WI The Kalmar Union Succeeds?

I tend to think that these things often aqquire a gravity of their own as the decades and centuries pass. You'd need a reformer or two before the royal line ran out, but it could be done.

Once established, control of the Baltic would be an economic boon for the nation. A large amount of trade flowed through Øresund, and control of that would provide a lot of revenue.

The first is possible the second would at sometime run into trouble with the Dutch and/or British. But with a united Denmark-Sweden this could occur later than OTL 1645 and perhaps see a prolonged Dutch - Kalmar war in which the Kalmar may emerge victorious due to cutting off the Dutch from their supplies of necessities.

Interesting thing is would the Kings stick to the navy perception thus still make Kalmar a trade nation with colonies around the Globe; possibly except:

Historically, Sweden struggled quite a bit with Russia for the Baltic. Riga was the biggest city in Sweden for many years. The larger Russia has historically had a problem focusing its power, and if the Union made a combined push, it is likly that the Baltic would end up a Scandinavian lake. Over time, I think this would be easier done than undone. Adding the lands around the Baltic to Scandinavia would also add considerable population and farmland.

If only the Dutch/British doesn't decide to hammer the Kalmar from the West.

On the subject of the Americas/Vinland, remember that at the time of the Kalmar Union, Greenland had not been defunct for long. A royal attempt to review the colony could become a distraction/prestige project.
Scandinavia would have several unique advantages in reaching the americs, starting with an already charted route. Iceland also makes for a good staging point. Also, they would have more available resources in terms of timber than cometing nations.

A possibility.

Finally, Scandinavia has a much heavier tradition of exporting the population surplus overseas than the competitors. Remeber, OTL Scandianvia sent about half the number of settlers to the America that the much more heavily populated Germany or UK did. Given the extra advantages of a united Scandinavia, competiors may well have a problem keeping up.

As a result of widespread economic crisis but not until late in the 19. century.

Finally, an interesting point is that a united Scandinavia might well have ports on the White Sea. That would enable summer fur and other trade, expeditions along the north coast of Siberia and up rivers such as the Ob, Lena and Yeinsey.

It was early on an area of interest of Danish Kings only limited by the presence of competing Swedes. :D
 
I see hard they could get massively on the White Sea, though. Getting fur from Canada would maybe be easier if Scandinavian start that early enough to block English and French competition. I'm not fancying about a permanently Scandinavian Canada, they wouldn't be able to populate it that much.
 
I have been through this several times and you really need major changes in order for the Kalmar Union to survive.

There were major differences between the interests of Sweden and Denmark.

1. Denmark was moving towards continental serfdom - not fully so, but their peasant class was almost landless and had little power. The Swedish peasants were mostly free-holding (they owned 1/3-1/2 of the arable soil in Sweden, depending on when during the timeframe you check), had rights, were required by law to keep and train with arms, The Danish nobility, and especially their German mercenaries were not used to deal with free peasantry. The Danes often placed their German mercenaries as tax collectors (akin to an English Sheriff) as a reward for their service, with the non-written agreement that anything they could press out of the peasants that did not belong to the crown, they could keep. Many of them were quite surprised when the Swedish peasantry showed up and burned their forts as good as every winter.

2. The Kalmar Union laster in name only after Margareta's death. Sweden was at a constant civil war, between nobility that supported the Danes, the peasants and nobility that supported Swedish strong-men, usually of the Sture house, but also Karl Knutsson Bonde. Every Danish King had to force the Swedes by arms to crown him King. Sweden was a drain on Denmark's resources, not an addition to it.

3. Swedish interests lie in the east - against the Teutonic Order and Novgorod, trying to get more of Finland under her power. Denmark's interests lie in the south, with Pommerania, Schleswig and fighting the Hansaetic Legue. The Swedes have nothing to gain from aiding the Danes and the Danes have nothing to gain from aiding the Swedes.

4. The Hansaetic Legue would support any revolt inside the Kalmar Union. A strong centralised government controlling the Sound (and its toll) and trying to control Hansaetic Trade cities such as Bergen and Visby was bad for the Hansa. Gustav Wasa got the ships and cannon he needed to take Stockholm from the Hansa. As long as the Hansaetic Legue benefits from the Kalmar Union being weak, they will add their considerable resources to any revolt. In the long run, this role will be taken over by England and the Netherlands, who need the tar, hemp and wood that is produced in Sweden and Finland and carry substantial trade on Polish and Livonian grain.

Let me give you a short run-down of the Kalmar Union:

1397: Erik crowned King of Sweden. By now King of Norway, Denmark and Sweden, with Margareta as regent. Margareta promises to respect Swedish laws and keep Swedish nobility as tax collectors. In an effort to strengthen royal power, she started to reduce the land ownership of the nobility. German and Danish tax collectors and a habit of appointing bishops herself had already alienated the peasants and much of the church. Small local risings happen now and then. They are mostly defused by negotiations, in which the nobility have to promise to respect the peasants' rights.

1434: First major revolt. The Engelbrekt rising. Citing forced service in wars abroad, Erik appointing bishops instead of the pope, high taxes, violation of the agreement in Kalmar regarding who will be named tax collectors, high tools and no respect for the peasants' rights, the Swedish nobility and peasants rise almost all over Sweden, defeat the King's forces and declare him deposed (according to the old laws in which Swedes own the right to take Kings, but also to depose them). The revolters soon controlled all of Sweden, a lot of forts and castles being turned over to them. The King is forced to apppoint the leader of the rising, Engelbrekt Engelbrektsson as Chief Chancellor of Sweden. Negotiations happen, but Engelbrekt Engelbrektsson is murdered with an axe the next year in an internal dispute with another Swedish nobleman. The revolt petered out and Erik was re-affirmed as King in the negotiations. The King is forced to appoint drots and marsk (chancellor and military commander).

1436: Since lots of the issues were unresolved, revolts keep happening and the parties meet again in 1436 to negotiate. Erik is forced to sign a new union agreement that looks almost exactly the same as the one in 1397, but with an addition that the countries are separate entities and should rule themselves as much as possible. However, continued negotiations in Söderköping and an extensive agreement on how the Union should be rules was ignored by Erik and the Swedish nobility started to apooint tax collectors themselves, which Erik did not approve.

1440: Erik got into conflict with the Danish nobility, who deposed him as he tried to have his cousin Bogislav of Pommerania named heir. Christoffer of Bavaria was elected King instead, and confirmed after negotiations and crowned in Sweden 1441 where he promised to respect the old rights. Erik retreated to Gotland and terrorised the Baltic Sea with a fleet of pirate ships for the next eight years.

1448: Christoffer dies, and Karl Knutsson Bonde is elected King in Sweden, while Kristian of Oldenburg is elected King in Denmark. Kristian has to go to Norway to fight to be named King there too. 1449 Karl Knutsson Bonde is named King of Norway. Karl invades Gotland and takes Visby, but Erik trades the castle of Visborg to Kristian and the Danes.

1450 in negotiations both Kings agree that when they are both dead, a new Union King for all three countries will be elected. Kristian is crowned King of Norway.

1457, Karl is forced into exile after a revolt by Danish-minded noblemen. Kristian is crowned King of Sweden.

1458, Kristian is named Count of Schleswig and Duke of Holstein at the cost of 123 000 Rhenian gyllen. The price means new taxes and with them new revolts in Sweden 1463-1364. Karl returns and is successful enough in the new civil war to be elected King 1464-1465 and 1467-1470. Second half of the 1460s is one long, bloody civil war with the spice of constant peasant risings.

1470, Karl Knutsson Bonde dies and Sten Sture is elected Chief Chancellor. Kristian again tries to claim the Swedish crown. 1471, Kristian lands in Stockholm with a large army of mercenaries, with cannon and arquises and is decisively defeated by the Swedish peasantry led by Sten Sture at Brunkeberg. Probably the finest moment of the Swedish peasant armies.

1476, negotiations started and Kristian admits that the Swedes have the right to revolt under some circumstances (!). However, in the end, the negotiations are unsuccessful, Kristian is not crowned King of Sweden.

1481: Kristian dies and is replaced by Hans, who can rather quickly confirm himself as King of Norway and Denmark. Negotiations start in Sweden.

1483: The negotiations finish, Hans will have to admit the rights of the church, the peasantry, the nobility, all things Kristian and his predecessors agreed to and many other things, and he shall be crowned King of Sweden. Hans does not turn up, probably because he finds the deal far too outrageous to agree to.

1497: Renewed fighting between Sten Sture and Hand. Sten Sture and his peasant army is defeated at Rotebro and Hans is crowned King of Sweden after negotiations. The Danes place Danish and German tax collectors in Swedish castles again to reward the mercenary army that won at Rotebro, causing widespread dissent and discontent.

1501 the peasants and nobility rose again. It is from this campaign that Paul Dolstein drew his pcitures of German Landsknechts fighting Swedish peasant soldiers. Sten Sture died 1503 and negotiations were started again.

1505 Hans landed in Kalmar with representation from the Holy Roman Emperor, exectuted some of the local burgehrs, put together a court that judged all the Swedish nobility as guilty of treason and crime against the majesty, with the support of the Imperial representatives. New negotiations took place as the Swedes refused to abide by the court's decision.

1509, the Swedes admit that Hans has a right to the Swedish throne and that Sweden shall pay a tribute.

1510 the Swedes refuse to pay the tribute, and war starts again. 1512, Svante Nilsson, the leader of the newest rising, dies and new negotiations take place. A new meeting is to be held 1513.

1513: Hans dies. in Sweden Sten sture (the younger) is elected Chief Chancellor. The Swedes refuse to either pay tribute to or elect Kristian II of Denmark as King of Sweden and fighting breaks out again. Sten Sture (the younger) is wounded in the decisive Danish victory in the battle on the ice of Åsunden 1520 and dies soon after.

1520: Kristian II is after negotiations elected King of Sweden. he holds a great feast in Stockholm and then executes a lot of the nobility he has promised amnesty for in the Bloodbath of Stockholm. He then leaves for Denmark early 1521. Southern Sweden rises in spring, central Sweden follows in summer and Gustav Wasa is chosen to head the rebellion. After two years of fighting Gustav Wasa is victorius and is elected King 1523.

Now, this is a very short description of the massive mess that was the Kalmar Union. You tell me if you can get this pile of crap to work as a state in any fathomable way. :p
 
The first is possible the second would at sometime run into trouble with the Dutch and/or British. But with a united Denmark-Sweden this could occur later than OTL 1645 and perhaps see a prolonged Dutch - Kalmar war in which the Kalmar may emerge victorious due to cutting off the Dutch from their supplies of necessities..

This is also something I would call "easier done than undone" If the Union actually gets to..."set" in a self-percetion as a single country, the straits are going to be sitting smack between Denmark and Southern Sweden, the most heavily populated parts of the Union. Wresting it away at this point is not going to be easy. It would require something like the utter destruction of Denmark. Which could happen.

Interesting thing is would the Kings stick to the navy perception thus still make Kalmar a trade nation with colonies around the Globe.

If it ends up folding around the Baltic, it is pretty much going to have to be a maritime power, even before we look at Norway and Iceland.

If only the Dutch/British doesn't decide to hammer the Kalmar from the West..

It could happen. That does not mean that they'd automatically win. If, as has been aired, Poland sees a common interest in keeping Russia away...I suspect the Unions terrain, and setting as a near-island from the Duch/British side would present a challenge. Also, the UK would be between two other maritime powers for a while, Spain and the Union. It would have less room to grow navaly than it did OTL.

As a result of widespread economic crisis but not until late in the 19. century..

Sometimes as the result of economic crisis. But the point was that exported population surplus has been in the same class as the UK and Germany, if not equal to them.

I see hard they could get massively on the White Sea, though. Getting fur from Canada would maybe be easier if Scandinavian start that early enough to block English and French competition. I'm not fancying about a permanently Scandinavian Canada, they wouldn't be able to populate it that much.

I could see a Nova Scotia populated from the Norwegian west and North though. Nova Nourega:)

Anyway, a port on the White Sea is not going to be very useful for westwards expansion, but it is also going to be very difficult to disrupt for the westen powers. If a power is established there before the Russians get established on the coast of Siberia, that will also be one of those things that is hard to shake, once down.

Does anyone know how possible it'd be to construct a channel from the Baltic to the White sea using the lakes?
 

Philip

Donor
Does anyone know how possible it'd be to construct a channel from the Baltic to the White sea using the lakes?

You mean like this one? It wasn't build until 20th Century OTL, but I think it was mostly done with manual labor. I have a feeling it could be done earlier if there is a need and a will.
 
Well for starters, Sweeden and Denmark Norway would not have spent all that time between 1523 and 1815 spilling each others blood, so that effort can be focused elsewhere.

Culture wise, Norse will become the lingua franca of the region.

In Europe, I can see them foucused mainly on getting the Baltic into a Nordic lake. They may even be able to get some major territory in Russia or Germany.

As far as colinization goes, I can see them on a level on par with the dutch, maybe getting a few lucky breaks somewhere. I once did a TL where a united Scandinavia came to colinize and dominate Australia and the South Pacific.
 
All the Norse languages are similar since they are all derived from Old Norse. We need to remember that in a time before mass literacy, that all nations had varities of dialects. "National" tongues were always the main dialect of the elite which were disseminated after the rise of universal education in the 1800s. If Scandianvia is united, this is likely to be the Danish language. "Swedish" or "Norwegian" will simply be local dialects that people speak, even if they learn and read "Danish" which will be called "proper Scandinavian." Sweden will probably retain the most distinctive dialect, much like Bavaria in Germany.

I don't see a very pronounced Scandianvia vs Anglo-Dutch rivalry. Scandinavia benefits from the sound tolls and Baltic trade. It has a vested interest in keeping trade flowing, at least to the point where they get the most tolls. I'm sure England and Holland will like less expensive naval stores, but I don't think they'd go to war for it.

A war to control the Baltic trade will be especially difficult, as it will require England and Holland to project force into a Baltic dominated by Scandinavia. It will be a huge, huge cost. The biggest reason why England and Holland will keep the peace is that ultimately neither has a real reason to go to war. No vital interests are actually at stake. Both England and France have more to fear from France, and Scandianvia would look east towards Russia as a threat (Russia wants its own sea port access to the West, and that means eventual war with a Scandinavia that dominates the Baltic shore). Either has little gain from a war with each other, although I'm sure European politics will alternately pit them against and with each other in some of the coalition wars.

Scandinavia may get some minor Caribbean islands that will serve as a cash crop. But they are likely to be lost at some point. I don't see it really developing a "settler colony" like the English and Spanish did. It simply doesn't have enough people.
 
Scandinavia may get some minor Caribbean islands that will serve as a cash crop. But they are likely to be lost at some point. I don't see it really developing a "settler colony" like the English and Spanish did. It simply doesn't have enough people.

It has plenty of people, a significant amount of the population of Norway went to America in the 1800's, so that there are at least twice as many Norwegian-descended Americans as there are Norwegians.

They, along with Swedes and Danes, had no significant colony of their own and went to British colonies in America instead. There's no reason they couldn't focus their colonists on a given area.
 
Would a single language have developed?
Partially, at least - to a degree, the separate languages (insofar as they *are* separate languages - at times it is pretty clear that there is more politics than reality involved in that designation) developed due to political separation. The Union may well be relatively loose, but I'm not entirely convinced that, if it survives long enough to reach a language-standardisation era, it'd be keen to standardise the various dialects into not one but several languages. At least, on the mainland and the nearmost islands.
All the Norse languages are similar since they are all derived from Old Norse. We need to remember that in a time before mass literacy, that all nations had varities of dialects. "National" tongues were always the main dialect of the elite which were disseminated after the rise of universal education in the 1800s. If Scandianvia is united, this is likely to be the Danish language. "Swedish" or "Norwegian" will simply be local dialects that people speak, even if they learn and read "Danish" which will be called "proper Scandinavian." Sweden will probably retain the most distinctive dialect, much like Bavaria in Germany.
I partially disagree. The prestige dialect - that is indeed likely to become the model for the national tongue - would almost certainly be the one spoken in Copenhagen and environs, but this is not exactly identical to 'Danish', especially taking into account butterflies, and there is the likelihood of a language standardisation effort that, while going from that as a base, will not be entirely constrained by it (like, say, Rikssvenska in OTL).

In regards to the Capital... well, yes, yes, I admit that a constructed capital made as a compromise when the Union gets drawn tighter together in matters outside the monarch herself might be a tad bit unlikely.
 
Last edited:
It has plenty of people, a significant amount of the population of Norway went to America in the 1800's, so that there are at least twice as many Norwegian-descended Americans as there are Norwegians.

True, but I don't think Scandinavia will have any significant colonies by the 1800s. All the colonies of the minor powers IOTL were swallowed up then. New Netherland, New Sweden, Nova Scotia all gone and turned over to the major powers. There may be some oddball Caribbean island or other plantation economy with lots of slaves - but nothing to serve as settler colony. Plus, if things develop as IOTL, then during the time of the great migrations, most of the Americas are independent by then.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Colonies We're unlikely to see settler colonies, unless they happen accidental as in my timeline "A Glorious Failure", but beside that I would say with a greater control over the Baltic trade, we will see richer mechants in the the Nordic towns and as such we will likely see investments in trade and setting up trading post. So we will likely see more colonies, but it will be like a lesser version of the Dutch colonial empire, not anything like the English, Portugeese or Spanish.

Linguistic, we will likely see Rigsdansk (defined as the dialect spoken in Malmö and Copenhagen) end up as standard language, as it did in Denmark-Norway in OTL. It may get another name, maybe Rigsnordisk/Riksnordisk or Bokmål/Bokmaal as in Norway. Of course with more Swedes in Copenhagen we will likely see less influence from Low German and Dutch.
 
The Union lasted 126 years. The Danish King was in control of Sweden for a grand total of 56 years. Of them, 37 years was in the beginning under Margareta and Erik. The Danes needed to negotiate and fight all the time to keep Sweden and in some cases Norway too, under control. You need to adress this if you are going to make a time-line where the Kalmar Union survives. How do the Danes keep Sweden under control? It matters quite a bit for how the Union develops.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
True, but I don't think Scandinavia will have any significant colonies by the 1800s. All the colonies of the minor powers IOTL were swallowed up then. New Netherland, New Sweden, Nova Scotia all gone and turned over to the major powers. There may be some oddball Caribbean island or other plantation economy with lots of slaves - but nothing to serve as settler colony. Plus, if things develop as IOTL, then during the time of the great migrations, most of the Americas are independent by then.
The Danes held the Virgin Island until the early 1900s, so Scandinavia keeping some Caribbean Islands is possible, the same some fortresses on the African coast, but they risk being overrun by UK/ Netherlands/ France.
 
I didn't know that the Union was so troublesome in the XV century.
Probably we need some POD in that time, maybe the election of a Nordic nobleman instead of a German one on the Danish throne. At last, we can have the Danes crushing the Vasa rebellion and then put Sweden under iron heel, but that's not "Union". Sweden would be Denmark's Ireland in this case.
On the other hand, other troubled, sometimes more troubled than that, personal unions developed into united powerhouses. Austria, Spain, Britain and Polish COmmonwealth all they fall under this group, and even OTL's Denmark-Norway and Brandenburg-Prussia at the beginning. Interests of Castile and Aragon, of Brandenburg and Prussia, of Denmark and Norway were as much different as Denmark's and Sweden's were, and still those countries were united for centuries spite of frequent unrest and rebellion (for example in Catalonia, but conseider also Scotland).

Would a POD that keeps Orkney and Shetland isles in Norse hands help?
 
For a Kalmarian expansion in the White Sea area: they could manage to get and hold a port there, probably Kem or Kandalaksha, but probably not Arkangelsk. Dominate the area would mean to put there considerable resources, especially if they decide to actually build a Balti-White Sea canal (that i guess would only work in summer). Russians had already well established in the area both politically and culturally, and if the Scandinavians have the canal, they would need to keep Ingria too. That means a complete landlock of Russia in any direction, something that any ruling Tsar would try to reverse with any available force.
And all this for the warm, pleasant, rich country around Ladoga and Onega lakes and north of them?
The scarce population of the area was already mostly sort of Orthodox around 1500.
 
Top