Sweden HAS to be in the Grand Campaign

[Doomdark]

IMHO it is shocking that Sweden will be left out of the Grand Campaign. The fact that Scandinavia was unified in 1492 only to split 30 years later is a weak excuse not to include the nation that would later dominate the Baltic Sea region for a hundred years.
Sweden fought and won the 30 years war for Christ's sake! Charles XII was only a hairsbreadth away from consigning Russia to a secondary role in the Baltic for hundreds of years to come.
I would understand the choice if there were only six Major Powers in the campaign, but to include Poland and Portugal but not Sweden is frankly a disgrace. Portugal was clearly a stronger colonial power, but this game is not just about colonization, is it? As for Poland, not to slight that great and unfortunate nation, but no one can say that it played a greater role than Sweden in this time frame with a straight face.
I propose one of three solutions:
1) The player starts as the Kalmar Union (the unified Scandinavia that was the physically largest nation in Europe at the time), and have it dissolve (or not) a few years later, whereupon the player can choose to continue as either Sweden OR Denmark.
2) The player starts as Sweden, but in a state of alliance with Denmark-Norway.
3) Forget historical accuracy and push Gustavus Vasa's rebellion back 30 years.

Any one of these solutions would be perfectly fine with me. So, Paradox, don't embarass yourselves by making this blunder when even SSI and Frog City made Sweden a Great Power in Imperialism II!

 

[Doomdark]

Interesting... Creating your own scenarios can often be as fun as playing the game itself. Ah, I remember Warlords II Deluxe... Anyway, in that case the blunder is not as grave, although I still think Sweden should be officially included. I think Sweden's position should make it both challenging and fun to play the country. I envision two main strategic possibilites:

1) If you can clobber Denmark enough in the early stages, Sweden should be able to 'go colonial' and compete with the best of them.
(I assume Denmark has a stranglehold on all shipping in and out of the Baltic).

2) Expand eastward mainly at the cost of Russia.

Of course, you could also try the historical approach and strive to make the Baltic Sea a 'Mare Nostrum', but it tends to be extremely difficult to hold coastal regions when you have nowhere to fall back to.

My worries are somewhat assuaged, but consider this: If you had asked a reasonably literate European of 1492 to name the seven greatest nations of Europe he would probably have answered: 'France, England, Spain, the Holy Roman Empire, Portugal, the Kalmar Union and Poland'. Russia was a poor joke at this time, and Turkey is not a European nation at all (Ah, it would be cool to play the HRE, ally with Venice, drive the moslems out of Asia Minor and restore Constantinople).

No matter what, I am really looking forward to this game (in fact, I can feel an obsession coming on =)

PS

The real winners of the 30 years war were obviously the protestants in northern Germany, but Sweden gained many important territories and perhaps more importantly; prestige.

 

[Doomdark]

Ok, one last post (but of course I won't mind if someone else keeps it alive for a while longer =).

Interesting facts on Portugal by the way, Henrique, it give my own reply a little more credibility.

Well Sam, it is true that Sweden (with a single 'e', please) did not have a very large population compared to some other nations. However, history has shown time and again that a large population is not critical to success. A thriving economy, technological and social advancement, geographical location and something I like to call 'Cultural Vitality' are just as important. Consider the success of the British Empire against China, India, and later the Arab nations.

In 1492 or thereabouts, Sweden would have stood no chance in a protracted war against the likes of France and Spain (I never said that Sweden was their equal), but then again, such a war was never even remotely possible. Sweden's interests lay mainly to the East and South, whereas the Western powers balanced each other out in the West. At this time, Russia was so sadly underdeveloped and fractured that large parts would have been easy targets for colonization/assimilation if Sweden had not been mixed up in constant wars with Denmark. Remember that the Russians were not actually that populous yet (vast areas were populated only sparsely by peoples like the Karelians).

Lastly, one should remember that it was MUCH easier to assimilate other peoples in an age when at least 95% of the population were illiterate, especially in areas where the common folk also suffered brutal serfdom and felt no loyalty towards their rulers (e.g. Russia and Poland).

The Kalmar Union was not an effective entity, I agree (because it was so poorly ruled), but that does not mean that Scandinavia could not easily have been united under one crown if either Denmark or Sweden had ever soundly trounced the other(Holland or England tended to intervene whenever this seemed likely, which speaks for itself--they were afraid of a united Scandinavia).

The Norse peoples had the same religion, traditions, and virtually the same language. Total assimilation could have been accomplished in less than 100 years. Take the example of Skåne (Scania), Halland and Blekinge, which were Danish provinces until Karl X managed to wrest them from Denmark. Half of what used to be Denmark (half a nation!) up until 1658 is now an undisputed part of Sweden, where virtually no one would even consider being a part of Denmark again. That, my friends, is an examply of perfect assimilation. No car bombs, no riots, no separatist movement whatsoever. =)

If Karl X had succeeded in taking the whole of Denmark (he would have, but England, France AND the Netherlands intervened on the side of Denmark), I am certain there would have been no Denmark or Norway today.

It is pure speculation, but I believe the same would have happened in Estonia, Ingermanland, Russian Karelia, Livonia and large parts of Finland (but it would have taken longer). It is not at all far fetched that 'Greater' Sweden could have held together.

I apologize for the longish post, but it is clear to me that population is not a critical factor. Culture is.

 

[Doomdark]

Kullenius,

All remote parts of any given nation contains a certain number of professed separatists. I am from Luleå (far northern Sweden for you internationals), and we have our share of that ilk too. One of my professors at the University was also the chairman of 'Norrbottenspartiet' (Norrbotten's Party), a small political organization that thinks that the northern portions of Sweden would be better off as a separate nation. This is an especially wild notion since it has no grounds in history, and pretty much no one takes them seriously.

I am well aware of the hybrid flag of Skåne (yellow cross on red background) and the sentimental musings of the folk in the province, but can you honestly say that any significant number of people would prefer Danish rule? I imagine it is a lot like Americans in the southern US proudly displaying the 'Southern Cross'.

You might be right when you say that the whole of Denmark might have been more than Karl X could chew. =)
However, it could have been accomplished in two steps, with a couple of decades in between, just as Denmark could have done against Sweden. The Kalmar Union, however, was much too loosely knit to hold, with the 'Riksföreståndare' in Sweden acting as a king in all but name.

IMHO the failure of the Kalmar Union is one of the greatest tragedies in Scandinavian history. If I had been king in those days, I would have moved the capital to somewhere in Bohuslän and made a real effort to unify the peoples (granting Swedish nobles lands in Denmark and the reverse, taxing everyone equally, merging the languages, etc). Unfortunately, the Danish kings chose to act like Danish kings, and made no real effort to actually unify the peoples (either peacefully or by force).

[This message has been edited by Doomdark (edited 09-04-2000).]

 

[Doomdark]

Whoa, Sam, seems we have a few differences of opinion. That's what makes this board so fun

First off, Sweden did not absorb small chunks of Denmark piecemeal, (except on and off before Charles X), but half the nation in one bite. How important were these provinces? Well, there was a University and an arch-bishop in Lund, so they were probably at least as important as Sjaelland.

Yes, Estonia would have been harder to absorb, but remember that Finland remained an integral part of Sweden for 600 years without major uprisings. That's longer than America has been known in Europe. In case you did not know, Finns and Estonians have a very similar language and culture (although the Finns are westernized whereas the Estonians have been 'easternized').

I do not disagree about the value of the great kings from Gustavus Adolphus and on, I just want to add that the ground work was actually laid by Gustav Vasa a century earlier, who broke the power of both church and aristocracy.

Your assessment of the foreign intervention is completely off however. Denmark _already_ controlled the sea lanes to the Baltic and had done so for hundreds of years. That is not to say that trade was not an underlying factor. Lubeck and the Hansa constantly tried to break the Kalmar Union in order to regain control of the Scandinavian trade. Holland and England might have had similar goals, but I don't think that was the main reason. France under the scheming Richelieu had already demonstrated its desire to keep Sweden just weak (and poor) enough to manage during the 30 years war.

[This message has been edited by Doomdark (edited 11-04-2000).]