Who knows how it would turn out in this timeline? So many butterflies...
Again, reason that I didn't intend to have it go out that far (I'm saying the scenario discussion)
Who knows how it would turn out in this timeline? So many butterflies...
If you have a more successful union during the thirty years war. You could have Brandenburg pretty much fully annexed/staying a vassal. IOTL Brandenburg was a vassal (albeit very temporarily) to the Swedes in 1665. I would just imagine that for them to expand into the Baltic and control most of if not all of the coast, it would need to happen before the start of the 17th century or at least near the very start.
It would really depend on which kingdom ended being dominate within that union. If Denmark stayed dominate (which honestly, would need to be changed for the union to survive in the first place.) then the capital would stay Copenhagen, otherwise it would be a Swedish city more near the center of the Empire, having it either be Malmo or possibly even Stockholm if Sjaelland and Schelwsig are considerably prone to being attacked or even taken over. Copenhagen really only works as a capital if you have a navy strong enough to defend it, the union might be able to create a navy that is the first-fourth strongest in the world.
I haven't read your timeline myself (I will try to remember too) but at that point, the Dutch and English and Russians and other powers just would not accept the union being created at that point. It wasn't to their interests. The Dutch and English were more or less siding with Russia at that point and would use force to prevent it's enemies from becoming too powerful.
You had them beating the Hapsburg's? Or the Dutch enough to gain that province?
Possibly, I again, didn't plan to go too far out with the idea. Just having it have lasted longer then it did IOTL. I'm not thinking modern day or even to the French revolution. But the union having control over the Baltic (depending on when they try to do it) could be easily achievable.That's true up to a point. Any Scandinavian control of non-Nordic areas would vanish as soon as modern nationalism hit - and Germany adopted modern nationalism relatively early, starting in the 16c with Martin Luther's translation of the Bible. Finland might stay under Scandinavian control, and you could make a decent argument for Estonia. Latvia is really unlikely, and Polish- and German-speaking areas are borderline ASB. You could have a multinational union, possibly, but there would have to be a reason for people to identify with the union and not with their co-ethnics outside the union.
I was saying in connection of Denmark being hit harder with the Black Death. In the early 17c, Denmark-Norway had a population of around 1.1 million compared to ~2.2-2.5 in Sweden. But if Denmark had even less population, it wouldn't surprise me that the ruling king would just place the capital in Sweden.Why would it need to be changed? In the early 17c, Denmark-Norway probably had more people than Sweden, counting Scania and Schlewig. Copenhagen was the most logical location for a capital; Malmö was equally good, but at the time it was part of Denmark anyway, and Copenhagen was larger.
No, that's Zeeland. I meant Zealand, the island that Copenhagen is on.
I was saying in connection of Denmark being hit harder with the Black Death. In the early 17c, Denmark-Norway had a population of around 1.1 million compared to ~2.2-2.5 in Sweden. But if Denmark had even less population, it wouldn't surprise me that the ruling king would just place the capital in Sweden.
Sweden did not have 2.2-2.5 million people in the 17c. See http://www.tacitus.nu/historical-atlas/population/scandinavia.htm.