Why does Sweden have cores on Scania and Jämtland?

[unmerged(131255)]

Jemtland/Herjedalen was Norwegian provinces until 1645. (The Danish forum members will maybe say Danish from 1536...)

 

[palmtree]

Hey 28 years isn't enough to gain core on provinces

I seriously think that Swedish historians through times have made many funny obsevations, just so they easier could come to terms with the fact that Scania is the largest province ever conqured from a european country which havn't been returned to its former owner/people..

The largest? That's a dubious claim, and the goalposts move considerably depending on what period of history we are discussing.

And most scanians today don't even get taught in their history classes. About the Genacide of Scanians who knew that the real king were in Copenhagen from 1658 to 1814

Genocide is probably not the right word for it. The Swedish government wanted to integrate the Scanians, not exterminate them or drive them away. When the Scanians, rightfully I should add, resisted the Swedish government resorted to extremely harsh measures that included rounding up and summarily executing every adult male in a village but that kind of treatment was not exactly unusual for the time period. It was a brutal and sustained campaign of repression but the end result was a pacified Skåne that could deliver profits to the crown.

 

[henkalv]

Jemtland/Herjedalen was Norwegian provinces until 1645. (The Danish forum members will maybe say Danish from 1536...)

not to mention Bohuslen

 

[Cèsar de Quart]

I guess that, had Sweden never possessed Skane, it would be like France having cores on Roussillon, when the truth is that Roussillon was never of French culture, or inhabited by Frenchmen, not even now, and that hey got this province definitely in 1659.

 

[King Nothing]

Let's get one fact straight. Scania was originally Danish. It has then shifted hands several times. And I agree it's strange why Sweden has cores on it in EU3

You meant just like north America was originally English/French/.... and south america was originally Spanish/Portugese? If you meant like that you are entirely correct.

Otherwise the danes just conquered those parts from those living there before them. And perhaps it's there we should talk about the genocide because I don't really know where the Heruli live now.

 

[unmerged(131255)]

not to mention Bohuslen

Yup.

Somebody should make a mod with gamestart in the 13th century when Norway pwnd Sweden and Denmark as much as we do today...

 

[Lasse Mann]

The largest? That's a dubious claim, and the goalposts move considerably depending on what period of history we are discussing.


In Europe it is.. Find a other landmass at the same size in Europe which haven't been returned after it were conquered by one nation from another..

Only a swede would call it dubious claim for a non aparent reason.

 

[unmerged(131255)]

You meant just like north America was originally English/French/

Originally Norwegian you mean?

 

[Nodscouterr]

Please people, we all know that the reason Sweden has cores on Skåne and Jämtland is because the world belongs to Sweden. ALL of it!

 

[Lasse Mann]

You meant just like north America was originally English/French/.... and south america was originally Spanish/Portugese? If you meant like that you are entirely correct.

Otherwise the danes just conquered those parts from those living there before them. And perhaps it's there we should talk about the genocide because I don't really know where the Heruli live now.

When Jordanes where in Scania(describes it pretty well) in 558 A.D. he writes that the people there is called Dani..

 

[King Nothing]

When Jordanes where in Scania(describes it pretty well) in 558 A.D. he writes that the people there is called Dani..

According to the quote earlier in this thread it was also Jordanes who claimed that the Danes conquered it from the heruli.

 

[Swedish Steel!]

I seriously think that Swedish historians through times have made many funny obsevations, just so they easier could come to terms with the fact that Scania is the largest province ever conqured from a european country which havn't been returned to its former owner/people..

And most scanians today don't even get taught in their history classes. About the Genacide of Scanians who knew that the real king were in Copenhagen from 1658 to 1814. pawnage at that time were a de facto loan, they didn't just sell parts of their countries they sold maybe a specific province's production for a specific time, but didn't sell a entire province never to be returned..(they pawned of production and management of a province for a surtain period, its is a old-school way for the part that buys the pawn that if all the money isn't repayed at least they got the production from the province that they bought a pawn-letter in.. e.g. The Danish king also pawned of bornholm with northen Europe's largest castle, just because the Hansa had asked.(the Hansa had been unlucky with the grain production and this were a way to save their grain trade, so they bought right for a periode for a surtain amount that still were at a price were they still could make a profit compaired to the distrust and loss they would receive from their trading partners.)

So?

Actually Scania and the rest of the lands that Valdemar conquered were legally submitted to Sweden. So all of this stuff about Sweden doing blabla is really just the usual hypocritical blabber. Also the post above me about the Danes and Heruli... the hypocrisy is really starting to show itself.

Genocide of Scania? :rofl: let's get this straight.

Scania had been (re)conquered by Sweden in 1658. In 1660 a final peace was made in which Denmark acknowledged Sweden's right and ownership to all of the lands that Denmark had lost (for an example of a case showing that there were alternatives to that, see Sigismund Vasa and his son's claim to Sweden).

Then the Scanian War erupted and many people in Scania sided with the invading Danes or caused other kinds of trouble to the Swedish army. When peace was concluded, these people were punished very harshly in order to set an example of non-tolerance to rebels. This was very effective because no province rebelled during the Great Northern War (and fortunately so in hindsight since Denmark failed again) and after that, Scania was well on its way to being integrated.

Since Sweden's ownership of Scania was recognized by Denmark in 1660, you can't claim any kind of right for the people who did rebel to do so. This is just like giving an object to someone and then acknowledging that the object is now owned by that person.

There was then something which I don't really remember, but it involved Sweden being allowed to seize the Danish-owned estates in Scania. This caused an exodus to Denmark which some Danish historians conveniently use to support the claim of a Scanian ''genocide'', which is a ridiculous term to call it at best.

Scania suffered no worse a fate than any other legally owned province that rebelled against its own country, and I'm not just talking about Sweden in this case. Oh and you want a larger land mass that was conquered from one nation to another (okay so Swedes settled parts of Finland, there was no Finnish nation, long tradition of contact and trade etc. but for the sake of this thread...) and never returned? how about this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Grand_Duchy_of_Finland.png

 

[Lasse Mann]

According to the quote earlier in this thread it was also Jordanes who claimed that the Danes conquered it from the heruli. [/QUOTE

Herulli were Nomads so you can't really say that any land were theirs as they moved around all of europe..

 

[Cèsar de Quart]

Actually, the Herules were pushed away by the early Danes, and became a semi-nomadic tirbe, like the Visigoths or the Franks. One of the last Herules known was Odoacer, who took over the remnant of the Western Roman Empire (ruled by Romulus Augustus and his father Orestes) and sent the Imperial ensigns to Constantinople, in a way of saying "there's no more Western Empire. You're our only sovereign now, Emperor Zeno, but don't take it too seriously".

According to the quote earlier in this thread it was also Jordanes who claimed that the Danes conquered it from the heruli. [/QUOTE

Herulli were Nomads so you can't really say that any land were theirs as they moved around all of europe..

Germanic tribes didn't own land, they "owned" people. The early Danes didn't own Denmark of Scania either. They didn't see it like this,.

 

[Histenchist]

According to the quote earlier in this thread it was also Jordanes who claimed that the Danes conquered it from the heruli. [/QUOTE

Herulli were Nomads so you can't really say that any land were theirs as they moved around all of europe..

Aren't danes also nomadic?
They travel in masses to Sweden every summer to see elks and trees!

 

[Dragoneer]

Originally Norwegian you mean?

Indeed wheres our claims on north america!

 

[Swamp Rat]

There was then something which I don't really remember, but it involved Sweden being allowed to seize the Danish-owned estates in Scania. This caused an exodus to Denmark which some Danish historians conveniently use to support the claim of a Scanian ''genocide'', which is a ridiculous term to call it at best.

Let us try not perpetuate these myths that apparently float around about what "our historians" think. No Danish historian would claim there have been a "genocide" in Scania. Some Danes would perhaps, but no historians, because you know they actually know something about history, something your average Dane, Swede, American ..etc does not.

It reminds me of when I read that there actually was a myth in Sweden at some point that said that Christian II was nicknamed "the Good" in Denmark and Danes think he was one of our best kings and that the Stockholm Bloodbath was the clever thing to do*. Amazing how two countries so similar and so close to each other in culture apparently still does have miles apart in some areas.

*=I guess I should point out that this was of course all pure nonsense that never happened.

 

[Lasse Mann]

Germanic tribes didn't own land, they "owned" people. The early Danes didn't own Denmark of Scania either. They didn't see it like this,.[/QUOTE]

No but they did belong to a certain geographic area, which is more or less Denmark's current vicinity(minus Scania)..

 

[andb52]

Only problem is that a large portion of Americans don't know where all 50 states are either.

Absolutely true. Look at this National Geographic article: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/0502_060502_geography.html

On the second page, it states that 1/2 of 18-24, who were surveyed, COULD NOT FIND NEW YORK ON A MAP

What the hell...

 

[Lasse Mann]

So?

Actually Scania and the rest of the lands that Valdemar conquered were legally submitted to Sweden. So all of this stuff about Sweden doing blabla is really just the usual hypocritical blabber. Also the post above me about the Danes and Heruli... the hypocrisy is really starting to show itself.

Genocide of Scania? :rofl: let's get this straight.

Scania had been (re)conquered by Sweden in 1658. In 1660 a final peace was made in which Denmark acknowledged Sweden's right and ownership to all of the lands that Denmark had lost (for an example of a case showing that there were alternatives to that, see Sigismund Vasa and his son's claim to Sweden).

Then the Scanian War erupted and many people in Scania sided with the invading Danes or caused other kinds of trouble to the Swedish army. When peace was concluded, these people were punished very harshly in order to set an example of non-tolerance to rebels. This was very effective because no province rebelled during the Great Northern War (and fortunately so in hindsight since Denmark failed again) and after that, Scania was well on its way to being integrated.

Since Sweden's ownership of Scania was recognized by Denmark in 1660, you can't claim any kind of right for the people who did rebel to do so. This is just like giving an object to someone and then acknowledging that the object is now owned by that person.

There was then something which I don't really remember, but it involved Sweden being allowed to seize the Danish-owned estates in Scania. This caused an exodus to Denmark which some Danish historians conveniently use to support the claim of a Scanian ''genocide'', which is a ridiculous term to call it at best.

Scania suffered no worse a fate than any other legally owned province that rebelled against its own country, and I'm not just talking about Sweden in this case. Oh and you want a larger land mass that was conquered from one nation to another (okay so Swedes settled parts of Finland, there was no Finnish nation, long tradition of contact and trade etc. but for the sake of this thread...) and never returned? how about this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Grand_Duchy_of_Finland.png

Sweden had cedded back Scania in 1679. if it weren't for the fact that swedens ally France were the peace negotiator.. so of cause the peace agrement fell out in swedens favour.