The Kalmar Union

[natty dread]

Saxitoxin always keeps buggin' me to make a map about the Kalmar Union, so I thought I might give it a shot in the near future.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalmar_Union

The Kalmar Union (Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish: Kalmarunionen) is a historiographical term meaning a series of personal unions (1397–1523) that united the three kingdoms of Denmark, Norway (with Iceland, Greenland, Faroe Islands, Shetland, and Orkney), and Sweden (including Finland) under a single monarch, though intermittently and with a population less than 3,000,000.[1]

Kalmar union ca.1500

The land area is sort of inconvenient in shape, but I think I could manage with some creative insets and croppings. Parts of Germany (Mecklenburg, Schleswig) could be included maybe?

I have some vague ideas about the gameplay, where I thought to utilize losing conditions in some way. Perhaps major cities (capitals) and thrones of the respective countries could be used as starting positions/losing conditions.

Some more information:

The Swedes were not happy with the Danes' frequent wars on Schleswig, Holstein, Mecklenburg, and Pomerania, which were a disturbance to Swedish exports (notably iron) to the European continent. Furthermore, the centralization of government in Denmark raised suspicions. The Swedish Privy Council wanted to retain a fair degree of self-government. The unity of the union eroded in the 1430s, even to the point of armed rebellion (the Engelbrecht rebellion), leading to the expulsion of Danish forces from Sweden. Erik was deposed (1438–39) as the union king and was succeeded by the childless Christopher of Bavaria. In the power vacuum that arose following Christopher's death (1448), Sweden elected Charles VIII king with the intent to reestablish the union under a Swedish crown. Charles was elected king of Norway in the following year, but the counts of Holstein were more influential than the Swedes and the Norwegians together, and made the Danish Privy Council appoint Christian I of Oldenburg as king. During the next seven decades struggle for power and the wars between Sweden and Denmark would dominate the union.

After the briefly successful reconquest of Sweden by Christian II and the subsequent Stockholm bloodbath in 1520, the Swedes rose in yet another rebellion which ousted the Danish forces once again in 1521, though Stockholm did not surrender until the summer of 1523. While independence was being reclaimed, the election of King Gustav of the Vasa at Strängnäs on June 6, 1523, has been seen as a formal declaration of independence, and as the de facto end of a union that had lost all long-term support in Sweden. The day Gustav Vasa was hailed as King (he was not crowned until 1528 though) would become, in 1983, the National Day of Sweden.

The political situation of the time should also be featured in the map in some way. It seems to me there were various political conflicts at the time, mainly between Sweden and Denmark, and I think the Hanseatic league was also involved somehow... I admit, I'm still a bit fuzzy on the details, I only have superficial knowledge of the subject at the moment... so if anyone wants to contribute to the research and gameplay design it'd be most welcome.

---

Then, as for some concerns: there's already a map of almost the same geographical area, and another in development. On the other hand, this is a very different subject, entirely different time period. Still, I wonder if there will be enough interest in a project like this? I certainly think this would have potential.

[natty dread]

It seems, since I lost my colourful name, people don't notice my threads anymore...

[The Bison King]

Well I can still see you. I must confess though between Scandinavia and Nordic Countries, I think the area is pretty well covered. That is unless there is some sort of game play alteration that really sets this one apart.

[Arama86n]

It's simply not a period of Swedish history that interests me that much (at present anyway). It's complicated, and from a Swedish military-history standpoint I suppose the 1600's and 1700's were more interesting with Strong monarchs such as Gustav II Adolf, and Karl XII that fought spectacular battles and mounted campaigns to further the countries interests abroad.

Just my subjective opinion ofc
Good luck with your map!

[Victor Sullivan]

It seems, since I lost my colourful name, people don't notice my threads anymore...

Ain't it the truth?

Well I can still see you. I must confess though between Scandinavia and Nordic Countries, I think the area is pretty well covered. That is unless there is some sort of game play alteration that really sets this one apart.

I agree with TBK, the gameplay's gotta be dazzling to set it apart from the other Scandinavian-esque maps.

A draft might help, too, natty, with getting noticed.

-Sully

[natty dread]

A draft might help, too, natty, with getting noticed.

I wanted to gauge interest before I would invest all the research, design, etc. needed for even a preliminary draft of a map of this scale.

So far there doesn't seem to be a huge amount of interest though...

[Victor Sullivan]

I thought you were gonna do another AoS map anyways...?

[natty dread]

Later.

[Victor Sullivan]

Oh, okay.

[theBastard]

interesting idea. I like historic maps, so you have my support

it needs to find good gameplay, but there is big potence...

[tokle]

Could be an interesting project.

There's potential gameplay features in the realtion between the three national councils and the king or queen.
Possibly you could bring in usurpers/pretenders. Maybe Margrethe could be a king-maker figure, with all the candidates around her.

I would advice to zoom in on the map. The colonies weren't very relevant to the power politics at the court of the time.
Maybe have it from Trondheim and down to Northern Germany, and leave out Finland too. To get a more compact map.

[ballong]

I agree with the zooming of the map (greenland was never that important) but I think you should include Österland (aka Finland) and the hanseatic league.

[natty dread]

I would advice to zoom in on the map. The colonies weren't very relevant to the power politics at the court of the time.
Maybe have it from Trondheim and down to Northern Germany, and leave out Finland too. To get a more compact map.

Yes, I was also thinking of this. Denmark, southern Sweden/Norway, northern Germany, that's it...

I agree with the zooming of the map (greenland was never that important) but I think you should include Österland (aka Finland) and the hanseatic league.

Finland was under swedish reign back then... did it really have much relevance in the political situation, besides being a resource for sweden?

[theBastard]

Finland was under swedish reign back then... did it really have much relevance in the political situation, besides being a resource for sweden?

ofcourse yes. it was part of Kalmar Union...

[Victor Sullivan]

What about Iceland?

[tokle]

Finland was under swedish reign back then... did it really have much relevance in the political situation, besides being a resource for sweden?

ofcourse yes. it was part of Kalmar Union...

Interestingly, I don't think I've come across any mention of Finland in any resource books I've read on the Union period.
If there is enough space on the map, then it could include the south-western seabord, with Åbo. I believe the bishop of Åbo was part of the collegiate that elected the king.

What about Iceland?

In truth, I doubt any of the kings of the union had more than heard of Iceland. They were mostly treating mainland Norway as a far away and useless possesion. So I believe Iceland would have been very peripheral.

[natty dread]

Yeah, I think I agree with Tokle.

So we would have: South Norway/Sweden, southwest Finland, Denmark, North Germany and whatever pieces of baltic countries would be visible with this cropping...

[Victor Sullivan]

Yeah, I think I agree with Tokle.

So we would have: South Norway/Sweden, southwest Finland, Denmark, North Germany and whatever pieces of baltic countries would be visible with this cropping...

Hmm... Does sound like Nordic Countries with a few added... Definitely have to step it up with the gameplay if ya wanna go through with this.

[tokle]

I was thinking of having the electors as territories, bordering the lands that they owned. Say three or four for each kingdom.
And then each kingdom has a couple of kings that they put forward, who can be one-way attacked by the electors. The kings could be for instance; Olav Haakonsson and Knut Alvsson for Norway, Charles Knutsson and Sten Sture for Sweden and Christian and Frederick for Denmark.

The winning condition could be to hold all electors and one king.

Does that sound interesting?

[ballong]

Interestingly, I don't think I've come across any mention of Finland in any resource books I've read on the Union period.
If there is enough space on the map, then it could include the south-western seabord, with Åbo. I believe the bishop of Åbo was part of the collegiate that elected the king.

The eastern part of Sweden that now is modern Finland is mentioned frequently in Swedish history books about the union. Perhaps you just don´t recognise the places mentioned although they were in what became Finland? Åbo stift (diocese of Turku) included all of Swedish Finland. Viborg (in Karelia), Tavastehus (Häme) and Olofsborg (southern Karelia, now Russia) are other important places mentioned in swedish history during the union.

Karl Knutsson Bonde (whom you refer to as charles) had major holdings in Finland before he became king. When Kristian I managed to be elected as king for the whole union he went to Finland. Historians believe he was preparing a major crusade against the Russians. It was probably why he introduced a new special tax.. this new tax broke the oath given to the swedes which is why he lost control of the union and had to give up ambitions in the east.
After the union kings powers were vastly diminished so that Sweden could keep the de facto local rule they joined the union again. Sten Sture never tried and didn´t want to be king. He had more power than any union king ever had in Sweden. Later he personally owned more land in Finland than in modern Sweden. He also defended successfully against Moscow when they tried to invade. Finland was important to the aristocracy and they had the real power.

I was thinking of having the electors as territories, bordering the lands that they owned. Say three or four for each kingdom.
And then each kingdom has a couple of kings that they put forward, who can be one-way attacked by the electors. The kings could be for instance; Olav Haakonsson and Knut Alvsson for Norway, Charles Knutsson and Sten Sture for Sweden and Christian and Frederick for Denmark.

The winning condition could be to hold all electors and one king.

Does that sound interesting?

sounds interesting gameplay-wise but not very historical.. the reality was not like that at all so it will not be a good victory condition imo..
..maybe it can be substituted with the extremely powerful aristocratic families of the time?
an example: The originally danish family of Axelsson-Tott held lands in Denmark and Sweden and Finland and even made private attacks against the Livonian order and the Hanseatic league!
It was because of such powerful families that the union managed to exist at all. (because they had huge estates in several countries and the union made that easier)
Such families held the real power and decided who would be king and what king to oppose.

[theBastard]

agree with ballong. maybe when is possible to find 8 famillies each player can start play for one family - hold all family land, could be one big bonus, united country (Danemark, Norway, Sweden) and gain crown could be next bonus and finally make Kalmar Union - maybe win condition...?

[natty dread]

Hm, good ideas here so far.

There should also be a way to tie in the northern germany lands to the gameplay. Although they weren't part of the union, they - I think - had frequent wars with denmark / sweden so they could be a part of the gameplay somehow...

[tokle]

Interestingly, I don't think I've come across any mention of Finland in any resource books I've read on the Union period.
If there is enough space on the map, then it could include the south-western seabord, with Åbo. I believe the bishop of Åbo was part of the collegiate that elected the king.

The eastern part of Sweden that now is modern Finland is mentioned frequently in Swedish history books about the union. Perhaps you just don´t recognise the places mentioned although they were in what became Finland? Åbo stift (diocese of Turku) included all of Swedish Finland. Viborg (in Karelia), Tavastehus (Häme) and Olofsborg (southern Karelia, now Russia) are other important places mentioned in swedish history during the union.

Karl Knutsson Bonde (whom you refer to as charles) had major holdings in Finland before he became king. When Kristian I managed to be elected as king for the whole union he went to Finland. Historians believe he was preparing a major crusade against the Russians. It was probably why he introduced a new special tax.. this new tax broke the oath given to the swedes which is why he lost control of the union and had to give up ambitions in the east.
After the union kings powers were vastly diminished so that Sweden could keep the de facto local rule they joined the union again. Sten Sture never tried and didn´t want to be king. He had more power than any union king ever had in Sweden. Later he personally owned more land in Finland than in modern Sweden. He also defended successfully against Moscow when they tried to invade. Finland was important to the aristocracy and they had the real power.

You're probably right. I expect the books i've studied have been centred on the Norwegian view of it. And it's a long time ago since I read about it too.
I write Charles in English, i think mainly because I used to write for wikipedia, and they wanted all royals to be spelled with their English names. And somehow it still sticks. If we were to use the names on this map I would definitely advocate using their native spellings.

There should also be a way to tie in the northern germany lands to the gameplay. Although they weren't part of the union, they - I think - had frequent wars with denmark / sweden so they could be a part of the gameplay somehow...

Most of the union kings held lands in Germany, so in a way they brought them into the union.

I was thinking of having the electors as territories, bordering the lands that they owned. Say three or four for each kingdom.
And then each kingdom has a couple of kings that they put forward, who can be one-way attacked by the electors. The kings could be for instance; Olav Haakonsson and Knut Alvsson for Norway, Charles Knutsson and Sten Sture for Sweden and Christian and Frederick for Denmark.

The winning condition could be to hold all electors and one king.

Does that sound interesting?

sounds interesting gameplay-wise but not very historical.. the reality was not like that at all so it will not be a good victory condition imo..
..maybe it can be substituted with the extremely powerful aristocratic families of the time?
an example: The originally danish family of Axelsson-Tott held lands in Denmark and Sweden and Finland and even made private attacks against the Livonian order and the Hanseatic league!
It was because of such powerful families that the union managed to exist at all. (because they had huge estates in several countries and the union made that easier)
Such families held the real power and decided who would be king and what king to oppose.[/quote]
Is it not true, though, that most electoral position were held by the same families that you mention? Together with the clergy, that was the way it was done in Norway I believe. I don't think I see much of a difference in what we are proposing.

[ballong]

Is it not true, though, that most electoral position were held by the same families that you mention? Together with the clergy, that was the way it was done in Norway I believe. I don't think I see much of a difference in what we are proposing.

Sweden/Finland never accepted the extensive royal rule that Denmark envisioned. Margareta wanted a strong centralised monarchy while Swedes considered it a union of different kingdoms that would retain their own laws. She and Erik tried to put germans and danes in control of Sweden (as läns/lensherrar and archbishops and castle lords) but this was against swedish law..
The Swedes (engelbrekt) and Finns (erik puke from korsholms slott in ostrobothnia in case you were interested in more about the role of Finland/Österland during the union) rebelled and deposed of Erik. I know the norwegians did the same a few years later.. King Erik became a pirate and died a failure in Pommern - not even king of the danes.
King Kristoffer on the other hand was accepted because he was more in line with the swedish version of monarchy - elected kings without absolute power, but that was only seven years..
Sweden was more like a loose confederation even hundreds of years after Denmark and Norway had become hereditary "proper" monarchies. Different traditions of what a king was and a very different opinion of what the union was.. anyway, after Kristian I broke his oath to follow swedish law (like other union kings before him) he was kicked out and never managed to control Sweden.
Sweden was controlled by the Oxenstierna and Vasa families and aside from the three (!) times Karl Knutsson Bonde was king of Sweden/Finland (and for a very short while also accepted in Norway I´m told..) it was mostly run like an aristocratic republic. The danish king negotiated directly with the Axelsson-Tott family who changed allegiance several times.. they managed to do what Kristian couldn´t. They got rid of regent and archbishop Jöns Bengtsson (Oxenstierna family) and made wikipedia-Charles king a third time. Oxenstierna then allied with Kristian but this invasion also failed. "Charles" was no more than a puppet of the Totts this time but when he died one of their distant relatives by the name of Sten Sture took control.
Sture practically invented swedish nationalism using it as a propaganda tool, but he was also a greedy bastard who in the 1490s became unpopular with the swedish high council (riksrådet). Since Kristian´s son Hans agreed to be stripped of the powers the danes usually expected a union king should have, the Totts switched back in favour of the union. They and Sten Sture (deposed as regent but still the most powerful landowner in Sweden/Finland) successfully defended Finland against the Muscovites that only 25 years earlier had conquered Novgorod.
For a few years it seems that the union actually worked the way the swedes wanted - a union between equals.. not some new large danish absolute monarchy.
But Hans of course got ambitious and once again a union king broke it´s contract (the Kalmar recess).. so out with the union once again and back with sten sture as regent. He had no children but his sister married one of the Vasa family who inherited his huge land ownings when he died. Then there was a couple of regents from the Natt och Dag- family until Kristian II after some failed attempts finally invaded Sweden and became king. Only three years later the union was dissolved and Vasa became the first strictly hereditary royal house of Sweden.

I can´t remember reading about this system of electors you talk about and I doubt it´s even mentioned in swedish historical standard university literature.. maybe it worked in Denmark and Norway, but I hope you understand now that it had no real importance in the eastern half of the union and that it is not the same as the aristocratic families of Sweden and Denmark.

Sweden/Finland was only controlled by the union kings for a few decades. I doubt they were allowed to vote in this elector system since for them the union pretty much was one long rebellion or ignorance against unlawful kings.. I hope you see why something as unimportant for half the union and never really functioning would be quite silly to have as the victory condition.

[tokle]

I don't I follow you at all.
The kings were elected. The electors were the people that elected them. In Norway I believe this was the privy council. I don't know how they were elected in Sweden, but that's what I mean by electors.

The main basis of the Accord from Kalmar was that each of the three kingdoms would independently elect the king. Of course, the system was unworkable. It never really functioned properly in any way. But that's the Kalmar Union for you.