Recently there have been a number of "what if x country colonized x region" threads here, so I might as well continue that trend. I'm currently working on a TL where the Kalmar Union survives, and one of the big knock-on effects of that is that Canada (plus most of New England) will be colonized by the Kalmar Union, beginning in the late 16th Century. Everything from Labrador down to Rhode Island becomes part of the Nordic Empire, likely gaining independence sometime in the 19th Century. This thread isn't specific to my TL, though, as it could be any Nordic-colonized Canada, whether it be Kalmar, Dano-Norwegian or Swedish. Note, this is NOT a Vinland thread, this colony is established around the same time as the Thirteen Colonies or New France of OTL. What would the demographics and settlement patterns of this Nordic colony be? How many colonists would settle in Nordic Canada? How would the Nordic Canadian colony deal with other powers like the British, Dutch or French? Now, I shall pass this thread on to you.
What Would A Scandinavian-Colonized Canada Look Like?
- Thread starter Gabingston
- Start date
I suspect it would be Danish for the most part, being the most populated nation, and having less in the way than Swede (i.e not having to go through Denmark-Norway.) That said, it would also be less populated than the English colonies
In terms of population it might not be too much different from OTL Quebec population-wise due to the limited Scandinavian population.
That's not immediately obvious, a Scandinavian Canada that had the same levels of emigration as England, Spain or 18th century Portugal would be populous I'd think.
I don't think that they are going to be really picky as long as they are loyal for the government and king. And of course ratherly right faith.
If they're not being picky, then there is no real limit to how populated it can be. If they convince Germans to go there and adapt somewhat to Scandinavian culture then it could be pretty big and it may even eclipse the home nation in terms of people and resources. Convincing others to go there, would probably save the home nation from becoming too sparse.
The main settlement pattern would be pretty similar to Canada, as it’s the most habitable regions. I expect places with easy access to sea and river ways and with agricultural land would be dominated by manorialism like Quebec, but I expect these manors would have a far easy time getting settlers than their French counterparts, these regions would recruit mainly from South Scandinavia and North Germany. These manors would likely be abolished in the late 18th century. The Prairies would be settle in the late 19th century in similar manner to OTL. I expect the Canadian Shield to see relative early settlement at first simply by fur traders and trappers, and later by slash and burn farmers and reindeer herders, it will still be very thinly populated but likely still have a higher population than in OTL.
The settlers will mainly be Lutherans, but we will likely see Calvinists, Old Catholics and Jews being allowed to settle in specific towns. In the 19 the century such religious discrimination will end and they will be allowed to settle everywhere. Between 1850 and 1950 we will see a large influx of people from the Russian and German Empires and their successor states.
After 1950 we will see other group migrate, but it will depend on the colonial history of Scandinavia and the geopolitical situation the world is in. I would expect a lot of East Asians.
The settlers will mainly be Lutherans, but we will likely see Calvinists, Old Catholics and Jews being allowed to settle in specific towns. In the 19 the century such religious discrimination will end and they will be allowed to settle everywhere. Between 1850 and 1950 we will see a large influx of people from the Russian and German Empires and their successor states.
After 1950 we will see other group migrate, but it will depend on the colonial history of Scandinavia and the geopolitical situation the world is in. I would expect a lot of East Asians.
How many people immigrate has little to do with how large the recruiting grounds for settlers are but what economic model is used by the government. If it's like the French there's not gonna be a lot of settlers because the company in charge simply doesn't need them. If they follow the Dutch model it's going to be larger, but still nowhere near to the British colonies of otl (the Dutch also allowed settlers from all over Europe). And then there's the option of a full-on settler colony, but this option is most likely not going to go over well with any nearby trade partners.
I've thought plenty of this for my setting, and I've come to the conclusion that this completely changes North American geopolitics, because Scandinavia will be a lesser greater power than OTL France, and also lack the Catholicism prominent in New France. Either way, I'd expect the St. Lawrence to be the main corridor of cities and settlements and similar decline of the Maritimes. I suspect it will be settled from OTL Greenland, Labrador, and Newfoundland as part of the Danish crown asserting Norway's claim to those lands. This may extend into Hudson Bay because Baffin Island (Helluland) is also a claim of the Norwegian crown. But eventually the claim will move south since the St. Lawrence has the richest and most numerous native nations (well, before the destruction of the Laurentian Iroquoians). Either way, the St. Lawrence will be Norse ITTL, and given OP's constraints, they will take most all of New England and upstate New York too.
I do not think they will reach all the way to the Pacific because OTL British Columbia was pretty much just British, American, and the occasional Russian and Spanish ship. There is little ability to colonise there, and it is very likely a separate British colony can arise there and probably protect itself against American influence given New England was the source of American ships and New England will be Vinlandic TTL. But I believe they could easily seize the Prairies, will compete for the Upper Midwest, and will have a similar mindset to build a railroad through the Canadian Shield.
This will be a darker version of Canada, where they will have the same OTL Canadian trait of paranoia over a more powerful southern neighbour but expressed much differently because Scandinavia can never be as dominant as 19th century Britain. This will likely play into a militarised stance akin to at minimum what Sweden did in the Cold War--neutral, but armed. It will be industrialised with a strong fleet on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence and likely all sorts of coastal defense ships. Expect numerous fortresses in all places, which will be a stark contrast from OTL New England with its quaint mill towns, ice harvesting, and timber harvesting.
But like Canada, they will very likely enjoy hockey though, so some things remain the same. They will also be influenced by the Americans and have a strong baseball culture (so something like pesäpallo will fuse into baseball) and maybe American football.
I would assume the Finnish language in Vinland (and I guarantee the name "Vinland" would remain in use for at least some part of this colony, if not the entirety, or as a post-independence name from romantic nationalism) would be at least as common as Canadian Gaelic, and at most optimistic, as common as Canadian French (assuming nationalist cultural-linguistic revival on both sides of the Atlantic, like maybe Finland is separated into its own kingdom/grand duchy to counter something like the OTL Russian plot to do so). I've always imagined Finnish culture/language mostly concentrated in the OTL Maritimes and fringes of Quebec.
And while northern Finland/Sweden/Norway was OTL the target for Finnish settlers, much of this area, especially OTL New England, has a better climate and land than that area (if much more dangerous due to Indian wars). Finnish immigrants to the US and Canada settled similar areas to their homeland (northern Michigan, Minnesota, northern New England, Oregon/Washington).
The second major group of settlers would probably be Icelanders and Norwegians, since their lands often suffered famine, or for the former, volcanic eruptions. The Laki eruption in the late 18th century would lead to thousands of settlers.
I do not think they will reach all the way to the Pacific because OTL British Columbia was pretty much just British, American, and the occasional Russian and Spanish ship. There is little ability to colonise there, and it is very likely a separate British colony can arise there and probably protect itself against American influence given New England was the source of American ships and New England will be Vinlandic TTL. But I believe they could easily seize the Prairies, will compete for the Upper Midwest, and will have a similar mindset to build a railroad through the Canadian Shield.
This will be a darker version of Canada, where they will have the same OTL Canadian trait of paranoia over a more powerful southern neighbour but expressed much differently because Scandinavia can never be as dominant as 19th century Britain. This will likely play into a militarised stance akin to at minimum what Sweden did in the Cold War--neutral, but armed. It will be industrialised with a strong fleet on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence and likely all sorts of coastal defense ships. Expect numerous fortresses in all places, which will be a stark contrast from OTL New England with its quaint mill towns, ice harvesting, and timber harvesting.
But like Canada, they will very likely enjoy hockey though, so some things remain the same. They will also be influenced by the Americans and have a strong baseball culture (so something like pesäpallo will fuse into baseball) and maybe American football.
It isn't so much population, but proportions, so considering the settlement patterns and history regarding the Forest Finns, I suspect any colonial minded administrator looking for settlers would turn to Finland. In New Sweden for instance, the majority of the small population came from Finland, and this is the period where Forest Finns carved out settlements in northern Finland, Sweden, and Norway. If we assume it's Kalmar, than this also helps in getting the Swedish crown involved in the colony instead of their own interests.
I would assume the Finnish language in Vinland (and I guarantee the name "Vinland" would remain in use for at least some part of this colony, if not the entirety, or as a post-independence name from romantic nationalism) would be at least as common as Canadian Gaelic, and at most optimistic, as common as Canadian French (assuming nationalist cultural-linguistic revival on both sides of the Atlantic, like maybe Finland is separated into its own kingdom/grand duchy to counter something like the OTL Russian plot to do so). I've always imagined Finnish culture/language mostly concentrated in the OTL Maritimes and fringes of Quebec.
And while northern Finland/Sweden/Norway was OTL the target for Finnish settlers, much of this area, especially OTL New England, has a better climate and land than that area (if much more dangerous due to Indian wars). Finnish immigrants to the US and Canada settled similar areas to their homeland (northern Michigan, Minnesota, northern New England, Oregon/Washington).
The second major group of settlers would probably be Icelanders and Norwegians, since their lands often suffered famine, or for the former, volcanic eruptions. The Laki eruption in the late 18th century would lead to thousands of settlers.
That's true too. A united Scandinavia would be very active in northern Germany and thus have yet another base of settlers.
In 1700, Sweden had 2.7 million people and Denmark 1.3 million. On the contrast, Great Britain and Ireland had 8.7 million, Spain had 8.8 million, and Portugal had 2 million. This, I’m not sure if emigration rates would be high, especially if it were controlled by Denmark.
France had 20 millions which is why North America today is dominated by French speaking states.
The primary reason the French didn’t really migrate en masse was because land was less of an issue in France than England. If it did, there would probably be a lot more in the way of French migration to the New World than OTL.
No, it’s far more simple, England send a lot of settlers in the mid-17th century, France didn’t. The reason for this was because of social structure at home and the purpose of the colonies. If we imagined a Danish version of Quebec, a colony completely similar to Quebec except it belonged to Denmark and the Catholic Church had been replaced by the Lutheran Church, this Quebec would have gotten more settlers, because Danish peasants was tenant farmers, who was used to travel to other part of the realm to becomes tenants there. As long as their trip was paid, it would make no difference to them where the land lied. Would it have been able to compete with the British colonies in population of course not, But it would also be a irrelevant factor, it would just need a big enough population that British settlers would not enter their territory.
Another factor is that the French found Canada "an arpent of snow" - much colder than at home. The British grabbed the warmer South from Massachusetts to Carolinas. Even later, the British were not eager to settle Nova Scotia or Newfoundland, which they found to be cold.
Norwegians, Swedes and Finns would find the climate of Canada rather more familiar.
Norwegians, Swedes and Finns would find the climate of Canada rather more familiar.
@Arkenfolm
My rationale for the Nordic Canadian colony eventually reaching the Pacific would be that very few other powers could. Due to the extreme distance from Europe by sea (probably the furthest of any area by travel time before the Panama Canal), any settlement would have to come either overland from other parts of North America (as IOTL), or from across the Pacific. Russia didn't have the capability to settle in North America and the East Asians didn't have the interest. Fur traders were able to cross the Rockies and establish trading posts on the west coast by the early 19th Century IOTL, and since the fur trade will inevitably be a huge part of Nordic Canada's colonial era economy, I see no reason why Nordic fur traders wouldn't eventually expand from coast to coast. From there the government of a by this point independent Nordic Canada would expand into the area and build a railroad to the west coast, and boom, Cascadia (at least north of the Columbia River) is now part of the Nordic American country.
One more thing, in my Kalmar Union TL the east coast of North America will be split between a Nordic Canada and New England, a Dutch Mid-Atlantic and an English/British South. There is no united U.S. or British America to compete over the PNW with the Nordic Canadian state. The only plausible competitors would be the Spanish/Mexicans to the south and Russians to the north, unless I make Japan a colonial power, which is unlikely. Sorry that I didn't make a direct quote response, I'm typing this while on my phone so erasing that huge wall of text would take too long.
My rationale for the Nordic Canadian colony eventually reaching the Pacific would be that very few other powers could. Due to the extreme distance from Europe by sea (probably the furthest of any area by travel time before the Panama Canal), any settlement would have to come either overland from other parts of North America (as IOTL), or from across the Pacific. Russia didn't have the capability to settle in North America and the East Asians didn't have the interest. Fur traders were able to cross the Rockies and establish trading posts on the west coast by the early 19th Century IOTL, and since the fur trade will inevitably be a huge part of Nordic Canada's colonial era economy, I see no reason why Nordic fur traders wouldn't eventually expand from coast to coast. From there the government of a by this point independent Nordic Canada would expand into the area and build a railroad to the west coast, and boom, Cascadia (at least north of the Columbia River) is now part of the Nordic American country.
One more thing, in my Kalmar Union TL the east coast of North America will be split between a Nordic Canada and New England, a Dutch Mid-Atlantic and an English/British South. There is no united U.S. or British America to compete over the PNW with the Nordic Canadian state. The only plausible competitors would be the Spanish/Mexicans to the south and Russians to the north, unless I make Japan a colonial power, which is unlikely. Sorry that I didn't make a direct quote response, I'm typing this while on my phone so erasing that huge wall of text would take too long.
British ships were active in Alaska and BC in the late 18th century, which would be roughly the same time a fur trade might expand into that area from the east. So a series of British forts which could expand into a settler colony would be feasible and a potential threat. It could end up a series of proxy wars between native powers and would probably be similar to New Zealand in that it would be an Anglo state settled in the early 19th century with a large indigenous component. The border could be along the Cascades+Continental Divide.
Although that’s after Sweden’s conquest of the densely populated Scanian lands in the 17th century, something which would presumably be butterflied in a Kalmar Union TL. If they remain with Denmark, the population might be a bit more even.
The biggest reason was that the French crown did not want mass emigration to the colonies (indeed, it feared "depopulating" the kingdom), but just enough to defend them. Louis XIV promoted some recruitment of settlers in 1663-72, which caused the population to quadruple in 20 years (from 3000 to 12 000) and then did little else. When Québec successfully defended itself in 1690, that seemed to be evidence that it did not need much more recruitment.
A Scandinavian state that commits itself to mass settlement can establish a significant population. It also seems likely that it would open its settlement to other Protestants, as the English and Dutch colonies did.
I would doubt much survival of the Finnish language in North America, even if it revived in Finland proper (as IOTL). If we look at the Americas, we do not see regional European languages spoken (Catalan, Basque, Breton, Occitan, Welsh, Gaelic...), but the state languages (Spanish, English, Portuguese, French).
Last edited: