If the Kalmar Union or Sweden got in a war with the Novgorod Republic, and won by a huge margin, could they conquer the Novgorod Republic? It doesn't matter when really (preferably after 1300 or even 1400), could the Swedish conquer and retain all of the lands of the Novgorod Republic? Say they brutally defeat them in a war, and occupy most of the state. Could that lead to Sweden annexing Novgorod? Or would they be more likely to just annex Karelia and Kola and leave the rest alone?
If the Swedes could have...
- Thread starter rcduggan
- Start date
Hm... claiming Karelia and Kola is probably a given. It's not worth that much, admittedly... Er... I can't quite remember their westward extent, but I think the Swede/Kalmarites would like to increase their control over the Gulf of Finland, but I'd need a map to see whether that is even possible to gain from a war with Novgorod, and I haven't found a good enough map...
Susano
Banned
Its certainly fits geographically:
http://www.euratlas.com/big/europe_1400.jpg
Hn, I ha dthozght about the German Order lending help, but it appears they already had given up going eastwards by then... the famopus battle with Alexander Nevski was in 1242...way before the Kalmar Union and I do think even before Finland was fully controlled. And by 1400 the order had... other problems.
The problem is hence logistics. There is not much in Finnland or the northern Novgorod Republic. Sweden would have to project the military power from Sweden proper, and thats a looong way to go...
http://www.euratlas.com/big/europe_1400.jpg
Hn, I ha dthozght about the German Order lending help, but it appears they already had given up going eastwards by then... the famopus battle with Alexander Nevski was in 1242...way before the Kalmar Union and I do think even before Finland was fully controlled. And by 1400 the order had... other problems.
The problem is hence logistics. There is not much in Finnland or the northern Novgorod Republic. Sweden would have to project the military power from Sweden proper, and thats a looong way to go...
The swedish thron were in contest betwene King Albrekt of Mecklenburg and Bo Jonsson Grip, a nobel and a major land owner holding the king in deapt. King Albrekt of Meklenburg were oposed by the swedish nobility and they brought Margareta Valdermarsdotter, the regent of Denmark and Norway, to restor "order" 1389. She made the union in a treaty and crownd here sisters dothers son Erik from Pommern to be King of Norway, Denmark and Sweden 1397, the traditionaly start date of the union. From the start there were problems betwene the new king and the nobility becaus extra taxes to fund wars against countrys sweden where a major exporter to. By 1434 it resulted in uprisings against the union led by Engelbrekt.
So a war whit novgorod would destabilise the union a lot quicker. The areas of koala and karelia is unpopulated and not disputed in this time and place, there is litel of intrest and walue ther so if the swedish crown claimd it there would be no dispute (not then at least).
So a war whit novgorod would destabilise the union a lot quicker. The areas of koala and karelia is unpopulated and not disputed in this time and place, there is litel of intrest and walue ther so if the swedish crown claimd it there would be no dispute (not then at least).
So do you think it would be more likely for them to leave Novogorod alone, because the logistics would be too much to overcome?
Thanks for the input, but I was mainly asking about a conquest of Novgorod himself. I started a discussion about Swedish Karelia a few months ago... you can see it here.
The fact is that pre kalmar union sweden is not united enugh to take on a major trade city in the baltics. The crusades against the pagan finish were mere landgrabings among the coast and setling of more swedish speeking peopel in the fertil and easaly controled coast regions. Also the constant fighting whit the danes and intenraly made the crown sell the eastates it had gaind by conquest. The family Grips were one of the major land gainers by far of this and controld a majority of the eastates in finland by the mid 14th centuratry. If there is a more even distrubution of land amongst the large nobel famelieys and a frendlier danish-swedish relationship then there is a intrest in controling the gulf of finland (and the city of novgorod) to control the kurland trade rout (controld by the teutanic order).
Of cours a earlier "kalmar" union would also serve as a great leap to a more integeragted nobility to a common nordic achivment of total trade domination of the baltic sea. Now this would be oposed by the muscovic, the duch/spanish/burborn and the north german (hansan) traders.
Now the curia would suport a anexation of the heretic novgorodians and would probleby suport crusades against the urusp muscovic that impoesed to be this nonsens third rome. The nobility in the rodina (russian heartland) would probleby unite a lot faster around a muscovit prince to defend against the scandinavic/chatolic agression.
I would say yes there is a posibility whit a deciciv victory to hold and anex novgorod to sweden for a short period of the history. Maby whit changes and butterflies there could even be permanent...
Wow, your spelling really decayed towards the end.
Keep in mind that Moscow did not claim the "Third Rome" title until the mid 16th century. What changes would be needed to make it permanent?
Sorry for my spelling
will try to spell check in a program or something.“Third Rome” is an idea that starts spreading after the fall of Constantinople 1453. I’m aware of that. The idea Philoteus (Filofey) begin to spread around in the early 16th century is not as concept absent in the 14th century. Rodina were surrounded by heretic roman-Christian (catholic), Muslims and pagans (Ugric tribes). But then the curia would accept crusades against the heretic Muscovy instead driving home the point much earlier whiteout the fall of Constantinople.
The city-state has land from the Baltic coast to Uralic mountain spread as patches (there were attractive taxes and trade prospects whit salt and fur from the Urals). The church of Pskov were ruled by the bishop of Novgorod and many other factors were intermingled in the webs of tittles and land tenure that the Mongols had left in place when the concurred the area. Novgorod itself didn’t pay tribute to the golden horde but the prince of Muscovy did and so did the prince of Tver.
Ruled by elite of church men and a strong merchant class but it is still ruled by nobles and has a king elected amongst the nobles. It is divided in fifths that were ruled by starosta (elders) councils.
Of course Muscovy fought Novgorod for the right to tax and controls the trade of the Uralic lands in the 14th century. I don’t think Muscovy wouldn’t have liked Sweden to take control of all of Novgorod but taking some of its fifth would have made it less of a power in the area.
For Sweden there is really no central government to support large wars. There is several powerful families fighting for the power whit the Grips controlling a third of the land in Sweden and a king that cant check the other nobles against there power. By the 16th century there is a lot less nobility because the Danish executing some during the 14th century and the Stockholm Massacre 1520 to pave the rode for Gustav Vaasa to assume control over Sweden and install an absolute monarchy.
[FONT="]A possible POD is having the Swedish nobility executed 20 September 1396 when they are in nykoping to sign the union treaty. This would be a were unexpected and brutal event but would make the reign of [/FONT][FONT="]Margrete Valdemarsdotter[/FONT][FONT="] much more dependent on the “stormen” self owning farmers. Whit this POD there is a possibility to centralize the power of the king and threaten the Danish nobility whit execution if the doesn’t fall in line. Then in the early 15th century a great victory over a war torn Novgorod is the first step to concur the Hanseatic League citys befor the end of the 17th century.[/FONT]