Talk:Timeline (Swede Victorious)

From Alternative History

in the 1710 entry, its not clear if you meant to say that the Swedish or the French lost the posession in North america. In either case, why didn't they gain them back at the end of hostilities ? Marcpasquin 15:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope I've clarified it. The possessions of Sweden were held by the Brits until 1718. And thanks for the question! Louisiannan 15:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Finland

although you have not mention it, would it be safe to assume that Finland always stayed a swedish posession ? --Marcpasquin 17:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That is an excellent question. I haven't actually addressed that. I think that with Russia subverted, largely, it's going to stay Swedish. I'm currently studying the History of Sweden @ BYU, so I'll have to flesh that out. Louisiannan 17:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

BYU = Brigham Young University ? --Marcpasquin 18:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The very one. I get a tuition break. I don't argue. Louisiannan 22:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Great War

Reading the page it got me wondering about the Great War. Assuming it happened at the same time and for the same reasons, its probably safe to assume that you have the Austro-Hungarians and the Ottomans on one side and France & Great-britain on the other. What is less clear is where Scandinavia and Russia fit in. Considering their proximity and past history, they would probably joined opposing teams out of a sense of self-preservation.

Even if Scandinavia remain neutral (as its components did *here*) Russia might not join the Entente but instead a "league of 3 emperors" (as it did *here* in the 19th century) with the ottoman replacing the german to preserve its autocratic way of life. If it did, the october revolution (again going with QAA) would mean a break for the Entente as their opponents must redeploy troops to replace the lost russian force and maybe even commit some to the russian civil war in an attempt to bring back the tsar and thus Russian's troops on its side.

On the other hand, a neutral Scandinavia would also probably mean a neutral USSA. while it might not make that big of a difference before 1917 (the entry of the US *here* in the war) it could mean that the Entente doesn't have the fresh troops available to exploit Russia's troubles meaning that the war would, changes notwidthstanding, last just as long as it did *here.*--Marcpasquin 20:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking about that all weekend. I've been trying to think how Bismarck would've fit into the situation as well. Would he have worked his way up the ranks in the Swedish Government? Would he have somehow convinced the United Netherlands to have some sort of territorial aspirations?

Obviously we wouldn't be dealing with the Hohenzollerns on the German side of the Equation. And I was definitely thinking of the Russians joining the side of Austro-Hungary.

Sweden has the United Swedish States of America; I presume they'll be more like Canada; and on the whole, I'm thinking that Sweden would start acting more like our UK on the whole. Then again, I imagine population-wise they're essentially like the US *here*, and so similar attitudes might be in the mix.

I think that the Swedish Empire would side with France, forcing Russia to the Central Powers' camp. I think that Denmark, though in Personal Union with Sweden would remain neutral through the War. Then again, they might join, as they weren't hurt by Bismarck and the Schleswig-Holstein debackle.

What do you think of Bismark and the other players of Europe that would be shifted around in this TL? Louisiannan 16:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

My first reaction considering the POD would be that Bismarck wouldn't have been born. If however we assume that most famous actors of the Great war were born as *here*, one possibility is that he was the leader of a prussian nationalist group. I'll have to do some reading regarding other characters. --Marcpasquin 18:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

He may not have been born; regardless, one of the root underlying causes of WWI was the Prussian push for empire. Being that there was no Prussia, aside a Swedish fief, I don't know that there would've been that drive, just as there wouldn't have been a Franco-Prussian war. That being said, I know that Sweden was mostly at a point where it was "steady state" in the 1800's. I don't know if part of that was the stinging defeats that ended the Empire *here*.

I much doubt that the rulers, as I've explained them would've pushed for larger empire. North America, methinks is quite the plum.

England on the other hand may have been quite sore, and may even have been an ally in the Central Power's Camp. What do you think?

For that matter, I could see the French getting "uppity" under Napo III and forcing a Franco-Swedish war, with the French being the aggressors. Thoughts? Louisiannan 22:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)