Kalmar Union

[Skarion]

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.

A lot were anti union too. There are a lot of writings and poems from this time done by the aristocracy and different rich merchants and such from different parts of Sweden between 1440-1510 about how to slaughter the Danes, throw them out of the nation and create liberty to the Swedes.

Many consider the Kalmar Union the birth of nationalism in Sweden (Alf Henriksson would be one of the more profiled and respected).

One of the main reasons I suspect was the Danish enjoyment of hiring pirates to drive in taxes. Pirates may turn a bit harsh which promote violence.

Here in Norrland there were plenty of peasant risings under the Kalmar Union killing those pirates, burning down the Danish fortress Faxeholmen etc.

 

[Lasse Nielsen]

wasn't alf henriksson an amateur historian? (i havn't read anything by him so i can't say i his work i serious or just popular history like our Palle Lauring, great reading not so great historical metod).

And yes offcaouse there was nobles who didn't support the union, (who belonged to the supporters of the men Arilou put in group C i think).

 

[Skarion]

wasn't alf henriksson an amateur historian? (i havn't read anything by him so i can't say i his work i serious or just popular history like our Palle Lauring, great reading not so great historical metod).

And yes offcaouse there was nobles who didn't support the union, (who belonged to the supporters of the men Arilou put in group C i think).

He has written a couple of books and I think he is quite respected.

His most (In Sweden) famous book would be Svensk historia (Albert Bonniers Förlag 2004).

(I got some other books supporting his views, but can't seem to find them atm so I cant give you exact names of those authors).

 

[Lasse Nielsen]

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.

It was actually the hereditary succession of Norway that was the basis for the institution of hereditary rule in Denmark. Erik of Pommerania was adoptet for the same reason by Margrete 1. (after her son Olav died). Christopher of Bavaria was elected by the three nations (as was Christian 1.) but after that i was to be the norm that the king inheritet norway, but not Denmark. the paragraf in Erik of Pommeranias coronation letter stated that the three kingdoms should have the same king, was latter used by the danish kings to press their claim on the swedish throne. so it wasn't the norwegian who were free to choose who they wantet, but actually their laws that made the king of norway the natural choice for king of Denmark (not that it stoppe the nobles making damn sure that the king gave concessions to them before he was elected).

 

[Lasse Nielsen]

He has written a couple of books and I think he is quite respected.

His most (In Sweden) famous book would be Svensk historia (Albert Bonniers Förlag 2004).

(I got some other books supporting his views, but can't seem to find them atm so I cant give you exact names of those authors).

is this the guy? http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alf_Henriksson seems more like a multitalent than a scholar. (not that i say that his arguments arn't sound).

edit: looking at his bibliografy it seems that his focus is on broad history (byzantium, china, etc.) and not the narrow methological study of one area of history.

 

[Skarion]

is this the guy? http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alf_Henriksson seems more like a multitalent than a scholar. (not that i say that his arguments arn't sound).

May be (Even if it may be hard for him to complete the book 8 years after his death).

Would you trust Lars M. Andersson or Lena Amurén then?

 

[Krantz]

Denmark will inherit Norway in 1536 in EU3 right? And not like in EU2 when Sweden broke the union of Kalmar (sve. Kalmar Unionen) right?

The Union with Denmark (1536–1814)
"The Reformation in Norway (1536–1596): Norway's power was further weakened by the dissolution of the independents."

 

[Lasse Nielsen]

I must honestly say that i don't know them, but as I stated before I don't totally disagre with what you are saying, just pointing out that there has been a tendency earlier in swedish history (as in danish) to view historical events in to nationalistic terms (I'm not saying there were no national identity, just that it sometimes has been a bit exageratet, discarding more nuanced interpretations).

edit: what i wantet to say that early antidanish sentiment in sweden was more of a reaction to the abuses of centralized government (as had the antigerman sentiment under Albrecht), and not so much a nationalistic selfawarness.

 

[Lasse Nielsen]

To return to topic...

After thinking it over, I hope that it would be possible to form the Kalmar Union as one country, if you succed in centralize the governement, under a competent king, keeping it stable, without taxing the pesants dry.

 

[unmerged(11600)]

Denmark will inherit Norway in 1536 in EU3 right?

Only guarenteed if you start the game after the inheritance has already happened. Otherwise it's probably just as possible that Norway will inherit Sweden. Events in EU3 will not force feed us a scripted history.

-Pat

 

[unmerged(54014)]

To return to topic...

After thinking it over, I hope that it would be possible to form the Kalmar Union as one country, if you succed in centralize the governement, under a competent king, keeping it stable, without taxing the pesants dry.

So true. The Kalmar Union in EU3 should be all about trying to develop three countries with personal unions into a single state over time. Could this be set as a condition for victory in the game?

 

[Arilou]

wasn't alf henriksson an amateur historian?

Not really, but a lot of his histories is not exactly historical as much as meta-historical. (in his preface to "antikens historier" he points out that most of these are just plain rubbish: That doesen't matter, all these unsubstantiated stories told about roman emperors and greek philosophers are important because that is what later generations read and thought about, that is what affected theri image of Rome and the Romans) IE; It is not a historical work per se as much as it is an overview of historical "mythology".

As such most of his books should not be taken at face-value, because they are not meant to be.

A lot were anti union too. There are a lot of writings and poems from this time done by the aristocracy and different rich merchants and such from different parts of Sweden between 1440-1510 about how to slaughter the Danes, throw them out of the nation and create liberty to the Swedes.

Then how come Engelbrekt had to threaten them to life and limb to get them to revolt? How come most saw no problem serving Christian II as soon as the wind turned? How come they repeatedly kicked out KKB?

Each of the nobles (to make it a bit too simplistic) only cared about his or her personal interests. Then having a union king was in line with that, well, then we got a union king, otherwise no. And of course we have the people who pick sides based on grudges, annoyances etc. etc.

One of the main reasons I suspect was the Danish enjoyment of hiring pirates to drive in taxes. Pirates may turn a bit harsh which promote violence.

And the swedish aristocracy would have *absolutely* no interest in making sure the sheriffs and castellans were picked from among swedish nobelmen? :roleyes:

 

[Skarion]

And the swedish aristocracy would have *absolutely* no interest in making sure the sheriffs and castellans were picked from among swedish nobelmen? :roleyes:

In Norrland it was the peasants who revolted about this, it has been quite a lack of nobles up here.

Then how come Engelbrekt had to threaten them to life and limb to get them to revolt? How come most saw no problem serving Christian II as soon as the wind turned? How come they repeatedly kicked out KKB?

Most of the top nobles (Who had major power) were Germans (As stated earlier) or owned land in Denmark.

(The Oxenstierna and Vasa family for example had origins in Denmark and Oxenstierna even had enormous properties in Denmark.

Engelbrekt had a easy time making peasants and lower aristocrats to revolt, the problem came when discussing with those in power, especielly the people living at the coasts and trade oriented areas as they were more motivated in doing what they though was more important for the trade (50% of the people in the councils were Germans by law I think?).

Each of the nobles (to make it a bit too simplistic) only cared about his or her personal interests. Then having a union king was in line with that, well, then we got a union king, otherwise no. And of course we have the people who pick sides based on grudges, annoyances etc. etc.

Depended more on where in Sweden you lived and where you had your heritage from.