WI: An Earlier Independent Sweden

King Carl VIII of Sweden died in 1470, leaving a five year old son as his heir. However, he left instructions that Sten Sture was to act as regent until Carl Carlsen was of age to stand for his own election. This never happened and the king of Denmark reasserted his rights over Sweden. What if Carl Carlsen HAD lived longer, married and produced children of his own, even been elected king of Sweden? Might the Kalmar union be dissolved still earlier? Is it possible for a Bonde Sweden instead of a Vasa one to emerge? How might Denmark and the rest of Europe react?
 
I'm wondering if Sweden would do aswell as they did OTL, they had quite a few good kings, atleast compared to Denmark
 
Considering that Karl Knutsson himself was not a particularly successful ruler, it seems that much has to go right for this to happen.

First we need some benevolence from Sten Sture.

Then we need for Karl's son to be alive to adulthood.

Then we need for him to be at least somewhat competent in relevant aspects.

Then we need for him to be able to aspire to the throne sometime after 1485.

And if he gets the throne, he must be able to hold on to it (unusual in that era), and also to succeed in making some efforts in the state-building area.

Anyway, did Sweden have any competent king before 1500? Someone who actually managed to achieve something? There was a gradual centralising process all the time, but rather weak compared to later periods.
 
Would probably have meant a weaker Sweden.

Sweden became strong because the Swedish nobility was crushed in 1519 by Christian II of Denmark. The Swedish nobility, connected with their tribal loyalties to the landskaps was apparently the greatest threat to Swedish statehood.

Karl Knutsson Bonde was a competent ruler, and did almost as well as a Swedish state-builder could do during the 15th century.

Without the Stockholm Bloodbath, Gustav Wasa would not have fared any better.

Sweden would probably have been divided betwen Denmark and Muscowy had not the nobility been crushed.
 
Karl Knutsson Bonde was a competent ruler, and did almost as well as a Swedish state-builder could do during the 15th century.
Being deposed twice does not sound very inspiring, and his immediate successors suffered similar fates, time and time again.

Without the Stockholm Bloodbath, Gustav Wasa would not have fared any better.
He would probably not even have become king.

Sweden would probably have been divided betwen Denmark and Muscowy had not the nobility been crushed.
With weak Swedish state, the armies would have been local, and not used in far off countries, so the Russians would never have taken Finland.

Besides, with a weak Swedish state, the models for Russian administrative reform would have been further off than Denmark and Sweden.
 
Is there any possibility that this Sweden would have developed into a loose confederation of landscapes, perhaps even PLC- or HRE-like, with different areas having hededitary rulers that together elect the king? Denmark-Norway might be able to pick up territory along the borders. Öland with Kalmar on the Småland coast or Dalsland might easy pickings.

swregions.gif


(yes, I know that the map is wrong in the Idre/Särna region of Dalarna.)
 
Is there any possibility that this Sweden would have developed into a loose confederation of landscapes, perhaps even PLC- or HRE-like, with different areas having hededitary rulers that together elect the king? Denmark-Norway might be able to pick up territory along the borders. Öland with Kalmar on the Småland coast or Dalsland might easy pickings.

swregions.gif


(yes, I know that the map is wrong in the Idre/Särna region of Dalarna.)

Sweden was a (de-facto) loose confederation of landscapes during the entirety of the Middle Ages. It was not even wholly feudal, but tribal, almost in the old Germanic sense. It had constant civil wars between the dominant families, and the kings were elected by the nobles.

The HRE could afford to be a loose confederation of principalities since many of the principalities were strong European states in their own right. With Denmark appearing stronger since the 1350's, and German merchants dominating the Swedish economy, Sweden became increasingly dependent on foreigners.
 
Being deposed twice does not sound very inspiring, and his immediate successors suffered similar fates, time and time again.

He came back twice too. And he was the strongest native Swedish leader since the 14th century. Most others would just have been killed.


He would probably not even have become king.

Nope.


With weak Swedish state, the armies would have been local, and not used in far off countries, so the Russians would never have taken Finland.
Doesn't matter. Look at Poland for example, an example of a (politically) weak commonwealth which moved in the opposite direction from most European states. Russia ate all of Lithuania during the 18th century, despite Poland being a Russian vassal.

Besides, with a weak Swedish state, the models for Russian administrative reform would have been further off than Denmark and Sweden.
Given that, it is not sure that Russia would have reformed if it wasn't for the threat of Sweden and the Swedish monopoly on Baltic trade.
 
Top