Agreed. Him and Videntis are the two best channels at pursuing alternate history as I like it. They pick a scenario and run with it. No waffling on how actually a given scenario is impossible for most of the video. Actually giving interesting details on significant events and social changes that occur as result. It's great. The only major point of criticism I have is that there can be a lack of effect on wider social movements resulting in a history that oddly mirrors our own despite massive changes to the political landscape.
Your alt-hist videos def gotta be one of my favorites from this channel (I too dread that Scandinavia was never an single unified state and its immense potential to be a super power)
That was a well thought out alternative history that kept bound to more realistic possibilities, and didn't fall into the traps of the incredibly unlikely possibilities that most alt histories tend to do.
Video suggestion: countries that failed to become superpowers [examples: Argentina, Egypt (through a pan-arab federation), Saudi Arabia (possibly), et cetera]
I would love to see a "what if the iberia union survived?". It is similar to the kalmar union, both had great potenicial and could have changed world history
the mongol empire would wipe out most Europeans because they had to go through russians who were used to the cold serbia weather if russians werent there they would have a easier time going through making the mongol conquest more fatal and expand more into europe with out russians slowing them down significantly
Well i see that the world got like the 5th Kalmar Union survivng Scenrio and i like it. Also in this Timeline there are like fifteen people in Scandinavia and 26 in Canada as well as they are very rich, and it makes sense that such grand megacity would form in the danish strait as it is the prime place for trade in the empire, and i really liked that you also showed a map of how the city changed. also what is in the plan to come out next, as i would be intrested in seeing some south south eastern europe focus instead of constantly being either in north or in the whole
As an Ontarian whose hometown is in the countryside outside of Toronto. I approve of this video. Can you do it irl too? xD Two comments: this is what my average ck3 game playing as Denmark looks like, and finally Estonia becomes part of the Nordics lol. Speaking of which, is Vinland part of some type of Nordic council with the Kingdom of Scandinavia along with the other colonies?
The thing is that Old Swedish from the 1500s were closer to Old Danish than the modern Swedish and Danish languages are today. Old Norwegian was also closer to both Old Danish and Old Swedish at the time. So I think they would have tried to unify the three Scandinavian languages to further unify the whole of Scandinavia.
Forget the European Union BS, THIS is what should be, the Scandinavian/Nordic Union with Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland & Iceland (but if not, the other 4 is fine) This would be so much better IMO.
I’m Canadian living in Nova Scotia. Although remote & difficult to travel to, i strongly recommend visiting the only existing Viking settlement in North America- L’anse aux meadows in Newfoundland - it’s a truly underrated historical site. Side note - there’s no actual concrete evidence the Vikings traveled any further inland North America. Especially as far west as Minnesota/Wisconsin etc. Just more examples of Americans trying to rewrite history. I’m surprised I haven’t heard about Ghengis Khan sailing up the Mississippi River. 😊
What if the Imperial Federation was successful? What if United States of Austria was successful? What if America purchased English Carribean and Madagascar? What if Italy was united by Medici? What if Bohemia United Germany? What if Constianiople was Reconqured early?
Den dagen vi som en kon-føderasjon ( Union men landene er selvstendige bortsett fra utenrikspolitikk, militær, økonomi? osv ). En veldig interesant og begivenhetsrik dag det kunne blitt! // The day we as a con-federation ( Union but the countries are independent apart from foreign policy, military, economy? etc ). A very interesting and eventful day it could have been!
Portuguese here. I couldn't avoid to notice that this scenario would have weakened UK and as a consequence, South Africa would be Dutch and a united Portuguese colony in Africa would have been achieved as was intended IRL, linking Angola to Moçambique, and afterwards giving birth to a big united African country, like Brazil in south america. Good for them. After decolonization, a country like that would certainly be a wealthy nation.
@@PrinceWalacra That's the joke. The Dutch province was Zeeland, the Danish one was Zealand. Hence in this timeline the spelling is correct for the reference 😉
This guy is either from Scandinavia or he is just a REALLY REALLY big Kalmar Union fan cause this is the 13th video on Scandinavia as a whole (including non althist vids)
He's most likely danish judging by his accent, how he pronounces place names - and how most of the cities and names of politicians in this united scandinavia are (as far as I can tell) all Danish first names and surnames.
Biggest problem with "what if scandinavia united" is the control of the baltic sea. Germany, Russia, and Poland simply couldnt live with a united scandinavia and the total control of sea way.
If you just look at a map of Northern Europe it is immediately obvious that there is ALREADY a Baltic/Scandinavian Unification of some sorts. The flags tell the tale.
I think you'd need to expand on how and why Scandinavia would turn from Catholism without the death of the Kalmar union (at least around that time). Personally I think there'd be more pushbacks from the other European countries if a Scandinavian empire had existed.
Interesting theory. I think it more likely (or at least very likely) though, that United Scandinavia would have extended itself even further in the east. Instead falling under Muscovy rule, Novogorod could have very well become part of United Scandinavia or at least it's protectorate. It was not until 1470s, when Novgorod was annexed by Muscovy and Russia as we know it was born. Novgorod ruling families - boyars - were divided in their opinion about Moscow until the end and United Scandinavia could have challenged Moscow easily. This would have redrawn the Northeastern European Map completely as Novgorod extended itself all the way to Ural Mountains. There would never have been St. Petersburg and probably never Russian Siberia. Instead Russia would have turned more to the south and possibly Kiev would have re-emerged as the seat of power. Russian empire would have been replaced by Scandinavian Empire that would have expanded to Asia through Novrogod lands during the following centuries (instead of Russia).
The biggest stretch in this video was Vinland: as interesting as that is there is no president. Perhaps if they pressed the issue they could’ve gotten Newfoundland and had a small Provence as a colony but they wouldn’t’ve beat Britain to lower Canada. If they had had an interest they wouldn’t’ve given up after 2 attempts. However them getting some African colonies would’ve happened…provided oto von Bismarck still happened (and thus the scramble for Africa) since Germany and all its constituent countries are radically different. Some Polynesian islands are to be expected but it’s a little odd they wouldn’t compete in the Caribbean or South America, sure Spain was there first but who cares what Spain thinks?
could you do a senario of "what if the middle east never had oil" this senario has huge ramifications like a different coldwar, usa probably "annexing" venesuela for their big oil reserves and perhaps a greater progress on renewables.
if Scandinavia was stronger and united and ww1 was still a heavy slog, i would not be suprised if germany got forced to give up the german aeras that Scandinavia owned for hundreds of year, i also doubt that Scandinavia would say no, like denmark did to get all of Schleswig-Holstein. ignoring that, this is more or less my only complaint, where ofc everything could be way different, this is a ''what if'' and what would happen no one could know, also i really really like that you dont go over the top, or make Scandinavia a giant power house that could just triumph over everything. med andre ord, en god video.
For some reason I think that even under Swedish crown, Finns would maintain the language and culture even if the main official language would be Swedish. It would help tons with the trade and most likely annexation on Estonia since by those times we spoke literally the same language and had shared culture. Same applies to Karelian people as well as Sami in the far North to thge reaches of Kola peninsula. I'm sure Finland would stay under the crown and wouldn't try to declare independence or break the union like with Ruskies, though I'd dare to claim Finland would be antonymous state with own governance under Swedish/Scandivanian rule.
Saw you talking about Elfsborg becoming stronger, well the Danish did have plans to move the capital of Scandinavia to Gothenburg. Scandinavia would probably also forgo colonizing and leave it to England in order to get hold of the baltic coastline, making it an inland sea. In WW1 England would have allied Germany & Scandinavia against Soviet, France & Ottomans.
Even if it managed to centralise Scandinavia, the Kalmar Union would have eventually fallen to the same issue as the Swedish Empire; there are not enough people in Scandinavia. Likely it would have remained a major colonial power, but a Russian coalition would still have taken Finland and Estonia through attrition. Eventually the map would likely end with a country that included modern Denmark and the Scandinavian Peninsula.
The thing and one of the flaws was could be, is Unionized into ONE country. I would try to make it a con-federation. Not as stronk as a federation but each current country would still be independent and still have own unique flags etc. The difference would be an " umbrella " flag like yellow, red cross with blue stars in each squares fro each member. Also common Nordic Krona currency, foreign relations/ diplomacy administration, military and economics. Possibly a shared welfare system too.
How did Scotland/Uk get the Orkneys i this timeline? Find it strange that they would not Remain in kalmar/scandinavia? Here they gave scottish colors earlier than our actal timeline.
I have a problem with this. The main reason neither Denmark or Sweden expanded much after 1600eds was because of wars between Sweden and Denmark. Russia was founded only years before Kalmar union was dissolved. Russa expanded (population vice) mostly into the then Sweden and Poland, and doing so mostly because of wars between Sweden and Denmark. So to say, Denmark was not on Russian side, but they was on the side of who ever was in war with Sweden. If Sweden and Denmark was on the same side, Danish troops that was in effect of support of Russia, would in that case be in support of Sweden in stead. This is also to a degree true for War between Denmark and Sweden involving Poland. Here is a bit more complicated because its not clear cut if a unified Nordic would generally support Poland or be against Poland. I would say the most likely scenario is that Poland mostly would be a enemy of Sweden. Buuut, russa would probobly be the more important enemy becasue Russia trying to take land from already pre existing Nordic. The result of that would be that Russia would never establish a coast and hence never grew to a empire, hence remain a poor backwater. I would also say its unlikely that Nordic would try to take over the whole of Poland or even want to. Basically Baltic would be lake Kalmar Union with Kalmar union all around. Even if this would be a significant super power, it would not be quite as large as UK or France, while fairly close. Also with no great Russia to have war with, the situation in Europe would be very different. Most of the conclict between UK and Sweden or Denmark involved Russia, with no powerful russia i would say that Kamlar Union and UK would. This would probobly result in a higher engagement of colonization while i would assume that the Kalmar union colonies would fowled into the UK colonies in america just as in our timeline. Where it really would matter is in Africa. I would also say that with out a large German coast, Germany would not be close to as power full as in our timeline. With UK and Kalmar Union on the same side there would just not be sufficient power to even challenge the domination of the North. There would also probobly not be a European union today. With the north that much of a power house its unlikely that Neither Nordic countries or UK would join something that would probobly be seen as a way to suppress the more powerful countries.
I almost view our countries as one. We have free travel, working is no problem, banks that cross the borders, defence was earlier a close collaboration. Even more now with Nato. If I want to move from sweden to one of the other countries it wouldn't be a big problem. And we view each other as brothers and sisters more or less. We are mocking each other as siblings at least : ). We have very little differences in our customs with holidays. Not any bigger difference than any other bigger country with different beliefs. Our kings and queens are related to each other. I think we have more in common then differences .
2:04 Norway generally suffered under Denmark. If Sweden remained under Danish rule then Norwegians would have the option of cooperating with the Swedish opposition possibly allowing *both* countries to leave simultaneously instead of just Sweden alone. 3:05 The world wouldn't refrain from reacting. The UK, Netherlands and HRE would all consider such a strong nordic region a issue and would oppose it. Furthermore such a union would in reality have weakened Scandinavia. Just like it would today. Countries are more efficient when they're smaller.
1 If the danes managed to appease the Nordic nobility and properly integrate them in to the union on equal grounds the process of unification would be plausible. There would of course be problems in some of the more historically unruly territories such as bergslagen/Dalecarlia but they would integrate as the wealth over the years from a big empire would keep flowing in. 2 The regional powerhouses of the southern and eastern Baltics would surely react to a new major player in the geopolitical sphere, just as they did towards the Swedish empires expansion. The big difference is that with a more than doubled population of a more or less culturally homogenous people, if united they could have mustered a lot more of the manpower sorely needed to fight a long and lasting war against continental armies. Add to that the major economic growth of the three regions combined (the mines of Sweden alone fuelled via mostly german lanskechts the wars of the Swedish empire.) they would have been a real force to be reckoned with and could thereby tie tighter diplomatic relations to other Protestant countries such as the UK and the Netherlands. As for the Economic development of major countries as opposed to smaller ones, there are a lot of examples of well functioning European Unions during the 16 and 17th century e.g the dutch confederation and the United Kingdom. Sorry for long post but I’m drunk and up way too late 😂
@@frejcarlsson2473 You're assuming that a greater empire would lead to more wealth, but the opposite is true for most of the empire. Only the capital, in this case Copenhagen, would actually get more growth from keeping Sweden. Sweden and Norway would both suffer from lower growth from being a part of a greater empire. Heck, even areas within Denmark probably had lower growth because Norway and Sweden was included. The reason for that is that you can't make rules and policies that works for everyone. Either you have separate laws for each area decided separately in each territory by people living there, in essence sovereign democratic states, or you end up with a reduced growth. And the extra weight that a empire can throw around in international politics doesn't even come close to making up for that disadvantage. Again, regarding point two empires growing leads to reduced growth, not increased growth. The only benefit is reduced trade barriers, but that's not really a argument for empires as that can be done just fine between nations too. A homogeneous population would also reduce growth, diversity is proven to increase innovation. A confederation is very different from a union. In a confederation the power starts at the bottom and is given upwards. But the bottom level still has the final say. In a federation the top level has the ultimate power, but grants it downwards. A unitary system on the other hand has all power at the top, Norway is using a unitary system within the country, but is trying to ensure extra representation from rural areas to compensate. As for the UK... Its main benefit was the trade throughout a huge empire, at that scale even the disadvantages of being a part of a empire (big ones causig millions to starve and/or die etc) But let's just say that it's no coincident that former British territories where far less developed then England itself. That includes Scotland and Ireland being less developed.
Well yeah but in this timeline they were under german control for much longer and with greater grip so it makes sense, and you are the Slavic Germans instead of true slavs
@@KiraiKatsuji Dude in ours timeline we were much longer under German control. We were part of Holy roman empire of German nation from 1002 then Habsburg austria from 1526. Get independent in only 1918. That give 916 years of German control and influence over nation. While in this timeline we get independence from German around the Thirty Years' War that happen in 1618-1648 and it's show that Czekia keep independence after it. That give as only 616 years of German control and influence. So in this timeline we were 300 years less under Germans. So czekia was less influence by German but somehow is part of german nation.
@@dont_push_enter2550 Well it's the quantity vs quality of German rule in one more time that was less stricts here less time that was more strict, and also it isn't all that hard to outpopulate something so small that has only defence in form of sudets
@@AholeAtheist Probably because the Danes colonized it in this scenario, which means they named it after a region of their country, Sjælland or Zealand in English.
You've built in points of potential nationbreaking issues, for example all the names of prime ministers and kings and so on are danish, despite the noted respect of swedish nobles this would be a problem. the centralisation of power and people around denmark and kattegat. You have to remember that nowray and sweden are already grappling with people living far from the capitals feeling disaffected, you compound that problem enormously by adding finland and estonia as well, it wouldnt work, these are places with long histories and traditions that would not let them accept such a centralisation. The only way such a realm could function would be the wa canada and the US work, with a high degree of federalism. That in turn would mean the historical centers of population in helsinki, st.petersburg(which was founded by sweden/finland, tallinn, stockholm and oslo would be important to keep this nation functioning. If you ask me...
Vinland would probably have the most overpowered hockey team ever
LMFAO Heiskanen and Hintz would litterally be baby Dallas
Scandinavia too.
Scandinavian Canadians. The most overpowered combo in all of history in hockey
@@enderman_of_d00m24 if we could somehow get czechs in there too it’s over
@@talonargy54 Beginning of the Scandinavian-Cana-Czech Empire
I think this guy is from Scandanavia
he is form denmark
@@123mannen3So that's why he talks about the Kalmar Union but not the Swedish empire, yuck
@@sucidail3939Or, hear me out, maybe because Kalmar United all of the Nordic and not just Sweden and Finland?
@@Names1234-v4gSweden controlled Half of Penmark, Russia, Estonia, Latvia, important parts of Russia and ports in Germany bro
@@Names1234-v4g "United", it was a glorified personal union that only catered towards Denmark's economic interests.
Neatling trying to not make videa about Kalmar Union/United Scandinavia challenge (impossible)
New Zealand being scandinavian is such a cool concept
As a New Zealander, I support this notion. We have to go back!
Honestly from the pictures I have seen, it’s not to dissimilar to Northern Europe (especially Iceland, because it’s my frame of reference)
@@theicelandicnationalist2.023 the only big difference here is that we are a slight bit warmer
Calling New Zealand “New Sjaeland” is a scam, New Zealand has nothing to do with Sjaeland in Denmark, it’s named after the Dutch province of Zeeland.
@@dukevonvagabond8123 If am not wrong there are towns or regions in NZ with Scandinavian names.
This is the 3rd video you’ve made on if the Kalmar Union survived
4th
@@ferrothorn9022 5th actually
This is the 6th!
and they better keep coming
I can't help myself
Love the details. Like how you changed the names on the maps from Danish/Swedish/Norwegian to Scandinavian
no he changed them to danish
Like the fact that the Vinlandflag is the same as our Småland. As a smålänning this makes me happy
As a norwegian, I aprove this (Also this video is really quality! Great work!)
I'm glad we're a separate country. We're a unique nation after all, it makes sense that we have our own borders and sovereignty.
@@VingulEh
@@CallMeThyme Ja.
@@Vingul 🐟👍
@@Vingul Unique? sure, you have oil, salmon and... well... what else?
fun fact: Poland-Lithuania was in a union with Sweden for a bit
Neatling you make amazing videos I legit get happy and excited when I see them pop up in my notifications
Agreed. Him and Videntis are the two best channels at pursuing alternate history as I like it. They pick a scenario and run with it. No waffling on how actually a given scenario is impossible for most of the video. Actually giving interesting details on significant events and social changes that occur as result. It's great. The only major point of criticism I have is that there can be a lack of effect on wider social movements resulting in a history that oddly mirrors our own despite massive changes to the political landscape.
Your alt-hist videos def gotta be one of my favorites from this channel (I too dread that Scandinavia was never an single unified state and its immense potential to be a super power)
i love your videos, they tend to have the best endings. Always fairly realistic, always solid and you never go overboard!
I’d agree but 80million people in Vinland seems a bit excessive. And 6 million in Sjælland. That would make it a city Island like Hongkong😅.
@@jamman7094 Nah I think it's a fairly realistic estimate because it expanded further south into the more populated areas than modern day Canada.
Neatling this is the seventh week on a row you make a what if scandinavia united, keep it coming and soon we might actually unite them.
That was a well thought out alternative history that kept bound to more realistic possibilities, and didn't fall into the traps of the incredibly unlikely possibilities that most alt histories tend to do.
I'd like to suggest a "What if Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth never fell" remaster, if you would like some ideas
This was a much more realistic take than your last video, good job
Video suggestion: countries that failed to become superpowers [examples: Argentina, Egypt (through a pan-arab federation), Saudi Arabia (possibly), et cetera]
great production quality!
Very interesting! Watching from Norge ❤
Interesting go at alternative history. Thanks for the video.
more
I need more scandanavia videos
hell yeah
I would love to see a "what if the iberia union survived?". It is similar to the kalmar union, both had great potenicial and could have changed world history
Please a make a burgundy scenario where it survives and also doens't just become bigger netherlands
colonial Burgundy
What If Russia 🇷🇺 never colonized Siberia and didn't expand East into Asia
Great idea sound interesting
the mongol empire would wipe out most Europeans because they had to go through russians who were used to the cold serbia weather if russians werent there they would have a easier time going through making the mongol conquest more fatal and expand more into europe with out russians slowing them down significantly
Poor poland
Or, kept Alaska!
Great job. Thoroughly enjoyed!
Yet another banger
I love Scandinavia! From Philippines 🇵🇭😍
Well i see that the world got like the 5th Kalmar Union survivng Scenrio and i like it. Also in this Timeline there are like fifteen people in Scandinavia and 26 in Canada as well as they are very rich, and it makes sense that such grand megacity would form in the danish strait as it is the prime place for trade in the empire, and i really liked that you also showed a map of how the city changed.
also what is in the plan to come out next, as i would be intrested in seeing some south south eastern europe focus instead of constantly being either in north or in the whole
Dude I wish this was reality, it would have been so cool. (I’m a Swede btw)
As an Ontarian whose hometown is in the countryside outside of Toronto. I approve of this video. Can you do it irl too? xD Two comments: this is what my average ck3 game playing as Denmark looks like, and finally Estonia becomes part of the Nordics lol. Speaking of which, is Vinland part of some type of Nordic council with the Kingdom of Scandinavia along with the other colonies?
The thing is that Old Swedish from the 1500s were closer to Old Danish than the modern Swedish and Danish languages are today. Old Norwegian was also closer to both Old Danish and Old Swedish at the time. So I think they would have tried to unify the three Scandinavian languages to further unify the whole of Scandinavia.
the names are like 99% just pure modern danish
I love these videos.
This is like the 7th vid you’ve done on a united Scandinavia and united Nordic countries
Do a video on Serbia or Bulgaria I think it would be interesting.
I think it would be cool to combine this scenario with your eastern Rome, Albion, Burgundy and Poland-Lithuania scenarios
This is how history should have went.
Forget the European Union BS, THIS is what should be, the Scandinavian/Nordic Union with Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland & Iceland (but if not, the other 4 is fine)
This would be so much better IMO.
I love America casually expanding east everytime we see it again, and it basically trading new england for more of mexico
This is why we play the Europa Universalis games, what a commercial for those games xD
I’m Canadian living in Nova Scotia. Although remote & difficult to travel to, i strongly recommend visiting the only existing Viking settlement in North America- L’anse aux meadows in Newfoundland - it’s a truly underrated historical site. Side note - there’s no actual concrete evidence the Vikings traveled any further inland North America. Especially as far west as Minnesota/Wisconsin etc. Just more examples of Americans trying to rewrite history. I’m surprised I haven’t heard about Ghengis Khan sailing up the Mississippi River. 😊
I absolutely love to see an Alt history where Europe keeps its colonies for once considering there wasnt a ww2. This is a very nice world
I like how in this alternate history Vínland is just Canada but bigger and now has even stronger ties to the Nordics!
In this scenario Novgorod vs Muscovy war would've gone down differently.
What if the Imperial Federation was successful?
What if United States of Austria was successful?
What if America purchased English Carribean and Madagascar?
What if Italy was united by Medici?
What if Bohemia United Germany?
What if Constianiople was Reconqured early?
New Sjælland was a nice touch.
As a Norwegian I approve
Den dagen vi som en kon-føderasjon ( Union men landene er selvstendige bortsett fra utenrikspolitikk, militær, økonomi? osv ). En veldig interesant og begivenhetsrik dag det kunne blitt! // The day we as a con-federation ( Union but the countries are independent apart from foreign policy, military, economy? etc ). A very interesting and eventful day it could have been!
Could you do a scenario for "What if feudal fragmentation in Poland never happened"
Portuguese here. I couldn't avoid to notice that this scenario would have weakened UK and as a consequence, South Africa would be Dutch and a united Portuguese colony in Africa would have been achieved as was intended IRL, linking Angola to Moçambique, and afterwards giving birth to a big united African country, like Brazil in south america. Good for them. After decolonization, a country like that would certainly be a wealthy nation.
"New Sjælland" was really the icing on the cake
Bit of fun seeing as English used to call Sjælland Zealand 😆
Calling New Zealand “New Sjaeland” is a scam, New Zealand has nothing to do with Sjaeland in Denmark, it’s named after the Dutch province of Zeeland.
@@PrinceWalacra
That's the joke. The Dutch province was Zeeland, the Danish one was Zealand. Hence in this timeline the spelling is correct for the reference 😉
@@PrinceWalacra do you not understand what the video (and by extension channel) is about?
part 2 please
Alternate Earth. I like this, as a Scandinavian.
Not Norwegian, Swedish or Danish.
I am Scandinavian.
This guy is either from Scandinavia or he is just a REALLY REALLY big Kalmar Union fan cause this is the 13th video on Scandinavia as a whole (including non althist vids)
He's most likely danish judging by his accent, how he pronounces place names - and how most of the cities and names of politicians in this united scandinavia are (as far as I can tell) all Danish first names and surnames.
Biggest problem with "what if scandinavia united" is the control of the baltic sea. Germany, Russia, and Poland simply couldnt live with a united scandinavia and the total control of sea way.
Why did you narrate my EU4 Scandinavia playthrough?
If you just look at a map of Northern Europe it is immediately obvious that there is ALREADY a Baltic/Scandinavian Unification of some sorts. The flags tell the tale.
Pls do a what if on mexico🙏
I like the theory of Vinland
Was this inspired by DOD at all?
Scandinavia: *stretches into Baltikum*
Estonia: *happy estonian noises*
Scandinavias ARE united, we're just organised as different countries. We have each others backs, culturally and historically.
3D
1,5K L
194 C
42,7K S
26 969 V
THIS IS A TEST! DO NOT INTERACT!
Jo mere jeg så din video blev jeg mere og mere sikker på at du er dansker det havde jeg så også ret i. Men fuck en fed video.
I think you'd need to expand on how and why Scandinavia would turn from Catholism without the death of the Kalmar union (at least around that time).
Personally I think there'd be more pushbacks from the other European countries if a Scandinavian empire had existed.
Interesting theory. I think it more likely (or at least very likely) though, that United Scandinavia would have extended itself even further in the east. Instead falling under Muscovy rule, Novogorod could have very well become part of United Scandinavia or at least it's protectorate. It was not until 1470s, when Novgorod was annexed by Muscovy and Russia as we know it was born. Novgorod ruling families - boyars - were divided in their opinion about Moscow until the end and United Scandinavia could have challenged Moscow easily. This would have redrawn the Northeastern European Map completely as Novgorod extended itself all the way to Ural Mountains. There would never have been St. Petersburg and probably never Russian Siberia. Instead Russia would have turned more to the south and possibly Kiev would have re-emerged as the seat of power. Russian empire would have been replaced by Scandinavian Empire that would have expanded to Asia through Novrogod lands during the following centuries (instead of Russia).
naming the litte island under australia for "Christiansland" is pretty ironic considering there's a city most south in Norway called Kristiansand
The biggest stretch in this video was Vinland: as interesting as that is there is no president. Perhaps if they pressed the issue they could’ve gotten Newfoundland and had a small Provence as a colony but they wouldn’t’ve beat Britain to lower Canada. If they had had an interest they wouldn’t’ve given up after 2 attempts. However them getting some African colonies would’ve happened…provided oto von Bismarck still happened (and thus the scramble for Africa) since Germany and all its constituent countries are radically different. Some Polynesian islands are to be expected but it’s a little odd they wouldn’t compete in the Caribbean or South America, sure Spain was there first but who cares what Spain thinks?
the days when the baltic sea was a swedish lake
the håndbold would go insane
could you do a senario of "what if the middle east never had oil"
this senario has huge ramifications like a different coldwar, usa probably "annexing" venesuela for their big oil reserves and perhaps a greater progress on renewables.
just a qustion, wouldnt it be more logickel to put lappland insted of norrboten?
It would be so awesome.
It would be so cool.
The third time you’ve done this lol
What if Crassus and Publius conquered Persia and ruled the east along with Crassus Jrs sphere in north Africa?
if Scandinavia was stronger and united and ww1 was still a heavy slog, i would not be suprised if germany got forced to give up the german aeras that Scandinavia owned for hundreds of year, i also doubt that Scandinavia would say no, like denmark did to get all of Schleswig-Holstein.
ignoring that, this is more or less my only complaint, where ofc everything could be way different, this is a ''what if'' and what would happen no one could know, also i really really like that you dont go over the top, or make Scandinavia a giant power house that could just triumph over everything.
med andre ord, en god video.
For some reason I think that even under Swedish crown, Finns would maintain the language and culture even if the main official language would be Swedish.
It would help tons with the trade and most likely annexation on Estonia since by those times we spoke literally the same language and had shared culture. Same applies to Karelian people as well as Sami in the far North to thge reaches of Kola peninsula. I'm sure Finland would stay under the crown and wouldn't try to declare independence or break the union like with Ruskies, though I'd dare to claim Finland would be antonymous state with own governance under Swedish/Scandivanian rule.
Saw you talking about Elfsborg becoming stronger, well the Danish did have plans to move the capital of Scandinavia to Gothenburg. Scandinavia would probably also forgo colonizing and leave it to England in order to get hold of the baltic coastline, making it an inland sea. In WW1 England would have allied Germany & Scandinavia against Soviet, France & Ottomans.
Even if it managed to centralise Scandinavia, the Kalmar Union would have eventually fallen to the same issue as the Swedish Empire; there are not enough people in Scandinavia. Likely it would have remained a major colonial power, but a Russian coalition would still have taken Finland and Estonia through attrition. Eventually the map would likely end with a country that included modern Denmark and the Scandinavian Peninsula.
The thing and one of the flaws was could be, is Unionized into ONE country. I would try to make it a con-federation. Not as stronk as a federation but each current country would still be independent and still have own unique flags etc. The difference would be an " umbrella " flag like yellow, red cross with blue stars in each squares fro each member. Also common Nordic Krona currency, foreign relations/ diplomacy administration, military and economics. Possibly a shared welfare system too.
Would love a new union 🤩
How did Scotland/Uk get the Orkneys i this timeline? Find it strange that they would not Remain in kalmar/scandinavia? Here they gave scottish colors earlier than our actal timeline.
I have a problem with this.
The main reason neither Denmark or Sweden expanded much after 1600eds was because of wars between Sweden and Denmark.
Russia was founded only years before Kalmar union was dissolved. Russa expanded (population vice) mostly into the then Sweden and Poland, and doing so mostly because of wars between Sweden and Denmark. So to say, Denmark was not on Russian side, but they was on the side of who ever was in war with Sweden.
If Sweden and Denmark was on the same side, Danish troops that was in effect of support of Russia, would in that case be in support of Sweden in stead.
This is also to a degree true for War between Denmark and Sweden involving Poland. Here is a bit more complicated because its not clear cut if a unified Nordic would generally support Poland or be against Poland. I would say the most likely scenario is that Poland mostly would be a enemy of Sweden. Buuut, russa would probobly be the more important enemy becasue Russia trying to take land from already pre existing Nordic.
The result of that would be that Russia would never establish a coast and hence never grew to a empire, hence remain a poor backwater. I would also say its unlikely that Nordic would try to take over the whole of Poland or even want to. Basically Baltic would be lake Kalmar Union with Kalmar union all around.
Even if this would be a significant super power, it would not be quite as large as UK or France, while fairly close. Also with no great Russia to have war with, the situation in Europe would be very different.
Most of the conclict between UK and Sweden or Denmark involved Russia, with no powerful russia i would say that Kamlar Union and UK would.
This would probobly result in a higher engagement of colonization while i would assume that the Kalmar union colonies would fowled into the UK colonies in america just as in our timeline. Where it really would matter is in Africa.
I would also say that with out a large German coast, Germany would not be close to as power full as in our timeline. With UK and Kalmar Union on the same side there would just not be sufficient power to even challenge the domination of the North.
There would also probobly not be a European union today. With the north that much of a power house its unlikely that Neither Nordic countries or UK would join something that would probobly be seen as a way to suppress the more powerful countries.
I think he is spying on me, i litterly just started recreating swedish empire in hoi4
Novogorod would be interesting who would unify russia creating a venitian like trade republic
Blame the norwegians and the fins, sweden was really giving it a go
i could live with this
I almost view our countries as one. We have free travel, working is no problem, banks that cross the borders, defence was earlier a close collaboration. Even more now with Nato. If I want to move from sweden to one of the other countries it wouldn't be a big problem. And we view each other as brothers and sisters more or less. We are mocking each other as siblings at least : ). We have very little differences in our customs with holidays. Not any bigger difference than any other bigger country with different beliefs. Our kings and queens are related to each other. I think we have more in common then differences .
I don't see why the nordic traders would be more sucessfull than the hanseatic ones. The germans had a more diverse range of goods to trade.
2:04
Norway generally suffered under Denmark.
If Sweden remained under Danish rule then Norwegians would have the option of cooperating with the Swedish opposition possibly allowing *both* countries to leave simultaneously instead of just Sweden alone.
3:05
The world wouldn't refrain from reacting.
The UK, Netherlands and HRE would all consider such a strong nordic region a issue and would oppose it.
Furthermore such a union would in reality have weakened Scandinavia.
Just like it would today.
Countries are more efficient when they're smaller.
1
If the danes managed to appease the Nordic nobility and properly integrate them in to the union on equal grounds the process of unification would be plausible. There would of course be problems in some of the more historically unruly territories such as bergslagen/Dalecarlia but they would integrate as the wealth over the years from a big empire would keep flowing in.
2
The regional powerhouses of the southern and eastern Baltics would surely react to a new major player in the geopolitical sphere, just as they did towards the Swedish empires expansion. The big difference is that with a more than doubled population of a more or less culturally homogenous people, if united they could have mustered a lot more of the manpower sorely needed to fight a long and lasting war against continental armies. Add to that the major economic growth of the three regions combined (the mines of Sweden alone fuelled via mostly german lanskechts the wars of the Swedish empire.) they would have been a real force to be reckoned with and could thereby tie tighter diplomatic relations to other Protestant countries such as the UK and the Netherlands.
As for the Economic development of major countries as opposed to smaller ones, there are a lot of examples of well functioning European Unions during the 16 and 17th century e.g the dutch confederation and the United Kingdom.
Sorry for long post but I’m drunk and up way too late 😂
@@frejcarlsson2473
You're assuming that a greater empire would lead to more wealth, but the opposite is true for most of the empire.
Only the capital, in this case Copenhagen, would actually get more growth from keeping Sweden.
Sweden and Norway would both suffer from lower growth from being a part of a greater empire.
Heck, even areas within Denmark probably had lower growth because Norway and Sweden was included.
The reason for that is that you can't make rules and policies that works for everyone.
Either you have separate laws for each area decided separately in each territory by people living there, in essence sovereign democratic states, or you end up with a reduced growth.
And the extra weight that a empire can throw around in international politics doesn't even come close to making up for that disadvantage.
Again, regarding point two empires growing leads to reduced growth, not increased growth.
The only benefit is reduced trade barriers, but that's not really a argument for empires as that can be done just fine between nations too.
A homogeneous population would also reduce growth, diversity is proven to increase innovation.
A confederation is very different from a union.
In a confederation the power starts at the bottom and is given upwards.
But the bottom level still has the final say.
In a federation the top level has the ultimate power, but grants it downwards.
A unitary system on the other hand has all power at the top, Norway is using a unitary system within the country, but is trying to ensure extra representation from rural areas to compensate.
As for the UK...
Its main benefit was the trade throughout a huge empire, at that scale even the disadvantages of being a part of a empire (big ones causig millions to starve and/or die etc)
But let's just say that it's no coincident that former British territories where far less developed then England itself.
That includes Scotland and Ireland being less developed.
What could have been ❤
Imagine Europe united. That would be a force able to overcome USA at least. Maybe?
Well what if Roman Empire survived exists so you can check that up
I'm Canadian and I wished I lived in Vinland
What if the Hundred Years War never happened?
How Germany menage to keep Czekia. We Czech are Slavic people not german 💀
Czechs are slavic austrians
Well yeah but in this timeline they were under german control for much longer and with greater grip so it makes sense, and you are the Slavic Germans instead of true slavs
@@KiraiKatsuji Dude in ours timeline we were much longer under German control.
We were part of Holy roman empire of German nation from 1002 then Habsburg austria from 1526. Get independent in only 1918. That give 916 years of German control and influence over nation. While in this timeline we get independence from German around the Thirty Years' War that happen in 1618-1648 and it's show that Czekia keep independence after it. That give as only 616 years of German control and influence. So in this timeline we were 300 years less under Germans. So czekia was less influence by German but somehow is part of german nation.
@@dont_push_enter2550 Well it's the quantity vs quality of German rule in one more time that was less stricts here less time that was more strict, and also it isn't all that hard to outpopulate something so small that has only defence in form of sudets
@@KiraiKatsuji well that... kind of true but point still stay.
Hungary defending Serbs? Now that's a stretch lol.
What if the Fourth Crusade never happened?
New Zealand mentioned, or should I say " New Sjælland"
Yeah, but why? It's not named after the island in Denmark, it's named after Zeeland, the province in the Netherlands.
@@AholeAtheist Yeah and why should that matter it's not named the same and Netherlands are cringe Swamp Germans
@@AholeAtheist Probably because the Danes colonized it in this scenario, which means they named it after a region of their country, Sjælland or Zealand in English.
@@AholeAtheist Also you made like 3 comments about this, are you dutch?
**Kalmar Union 2.0**
What if Kaliningrad Oblast Became 51st U.S States?
New sub from Vietnam hello
My idea I hope (S)he Upload what if Kaliningrad Oblast Became a U.S state My favorite idea
Great video
No it is rightfully Chech clay
Oh, Vinland...
Bro Scandinavian new Zealand 13:19
You've built in points of potential nationbreaking issues, for example all the names of prime ministers and kings and so on are danish, despite the noted respect of swedish nobles this would be a problem. the centralisation of power and people around denmark and kattegat. You have to remember that nowray and sweden are already grappling with people living far from the capitals feeling disaffected, you compound that problem enormously by adding finland and estonia as well, it wouldnt work, these are places with long histories and traditions that would not let them accept such a centralisation. The only way such a realm could function would be the wa canada and the US work, with a high degree of federalism. That in turn would mean the historical centers of population in helsinki, st.petersburg(which was founded by sweden/finland, tallinn, stockholm and oslo would be important to keep this nation functioning.
If you ask me...