Subject: AH Challenge: World Power Denmark? Date: 5 Jul 2001 12:50:21 -0700 From: o.henkel@gmx.de (Oliver Henkel) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if Well, this task should be a real challenge even for alternate history buffs. Can anyone find a plausible way to make small Denmark a nation of importance? The goal is either to create a kingdom of Denmark that is a first-class European power by 1789, such as Prussia - or a Denmark that is a top-ranking colonial power by 1910, maybe number four behind Great Britain, France and Germany. The POD should not be before the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century and not after the end of the Nordic War (1700-1720). And keep in mind that Danmark, even when it possessed Norway, was a small country with very limited population and a almost complete lack of natural ressources. So the odds are in every way against Danmark...anyway, can you take the challenge? Greetings, Oliver Subject: Re: AH Challenge: World Power Denmark? Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 22:42:58 GMT From: sven.xyz.berglund@telia.com (Sven Berglund) Organization: Telia Internet Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 On 5 Jul 2001 12:50:21 -0700, o.henkel@gmx.de (Oliver Henkel) wrote: >Can anyone find a plausible way to make small Denmark a nation >of importance? The goal is either to create a kingdom of Denmark that >is a first-class European power by 1789, such as Prussia - or a >Denmark that is a top-ranking colonial power by 1910, maybe number >four behind Great Britain, France and Germany. >The POD should not be before the Protestant Reformation in the 16th >century and not after the end of the Nordic War (1700-1720). The obvious POD is 1629, the end of Denmark's unsuccessful intervention in the 30 Years War. Until then, Denmark was in fact a regional great power, well able to handle its principal local competitor, Sweden (which had been fought to a humiliating peace not long before). However, what followed on OTL made Sweden a great power, for a while, and put an end to Denmark's ambitions in that department. >And keep >in mind that Danmark, even when it possessed Norway, was a small >country with very limited population and a almost complete lack of >natural resources. Denmark was at that time both richer and more populous than Sweden (and in fact included a great deal of territory now Swedish). >So the odds are in every way against >Danmark... Not really IMHO >anyway, can you take the challenge? For a beginning, let us switch rulers: let Christian IV be a great strategic genius and a first class organizer, but no daredevil - it will not do to have him fall in battle in 1632. On the other hand, Gustavus Adolphus will be a splendid Nordic renaissance monarch, always busy with splendid building projects and bastard begetting - impressively heroic but not really very effective as a war leader. Then, let us weaken the Danish nobility quite a bit: if we can also assume (pushing our POD back a bit) a major proportion of them have been killed off in the course of internal 16th century turmoil (as actually happened in Sweden, with some Danish assistance), it will help a lot: docile nobles that have been taught loyalty the hard way, and a less downtrodden peasant class the king can play off against them when needed. With much more previous experience of German politics than Sweden, Denmark's chances of achieving great power status in the 17th century should then in fact have been significantly better than Sweden's. The real problem is not how to achieve that status but how to keep it. Sweden did not, and hardly could have due to its extreme lack of manpower. Russia was Sweden's downfall, from Poltava onwards; Prussia would presumably be Denmark's unless we do something about it. Let us assume Denmark puts an end to Swedish independence around the middle of the 17th century, as Sweden very nearly did with Denmark on OTL. It would, of course, have to be done quite differently: Sweden's defence was endless miles of forest rather than ramparts around the capital. But Russia finally brought a weakened Sweden to its knees in 1719-20 by amphibious operations against coastal areas near Stockholm, so why not Denmark? Let us have a Dane crowned King of Sweden in Stockholm in 1660 (as actually happened in 1520) - after all, the Oldenburgs had hereditary claims and used Swedish heraldics. This would give Denmark undisputed control over the Baltic, even to the point of controlling its inlets (something Sweden never achieved). Assuming that Denmark also adopts OTL Sweden's policy of securing control over all major ports and river estuaries, it will have a stranglehold on Northern Germany. With a bit of care, there will never be a Kingdom of Prussia, just a dwindling Brandenburg. Relations with Russia will be amiable (Russia will depend on Denmark for its foreign trade, and one can hardly see Denmark fighting wars over Finnish border issues); Denmark (rather then Prussia) will grab a share when Poland is divided as on OTL. So there is your late 18th century Great Power Denmark: the entire Scandinavian peninsula and Baltic region, with a less sharply defined dominion over a crowd of German principalities. (I wonder how it will do in the Napoleonic wars? It will of course be the principal villain of all German nationalists.) As for the colonial empire, the easiest way to aquire one would presumably be to pick it up ready-made along with the Netherlands sometime in the 18th century. Any country trying to dominate the Baltic in this period would most likely find itself at war with the Dutch, but maybe the latter could be made to see the advantage of joining the Baltic Free Market, on favourable conditions including considerable internal independence? (A little vague, I admit.) ____________________________________________________ Sven Berglund To respond by e-mail, remove "xyz" spam block. Subject: Re: AH Challenge: World Power Denmark? Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 06:40:52 GMT From: Jussi Jalonen Organization: http://www.newsranger.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 In article <3b44d76d.654226@news1.telia.com>, Sven Berglund says... >Relations with Russia will be amiable (Russia will depend on Denmark for its foreign >trade, and one can hardly see Denmark fighting wars over Finnish border issues) OTL those were Swedish border issues; in this ATL they'd be Danish border issues, so... In any case, assuming that this Danish-dominated Nordic Empire has a hold on the regions gained in Stolbova, collision with Muscovy is inevitable. Kexholm, Narva and Ingria were viewed as ancient Russian territory already in the mid-1600's, and restoring the access to the Baltic was one of Russia's primary goals. Tsar Aleksei was the first who decided to seize the opportunity and make a bid for it when Carl X Gustav was busy razing Poland; Peter the Great was the second. It's entirely possible that something similar would happen this time around. Russia joining forces with Poland-Saxony and Brandenburg against Denmark-Norway-Sweden. Counting on the dissension among the Swedish aristocracy and peasantry could also be an option. Another matter is the existence of the Orthodox population in the Eastern Finland; one of the reasons for the "Rupture War" (the Russian invasion during Carl X Gustav's reign) was the forcible and, well, very brutal conversion of Karelians and Ingrians to the Lutheran faith by the Swedish Crown. Denmark, as a Protestant power, wouldn't have been any more enlightened in religious matters, which would have provided Russians a ready excuse to intervene... in fact, the Tsar would have felt obligated to do so in the long run. Cheers, Jalonen Subject: Re: AH Challenge: World Power Denmark? Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 20:44:39 GMT From: sven.xyz.berglund@telia.com (Sven Berglund) Organization: Telia Internet Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 On Fri, 06 Jul 2001 06:40:52 GMT, Jussi Jalonen wrote: >In article <3b44d76d.654226@news1.telia.com>, Sven Berglund says... > >>Relations with Russia will be amiable (Russia will depend on Denmark for its foreign >>trade, and one can hardly see Denmark fighting wars over Finnish border issues) > >OTL those were Swedish border issues; in this ATL they'd be Danish border >issues, so... So: since Finland is quite far from Copenhagen, and since there is (from a Danish point of view) not much to be gained from maintaining (or gaining) a hold on the areas in question (especially when compared to possible gains in Germany), and since Denmark har no historical ballast with respect to Finland, this issues will not be given high priority. >In any case, assuming that this Danish-dominated Nordic Empire has a hold on the >regions gained in Stolbova, collision with Muscovy is inevitable. With my alternative Gustavus Adolphus, I guess there will be no Stolbova, or a very different one. ____________________________________________________ Sven Berglund To respond by e-mail, remove "xyz" spam block. Subject: Re: AH Challenge: World Power Denmark? Date: 10 Jul 2001 03:07:53 -0700 From: jussi_jalonen@my-deja.com (Jussi Jalonen) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 sven.xyz.berglund@telia.com (Sven Berglund) wrote in message news:<3b48c3e7.1722970@news1.telia.com>... > So: since Finland is quite far from Copenhagen, and since there is > (from a Danish point of view) not much to be gained from maintaining > (or gaining) a hold on the areas in question (especially when compared > to possible gains in Germany) Hardly. Controlling Finland was a prerequisite in order to rule the Baltic provinces, and there's also the manpower question; the OTL Swedish army in Livonia consisted mostly of Finns. Of course it could be argued that Denmark might choose to sell Livonia and Estonia (they had sold the latter to the Teutonic Order previously), but I seriously doubt that the realm would give up both her largest city (Riga) and the richest, most profitable provinces. Especially since the idea of this ATL was to establish Denmark as a great power, with a Danish version of "Dominium Maris Baltici". Lose Finland, and the Baltic provinces will go as well. And with them the realm will lose the naval stores and the support of the maritime powers. > With my alternative Gustavus Adolphus, I guess there will be no > Stolbova, or a very different one. I'm afraid you'd have to alterate the personalities of Carl IX and Oxenstierna as well, and _heavily_. Even the mildest settlement would still deprive Muscovy of Käkisalmi/Kexholm (which was "ancient Russian territory"), and Estonia and Livonia were gained already in the treaty of Täyssinä. Cheers, Jalonen Subject: Re: AH Challenge: World Power Denmark? Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 21:47:37 GMT From: sven.xyz.berglund@telia.com (Sven Berglund) Organization: Telia Internet Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 On 10 Jul 2001 03:07:53 -0700, jussi_jalonen@my-deja.com (Jussi Jalonen) wrote: >sven.xyz.berglund@telia.com (Sven Berglund) wrote in message news:<3b48c3e7.1722970@news1.telia.com>... > >> So: since Finland is quite far from Copenhagen, and since there is >> (from a Danish point of view) not much to be gained from maintaining >> (or gaining) a hold on the areas in question (especially when compared >> to possible gains in Germany) > >Hardly. Controlling Finland was a prerequisite in order to rule the >Baltic provinces, Doubtful. Denmark dominated Estonia for over a century from 1219 onwards, without AFAIK ever gaining - or even seriously aspiring to gain - a foothold in Finland. Moreover, it is very doubtful whether Russia would have had the capacity to absorb Finland much earlier than it did on OTL - IMHO Peter the Great grabbed as big a mouthful as he could swallow, and chose the Baltic provinces (a much greater prize) rather than Finland. >and there's also the manpower question; the OTL >Swedish army in Livonia consisted mostly of Finns. Swedish armies anywhere had a high proportion of Finns. It was indeed the custom of the Swedish government to fight its battles to the last Finn, and also to have Finns colonize areas in present-day Sweden. But that is hardly proof that Finland was a plentiful source of manpower in absolute terms: rather, it indicates Sweden's extreme lack of the same and Finland's inability to support even a very small population. >Of course it could >be argued that Denmark might choose to sell Livonia and Estonia (they >had sold the latter to the Teutonic Order previously), but I seriously >doubt that the realm would give up both her largest city (Riga) and >the richest, most profitable provinces. So do I. I see Great Denmark holding on to the Baltic provinces, and also to Finland's coastal provinces, but not bothering much about thinly populated inland areas (which would in consequence probably become a sort of lawless "Wild East"), and certainly not investing resources in relatively profitless territorial expansion in this area. >Especially since the idea of >this ATL was to establish Denmark as a great power, with a Danish >version of "Dominium Maris Baltici". AKA the Empire of Valdemar II Sejr Revived. The ultimate basis of my Great Denmark is total control of the Baltic inlets by a major power, something Sweden attempted but failed to achieve (by a very narrow margin). The initial resources needed for this would come from successful intervention in the Thirty Years War (and the odds for that were no worse than those of Sweden on OTL). Once actual domination of Baltic trade is achieved, revenue becomes self-generating; aquiring a Swedish upland is not really crucial in this context but eliminates a possible war front and provides manpower as well as supplies. It hardly matter if Russia has some access to the Baltic: the Russians can always be fleeced at will right under the eyes of the king in Copenhagen, and who can they trade with anyway without Danish consent? After all, Sweden (including Finland) is just more taiga belt. >Lose Finland, and the Baltic provinces will go as well. And with them >the realm will lose the naval stores Not AFAIK of crucial importance on OTL. (Both Norway and present-day Sweden were in fact exporters of naval supplies.) >and the support of the maritime powers. Which would not be forthcoming anyway. On the contrary, control of the Baltic inlets by a major power were always their nightmare, and their normal reaction was preventive intervention (as in the 1650s). It is in fact crucial that Denmark *become* a naval power, at least able to dominate its own home waters. Using Sweden as a supplier and ship-builder would help quite a bit. > >> With my alternative Gustavus Adolphus, I guess there will be no >> Stolbova, or a very different one. > >I'm afraid you'd have to alterate the personalities of Carl IX and >Oxenstierna as well, and _heavily_. Fine with me. An alternative POD would of course be never to have a Carl IX - that is, not have him depose his nephew, Swedish-Polish Sigismund, in 1599. In that case, we would presumably have Sweden permanently mismanaged by a noble-dominated Council only nominally subservient to a king mostly resident elsewhere. I consider Oxenstierna a man of his times, automatically modified by the personalities of rulers: if Swedish nobles had been somewhat less cowed (the execution of Sigismund's noble supporters finally made it clear that submission was good policy), he might have been a noble faction leader, maybe even leading a rebellion against an absentee king. >Even the mildest settlement would >still deprive Muscovy of Käkisalmi/Kexholm (which was "ancient Russian >territory"), and Estonia and Livonia were gained already in the treaty >of Täyssinä. Under a less efficient war leader, the campaign would presumably be more like the late 18th century Russian war of Gustav III - lots of noise, both sides performing well-publicised heroics including notable naval battles, a fair number of dead (mostly of disease), both sides getting very tired of the whole thing and quite happy to return in triumph without territorial gains on either side (but with lasting discontent among suffering locals). And, again: establishing Denmark as a great power is not difficult - the example of Sweden proves it could have been done. The problem (of all empires) is staying on top. >Cheers Indeed! ____________________________________________________ Sven Berglund To respond by e-mail, remove "xyz" spam block. Subject: Re: AH Challenge: World Power Denmark? Date: 12 Jul 2001 02:51:42 -0700 From: jussi_jalonen@my-deja.com (Jussi Jalonen) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 sven.xyz.berglund@telia.com (Sven Berglund) wrote in message news:<3b4cb6fd.447606@news1.telia.com>... >Doubtful. Denmark dominated Estonia for over a century from 1219 >onwards, without AFAIK ever gaining - or even seriously aspiring to >gain - a foothold in Finland. Well yes, Northern Estonia, but Danes were also able to rely on the cooperation and support of the Livonian Order back then. I'd suppose that in the long run, having both sides of the Gulf of Finland under control would be the easiest way to deal with the situation. The Kalmar connection could probably be classified as a "Danish foothold" in Finland; although part of Sweden, Finland was considered something of a special case in the Union and granted a special "Eriksgata". Denmark had relinquished the control of Estonia by then, though. >Swedish armies anywhere had a high proportion of Finns. It was indeed >the custom of the Swedish government to fight its battles to the last >Finn, and also to have Finns colonize areas in present-day Sweden. Danish monarchs might also discover the same possibilities. Or perhaps the Norwegians could play the role of cannon-fodder and settlers in this ATL? > So do I. I see Great Denmark holding on to the Baltic provinces, and > also to Finland's coastal provinces, but not bothering much about > thinly populated inland areas (which would in consequence probably > become a sort of lawless "Wild East"), and certainly not investing > resources in relatively profitless territorial expansion in this area. Makes sense. > Which would not be forthcoming anyway. On the contrary, control of the > Baltic inlets by a major power were always their [the maritime powers'] > nightmare, and their normal reaction was preventive intervention (as in the > 1650s). It is in fact crucial that Denmark *become* a naval power, at least > able to dominate its own home waters. This is probably the hardest part to overcome... it'd seem to me that the realm would have to possess a navy capable of taking on _both_ Britain and Netherlands at the same time, while simultaneously fielding an army to defend against all possible land attacks. The small population base of even a united realm make the task near-impossible, but I guess there's always a chance, especially if the balance of power otherwise works in Denmark's favour. > Fine with me. An alternative POD would of course be never to have a > Carl IX - that is, not have him depose his nephew, Swedish-Polish > Sigismund, in 1599. In that case, we would presumably have Sweden > permanently mismanaged by a noble-dominated Council only nominally > subservient to a king mostly resident elsewhere. I consider > Oxenstierna a man of his times, automatically modified by the > personalities of rulers: if Swedish nobles had been somewhat less > cowed (the execution of Sigismund's noble supporters finally made it > clear that submission was good policy), he might have been a noble > faction leader, maybe even leading a rebellion against an absentee > king. Hm, this might create some interesting possibilities. Finnish nobility had largely backed Sigismund in the power struggle and in the end, paid the price the same as everyone else. Consequently, the closer integration of Finland to the mother country and the introduction of uniform institutions for both parts of the realm took place mostly as a result of Carl's victory. This has, on occasion, been described as an early "swedification" of Finland; although the interpretation is very much coloured by the latter-day nationalism, it still raises a question what would have happened if "Magnus Ducatus Finlandiæ" had retained some of its separate institutions. Perhaps the feudal mini-state of Finland might survive in this alternate realm, with the Royal authority located far away in Copenhagen. This might or might not create some sort of an embryonic sense of statehood and nationality, I'm not sure if there are any parallels in the European history. > And, again: establishing Denmark as a great power is not difficult - > the example of Sweden proves it could have been done. The problem (of > all empires) is staying on top. Very true. Subject: Re: AH Challenge: World Power Denmark? Date: 10 Jul 2001 06:10:10 -0700 From: bgarid@my-deja.com (bgarid) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 jussi_jalonen@my-deja.com (Jussi Jalonen) wrote in message news:<7f4e78c8.0107100207.1356a1e3@posting.google.com>... > > With my alternative Gustavus Adolphus, I guess there will be no > > Stolbova, or a very different one. > > I'm afraid you'd have to alterate the personalities of Carl IX and > Oxenstierna as well, and _heavily_. Even the mildest settlement would > still deprive Muscovy of Käkisalmi/Kexholm (which was "ancient Russian > territory"), and Estonia and Livonia were gained already in the treaty > of Täyssinä. According to one 16th century chronicle, Rurik, founder of Rurikovich dynasty was buried in Korela (Käkisalmi/Kexholm, now Priozersk) in 879. Very "ancient Russian territory", indeed. PS. It is believed that Rurik was a Danish prince, known in Western sources as Hroric of Jutland. In 862, he emigrated to Russia and founded Russian state. Given this fact, may I suggest that a country which stretches 11 time zones from Baltic to Pacific may actually be a "World Power Denmark" in disguise? :-) Subject: Re: AH Challenge: World Power Denmark? Date: 11 Jul 2001 01:44:52 -0700 From: jussi_jalonen@my-deja.com (Jussi Jalonen) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 bgarid@my-deja.com (bgarid) wrote in message news:<4f2dc1d.0107100510.45356421@posting.google.com>... > According to one 16th century chronicle, Rurik, founder of Rurikovich > dynasty was buried in Korela (Käkisalmi/Kexholm, now Priozersk) in > 879. Very "ancient Russian territory", indeed. In the sense that it had belonged to Novgorod, and that the Finnish-Karelian inhabitants adhered to the Greek Orthodox faith. That was enough of an excuse for Muscovy to claim it. > PS. It is believed that Rurik was a Danish prince, known in Western > sources as Hroric of Jutland. In 862, he emigrated to Russia and > founded Russian state. I'm curious of the source... since this is the first time I hear that Rurik was a Dane. As far as I know, he's been considered a Swedish chieftain, and that the word "Rus" refers to the Swedish region of Roslagen. The rest of the world has derived this to "Russia", whereas we still continue to reserve it to Sweden (Ruotsi). It's also fairly certain that a state already existed around Staraya Ladoga before the magical year 862. The normanist theory, although basically correct, has tended to exaggerate the role of Vikings as state-builders in the East. I wouldn't necessarily call it a "Russian" state, either, since the chronicles also mention the local Fenno-Ugrian nations (vepsians, "the white-eyed tschuds") as essential players in this combination. Cheers, Jalonen Subject: Re: AH Challenge: World Power Denmark? Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 03:53:30 GMT From: craig_n@my-deja.com (Craig Neumeier) Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 On 5 Jul 2001 12:50:21 -0700, o.henkel@gmx.de (Oliver Henkel) wrote: >Well, this task should be a real challenge even for alternate history >buffs. Can anyone find a plausible way to make small Denmark a nation >of importance? The goal is either to create a kingdom of Denmark that >is a first-class European power by 1789, such as Prussia - or a >Denmark that is a top-ranking colonial power by 1910, maybe number >four behind Great Britain, France and Germany. Well, there's "Midgard" in AE2.... >The POD should not be before the Protestant Reformation in the 16th >century and not after the end of the Nordic War (1700-1720). And keep >in mind that Danmark, even when it possessed Norway, was a small >country with very limited population and a almost complete lack of >natural ressources. So the odds are in every way against >Danmark...anyway, can you take the challenge? Okay, that makes it harder. Either keep Sweden as part of Denmark or marginalize the Swedes after they leave. Then let Denmark save Protestantism in the 30 Years War instead of Sweden, but their Gustavus Adolphus analog survives to break up the Holy Roman Empire and make Denmark the head of a Lutheran confederation. Of course, it may not be very Danish any more by the 20th century, but that should give them the resource base that they absolutely have to have.... Craig Neumeier, LHN Subject: Re: AH Challenge: World Power Denmark? Date: 06 Jul 2001 15:40:55 GMT From: ratbastryd@aol.com (Ratbastryd) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 > >Well, there's "Midgard" in AE2.... Yeah, those Alternate Earths books were wicked good. They're my favorite GURPS books. Good job cowriting those. Peter Berard Subject: Re: AH Challenge: World Power Denmark? Date: 6 Jul 2001 11:03:07 -0700 From: dmaqgregor@hotmail.com (Daniel MacGregor) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 o.henkel@gmx.de (Oliver Henkel) wrote in message news:... > Well, this task should be a real challenge even for alternate history > buffs. Can anyone find a plausible way to make small Denmark a nation > of importance? The goal is either to create a kingdom of Denmark that > is a first-class European power by 1789, such as Prussia - or a > Denmark that is a top-ranking colonial power by 1910, maybe number > four behind Great Britain, France and Germany. > The POD should not be before the Protestant Reformation in the 16th > century and not after the end of the Nordic War (1700-1720). And keep > in mind that Danmark, even when it possessed Norway, was a small > country with very limited population and a almost complete lack of > natural ressources. So the odds are in every way against > Danmark...anyway, can you take the challenge? I would take a much earler POD, such as Canute the Great leaving behind a male heir of stature, so that, by 1700, Denmark would encompass, besides itself, all Fennoscandia and all of the British Isles. Daniel MacGregor Subject: Re: AH Challenge: World Power Denmark? Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 21:09:58 +0200 From: "Søren Larsen" Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 Oliver Henkel skrev i en nyhedsmeddelelse:d0cd3fdd.0107051150.73bd0453@posting.google.com... > Well, this task should be a real challenge even for alternate history > buffs. Can anyone find a plausible way to make small Denmark a nation > of importance? The goal is either to create a kingdom of Denmark that > is a first-class European power by 1789, such as Prussia - or a > Denmark that is a top-ranking colonial power by 1910, maybe number > four behind Great Britain, France and Germany. > The POD should not be before the Protestant Reformation in the 16th > century and not after the end of the Nordic War (1700-1720). And keep > in mind that Danmark, even when it possessed Norway, was a small > country with very limited population and a almost complete lack of > natural ressources. So the odds are in every way against > Danmark...anyway, can you take the challenge? > > Greetings, Oliver Let Charles X win the storm at Copenhagen in 1659 and incorporate Denmark-Norway. Where will the capital be after the turmoil is over? Stockholm or Copenhagen? Copenhagen lies at the entrance to the Baltic and offers easy transport to Sweden and Norway by sea. It is in the middle of the richest most fertile and most densely populated provinces in the new state. The new state has to control access to the Baltic and Copenhagen will be the main naval base not only because of it's location but also because the ice breaks a lot earlier there. Ok this involves one small cheat. The name of the entity would be Sweden,but what's in a name, it would for a large part be Denmark in disguise. ;-) Cheers Soren Larsen Subject: Re: AH Challenge: World Power Denmark? Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 23:45:52 GMT From: "Larry Bernard" Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 Well it might not take that much but BIG query is it a valid test IF denmark and other countries (such as what is now germany or britan) merge? Subject: Re: AH Challenge: World Power Denmark? Date: 7 Jul 2001 05:31:06 -0700 From: bgarid@my-deja.com (bgarid) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 o.henkel@gmx.de (Oliver Henkel) wrote in message news:... > Well, this task should be a real challenge even for alternate history > buffs. Can anyone find a plausible way to make small Denmark a nation > of importance? The goal is either to create a kingdom of Denmark that > is a first-class European power by 1789, such as Prussia - or a > Denmark that is a top-ranking colonial power by 1910, maybe number > four behind Great Britain, France and Germany. One way to achieve this is to get a king of Denmark elected as king of Poland. Say, in 1673. It will take a few years to end Poland's war with Turks, but by 1676, Denmark-Poland is ready to join Brandenburg's assault on Sweden. In OTL, this war was complete disaster for Sweden. In this timeline, Poland will be in the anti-Swedish coalition and possibly Russia as well(traditional Danish ally). Such coalition could well destroy Swedish empire. The war could end with a peace which would give Swedish Pomerania to Brandenburg, Livonia and Estonia to Poland, Ingria and Karelia to Russia and southern and eastern parts of Sweden itelf to Denmark. In 1683, the King of Denmark and Poland would see Turkish invasion as a good moment for conquest of Protestant Silesia which used to be a Polish province in 14th century. As a result, Denmark-Poland will be at war with Austria, most of Germany and Maritime Powers of England and Netherlands for the next three decades, mostly in alliance with France and Ottoman empire. Sometime during these years, recovered Sweden will attempt revanche. Russia under Peter the Great is likely to join. And Poles, of course, can be counted to revolt against Denmark. At this point, Danish king could offer Russia partition of Poland in exchange for peace and alliance against Sweden. Russia would gladly accept and combined Danish-Russian alliance will finish Sweden once and for all. All of Sweden will be annexed by Denmark while Russia gets Finland. By the end of war, Denmark will emerge as a huge Protestant empire including Denmark, Norway, Sweden, all of north Germany, Silesia and East Prussia. Subject: Re: AH Challenge: World Power Denmark? Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 20:53:13 GMT From: sven.xyz.berglund@telia.com (Sven Berglund) Organization: Telia Internet Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 On 7 Jul 2001 05:31:06 -0700, bgarid@my-deja.com (bgarid) wrote: >o.henkel@gmx.de (Oliver Henkel) wrote in message news:... >> Well, this task should be a real challenge even for alternate history >> buffs. Can anyone find a plausible way to make small Denmark a nation >> of importance? The goal is either to create a kingdom of Denmark that >> is a first-class European power by 1789, such as Prussia - or a >> Denmark that is a top-ranking colonial power by 1910, maybe number >> four behind Great Britain, France and Germany. > >One way to achieve this is to get a king of Denmark elected as king of >Poland. > >Say, in 1673. There is, I am afraid, a serious complication: to make a bid for the Polish crown, the King of Denmark would have to become a Catholic (as August of Saxony actually did for the same reason a few decades later). That would put Denmark in a situation almost identical to one that proved unworkable for Sweden eight decades earlier. ____________________________________________________ Sven Berglund To respond by e-mail, remove "xyz" spam block. Subject: Re: AH Challenge: World Power Denmark? Date: 13 Jul 2001 02:24:56 -0700 From: ruhrjung@yahoo.de (Magnus Link) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 , 2 craig_n@my-deja.com (Craig Neumeier) wrote >>Well, this task should be a real challenge even for alternate history >>buffs. Can anyone find a plausible way to make small Denmark a nation >>of importance? The goal is either to create a kingdom of Denmark that >>is a first-class European power by 1789, such as Prussia - or a >>Denmark that is a top-ranking colonial power by 1910, maybe number >>four behind Great Britain, France and Germany. >>The POD should not be before the Protestant Reformation in the 16th >>century and not after the end of the Nordic War (1700-1720). When the Calmar Union finally was split in the 1520s it wasn't quite self-evident what choise the lands east of the Gulf of Bothnia would do (i.e. present day Finland). POD 1: 70 years later there was an uprising and a civil war in Finland, motivated partly by the nobility's seeking of revenge for Wasa-kings having gained too much power. Denmark, with its traditions of noble power, supports Claes Flemming and his successors who are to become semi-independent Dukes of Finland, much like the Dukes of Schleswig and Holstein. Already then Denmark might have gained a serious advantage against Sweden. POD 2: When Russia a few years later was weakened by internal conflicts Denmark would be a strong local superpower. (A local superpower is Denmark also in OTL.) The new Czar-dynasty is taken from Denmark, and cooperates successfully to get the German Order out of presentday Estonia, Latvia and (East-) Prussia. >>And keep >>in mind that Danmark, even when it possessed Norway, was a small >>country with very limited population and a almost complete lack of >>natural ressources. So the odds are in every way against >>Danmark...anyway, can you take the challenge? Don't forget Schleswig, Holstein and its surroundings. Production of grain, butter and meat wasn't at all unimportant those days, you know. Hamburg, Lübeck and Bremen were all the time close to the border. Sometimes on the Danish side, although never in the Danish Kingdom, only as possessions of the Danish king. > Then let Denmark save Protestantism in the 30 Years War > instead of Sweden, but their Gustavus Adolphus analog survives to break > up the Holy Roman Empire and make Denmark the head of a Lutheran > confederation. An alternative would be if Denmark around year 1600 supported the Catholic Sigismund Wasa in Poland and didn't see itself as primarily Protestant but primarily a Baltic power, hopefully also with favorable relations to Russia. Then the Protestant North-German states would have much less of a chance in the 30-years War, and Denmark could raise in power on their expense. King Sigismund of Poland, or his heirs, might also regain the supremacy over Sweden in a war which in the end would result in a weakened Swedish military power and a Denmark-dependent king on Sweden's throne. All the souveraigns from Moscow to Lower Saxony would then be more or less dependent of the King of Denmark. Subject: Re: AH Challenge: World Power Denmark? Date: 13 Jul 2001 08:55:06 -0700 From: beebusy@earthlink.net (Ham Sandwich) Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if References: 1 o.henkel@gmx.de (Oliver Henkel) wrote in message news:... > Well, this task should be a real challenge even for alternate history > buffs. Can anyone find a plausible way to make small Denmark a nation > of importance? The goal is either to create a kingdom of Denmark that > is a first-class European power by 1789, such as Prussia - or a > Denmark that is a top-ranking colonial power by 1910, maybe number > four behind Great Britain, France and Germany. > The POD should not be before the Protestant Reformation in the 16th > century and not after the end of the Nordic War (1700-1720). And keep > in mind that Danmark, even when it possessed Norway, was a small > country with very limited population and a almost complete lack of > natural ressources. So the odds are in every way against > Danmark...anyway, can you take the challenge? > > Greetings, Oliver Is there a way the Denmark can expand geographically to take in all of the Prussian region? Is the way for the over seas empire of the Dutch to the of the Danish? A unfied region to include all of Scandanvia and Prussia might have a POD about King Gustav Aldolphus. Ham Sandwich