DBWI: Kalmar Union Collapsed?

[AltoRegnant]

Otl, Scandinavia united into a single legislative body with its capital of Kalmar in the 1530s, after a failed swedish rebellion, instead of the three kingdoms of the kalmar union just being in personal union.
Scandinavia quickly became a great power, conquering the baltic coast in the east and a navy to compete with England. They colonized the area around Delaware and portions of what would otherwise be Colombia and the US.*
Their tension with England put them staunchly on the French side of the 7 years war, where they were instrumental in the german theatre. They were also a huge reason that France was able to keep the Orissa provinces of india from falling, with their own territory in Deccan. Of course, New sweden and new France finally fell to the English, but they were always slideshows compared to Asia and India- and in the case of Scandinavia, even Sto Myr and gustavjord.

and all that was just within a few centuries of the kingdom. What if sweden won the rebellion and the kingdom was never united?

 

[AltoRegnant]

Could we see a united indian colony if France was deprived of a strong naval ally, thus leaving britain to run amok on the high seas?

 

[Deleted member 114175]

A non-united Scandinavia? Sounds interesting, but I can't believe Sweden expanding much on its own. Without Denmark the Finns would have established their own realm in short order. Denmark wouldn't let the Swedes colonize past the straits without a war (any war where Denmark is weakened enough to give up the Oresund means Denmark is practically conquered... they'd have to have given up Scania of all places!) And Sweden would be mainly concerned with Baltic trade... which was dominated by the Hansa, the Habsburgs, and Cossacks and we all know how fierce that competition was.

 

[Gust]

I don't see a Swedish state being successful. There's a reason Scandinavia has long been dominated by Denmark, containing the vast majority of arable land, and it almost certainly would still be the case that an independent Denmark would be significantly more powerful than Sweden.

 

[AltoRegnant]

I don't see a Swedish state being successful. There's a reason Scandinavia has long been dominated by Denmark, containing the vast majority of arable land, and it almost certainly would still be the case that an independent Denmark would be significantly more powerful than Sweden.

A non-united Scandinavia? Sounds interesting, but I can't believe Sweden expanding much on its own. Without Denmark the Finns would have established their own realm in short order. Denmark wouldn't let the Swedes colonize past the straits without a war (any war where Denmark is weakened enough to give up the Oresund means Denmark is practically conquered... they'd have to have given up Scania of all places!) And Sweden would be mainly concerned with Baltic trade... which was dominated by the Hansa, the Habsburgs, and Cossacks and we all know how fierce that competition was.

But would this alt Denmark still be a great power? Sweden was a huge part of the scandinavian naval build up otl and its peasants were eager colonisers

 

[Gust]

But would this alt Denmark still be a great power? Sweden was a huge part of the scandinavian naval build up otl and its peasants were eager colonisers

I mean sure it probably wouldn't be as powerful - after all, losing almost half of your population tends to make you weaker, but I don't see why Denmark on its own wouldn't be an international factor.

That said, it would also depend on whether Norway would also succeed in the aftermatch of the rebellion, and whether Denmark could keep onto Holstein as it did OTL.

 

[Whiteshore]

united indian colony

Or even a full colonization of the subcontinent, considering Mysore and the Sikhs both retained their independence via playing off European powers against each other in our world.

 

[AltoRegnant]

I mean sure it probably wouldn't be as powerful - after all, losing almost half of your population tends to make you weaker, but I don't see why Denmark on its own wouldn't be an international factor.

That said, it would also depend on whether Norway would also succeed in the aftermatch of the rebellion, and whether Denmark could keep onto Holstein as it did OTL.

Norway rebelling honestly sounds almost ASB given that their population was tiny at the time and barely felt the danish control, unlike Sweden who had to deal with the danes interfering in things like trade

 

[cmakk1012]

Well, the New World would certainly look different. A weaker New Sweden might have seen England snatch it up sooner, and have time to more thoroughly Anglicize it. OTL, of course, when the American Revolution succeeded it led to the establishment of four (later five) separate, independent nations on the North American continent, largely divided on ethnic lines. If England had Anglicized the area, might we have seen one unified North American state?

 

[AltoRegnant]

Well, the New World would certainly look different. A weaker New Sweden might have seen England snatch it up sooner, and have time to more thoroughly Anglicize it. OTL, of course, when the American Revolution succeeded it led to the establishment of four (later five) separate, independent nations on the North American continent, largely divided on ethnic lines. If England had Anglicized the area, might we have seen one unified North American state?

Unlikely. The south was too reliant on slavery followed different schools of theology than the north, even in the English parts. And unlike Britain or Scandinavia, attempts at unity failed. The short lived USA was too little government to exist, and early nationalists felt that if there was to be any government at all it should be by their people for their people.
Side note, I never got why people say the Quebecois Rebellion was the end of the American revolution. It wasnt democratic, the king was from Provence, and the constitution gave the king most of the power. It also happened during the 2nd War of Austrian Succesion, nearly 35 years after the last American state was formed in Maine

 

[Gust]

Well, the New World would certainly look different. A weaker New Sweden might have seen England snatch it up sooner, and have time to more thoroughly Anglicize it. OTL, of course, when the American Revolution succeeded it led to the establishment of four (later five) separate, independent nations on the North American continent, largely divided on ethnic lines. If England had Anglicized the area, might we have seen one unified North American state?

I agree with @KingOnTheEdge, but there's also another reason why this probably would be impossible: The European Great Powers wouldn't want to give up their influence on the continent to a single powerful nation. They would, if needed, cooperate to make sure that such a state failed one way or another. Compare it to what happened to the German Empire OTL.

 

[Pralaya]

I can't imagine any of the three constituencies becoming relevant if they didn't stay unified. Especially if the Stuarts of Scotland still manage to form a personal union with Denmark in the ATL, similor to OTL.
Sweden would become a backwater in the great power politics of Europe, with Denmark, Russia, the PLC and the HRE completely blocking any possible expansion. Sooner or later, they'd be absorbed by Denmark again.

Well, the New World would certainly look different. A weaker New Sweden might have seen England snatch it up sooner, and have time to more thoroughly Anglicize it. OTL, of course, when the American Revolution succeeded it led to the establishment of four (later five) separate, independent nations on the North American continent, largely divided on ethnic lines. If England had Anglicized the area, might we have seen one unified North American state?

The English barely colonized the New World outside of New England and some settlements around Jamestown. The First American Revolution succeeding will always be ASB, you can't succeed if most of your population neither supports you nor speaks English.
The Second One of 1821, on the other hand, was successful simply only because they gave up trying to unify the vastly different nations of the New World. A world without a united Scandinavia wouldn't change too much there, Nye Sverige would probably still be settled by Scandinavians, this time probably by Danes and Scots, England would still have trouble limiting the influence of those with power in this region, and the New Englanders would still fail to convince the Quebecois, Canadien, Louisianois, Floridans etc. to support them in their quest to shackle off the English chains.

 

[AltoRegnant]

I can't imagine any of the three constituencies becoming relevant if they didn't stay unified. Especially if the Stuarts of Scotland still manage to form a personal union with Denmark in the ATL, similor to OTL.
Sweden would become a backwater in the great power politics of Europe, with Denmark, Russia, the PLC and the HRE completely blocking any possible expansion. Sooner or later, they'd be absorbed by Denmark again.

I dunno, before Peter the First, russia never really cared for the Baltic, hence the Great Northern War. If we butterfly Peter, could sweden take the Russian baltic?

 

[M79]

I'd be curious if England would still have so strong a Navy and whether Operation Kraken would still be tried. A three-point landing in Scotland just after the War began was a ballsy move...and they did establish two temporary beachheads...

 

[AltoRegnant]

I'd be curious if England would still have so strong a Navy and whether Operation Kraken would still be tried. A three-point landing in Scotland just after the War began was a ballsy move...and they did establish two temporary beachheads...

Doubt it would be needed. No Scandinavia and Scotland likely falls to England before a stuart would come anywhere near the alt. danish throne. Plus i doubt that denmark would be able to compete. No Kalmar scandinavia and we could see a serious england wank

 

[M79]

Doubt it would be needed. No Scandinavia and Scotland likely falls to England before a stuart would come anywhere near the alt. danish throne. Plus i doubt that denmark would be able to compete. No Kalmar scandinavia and we could see a serious england wank

Would there still be the saying of, "Never start a land war in Asia, never mess with a Sicilian when death is on the line, and never enter hostilities with Scandinavia"?

 

[AltoRegnant]

Would there still be the saying of, "Never start a land war in Asia, never mess with a Sicilian when death is on the line, and never enter hostilities with Scandinavia"?

Given that there's no scandinavia? unlikely.
Plus the phrase came about due to the three biggest advantadges of the constituent countries- danish ferocity, swedish tactics, and norwegian naval combat. Without that perfect storm, or with it fighting itself? we'd be lucky to get 'never fight a dane'

 

[M79]

Given that there's no scandinavia? unlikely.
Plus the phrase came about due to the three biggest advantadges of the constituent countries- danish ferocity, swedish tactics, and norwegian naval combat. Without that perfect storm, or with it fighting itself? we'd be lucky to get 'never fight a dane'

Already sound advice if talking about dogs. And Scandinavia could still play nice as a region.

 

[AltoRegnant]

Let's say that no scandinavian country becomes a great power. What then happens to spain? OTL, Scandinavia, despite being an early adopter of protestantism, was a huge investor in the Spanish, and a huge reason the loss of the armada under Philip II wasn't as detrimental as it should've been and Scandinavia helped the Spanish keep the few colonies they did (the carribaean, the philippines and southern, more loyalist mexico) after the Latin American Revolutions in the 1850s, even when France stayed out of it. could we see the end of spain as a great power? Even otl, they got the smallest pieces of Africa (as far as great powers) in the London Conference in the 1870s.

 

[IanSupremo]

More important question: would we still have heavy metal opera? The origins of the genre are distinctly Scandinavian, the oldest heavy metal opera troupe in the world, Sabaton, still selling out theaters all over the world. I’m going to watch them perform live with my SO next month when we visit Stockholm.