English, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch are all European languages spoken by millions of people outside Europe today. Mostly due to the colonial empires they ruled, and trade holdings they dominated. Sweden and Denmark-Norway also held overseas territories, and holdings, but unlike the aforementioned languages neither Danish, Norwegian or Swedish is spoken outside their traditional language area (Sprachraum), outside Greenland. Why are these Scandinavian languages not spoken outside of Europe? Why did none of the colonies (except Greenland) begin to speak or use Scandinavian languages in an official capacity?
Why are Scandinavian languages not spoken outside of Europe?
- Thread starter Hvalrossen
- Start date
Weren't the danish overseas territories (besides Greenland) more like trade posts than settlement colonies?
I think the main problem is lack of favorable demographics for colonization. I know Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, but according to this page about demographics in 1600, Sweden had a population of only 760,000 people, Finland had 500,000. Denmark 650,000 while Norway was the worst, with only 400,000. For comparison with another colonial powers: Spain's population was 8,2 million; Portugal's was 1,1 million and England's was 4,1 million.
Sweden tried to stablish a colony in North America in the mid 1650s - Nya Sverige (New Sweden), but were unsuccessful due to the Peach Tree War of 1655, where they were attacked and defeated by the Susquehannock. By the early 18th century, there were only 1200 New-Swedes (10x more people from the original 110 colonizers from Gothenburg).
If Scandinavia was united under a single banner you would have a population of +2,3 million; two times larger than Portugal's. An united scandinavia have more chances to stablish overseas colonies compared to a divided Scandinavia.
I think the main problem is lack of favorable demographics for colonization. I know Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, but according to this page about demographics in 1600, Sweden had a population of only 760,000 people, Finland had 500,000. Denmark 650,000 while Norway was the worst, with only 400,000. For comparison with another colonial powers: Spain's population was 8,2 million; Portugal's was 1,1 million and England's was 4,1 million.
Sweden tried to stablish a colony in North America in the mid 1650s - Nya Sverige (New Sweden), but were unsuccessful due to the Peach Tree War of 1655, where they were attacked and defeated by the Susquehannock. By the early 18th century, there were only 1200 New-Swedes (10x more people from the original 110 colonizers from Gothenburg).
If Scandinavia was united under a single banner you would have a population of +2,3 million; two times larger than Portugal's. An united scandinavia have more chances to stablish overseas colonies compared to a divided Scandinavia.
The Danish colonies on the Gold Coast were actually only forts, where the Danish administrators had little no influence on the local population. In fact they often lived at the mercy of local powerbrokers. Whom they had to pay rent, for the land they used. I believe the same was the case for the forts and "factories" in India.
The Danish Virgin Isles were proper colonies in the sense they were administered and owned by the Danish state.
Using those numbers Norway and Denmark together have around the same population as Portugal, and the Portuguese were able to spread their language across the globe, from Brazil to Africa and Asia. Population size itself cannot be the main issue at hand here.
While it is true that greater political unity in Scandinavia could be more successful. Though, Sweden could have sent many more colonists than they did, but they did not. Why?
Last edited:
For a good bit of that time, a large number of potential colonists were needed as cannon fodder in Poland/Lithuania and Russia..... Priorities, y'know
Danish is spoken in Greenland, while there’s no official stats a leak from the Greenlandic civil service showed their estimates for the different language spoken on the island. Around 30% are believed to have Danish as their first language, this is likely to increase as it have been increasing since Greenland got more autonomy.
As for why Danish is not spoken in the American Virgin Islands, Dutch and English were used as lingua francs there thanks to the early plantation owners being Dutch and later the island showed a shift to English thanks tho the Danish state seeing it more advantageous for trade in the region.
There were a Danish speaking population in Ghana, but they assimilated into the English biracial and Europeanized black population of Ghana. As for India the Danish colonies there were miniscule.
There would likely have been Scandinavian speakers outside Europe (beside Greenland) if the Scandinavian countries had taken part in the Scramble, but at that point they were spend. Denmark had lost most of its territory, Sweden were busy developing and Norway was pushing for independence. The most likely Scandinavian colony outside Europe (beside Greenland) with minimum change to the timeline would be if Norway somehow got Kerguelen and established settlements there.
As for why Danish is not spoken in the American Virgin Islands, Dutch and English were used as lingua francs there thanks to the early plantation owners being Dutch and later the island showed a shift to English thanks tho the Danish state seeing it more advantageous for trade in the region.
There were a Danish speaking population in Ghana, but they assimilated into the English biracial and Europeanized black population of Ghana. As for India the Danish colonies there were miniscule.
There would likely have been Scandinavian speakers outside Europe (beside Greenland) if the Scandinavian countries had taken part in the Scramble, but at that point they were spend. Denmark had lost most of its territory, Sweden were busy developing and Norway was pushing for independence. The most likely Scandinavian colony outside Europe (beside Greenland) with minimum change to the timeline would be if Norway somehow got Kerguelen and established settlements there.
The Scandinavian countries were too divided to be capable of being major colonizers; I suspect that the Danish-Swedish rivalry was fatal for the prospects of both Nordic powers. Things could have been different only if Scandinavia had u ified, I think.
One of the things I've seen people talking about the portuguese and the spanish advantages in colonization have to do with the ocean currents as well:
Bear in mind that countries in personal unions were still often thought of and treated as separate entities -- during the early days of Spanish colonisation, for example, only Castillians were allowed to settle in the new world (no Aragonese need apply); the Scottish settlers in Darien got no help from the pre-existing English colonies in the area; etc. So the combined size of Denmark and Norway isn't necessarily the relevant metric here.
good point. The aragonese/catalans also didn't have that much desire to colonization overseas because they were already well stablished in the mediterranean. Mallorca, Naples, Sicily, Sardinia and even parts of Greece.
We could argue that they did colonize in the Mediterranean: the modern presence of the Catalan language in Valencia, the Balearics, even Sardinia, is a consequence.
Yeah, but the "colonization" of Valencia was years before the "Age of Discovery", but yeah you're right
New Sweden failed, so they didn't try to colonize the region again. It's not easy to colonize as it seems; Kurland, Russia, some german HRE states and the Netherlands also tried to colonize the americas.
even France, one of the great powers, wasn't able to create successful, big and long lasting colonies. Louisiana's gone. France Antarctique's gone. Illnois' gone.
I would also question the extent to which there was a surplus capable of supporting transatlantic settlement. Wasn't Sweden in the 17th century experiencing domestic colonization in its own frontiers, with Forest Finns crossing the Baltic to settle colonizable areas of Sweden proper?
It is entirely possible for countries to experience significant immigration and emigration at once. If Sweden was still colonizing itself, I do question it's ability to dispatch colonists in any number you a distant land.
Beyond that, the Scandinavian countries were relatively underdeveloped to a late point, not only underpopulated but rather poor. Scandinavia's emergence as a region distinctly richer than France or Germany is entirely a product of the 20th century. Perhaps an enduring Scandinavian unification might create the preconditions for greater Scandinavian wealth earlier, but much greater?
It is entirely possible for countries to experience significant immigration and emigration at once. If Sweden was still colonizing itself, I do question it's ability to dispatch colonists in any number you a distant land.
Beyond that, the Scandinavian countries were relatively underdeveloped to a late point, not only underpopulated but rather poor. Scandinavia's emergence as a region distinctly richer than France or Germany is entirely a product of the 20th century. Perhaps an enduring Scandinavian unification might create the preconditions for greater Scandinavian wealth earlier, but much greater?
I think the idea of a sharp discontinuity between the Reconquista and the beginning of overseas colonization is false, at least in the case of Iberia. The unified Spanish monarchy dispatched Columbus at the same time that it completed the conquest if Granada, the earlier colonization of the Canaries bore a lot of similarity to what happened in the Caribbean, many of the regions and social classes involved in the Reconquista also got involved in Empire-building, et cetera.
Going back to the idea of a unified Scandinavia as a maritime power and a colonial power, while this is not obviously impossible I think that there are enough factors—the poverty of Scandinavia, the politics of Scandinavia, the region's status as a developing region still being subjected to domestic colonization itself—that make this relatively unlikely. For a Scandinavian settlement in North America that is not a surviving Vinland to not fall to the Dutch, weakest of all the major western European powers in North America, you are going to probably have to have a Scandinavian monarchy that can not only support the settlement but that can have good relations with the Dutch. How would they react to that?
Would a Scandinavia united in the early modern era be wise to seek an English alliance? But then, how will Scandinavia deal with its neighbours across the Baltic?
Would a Scandinavia united in the early modern era be wise to seek an English alliance? But then, how will Scandinavia deal with its neighbours across the Baltic?
Because Alfred the Great didn't become Alfred the Last.
Seriously, the Norse in the Viking age didn't complete any conquests and make their culture dominant and they were in some ways doing that in Jorvik and might have done had the conquest wasn't reversed within a century do to reconquest. Wessex conquered and a population reinforced by otl Norman and Icelandic ancestors could be powerful.
A Norseified Angleland would have a larger population base than Scandinavia, and be well positioned to exploit an atl 'Vinland' or expand in an alt age of exploration.
Yes, most of the population would be more Saxon descended, but the language and culture would be pulled further into the Norse orbit than it did in the Frenchified Normans pull it got otl (who don't exist atl, they live in former Wessex) that the language would be considered Scandinavian.
Seriously, the Norse in the Viking age didn't complete any conquests and make their culture dominant and they were in some ways doing that in Jorvik and might have done had the conquest wasn't reversed within a century do to reconquest. Wessex conquered and a population reinforced by otl Norman and Icelandic ancestors could be powerful.
A Norseified Angleland would have a larger population base than Scandinavia, and be well positioned to exploit an atl 'Vinland' or expand in an alt age of exploration.
Yes, most of the population would be more Saxon descended, but the language and culture would be pulled further into the Norse orbit than it did in the Frenchified Normans pull it got otl (who don't exist atl, they live in former Wessex) that the language would be considered Scandinavian.
Last edited: