Thread 17994191

If it wasn't for this retard, the glorious north would have been a united and feared entity rivaling Germany, Russia and formerly Great Britain - if these entities would even manage to exist in its presence to begin with. It would be a high IQ sparkling white paradise that would keep all the devious brown continentals and orientals in check. The Christian faith would have been unanimously and universally liberated from the corruption of the other churches, and we would have been in the atomic and space age by 1750.

>>17994191 (OP)

Based.

why? you clearly have strong views bout him. tell us them and the historic context

>>17994274
Are you dense?

>>17994350
No anon, I'm just not well versed in Swedish History and thus do not know a great deal about Gustav Vasa or 16th Century Sweden in general.

I had hoped OP could tell me about it, given that he went to the trouble of making a thread about history on the history board.

>>17994191 (OP)
>rivaling Germany, Russia and formerly Great Britain
It’d have the strength of Poland and maybe the Netherlands at best. It could never rival Germany nor Russia and at best could only be a torn in their sides.

>>17994425
This is not only Swedish history, but the embodiment of Sweden itself. I'm happy to educate but you have to at least know the very basics.

>>17994487
You say that as if northern Germany and Russia wouldn't be their playground. They already were at one point, without the premise stated in OP.

>>17994501
A united Scandinavia would stand absolutely no chance against a united Germany. France got completely btfo. What resources would having Denmark and Norway really give Sweden? And Sweden still jobbed. Sweden of the 17th century had great minds behind its military actions and that’s it. You might not even get those people without what happened historically. Even if you did, they still lose in the long run. It’s not even a competition. And if the united navies of Spain and France lose to the UK, you somehow think a united Scandinavia stands a chance? Laughable.

Considering that Sweden peaked under Gustav Adolphus, which was like five kings down the line from him, I'd assume that OP is being schizo again.

>>17994495
My understanding of Swedish history is
>pagans
>vikings
>christianised, north sea empire ambitions
>those die off with the normans arriving
>kalmar union united denmark, sweden, norway under one ruler (danish dominated?)
>that stopped
>sweden protestant cool guy gustav adolphus
>???
>now some french dynasty is in charge
that's my understanding

inane ramblings

Gustav was not the aggressor, he would not have sought power at all let alone risen to it were Christian a fair ruler

>>17994540
>north sea empire ambitions
This is where you are wrong

>>17994514
I know you're a fat retarded American, but a united Germany wouldn't exist. That was the point.

>>17994545
Bluepilled

>>17994540
>>that stopped
yeah that's this guy

>>17994585
My point is that Germany would still unite and blow Scandinavia out of the water, you retard. How would a united Scandinavia change the eventual course of German nationalism? Does it magically prevent all nationalism down the road? That’s a completely retarded idea, that Germany wouldn’t form because Scandinavia united. Prussia and an alliance of some northern German states alone would beat Scandinavia, absent some miracle. You don’t even need a united Germany. Do you think Scandinavia would annex northern Germany (absurdly retarded) and keep Germans down (even more retarded). At best, they take a bit more of Pomerania than they did historically. There’s a reason Sweden alone didn’t have much more than that and Denmark only controlled Schleswig-Holstein. That’s not going to stop the formation of Germany.
And you have the gaul to call Americans retarded. You’re acting like real life is a map painting game.

>>17994601
why is that bad, then? surely sweden wouldn't want to be part of a denmark dominated union?

>>17994917
"sweden" is a result of this guys rebellion in the first place

>>17994191 (OP)
Why is he the fattest man that ever lived?

>>17994800
A northern great power would have Germany completely surrounded and embolden everyone involved. They would basically be Poland. The HRE already was a disunited joke.

>>17994191 (OP)
Wrong pic

>>17994540
>those die off with the normans arriving
Tell me more, arriving from where?
>>17994514
To be uber strong parts of Germany and Baltics would have to be included.

>>17994800
Do you remember what the situation was in Germany when Sweden was at peak power? Now take that and amplify it

>>17994191 (OP)
>>17994514
Sweden was strong primarily because their elite was incredibly small and weak, without even a clear dominance over the peasantry. In this environment, the King could easily rally a huge part of what resources the country had by dazzling somewhat successful peasants into agreeing with everything he did. Charles XI was able to tell the nobles to give him over half of their property for nothing and they just did it with no resistance, that's how easymode governing Sweden was. Also the country had by far the largest accessible copper reserves in a time when proto-industrialism sent demand through the roof, and French foreign policy made it make sense for them to subsidize a Northern empire.
Denmark had an enviable position at the mouth of the Baltic, but a very powerful noble elite. There was no way they could just speedrun absolutism like Vasa Sweden did.
>>17994800
If Brandenburg-Prussia and Sweden fell into a personal union (IIRC this wasn't actually far off from occuring) you'd have a real contender for an enduring Northern Great Power. Though the political center would probably shift into German lands

>>17995187
>There was no way they could just speedrun absolutism like Vasa Sweden did.
You got it all mixed up, Denmark became absolutist first and they did it earlier partly because they had a more powerful noble elite. In 1660 Frederick III became absolute monarch after the disastrous defeat against Sweden in the Second Northern War, and he was able to do it because he could blame the defeat on the nobility constantly undermining him.
In Sweden, however, nobility and king had a more healthy relationship since a weaker elite is less of a threat, but with Swedish conquests the nobilitys power grew, and during the regency of Charles XI they started to enrich themselves at the crowns expense, and also mismanaged foreign policy, which ultimately led Charles XI to implement absolutism in 1680 after he had become of age.
>If Brandenburg-Prussia and Sweden fell into a personal union (IIRC this wasn't actually far off from occuring)
A union between Queen Christina and the Great Elector was flouted, but I don't believe that Sweden seriously considered it. At the time Brandenburg-Prussia was very poor and weak.