Kalmar Union - war-making, politics?

What was the general nature of the Kalmar Union as a political entity, and how did it make war?

I'm researching the various Danish-Hanseatic conflicts of the 14th/15th centuries and I'm finding that it's pretty much just the Danish in each case---Sweden and Norway generally don't come out to play, or at least they are either not represented or umbrella'd under the Danish forces.

So what does this community know? My TL hopes to have the Danish/Kalmar Union jump into a 'dogpile' on the Hanseatic League (stomped first by the Teutonic Order+HRE, then by Denmark/Kalmar), but I'm not sure how to execute that. Did Sweden/Norway join Denmark in all military endeavors? Or just whenever Danish forces alone weren't sufficient?

Also, what's the plausibility of a Kalmar Union staying together, given a stronger Denmark (no weakening by Hanseats in 1420s/30s)?

Also also, what about the Victual Brothers? They were ousted from the Baltic by the Teutonic Order/Hanseats in 1399/1400, and their major base of operations (Gotland/Visby) seized by the Order, yet the Wiki page for the Danish-Hanseatic War (1426-1435) makes mention of [some of] the Victual Brothers fighting alongside the Hanseats. What's up with this? Did they disband or just leave the Baltic proper? I'd like to incorporate them as well---anything to give the Hanseats a proper fighting chance against a strengthened Teutonic Order/HRE.

Bumping for interest...I know LSCatilina knows -something- about this....?

The issue is that the king would have to convince his vassals that it was a good idea and while the Norwegian vassals might not have been totally against it (although they wouldn't be able to offer much more than goodwill, as they doing the actual Kalmar union was reeling after the black death which all but genocided the Norwegian nobility, as Norway was just so sparsely populated that it was able to keep flaring instead of burning itself out in one fell swoop, either due to immunity developing among the survivors or due to managing to completely kill off sparse regions), the swedish counts/dukes was rabidly against any such idea of warring with anyone in Northern Germany, as that was their primary trading partner (mainly selling iron and copper south), hence any war with them would seriously disrupt their income even without any enemies getting within 100km of their borders.

Sian said:

-snip-

Click to expand...

Good insight. So just the Danish, then.

Any insight on the Union holding together under a stronger Denmark? How long can it last?

to get Kalmar Union to last longer, you'd probably have to have a Denmark (and specially the royal family, which was under North German houses for the whole period, with first Griefen/Griffins, followed by Wittelsbach-Palatinate and Oldenburg, whom have had the throne, under different branches, since then) to stop skirmishing with Northern Germany about real and precieved claims of rightous ownership of this or that city or region.

At least if you're talking about a PoD after the creation of Kalmar Union.

Sian said:

to get Kalmar Union to last longer, you'd probably have to have a Denmark (and specially the royal family, which was under North German houses for the whole period, with first Griefen/Griffins, followed by Wittelsbach-Palatinate and Oldenburg, whom have had the throne, under different branches, since then) to stop skirmishing with Northern Germany about real and precieved claims of rightous ownership of this or that city or region.

At least if you're talking about a PoD after the creation of Kalmar Union.

Click to expand...

Refer to my TL for more (please read and give feedback, I'm desperate to know if I'm doing okay with my first TL); but basically, Teutonic Order wins at Grunwald.

Right now they're fighting the Hanseatic League, and I want the Danish to get in on the fun, given their mutual animosity, and win (thus butterflying away the Danish decline after losing to the Hanseats in the 1420s and 30s).

The Kalmar Union lost most of its power with King Hans' (of Denmark, but also Norway and Sweden) humiliating defeat at Ditmarsken year 1500 to rebellious peasants.

The outcome would not need big PoDs to be changed drastically and with that also the power balance in Scandinavia.

I of cource can't guarantee that the dissolution of the Kalmar Union would not have happened just a little later, but IMHO there is a possibility that King Hans without Ditmarsken would have been succesful in breaking the oppostion from parts of the nobles. Mainly Swedish, but the Danish old nobility wasn't that fond of a strong King either.

For my timeline's purposes, I'm dealing with the early 1420s. That's some good input there. I'll have to do some more homework.

Draeger said:

For my timeline's purposes, I'm dealing with the early 1420s. That's some good input there. I'll have to do some more homework.

Click to expand...

The 1420s was not at least King Erik's strides with the Counts of Holsten. He did defeat them and by the 1423 armistice they were forced to give up claims on Slesvig. After that however Erik went on a years long journey around Europe but when he returned in 1426 he found out that the Counts hadn't completely withdrawn yet and war was taken up Again. In this war however the Hansa actively supported the Counts and although the Hansa was beaten back while trying to lay siege on Copenhagen in 1427 Erik at the armistice had to give back trade rights to the Hansa and accept Holsten Count's claims on parts of Slesvig.

After that Erik was much weakened and eventually resigned in 1439.

An obvious PoD would be Erik sort of finsihing the job on the Holsten Counts before going on his journey (or just staying at home). If he can defend the conditions of the 1423 armistice, he and the Kalmar Union, as well as Scandinavian Royal power vs. the Hansa or the Nobles, will be much strenthened.

Another PoD could be Margrethe I's son and heir Oluf not dying 16 years old in 1387 but actually becomming a clever King. We don't know if he would have had the talent, but at least both his mother and father (Håkon VI of Norway) appeared to have been strong willed and clever persons.

Denmark's problems were Norway was too weak to be of assistance and Sweden didn't care and was more and more considering the Union a terrible idea.

You have to remember the foreign policies and interests of the Three kingdoms were very different:

Denmark looked to the south and wished to dominate the North German coastline.

Norway looked to the West and wished to preserve Norwegian influence over the Atlantic islands

Sweden looked to the East and wished to protect it's Eastern borders and eventually dominate the Gulf of Finland.

yourworstnightmare said:

Denmark's problems were Norway was too weak to be of assistance and Sweden didn't care and was more and more considering the Union a terrible idea.

You have to remember the foreign policies and interests of the Three kingdoms were very different:

Denmark looked to the south and wished to dominate the North German coastline.

Norway looked to the West and wished to preserve Norwegian influence over the Atlantic islands

Sweden looked to the East and wished to protect it's Eastern borders and eventually dominate the Gulf of Finland.

Click to expand...

I think that was more prominent later - after the Kalmar Union. Anyway it was by no means a unified Swedish nobility that was against the Union. The reason for the Union evolving was not at least Swedish nobles being dissatisfied with their present King Albrecht and preferring a Union King.

Much more than different "national" interests I think the key to the Klamar Union's survival lies in the ongoing struggle between Kings, Nobles, Merchants (Hansa) and Church.

Eventually the Kings won that struggle, but only after the Union had long since been dissolved. IMHO however the Kings only narrowly missed winning this struggle in the times of the Union and we only need minor PoDs to have it happen. When later the interest you mention become more prominent, the Union actually will be quite a good context to follow these interest in.

More power will be behind the King and it not only will it not be diverted towards fighting other Scandinavian Kings but can over the Baltic Sea be relatively easily projected compared to pre-railway over land power projection.