pre-modern time. Transport in Norway weren't by land but by sea, so a swedish conquest of Tronheim, while annoying, would in no way be any more, specially since a large majority of Norwegian resources (human resources and otherwise) was placed south of it, and what wasn't could be shipped around Trondheim skipping past the port while mooning the Swedes there, since they had no way of stopping such. Lastly, Norway really didn't have much problem being ruled by Denmark, since nearly all of their nobility was offshots of the Danish Nobility (Black Death all but eradicated everyone above commoner in Norway), and by and large they had more in common with Denmark (naval traditions, and a focus to the west), than they had with Sweden who tended to focus east, towards Poland-Lithuania and Russia. And while revenue from Norway wasn't nonexistent in the danish coffers, it weren't anywhere near what Denmark got out of Denmark

Kalmar union were by all intends and purposes desolved in 1523 ... Northern Seven Years war was 'merely' a Danish attempt to reinstitute it.

As for how much more Sweden would be able to if they got a wankish victory, even a united Scandiavia would run into one the same issue (if somewhat differing on scale) ... there simply weren't enough Population to support an 'Empire', which were what they would end up battleing against with Britain and Russia ... and before you say Dutch, they only prospered far away from where anyone could reach with hard power (invading armies and such) and focused on soft power more than anything else ... and a long friendship fwith Britain which defended them from quite a few things (most prominently; Britain)
 
The main problem of this is that Denmark had hired 25,000 professional soldiers to fight on it's behalf, and then those soldiers took out Älvsborg. If the Swedes would have sensed a war coming after diplomatic relations fell out, Sweden could have defended Älvsborg a bit more effectively, possibly being able to hold it. If they were, they could then sell as much salt as possible, and try to hire the soldiers themselves If not, the force could have invaded Trondheim with larger numbers, splitting Norway, and the Norwegian fighting force, in half. If then the Swedes treat the natives with respect, they could have moved up and down, killing Denmark's revenue.

More effective how? OTL the garrison lost around 50 % and the Danes had breached Älvsborg on several places.
 
From what I've read from the previous posts, Sweden still would have lost Älvsborg. If they would have been able to keep Trondheim, they may have been able to get troops into Norway. Then, they would have moved south. The loss of Norway wouldn't have done that much bad to Denmark, but it may have kept the attack on Stockholm. Either way, Sweden did in a sense win the war, since it was not conquered by Denmark-Norway. The win and takeover of Norway may have caused Sweden to be able to hold into it's colonies in North America a little longer, but it still had to face Britain, which is like a goldfish texting to compete against a great white. Though, even if it were able to keep good relations with Britain, the colony would have been lost in the American revolution.
 

Driftless

Donor
Butterfly

IF the Swede's would have taken and held the part of Norway North of Trondheim, it probably would have had very limited value for the 16th-19th Centurys. Once the practical freight carrying steam locomotive is invented by the mid 1800's, Sweden would have been able to bypass the Kattegat for both trade and Naval activity. Ports in Namsos, Bodø, Tromsø, Narvik, etc. (A.) yup, that really is 20-20 hindsight, (B.) That's also an awful low time to reap a pay-back

Also, think of the potential butterflies for WW2 if the Swedes hold Narvik & the North Cape. How would that have spun out differently?
 
IF the Swede's would have taken and held the part of Norway North of Trondheim, it probably would have had very limited value for the 16th-19th Centurys. Once the practical freight carrying steam locomotive is invented by the mid 1800's, Sweden would have been able to bypass the Kattegat for both trade and Naval activity. Ports in Namsos, Bodø, Tromsø, Narvik, etc. (A.) yup, that really is 20-20 hindsight, (B.) That's also an awful low time to reap a pay-back

Also, think of the potential butterflies for WW2 if the Swedes hold Narvik & the North Cape. How would that have spun out differently?

I think that if Sweden was able to hold on to northern Norway, things wouldn't really have changed that much in the beginning. From what I've read, most of the actual worth in Norway is in the south. Though, the actual development of Prussia is gonna be absolutely screwed up, since Lithuania-Poland is gonna be looking for some new places to dominate, and the infant Prussia would be an easy target.

(I'm butterflying out here, but stay with me) P-L might move towards the HRE, seeing that it is more or less still a bunch of small states. Danzig is screwed, and the prussian enclave in P-L is absolutely screwed. Then, when WWI comes around, what's left of Germany is eaten up by P-L, since the defeat and then the strengthening of Poland and Lithuania in the wars has pretty much made the partition impossible. Napoleon probably will be more intent to build up it's military and attack Spain more, rather than go after Poland. (Yeah, this is achromatic, but still)

Napoleon would have more troops to go after Haiti, and possibly have crushed the Haitian rebellion. WWII would then be France, America, and Sweden VS Polania (Poland-Lithuania), Denmark, and possibly a few other areas. Japan then gets free reign in the east. Polania tries to go after Sweden, and then France attacks Polania. Polania conquers a lot of Sweden, though not before New Sweden is filled with refugees and at least Scotland is attacked. Concentration camps will probably not happen here, but if there was one, it would possibly be Danish camps in Sweden, getting rid of the "Rebels." Napoleon attacks Polania, America attacks the British Isles and Bermuda, and Sweden attacks Russia, not as an invasion, just to build up a buffer zone where it can survive.

Sweden is eventually liberated, but it is no where the power that it once was. Polania is turned into a small state, taking up Lithuania and a small area of Poland. France takes over a lot of Africa, while America owns the UK and parts of India and a few other places. Danzig, being parts of two states that no longer are there, becomes a tiny republic, not dissimilar from the San Marino of today. The Soviet Union's east end is completely eaten up by Japan, which has taken Hawaii while the USA was busy mopping up British Colonies, though it would have ticked off America a little. Panama is now American, which is where most of the American fleet is. Circa 1960, Japan attacks California, British Columbia, Oregon, Washington, and Baja California.

After a long war, Japan has turned America into a smaller nation, though it is not able to get past the Mississippi. The former British colonies are turned into small republics like African nations or the Balkans are today. The Cold War starts between Japan and France. It ends with both empires crashing like the USSR did IRL.

But still, most of that was sprinting after butterflies, but it could make for an interesting timeline.
 
Top