What if The Kalmar Union never fell? - Part 1 | Alternate History
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 08. 2024
- Part 2: • What if The Kalmar Uni...
Twitter: / neatlingalthis
POD for this scenario is the battle of Brunkeberg between Sten Sture the Elder and his supporters, against Denmark and Swedish unionists.
This is the first episode in an alternate history series on the Kalmar Union, taking a look at the history of what becomes the Kingdom of Scandinavia.
Nice to see this video. I don’t know much about the Kalmar Union outside of eu4 so it was interesting to learn that it actually had a good chance at being maintained. Excellent production quality by the way.
If it got past it's internal issues (mainly the pro/anti - union divide within Sweden) it did indeed have the perfect conditions for becoming a unified nation with a common language and culture. I would argue the Nordics still do. They were even close to uniting another time in the 19th century when when Norway and Sweden were unified.
Also really appreciate the compliment man, can't wait to see more content from you!
@@Neatling Well the problem today is that Denmak is in The EU and NATO, Norway only in NATO and Sweden only in the EU. But I would support a unionist movement.
@@monstermapping7209 that true but no one knows when the kalmar union starts again actually
@@monstermapping7209 I'm sure if Scandinavia was United they join both NATO and eu and work closely with America and UK in naval and trade agreements they be closer to the anglo world then EU but still be a part of both EU and nato.
It had no chance. Christian the cruel treated norway and sweden/finland like secondary citizens.
As a swede we and Denmark could’ve achieved so much cooperating instead of fighting each other
Danish diplomacy and swedish millitary.
@Marc Darren pro tip: you can go get brain dmaage
As danish, I agree. We could have Ben a major powerhouse.
@@gustavtrads5622 Dane*
*cries in Norwegian*
Man its crazy how fast this channel has grown. Congrats!
Very interesting stuff! Love the alternate history. I'm a bit late to the party but have a couple minor nitpicks:
1: Norway possessed the Orkneys and Shetland islands until the late 1400s, it seems likely that a stronger, more centralized Scandinavia would attempt to assert itself over its old island possessions, possibly even seek the crown of England, as that was a popular Viking hobby.
2: Denmark and Sweden had extremely minor colonies in West Africa and the Caribbean, a colonial empire that sprang up from Scandinavia would presumably include these territories.
3: Vinland is a bit conservative. Today, something like 9 percent of all Americans profess Norwegian ancestry, mostly concentrated along the Canadian border. I would imagine a chunkier Scanada. (I am proud of the pun, yes)
There's a big difference between the rate of Scandinavian immigration to the Americas and the ability of a Scandinavian colonial empire to keep that territory.
Denmark/norway also had colonies in India.
@@jimmywayne983 more like trade outposts
@@EusebiusAT It was for trade yes, but a place like tranquebar was/is classified as a tropical colony/ trade colony.
@@jimmywayne983 yeah, my point was mostly that colonies like those as well as the ports on the ivory coast were not what we would associate with the word colony when we think of empires like spain, Britain, France and even the Netherlands. Denmark went more for the Portugees route of running trade outposts as well as some fields in the Caribian, instead of actually managing and governing foreign territories (ignoring Brazil of course, that can't exactly be called a small trade outpost)
So basically Canada would be Scandinavian and Scandinavia would be united.
This is the best timeline
I've been waiting for this
I think there are also some repercussions to discuss on the lack of a British Canada. Loyalists would instead move to either Australia or South Africa.
It could also be that Vinland has a very large English-speaking population. Since Vinland is close and is easy and cheap to escape to after the revolution. Many could not afford to flee to Australia or South Africa, which were not English colonies at the time either.
No britian would need to colonize someone else in the America's most likely ARGENTINA the loyalist's go there.
Your WW2 bit fails to mention the Swedish iron mines and the importance of the port of Narvig. It also ignores the Soviet invasion of Finland.
The Soviets had not attacked Scandinavia / Finland because they had no historical claim to Kexholm in this timeline. The border had probably been at the Neva.
But the iron mines had probably prevented Germany from invading Scandinavia. Instead, they had had very intense diplomatic contacts.
*Narvik
Like Niklas commented, that wouldn't happen. Even more though with my little knowledge, Finland had to deal with communists in the Russian Civil War and could be friendly with the Germans while the Kalmar Union declares neutrality but with the history is more sides with the Allies and is a old European Power which makes Stalin delusional if he wants to even fight the Kalmar Union after the officer purge.
sorry i dont speak Smart People
I’ve long been fascinated by the Kalmar Union and hoped for a modern rebirth. A big reason I’m pro Scottish independence would be so that they could join the Nordic countries as well. A strong Nordic alliance would help counter-balance German and French dominance of the EU. I want a more multi-polar world. One of the worst things that ever happened to the United States was gaining unipolar dominance over the globe. It’s the same reason I’ve been against Turkey joining the EU - I want Turkey helping to lead a strong Middle Eastern bloc. I want a strong EU and a strong independent Russia. A strong India and a strong united sub-Saharan Africa. I know this sounds pie-in-the-sky and more than a little far-fetched, but, hey, a guy can dream.
wouldnt that lead to a balance of powers like before ww1? I dont think having a bunch of strong states or coalitions is a good idea, especially if they are too independent. I think the interconnect globalized model is the best we have got to date, instead of independent blocks everyone should be interdependent that way its easier to keep everybody in check. being realistic a union between any nordic country and scotland is pretty much impossible, even if it happened it would not have enough power to overthrow french and german domination of the eu, the only likely candidates for that is turkey and a eastern polish block. I think us "dominance" was the better alternative we got, can you imagine russian unipolar dominance? God forbid a brittish or eu dominance (naz!s or french commies!?)? I guess chinese would be similar to russian... maybe a (tiny) bit better because they are much further away. btw thats one the best things about us hegemony they are isolated in america, plus they have much better ideologies. Not that the us is good or anything they are just the better alternative.
"The history of European nations, is very much that of unification of many smaller states"
Laughs in Byzantine Greek
Then realizes Greece did that before it was cool.
Honestly a very well made video, nice!
Byzantium is an Empire, modern Greece is a nation-state.
@@EgnachHelton bruh. It was in all aspects the first European nation state. It had national flag, emblems, common language, music, Greek national supermajority (upwards of 80%) since the 7th AD century etc. Its name was Βασίλειον τῶν Ρωμαίων or simply Ρωμανία and its Greek people just called themselves Ρωμαίοι or Ρωμιοί since they were the descendants of the Roman empire (politically and for prestige). This is like saying that the Holy Roman Empire wasn't essentially a German state, or that the Russian empire wasn't a Russian nation-state. Just because the word "empire" has the connotation that your country rules the word, it doesn't mean that countries named empires/kingdoms aren't nation states. Also, definitely by 1205, the three Greek states that were born, Epirus, Nicaea and Pontus, were nation states.
You could make a video about what would happen if Eastern Rome was able to reconquer the Western Empire, or just if it would be possible at all
I like how Ivars Revenge is playing in the background 😂
One also have to consider that Scandinavia would have enjoyed centuries of great power status and an overall more centralized economy which would probably have led to a larger population than IRL - with those factors at play the military might Germany would have faced could not be compared to what was shown here, as the scenario given is very close to the same outcome of IRL Scandinavia, with the exception of Sweden.
A unified Scandinavia would have had a substantially larger manpower pool, and when considering how advanced the industry of these nations were for the time IRL, it would not be unfair to assume that it would have been even greater in this fictional timeline.
Then there is also the part that this would still have been the Scandinavian Empire in 1939, and with the threat of conflict with the USSR brewing and fear of communist uprisings at home, it is not unlikely that they would have actually joined the Anti-Comintern pact. We could have seen a royalist-nationalist Scandinavia on the Axis side, or at least as a co-belligerent, akin to the role Finland played IRL.
This is what history should have looked like /a swede
i couldn't agree with you anymore brother LÄNGE LEVE SVEARIK
eyy im also a swede
The Kalmar union flag sucks balls tho. I'm inclined to trade the flag if the capital is Stockholm as Stockholm is perfectly placed being almost the center of the baltic.
@@glenglen6386 But its isolated from the core populated areas of Scandinavia around Øresund, especially if northern german citys is included
@@alek0708 there are far more people living closer to stockholm than köpenhamn within scandinavia though. Sure something like 5 million people live in denmark and maybe about a million or so in sweden closer to köpenhamn than stockholm, but pretty much the enterity of norway aswell as all of finland (as honorary scandinavians) being closer to stockholm outmatches that ammount.
Congrats on the channel growth! Here’s to 10k
I would love a Hearts of Iron 4 mod that adds this version of the Kalmar Union and it's empire into the game in 1936.
This would actually be very interesting, because Scandinavia would be in the crosshairs of three superpowers. Britain, Germany, and the Soviet Union.
Choose a side, or try to hold them all off alone.
You deserve alot more subs, your editing is nice, your videos are great and I definitely see you becoming as great as someone like EmperorTigerstar.
Indonesia AND Congo?!?
*BENELUX REUNIFICATION & REARMAMENT TRIGGERED*
Hate to be that person but... Kalmar union mod for hoi4?
You can create the kalmar union in the base game
An interesting turn of events.
I wonder if the Kalmar Union would be more like France as a colonizing nation in the Congo, and less like Belgium, and less like the Netherlands in the East Indies? Since Belgium and the Netherlands were two of the worst and most savagely exploitative colonial powers, that would have significantly changed the course of post-WWII history.
I also wonder whether post-Soviet Karelia would want to join Scandinavia? That could have interesting repercussions.
Well there isn’t a post-Soviet Karelia in this world as it never becomes part of any Russian State.
You should do a scenario on what if the First Mexican Empire survived next.
I’ve seen all parts of the Scandinavian trilogy and have two questions and I thank you for an interesting alternate history of Scandinavia.
The first is it seems that you have not calculated with the devastating effects of the Black Death in Norway, the population was reduced at least 40%.
Then is the today’s map, the northern border of the “Svealand” border is approximately 150 Km too far south, as the ancient province Hälsingland had it’s border in that area.
Writing on the obelisk in Lund, in modern Sweden:
"Her ligger kecke Mend, hvis Been oc Blod er blandet
Iblandt hinanden, saa at Ingen siger andet
End de er aff een Slect; de var oc aff een Troe
Dog kunde de med Fred ey hos hinanden boe!"
You pretty much answered a question I've had for over 20 years. Highly hypothetical of course. Really interesting video my man!
Regarding WW2 - There probably wouldn't have been a Winter War because there was no need for Russia to attack "Finland", and the Nazis would have seriously reconsidered the attack on Denmark/Norway - as they would have faced Sweden and today's Finland as well. They might have gone for Denmark, but it would probably be better to have Kalmar Union as neutral ally than as an enemy.
not just that for ww1 history I doubt germany would invade via belguim if thye are already at war with the kalmer union.
Or maybe soviet union and germany would attack at the same time
@sisu mies - you mean east scandinavia?
The description of why the Kalmar Union fell summed up: Skill Issue
Another way the Scandinavians, or rather the Danes could’ve become essentially a great power would be if the North Sea empire never fell. There’s multiple videos on it but the one I find most realistic is Whatifalthists video on it! It eventually falls before the colonial era in the 1600s begins, with it retracting back to England and Denmark due to external pressure. And eventually England and Denmark break apart, but Denmark becomes a colonial power and whatnot.
I love how in every one of your what ifs Germany looses WW1 and WW2
so it's realistic instead of germany taking over the galaxy
Really nicely done alternate history 👍 I would also like if you make an alternate history scenario for the greater Mauryan Empire❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
I would think the Scandics would actually win the Great northern war since Sweden themselves had the beat in the first great nordic war and got the upperhand early in the 2nd great nordic war and since Scandinavia is a fully united country at that time they would have more manpower and more resources, The only situation I would see them lose in is if they adopted another strategy that worked much worse or had in general much worse soldiers than in the Swedish empire in our storyline.
Absolutely love this! Great Video!
U Danish?
Why did I Even ask its Even in ur name lol
@@anjavinding5412 lol
@@KageTheDanish yea
@@KageTheDanish the reasson I asked was beacuse I am danish too
What if the Swedish and the Dutch kept their North American colony such as New York real state that the Dutch colonized and Delaware for Sweden
Great Video defenetly going to subscribe I love your style and presentation. Also something to consider about ww1 Peter II husband of Catherine the great was actually part of the Swedish Royal house which I imagine wouldn't exist that means that their Decendents Alexander I and II as well as both of the Nicolas wouldn't be born their policies actively shaped the politics of Russia which led to the great war we are familiar with. Without them I imagine that it is more likely Russia and a Germany would actually be more inclined to ally each other specially with a powerful neighbor to the north
Indeed, with a french-scandinavian alliance, Germany would not have chose Austria as their "main" ally, but russia instead. This close alliance would have also meant a much more industrialized russia, due to economic ties to its germany. It's unlikely that WW1 would happen through the balkan powderkeg - without German reassurance, Austria would not have started the war against the russians. Scandinavia as a major power would actually prevent an inbalance on the continent, as Austria would seek to align with France and Scandinavia, creating two relatively equal blocks.
immediately recognized the background music. immediately made it all better. please keep putting viking music in videos on nordic topics
Margrethe 2 and her cousin king of Sweden Still has time to form it!
Finland is not a Scandinavian country and shares little in culture, language and ethnicity with the rest of us
@@madsbuhris 1) no, there were no Finland...it was all Sweden
Language is totally different, and the ethnicity mostly different, but the cultural similarities are very vast. You seem to forget that Finland was part of Sweden for 6-7 centuries. At the time the administrative language and the language of clergy was Swedish and Finnish was the language of peasants. On top of all there was no Finnish national identity at all until the nationalist movement which occurred at the time under the Russian rule. There was no concept of Finnish nation state or even willingness to form it until around 1860’s
In this fictional timeline there was no Russian annexation of Finland so there _probably_ never was a rise of national identity in Finland.
Also an interesting fact: the idea of “Scandinavia” was created (by Sweden) after Russian annexation to exclude now Russian Finland from the rest.
Rewatching this I realised wasn’t Scandinavia’s largest extent after ww1?
So, history still took the same route, but the Scandinavian countries were one country?
There's no avoiding that hitler... butterfly effect doesnt touch him appearently
We would be the absolute best in ice hockey and skiing. Also imagine pippi långström, little mermaid and the moomins all from the same country
What if the North Sea Empire merged with the Angevin Empire merged with the Angevins of Sicily (Which would include the Kingdom of Jerusalem, Kingdom of Croatia, Kingdom of Hungary, Kingdom of Poland, Kingdom of Dalmatia, Kingdom of Arles (Burgundy), Kingdom of Thessalonica (Macedonia), County of Provence, Principality of Achaea and the Empire of Bulgaria), Merged with the Kalmar Union, and Merged with the United Kingdom which would include all territories acquired by Norway, Sweden and Denmark.
What would that look like today? And would that defeat Russia in the Great Northern War?
Another point I find is missing from this scenario is just the basic effects the economy and population just from the fact of not having those Swedish-Danish wars. It's hard to count wars but on the wiki "Dano-Swedish War" there is 16 (might be a bit exessive) Dano-Swedish wars, after the breakup of the Kalmar union.
The current population of our (I'm a Swede) countries isn't that high but without the wars, and without throwing the money away on wars we could, each, have had a population closer to the Netherlands or Germany.
Just one little sidenote - A fifth of the Swedish population emigrated to the US.
Even without taking the political consequences taken into consideration, the effects of "Denmark" having a population of ~15mil , "Norway" of ~15mil, "Sweden" of ~30m, "Finland" of ~15m, would be huge.
Don't think Vinland or Greenland would be granted outright independence due to its cultural importance to Scandinavia. Greenland in our timeline is a possession of the Danish crown for a reason. Self-rule would be granted tho. Otherwise a good video!
NICE VIDEO
Great Northern War was in 1700.
*Russian population* in 1700 would be *13,616,000.*
*The United Kalmar-Angevin Empire: 60,583,000*
UK: 5,475,000 + 1,048,000 + 3,000,000
France: 19.7 Million
Southern Italy: About 5 Million
Hungary: About 4 Million
Poland: 8.5 Million
Croatia: 647,000
Dalmatia: About 300,000
Bulgaria: 2.5 Million
Greece: 5,000,000
Levant: 2,028,000
Denmark: 745,000
Norway: 540,000
Sweden: 1,300,000
Norman Africa (Tunisia): 800,000
I am curious to know what would happen to the rest of Scandinavia’s colonies (The Congo, Guyana, Equatorial Guinea, and Indonesia)?
Great Video!
Suggestion: "What if East Prussia was still around to this day"
Good video, but if Scandinavia was a member of the allies, shouldn't WW1 be shorter, thus avoiding the russian civil war and the USSR?
Actually very possible. But even if it ended a year earlier or so, the Russian revolution would still have begun. So it's not completely certain that the USSR wouldn't have been established. And even if it ended, say one and a half, or two years earlier, Russia would still be facing major issues. The Germans did occupy quite a bit of land in the west already in 1916, and the Russians were hurting. So who knows. It's possible. I went the "safer" option of things playing out in a similar fashion. But good observation!
Interesting. Love the videos!
As a scandinavian historian I have say that your take was very optimistic but it made a enterteining video. The problem is really in that the kalmar union doesnt have the population to defend all the borders it would have. Not mention the american holdings. The population was tiny compared to more central europian powers. In our time Sweden sought to hold german cities because a single big city with its levies and taxes was almost more revenue than the entire kindoms taxes. If kalmar union would have had the unity and good leadership to keep it together it would still be very close to collapse most of the time from outside forces. If they would survived all of this they would gain more strength in the 19th 20th century due to their natural resourses. But the reality is the union never had any legs to stand on in the first place.
I don't really think that you would have gotten literally every major historical event still taking place if Scandinavia had basically stayed unifed under the kalmar union, but I like your video in general
Greenland would never be given away just so you know.
exactly my thought
@@frankwilliamk3769 Maybe sold? :)
#trump
I think there's a pretty good chance that the Kalmar Union wouldn't join NATO in that timeline, in our timeline Sweden and Finland both opposed full membership and the main reason Norway joined was because the blitzkrieg made it clear we couldn't fend off such an invasion on our own
I think they would, because they would border the Soviet Union.
NATO is more of a deturrent, so quite useful for them.
you know I can see them actually keeping Vinland .All they would have to do is move the government to Iceland permanently. the US probably also has what would be the Northeast territories OTL.
Do a video about if Sweden won the great northern war!
Seeing how you unified Scandinavia and also gave them 3 major colony locations, they wouldn't lose in WW2, why, because they were more or less be self sufficient compared to Germany. They would have unlimited access to oil and iron. And in fact if anything, they would join the axis in the war due to Russia.
The only reason the Scandinavian countries remained "neutral" during WW1 and WW2 was because the relied on trade with the major powers, and because of that being underdeveloped in military power and manpower. Again just having their colonies and being unified nullifies that drawback.
I think what would´ve have been important would either be to give each member near equal political power or to completely unite the union to one country with an elected monarch with the capital around Gothenburg. I am saying around Gothenburg because Gothenburg didn´t exist until the 17th century.
Really interesting video, feels good tho that we are 3 different countries but that are very close!
I loved it, but I got to disagree on some points. Although the Scandinavian navy would be definitely big, it would still lag behind the Spanish one until its destruction in 1588. Also, even if the new Tsar gave his Baltic territory to Scandinavia to avoid a war while his hold on the country was flimsy, Murmansk and Karelia would be kept by the Russians because of their little strategic value and Russian ethnic majority.
Finally, the Germans didn't find massive success in the Eastern Front. They were able to occupy Poland, and that was it. The reason why the Schlieffen Plan failed was because Germany had to dedicate more man than originally planned to hold the Eastern Front. If it had to deal with a northern front as well, the invasion of France would flop even harder than IOTL. When you couple that with the fact that Russia would now have an accessable ally in it's front with Germany, and that supplies would come in through the Danish Straits, than the war would actually end before the Americans ever got involved with a massive Entente victory. The Soviet Union definitely would not exist, since the conflict wouldn't drag out until the end of 1917.
But besides that, great video.
Your points are well argued. But I have considered several of them actually.
First of all, when I say the Scandinavian navy is the undisputedly second largest in Europe, it is indeed well after the destruction of the Spanish fleet in 1588. It was around the 7 years war in the mid 1700's. Perhaps I should not have done away with the "year counter" in the corner, just to make things more clear.
As for Karelia and our timeline's Murmansk Oblast, they were first of all taken from the much weaker Novgorod republic which barely held on to them. The whole region was actually disputed between Norway, Sweden and Novgorod around this time since it was barely settled at all. These lands also actually have great strategic value for Scandinavia, because they would make their border with Russia much more defendable. Since instead of a long border in eastern Finland, they would only have 3 shorter borders due to the Ladoga and Onega lakes. Even without the lakes the border would be a lot shorter. The regions were also not ethnically Russian back then. A small number of Russians did live in the far south of Karelia. But Karelia was mostly native Karelian (a subset of Finnish), and the Murmansk Oblast was mostly native Sami. Russians had actually barely even settled our timelines Russian Baltic coast, which had a mix of Russians and native Ingrians at this point. They wouldn't really start settling Karelia and the Murmansk Oblast before the late 1500's and 1600's, at which point it would already be Scandinavian lands in my scenario, avoiding any major Russian settlement of the region. So I would have to disagree with you on those points.
When it comes to the first world war however, I'm inclined to agree that it's a possibility. Certainly. I don't think the Scandinavians would directly send troops to the eastern front, since they would be pretty preoccupied with keeping Jutland, so their support would be indirect. But the war could potentially have ended earlier, with the Russian revolution being avoided. But you also have to remember that there were other factors when it came to the Russian revolution. And it also began well before the end of the war, so it would have to end a lot earlier. This is alternate history, it's fiction. We won't ever know. But yes, a quicker end to the first world war, and no Russian revolution would indeed have been a very possible outcome.
Appreciate the input, I enjoy these kinds of discussions actually.
@@Neatling Thank you for replying! I wasn't aware about the matters regarding Novgorod, to be honest. My first thought about it was: "Why in God's name would the Scandinavians want useless land on the Artic?". But you made a very good point about a more defensible border.
On the matter of the war, I also agree with you. Ever since 1905, the absolutist ways of the Russian monarchy were destined to face change. After the war, the Tsar would be forced by both internal and external pressures to give more power to Duma or be deposed. If the February Revolution had already happened, than the next monarch, if there was one after Nicholas abdication, would have it's powers severely limited.
I just can't see the war being long enough to allow a communist revolution to happen.
@@lucasnobrega1515 In hindsight I would change this aspect. But I think a sudden third remake would be a little silly, so this is just how my scenario is for now lol. Regardless, in my part 2, there will be no USSR anyways, since it is only focusing on the world today. And I will mostly focus on just Scandinavia and Vinland. Or maybe Vinland gets it's own episode, I haven't decided on that yet.
@@Neatling Jesus, a Scandinavian Canada...
The amount of apologies will go through the roof.
@@lucasnobrega1515 They would be a very humble people. But with a suppressed ruthless Viking warrior hiding somewhere deep inside lol
This was cool. Had we had this long history of a unified Nordics, we obviously had been much more powerful and all of history would have been so much more affected than your alternate timeline purports, but let's assume we got to the second world war in a similar way as real history. I can see your Danish bias though, and perhaps lack of knowledge regarding the subtleties of the eastern front of the second world war, including the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, the winter war, the continuation war and strategic decisions whether to resist Germany or not, or to have the opportunity to stay neutral or not. Had we been a unified Nordic Union, you as a Dane can't think of the eastern front as something far away, something Finland will take care of. In your alternate reality, you would have to deal with Russia. Hence, this whole union would absolutely not resist germany, but work together with it, supplying iron ore, nickel, copper and all the other minerals, and letting them use the ports. As Finland by itself was able to stop the Soviet attack, a Nordic Union could of course do it, too. And so the continuation war would have succeeded easily, with Germany together with the Nordic Union invading the Soviet Union fully. There would be no St. Peterburg in your timeline, either, and all the Finnic regions would already be in the Nordic Union, so no real need to attack deep into Russia, but Germany would have easily won the war against the Soviets. But this is way too speculative anyway, as a strong Nordic Union would have changed so much of history already centuries earlier. Still, an interesting video. P.S. How did we end up with the Dutch East Indies while still losing the Swedish and Danish forts in West Africa (which in the real timeline we lost to the Dutch)?
The finns didn't really win overall vs. The Russians :) and neutrality with Germany is still very unlikely as Germany attacked to control access to the Baltic sea
@@kaspernielsen9149 as you may notice if you read carefully, I didn't suggest neutrality, I wrote that the Nordic Union would not resist Germany at all, but would have worked together with it, giving them their desired access to the Baltic Sea, the ports, the railroads and the mines. However, since there would not even have been a Russian St. Petersburg in this timeline, but instead Finnish/Ingrian/Karelian Nevanlinna (sw. Nyenskans) and Pähkinäsaari (sw. Nöteborg) at each end of the Neva river, there really wouldn't have been a reason for Germany to invade Ingria, and Germany could have focused their efforts on Moscow, "Stalingrad"/Volgograd and the Caucasus/Caspian oil. The initial attack by Russia would have been repelled by Kalmar just as it was by Finland, and even the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact would have looked very different, Germany would have put more trust in the capability of Finland/Kalmar to defend itself and would not have agreed to sign it over to the Soviet sphere of influence in the secret (but later declassified) parts of the M-R pact agreement. But thing is, with over 500 years of alternate history, there wouldn't have even been either one of the world wars, or the Napoleonic Wars, or even the 30 years War or any european wars of succession, at least not at all like they were played out in the real timeline. All of history, not just for Northern Europe but for a great part of the world, would look wildly different.
Greetings from kalmar and from the castle
Yes. New video
But in my alternate history is:
Scandinavia will have lesser land on vinland as British settlements are a little bit faster, but still the allies
Scandinavia and Britain will sign a treaty of Vinlandstad, as Britain and Scandinavia solidifying the borders of British Canada and Vinland
Scandinavia still keep Vinland and Greenland due to easier trade to North America
(Don't worry, Scandinavia is still in NATO)
And idk what to type anymore
Why would you overlook the Dutch? In your scenario you have given dutch colonies to the Kalmar Union without given een reason for it.
Where would Germany acquire iron if they don’t get supply from Sweden
Can't wait for more
what i nice fictional piece of pure imagination!
Alas. This is the lesson of history. Neighbours fight like hell and they all lose. Try some cooperation and love instead and we will all prosper. Simple but difficult. This maybe the human condition.
I think it would always be counted as 3 kingdoms, but would be considered more as an empire eventually, having 3 more titles ussaly not a bad thing in terms of prestigie.
It seems a bit silly that if the soviets and germans divide poland between them, that they would not also do the same with Scandinavia. It would be a very interesting scenario if the soviets were later attacked by the germans and Scandinavia would be politically divided and in a bloody war with both nations from the outside and militia from within. The post-war era would also be very interesting in such a scenario. :)
If the Kalmari Union lasted, I think tgey would have got all the Baltic coast of Novgorod already in that time. then later taking the Baltic countires. The war with Muscovy would just solidify the coast control, maybe giving Novgotod itself and Arkhangelsk to Kalmar. Further east I don't think they would have gone.
Also. I think the capital would have been gothenburg - as a compromise between Copenhagen, Stockholm, and Oslo. Plus it was close to all 3 nations at the time of the forming of the Union. And in safer ditance to the mainland, yet close enough the trade routes through Copenhagen ... which would remain as a trade city: 'the New York of Scandinavia', it would later be called. Whereas Gothenburg would be nicknamed 'the washington of S.'
The nation's name might also be shortened to Scandia at some point. Like in 1848 or after, during the rise of nationalism. This era would also lead for Norwegian, Finnish and Icelandic becoming official languages in their regions during the latter part of the 19th century. Later Norwegian would get 2 official languages: West- and East Norwegian. After WWII Faroyese and the Sámi languages of the Northern Scandi(navi)a would also become official regional languages.
Lastly, I think USSR woukd reach Berlin first as in real time, just the east part would be a fraction smaller, Scaninavia having part of the Northern Berlin. And the DDR would be formed, just it wouldn't have a coastline, it would be a landlocked country - for Scandinavia would have that extended Mecklenburg as an occupation zone, later a part of the Bundes Republik Deutschland - the West Germany. Soviets would have that occupation - they would want that revenge and compensation. Scandinavia would be war weakened enough it would settle to occupy the zone it took during the war, and later join it with the West Germany. So East Germany would have been born, just it would have been a slightly smaller player in the world politics. But it would have that German technological ingenuity, and Preussian military tradition as the DDR we know did have. ... And the support of the Soviet might. This until the fsll of the Berlin Wall, and the unification of Germany.
May I ask what songs you used in the video, they sounded very good
This is ASB to be honest. I can see the Union surviving and stabilizing, but Russia being okay with having no Baltic coast? Scandinavia only narrowly losing to the Triple Alliance of Prussia, Poland-Lithuania and Russia, doing this whilst also maintaining a grand colonial empire? And France still losing against Prussia despite being allied with Scandinavia?
0:52 You forgot some countries just like Estonia 🇪🇪, Latvia 🇱🇻, Lithuania 🇱🇹 and The Orkney Islands 🏝️ and The Shetland Islands 🏝️ and The Åland Islands 🇦🇽 as well and the northern part of Germany 🇩🇪 and Poland 🇵🇱 and ( Northumbria - England 🏴 ) / (Mercia - England 🏴) and ( East Anglia - England 🏴 ), ( Danelaw ) and ( North Sea Empire - Anglo -Scandinavian Empire the personal union of the kingdoms of England 🏴, Denmark 🇩🇰 and Norway 🇳🇴 ) as well 😉😄😃😁😎😊🤜🏻🤛🏻👍🏻🤘🏻🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻
Isn’t this just normal history but with more scandinavia in it?
Is that danheim I can hear in the background?
Where would the American loyalists be resettled at? Would they be resettled at south Africa? Cause thats the premise of the Draka . That would result in a much more whiter south Africa.
And the Scandinavians colonising the east indies? Wouldn’t they want to colonise ALL of the east indies? Perhaps they would colonise Malaysia to?
id love to see in dept what a Kalmar union would have done in WW1 and WW2 if they had survived ww1
I love to the fact of a united Nordic. Modernising Kalmar Union bringing in Finland our disabled brother.
Why do you always assume WW1 and WW2 would go the same way, occur with the same alliances/countries and even happen at all?
Because it _could_ still happen, even if it is unlikely, and this makes for a more interesting story
Call it an artistic choice. It's basically because I think it's interesting to look at how these alternate countries would handle events in our world (unless the events would very obviously not happen). Some other alternate history channels go with a more vague approach, not going into as much detail because of course we couldn't know those details, they would be unpredictable. I instead like to go into more detail, and just stick as much to our worlds history as I can do without being too ridiculous. That way we can enjoy a slightly more detailed alternate history of these countries. It's just a different flavor of alternate history.
But of course it likely wouldn't play out exactly as it did in my scenario. Changing any historical event would realistically change the world in unpredictable ways. So a "realistic" approach to alternate history would indeed consist of being more vague and mentioning several possible outcomes. I just find that doing it the way I do it is more fun for me.
But I actually do regret one event which I could have changed, and that's the Russian revolution and ww1. In hindsight I could have ended ww1 earlier, and had the Russian revolution not happen.
What if Great Moravia never felt.
The Kalmar union was weak as for Denmark to take power they neded Norway and Sweden to be weak. Not trusting Norwegian and swedish nobilety and militery. Relaying on expensive german mercenaries to supress and controll the union etc. Kalmar union could be strong if united in purpose. However for one to take power it had to depleat the power of the other two and the result was the three weaker united than seperate.
For a second I saw Quebec and Ontario in the picture
I still want it back //Swede
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Yes, my Peter the Great pp is masochistic
Where are you from? And do you think Scandinavia will have space colonies in the future? Also Why do the state Norland* form? Is it so the population is spread out evenly between the states. And how much atonomy or self govern has the states?
I'm from Denmark! By space colonies are you talking about in-universe or IRL. In real life I'm certain the Nordic countries will participate in colonization of space. I imagine a lot of western countries like the US, European Union, Japan and others will work together when setting up outposts. Much like they've worked together on the ISS.
Norrland or "Nordland" would have been established around the same time Finland was. To basically give the local Sami people their own country. Although today Nordland will have become mostly Scandinavian speaking. And Finland would also be around 50% Scandinavian speaking and 50% Finnish speaking. Also I did say country right there. In my updated scenario the Kingdom of Scandinavia will work much like the United Kingdom in our world. With the sovereign state being the Kingdom of Scandinavia, but there being several constituent countries within it. Namely; Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Nordland and Finland. Iceland, the Faroes, Shetlands and Øsel will all be autonomous territories.
The next video I upload will be the updated part 2 with all the details on this. But in short they are just comparable to England, Scotland and Wales within the UK. The Autonomous Territories such as Iceland will be the ones with the most self-governance.
@@Neatling Thank you for the response! I am from Sweden and I really liked your concept that the Kalmar union never fell, and I am looking forward to your next video! When I said, "Do you think Scandinavia will have space colonies in the future" I meant in-universe (I should have been clearer about that)
In your old video you said that Scandinavia is a republic with states. But in your new Video. Scandinavia is a kingdom with countries within a country like the UK. Just to be clear.
And I’ve got more questions. What is Scandinavia’s biggest Import and is Greenland a part of Vinland or is it a part of Scandinavia? What is the state capitals are they the same as IRL? And do you want a union between the Nordic countries IRL I have always wanted to ask a person form a different Nordic country about that. Personally, I want the Nordics to unite but how about you? And btw you’re English is super good
I would never have been able to figure out that you come from Denmark if you had not said so.
@@elonmusk4086 Omg Elon Musk! I DID NOT KNOW YOU WHERE FROM SWEDEN. I thought you where american!
@@elonmusk4086 Well in-universe I imagine they would similarly be a part of any settlement and colonization of space. They would probably play an even bigger role.
And yes, in this scenario Scandinavia remains a kingdom, unlike in my old video. Although a constitutional monarchy just like Denmark, Sweden and Norway are today in our world. So parliament makes the decisions. And it is a "country of countries" much like the UK. So the sovereign state is the Kingdom of Scandinavia. But within it are constituent countries.
As for biggest import, likely cars just as in our worlds Scandinavian countries. If you meant export (things that are sent from Scandinavia to other countries) that would probably be 'machinery' as in computer's, different components etc, as well as pork/meat products, wind turbines, oil and medicine. Basically a mix of the exports of our worlds Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland. This would all make this nation quite rich.
Greenland in this scenario is a part of Vinland. And the capitals of the countries are pretty much the same. But "Christiansberg" from my old videos is not it's own "state". Instead the Capital is still Copenhagen. But instead the city of "Elfsborg", basically the predecessor to Gothenburg in our world, would be a "cultural capital" of the whole nation. Since the city center would be in Sweden, and it's suburbs would extend into both Denmark and Norway. Thus it would become a sort of melting pot for Swedish, Danish and Norwegian culture.
And yes, I would support Nordic unification. I think it could make us much more relevant on the world stage and in Europe. It certainly would be a very different country than the one in my scenario though. Kind of opposite in the sense that Denmark is the most influential member in this alternate history, but if it happened today Sweden would be the most influential. Because Denmark obviously doesn't have it's old territories anymore. But I think it would be pretty balanced, since Denmark and Norway together could outweigh Sweden still. So we would have to work together, not one country would completely control things. Where the capital ends up would be quite the issue though lol. I'm sure we could argue for years about that.
Malmø/Malmö would be a nice compromise between Sweden and Denmark. But I'm sure the Norwegians would feel a little left out lol. Maybe Gothenburg, since it is the closest to an "in between" all 3 nations still. And I mean if it became one country I'm sure many Norwegians and Danes would move there, making the city pretty mixed with time.
@@Neatling Thanks again for the response.
And I did mean imports but it was fun to read about the exports too!
So the thing about Nordic unification IRL, I also think Gothenburg would be the capital, But I think Copenhagen will become the biggest city both in size and population. Because of the climate and close vicinity to the water, Since Copenhagen is on an island lol.
The languages would sort of mix and match with each other and become one language, with different dialects between Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Almost like in your scenario but with a bit more Swedish influence this time. And if Iceland and Finland are in the union then they would still speak their own language because their languages are so different from the rest. But they Would speak the standard language as tier second language. I am realizing that this sounds almost the exact same as in your scenario lol.
The flag would probably be a mix between the tree flags or five if you include Finland an Iceland.
And Russia would not be so happy if this ever happens.
Må våra länder bli ett, för starkare tillsamman vi är!
Ha det gött!
Btw Gratefulfrisko I am not the real Elon Musk. The real Elon Musk is from South africa.
Would the super extra cold winter of 1601 effect them at all?
Done it in EU4, where I colonized siberia as Denmark and united Scandinavia
Wouldn't the british be worried about the Scandinavian power? Might not have been as one sided if Britain allied with the central powers.
Ideas what if the serbian empire did not break apart and kept the ottomans away from the balkans
germany wouldn't invade scandinavia, because the swedish iron ore, wich the german industry was deeply dependent on. plus it would be difficult to get supplies throw the Danish belts.
They would invade just to recover Schleswig-Holstein, as Hitler was determined to unite all historically German territories under Germany, especially those lost in WW1, and to deny the Allies access to those same resources
It fell when Margareta eller nån dog
Mr how much population does halland, Scania, and Blekinge have in This Universe
You kinda didnt mention the fact that finns would have been treated as second class citizena until very late. They were practically slaves to the swedish for a long time and then slaves to the Russians. Finns would have most likely only gained true citizenship after the seven years, or first world war.
Me living in Kalmar be like -_- ( I am actually living in Kalmar)
i think they gemrany whould have taken jutland then maybe copenhagen but no more
It took me to 10:00 until I understood that this was not actual history xD
The skirmish between Russia and Finland wasn't covered was it?
19th century map was a bit off at 9:10
it is funny that it seems to not change much history (same wars)
I played them in medieval total war 2