Thank the heavens! If the Kalmar Union was represented as one nation I'd be very depresssed.
Kalmar Union
- Thread starter colonelkadaffy
- Start date
-
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.
Mulliman said:
1448-1457 Karl Knutsson King of Sweden
1464-1465 Karl Knutsson King of Sweden
1467-1470 Karl Knutsson King of Sweden
1449-1450 Karl Knutsson King of Norway
Yes! Sweden left the union many times.
Personalunion: Kingdoms under the same ruler
Realunion: Kingdoms in a Personalunion that unites into one Nation.
I would like to create a Realunion of the Kalmar Union!
Last edited:
Zuckergußgebäck said:
earlier historians has tended to view the interests divided betwen the nation, were more recent research has focused on the aristocracy vs. the king or vs. eachother. large parts of the high aristocracy supportet the union (and yes paid attention to the monarch (again mostly during the reign of Margrethe and to a lesser degree to the later monarchs). even Christian 2. (nown at the tyran in nationalistic swedish history
) had wide support among leading families in sweden (and it was most likely one of those that was taking revenge on his enemies in the bloodbath of Stockholm). the high aristocracy had interests in more than one country (wich the minor nobles did not) and had a lot to lose by war among the contries.What I was really arguing was that the nations under the Union of Kalmar should be seperat nation sharing a monarch and not one country, as only Margrethe 1. really can be said to effectivly have governed them as one, and she falls outside the scope of this game...
edit: maybe it should be possible to create, but none of the kings during the timeframe of this game could be said to control them as one entity (in my opinion anyway...)
I ment from Engelbrekt onwards.Lasse Nielsen said:earlier historians has tended to view the interests divided betwen the nation, were more recent research has focused on the aristocracy vs. the king or vs. eachother. large parts of the high aristocracy supportet the union (and yes paid attention to the monarch (again mostly during the reign of Margrethe and to a lesser degree to the later monarchs). even Christian 2. (nown at the tyran in nationalistic swedish history
Well, Christian II came pretty close. Had he been at least a little blit more gentle and understanding, Sweden might have been reduced to something along the lines of Norway.
Although let´s not argue. My suggestion is almost similar to yours:
- Independent Sweden, Norway, Denmark in personal union
- A KLM tag to allow for a unification of the Kalmar Union.
Zuckergußgebäck said:
I agree
I've just to often had a discussion with swedes at the university that argue from a purley national point of view, and argued that the swedish nobility was one homogenous group with similar interests. not seeing the bloodbath of stockholm as one group of swedish noble (backed by the king) settling the score with another faction. sorry if i got a little carried away 
Because it wasn't. I'm beginning to wonder how this is treated in Danish history books.Lasse Nielsen said:not seeing the bloodbath of stockholm as one group of swedish noble (backed by the king) settling the score with another faction. sorry if i got a little carried away
Am I wrong in saying that in Swedish history the Kalmar Union is seen as Danish (political, rather than military perhaps) occupation rather than a union?
And then came The War of Liberation with Gustav Vasa and the Swedish corelands have been free from enemy troops ever since and blaha.
And then came The War of Liberation with Gustav Vasa and the Swedish corelands have been free from enemy troops ever since and blaha.
well, not really until Christian II (the Tyrant) who, you know invaded us after we had decided to leave the union, so yeah Danish occupationPandemonium said:
.
Because it was:Mulliman said:
1) A churchly affair. It all boiled down to the overthrow of pro-danish arch bishop Erik Trolle. Christian found a document detailing exactly who had supported the overthrow of Erik and instigated a religious trial.
2) Realpolitik. Christian had an excuse to tear the heart out of the swedish nobility, which he thought would keep Sweden calm. It had the opposite effect.
Not in the way I've heard many Danes imply, that it was solely an internal Swedish affair, and poor good Christian didn't have anything to do with it, he just got the blame.Mulliman said:
![Sute]{h](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/styles/paradox/owneditems/avatars/Stellaris_pre_order/s/stellaris_avatars_fungoid_12_special.png){kind=avatar}
Christian II really did have something to do with it. The nobles was killed on his orders... still he figured out which nobles to kill based on information from other Swedish nobles. So he isn't the only one to blame.Styrbiorn said:
Styrbiorn said:
that is somewhat of a strawman! I certainly didn't state that it was a purely internal swedish affair. but it was the setteling of a score between a noble group that supportet the king and the union (including the king offcause) and the noble faction that wantet independence. In this period the group that supportet Christian 2. was small, but it still included importent persons and groups in the swedish nobility. Christian was certainly "in" on the decision to kill his opponents, but that do not change the fact that he did have support in groups and families in the swedish nobility. to portray the swedish attempts to break loose as a unified national attempt, is plain wrong. the union (and the king) did have support in sweden, the nature of the power of the king was a different matter (most nobles dispite their nationality wantet a "weak" king on internal matters). this argument was originally made by the swedish historian Erik Lönnroth back in 1934 in his thesis about the differences in the coronation and the union letter.
editet for clarification of points.
edit2: just to clarify - the only time the union was strongly supportet as a whole in Sweden was under Margrethe 1. and the goodwill she build up was quickly lost under her immidiate successor, Erik of Pommerania. Groups, and members of the higharistocracy certainly supportet the idea of the union latter on, but did what they could to curb the power of the union king.
Last edited:
Sute]{h said:
they may be killed on his orders, but on the initiative on the bishop who wantet revenge for his imprisonment and burning down of his castle. there are no first hand sources (at least to my knowledge) that shows that it was the king or the bishop that took the initiativ (but the responsobility for the executions was most definetly the kings).
No, you didn't, but it could be interpreted that way. Which I did since I've heard it a number of times from Danes. Didn't mean to put words in your mouth thoughLasse Nielsen said:
It's allright , And you don't have to worry, no serious historian (or book on history in denmark) says that Christian 2. wasn't responsible for the killings. the discussion has more been along the lines that groups within the swedish aristocracy had an interest in keeping the union, and that they fought with other groups that didn't, and not just the old national divisions or the nobility vs. the king.
just wantet to make clear that there are no revisionist historywritning (at least not from anyone taken serious) in denmark absolving Christian 2. for the resposobility of the killings, just attempts to put them into a context and nuancing them from both danish and swedish historians). not that this period of the Kalmar union is one that i'm that well versed in, my focus in my studies has been on the early union, and the wars against Mecklenburg. so I could be wrong on the finer points
, And you don't have to worry, no serious historian (or book on history in denmark) says that Christian 2. wasn't responsible for the killings. the discussion has more been along the lines that groups within the swedish aristocracy had an interest in keeping the union, and that they fought with other groups that didn't, and not just the old national divisions or the nobility vs. the king. just wantet to make clear that there are no revisionist historywritning (at least not from anyone taken serious) in denmark absolving Christian 2. for the resposobility of the killings, just attempts to put them into a context and nuancing them from both danish and swedish historians). not that this period of the Kalmar union is one that i'm that well versed in, my focus in my studies has been on the early union, and the wars against Mecklenburg. so I could be wrong on the finer points
1449-1450 Karl Knutsson Bonde King of Norway
Was he King over Norway only some month or a longer time. from 1449 to 1450 ?
Will this event be in the game?
How are all thouse times Sweden left the union represented in the game?
Was he King over Norway only some month or a longer time. from 1449 to 1450 ?
Will this event be in the game?
How are all thouse times Sweden left the union represented in the game?
The union can (to simplify things to the degree of imbecility) we subdivided into different groups.
A) The King of the Union. Usually he was the king of Denmark, but there seems to have been no fundamental objection (eg. the treaty between KKB and Christian I) of taking a swede or a norwegian as union-king. Most of them were germans after all, so.... The Union King mainly wanted to keep his territories together and expand the power of the monarchy. He wanted a strong, unified Union.
B) The aristocracy, usually those in the Royal Council. These had no particular objections to the Union (indeed, most were pro) as long as it was a weak union that left them in charge of their individual domains. Generally speaking they wanted a weak union, but a union nonetheless.
C) The "strongmen" of the various countries (mostly Sweden....) KKB, the Stures, Gustav Wasa... These essentially wanted to improve their power, eventually becoming rulers of the entire kingdom. It was kind of a natural progression once you became top-dog in your respective country to try to become king. They want to expand their rule as far as possible, and thus they don't want a union-king unless it is themselves on the throne. (As KKB tried to)
D) The Hansa, who wanted to break the union for trade-political reasons.
E) The miners and mine-owners ("bergsmän") of Bergslagen, who due to their close contacts with the Hansa mostly wanted to do what made the Hansa happy.
D) The rest of the peasantry, who wanted lower taxes and less aristocratic intereference, and were willing to fight for anyone who promised this.
A) The King of the Union. Usually he was the king of Denmark, but there seems to have been no fundamental objection (eg. the treaty between KKB and Christian I) of taking a swede or a norwegian as union-king. Most of them were germans after all, so.... The Union King mainly wanted to keep his territories together and expand the power of the monarchy. He wanted a strong, unified Union.
B) The aristocracy, usually those in the Royal Council. These had no particular objections to the Union (indeed, most were pro) as long as it was a weak union that left them in charge of their individual domains. Generally speaking they wanted a weak union, but a union nonetheless.
C) The "strongmen" of the various countries (mostly Sweden....) KKB, the Stures, Gustav Wasa... These essentially wanted to improve their power, eventually becoming rulers of the entire kingdom. It was kind of a natural progression once you became top-dog in your respective country to try to become king. They want to expand their rule as far as possible, and thus they don't want a union-king unless it is themselves on the throne. (As KKB tried to)
D) The Hansa, who wanted to break the union for trade-political reasons.
E) The miners and mine-owners ("bergsmän") of Bergslagen, who due to their close contacts with the Hansa mostly wanted to do what made the Hansa happy.
D) The rest of the peasantry, who wanted lower taxes and less aristocratic intereference, and were willing to fight for anyone who promised this.
I don't know for Sweden, but Norway was during the time of the Kalmar Union not obliged to choose a Danish king. The nobles of Norway was free to elect any king they wanted, they just chose to elect the Danish king every time until one of those kings decided to force himself to be hereditary king of Denmark-Norway.