Because it's history related. History changed and it led up to this point. Move it if it's correct.
The entire timeline start in the 1630s, before that is historical.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
Because it's history related. History changed and it led up to this point. Move it if it's correct.
The entire timeline start in the 1630s, before that is historical.
I'm not against the idea if that's what you want, but why so extreme?
If that's all you wanted, you don't need the completely off the wall annexation of Germany and Russia (including future conquests). You just need united scandinavia + the baltics and some bits of Russia gained in war.
Again, I'm not hostile to the idea of fantasy timelines. But presumably you made it so other people could enjoy it as well?
Yes, Sweden here is a federation, a cooperation of the peoples of Sweden, all nationalities take part in government and are equals. Sweden is not the only empire.
So term it fantasy and don't try to delude anyone (most especially yourself) into thinking that it's plausible in any possibility.
We have an initially-decentralized multi-ethnic state of people who work together and are mostly not divided by nationality that has become the most powerful nation on earth. I live in it. I get what you are trying to present here and why you think it should be plausible for the same thing but based on Gustav instead of Washington could and should be able to result in an equally massive superpower.
If you want to make this remotely plausible, and I mean just somehow possible in some fantastic way and not the absolute 100% impossibility that you've currently presented, a few things need to change:
1. This cannot be Swedish. It must ACTUALLY be multi-ethnic, which means the Swedes are a minority and this nation is not inherently Swedish any more the USA is British, even if carried the language, and would instead be necessarily dominated by the dominant people group inside - probably Germans. This would be, at best for your nationalism, a Swedish-speaking German Reich.
2. The European powers spent centuries preventing an imbalance of power. England became #1 with an overseas empire - the rest of Europe was also close behind and would not have allowed them to carve up mainland Europe. Nations like Russia were blocked more by the rest of Europe saying hell no in Crimea and the Balkans than their own power, because the rest of Europe weren't about to allow this kind of a Northern Empire to form. Your history needs a pretty damned good reason why this powerful of a nation would be allowed to form without the rest of the world cutting it down to maintain a balance of power.
3. What in the world is your empire going to do about Religion? A realistic united Scandinavia with Kalmar union plus some Baltic turf and colonies may sensibly just be a protestant nation like Britain was, but yours annexes Germany and Russia? You're now in possession of almost every branch of Christianity and probably some heathens in the east... good luck!
4. What's up with America? Your world starts in 1630 right? Without a dominant USA, why wouldn't Mexico be the supreme not-crushed-in-1848 emerging superpower over there? I do hope you aren't arguing that Sweden is going to exert dominance over the colonial new world in ways Britain and Spain couldn't!
5. Why Sweden? The sooner you face up to the blatant nationalism inherent in the premise of the idea, the sooner you'll wrap your head around the obvious hostility you are sure to keep facing. Someone from Serbia posting a map where Hardian's Rome plus protectorate China and India were all "Serbia" or me posting a Philadelphia-based USA with the entire North and South America carved into states and some red white and blue and/or craters across the middle east would get the same level of hate. "Nationalism is an infantile disease." -Einstein
They are 2 parts to Northern Empire, the past and the present.
The past has already happened, Sweden's rise to power.
The present is today.
Today the alliances of the world are:
Sweden, France - Has the most of the world's support.
Spain, Britain - Has some support.
Austria, Italy - The alliance for neutral countries opposing both alliances.
Iran, Arabia - Anti-Ottoman Alliance
The past has already happened, Sweden's rise to power.
The present is today.
Today the alliances of the world are:
Sweden, France - Has the most of the world's support.
Spain, Britain - Has some support.
Austria, Italy - The alliance for neutral countries opposing both alliances.
Iran, Arabia - Anti-Ottoman Alliance
1. It's an federation of peoples, Sweden is the unifying factor, else no empire.
2. France allied with Sweden, France let Sweden dominate the East while Sweden let France dominate the West.
3. There are 3 churches, The United Protestant Church (Scandinavia, Germany), Catholic Church (Poland) and the Swedish Orthodox Church (Russia).
4. Have you noticed the map is incomplete, there is a reason why Spain is a great power.
5. Why any country?
Why not, it's an interesting scenario. A cold war between unlikely powers.
France spent most of the last few centuries during everything in its power to prevent Germany from unifying, and you think it would agree to let Sweden, Germany and Russia unify all together?
Without nationalism and without Napoleon, how did Italy form? Is it Venetian? Is it a Papal empire?
I'll echo this thought.
If France, the most powerful base nation in Europe in 1630, isn't being given the territories of the historical Franks, and isn't in Spain or on its throne, and doesn't even get the Italian claims it was trying to press for the entire century leading to the 30 years war... what ARE They getting?
It was an alliance, they helped each other to grow and become stronger.
Italy experienced nationalism and unified because of it.
They are getting a colonial empire, New France, Africa.
That isn't how alliances work. It is a very naive view to think that countries enter alliances for mutual benefit, they are only there for their own benefit. A united Germany is a threat to French dominance, and it is therefore not in the French interest to support this. Unless you are giving France Italy and Spain the return is not nearly big enough.
And if you do give France all of Italy and Spain they will use this power to break apart the newly formed German Empire that you have created.
They are not enemies, they are friends and they leave each other alone. Sweden let France do want they want and France let Sweden do want they want.
It may not be realistic but in this world, it's how it happened.
So you admit now you have given up on any pretence at realism and it is just your pure personal fantasy. Ok.
It's based on history but not realistic or else it could have happened. But it's not realistic so it didn't happen.
So you want the United Federation of Plane. . .er North Eurasia.
That's ok. However if you want other people to be interested in your work my main criticism is that your timeline is neither plausible nor interesting. You can go for one extreme or the other but most try to strike a balance between the two.
In your world nations stay best buds and don't defend their own interests for no real reason and the Federation avoids a whole slew of otherwise interesting internal and external conflicts because . . . good feelings? This is neither likely to occur in any world nor interesting to explore as a literary theme.
Again, I don't mean to put down your project but if you want discussion and other people to take an interest in your work these are pretty big issues.
That's ok. However if you want other people to be interested in your work my main criticism is that your timeline is neither plausible nor interesting. You can go for one extreme or the other but most try to strike a balance between the two.
In your world nations stay best buds and don't defend their own interests for no real reason and the Federation avoids a whole slew of otherwise interesting internal and external conflicts because . . . good feelings? This is neither likely to occur in any world nor interesting to explore as a literary theme.
Again, I don't mean to put down your project but if you want discussion and other people to take an interest in your work these are pretty big issues.
Last edited:
You should seriously rethink your premise. Either swap France for someone who wasn't fully committed to continental ambitions over colonies (like, seriously, it was the backbone of their strategies) or actually give France some of the territory in Europe.
Why would France not own Italy if Germany is owned by a friend and not marching south to stop it? Why would France not be sitting on the Spanish throne if no massive coalition is available to stop it? Why does France care, literally at all, about a colonial empire when the low countries are right next to them? You're going to REALLY need to explain why France would not own Antwerp and/or Milan given your map and alliance structure. I don't care if India, China, and Mars are all their colony, they're going to want these neighboring lands.
Why would France not own Italy if Germany is owned by a friend and not marching south to stop it? Why would France not be sitting on the Spanish throne if no massive coalition is available to stop it? Why does France care, literally at all, about a colonial empire when the low countries are right next to them? You're going to REALLY need to explain why France would not own Antwerp and/or Milan given your map and alliance structure. I don't care if India, China, and Mars are all their colony, they're going to want these neighboring lands.
Realism in this sense really means plausibility. Is it believable that a particular series of events could have lead to this outcome? What if Sweden took Moscow in 1709 and obtained a favourable peace with Russia - that is a realistic(ish) alternative history. What if Sweden (maybe a million people in the early 1600s) annexed all of Germany (5ish million), Poland (3.5 million) and Russia (15 million) is not a plausible alternative history.
It's unlikely but its the result that is interesting. For me, probably not for you.
- Status