When the Raven Flies

Vilhelm was a different king than his father-in-law, while Frederik had been a drunkard who left governing to other people, Vilhelm was a more hands on approach. But even as absolute king Vilhelm knew that he position was weaker than Frederiks, so he kept Frederiks inner circle and continued the military reforms, which had been started under his father in law. Vilhelm had little interest in culture, but he was interested in science, the army and economy. Which would be the focus under his reign. He ended up agreeing with the removal of the Stavnsbaand. But he also decided to to enforce his will on Holstein.


The Knights of Holstein had been able to go the Imperial Diet with their complains, when the Duke (the Danish king) attacked their rights. But the agreement about Holstein now meant that they no longer could do that. So he disestablish their estates and freed their serf, much to the lamentation of the knights, he also forced the same land reform down over them as it had been done against the Danish nobles.


As part of the Danish Louisiana policies, the Holstein knights and Danish nobles, did get compensation giant land plot along the Mississippi River. They wasn’t happy. But on the other hand land was still land, and many send agents to see what they had gotten. Some sold their plot, but other decided to develop them. They send relatives or agents to set up estates on their new land. Contracted British merchants to know what they dealt with. The discovery that the British grew rice in some of their southern North American colonies, inspired some to set rice plantations up, other just decided to let cattle grass there, until they got a better idea or sold it. All in all it served well to develop the new colonies.


Denmark was one of the more tolerant countries of Jews, but they had never had any political important positions, they was used by the state to weaken the guild structure. But Vilhelm imported the idea of Court Jew to handle finance, while the inner circle wasn’t happy about it, on the other hand the position was political rather harmless.


One place where Vilhelm had to walk very careful was on the issue of faith, Vilhelm was Reformed, while Denmark-Norway was Lutheran. He did increase the religious tolerance for Reformed and favoured Pietist bishops. But the Lutheran Church kept ruling supreme. There was pressure for him to convert, but foreign policy-wise he found that his Reformed faith offered him more opportunities, as example future marriage with the Dutch or Prussian royal house for his children.


Vilhelm second oldest brother Carl was made Stadtholder of Schleswig-Holstein, there was several reasons to this the most important that until Vilhelm produced a son, Carl was his heir. Carl was also competent.


Economical the Danish economy began a Golden Age under Vilhelm, the land and agricultural reforms resulted in decades long growth, as the Danish agricultural production increased. At the same time Vilhelm invited Hessians settlers to the Jutish heath, where they joined the already existing German settlers. The Jutish heath which almost covered one quarter of Denmark was mostly unpopulated, but the Hessians and other German could grow potatoes in its sandy soil. The Reformed Hessians was given religious freedom to practice their faith, as long as they did preach for Lutherans. Dutch settlers (with same rights) was also invited to settle along the Wadden Sea, a low lying which was often flooded. The result was new techniques was introduced. Among the Dutch settlers was many Friesians, they often integrated and converted the local Frisian who enjoyed visiting Churches using a language closer to their own. The Stadtholder mostly ignored this. But to avoid conflict with the Lutheran Church he ordered the Bible translated to North Frisian, and that North Frisian should be liturgical language in Frisian areas. As such he ordered a census of the population in Schleswig-Holstein and which language they spoke. He also discovered that many Danish speaking areas used German as liturgical language. So to avoid Reformed conversions, he ordered that the liturgical language should follow the language of the local population.

But the land and agricultural reforms wasn’t the only thing pushing the Danish economic boom, the sugar production on the Danish West Indies push the growth, but also the East Indian trade, some of which was little more than money laundering from corrupt British administrators in India. But money was money.


Danish foreign policy had usually been based on a balance act between the French and British, Vilhelm began moving it toward Britain. The pro-French attitude of the Danish result of the Scanian War, where the French support of the Dutch resulted in a loss on the negotiation table. He cynical saw that the weakness of Sweden and the strategic position of Denmark meant that being on the opposite side of UK was the greatest threat. The Danish navy could beat both the Swedish and Russian, while a conflict with the Dutch could be won on land. So while UK was politically isolated Denmark began to toward them. Of course Denmark did it best to keep a cordial relationship with other powers, as Denmark’s interest in this period was solely opportunistic. There wasn’t any land, which Denmark had great interest in, which they could realistic gain.


As such when the American Revolutionary War began, Denmark and UK began negotiations. UK wanted to rent soldiers from Denmark, Vilhelm was open to it, but he demanded a significant price. The result was that by 1777 Denmark rented out 30000 soldiers to the British, they could use in North America, the Danes would transport them over again paid by the British. Beside the fortune the British paid, Denmark also received some territorial concessions, the Duchy of Saxe-Lauenburg, the east bank of the Lower Mississippi and the territory west of the Ohio River. These soldiers would only be rented out to the British and Denmark was still neutral.
 

Mrstrategy

Banned
How Denmark doing with Indians in the American lands and why the British rented from Denmark and no other country in Europe that's cheaper probably?
 
How Denmark doing with Indians in the American lands

Right now the "Danish" settlers have a relative small population, and the Indians have most contact with trader and missionaries. So the relationship are still good. The position of the Danish Church at this point are political strong compared to the individual Churches in early USA. So I think when the problems arrive later, the Indians who have converted will have a strong advocate in the Church. So I don't think the relationship will end up as bad as American one to the Indians. On the other hand, the Danish state have a obsession with monopoly of force, so the Indians will in the long term not being allowed any kind of autonomy, so we will likely see Danish Indian Wars down the road, but they will be wars of subjugation not wars of eradication.

and why the British rented from Denmark and no other country in Europe that's cheaper probably?

The British rented from anybody willing to rent armies out, the main difference are that Denmark in TTL are willing to rent armies out. The British still have Hessians etc. They just have one more source, they lacked in OTL. Denmark as a bigger player and economy just have a stronger negotiation position, and UK are afraid of alienating the Danish kings as he's heir to Hesse-Kassel who deliver 1/4 of the British armies in the War.
 
The Danish soldiers was used on several fronts, but the long negotiation for their use, meant that a significant part of them was used in the southern colonies, not the best use of Scandinavian troops. But the large influx of soldiers enable the British to gain control over Georgia and South Carolina. Of course the French control over Iceland allowed them a successful invasion of Quebec.


The end result of the conflict was that UK kept South Carolina, Georgia, East and West Florida. Instead they lost Quebec and Nova Scotia with the exception of the Nova Scotian Peninsula and Prince Edward Island.


Most of the Loyalists fled to the southern colonies, including slaves who had fought for the Crown, who was given their freedom.


As for Danish soldiers they had lost around a quarter of their force. They had been a mix of conscripts and recruited soldiers. The latter they had selected them a little older, while the latter they had selected unmarried men. At the end of service they was given land in the Louisiana Colony, somewhat spread out. But one new settlement populated by these veterans was Vilhelmshavn at Great Miami River. The reason for this was that both USA, France and Denmark claimed the area between the Ohio River and the Great Lakes. The Hessian soldiers who wanted to stay in America was also offered land in Louisiana. Around 3000 took the offer.


Of course the French began to push for buying the Louisiana Colony back, the Danes decided to leak these French attempts and hidden threat to the British, who was terrified that the French would succeed. The result was that the British gave a guarantee for economic and naval support in case of a Franco-Danish war. This guarantee was leaked to the French who decided to back off. The death of Frederick II of Hessen and the union of Denmark and Hessen only made such a war less likely, especially as Denmark saw expansion of fortifications in the same period.


While the British wasn’t happy with result of the conflict forking Vilhelm and Denmark it had been a success. It had strengthened its position in Holstein with the control over Saxe-Lauenburg, while the duchy also gave a German ducal title to the Danish king, who had been reduced to landgrave and count in Germany. The relationship with Britain had also been improved, it had also given the Danish officer corps some needed training after decades of peace, an influx of capital and at last improved the Danish position on the Mississippi. Beside that the fact that the Danes had been de jure neutral meant the conflict hadn’t had negative effect on Danish trade, in fact the opposite as the Anglo-Dutch War had meant Denmark had taken over much of the Dutch trade with the British, and improved its position as importer of Indian goods and become the main laundre of corrupt British official illegal funds[1].


Together with the Danish land reforms and the growing trade of sugar and rice from Louisiana, this helped push the Danish economic boom.


[1]Pretty much what happened in OTL time.
 
whats going on with spain since the lands are next to spain

Mostly they don't care, Denmark do claim eastern Texas (no clear boundary) as part of Louisiana, but they're aren't sending settlers in to avoid conflict with Spanish and the Spanish are also ignoring the region. In general Denmark and Spain have a relationship of mostly ignoring each other, but in general treating each other with respect. Some of it comes from Spain being among the least of the great powers and Denmark being among the greatest of the medium powers, while they don't really have a lot of places where their interest clashes, Texas being the main one, but the Danes are more interested in develop the Mississippi and pushing their claims north of the Ohio river, while the Spanish are happy over having a buffer to the British. The Spanish are not happy over the Danish support of Jansenism and other Old Catholics in Louisiana, but the Danes are heretics anyway.
 
What was happening on Iceland?


The French takeover of Iceland by the French was mildly put not very popular, the Icelanders was good Lutherans and had no wish to be ruled by papist heretics. On the other hand the Icelanders was also aware they couldn’t do much about it. Of course the guarantee to be able to keep their religion, while the Danish offer to resettle and give land to any Icelanders wanting to move also helped. It was clear that the Danish king still saw the Icelanders as his responsibility to some degree. As such some of the most religious Icelanders took the offer to migrate early, but the next few decades saw many second, third etc sons emigrate to Louisiana.


The early reign of the French was rather mild, the cereal monopoly was removed, the restriction on winter settlements in Reykjavik was removed[1], the ban on Icelanders using Danish in daily speech was removed[2] and at last improvement in medical care was introduced [3]. Land in the Iceland south west was bought up by the French,some of the owners migrated to Reykjavik, where they used the money to set up business or emigrated to Louisiana, where the money gave them a good starting capital.


Of course that lead to some of the less popular elements. The French settled the Acadians exiles in the south east, they set up a Catholic bishop in Reykjavik, opened Catholic school, began a Catholic mission among the Icelanders and placed a garrison and a naval base in Reykjavik. The Catholic schools lead to the local Lutheran bishops setting Lutheran schools and the beginning of the Iceland national revival.


The French saw the climate on the island as problem for European crop, and while they successfully pushed the introduced potato to Iceland, they also decided to look elsewhere for crops to the barren land. What they found was the quinoa, introduced by Catholic missionaries, who had worked in the Andean earlier. This together with the increase population growth resulted in Iceland having 100000 inhabitants in 1783 of whose 10% was French settlers, soldiers, clergy and administrators[4],


As the French entered the American Revolutionary War they successfully used the island for their invasion of Quebec.


But that lead to the post war French Iceland. The Danish denial of selling Louisiana back and close relationship with the English resulted in a more cold relationship between France and Denmark. The result was that the rights of the Danish crown and the Lutheran Church on Iceland was restricted. The French began prosecute Lutheran clergy, their schools was closed, Church property was confiscated and given to the Catholic Church, the Icelanders was forced to go to Catholic mass.


This happen on the top of the Laki eruption, these elements together resulted in the emigration of 20000 Icelander from 1784-1793 together with the death of 10000 Icelanders from the effect of the Laki[5] eruption it resulted in a significant fall in population. The French settlers mostly avoided the negative effect, and the population had mostly rebounded by 1789 with 100000 people (15% French) again. Many Icelanders had also converted to Catholicism, it was believed that that 10% of them had truly converted (most other meet a Lutheran services in secret)


Of course then the French Revolution happened. The local governour was loyal to the French king, so was the Acadians farmers in the south west, but there was a significant element of Frenchmen in Reykjavik (now a town with 7000 inhabitants) who was pro-revolution, and there was clashed in the town. Of course the Icelanders was truly tired of French rule, the French governor need for a close alliance with the Church to secure his position had resulted in even more prosecution of the Lutheran population. The result was the Icelandic uprising in 1791, the population rose up supported with Danish arms smuggled in, and together with a alliance with local French Republicans, the Icelanders declared the Republic of Iceland with the Lutheran Bishop Hannes Finnson as the president, the French Republicans wasn’t happy with this, but Hannes promise them freedom of religion. The French lost most of the Island from day one only keeping control over the south west, but even that was they unable to hold, it didn’t help that surprisingly well trained Danish “volunteers” joined the revolt. In 1793 the French holding was restricted to Reykjavik itself.


But what changed the situation was the execution of the French king. For Denmark it meant they no longer had to fear a war with France if they took Iceland, but also that their support of a republic became unacceptable. So a Danish navy and a force of Danish mariners arrived in Reykjavik in 1793. The French governor surrendered fast against promise that he, his administration, his garrison and the clergy could leave for New France, whose Viceroy still swore loyalty to the monarchy. This left a terrified population of French civilians and Icelandic collabators, both burghers of Reykjavik and refugees from the upland. They was protected by the Danish forces and the leader of the expedition force meet with representatives from the Republic of Iceland. They was welcomed by the Icelanders, while the French Republicans was less happy.


The Danish king planned to reward the Icelanders for their loyalty. So the king upraised Iceland to a duchy, and inserted Finnson as Stadtholder, he gave the Althing right to elect the Stadtholder, but kept a veto right. The king still appointed bishops. The French Republican got freedom to practice their religion and got the choice between staying on Iceland or emigrate to Louisiana, almost nobody choose the latter. All in all 5000 Frenchmen was allowed to stay, 2000 was people who had sided with the Icelanders, while 3000 was people the Danish government decided was useful enough to be allowed to stay. 15000 French settlers and Icelandic collaborators was deported to Louisiana over the period 1793-97. The fact that the Danish king gave these rights to Iceland may be surprising, but the Danish king knew that if he used an iron fist against the Icelander he would risk a revolt later, maybe with support from the French Republic. His control over the clergy and the Icelandic devotion to them, also meant the king had a strong base among them.


The French rule of Iceland may have been short but it changed the island permanent, from the introduction of potato and quinoa, the transformation of Reykjavik to a major town, the increased dominance of the Lutheran Church and the small French community you still find in south west today.


[1]This restriction was set up to avoid the Icelandic population moving to the area en masse to become fishermen. The fear was likely silly, but the Danish wished to avoid depopulate the rest of the island.


[2]If the Reykjavik settlement restriction was silly, this one was hilarious. The Danes saw Icelandic as a pure form of Danish, while they saw their own speech as a corrupt form, as such they wish to keep the Icelanders speaking their own language. This Danish view of Icelandic likely affect the Icelandic languages policies even today, with the Icelanders embracing the purity of their language.


[3]Iceland had a abyssal medical hygiene, their average infant mortality was something like 30% and in some areas of the western fjords 70%.


[4]This is a significant increase, but the large improvement in child mortality together with a lower prices on food and an increase in the carbohydrate in the Icelanders fat and protein rich, but carbohydrate poor diet, result in a population boom.


[5]This is around half of OTL death thanks to access to cheaper cereal imports
 
Last edited:
danishlouisiana1800_by_valravn74-dakk4xs.png


Map of the Americas 1800
The light yellowish colour north of the Ohio River and south of the Great Lakes, indicate that the territory are claimed by USA, France (in exile), Denmark and of course by the local tribes who are mostly ignored.
 
Between the freed slaves and the planter class, the southern colonies look like a powder keg. I wonder if Britain won't go for an expanded version of the OTL Sierra Leone scheme?

The Danish relationship with the United States could be very important in the not-too-distant future. Loss of the southern colonies could result in a second Adams administration in 1800, which will in turn push the U.S. toward a more truly neutral position vis-a-vis European conflicts. But if there's ever a war of 1812, Denmark's position in that war will impact Louisiana profoundly.

Over all, great TL.
 
Between the freed slaves and the planter class, the southern colonies look like a powder keg. I wonder if Britain won't go for an expanded version of the OTL Sierra Leone scheme?

In OTL they was placed in Nova Scotia, some of them was later sent to Sierra Leone. I imagine there will be relative little conflict here. Some planters will likely demand their slaves returned to them, but the British have every interest in not doing so. I imagine that slave owners who supported the revolt won't get any reparation, while loyalists and people who kept low profile will get reparation. In general I expect the Black loyalists will end up as free Black middle class with some prestige. Some will likely emigrate to Sierra Leone but I think that it will be fewer than in OTL. In General I expect the planter class to be much political weaker than in OTL South, simply because it's a British colony, and the British have little interest in having a strong local aristocracy (which the planters de facto were).

The Danish relationship with the United States could be very important in the not-too-distant future. Loss of the southern colonies could result in a second Adams administration in 1800, which will in turn push the U.S. toward a more truly neutral position vis-a-vis European conflicts. But if there's ever a war of 1812, Denmark's position in that war will impact Louisiana profoundly.

I agree, I have a few thoughts about the 1812 War, but I had in general not thought about how this would affect American election. So I could use some advices on that.
Right now I plan for USA to make a land grab into the the Northwest Territory, which bring them into conflict with Canada (France-in-Exile) and Danish Louisiana. The conflict was planned with the territory partitioned, with Canada getting Michigan and the land around Lake Superior, Louisiana getting the rest of Minnesota and Illinois, USA taking the Ohio. While who got Indiana was unclear, I lean toward Louisiana taking the eastern part to limit American access to Lake Michigan. This conflict may be part or not of a British-American War (Denmark will be allied with UK in the Napoleonic Wars for reasons which will be discussed later) depending on whether such a conflict happens.

USA have a much larger population than Canada and Louisiana at this point, my calculations right now are something like 10% each the population of USA (Canada can look forward to a influx of refugees from Europe). On the other hand both are centralised absolute states with strong military tradition with large garrisons in their North American colonies. Denmark have also used Louisiana to settle veterans. So while they have smaller population, they have better armies and the war will happen on a frontier.

Over all, great TL.

Thank you I like the "like button" because I can see people read the timeline, but I appreciate feedback.
 
In OTL they was placed in Nova Scotia, some of them was later sent to Sierra Leone. I imagine there will be relative little conflict here. Some planters will likely demand their slaves returned to them, but the British have every interest in not doing so. I imagine that slave owners who supported the revolt won't get any reparation, while loyalists and people who kept low profile will get reparation. In general I expect the Black loyalists will end up as free Black middle class with some prestige. Some will likely emigrate to Sierra Leone but I think that it will be fewer than in OTL. In General I expect the planter class to be much political weaker than in OTL South, simply because it's a British colony, and the British have little interest in having a strong local aristocracy (which the planters de facto were).



I agree, I have a few thoughts about the 1812 War, but I had in general not thought about how this would affect American election. So I could use some advices on that.
Right now I plan for USA to make a land grab into the the Northwest Territory, which bring them into conflict with Canada (France-in-Exile) and Danish Louisiana. The conflict was planned with the territory partitioned, with Canada getting Michigan and the land around Lake Superior, Louisiana getting the rest of Minnesota and Illinois, USA taking the Ohio. While who got Indiana was unclear, I lean toward Louisiana taking the eastern part to limit American access to Lake Michigan. This conflict may be part or not of a British-American War (Denmark will be allied with UK in the Napoleonic Wars for reasons which will be discussed later) depending on whether such a conflict happens.

USA have a much larger population than Canada and Louisiana at this point, my calculations right now are something like 10% each the population of USA (Canada can look forward to a influx of refugees from Europe). On the other hand both are centralised absolute states with strong military tradition with large garrisons in their North American colonies. Denmark have also used Louisiana to settle veterans. So while they have smaller population, they have better armies and the war will happen on a frontier.



Thank you I like the "like button" because I can see people read the timeline, but I appreciate feedback.

On the planter class: it kind of depends. You could see them weakened by an influx of back-country loyalists--such as the old regulators--and freed slaves loyal to the crown. However, a substantial portion of the planter class was pretty devoutly loyalist, and any attempt to normalize freed slaves in their colony is going to lead to a very negative reaction. South Carolina's economy in particular is entirely dependent on the plantation system, and a large influx of freed slaves is the kind of thing that might cause a rebellion.

From the British perspective, there's an easy solution: either resettle them in Nova Scotia or, if the Seven Years War went as per OTL, settle the freed slaves in East Florida. The latter is basically what I did in Founding Family. If you need info on loyalists--black or white--PM me.


Okay, so "Canada" is the French royal family in exile, and consists of OTL Quebec, Ontario and Maritimes minus the Nova Scotia Peninsula and Newfoundland. U.S. is as per OTL minus Carolinas and Georgia, and Louisiana is OTL Louisiana and West Florida [all OTL references are as of 1783].

So with that correlation of forces, two possibilities are likely. The first is that the U.S. makes an alliance with one to try and curb the others. The second is a three front war. I personally think the latter option is highly unlikely, since the political party in the infant U.S. most likely to take that step is the Democratic Republican Party, and the loss of the south has just cut off a major war hawk constituency. [There's likely to be a small but significant exodus of patriots from the Carolinas and Georgia, among whom people like John Laurens and Andrew Jackson might be prominent, but it's hard to predict what their impact on the nation's politics will be].

I'd assume the Federalists--who were OTL very hostile to the French Revolution--might be quite sympathetic to the Canadians. The Democratic Republicans--who were more pro-revolution OTL--will be more anti, and were the flagship anti-British party as well.

What I don't see as likely is any U.S. government being foolish enough to get sucked into a war with the Danes as the same time. Even a Democratic Republican administration is going to possibly hesitate at the prospect of a three front war. Now, the DRs may--and probably will--try to offer Denmark great heaping piles of money for Louisiana, but I don't see them going to war over it. The Federalists certainly won't, as they'll see Danish Louisiana as a good buffer against any other power getting too big. Also, Federalists will be most concerned with trade, and free navigation of the Mississippi. If Denmark offers that--and there's no reason they wouldn't--I suspect the Federalists will be pretty pro-Denmark.

Of course, there's another interesting wrinkle: Alexander Hamilton spent at least some of his childhood in the Danish West indies, as I recall, so there could well be a connection there, positive or negative.
 
On the planter class: it kind of depends. You could see them weakened by an influx of back-country loyalists--such as the old regulators--and freed slaves loyal to the crown. However, a substantial portion of the planter class was pretty devoutly loyalist, and any attempt to normalize freed slaves in their colony is going to lead to a very negative reaction. South Carolina's economy in particular is entirely dependent on the plantation system, and a large influx of freed slaves is the kind of thing that might cause a rebellion.

From the British perspective, there's an easy solution: either resettle them in Nova Scotia or, if the Seven Years War went as per OTL, settle the freed slaves in East Florida. The latter is basically what I did in Founding Family. If you need info on loyalists--black or white--PM me.

Settling them on the frontier sounds like a great idea, it could both serve to keep stability and as way to reward loyalist (both White and Black) refugees with land for their loyalty.


Okay, so "Canada" is the French royal family in exile, and consists of OTL Quebec, Ontario and Maritimes minus the Nova Scotia Peninsula and Newfoundland.

Prince Edwards Islands are also British but yes.
U.S. is as per OTL minus Carolinas and Georgia,

North Carolina is still American

and Louisiana is OTL Louisiana and West Florida [all OTL references are as of 1783].

The western third of West Florida, Denmark own the eastern bank of the Mississippi River up to Ohio River, the Tennessee River lies outside Danish territory
So with that correlation of forces, two possibilities are likely. The first is that the U.S. makes an alliance with one to try and curb the others.

Very unlikely, Canada will under the entire Napoleonic Wars de facto be a British vassal. Denmark will be a British ally under most of the Napoleonic Wars and we won't see the British attack on Copenhagen. Denmark have avoided some of the domestic political problem which made their decision to become a Russian vassal necessary, at the same time the union with Hesse-Kassel make it a bigger in the year up the Napoleonic War, but also make attempt at neutrality impossible and it's geographic position make a early pro-French alliance impossible. So USA are dealing with three powers who are de facto allies. Louisiana and Canada is more likely to stay neutral in a British-American war, but that's more a question whether UK want them to take part than anything else.

The second is a three front war. I personally think the latter option is highly unlikely, since the political party in the infant U.S. most likely to take that step is the Democratic Republican Party, and the loss of the south has just cut off a major war hawk constituency. [There's likely to be a small but significant exodus of patriots from the Carolinas and Georgia, among whom people like John Laurens and Andrew Jackson might be prominent, but it's hard to predict what their impact on the nation's politics will be].

Good points

I'd assume the Federalists--who were OTL very hostile to the French Revolution--might be quite sympathetic to the Canadians. The Democratic Republicans--who were more pro-revolution OTL--will be more anti, and were the flagship anti-British party as well.

I could see the Democratic Republicans be hostile to all three power.

What I don't see as likely is any U.S. government being foolish enough to get sucked into a war with the Danes as the same time. Even a Democratic Republican administration is going to possibly hesitate at the prospect of a three front war. Now, the DRs may--and probably will--try to offer Denmark great heaping piles of money for Louisiana, but I don't see them going to war over it.

Good points, Denmark won't sell, the colony are too developed to be sold. Denmark lack the vast other colonial areas to give Louisiana up and it deliver important goods to the homeland.

The Federalists certainly won't, as they'll see Danish Louisiana as a good buffer against any other power getting too big. Also, Federalists will be most concerned with trade, and free navigation of the Mississippi. If Denmark offers that--and there's no reason they wouldn't--I suspect the Federalists will be pretty pro-Denmark.

I think my plan have changed from a war to a peaceful split of the Northwest Territory.

Of course, there's another interesting wrinkle: Alexander Hamilton spent at least some of his childhood in the Danish West indies, as I recall, so there could well be a connection there, positive or negative.

The Danish West Indies was nothing special some relative thinly populated islands, the language at the time was a Dutch creole, but English and French was widespread in use. His contact with Danes have likely been rather limited, as the Danes was mostly soldiers, administrators and sailors, while the White civilian population (around 1000 people) was a mix of Dutch, French and English. So I doubt Hamilton would give many thought to Denmark.
 
Just an idea that you can work on, the end of the 18th century was known in Norway as the "Golden years". The time before the British Blockade in 1808 saw the increase of shipping and commerce done by Norwegians. Norway has vast natural resources which can be used and is has a terrain well suited for potatoes.

Also another point is that in the end of the 18th century Norway population hit or almost hit a million people, the same amount as Mainland denmark at the time had.
 
Just an idea that you can work on, the end of the 18th century was known in Norway as the "Golden years". The time before the British Blockade in 1808 saw the increase of shipping and commerce done by Norwegians. Norway has vast natural resources which can be used and is has a terrain well suited for potatoes.

The period in Denmark-Norway has different names, but it was defined by high growth, there was a mix of factors which caused this. One was the capital from the sugar trade, increased Danish trade in the East Indies, thanks to the 4th Anglo-Dutch War weakening the Dutch. The removal of the cereal monopoly in Norway, The annexation of Gottorp (removing toll borders on the Jutish peninsula), The Danish agricultural reform, which created a large rural petite-bourgeois class. As the Norwegians delivered the majority of the Danish-Norwegian sailors, they benefited by delivering labour.

Much of this have happen, some of it earlier, we will likely see the a bigger economic boom in than OTL. As for potatoes, the Norwegian had grown potatoes for many years at the Napoleonic Wars, but it was seen many as animal feed, it was only the British blockage which introduced it as human food.

What will likely happen here, are that Danish central administration will push (after the Napoleonic Wars) for agricultural improvement in Norway, the French have introduced quinoa to Iceland, it will do well in a pre-mechanical farming Norway, and the government will also push for popularise potatoes as human food. In general I think that a union with Denmark will be better for Norway in the 19th century than the Swedish union.

Also another point is that in the end of the 18th century Norway population hit or almost hit a million people, the same amount as Mainland denmark at the time had.

Norway will see higher population growth for several reasons, the earlier and longer "Golden Years", the opportunity and ability to emigrate will also result in earlier marriage (Danes and Norwegian in general married rather late, to ensure people was able to feed their families in fact the the marriage age fell in the 19th century and it was only after the War, that it reached the same high age as in the 18th century), which will give people more years of child barring. We will also see greater urbanisation than in OTL, thanks to Denmark needing Norwegian resources (something the Swedes didn't need), resulting in Danish investments in Norway.
 
Just discovered this today, interesting prospect. won't the removal of the Stavnsbond make population growth in Denmark proper increase by quite a lot. My understanding is that what you did, is what happened OTL in the agricultural reforms after the loss of Norway?

Obviously the best part as most Danes will say is the abolition of the Ribe Treaty ;)!

Looking forward to reading more! Oh the German influence on Denmark, will IMO probably be higher than OTL.
 
Just discovered this today, interesting prospect. won't the removal of the Stavnsbond make population growth in Denmark proper increase by quite a lot. My understanding is that what you did, is what happened OTL in the agricultural reforms after the loss of Norway?

No they happened before but I have pushed them through around 20 years earlier, which will serve to fuel the economic boom, but also create a population boom and the increase mobility will serve to help with the Danish proto-industrialisation.
Obviously the best part as most Danes will say is the abolition of the Ribe Treaty ;)!

I haven't really abolished it in TTL, Holstein have de facto together with Schleswig been annexed into the Danish state, I have also pushed several other changes through which will change Schleswig-Holstein and Denmark's relationship. For one thing the annexation have broken the Holstein's knights political power, the land reform follow the Danish one, which will weaken their economic power, at the same time I have created a strong pro-Danish rural middle class. At last we avoid the Danish-German antagonism following Struense in OTL. I have fundamental created a stronger and earlier Helstat.
Looking forward to reading more! Oh the German influence on Denmark, will IMO probably be higher than OTL.

Yes I doubt we will see Holstein revolt, on the other hand Danish nationalism will also likely follow French and British pattern rather than German one, of course that will likely result in that Danish don't develop into OTL national identity. Instead people will talk about Nordic (Danes and Norwegian) Danes, German/Holstein Danes, Frisian Danes and maybe Icelandic Danes. Dane simply become a national identity in the same way as Swiss are.
 
Yes I doubt we will see Holstein revolt, on the other hand Danish nationalism will also likely follow French and British pattern rather than German one, of course that will likely result in that Danish don't develop into OTL national identity. Instead people will talk about Nordic (Danes and Norwegian) Danes, German/Holstein Danes, Frisian Danes and maybe Icelandic Danes. Dane simply become a national identity in the same way as Swiss are.

The more engaged a Danish kingdom becomes in the HRE/Germany, the more influence Germany will have on Denmark IMO. I think one of the overlooked aspect of Danish history is the power and influence German nobles actually had on Denmark. German nationalism first arrived years later in Holstein for example. I think there is a good chance if Denmark had been able to keep the Helstat together, that Denmark would have been a weird mix of Danish/German today. A weirder Bavaria if you will..
 
The more engaged a Danish kingdom becomes in the HRE/Germany, the more influence Germany will have on Denmark IMO. I think one of the overlooked aspect of Danish history is the power and influence German nobles actually had on Denmark. German nationalism first arrived years later in Holstein for example. I think there is a good chance if Denmark had been able to keep the Helstat together, that Denmark would have been a weird mix of Danish/German today. A weirder Bavaria if you will..

There's two aspects in how Denmark was affected by Germany political and cultural. Germany more than any other country have had a effect on Denmark, from the language we speak (we use German loan word more than from any other language), our culture, our political system and even the way we define Danish. If Denmark keep large German areas (Holstein) integrated into the Danish state, it's given that the influence will stay, in fact if Holstein had been Danish today, we would likely by default have seen a lot less English and a lot more German influence on today's Denmark. We would likely by default be part of "German World", simply because our German skill would be a lot better.

But at the same time for the Helstat to survive, it demand that Danish identity have to develop in a alternative way to the inspiration from Germany, the Helstat can never be a German style national state. It have to become a top-down national state rather than a bottom-up national state. The "national" identity have to come from the institutions rather than the other way around. We have to keep a Danish identity which inclusive rather than exclusive.
 
Top