I tried preserving the Swedish Empire in Empire Total War; you just end up in a constant state of warfare that you're barely able to sustain, against far greater numbers.
I think, even if the Swedish Empire won the Great Northern War and Charles XII not been shot by a stray grapeshot from an overly prideful Norwegian soldier guarding the fortress, thus surviving up to his 50s or early 60s by mid-18th century standards in Sweden's time, the country itself would've inevitably fallen apart anyway, perhaps in a later date than in our own timeline, to become Modern-Day Sweden. There may be a more realistic possibility that Adolf Hitler would've been more afraid of a heavily militarized Sweden even after winning the Great Northern War over 220 years ago from a revised timeline than in our own.
It is so interesting how both the Swedes and the Swiss were both well known for being fantastic fighters, and both are also well known for being neutral for centuries.
Well I mean you don't get to the point where other countries just don't wanna invade you by not kicking some ass. And having ideal geography for the defenders.
Just a small thing: technically Poladn-Lithuania was neutral, and it was Saxony who declared war on Sweden. It just so happened that Augustus, king of Saxony, was also the elected king of Poland-Lithuania.
@@blecao Even then, Poland as an entity was a neutral force. Only Saxony went to war with Sweden officially, whilst military action took place there, as the Polish army was practically non-existent.
Indeed, and that's why the way Charles XII invaded Poland-Lithuania instead of chasing the Russians after the battle of Narva, was the dumbest thing he could possibly do.
@@conserva-chan2735 Uff. That would be hard. Soviets always treat Communism as tool for they imperialism, when China was more genuinely trying build stable society. Plus Russia still hold they Manchuria.
As Estonian i can say that Swedes (especially some rulers like Gustavus Adolphus) were liked by our pesants and do to this day beeing part of swedish empire is seen second best to independence (1918-1940 and 1991-current). It's literally named "Good old Swedish times."
I read about similar feelings in Pomerania. A visiting Swedish politician apologised for Sweden's behaviour, and the locals couldn't understand why. Like, "that was the best we have had".
there was actually a Swedish plan to join WW2. Operation 'free Denmark' and 'free Norway' were planned to go ahead less than a week after Germany surrendered and it was unnecessary. Almost worth a video in itself
@@alaric_ The whole reason was that Sweden was worried that Norway or Denmark would be "liberated" by the Russians. Basically booting out the Germans if it looked like the Russians were about to come knocking. As happened with Bornholm. It was very much in Swedens own interest not to have Russian puppets at their border.
@@alaric_ It makes more sense when you take into account the fears that the Russians would push further west than Berlin, Sweden didn’t intend to fight the Germans, they intended to stop the Russians from advancing further into Scandinavia and the Baltic region.
This theme reminds me of what Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said about wars. In the Gulag Archipelago he wrote that Sweden was fortunate for losing the Northern War because it stopped caring about expansion and just went about being a peaceful, happy nation while Russia started centuries of conquest that just made its people more opressed and ultimately created a system that collapsed under its own lust for prestige. A very thoughtful insight, imo
A fish that swims all its life will never know what water is. The Muscovite knows only tyranny and imperialism. Being defeated in 1709 would not have changed that.
Worth a thought, Sweden at the time were rather exhausted for resources, and during the 1700s "frihetstid" expansion were not in the cards. However after the power-grab by Gustav III he insigated the war with Russia to reconquer the lost territories - that instead lead to the loss of Finland. *Then* we stopped caring about expansion (after a 100 more years of blustering military and political figures clamouring for the glory of the olden days). A win might have skewed the evolution even more towards a Prussian/Russian/Austro-Hungarian-style state.
As a Swede myself, I can say that you did a good job at portraying the most likely outcomes of the Great Northern War. Due to Sweden's general lack of manpower and focus on quality over quantity approach, it's only fair to assume that even if we did win the war, we'd still never be able to match the likes of Great Britain or Germany on the greater European scene. We'd remain formidable adversaries, yes, but I doubt we'd ever be able to expand much further than Scandinavia proper due to the issue of spreading our forces too thin. It doesn't matter how immensely skilled your troops are if they're few in number and spread so thin that they can't possibly cover all fronts. At some point you'd have to realize that focusing on retaining what you can control is much more important than trying to reach for what you can't. I definitely appreciate this video because of this. As always, it focuses on the feasible ways the war could have ended differently, and the most plausible possibilities that arise from these scenarios.
While you both have a good point about the manpower, which again predicts the most likely scenario, the obvious answer would be to expand and recruit in captured territories. And perhaps establish a foreign legion. Not saying it's a very likely outcome, in a sense the cultural similarities around for example the state of Moscow likely made it's expansion easier, the same with the unification of Germany. However all large countries started small at some point. I'm not sure if any of the large states ever could expand and grow from different cultures, with such a small manpower base with the same (or similar) culture though. Austria-Hungary comes to mind though. I suppose Russia did integrate many other cultures, although the Moscowite/Novgorod/Kiev culture group had a quite good manpowerbase already, before expanding more. Overall Sweden was too slow out of the gate to gain a medium sized manpowerbase to be able to assimilate and incorporate smaller cultures into itself to grow even more. I suppose that if you start with the Kalmarunion instead around say 1400, the outlook for growing into a proper empire is more plausible in a counter-factual analysis.
I feel like nordic alternate history should be explored more, they had quite a lot of impact in the earlier history of Europe. All that's mostly talked about nowadays is Finland and WW2
Well, if Sweden had declared war on Germany, when the nazis were fighting on three continents, Germany would have been deprived of their only source of high quality steel. The one that is needed for the barrels of guns and tanks. Germany had steel but it was low quality and not suitable for said applications. When they were stretched thin, Sweden could have crippled Germany and shorten the war with years. That would have meant millions of lives saved. Sure, Germany would have tried to attack but seeing how Swedish always like to remind of their superioir military power at that time, it wouldn't have been easy. Especially when Germany was already fighting against almost everybody. See, WW2 alternate history that was not about Finland! :D
@@alaric_ Or more likely and realistically Germany would've just rolled over Sweden and consequently removed one of the safe zones of numerous fleeing refugees, such as numerous Danish Jews that had fled to Sweden. The garrison in Norway alone was twice the army size of a mobilized Sweden even when Sweden was preparing to liberate it, their plans to invade and liberate Denmark and Norway at the end of the war relied on the fact that while German troops would've outnumbered them the German troops would've been isolated and unsupported due to collapse of mainland Germany. After getting rolled over any fleeing Jew or political dissident would've been rounded up to be executed or sent to concentration camp and iron extraction operations would've either gone as normal or even made more intense. So ultimately it wouldn't really have saved much lives, likely just doomed more lives to concentration camps.
As a Swede I always chuckle at the neutrality meme. We've never been neutral, just very good at turning with the winds while making it seem we never pick a side. Opportunistic. That said, great video.
@@martinmortyry7444 on the contrary, taking an opposition stance in your trade relations is in and of itself a stance. If you want to get particular, there is no real "neutral" stance one can take in war
I like how these videos are usually doubling down as little history lessons. I wasn’t too familiar with the Great Northern War, but an alternate history teaches of the real history simultaneously. It’s cool
In order to understand alternate history, you first must understand actual history. If you don’t know why events happened, then it’s hard to say the most likely outcomes of any alternate actions or paths in history.
Back in 2016 I did a presentation on the Great Northern War for a very minor class I had which was about public speaking. Students in the class didn't believe this war was real (because of how wacky the events were I guess?), and one kid said "It was the Great War and had nothing to do with Sweden" I was dumbfounded. Even the teacher asked me if I made it up. Edit: no I'm not American or was this in America.
I think one thing you neglected to mention was that the rest of the European great powers that could have intervened were distracted by the War of the Spanish Succession until the war had turned against Sweden. Considering that the latter war almost ended in a diplomatic settlement, a different alternate history scenario to look into would have been "How would the Great Northern War have turned out if the War of the Spanish Succession did not break out?"
I've been waiting for this video for years. It's been the alt history scenario I've been the most interested in ever since I learned about the Great Northern war
Honestly what if the 1848 Revolutions were successful would be interesting in itself, like how realistic Big Germany would actually be in establishing itself
For Swedish speakers, there’s a great novel about this called ”Redovisningsavdelning Marviken”. It’s not a ”full” alt-history story though, rather a sci-fi and Tom Clancy-esque thriller within an alt-history timeline
@@vincentterraneo9113 Translates to ”Accounting Department Marviken”. The plot is about a military operative in a modern day Swedish Empire. He and his brothers in arms are fighting terrorists and their secretive ”boss” always seem to know what bad things will happen before they happen.
The big way a Swedish Empire would survive would be less good warrior kings, though that is important, and more diplomatic and silver tongued ones willing to make strong allies out of other major Eurasian powers. The Swedes (and the Dutch) could learn a lot from Portugal, an Empire that survived largely by not pissing off Spain and being best friends with Britain. Their ambitions are always going to put them at odds with Denmark, Poland-Lithuania, and Russia. But endearing themselves with the natural rivals to these powers like the Ottomans, Austria or even Prussia- or just someone that is fairly close by and a capable skull basher like France or Britain- to tilt the scale in their favor would definitely see them in a better position. It might mean being the junior partner but it also could mean stability and even expansion.
As a Hispanic, Portugal is a really bad example. Portugal was created in the beginning (as the Duchy of Portucale) as a reward to a foreigner. Through some... circumstances, it became independent. From then on it was a strong, reliable ally to the other Spanish Crowns in the struggle of the Reconquista. After the Spanish Crowns united, some did felt that Portugal should unite together as well. But war itself to annex them was never even considered. Something like Castile & Aragon's union was best. The brief Iberian Union is a special case, which I won't get into here. The ONLY time there was actual, real conflict between the Iberian crowns were in two cases: First one to break apart the Iberian Union, the second one by a foolish Spanish King that decided to trust France over the long-time friend Spain found in Portugal. This decision turned to bite Spain by Napoleon imprisoning the King while Napoleon was "on the way to help fight Portugal hurrr" The only real border change out of millenia of history was the small town of Olivença. This is it. Oh, and the African port of Ceuta. The transfer was done peacefully though. Oh and Uruguay I guess? Hard to call that a conflict.
@@crusaderACR All of what you just said was a good reason for others to emulate Portugal though. If Sweden made a Scandinavian/Baltic empire having a close, somewhat ethnically tied friend that would work to protect them except in rare cases of buffoonery like the aforementioned Spainish king during the Napoleonic wars. A powerful German state would be optimal, and while there might be some argumentum made for 'unification' Nordic peoples have even more differences with Germanic ones than Portuguese do with Spaniards so it might be an even harder thing to sell. But there are also enough similarities to create a sense of 'brotherhood'.
@@FollowCarrier1997 Ah, me olvidé de ese. No diría que es un conflicto contra Castilla per se, es más que Portugal apoyó un bando de nobles castellanos en contra de otro. La unificación de las dos coronas no era muy popular entre todos nobles de Iberia. Muchos temían la pérdida de autonomía o de cultura. No es una enemistad propiamente dicha. O así lo veo. No fue una guerra de conquista, de desmantelamiento, ni nada. Es apoyar un bando en una guerra civil, similar a los países que apoyaron a los republicanos en la guerra civil española del siglo XX. No era que odiaban _España_ misma, no?
Fun fact: Peter was in Narva but he thought no fighting will happen and returned to Moscow 1 day later the Russians got destroyed and captured He'd likely be captured as well and thus Russia would have to make peace
I think Cody severely underestimated what the ramifications would have been if Peter was captured. The GNW was the event that solidified his reputation as a good tzar, which meant the Russians eventually accepted his less traditional ideas too. If Peter had been captured and forced to back out of the war, there is a very good chance that would have lead to a coup to put a more traditional ruler on the throne, like his eldest son. It's even possible this leads to a power struggle. In any case, I believe it would have lead to a severe setback for the Russian Empire, not just in land but in modernization as well. Even in our timeline the Russians tended to linger behind the rest of Europe in science, industry and political philosophy until the 1900's, and that was with Peter giving Russia a major boost in the 18th century. Without said boost it is very much possible that Russia would have become the China of Eastern Europe, a large empire that other powers abuse for riches and glory due to a big gap in technology. And while Sweden would not have benefited much from that other than having slightly saver borders, the Ottomans, Prussians and Austrians definitely could have benefited greatly (as well as Poland). This could have influenced the Napoleonic Wars, there would be no major Crimean War, and the Japanese victory of the Russo-Japanese war doesn't herald Japan as a new major player in the world. And thus the butterfly continues doing its thing... Edit: this is all assuming Russia survives. Just a century earlier the nation suffered from the Time of Troubles, which saw the Tzardom curtailed in influence, Poland occupying Moscow for a change and general lawlessness in the country that was only held together by the Orthodox Church. Fast forward a century and the Enlightenment starts kicking in, which while not likely mainstream in Russia, would entice at least a few nobles, weakening the uniting factor of the Church. Add to that the fact that there already was dissent on tradition versus progression, and a dead or deposed Peter might signal the collapse of Muscovian authority, which would definitely lead to the Cossacks rebelling and probably even a mass shattering of the Muscovian Empire, reducing the area to small states again.
For that Japan bit. I think in this victory they'd take far more. I'm talking like the entire Far East And I think when Peter dies a second times of troubles could occure
@@the_tactician9858 Yes, as alternative history goes this seemed quite a superficial take. Russia had potential and in our timeline it was realized, but had Peter been killed or totally failed it could have collapsed. The belief in the idea of Russia today hinges to a large degree on Peter's success. Sure, someone and something else could have come along, but things could have looked radically different in the east. If Sweden achieved their ambitions of surrounding the Baltic there is no reason to believe that Prussia would ever be a thing either. Couple the economy of that with the population boosts of integrating the provinces of the eastern and southern coasts things could have been very different for Sweden and the European stage at large. But most importantly, if Russia dissolved or faded, like you said, history would probably be unrecognizable.
@@the_tactician9858 Откуда вы берете это идиотское название «Московия»?Я искал и изучал много карт и нигде,кроме как на карте речи Посполитой Москва не называется «Московией»
Know I’m late but Peter NOT being there was a major contributing factor in Russia’s disastrous loss; he left in his place a foreign general who, although competent in his own regard, lacked the means to coordinate against the Swedish assault. Peter, who was well known for slaughtering the Streltsky a mere two years ago, may have very well put in the necessary discipline to make any of the actions which could have turned Narva into at least a stalemate
I was chosen by heaven Say my name when you pray To the skies See Carolus rise With the lord my protector Make them bow to my will To the skies See Carolus rise!
If Charles XII didn´t die then the fortress they besieged would fall within days and Norway would fall which would force Denmark to sign peace. This would free the Swedish army and navy for military operations in Finland, where Charles XII would destroy the Russians in Finland, burn St:Petersburg, reclaim Estonia and Livonia and then white peace with Russia.
As a very liberal, globalast Swede, there are only three things that can make me a hardcore nationalist: football, hating Denmark, and at the top of the list: Swedish Alternate History. Thank you for this gift. Edit: I want too say that I don’t have anything to do with the clusterfuck in the replies (though I can’t exactly say I didn’t see it coming a mile away)
@@cyrusthegreat7030 “And the number one spot for “Terms that start worse comment wars than between a Pakistani, and a Hindu Nationalist” goes toooooooo:”
As a Swede im so happy about this video, and the facts that are presented about why a future empire after the great nothern war wouldnt last is interesting! Good video mate!
As a Swede, this "being a Swede" has become a strange concept. It highly depends on what political side you ask. You are either a Swede the moment you set your foot here from whatever corner of the world you happen to come from or you live here for 40+ years and are still not considered a Swede. Its a really fun thing to consider really if our little bout of Conquest had actually worked out.
I wonder how many average Americans even know Sweden had an empire? I've met people who didn't even know Portugal existed and thought Brazil spoke spanish
I’m a bit of a history nerd so I’ve come across it multiple times. I wish we had better education here to learn about previous empires besides Britain or Spain, and even then it’s covered rather poorly
Aka the "Nordic Rape Prevention" method. This is not a joke. Conviniently the side drumming this idea has forgotten the whole thing and behaves like it never happened.
Correction: I think you tried to mention Scania but instead said Scandia in 13:50. Scania is the region in the most southernpart of Sweden that was an integrated part of Denmark until the Treaty of Roskilde 1658. Scania was full of Danes but they later got assimilated by the Swedes - just as you mentioned in your sequence. The pictures that you display while trying to explain this are that of the Scandes, or the Scandinavian Mountains. It's an honest mistake but I think you literally mixed up Scania and the Scandes and created Scandia. All the best
One comment about Finland: in the year 1700 Finland already had been the eastern part of Sweden for ca 500 years. And before that there was just tribes (and Sweden didn’t really exist either). The idea of Finland as a separate country came after the Russian occupation in the 19th century. And even after the Russians invaded Finland was allowed to keep it’s Swedish laws, unlike all other parts of Russia.
Don't forget that finnish identity was born when nationalism started to spread in Europe. Russia saw this as a way to build distance between Finland and it's former ruler, Sweden. Who knows what could've happened to Finland's nationalism under Swedish rule.
@@RabbitShirak that is a fair point. But unlike Norway(a part of the country in the 19th century), Finland had never been a country of its own, just one of the parts of Sweden: Finland, Götaland, Norrland and Svealand. It had been a part of the country much longer than other parts, like Skåne for instance. If Finland today should annex Sweden it would be quite easy, since the laws and other systems in the 2 countries still are much alike. ;) When Russia in the later parts of the 19th century started to try to Russifie Finland, then the movement to create a Finnish nation became strong. Thankfully.
Finland already had its first attempt at independence not long after GNW in 1740's during the War of the Hats, so no, not true. In a scenario where Sweden is victorious in GNW Russia would definitely attempt to pry Finland away from Sweden as a buffer state. There wouldn't even be so much animosity towards russians since the Great Wrath never happens, so support for independence with Russian support would be even greater.
@@tomasarfert Lies, lies, lies. Finns were recognized as a co-equal separate "people" alongside Swedes, not just the inhabitants of one of many provinces. This would be apparent to anyone who reads letters and documents from Sweden from the middle ages and early modern period. "The cities of Sweden and Finland, and the cities of Finland and Sweden" as Gustav Vasa put it, or the fact that Swedish kings at one point began using the title of Grand Duke of Finland alongside King of Sweden. First attempts at independence were made in the mid 1700s and then again in the late 1700s. Already in the late 1500s the Finnish nobility fought against Stockholm for its own personal interests. Finnish identity was VERY much existant, especially during the 1700s. It was simply more convoluted and not as exact as today.
@@SairanBurghausen Gustav Vasa divided the realm between his sons, which is why he might have separated Finland somewhat. Finns were very much an integral part of Sweden and felt Swedish whatever that meant then. “Swedes we are no longer, Russians we don’t wish to become, let us therefore be Finnish”.
Russian armies blocked their way 20 000 lost that day They bled the ground Peace they found There’s no sign of victory King Carolus had to flee And leave the land Leave command
Madness, curse your feeble horde Fear me or you'll die by my sword Poltava Rode to certain death and pain Poltava Swedish soldiers met their bane Poltava Sacrificed their lives in vain Poltava (Took long enough to find a Sabaton reference lol)
You know it's a good channel when he adds beautiful details like "vila i frid" on the gravestone (means rest in peace in swedish) when the swedish empire fell/ended.
While I definitely agree that Sweden would be a "second rate" power even if they won, I'm not so sure that this scenario is as unrealistic as you seem to think. This video is made with the assumption that Russia survives the great northern war, which isn't unlikely, but with each successive loss to Sweden, Russia would become weaker and closer to collapse. One of the things that made Russia a major European power was access to the Baltic. Without this, their chances of survival and acquisition of great power status would be severely diminished. If Sweden consecutively won 1-3 wars against Russia after a victorious great northern war, a likely outcome would be Sweden not having to fight Russia any longer, because there wouldn't BE a Russia. Whilst Russia isn't as vulnerable as Sweden to one defeat, if Sweden had 1 or 2 semi-competent kings after Charles, chances are the empire would survive and wouldn't run the risk of losing any wars against Russia throughout the 20th century or even the 19th. At this point, few countries would have any interest in Sweden, save for Denmark-Norway and Germany, the former of which would likely get crushed and the latter probably winning any potential wars, but not crippling the empire, since their interests would be limited to the few uninportant north german provinces that Sweden could afford to lose. Any other actors with even a modicum of interest in what Sweden has, would probably see a fulfillment of these interests as not worthwhile since the Swedes would be a pain to invade and occupy even if a victory could be secured on the field.
Honestly this sounds like a pretty cool alternative history, and I'm not even from Sweden. This is basically inspiration for people, Swedes and non-Swedes, to go into games like EU4, Hoi4, Civ 6, etc., and work to create their own Swedish Empire. Might consider doing that myself sometime, and listen to Sabaton while doing it.
5:33 "Barely had a population and owed their empire to being competent at a time when nobody else was." That kinda goes for Britain too long-term when you think about it
Problem is that Finnish isn't a Scandinavian language. Hell it's not even an Indo-European language. Italian, German and English have more in common with Swedish than Finnish has. So melting the two languages is basically impossible, and the existence of a distinct national language would invariably create a national identity. And any attempts to stump out the Finnish language would only lead to more resentment for the Swedish royalty.
Hindi has more in common with Swedish than Finnish has. And yeah, realistically any compulsory swedification would've had Finland running out the door. There were conspiracies for independence even without forced swedification.
@@SairanBurghausendepends on how close to the rise of nationalism this unification would occur. If unification started several decades before the idea of national identity, then yes, finnish as a language could've disappeared, or atleast shrink greatly.
I don't think it's impossible for a Swedish empire to be multilingual and reasonably stable, like Switzerland, Canada or India. So I agree Finnish would not disappear, but it might not lead to a national identity that successfully supersedes "Swedishness". Like Switzerland, it would be a language and a local cultural identity, but it wouldn't inspire independence, at least not to a level it poses a serious threat to the empire. The biggest difference today might be a much higher rate of bilingualism in Finland, the vast majority of the population would speak reasonably fluent Swedish rather than a minority in the south west. I'd also expect to see a lot more bilingual road signs and so on throughout the whole region of Finland.
@@Croz89 Such an arrangement would require the Swedish empire to view Finnish as a language of equal standing. Which I don't see happening since the prevailing opinion in Sweden was that it was a primitive language. In general here it's important to understand that the relationship of Finland and Sweden during this time was basically a colonial one. Finnish was spoken by the common people while Swedish was the language of the nobility that was assigned by kings living on the other side of an ocean. Finns were already viewed as a separate lesser people during this time which makes any unification rather hard. Especially when it's done by people across an ocean. Such a Sweden would be incredibly split not only linguistically but also geographically and culturally. The average Finnish peasant might have a lot in common with the average Swedish peasant but the two would basically never meet eachother. The only interactions between Swedes and Finns were interactions between different classes. Such an arrangement would be ripe to create dissatisfaction and a fractured country.
@@viiviketomaki7284 The thing is, you can find the same issues in other modern nations throughout the world, and yet they have managed to stay together, often through a gradual increase in tolerance for other languages and cultures. Sure, many of these nations often still have independence movements for particular regions, but they're never big enough to cause an actual split, there's often a pro-unification majority even within these regions who recognise the economic and political benefits of remaining together. I could see a modern Swedish empire like that, you'd have Finnish and perhaps Norwegian independence parties in politics, but they'd never have enough power to cause a split, and public polls put independence between 30-60% in the region, but the latter only for short temporary periods. Also, I'd hesitate to call the gulf of bothnia an "ocean", it's not much wider than the Irish sea.
I did my middle school project on the Great Northern war and how it effects us today so to see this video only an hour after it came out made me so exited.
As I said earlier when this episode was voted on the only way for Sweden's empire to ever have a chance of surviving is having King Charles X Gustav(Charles XII grandfather) win his wars in Poland-Lithuania and Denmark-Norway, had he done that Denmark-Norway would have been annexed and and Poland-Lithuania would have been demolished with Sweden and its allies carving up Poland and Lithuania join a Union with sweden(and yes all this where real plans by the King)
@@Alex-yz6uq "When the Danish stalled and prolonged the fulfillment of some provisions of the earlier peace treaty the Swedish king decided to use this as a pretext to attack with a breathtaking goal: to vanquish Denmark as a sovereign state, raze the capital of Copenhagen and divide the country into four administrative regions. This would allow Sweden to control the Baltic Sea and bring in large customs revenues. However, even this ambitious goal was just to be stepping stone towards the ultimate plan of a quick conquest of Denmark so that the Swedes could wage a campaign in Europe without risking Danish interference."- Den oövervinnerlige by Peter Englund
@@thewildgoat4056 The part about Denmark-Norway is stated in the book "Den oövervinnerlige" by Peter Englund from 2000(only in swedish) The part about Poland-Lithuania come from wats written in the treaties of Kėdainiai(1655) and Radnot(1656)
@@bolle9810 Sweden knew full well that annexing Denmark-Norway would have made an alredy massivly overextended empire even more overextended. Besides, Several other European states would have formed a coalition against Sweden in the case of a fully Swedish controlled Baltic.
On a related note, "What if Peter the Great was captured by the Ottomans?" For context, when Charles XII fled to the Ottomans, Peter demanded the Ottomans force him out. The Ottomans denied, so Peter began the Pruth Campaign... which was a disaster. Peter's army was surrounded and the Ottomans could've captured him, however the Grand Vizier accepted bribes from the Russians and let them go. If Peter was captured, along with his whole army, what could've changed?
If the Ottoman army had fought. He could have lost most of the Balkans because the same thing happened in Vienna. The Austrians wanted to make peace, but the Ottomans did not accept, as a result, they lost all their lands in Central Europe.
I was expecting more Sabaton jokes but I enjoyed it anyway. I knew literally nothing about the details of Sweden’s Empire so a glimpse into their situation was awesome.
@@elias.t WW2 Italy had 9 million deployed manpower. More than the entire modern population of Sweden. It had difficulty fighting the UK (but the UK at the time was the strongest country in the world) because it wasn't modernized and Italy was still going through modern industrialisation and Hitler told mussolini that he would attack in 1948 or later so he didn't focus on the military and used a lot of its best stuff against Ethiopia and in the Spanish Civil War.
From the frozen North, they came Fought for founding father's claim It was then, their tale began Trace their roots from sixteen strong By their King where they belong En tid, Av Krig Wherever he goes Near or far, they are close For the King of Sweden, they lay down their lives
For the Swedish crown, they stand By their King at his command Five hundred years, for the fatherland Marching across the belt Crushing blow at Narva dеalt Livgardet, our royal guard
Wasn't there an earlier divergence point where an earlier king of Sweden had a claim to the Polish throne and died trying to press it like Harald Hardrade? If he had instead pulled a William of Normandy, Sweden would have had its bread basket and that would change the underlying assumptions about population.
You mean Sigismund Vasa? The Swedes didn't like the king because he'd become "too catholic" and "too polish", while the Poles, Finns and Lithuanians were cool.
I think it was moreso the reverse. When the time of the election in the P-L Commonwealth came, Sigismund Vasa was one of the candidates due to being a descendant of the Jagiellonians (I believe through his mother/grandma, but still), and when he won, he arrived in Poland but still kept his rule in Sweden. He tried to rule both countries for some time, but more opposition grew at home and they ended up choosing someone else. Sigismund didn't give up his claim though, the next two "Polish" Vasas also didn't, and I think it was only after the Swedish Flood that the Vasas gave it up finally. So it wasn't really the Swedish king claiming the throne of Poland, but a king of Poland (albeit a Swede) claiming the throne of Sweden. Sorry btw for any mistakes, I am going purely off memory plus I don't really know all the proper English names for these things.
The population issue wasn't so much about food availability, but choosing to live with harsh winters pre-industrialization. The population of Sweden rose dramatically as it became a peaceful and politically stable country, a trend that's still ongoing. It's not the climate that makes people want to live here. lol
An important point the video misses several times; what today is Finland was Sweden back then - an integrated part of Sweden and the loss of the “Easter half” in 1809 was essentially the loss of half the kingdom (that had existed for ~500 years).
Something that I excepted you to talk about is that there was a large internal conflict in Russia at the time. Peter's modernization and westernization policies weren't universally accepted, and if his grand ambitions on building a navy fail, I inagine Russia could (at least for a time) go isolationist and not really get involved in European affairs that much
About isolationist Russia. This is a myth, you can read in the book "Peripheral Empire". Although, perhaps, Peter would have turned his attention to Persia and the Caucasus.
@@maksim05makarov Sorry, I forgot to mention that Russia could go isolationist if Peter died, was overthrown or didn't live long enough to achieve anything. He actually had a son that really didn't like his policies (which irl was prevented from coming to the throne because Peter changed the order of succession). Perhaps he could've taken over with the help of the streltsy and the boyars
@@thechto-to3151 Perhaps. But maybe not, Peter's politics is not Peter's politics. It started back in the time of Ivan the Terrible (who for some reason is also demonized in the West, okay Stalin, he was a communist and wanted there to be no beggars and hungry, Ivan Grozny for what?), because the tsars saw where the most advanced armies were and with whom to trade closer. Otherwise, Peter would not be able to communicate with the Germans and the British.
@@maksim05makarov а, я только понял что ты тоже русский Иван Грозный, если что, убил почти всё население Новгорода и почти полностью его уничтожил, а в добавок к этому убил своего же сына из-за паранойи. А Сталин и вправду избавился от всех голодающих - он дал им доголодаться до смерти
@@thechto-to3151 как именно он убил все население Новгорода ? Новгород же присоединил еще Иван III ? Причем я впервые это слышу, в основном говорят про злую опричнину, которая как и сталинские нквд «просто так» убивала людей.
The main issue here is population density, while Sweden never had a large population, the possible Swedish Empire, would have something around 25-30 million inhabitants today most likely. Not massive, but still something. Now, assuming Sweden won the great northern war this could how ever change as one of the main issues with population density in scandinavia during this time was a general lack of food to supply a growing population (which only really rectified after the introduction of potatoes) but if Russia was beaten back, and or Poland was, that might have given Sweden access to a bounty of grains it lacked - thus creating a population growth further in time prior to said potatoes. If that was the case, then having a larger population growth earlier would mean Sweden and the Swedish empire could have grown alot in population, perhaps well above the 50 million mark, placing it at a size of other greater european powers - but with much larger land and natural resources with which to gain massive amounts of wealth from during the industrialization period.
@@carlosniebla7534 120 million people now doesn't mean you suddenly become an Empire. We are talking about population during the 1600-1700 hundreds, in Europe. During this time Mexico was just a part of the Spanish Empire.
Well, you will always have locally recruited multiethnic regiments protecting your imperial possessions. Look at the French Empire during the Napoleonic Wars, which was composed of just as many foreigners as French. The French invasion of Russia saw soldiers from Poland, Italy, German states, Switzerland, Spain, and Austria fighting in the French army. This is something never mentioned in the video: how widely the Swedish army recruited. They had a large number of Finns yes, but did you know there were local German, Estonian, and greater Livonian regiments? The Germans were mainly composed of Saxon troops, and they also raised a Karelian regiment. Had the Swedish Empire expanded, they probably would have recruited more from newly conquered territories to make up for the manpower shortage. Then there is the potential of allied armies, like in the true timeline, a Polish army under Stanislaw, and the possible creation of a unified cossack nation in Ukraine to fight with the Swedes, which they tried with Mazepa's cossacks, but in our timeline, the uprising was violently stamped out by Peter. But in a timeline where Peter was defeated, this is a very likely scenario. The Ottoman Empire nearly sided with Sweden and even defeated Peter when he attempted an invasion to capture the Swedish king in exile. Had the Swedes come out victorious, the Sultan would probably enter the war to seek gains at Russian expense. The latter three never had much love for the Russians, and I'm sure the Swedes could emphasize that and pledge to rid Northern and Eastern Europe of Russian influence to gain more support and men. The political situation inside Russia at the time was already fragile and on the verge of civil war had the Russians not won. Even with the Swedish defeat in our timeline, there were still several conflicts with Russia, most resulting in status quo ante bellum until the Napoleonic Wars. The Swedes did, however, decisively defeat the Russian Navy at the Battle of Svensksund in 1790, which the Russian naval presence in the Baltic Sea never fully recovered from and in many ways never did. So even after the Great Northern War, the Swedes still fought the Russians and managed to keep them on a leash until the Napoleonic Wars. I don't believe that Sweden would expand the empire past its historic boundaries if they eventually won the war, with the exception of annexing land to make it even harder for Russia to move further west, like Karelia and territories around the Baltic Sea, including a larger Swedish presence in Germany. A large chunk of Norway would probably also be annexed, as the Swedes had already invaded the Norwegian province of Tröndelagen when the Swedish Empire was at its peak. After all, this was largely a defensive war for the Swedes, and they never had any ambitions to aggressively expand like the Russians.
The areas that they would have likely conquered around the Baltic don't have massive populations to draw from either. And this increased reliance on manpower from their expanded territories could lead to many problems, especially with the rise of Nationalism in the 19th century.
Hey dude the algorithm just reconnected me with you and im so happy you're still making bangers this was a really cool topic. Keep it up Cody never stop the grind man.
So one side effect that immediately comes to mind is that Greater Sweden would be one of the few countries where the cars drive on the left hand side of the road. Sweden was one of the last countries in Europe to switch from the left hand side to the right hand side. They did this in 1967 to be more compatible with their neighbors. If they won this war, their only neighbor would have been the Soviet Union. Not much need for compatibility there. So they wouldn't have to switch and they could happily continue driving on the left hand side like Britain does.
But driving on left hand side on the road was already introduced by Charles XII in 1718, unless the reverse it like otl this is not gonna make them different from any other country in Europe
There's a novel: "Redovisningsavdelning Marviken" by Lars Wilderäng. It takes place in present day, but in an alternate timeline where Sweden won the war. It's pretty good.
Alternate Geography scenario I suggested on a now unlisted video: What if the Caspian connected to the Black Sea? The idea came from a web comic that mentioned a small Russian confederacy, a Kurdish empire, and between the two being a Caspian superpower that controls a third of Asia. Quote from when I asked about it: "In their world, the Kura river basin is very slightly differently shaped, but it makes a world of difference. That notion was really what spawned the whole idea of Khazovia in the first place: I was reading Wikipedia one day, and was reading about rivers in the former Soviet Union, and stumbled on the Kura, which almost but not quite connects the Caspian and Black Seas. So what if it had? What if instead of there being a low mountain range to force the river to turn southward, it hadn’t been cut off, and instead had connected to the Black Sea north of Batumi? Reading the history of the region, I realized that small change wasn’t so small, and would have enabled the small civilizations that started around the Caspian to become trading powerhouses. Iran and Russia would likely never have gained a foothold in the region, and it was ideally located on the Silk Road, even better than Tehran or similar cities - it’s easier to travel and transport goods by boat than on foot, so a large civilization was born. They had their wars over history, like everywhere else, but their location was strategically valuable, and their trading prowess helped keep them rich and independent, and to eventually take over areas that in our world belong to a lot of other nations on every side. The modern incarnation of Khazovia isn’t as nice as some of the historical forms - it’s a military dictatorship - but there’s always been a large and powerful nation-slash-empire there, and it was a check on groups like the Byzantines and Ottomans and Persians."
It might be a Two Oceans Creek type situation, obviously a river can't start in an ocean and end in another ocean, but it could start in the mountains and diverge seperately. A more likely scenario if probably the Don and Volga rivers connecting, a lot more likely given it's flat land. (there's even a canal there in real life)
@@1224chrisng no, the Caspian Sea is a Lake and not a Marginal Sea. Also the Great Lakes are connected to multiple Rivers, same with Lake Ladoga. Only on a Larger Scale
@@1224chrisng Thing is the Caspian isn't really a sea is it, it's a big salty lake in central Asia, and lakes can have rivers that flow into the ocean, just look at the Great Lakes. tbh I hadn't looked up the details on the Kura before just now, I had only assumed that it flowed from the Caspian based on the quote above, checking shows that no, it's the opposite, it flows into the caspian meaning most likely this is a pretty impossible scenario. Still the idea of a Kurdish Empire makes my head spin in a way nothing else seemingly can, I still don't know how that could even happen, even with a significant trade artery going through their land.
Another thought could be that a Swedish Empire joined against Napoleon and later made an alliance in World War I against Germany, which took the German speaking possessions (northern Germany). Then again in WW2 together fighting about its north German possessions. Reason Russia and Sweden would not fight is that Russia lost complete interest in the north, respecting the now lutheran Karelians being part of Sweden and the merchant republic of Novogord-Pskov just managing themselves (or could take over this but not further).
the clothes on 16:06 is Sami clothing, an indigenous tribe that is located in Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia. Just sharing that this isnt something specially Finish.
You know other than them being finno-ugric, The area of Finnmark=land of the Fins, is named after them... just because russia does what russia does ie. genocide and poor education, does not change the facts.
There is a good book called “Redovisningsavdelning Marviken” which plays out in a timeline where Sweden won the Battle of Poltava. I can say that Russia still is keen on Karelia even in modern times in the book, and won’t let that victory slide
A point that is sort of overlooked when it comes to the Swedish Empire is that "Swede-ification" or whatever you'd like to call it would come fairly easy as any expansion Sweden did in any direction would always end the serfdom in those areas. Say what you will, but that is a good way of getting people loyal to you.
@@SusCalvin that was primarily before the reign of Charles XI. He revoked something like 70-80% of the nobility's estates and was HATED by many among the upper class. Also, the land grants were mainly to swedish nobles, whereas most nobles in Livonia and Estonia spoke German
@@SusCalvin as the guy under me also explained. The nobility in today's Estonia and Latvia were mostly German speaking and would remain the local aristocracy up until ww2 (in that way similar to the Swedish speaking nobility in Finland). They weren't favoured at all by the swedish crown and wanted to cling on to feudal structures that had been thoroughly destroyed in Sweden, some would even argue that feudalism never existed in Sweden at all.
It feels so sad that you haven't covered the fact that Charles has gotten many letter at the beginning of the war about joining the Spanish war of succession. It'd be interesting to see Sweden tip the scales on one side or another
16:33 I was playing a rimworld mod and a lot of my colonists hate being human due to this idea in my mind lingering I thought this would go techpriesty
I've always liked the idea of a dominant Sweden. I tend to put the point of divergence a bit earlier, in the 17th century and the Ingrian war. I see a young Gustav Adolphus being super dominant and wiping out the Russian nobility including Michael Romanov and all other potential claimants to the throne. After which the regions of Pskov, Tver and Novgorod start to see learning Swedish as a good idea.
Regarding 6:20 ≃ and the "Finns", Finland had been Swedish for almost a millennia by then (norse people settled the land long before Finns even), and so 'Finland' wasn't really distinguished from Sweden, it was just simply 'also Sweden'. The Swedish speaking citizenry of 'Östland' outnumbered the 'Finnish' population by a lot. It wasn't really until after Sweden lost the land that it started to properly become Finnish; the coast is still majority 'Swedish'. At least it wasn't any less Sweden than Götaland or Norrland was back then, with Svea (Stockholm region) being 'Sweden Proper'.
A video about Andrew Jackson listening to the court’s decision regarding Native American removal would be cool. It could lead to the Trail of Tears not happening in the same manner and possibly change Native American demographics and population size greatly
@Martial Cabo Well the lack of Native American removal could allow for a more autonomous state that can increase in population more. They wouldn’t be stuck in lands they don’t know in Oklahoma
My thoughts are that with the two Swedish protectorates of Pskov and Novgorod (and lutheran Dutchy of Karelia) it would make Russia uninterested in the cold north and go south for conquest of the Ottomans, together with Poland-Lithuania and Austria-Hungary (especially since Prussia have been weekend with most of its territory in the "mare nostrum Baltic" Sweden). Austria-Hungary and Poland-Lithuania would also hinder the unification of Germany and being busy with the previous Ottoman lands they would be uninterested in the north.
Very good video Cody, now I know a bit more of Swedish history thanks to you. I have a couple of ideas that you could use for your future videos: 1.- What if FDR didn't run for a fourth term? 2.- What if the smallpox pandemic didn't happen in Mexico when the conquistadors came?
1. Thomas Dewey would have won in that case and he was later in the Eisenhower team/camp who was more aggressive with the Soviets but that came much later long after the war ended. 2. There would be more natives to deal with but the Spanish had guns and were ruthless so they would not give up easily
@@cg123ize Maybe, but we still have to keep this what if scenario as realistic as it can be, after all, every U.S. president was reelected during an American war, from James Madison in the War of 1,812 to George W. Bush in the War against terrorism.
@@cg123ize No, but it was in 1944, and FDR was still reelected, sure he died a few months after his fourth term started but it still counts, much like how Abraham Lincoln died about a month after the end of the 1864 election, therefore, my point still stands.
Kalabaliken i Bender/the Skirmish at Bender is an amazing story in and of itself. Also, Russia offering a seemingly beneficial peace is always just them wanting a reprieve to get stronger and start the war again later on their terms. Yeah we ended up losing anyway but a peace would only prolong the collapse.
There was a civil war in PLC in 1704 and in 1706 Augustus was forced to abdicate. He returned only after the battle of Poltava. Swedish victory could have a bigger impact on PLC than on Sweden itself. Quick Swedish victory also could affect the War of the Spanish Succession with Swedish and possibly Polish forces opening another front vs Austria in the East or just helping Hungarian rebels in the Habsburg empire
The only way that they 'win' is if their assumption that the UK wouldn't launch a serious response was correct, they didn't have the logistics or industrial base to counter a determined British response, which we can see from the actual war. The UK had the naval strength to secure the area, that meant that the carriers could allow air control, simply on that basis no land force could have held the islands, let alone inexperienced conscripts
@@TauGDS You're not entirely wrong, but Argentina did have a huge geographical advantage being right next door to the islands while it would take the UK a lot of time to assemble and send another fleet all the way across the Atlantic. While the UK would probably still eventually win if they were 100% determined, the defeat of the initial response troops would have been a serious morale boost for the Argentine troops and given them a lot of time to fortify the islands. And there no doubt would have been a huge backlash from the UK public about sending more troops to die for small island many people didn't even know about.
The only way I can think of the UK losing that war is by being threatened by a greater power to give up its claim to the islands, Suez style. The Argentinians were always living on borrowed time during the occupation, they would have never been able to stand up to the British navy and would have lost control eventually.
China will split larger The real questions are what if the State of Qin just got blocked from unifying the Zhou dynastic dominions by the weakest Chinese Warring State, or the Xiongnu or Donghu confederacies usurping the Western Han, or Ming Chinese colonies across the Indian and Pacific Oceans by eunuch navigator Zheng He
There's the age old saying in Finland, that Sweden will fight until the last drop of Finnish blood. It would be interesting to know, how the Finnish independence movement would have evolved within Sweden instead of Russia. And Finnish is not related to other nordic languages, it's from a different language family and more related to Hungarian than Swedish.
I imagine that eventually there would have been a Finnish independence movement in this timeline with the rise of nationalism in the 18- and 1900s, just maybe not particularly powerful since Finland would likely have been even more integrated by that point. The success of a Finnish independence movement would probably hinge a lot on the success of other independence movements within the empire, and whether or not Finns manage to build a serious national identity or not. They might just end up like a bigger, more powerful, albeit more integrated Sami.
@@jonatanlj747 The framework for a national identity was always there, it just needed something to really push the idea into the next stage. The idea that Österland was different to "mainland" Sweden had pretty much always existed, but there was no need to focus on that until Russia took over Finland and Russia started encouraging the spread of those ideas, which was beneficial as to not have Finland want to go back to Sweden. I think it's likely the same kind of movement would have taken off, if Sweden was to start real and widespread swedification attempts. And it's not like the idea of "Finnishness" just popped up in the 1800s, since a lot of the work done then was influenced by "fennophilia" and interest in things attributed to Finns from previous centuries.
@@jonatanlj747 Earliest Finnish independence attempt was during the War of the Hats in 1740's, but Russia withdrew its support on the issue due to how badly the war was going. There definitely was interest in gaining independence long before the rise of nationalism.
@@jokemon9547 yes, you described what i meant much better than me. obviously there was a national identity, the question is just how serious such a movement would be without the Russians furthering it, being replaced by the Swedes hampering it.
>Being soy Sweden having to imagine a unified Scandinavia >Being chad Denmark actually having the Kalmar Union, directing the domestic and foreign policies of Norway and Sweden.
For the swedes getting all the money and prestige, sure... For any non-swede it would have been centuries of oppression and total cultural genocide. Just like what they did to Sami-people up until the 20th century. Along with the eugenics to the 'genetically indisposed' via forced sterilization up until 1970's. It's all fun and games to imagine singular nation being 'paramount beacon of goodness' until the old saying "power corrupts and complete power corrupts completely" comes and bites you in the butt. Sweden would not have been immune to this (there is literally no proof to the contrary), our modern civilized world is different from warrior monarch led from top to down in the 1700's. Modern Sweden is completely different country now then what they were back then.
Finally! I’ve been waiting for years for this! Thank you so much! One thing about Sweden joining WWI. In our timeline, Sweden was not a stabile country during the time of WWI. In fact, there were almost riots because of lack of food. So I don’t think a bigger, bigger Sweden would’ve joined anyone during WWI because the country would’ve imploded in on itself.
There was actually a massive emigration crisis at this time due to a lack of food and famine. This is due in part to the failure of Sweden to properly modernize and mechanize farming techniques. The majority of their people were poor farmers trying to produce enough food to feed their 8-12 children. I think that if they had maintained an empire around this time they would at least be somewhat competent to attempt industrialization and modernization because southern Sweden is actually somewhat fertile and probably could have supported their population at this time with proper equipment and techniques that had already been developed in say, the US or Britain. This was not mentioned enough in the video and might have solved some of the underpopulation issues Sweden would have at this time if they had available food and job opportunities in a new industrial economy. This is without even mentioning that by this point Sweden and Denmark may have formed a union, as they nearly did in our timeline (in 1863 the Swedish King Charles XV and the danish king Frederick VII had an agreement that Sweden would support danish goals of a United Scandinavia and Charles would inherit the danish throne, while Frederic’s heir would inherit Holstein, having it become a separate entity and part of the German confederation while Scandinavia would be United.) and with the breadbasket of mainland Denmark, this new Swedish empire could have easily fed and maintained a larger and possibly significant population similar to the Low Countries like the Netherlands, or possibly even be on equal footing with Poland or Romania,meaning it probably could afford to go into World War One. (Although I don’t think that they could ever match the German, French, British, or Russian population.)
@@Mattiacino tbf they never needed to match any of their populations as they loved punching above their weight. Particularly by being overwhelmingly aggressive. If they were to join however they definetly could hold out. If they joined the central powers they just need to rush Kola while their Navy is having fun with the Brits. If they joined the Entente they only really need to defend Denmark and the Baltic Sea.
@@elseggs6504 I don’t personally think that their capability of waging war would carry over into the 20th century, no matter how good their generals, without manpower and proper industry to support a real army their best bet in World War One would be to try and fight defensively, and using their superior navy in this timeline to threaten coastal cities on the Baltic and interrupt trade.
Alternative timeline from winter 1701-1702: We are in 1701 and Sweden have seized Courland but instead of joining Sapieha against Oginiski in the Lithuanian civil war, Charles XII signs a peace treaty with August II the Strong and his Saxony & Poland-Lithuania. Charles and Augustus put all blame on the duke of Courland for the war which is losing his titles and instead Charles XII becomes the duke of Courland and it is transferred to Sweden as well as the city of Gdánsk/Danzig. Charles agrees on that Smolensk and Kiev should be transferred back to Poland-Lithuania if August would join against Russia. With only one enemy left Charles winter his troops and prepare them for marching to Pskov in the spring 1702 and at the same time invade from Narva in the north towards Gdov. After siege and taking Pskov and the land between, the siege was taken to Novogord which also fell as well as the area north of Novgorod from the Narva army. Charles decides to winter his army 1702 and proclaims the two protectorates of Pskov and Novgorod independent from Russia. The preparations in Novgorod is towards Tver and then Moscow and the march starts spring 1703 which goes slow with cannons on barges down the river but reaches Tver in the summer which falls after a short siege. With Tver as a new base of operations Charles orders the march towards Moscow which falls after a siege. At the same time a marine operation towards the northern harbor of Arkhangelsk is also successful and falls to the Swedes. The situation is too tempting for August and Poland-Lithuanian nobility and they decide to move on Smolensk and Kiev lost in the Russo-Polish War 1654-1667. The Ottomans also sense a moment of weakness and attacks to gain back recently lost lands from the Russo-Turkish War 1686-1700. While being under attack from north, west and south, Peter, tsar of Russia, felt he needed to focus. He decided to skip the cold north and meet Charles in person. He agrees to Charles demand and gives Pskov and Novgorod independence as protectorates to Sweden as well as the northern harbor of Arkhangelsk (he thinks he can easily take it all back) if Charles backs of Moscow and Tver (as well as Karelia, which later become a luthern Grand Dutchy). Charles also involves August, and to get the peace, Peter also had to give Smolensk and Kiev to Poland-Lithuania. Now having peace with two enemies out of three Peter decides to move everything on the Ottomans but not before speaking to August and Austria-Hungary. Together they form a Christian alliance against the Ottomans and launches attack on all fronts. The war is devastating for the Ottomans which are pushed back in Europe by the combined Austria-Hungary & Poland-Lithuania in the Balkans and Russia around the black sea from both east and west sides, eventually all taking Istanbul which Russia claims as new capital. Peter is now sure he does not care for the north and focuses on his new capital which he renames St. Petersburg and re-designs for a warmer version of Amsterdam. He also starts building up a massive fleet from all the new ports around the black sea. In the mean-time, Denmark-Norway and Brandenburg-Prussia notice that Charles XII is far away in Moscow and this would be the perfect time for Denmark-Norway to take back Scania as well as for Brandenburg-Prussia to take Pommerania. However, the Swedish army had already retreated to Courland and now storms in to take Prussia, which is done after a short siege on Königsberg. With friendly agreements with Poland-Lithuania and which is busy with the Ottomans, Sweden easily crosses over to Brandenburg which would have to give up Prussia as well as the coastal area of Brandenburg in the peace deal. Sweden now only have Denmark-Norway left as enemy and decide to move through Germany and Holstein-Schleswig up to mainland Denmark. With the coldest winter in 500 years 1708-1709 Sweden again moves its army between the frozen islands of Denmark and storms Copenhagen. But instead of a peace deal, Sweden annexes both Denmark and Norway which includes Iceland and north Atlantic islands. Sweden pursues an “Mare Nostrum Baltic” politics and gets the reminding German states, Lübeck and Mecklenburg and builds-up a large baltic sea fleet. The Russians instead coin “Mare Nosrum Black Sea” which they control and build up a large black sea fleet. The Ottoman empire totally collapses and France, England, Spain, Venice, Genoa and Dutch Rep. sees an opportunity now when the “war of the Spanish succession” 1714 is concluded they invade the southern Ottoman provinces and claim these ones.
The differences between the two abound, but it's worth noting that the Romans held the entire Mediterranean Coast. The Med has a surface area of 2,500,000 km2 (970,000 sq mi) va the Baltic's 1,641,650 km2 (633,840 sq mi)
@@RabbitShirak yes valid point, but since half of Cody's video was "it doesn't have enough people" I wasn't sure it needed to be said 😂 Looking more into the history ironically the first meation of the people of that area was by Tacitus in 98 AD. (about the time of the Empire's height) I'm not knowledgeable enough to speak what not having a written language is for population levels, but I can't imagine it's good.
“He didn’t drink, he didn’t even have sex, all he wanted to do is conquer”
As a hoi4 player I feel personally attacked
@Theduckgeneral1 alas, Tis so
laughs in CK3 where I can conquer nations with sex.
@@ccvcharger tru…
Same but it's true
@@ccvcharger You can do that in Eu4, Vic 2 and 3 too with the PUs
I tried preserving the Swedish Empire in Empire Total War; you just end up in a constant state of warfare that you're barely able to sustain, against far greater numbers.
I mean... Yeah, that sounds about right.
I conquered the world as Sweden under Very hard difficulty. NOOBS.
It's very difficult to do but it is possible. It took me a few tries. Great Britain declaring war always threw a wrench into my plans
I think, even if the Swedish Empire won the Great Northern War and Charles XII not been shot by a stray grapeshot from an overly prideful Norwegian soldier guarding the fortress, thus surviving up to his 50s or early 60s by mid-18th century standards in Sweden's time, the country itself would've inevitably fallen apart anyway, perhaps in a later date than in our own timeline, to become Modern-Day Sweden. There may be a more realistic possibility that Adolf Hitler would've been more afraid of a heavily militarized Sweden even after winning the Great Northern War over 220 years ago from a revised timeline than in our own.
Playing Empire Total War is a drag anyway
It is so interesting how both the Swedes and the Swiss were both well known for being fantastic fighters, and both are also well known for being neutral for centuries.
It is no coincidence. If you are neutral, you have no allies and must be able to defend yourself.
I know and a lot of normies confuse the two, it's really interesting
@@ironiczombie2530 mostly americans, I think the rest knows they are separate countries
Well I mean you don't get to the point where other countries just don't wanna invade you by not kicking some ass.
And having ideal geography for the defenders.
Not neutral, non aligned. It is a big difference.
Just a small thing: technically Poladn-Lithuania was neutral, and it was Saxony who declared war on Sweden. It just so happened that Augustus, king of Saxony, was also the elected king of Poland-Lithuania.
I mean the great part of thw war was fougth there with Sweden supporting a rival pupet king
@@blecao Even then, Poland as an entity was a neutral force. Only Saxony went to war with Sweden officially, whilst military action took place there, as the Polish army was practically non-existent.
Indeed, and that's why the way Charles XII invaded Poland-Lithuania instead of chasing the Russians after the battle of Narva, was the dumbest thing he could possibly do.
@@ayokai6119 why did they loose in that case?
@@red.menace0074 By giving to Russia a time for recover.
A vid on if the Sino-Soviet split never happened or was patched up in the 70s would be beyond amazing
Sup my man
@@sergioventura2595 as always dude
@@conserva-chan2735 Where does your pfp come from?
@@conserva-chan2735 Uff. That would be hard. Soviets always treat Communism as tool for they imperialism, when China was more genuinely trying build stable society. Plus Russia still hold they Manchuria.
@Firetrucker it's pope Leo XIII. My favorite pope.
As Estonian i can say that Swedes (especially some rulers like Gustavus Adolphus) were liked by our pesants and do to this day beeing part of swedish empire is seen second best to independence (1918-1940 and 1991-current). It's literally named "Good old Swedish times."
Well it does seem preferable to being serfs under the tsarist system
I read about similar feelings in Pomerania. A visiting Swedish politician apologised for Sweden's behaviour, and the locals couldn't understand why. Like, "that was the best we have had".
@@oddjonsson2815 And that was even after Sweden had allowed the local nobles to keep their feudal laws.
Fr Stockholm syndrome
@@Merecir tells you something about how awful the Russian empire were to the common people. Except in Finland apparently
there was actually a Swedish plan to join WW2.
Operation 'free Denmark' and 'free Norway' were planned to go ahead less than a week after Germany surrendered and it was unnecessary.
Almost worth a video in itself
I think it would be a fun video, but since EmperorTigerstar, AlternateHistoryHubs friend, already made a video on that I think it would be unlikely.
Joining allies when the war was practically already over? Yeah, sounds like picking the berries with literally no risk.
@@alaric_ I mean a bunch of countries did do that like Turkey and basically all of Latin America.
@@alaric_ The whole reason was that Sweden was worried that Norway or Denmark would be "liberated" by the Russians. Basically booting out the Germans if it looked like the Russians were about to come knocking. As happened with Bornholm. It was very much in Swedens own interest not to have Russian puppets at their border.
@@alaric_ It makes more sense when you take into account the fears that the Russians would push further west than Berlin, Sweden didn’t intend to fight the Germans, they intended to stop the Russians from advancing further into Scandinavia and the Baltic region.
This theme reminds me of what Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said about wars. In the Gulag Archipelago he wrote that Sweden was fortunate for losing the Northern War because it stopped caring about expansion and just went about being a peaceful, happy nation while Russia started centuries of conquest that just made its people more opressed and ultimately created a system that collapsed under its own lust for prestige. A very thoughtful insight, imo
A fish that swims all its life will never know what water is.
The Muscovite knows only tyranny and imperialism. Being defeated in 1709 would not have changed that.
В фамилии этого человека буквально есть слово «лгать»
Interesting, but the two were already drastically different by that point
Worth a thought, Sweden at the time were rather exhausted for resources, and during the 1700s "frihetstid" expansion were not in the cards. However after the power-grab by Gustav III he insigated the war with Russia to reconquer the lost territories - that instead lead to the loss of Finland. *Then* we stopped caring about expansion (after a 100 more years of blustering military and political figures clamouring for the glory of the olden days). A win might have skewed the evolution even more towards a Prussian/Russian/Austro-Hungarian-style state.
Of course you also need good borders for this to work, but Sweden has those
As a Swede myself, I can say that you did a good job at portraying the most likely outcomes of the Great Northern War. Due to Sweden's general lack of manpower and focus on quality over quantity approach, it's only fair to assume that even if we did win the war, we'd still never be able to match the likes of Great Britain or Germany on the greater European scene. We'd remain formidable adversaries, yes, but I doubt we'd ever be able to expand much further than Scandinavia proper due to the issue of spreading our forces too thin. It doesn't matter how immensely skilled your troops are if they're few in number and spread so thin that they can't possibly cover all fronts. At some point you'd have to realize that focusing on retaining what you can control is much more important than trying to reach for what you can't.
I definitely appreciate this video because of this. As always, it focuses on the feasible ways the war could have ended differently, and the most plausible possibilities that arise from these scenarios.
Although it’d still be interesting to see a massive Sweden on the map taking up all of Finnoscandia.
In war, quantity pretty much equals quality.
You explained one of the major issues the Roman Empire had
While you both have a good point about the manpower, which again predicts the most likely scenario, the obvious answer would be to expand and recruit in captured territories. And perhaps establish a foreign legion. Not saying it's a very likely outcome, in a sense the cultural similarities around for example the state of Moscow likely made it's expansion easier, the same with the unification of Germany. However all large countries started small at some point.
I'm not sure if any of the large states ever could expand and grow from different cultures, with such a small manpower base with the same (or similar) culture though. Austria-Hungary comes to mind though. I suppose Russia did integrate many other cultures, although the Moscowite/Novgorod/Kiev culture group had a quite good manpowerbase already, before expanding more.
Overall Sweden was too slow out of the gate to gain a medium sized manpowerbase to be able to assimilate and incorporate smaller cultures into itself to grow even more. I suppose that if you start with the Kalmarunion instead around say 1400, the outlook for growing into a proper empire is more plausible in a counter-factual analysis.
What is up with Charles? He was named Karl the XII not Charles 😅 it's bot England ffs!
I feel like nordic alternate history should be explored more, they had quite a lot of impact in the earlier history of Europe. All that's mostly talked about nowadays is Finland and WW2
Well, if Sweden had declared war on Germany, when the nazis were fighting on three continents, Germany would have been deprived of their only source of high quality steel. The one that is needed for the barrels of guns and tanks. Germany had steel but it was low quality and not suitable for said applications. When they were stretched thin, Sweden could have crippled Germany and shorten the war with years. That would have meant millions of lives saved. Sure, Germany would have tried to attack but seeing how Swedish always like to remind of their superioir military power at that time, it wouldn't have been easy. Especially when Germany was already fighting against almost everybody.
See, WW2 alternate history that was not about Finland! :D
@@alaric_ maybe only when the Soviets were pushed back
@@alaric_ Or more likely and realistically Germany would've just rolled over Sweden and consequently removed one of the safe zones of numerous fleeing refugees, such as numerous Danish Jews that had fled to Sweden. The garrison in Norway alone was twice the army size of a mobilized Sweden even when Sweden was preparing to liberate it, their plans to invade and liberate Denmark and Norway at the end of the war relied on the fact that while German troops would've outnumbered them the German troops would've been isolated and unsupported due to collapse of mainland Germany. After getting rolled over any fleeing Jew or political dissident would've been rounded up to be executed or sent to concentration camp and iron extraction operations would've either gone as normal or even made more intense. So ultimately it wouldn't really have saved much lives, likely just doomed more lives to concentration camps.
i think a pro axis Sweden would be more interesting. instead of only Finland in the winter war it's the entire North
The Vikings in UK is talked about quite a lot. Not so much the ones that went east and "became" the Russian Empire.
*Swedish Nationalist has entered the chat*
“If Denmark remains a country by the end of this video I’m rioting”
Ha
Based glory to swedistan
As a norwegian, I must say the idea of Denmark remaining an independent country in this scenario is totally preposterous.
@@amund8821 facts
@@amund8821 I have no problem with Norwegians. You are basically just us but richer. Do you wish to join us in our hate of the danish barbarians?
As a Swede I always chuckle at the neutrality meme. We've never been neutral, just very good at turning with the winds while making it seem we never pick a side. Opportunistic.
That said, great video.
Agreed, it's hard to call Sweden's fuelling of WW1 a neutral stance.
The best kind of neutrality 😈
@@martinmortyry7444 on the contrary, taking an opposition stance in your trade relations is in and of itself a stance. If you want to get particular, there is no real "neutral" stance one can take in war
Hell yea. Vi är genier.
we actually "invaded" Åland in February 1918 sooo 🙂
I like how these videos are usually doubling down as little history lessons. I wasn’t too familiar with the Great Northern War, but an alternate history teaches of the real history simultaneously. It’s cool
Listen to Sabaton's album on this time period to find out even more, along with other videos. Sabaton introduced me to this period of history.
In order to understand alternate history, you first must understand actual history. If you don’t know why events happened, then it’s hard to say the most likely outcomes of any alternate actions or paths in history.
@@Treviisolion Took the words right out of my fingers.
Damn you, comment ninjas! 😛
Extra history has an amazing serious on this war as well
Extra History has a great series on the GNW.
Back in 2016 I did a presentation on the Great Northern War for a very minor class I had which was about public speaking. Students in the class didn't believe this war was real (because of how wacky the events were I guess?), and one kid said "It was the Great War and had nothing to do with Sweden" I was dumbfounded.
Even the teacher asked me if I made it up.
Edit: no I'm not American or was this in America.
Is this an American classroom?
@@SairanBurghausen most likely....
Middle school be crazy fr fr on god
It’s such an absurd assumption and confusing suggestion that you made it up that people are definitely gonna think this an American class room lol
@@quirkyturtle6652 what?
I think one thing you neglected to mention was that the rest of the European great powers that could have intervened were distracted by the War of the Spanish Succession until the war had turned against Sweden. Considering that the latter war almost ended in a diplomatic settlement, a different alternate history scenario to look into would have been "How would the Great Northern War have turned out if the War of the Spanish Succession did not break out?"
Interesting
I've been waiting for this video for years. It's been the alt history scenario I've been the most interested in ever since I learned about the Great Northern war
Scenario idea: what if Hungary became a fully independent state during the 1848 revolution
Honestly what if the 1848 Revolutions were successful would be interesting in itself, like how realistic Big Germany would actually be in establishing itself
Big Germany
Like Romania?
For Swedish speakers, there’s a great novel about this called ”Redovisningsavdelning Marviken”. It’s not a ”full” alt-history story though, rather a sci-fi and Tom Clancy-esque thriller within an alt-history timeline
Yep all those letters put together look to be a Swedish word... or Welsh. I'd buy either.
@@vincentterraneo9113 Translates to ”Accounting Department Marviken”. The plot is about a military operative in a modern day Swedish Empire. He and his brothers in arms are fighting terrorists and their secretive ”boss” always seem to know what bad things will happen before they happen.
The big way a Swedish Empire would survive would be less good warrior kings, though that is important, and more diplomatic and silver tongued ones willing to make strong allies out of other major Eurasian powers. The Swedes (and the Dutch) could learn a lot from Portugal, an Empire that survived largely by not pissing off Spain and being best friends with Britain. Their ambitions are always going to put them at odds with Denmark, Poland-Lithuania, and Russia. But endearing themselves with the natural rivals to these powers like the Ottomans, Austria or even Prussia- or just someone that is fairly close by and a capable skull basher like France or Britain- to tilt the scale in their favor would definitely see them in a better position. It might mean being the junior partner but it also could mean stability and even expansion.
As a Hispanic, Portugal is a really bad example.
Portugal was created in the beginning (as the Duchy of Portucale) as a reward to a foreigner. Through some... circumstances, it became independent.
From then on it was a strong, reliable ally to the other Spanish Crowns in the struggle of the Reconquista.
After the Spanish Crowns united, some did felt that Portugal should unite together as well. But war itself to annex them was never even considered. Something like Castile & Aragon's union was best.
The brief Iberian Union is a special case, which I won't get into here.
The ONLY time there was actual, real conflict between the Iberian crowns were in two cases: First one to break apart the Iberian Union, the second one by a foolish Spanish King that decided to trust France over the long-time friend Spain found in Portugal. This decision turned to bite Spain by Napoleon imprisoning the King while Napoleon was "on the way to help fight Portugal hurrr"
The only real border change out of millenia of history was the small town of Olivença. This is it.
Oh, and the African port of Ceuta. The transfer was done peacefully though.
Oh and Uruguay I guess? Hard to call that a conflict.
@@crusaderACR All of what you just said was a good reason for others to emulate Portugal though. If Sweden made a Scandinavian/Baltic empire having a close, somewhat ethnically tied friend that would work to protect them except in rare cases of buffoonery like the aforementioned Spainish king during the Napoleonic wars. A powerful German state would be optimal, and while there might be some argumentum made for 'unification' Nordic peoples have even more differences with Germanic ones than Portuguese do with Spaniards so it might be an even harder thing to sell. But there are also enough similarities to create a sense of 'brotherhood'.
@@crusaderACR y que pasa con la guerra civil de Castilla? Que portugl intervimo y envio tropas contra la unificación con Aragón?
You don't have to look far away. Finland is a really good example.
@@FollowCarrier1997 Ah, me olvidé de ese.
No diría que es un conflicto contra Castilla per se, es más que Portugal apoyó un bando de nobles castellanos en contra de otro.
La unificación de las dos coronas no era muy popular entre todos nobles de Iberia. Muchos temían la pérdida de autonomía o de cultura.
No es una enemistad propiamente dicha. O así lo veo. No fue una guerra de conquista, de desmantelamiento, ni nada. Es apoyar un bando en una guerra civil, similar a los países que apoyaron a los republicanos en la guerra civil española del siglo XX. No era que odiaban _España_ misma, no?
Fun fact:
Peter was in Narva but he thought no fighting will happen and returned to Moscow
1 day later the Russians got destroyed and captured
He'd likely be captured as well and thus Russia would have to make peace
I think Cody severely underestimated what the ramifications would have been if Peter was captured. The GNW was the event that solidified his reputation as a good tzar, which meant the Russians eventually accepted his less traditional ideas too. If Peter had been captured and forced to back out of the war, there is a very good chance that would have lead to a coup to put a more traditional ruler on the throne, like his eldest son. It's even possible this leads to a power struggle. In any case, I believe it would have lead to a severe setback for the Russian Empire, not just in land but in modernization as well. Even in our timeline the Russians tended to linger behind the rest of Europe in science, industry and political philosophy until the 1900's, and that was with Peter giving Russia a major boost in the 18th century. Without said boost it is very much possible that Russia would have become the China of Eastern Europe, a large empire that other powers abuse for riches and glory due to a big gap in technology. And while Sweden would not have benefited much from that other than having slightly saver borders, the Ottomans, Prussians and Austrians definitely could have benefited greatly (as well as Poland). This could have influenced the Napoleonic Wars, there would be no major Crimean War, and the Japanese victory of the Russo-Japanese war doesn't herald Japan as a new major player in the world. And thus the butterfly continues doing its thing...
Edit: this is all assuming Russia survives. Just a century earlier the nation suffered from the Time of Troubles, which saw the Tzardom curtailed in influence, Poland occupying Moscow for a change and general lawlessness in the country that was only held together by the Orthodox Church. Fast forward a century and the Enlightenment starts kicking in, which while not likely mainstream in Russia, would entice at least a few nobles, weakening the uniting factor of the Church. Add to that the fact that there already was dissent on tradition versus progression, and a dead or deposed Peter might signal the collapse of Muscovian authority, which would definitely lead to the Cossacks rebelling and probably even a mass shattering of the Muscovian Empire, reducing the area to small states again.
For that Japan bit. I think in this victory they'd take far more. I'm talking like the entire Far East
And I think when Peter dies a second times of troubles could occure
@@the_tactician9858 Yes, as alternative history goes this seemed quite a superficial take. Russia had potential and in our timeline it was realized, but had Peter been killed or totally failed it could have collapsed. The belief in the idea of Russia today hinges to a large degree on Peter's success. Sure, someone and something else could have come along, but things could have looked radically different in the east. If Sweden achieved their ambitions of surrounding the Baltic there is no reason to believe that Prussia would ever be a thing either. Couple the economy of that with the population boosts of integrating the provinces of the eastern and southern coasts things could have been very different for Sweden and the European stage at large. But most importantly, if Russia dissolved or faded, like you said, history would probably be unrecognizable.
@@the_tactician9858
Откуда вы берете это идиотское название «Московия»?Я искал и изучал много карт и нигде,кроме как на карте речи Посполитой Москва не называется «Московией»
Know I’m late but Peter NOT being there was a major contributing factor in Russia’s disastrous loss; he left in his place a foreign general who, although competent in his own regard, lacked the means to coordinate against the Swedish assault. Peter, who was well known for slaughtering the Streltsky a mere two years ago, may have very well put in the necessary discipline to make any of the actions which could have turned Narva into at least a stalemate
In this universe, Sabaton writes the Swedish national anthem.
Hey, it is not to late - we can just change anthem!
@@nicce12 yooo
Yum
Got mitt uns
I was chosen by heaven
Say my name when you pray
To the skies
See Carolus rise
With the lord my protector
Make them bow to my will
To the skies
See Carolus rise!
There are two Swedish alternate history scenarios. Both can be simplified to: What if the king didn't die?
what if gustav chadius adolfus the second survived Lutzen
@@deez8202
>chad
No
@@deez8202 TBH, that'd would be more of an alternate history video for Germany than Sweden. Ending the 30 years war after only 10 would be huge.
If Charles XII didn´t die then the fortress they besieged would fall within days and Norway would fall which would force Denmark to sign peace. This would free the Swedish army and navy for military operations in Finland, where Charles XII would destroy the Russians in Finland, burn St:Petersburg, reclaim Estonia and Livonia and then white peace with Russia.
The king remaining alive doesn't prop up the war economy or replace the manpower losses the constant wars against different coalitions created.
As a very liberal, globalast Swede, there are only three things that can make me a hardcore nationalist: football, hating Denmark, and at the top of the list: Swedish Alternate History. Thank you for this gift.
Edit: I want too say that I don’t have anything to do with the clusterfuck in the replies (though I can’t exactly say I didn’t see it coming a mile away)
Interesting opinion, proud to be swedistani. (Let me clarify I am deadly serious i was born and raised in sweden not a joke comment)
I'm guessing the demographic anihilation of your country isn't making the list.
You can't be a swede and a globalist
@@cyrusthegreat7030 “And the number one spot for “Terms that start worse comment wars than between a Pakistani, and a Hindu Nationalist” goes toooooooo:”
"As a very liberal, globalist Swede"
As a Swede im so happy about this video, and the facts that are presented about why a future empire after the great nothern war wouldnt last is interesting! Good video mate!
My EU4 fantasies are finally becoming true.
Same glory to swedistan
Almost same. Just need those Swedish rebels to be under the boot of Denmark. As it should be 😌
As a Swede, this "being a Swede" has become a strange concept. It highly depends on what political side you ask. You are either a Swede the moment you set your foot here from whatever corner of the world you happen to come from or you live here for 40+ years and are still not considered a Swede. Its a really fun thing to consider really if our little bout of Conquest had actually worked out.
2:07
“Charles XII lived for war. He didn’t drink, he didn’t even have sex. All Charles wanted to do was conquer.”
damn he's just like me fr fr
Well exept that im drink im no able to qonquer
Except he's more cool
I wonder how many average Americans even know Sweden had an empire? I've met people who didn't even know Portugal existed and thought Brazil spoke spanish
Me
Depends if they listen to Sabaton or not.
I’m a bit of a history nerd so I’ve come across it multiple times. I wish we had better education here to learn about previous empires besides Britain or Spain, and even then it’s covered rather poorly
@@Nordbon1523oh that's what you meant by me being American no lmao I meant I knew sweden had a great empire as i was taught in school.
Hell, even the swedes themselves are quite ignorant of the swedish speaking finns, vestiges from the time when Finland still was a part of sweden.
1:27 "how could Sweden have won it"
If your country gets invaded, say no, cant invade without your consent
Go away, I am sick of seeing you in every comment section I browse through.
The Romans did that and IT worked
Man if only Poland knew that back in the day
Aka the "Nordic Rape Prevention" method.
This is not a joke. Conviniently the side drumming this idea has forgotten the whole thing and behaves like it never happened.
Cringe. Get offline and get better jokes
Correction: I think you tried to mention Scania but instead said Scandia in 13:50.
Scania is the region in the most southernpart of Sweden that was an integrated part of Denmark until the Treaty of Roskilde 1658. Scania was full of Danes but they later got assimilated by the Swedes - just as you mentioned in your sequence. The pictures that you display while trying to explain this are that of the Scandes, or the Scandinavian Mountains. It's an honest mistake but I think you literally mixed up Scania and the Scandes and created Scandia.
All the best
Kan de inte bara ta tillbaka Skåne? Snälla? Vi vill inte ha dem längre. Tänk vilken fröjd att slippa betala för Malmö!
@@IckbobTheAwesomehade gärna sluppit er Norrbaggar som alltid är lite bakom flötet! Och jag är inte ens Skåning!
One comment about Finland: in the year 1700 Finland already had been the eastern part of Sweden for ca 500 years. And before that there was just tribes (and Sweden didn’t really exist either). The idea of Finland as a separate country came after the Russian occupation in the 19th century. And even after the Russians invaded Finland was allowed to keep it’s Swedish laws, unlike all other parts of Russia.
Don't forget that finnish identity was born when nationalism started to spread in Europe. Russia saw this as a way to build distance between Finland and it's former ruler, Sweden. Who knows what could've happened to Finland's nationalism under Swedish rule.
@@RabbitShirak that is a fair point. But unlike Norway(a part of the country in the 19th century), Finland had never been a country of its own, just one of the parts of Sweden: Finland, Götaland, Norrland and Svealand. It had been a part of the country much longer than other parts, like Skåne for instance. If Finland today should annex Sweden it would be quite easy, since the laws and other systems in the 2 countries still are much alike. ;)
When Russia in the later parts of the 19th century started to try to Russifie Finland, then the movement to create a Finnish nation became strong. Thankfully.
Finland already had its first attempt at independence not long after GNW in 1740's during the War of the Hats, so no, not true.
In a scenario where Sweden is victorious in GNW Russia would definitely attempt to pry Finland away from Sweden as a buffer state. There wouldn't even be so much animosity towards russians since the Great Wrath never happens, so support for independence with Russian support would be even greater.
@@tomasarfert Lies, lies, lies. Finns were recognized as a co-equal separate "people" alongside Swedes, not just the inhabitants of one of many provinces. This would be apparent to anyone who reads letters and documents from Sweden from the middle ages and early modern period. "The cities of Sweden and Finland, and the cities of Finland and Sweden" as Gustav Vasa put it, or the fact that Swedish kings at one point began using the title of Grand Duke of Finland alongside King of Sweden. First attempts at independence were made in the mid 1700s and then again in the late 1700s. Already in the late 1500s the Finnish nobility fought against Stockholm for its own personal interests. Finnish identity was VERY much existant, especially during the 1700s. It was simply more convoluted and not as exact as today.
@@SairanBurghausen Gustav Vasa divided the realm between his sons, which is why he might have separated Finland somewhat. Finns were very much an integral part of Sweden and felt Swedish whatever that meant then. “Swedes we are no longer, Russians we don’t wish to become, let us therefore be Finnish”.
As a Dane I can say this is a nightmare scenario
Danskjävel!
As a Finn, i can say this is a nightmare scenario.
As a Swede, I order you back to the coalmines!
@@alaric_ poika. poika
@@robertohlen4980 Peasant
The map of Sweden owning Trøndelag hurts my Norwegian soul. Then I remember it's only Trøndelag and I calm down
Haha! Well, we are the Nordics now. Brothers in arms and cultural spirit. Cheers from your Scandinavian neighbor!
Russian armies blocked their way
20 000 lost that day
They bled the ground
Peace they found
There’s no sign of victory
King Carolus had to flee
And leave the land
Leave command
Madness, curse your feeble horde
Fear me or you'll die by my sword
Poltava
Rode to certain death and pain
Poltava
Swedish soldiers met their bane
Poltava
Sacrificed their lives in vain
Poltava
(Took long enough to find a Sabaton reference lol)
I like sabaton, but these references are annoying and don’t add anything. Just pointless bullshit
Found the sabaton fandom lol🤘
@@buffoonustroglodytus4688 why are you no fun?
@@buffoonustroglodytus4688 I'm not the guy to start it anymore, but once it happens I'm morally obliged to participate
What if Zambia won the space race
I see you're cultured
We would have a Zambian empire
What if the Killdozer won?
I unironicallhy want to see it
What if the emus took over Australia
You know it's a good channel when he adds beautiful details like "vila i frid" on the gravestone (means rest in peace in swedish) when the swedish empire fell/ended.
While I definitely agree that Sweden would be a "second rate" power even if they won, I'm not so sure that this scenario is as unrealistic as you seem to think. This video is made with the assumption that Russia survives the great northern war, which isn't unlikely, but with each successive loss to Sweden, Russia would become weaker and closer to collapse. One of the things that made Russia a major European power was access to the Baltic. Without this, their chances of survival and acquisition of great power status would be severely diminished. If Sweden consecutively won 1-3 wars against Russia after a victorious great northern war, a likely outcome would be Sweden not having to fight Russia any longer, because there wouldn't BE a Russia. Whilst Russia isn't as vulnerable as Sweden to one defeat, if Sweden had 1 or 2 semi-competent kings after Charles, chances are the empire would survive and wouldn't run the risk of losing any wars against Russia throughout the 20th century or even the 19th.
At this point, few countries would have any interest in Sweden, save for Denmark-Norway and Germany, the former of which would likely get crushed and the latter probably winning any potential wars, but not crippling the empire, since their interests would be limited to the few uninportant north german provinces that Sweden could afford to lose. Any other actors with even a modicum of interest in what Sweden has, would probably see a fulfillment of these interests as not worthwhile since the Swedes would be a pain to invade and occupy even if a victory could be secured on the field.
That is a sweet dream
Honestly this sounds like a pretty cool alternative history, and I'm not even from Sweden. This is basically inspiration for people, Swedes and non-Swedes, to go into games like EU4, Hoi4, Civ 6, etc., and work to create their own Swedish Empire.
Might consider doing that myself sometime, and listen to Sabaton while doing it.
The Glorious Kalmar Union Shall Rise Anew!
5:33 "Barely had a population and owed their empire to being competent at a time when nobody else was." That kinda goes for Britain too long-term when you think about it
Except to a far lesser extent, the Home Islands still boasted an impressive population, far more than that of the Swedes.
Finally, an openly-discussed imaginary scenario about Swedish history and politics that doesn't even involve meatballs!
What a shame
I K E A
Problem is that Finnish isn't a Scandinavian language. Hell it's not even an Indo-European language. Italian, German and English have more in common with Swedish than Finnish has. So melting the two languages is basically impossible, and the existence of a distinct national language would invariably create a national identity. And any attempts to stump out the Finnish language would only lead to more resentment for the Swedish royalty.
Hindi has more in common with Swedish than Finnish has.
And yeah, realistically any compulsory swedification would've had Finland running out the door. There were conspiracies for independence even without forced swedification.
@@SairanBurghausendepends on how close to the rise of nationalism this unification would occur. If unification started several decades before the idea of national identity, then yes, finnish as a language could've disappeared, or atleast shrink greatly.
I don't think it's impossible for a Swedish empire to be multilingual and reasonably stable, like Switzerland, Canada or India. So I agree Finnish would not disappear, but it might not lead to a national identity that successfully supersedes "Swedishness". Like Switzerland, it would be a language and a local cultural identity, but it wouldn't inspire independence, at least not to a level it poses a serious threat to the empire. The biggest difference today might be a much higher rate of bilingualism in Finland, the vast majority of the population would speak reasonably fluent Swedish rather than a minority in the south west. I'd also expect to see a lot more bilingual road signs and so on throughout the whole region of Finland.
@@Croz89 Such an arrangement would require the Swedish empire to view Finnish as a language of equal standing. Which I don't see happening since the prevailing opinion in Sweden was that it was a primitive language. In general here it's important to understand that the relationship of Finland and Sweden during this time was basically a colonial one. Finnish was spoken by the common people while Swedish was the language of the nobility that was assigned by kings living on the other side of an ocean. Finns were already viewed as a separate lesser people during this time which makes any unification rather hard. Especially when it's done by people across an ocean. Such a Sweden would be incredibly split not only linguistically but also geographically and culturally.
The average Finnish peasant might have a lot in common with the average Swedish peasant but the two would basically never meet eachother. The only interactions between Swedes and Finns were interactions between different classes. Such an arrangement would be ripe to create dissatisfaction and a fractured country.
@@viiviketomaki7284 The thing is, you can find the same issues in other modern nations throughout the world, and yet they have managed to stay together, often through a gradual increase in tolerance for other languages and cultures. Sure, many of these nations often still have independence movements for particular regions, but they're never big enough to cause an actual split, there's often a pro-unification majority even within these regions who recognise the economic and political benefits of remaining together. I could see a modern Swedish empire like that, you'd have Finnish and perhaps Norwegian independence parties in politics, but they'd never have enough power to cause a split, and public polls put independence between 30-60% in the region, but the latter only for short temporary periods.
Also, I'd hesitate to call the gulf of bothnia an "ocean", it's not much wider than the Irish sea.
I appreciate the little Swedish lines, and that they are pretty grammatically correct. 10/10
I did my middle school project on the Great Northern war and how it effects us today so to see this video only an hour after it came out made me so exited.
As I said earlier when this episode was voted on the only way for Sweden's empire to ever have a chance of surviving is having King Charles X Gustav(Charles XII grandfather) win his wars in Poland-Lithuania and Denmark-Norway, had he done that Denmark-Norway would have been annexed and and Poland-Lithuania would have been demolished with Sweden and its allies carving up Poland and Lithuania join a Union with sweden(and yes all this where real plans by the King)
Denmark-Norway would not have been annexed.
Do you have a link for all this information?
@@Alex-yz6uq "When the Danish stalled and prolonged the fulfillment of some provisions of the earlier peace treaty the Swedish king decided to use this as a pretext to attack with a breathtaking goal: to vanquish Denmark as a sovereign state, raze the capital of Copenhagen and divide the country into four administrative regions. This would allow Sweden to control the Baltic Sea and bring in large customs revenues. However, even this ambitious goal was just to be stepping stone towards the ultimate plan of a quick conquest of Denmark so that the Swedes could wage a campaign in Europe without risking Danish interference."- Den oövervinnerlige by Peter Englund
@@thewildgoat4056 The part about Denmark-Norway is stated in the book "Den oövervinnerlige" by Peter Englund from 2000(only in swedish)
The part about Poland-Lithuania come from wats written in the treaties of Kėdainiai(1655) and Radnot(1656)
@@bolle9810 Sweden knew full well that annexing Denmark-Norway would have made an alredy massivly overextended empire even more overextended. Besides, Several other European states would have formed a coalition against Sweden in the case of a fully Swedish controlled Baltic.
2:32 "won over and over again until he overplayed his hand, invaded russia and got crushed by a coalition" such a recurring story
On a related note, "What if Peter the Great was captured by the Ottomans?"
For context, when Charles XII fled to the Ottomans, Peter demanded the Ottomans force him out. The Ottomans denied, so Peter began the Pruth Campaign... which was a disaster. Peter's army was surrounded and the Ottomans could've captured him, however the Grand Vizier accepted bribes from the Russians and let them go. If Peter was captured, along with his whole army, what could've changed?
Russia completely converts to Islam.
If the Ottoman army had fought. He could have lost most of the Balkans because the same thing happened in Vienna. The Austrians wanted to make peace, but the Ottomans did not accept, as a result, they lost all their lands in Central Europe.
I was expecting more Sabaton jokes but I enjoyed it anyway. I knew literally nothing about the details of Sweden’s Empire so a glimpse into their situation was awesome.
Facts
Hearing my own country getting compared to Italy had me clenching my heart in pain 😭😭😭
Om förlusten av stormakten är vad som krävs för att inte bli som andra världskrigets Italien, så är det ett pris jag är villig att betala.
@@elias.t du har en jävligt bra poäng.
Sweden = Italy
So, SENATVS POPVLVSQVE SWEDEN?
@@elias.t
WW2 Italy had 9 million deployed manpower. More than the entire modern population of Sweden.
It had difficulty fighting the UK (but the UK at the time was the strongest country in the world) because it wasn't modernized and Italy was still going through modern industrialisation and Hitler told mussolini that he would attack in 1948 or later so he didn't focus on the military and used a lot of its best stuff against Ethiopia and in the Spanish Civil War.
What's wrong with pizza?
From the frozen North, they came
Fought for founding father's claim
It was then, their tale began
Trace their roots from sixteen strong
By their King where they belong
En tid, Av Krig
Wherever he goes
Near or far, they are close
For the King of Sweden, they lay down their lives
For the Swedish crown, they stand
By their King at his command
Five hundred years, for the fatherland
Marching across the belt
Crushing blow at Narva dеalt
Livgardet, our royal guard
Vackert!
Wasn't there an earlier divergence point where an earlier king of Sweden had a claim to the Polish throne and died trying to press it like Harald Hardrade? If he had instead pulled a William of Normandy, Sweden would have had its bread basket and that would change the underlying assumptions about population.
You mean Sigismund Vasa? The Swedes didn't like the king because he'd become "too catholic" and "too polish", while the Poles, Finns and Lithuanians were cool.
I think it was moreso the reverse. When the time of the election in the P-L Commonwealth came, Sigismund Vasa was one of the candidates due to being a descendant of the Jagiellonians (I believe through his mother/grandma, but still), and when he won, he arrived in Poland but still kept his rule in Sweden. He tried to rule both countries for some time, but more opposition grew at home and they ended up choosing someone else. Sigismund didn't give up his claim though, the next two "Polish" Vasas also didn't, and I think it was only after the Swedish Flood that the Vasas gave it up finally. So it wasn't really the Swedish king claiming the throne of Poland, but a king of Poland (albeit a Swede) claiming the throne of Sweden.
Sorry btw for any mistakes, I am going purely off memory plus I don't really know all the proper English names for these things.
@@sallomon2357 His mother was literally Katarina Jagellonica
The population issue wasn't so much about food availability, but choosing to live with harsh winters pre-industrialization. The population of Sweden rose dramatically as it became a peaceful and politically stable country, a trend that's still ongoing. It's not the climate that makes people want to live here. lol
@@SairanBurghausen poles fucking hate him dude. So you can stop with your anti-swedish propaganda
An important point the video misses several times; what today is Finland was Sweden back then - an integrated part of Sweden and the loss of the “Easter half” in 1809 was essentially the loss of half the kingdom (that had existed for ~500 years).
Something that I excepted you to talk about is that there was a large internal conflict in Russia at the time. Peter's modernization and westernization policies weren't universally accepted, and if his grand ambitions on building a navy fail, I inagine Russia could (at least for a time) go isolationist and not really get involved in European affairs that much
About isolationist Russia. This is a myth, you can read in the book "Peripheral Empire".
Although, perhaps, Peter would have turned his attention to Persia and the Caucasus.
@@maksim05makarov Sorry, I forgot to mention that Russia could go isolationist if Peter died, was overthrown or didn't live long enough to achieve anything. He actually had a son that really didn't like his policies (which irl was prevented from coming to the throne because Peter changed the order of succession). Perhaps he could've taken over with the help of the streltsy and the boyars
@@thechto-to3151 Perhaps. But maybe not, Peter's politics is not Peter's politics. It started back in the time of Ivan the Terrible (who for some reason is also demonized in the West, okay Stalin, he was a communist and wanted there to be no beggars and hungry, Ivan Grozny for what?), because the tsars saw where the most advanced armies were and with whom to trade closer. Otherwise, Peter would not be able to communicate with the Germans and the British.
@@maksim05makarov а, я только понял что ты тоже русский
Иван Грозный, если что, убил почти всё население Новгорода и почти полностью его уничтожил, а в добавок к этому убил своего же сына из-за паранойи. А Сталин и вправду избавился от всех голодающих - он дал им доголодаться до смерти
@@thechto-to3151 как именно он убил все население Новгорода ? Новгород же присоединил еще Иван III ? Причем я впервые это слышу, в основном говорят про злую опричнину, которая как и сталинские нквд «просто так» убивала людей.
The main issue here is population density, while Sweden never had a large population, the possible Swedish Empire, would have something around 25-30 million inhabitants today most likely. Not massive, but still something. Now, assuming Sweden won the great northern war this could how ever change as one of the main issues with population density in scandinavia during this time was a general lack of food to supply a growing population (which only really rectified after the introduction of potatoes) but if Russia was beaten back, and or Poland was, that might have given Sweden access to a bounty of grains it lacked - thus creating a population growth further in time prior to said potatoes. If that was the case, then having a larger population growth earlier would mean Sweden and the Swedish empire could have grown alot in population, perhaps well above the 50 million mark, placing it at a size of other greater european powers - but with much larger land and natural resources with which to gain massive amounts of wealth from during the industrialization period.
Mmmmmm México has 120 mill .... So not enough
@@carlosniebla7534 120 million people now doesn't mean you suddenly become an Empire. We are talking about population during the 1600-1700 hundreds, in Europe. During this time Mexico was just a part of the Spanish Empire.
@@carlosniebla7534 10 mil swedes can beat 120 mil mexicans in a war because 1199995 would still be on the porch munching on a burrito
we would be more... around 40 mil atleast due to 1/3 of our population migrated to USA
Well said and another good issue I've noted.
Sweden with Finland and Norway. Man, we would dominate the winter olympics
Think about the hockey team. It would just be between canada every time
"I WAS CHOSEN BY HEAVEN! SAY MY NAME WHEN YOU PRAY!"
0:13 I admire your self control to use a portrait instead of The Bridge.
Oh, 3:00 Sweden still had its German possessions (although slidley reduced)
1:11 and giving us Sabaton.
And for 2:04…
ALL EMBRACE ME!
IT’S MY TIME TO RULE AT LAST!
15 YEARS AS I’VE BEEN WAITING TO SIT UPON MY THRONE!
Well, you will always have locally recruited multiethnic regiments protecting your imperial possessions. Look at the French Empire during the Napoleonic Wars, which was composed of just as many foreigners as French. The French invasion of Russia saw soldiers from Poland, Italy, German states, Switzerland, Spain, and Austria fighting in the French army.
This is something never mentioned in the video: how widely the Swedish army recruited. They had a large number of Finns yes, but did you know there were local German, Estonian, and greater Livonian regiments? The Germans were mainly composed of Saxon troops, and they also raised a Karelian regiment. Had the Swedish Empire expanded, they probably would have recruited more from newly conquered territories to make up for the manpower shortage.
Then there is the potential of allied armies, like in the true timeline, a Polish army under Stanislaw, and the possible creation of a unified cossack nation in Ukraine to fight with the Swedes, which they tried with Mazepa's cossacks, but in our timeline, the uprising was violently stamped out by Peter. But in a timeline where Peter was defeated, this is a very likely scenario. The Ottoman Empire nearly sided with Sweden and even defeated Peter when he attempted an invasion to capture the Swedish king in exile. Had the Swedes come out victorious, the Sultan would probably enter the war to seek gains at Russian expense. The latter three never had much love for the Russians, and I'm sure the Swedes could emphasize that and pledge to rid Northern and Eastern Europe of Russian influence to gain more support and men. The political situation inside Russia at the time was already fragile and on the verge of civil war had the Russians not won.
Even with the Swedish defeat in our timeline, there were still several conflicts with Russia, most resulting in status quo ante bellum until the Napoleonic Wars. The Swedes did, however, decisively defeat the Russian Navy at the Battle of Svensksund in 1790, which the Russian naval presence in the Baltic Sea never fully recovered from and in many ways never did. So even after the Great Northern War, the Swedes still fought the Russians and managed to keep them on a leash until the Napoleonic Wars.
I don't believe that Sweden would expand the empire past its historic boundaries if they eventually won the war, with the exception of annexing land to make it even harder for Russia to move further west, like Karelia and territories around the Baltic Sea, including a larger Swedish presence in Germany. A large chunk of Norway would probably also be annexed, as the Swedes had already invaded the Norwegian province of Tröndelagen when the Swedish Empire was at its peak. After all, this was largely a defensive war for the Swedes, and they never had any ambitions to aggressively expand like the Russians.
We are fortunate that Sweden fell, when it did.
The areas that they would have likely conquered around the Baltic don't have massive populations to draw from either. And this increased reliance on manpower from their expanded territories could lead to many problems, especially with the rise of Nationalism in the 19th century.
@@alaric_ Anything that makes Russia more powerful is bad.
@@alaric_ we are fortune that finlands birth-rate is low that you will die soon 😆
Fäderneslandet! Kul att se dig här
Hey dude the algorithm just reconnected me with you and im so happy you're still making bangers this was a really cool topic. Keep it up Cody never stop the grind man.
great video! It's a shame this war isn't talked about as often as it should
So one side effect that immediately comes to mind is that Greater Sweden would be one of the few countries where the cars drive on the left hand side of the road. Sweden was one of the last countries in Europe to switch from the left hand side to the right hand side. They did this in 1967 to be more compatible with their neighbors. If they won this war, their only neighbor would have been the Soviet Union. Not much need for compatibility there. So they wouldn't have to switch and they could happily continue driving on the left hand side like Britain does.
But driving on left hand side on the road was already introduced by Charles XII in 1718, unless the reverse it like otl this is not gonna make them different from any other country in Europe
Had the Swedish Empire endured, they’d have a pretty good hockey team of Swedes, Finns and a handful of Estonians and Latvians.
This is the hockey version of the alternate history "what if Yugoslavia didn't disolve"
This was an incredibly brilliant video Ludwig!! Thank You for explaining this so eloquently
There's a novel: "Redovisningsavdelning Marviken" by Lars Wilderäng. It takes place in present day, but in an alternate timeline where Sweden won the war. It's pretty good.
Det var jättekul att lyssna och kolla på denna video! Tack!
Scenario Idea: What if Denmark actually exists?
so real life?
Alternate Geography scenario I suggested on a now unlisted video: What if the Caspian connected to the Black Sea?
The idea came from a web comic that mentioned a small Russian confederacy, a Kurdish empire, and between the two being a Caspian superpower that controls a third of Asia.
Quote from when I asked about it: "In their world, the Kura river basin is very slightly differently shaped, but it makes a world of difference. That notion was really what spawned the whole idea of Khazovia in the first place: I was reading Wikipedia one day, and was reading about rivers in the former Soviet Union, and stumbled on the Kura, which almost but not quite connects the Caspian and Black Seas.
So what if it had? What if instead of there being a low mountain range to force the river to turn southward, it hadn’t been cut off, and instead had connected to the Black Sea north of Batumi? Reading the history of the region, I realized that small change wasn’t so small, and would have enabled the small civilizations that started around the Caspian to become trading powerhouses. Iran and Russia would likely never have gained a foothold in the region, and it was ideally located on the Silk Road, even better than Tehran or similar cities - it’s easier to travel and transport goods by boat than on foot, so a large civilization was born.
They had their wars over history, like everywhere else, but their location was strategically valuable, and their trading prowess helped keep them rich and independent, and to eventually take over areas that in our world belong to a lot of other nations on every side. The modern incarnation of Khazovia isn’t as nice as some of the historical forms - it’s a military dictatorship - but there’s always been a large and powerful nation-slash-empire there, and it was a check on groups like the Byzantines and Ottomans and Persians."
what was the unlisted video?
It might be a Two Oceans Creek type situation, obviously a river can't start in an ocean and end in another ocean, but it could start in the mountains and diverge seperately.
A more likely scenario if probably the Don and Volga rivers connecting, a lot more likely given it's flat land. (there's even a canal there in real life)
@@1224chrisng no, the Caspian Sea is a Lake and not a Marginal Sea. Also the Great Lakes are connected to multiple Rivers, same with Lake Ladoga. Only on a Larger Scale
@@1224chrisng Thing is the Caspian isn't really a sea is it, it's a big salty lake in central Asia, and lakes can have rivers that flow into the ocean, just look at the Great Lakes.
tbh I hadn't looked up the details on the Kura before just now, I had only assumed that it flowed from the Caspian based on the quote above, checking shows that no, it's the opposite, it flows into the caspian meaning most likely this is a pretty impossible scenario.
Still the idea of a Kurdish Empire makes my head spin in a way nothing else seemingly can, I still don't know how that could even happen, even with a significant trade artery going through their land.
Caspian Sea and the Black Sea used to be one being the Paratethys Lake
Another thought could be that a Swedish Empire joined against Napoleon and later made an alliance in World War I against Germany, which took the German speaking possessions (northern Germany). Then again in WW2 together fighting about its north German possessions. Reason Russia and Sweden would not fight is that Russia lost complete interest in the north, respecting the now lutheran Karelians being part of Sweden and the merchant republic of Novogord-Pskov just managing themselves (or could take over this but not further).
the clothes on 16:06 is Sami clothing, an indigenous tribe that is located in Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia. Just sharing that this isnt something specially Finish.
You know other than them being finno-ugric, The area of Finnmark=land of the Fins, is named after them... just because russia does what russia does ie. genocide and poor education, does not change the facts.
There is a good book called “Redovisningsavdelning Marviken” which plays out in a timeline where Sweden won the Battle of Poltava. I can say that Russia still is keen on Karelia even in modern times in the book, and won’t let that victory slide
A point that is sort of overlooked when it comes to the Swedish Empire is that "Swede-ification" or whatever you'd like to call it would come fairly easy as any expansion Sweden did in any direction would always end the serfdom in those areas. Say what you will, but that is a good way of getting people loyal to you.
I guess that's also a part of the reason why the baltic nobility disliked the swedish crown
@@oddjonsson2815 Land grants in these new territories was one of the big rewards for the swedish aristocracy.
@@SusCalvin that was primarily before the reign of Charles XI. He revoked something like 70-80% of the nobility's estates and was HATED by many among the upper class. Also, the land grants were mainly to swedish nobles, whereas most nobles in Livonia and Estonia spoke German
@@SusCalvin as the guy under me also explained. The nobility in today's Estonia and Latvia were mostly German speaking and would remain the local aristocracy up until ww2 (in that way similar to the Swedish speaking nobility in Finland). They weren't favoured at all by the swedish crown and wanted to cling on to feudal structures that had been thoroughly destroyed in Sweden, some would even argue that feudalism never existed in Sweden at all.
Charles XI really gutted the Swedish nobility's assets as well. The De la Gardie family being a famous example
Love that you called out us Sabaton fans!
It feels so sad that you haven't covered the fact that Charles has gotten many letter at the beginning of the war about joining the Spanish war of succession. It'd be interesting to see Sweden tip the scales on one side or another
16:33 I was playing a rimworld mod and a lot of my colonists hate being human due to this idea in my mind lingering I thought this would go techpriesty
“He didn’t drink, he didn’t have sex, he just wanted to conquer”
He’s just like me fr
I've always liked the idea of a dominant Sweden. I tend to put the point of divergence a bit earlier, in the 17th century and the Ingrian war. I see a young Gustav Adolphus being super dominant and wiping out the Russian nobility including Michael Romanov and all other potential claimants to the throne. After which the regions of Pskov, Tver and Novgorod start to see learning Swedish as a good idea.
Regarding 6:20 ≃ and the "Finns", Finland had been Swedish for almost a millennia by then (norse people settled the land long before Finns even), and so 'Finland' wasn't really distinguished from Sweden, it was just simply 'also Sweden'. The Swedish speaking citizenry of 'Östland' outnumbered the 'Finnish' population by a lot. It wasn't really until after Sweden lost the land that it started to properly become Finnish; the coast is still majority 'Swedish'. At least it wasn't any less Sweden than Götaland or Norrland was back then, with Svea (Stockholm region) being 'Sweden Proper'.
A video about Andrew Jackson listening to the court’s decision regarding Native American removal would be cool. It could lead to the Trail of Tears not happening in the same manner and possibly change Native American demographics and population size greatly
That will be interesting.
@Martial Cabo Well the lack of Native American removal could allow for a more autonomous state that can increase in population more. They wouldn’t be stuck in lands they don’t know in Oklahoma
The real answer to the title is we would have more Sabaton songs about the Swedish Empire
My thoughts are that with the two Swedish protectorates of Pskov and Novgorod (and lutheran Dutchy of Karelia) it would make Russia uninterested in the cold north and go south for conquest of the Ottomans, together with Poland-Lithuania and Austria-Hungary (especially since Prussia have been weekend with most of its territory in the "mare nostrum Baltic" Sweden).
Austria-Hungary and Poland-Lithuania would also hinder the unification of Germany and being busy with the previous Ottoman lands they would be uninterested in the north.
Very good video Cody, now I know a bit more of Swedish history thanks to you. I have a couple of ideas that you could use for your future videos:
1.- What if FDR didn't run for a fourth term?
2.- What if the smallpox pandemic didn't happen in Mexico when the conquistadors came?
1. Thomas Dewey would have won in that case and he was later in the Eisenhower team/camp who was more aggressive with the Soviets but that came much later long after the war ended.
2. There would be more natives to deal with but the Spanish had guns and were ruthless so they would not give up easily
i think him not running for a third term would be more interesting personally
@@cg123ize Maybe, but we still have to keep this what if scenario as realistic as it can be, after all, every U.S. president was reelected during an American war, from James Madison in the War of 1,812 to George W. Bush in the War against terrorism.
@@donatogressbautista4843 but the us wasn't at war in 1940
@@cg123ize No, but it was in 1944, and FDR was still reelected, sure he died a few months after his fourth term started but it still counts, much like how Abraham Lincoln died about a month after the end of the 1864 election, therefore, my point still stands.
Kalabaliken i Bender/the Skirmish at Bender is an amazing story in and of itself.
Also, Russia offering a seemingly beneficial peace is always just them wanting a reprieve to get stronger and start the war again later on their terms.
Yeah we ended up losing anyway but a peace would only prolong the collapse.
There was a civil war in PLC in 1704 and in 1706 Augustus was forced to abdicate. He returned only after the battle of Poltava. Swedish victory could have a bigger impact on PLC than on Sweden itself. Quick Swedish victory also could affect the War of the Spanish Succession with Swedish and possibly Polish forces opening another front vs Austria in the East or just helping Hungarian rebels in the Habsburg empire
Paradox would have an even greater incentive to make grand strategy games
Sweden would also probably have flavour in eu4 in base game
@@kindadumb916 Not even the swedish empire still existing today would make paradox put less content behind dlcs
Got a really good Sabaton album out of it at least.
3:39 i like the swedish text cause i can read it and understand
I'd love to see a video on what if Argentina won the Falklands War (which wasn't too unrealistic of a possibility).
The only way that they 'win' is if their assumption that the UK wouldn't launch a serious response was correct, they didn't have the logistics or industrial base to counter a determined British response, which we can see from the actual war. The UK had the naval strength to secure the area, that meant that the carriers could allow air control, simply on that basis no land force could have held the islands, let alone inexperienced conscripts
@@TauGDS You're not entirely wrong, but Argentina did have a huge geographical advantage being right next door to the islands while it would take the UK a lot of time to assemble and send another fleet all the way across the Atlantic.
While the UK would probably still eventually win if they were 100% determined, the defeat of the initial response troops would have been a serious morale boost for the Argentine troops and given them a lot of time to fortify the islands. And there no doubt would have been a huge backlash from the UK public about sending more troops to die for small island many people didn't even know about.
The only way I can think of the UK losing that war is by being threatened by a greater power to give up its claim to the islands, Suez style. The Argentinians were always living on borrowed time during the occupation, they would have never been able to stand up to the British navy and would have lost control eventually.
@@TauGDSUK won because of the US
What if Wldislav III of Poland didn’t die at the battle of Varna and consolidated his power in the kingdoms in central and Eastern Europe?
15:00 Sure no one lives in the northern part of Scandinavia, but damn that we have good stuff to mine, trees to cut and so on.
Scenario idea: What if the Taiping Rebellion or the Yellow Turban Rebellion in China had succeeded?
China will split larger
The real questions are what if the State of Qin just got blocked from unifying the Zhou dynastic dominions by the weakest Chinese Warring State, or the Xiongnu or Donghu confederacies usurping the Western Han, or Ming Chinese colonies across the Indian and Pacific Oceans by eunuch navigator Zheng He
@@shinsenshogun900 A "What if China chose Expansionism over Isolationism" would be interesting too.
There's the age old saying in Finland, that Sweden will fight until the last drop of Finnish blood. It would be interesting to know, how the Finnish independence movement would have evolved within Sweden instead of Russia. And Finnish is not related to other nordic languages, it's from a different language family and more related to Hungarian than Swedish.
I imagine that eventually there would have been a Finnish independence movement in this timeline with the rise of nationalism in the 18- and 1900s, just maybe not particularly powerful since Finland would likely have been even more integrated by that point. The success of a Finnish independence movement would probably hinge a lot on the success of other independence movements within the empire, and whether or not Finns manage to build a serious national identity or not. They might just end up like a bigger, more powerful, albeit more integrated Sami.
@@jonatanlj747 The framework for a national identity was always there, it just needed something to really push the idea into the next stage. The idea that Österland was different to "mainland" Sweden had pretty much always existed, but there was no need to focus on that until Russia took over Finland and Russia started encouraging the spread of those ideas, which was beneficial as to not have Finland want to go back to Sweden. I think it's likely the same kind of movement would have taken off, if Sweden was to start real and widespread swedification attempts. And it's not like the idea of "Finnishness" just popped up in the 1800s, since a lot of the work done then was influenced by "fennophilia" and interest in things attributed to Finns from previous centuries.
@@jonatanlj747 Earliest Finnish independence attempt was during the War of the Hats in 1740's, but Russia withdrew its support on the issue due to how badly the war was going. There definitely was interest in gaining independence long before the rise of nationalism.
@@jokemon9547 yes, you described what i meant much better than me. obviously there was a national identity, the question is just how serious such a movement would be without the Russians furthering it, being replaced by the Swedes hampering it.
>Being soy Sweden having to imagine a unified Scandinavia
>Being chad Denmark actually having the Kalmar Union, directing the domestic and foreign policies of Norway and Sweden.
Sådan! Go Danmark!
Did you forget that half of your country is Swedish today.
Cope Gustav Vasa solos
@@morriskaller3549 Do you think I care? 😂
only foreign policies though.
If Sweden won the great northern war it would’ve have been a more based world tbh
fax
For the swedes getting all the money and prestige, sure... For any non-swede it would have been centuries of oppression and total cultural genocide. Just like what they did to Sami-people up until the 20th century. Along with the eugenics to the 'genetically indisposed' via forced sterilization up until 1970's.
It's all fun and games to imagine singular nation being 'paramount beacon of goodness' until the old saying "power corrupts and complete power corrupts completely" comes and bites you in the butt. Sweden would not have been immune to this (there is literally no proof to the contrary), our modern civilized world is different from warrior monarch led from top to down in the 1700's. Modern Sweden is completely different country now then what they were back then.
Yes
Of course
Cody, please please please put Jimmy in a video, besides just the sponsor segments. He has suffered for long enough now. He's earned it.
Sabaton’s best timeline.
Finally! I’ve been waiting for years for this! Thank you so much!
One thing about Sweden joining WWI. In our timeline, Sweden was not a stabile country during the time of WWI. In fact, there were almost riots because of lack of food. So I don’t think a bigger, bigger Sweden would’ve joined anyone during WWI because the country would’ve imploded in on itself.
There was actually a massive emigration crisis at this time due to a lack of food and famine. This is due in part to the failure of Sweden to properly modernize and mechanize farming techniques. The majority of their people were poor farmers trying to produce enough food to feed their 8-12 children. I think that if they had maintained an empire around this time they would at least be somewhat competent to attempt industrialization and modernization because southern Sweden is actually somewhat fertile and probably could have supported their population at this time with proper equipment and techniques that had already been developed in say, the US or Britain. This was not mentioned enough in the video and might have solved some of the underpopulation issues Sweden would have at this time if they had available food and job opportunities in a new industrial economy. This is without even mentioning that by this point Sweden and Denmark may have formed a union, as they nearly did in our timeline (in 1863 the Swedish King Charles XV and the danish king Frederick VII had an agreement that Sweden would support danish goals of a United Scandinavia and Charles would inherit the danish throne, while Frederic’s heir would inherit Holstein, having it become a separate entity and part of the German confederation while Scandinavia would be United.) and with the breadbasket of mainland Denmark, this new Swedish empire could have easily fed and maintained a larger and possibly significant population similar to the Low Countries like the Netherlands, or possibly even be on equal footing with Poland or Romania,meaning it probably could afford to go into World War One. (Although I don’t think that they could ever match the German, French, British, or Russian population.)
@@Mattiacino tbf they never needed to match any of their populations as they loved punching above their weight. Particularly by being overwhelmingly aggressive. If they were to join however they definetly could hold out. If they joined the central powers they just need to rush Kola while their Navy is having fun with the Brits. If they joined the Entente they only really need to defend Denmark and the Baltic Sea.
@@elseggs6504 I don’t personally think that their capability of waging war would carry over into the 20th century, no matter how good their generals, without manpower and proper industry to support a real army their best bet in World War One would be to try and fight defensively, and using their superior navy in this timeline to threaten coastal cities on the Baltic and interrupt trade.
If the Empire survived it would have the Baltic area as its breadbasket.
Alternative timeline from winter 1701-1702: We are in 1701 and Sweden have seized Courland but instead of joining Sapieha against Oginiski in the Lithuanian civil war, Charles XII signs a peace treaty with August II the Strong and his Saxony & Poland-Lithuania. Charles and Augustus put all blame on the duke of Courland for the war which is losing his titles and instead Charles XII becomes the duke of Courland and it is transferred to Sweden as well as the city of Gdánsk/Danzig. Charles agrees on that Smolensk and Kiev should be transferred back to Poland-Lithuania if August would join against Russia.
With only one enemy left Charles winter his troops and prepare them for marching to Pskov in the spring 1702 and at the same time invade from Narva in the north towards Gdov. After siege and taking Pskov and the land between, the siege was taken to Novogord which also fell as well as the area north of Novgorod from the Narva army. Charles decides to winter his army 1702 and proclaims the two protectorates of Pskov and Novgorod independent from Russia.
The preparations in Novgorod is towards Tver and then Moscow and the march starts spring 1703 which goes slow with cannons on barges down the river but reaches Tver in the summer which falls after a short siege. With Tver as a new base of operations Charles orders the march towards Moscow which falls after a siege. At the same time a marine operation towards the northern harbor of Arkhangelsk is also successful and falls to the Swedes.
The situation is too tempting for August and Poland-Lithuanian nobility and they decide to move on Smolensk and Kiev lost in the Russo-Polish War 1654-1667. The Ottomans also sense a moment of weakness and attacks to gain back recently lost lands from the Russo-Turkish War 1686-1700.
While being under attack from north, west and south, Peter, tsar of Russia, felt he needed to focus. He decided to skip the cold north and meet Charles in person. He agrees to Charles demand and gives Pskov and Novgorod independence as protectorates to Sweden as well as the northern harbor of Arkhangelsk (he thinks he can easily take it all back) if Charles backs of Moscow and Tver (as well as Karelia, which later become a luthern Grand Dutchy). Charles also involves August, and to get the peace, Peter also had to give Smolensk and Kiev to Poland-Lithuania.
Now having peace with two enemies out of three Peter decides to move everything on the Ottomans but not before speaking to August and Austria-Hungary. Together they form a Christian alliance against the Ottomans and launches attack on all fronts. The war is devastating for the Ottomans which are pushed back in Europe by the combined Austria-Hungary & Poland-Lithuania in the Balkans and Russia around the black sea from both east and west sides, eventually all taking Istanbul which Russia claims as new capital. Peter is now sure he does not care for the north and focuses on his new capital which he renames St. Petersburg and re-designs for a warmer version of Amsterdam. He also starts building up a massive fleet from all the new ports around the black sea.
In the mean-time, Denmark-Norway and Brandenburg-Prussia notice that Charles XII is far away in Moscow and this would be the perfect time for Denmark-Norway to take back Scania as well as for Brandenburg-Prussia to take Pommerania. However, the Swedish army had already retreated to Courland and now storms in to take Prussia, which is done after a short siege on Königsberg. With friendly agreements with Poland-Lithuania and which is busy with the Ottomans, Sweden easily crosses over to Brandenburg which would have to give up Prussia as well as the coastal area of Brandenburg in the peace deal.
Sweden now only have Denmark-Norway left as enemy and decide to move through Germany and Holstein-Schleswig up to mainland Denmark. With the coldest winter in 500 years 1708-1709 Sweden again moves its army between the frozen islands of Denmark and storms Copenhagen. But instead of a peace deal, Sweden annexes both Denmark and Norway which includes Iceland and north Atlantic islands.
Sweden pursues an “Mare Nostrum Baltic” politics and gets the reminding German states, Lübeck and Mecklenburg and builds-up a large baltic sea fleet. The Russians instead coin “Mare Nosrum Black Sea” which they control and build up a large black sea fleet.
The Ottoman empire totally collapses and France, England, Spain, Venice, Genoa and Dutch Rep. sees an opportunity now when the “war of the Spanish succession” 1714 is concluded they invade the southern Ottoman provinces and claim these ones.
Good
Sweden was like a Rome, the Baltic sea was a Swedish lake, just like the Mediterreanean was a Roman lake
The real question is which Swedish city represents themselves more as an eternal Scandian city: Stockholm, Uppsala? Whichever be your choices?
@@shinsenshogun900 Stockholm because it would have been at the very center of the empire
The differences between the two abound, but it's worth noting that the Romans held the entire Mediterranean Coast. The Med has a surface area of 2,500,000 km2 (970,000 sq mi) va the Baltic's 1,641,650 km2 (633,840 sq mi)
@@ryankline1164Mediterranean population was also much, much bigger
@@RabbitShirak yes valid point, but since half of Cody's video was "it doesn't have enough people" I wasn't sure it needed to be said 😂
Looking more into the history ironically the first meation of the people of that area was by Tacitus in 98 AD. (about the time of the Empire's height) I'm not knowledgeable enough to speak what not having a written language is for population levels, but I can't imagine it's good.
Have you done something on the Great Heathen Army? If the Vikings managed to take more territory and have a bigger impact on the British Isles.
Hello from Thetford , winter home of the army 865/66.😁