Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
×




Details

Submitted on
June 3, 2014
Image Size
5.4 MB
Resolution
2218×2500
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
5,084 (11 today)
Favourites
95 (who?)
Comments
48
Downloads
83
×
United Kingdom of Scandinavia by Kuusinen United Kingdom of Scandinavia by Kuusinen
This is a map showing the administration centers of the fictional (or alternative historical) state United Kingdom of Scandinavia.

As one might imagine, this all began with the Kalmar Union in 1397 but did not end in the 16th century, but continued until this day, in a similar manner as in Britain and Iberia. I haven't figured out the detailed story, but as you can see, the shift has been towards Sweden during the centuries with focus on eastern expansion and loss of Slesvik. The Scandinavians have been successful in a series of wars with Russia, the last territorial acquisitions east of Finland probably being after the collapse of the Russian Empire in 1917 (which did not turn Soviet). Don't quite know what happened with the Germans in WWI, apparently, they kept their lands but I would think they lost the war in which Scandinavia was on the Entente side (thus intervening in the Russian Civil War). 

The speaker of the Scandinavian languages might be disturbed by the use of language here. This is my experimental creation of a what I thought would be a standard bokmål for the Scandinavian tongue, developed over the ages. As one can see, here, the balance of cultural power has been a bit towards the Swedes too. I am not a native speaker of these languages, so if you have suggestions please help me tweak it, I think its an interesting concept.


English translation for the on-map text:

"The Scandinavian Kindgom without overseas territories (Svalbard, Jan Mayen and presumably some tropical islands somewhere)
Statsgrense: Borders between states
Landsdelsgrense: Borders between landsdeler, an administrative division which may be translated as region.
Riksvegnettverket: The national road network. I suppose sub-networks are administered at the region level.
Landsdelshuvedort: Regional capital.
By med... etc.: City with over 100k and 50k inhabitants.
Islendska Fristaten: The Icelandic Free State
Den Finsk-Karelska Autnomonregionen: The Finnish-Karelian Autonomous Region.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconhyddan92:
Hyddan92 Featured By Owner Jan 12, 2015
In what universe would a united Scandinavia loose Slesvig and Holsten to the faul Germans?

I also think that we would have saved Estland in the east from the Orthodox barbarians as well.

Otherwise, really nice map.
Reply
:iconkuusinen:
Kuusinen Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2015  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Well, the Prussians defeated both Austria and France in the 1860s and these were among the world's most greatest powers in all fields. Why wouldn't they be able to defeat united Scandinavia over a piece of land that was not as important to Göteborg as it would have been for Denmark alone. 
Reply
:iconlordelthibar:
LordElthibar Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2015
Shouldn't that area be called Sampi? They don't like to be called Lapps. It is the same as calling a Japanese person a Jap and so on.
Reply
:iconkuusinen:
Kuusinen Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2015  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Good point. I actually didn't think of it at all. Although given the historical relationship of the Norwegian/Swedish authorities with the Sami, I seriously doubt they would name an official region in a language that is not Norwegian/Swedish, no matter how politically correct they are today. Besides, Lapland is still in use in Finland as far as I know.
Reply
:iconmonsieur-crasque:
First of all, very good work, I can see this as a possible outcome, had things only been a little different in the 16th century! :)

If, as you say, the cultural power had been a bit towards the Swedes, I would suggest changing "unntatt" to "undantaget", "Oslo" to "Kristiania" (that is, if Danish sovereignity did prevail until Kristian I and II ?) "Vesterbottnen" to "Västerbotten" and tweaking the northwestern border of Denmark to just south of Halmstad. Defense of the southern Götaland border was quite easy, especially with the construction of Göteborg in the 17th century, but Halmstad really had to be fought for to win as it was built a bit like a fortress. Sadly for the Danes, the city was built on the northern banks of the river, and not the southern. That means that when it was won over, it was practically impossible to overtake from the south.
(I happen to live in Halmstad, so I know the geography a bit. One of the gates to the city, with a piece of the wall attached, still stands as a monument to its bloody past!)
These are only suggestions, of course. Overall, stellar work. :aww:
Happy new year to you :)
Reply
:iconkuusinen:
Kuusinen Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2015  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Thank you sir and happy new year! I appreciate the feedback, and like I said here before, I will probably get back to this map and finalize it according to the fine feedback I have received here :) 
Reply
:iconmonsieur-crasque:
Monsieur-Crasque Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2015
You're welcome! I am glad to be able to give relevant feedback. (Not many alternate histories are about Scandinavia, so when you can finally be of use you gladly do so.)
I am confident that the end result will be great. 
Reply
:iconlehnaru:
Lehnaru Featured By Owner Nov 2, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
I love this! A united Scandinavia would be a force to be reckoned with. Awww, Memel isn't part of Germany anymore? I thought you said they kept their lands? ;)
Reply
:iconleopold002:
Leopold002 Featured By Owner Oct 29, 2014
Excellent map! :) (Smile) 
Reply
:iconskreba:
SkreBa Featured By Owner Aug 8, 2014
I would give good consideration on moving capital city of Finland into Åbo from Helsingfors since it was moved from there when Helsinki became capital under Russian rule in 19th century. Russians wanted to move Grand Duchy's capital more closer to St. Petersburg away from swedish-influenced Turku. This would keep capital closer to Scandinavian mainland as well. Helsinki would prolly be a large city in the area, whether it's capital it's questionable.

Also area you named should be called Tavastland instead Tavastehus, which is historical capital of the area. Tavastland should spread a little more west of Tavasthus to include few more municipalities. Not into Tammerfors thought which was part of Satakunda in early maps. S:t Michel (Mikkeli) might be over 50.000 pop with less migration from Savolax into Helsinfors area during 20th century.


I would also consider adding Kotka or it's relative Kymi at the mouth of Kymi river, which would have prolly formed into minor city even without large forts on Sweden-Russia border in 18th century. The sawmill industry was important in the area and it feeds from Päijänne Lake. Also before Sweden lost Vyborg the area around Kymi River was provincially linked closer to Vyborg instead of Helsingfors and Åbo.
Reply
:iconkuusinen:
Kuusinen Featured By Owner Aug 9, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Thank you. Getting back to this map and updating it as been on the agenda for weeks now. I'll get to it sooner than later. I'm no expert on Finland as you can see :)
Reply
:iconpischinovski:
Pischinovski Featured By Owner Aug 1, 2014  Hobbyist Artist
Great map! :)
Reply
:iconbruiser128:
bruiser128 Featured By Owner Jun 27, 2014
Would this mean that they keep their colonies.
Reply
:iconkuusinen:
Kuusinen Featured By Owner Jun 28, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
That's of course is a whole other story. They obviously are much stronger than in OTL, won much land in wars against the great Russian empire and so on and so forth. What do you think?
Reply
:iconbruiser128:
bruiser128 Featured By Owner Jun 28, 2014
i think it's pretty cool. Although I think it would be Britain's rival in naval terms.
Reply
:iconnaeddyr:
Naeddyr Featured By Owner Jun 6, 2014
Tavastehus should be more west, south of that Tı. shaped lake area in the west, north of the second N in "FINLAND". Oulu should be a bit more northeast, on the other side of that bay. Otherwise a nice map. :)
Reply
:iconmrtumulus:
MrTumulus Featured By Owner Jun 4, 2014
First off, I'd imagine that Greenland, Iceland, Faeroe Islands, Svalbard and Jan Mayen are all still owned by Scandinavia right? Secondly, I don't about you, but I think Gothenburg would be a much more fitting/centralized capital for Scandinavia rather than Kalmar.
Reply
:iconthorberg22:
Thorberg22 Featured By Owner Nov 8, 2014  Student Artist
Iceland is not "owned" by Scandinavia. But considering the fact that the majority of Icelanders are Scandinavians (and a pure ethnic group), the language is Scandinavian, the history is mostly associated with Scandinavia, the culture is Scandinavian. Iceland is pretty much Scandinavian, even though the Danes have never given Iceland much respect and refuse to recognize them as Scandinavians, but Norway sees Iceland as one of their closest brothers and Sweden likes Iceland. The Faroe Islands are also pretty much Scandinavians, Greenland and Faroes are within the Danish realm, Jan Mayen is a dead island which has no inhabitants and Svalbard is a Norwegian state. Many Icelanders today even want to re-unite with Norway as a Norwegian state.
Reply
:iconmrtumulus:
MrTumulus Featured By Owner Nov 8, 2014
Come on man, there's at least 20 polar bears on Jan Mayen; shouldn't they also be considered "Scandinavian"?
Reply
:iconthorberg22:
Thorberg22 Featured By Owner Nov 8, 2014  Student Artist
Well, there are Norwegian and Icelandic scientists who come and go to Jan Mayen and they're Scandinavians. Even though they only stay for a month or so at certain times of year. And the polar bears come from Greenland, usually on icebergs. And Greenland is rather Inuit than Scandinavian, despite being in the Danish realm.
Reply
:iconkuusinen:
Kuusinen Featured By Owner Jun 4, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Göteborg yes.

Greenland, faroe islands yes

Iceland, not so sure. They had such wild nationalism in OTL, but this ofcourse is a different scenario
Reply
:iconthearesproject:
TheAresProject Featured By Owner Jun 5, 2014  Hobbyist Artist
Iceland was in the union IOTL, as a part of Norway, and since both Norway and Finland, which had equally radical national movements, are still part of the union here I see no reason why Iceland wouldn't be as well.
Reply
:iconkuusinen:
Kuusinen Featured By Owner Jun 5, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
You are right, I considered this too. I hadn't decided, because I imagine the Danish, Swedish and Norwegians national identity fused together in this scenario, and that the Finns and Karelians are in a similar position as OTL Sámi, allthough they have their autonomous state within the union. But most probably I'll add Iceland.
Reply
:iconthearesproject:
TheAresProject Featured By Owner Jun 4, 2014  Hobbyist Artist
These subdivisions make precious little sense - parts of them appear to be based on units only created in the 20th century, while other parts cross mountain ranges and would therefore be nigh impossible to govern efficiently. Also, Kalmar was never actually the capital of anything - the union is known in historiography as the Kalmar Union only because the actual union treaty was signed there.
Reply
:iconkuusinen:
Kuusinen Featured By Owner Jun 4, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Oh, and I agree with you on Kalmar, and am going to change the capital. What do you suggest?
Reply
:iconthearesproject:
TheAresProject Featured By Owner Jun 5, 2014  Hobbyist Artist
Well, it's very much dependent on which of the three kingdoms was dominant going into the union, but if you're thinking of a neutral venue, I think Gothenburg is a really good location for it. Not only is it pretty much on the spot where Denmark, Norway and Sweden met until 1645, it's also roughly equidistant between the three capitals (Stockholm is a bit further away than the other two, but not really by that much), it's got a great natural port, and when Karl X Gustav had his dreams of Scandinavian empire, he envisioned it being the capital.
Reply
:iconkuusinen:
Kuusinen Featured By Owner Jun 4, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Thanks for the criticism, but remember, this is not a map of the Kalmar Union of the 14th century. I would suggest that these subdivisions are not from the Middle Ages, but indeed from the 20th century. That being said, maybe it still does not make sense, even in the 20th century, for subdivisions to cross mountains. 
Reply
:iconthearesproject:
TheAresProject Featured By Owner Jun 5, 2014  Hobbyist Artist
That's not what I was saying. What I was saying is there are some borders on this (like Hylte being part of Halland/Denmark rather than Småland/Götaland, or the exact border between the coastal and inland parts of South Ostrobothnia) that only came about in the later half of the 20th century, and would as such be hideously anachronistic in a TL where the original union stayed together. To make the borders less anachronistic, I'd suggest taking a good look at maps of the historical provinces of Sweden and Finland  - as for Norway you'll be fine as long as you don't split the modern counties, and Denmark is fairly obvious, though I'd suggest moving Funen over to Jutland, as the two of them had the same law until the juridical unification in the 17th century (Scania and Zealand each had their own laws as well) and are still considered somewhat interconnected.
Reply
:iconkuusinen:
Kuusinen Featured By Owner Jun 5, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Wow, I see that you are quite well read in Scandinavian history :) Thanks! I'll take this into consideration if I make changes to the map.
Reply
:iconthearesproject:
TheAresProject Featured By Owner Jun 5, 2014  Hobbyist Artist
I'm from those parts, so naturally that's the history I take an interest in.
Reply
:iconkuusinen:
Kuusinen Featured By Owner Jun 5, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Do you have any suggestions as to what the Sjælland-Skåne territory could be called instead of Denmark?
Reply
:iconthearesproject:
TheAresProject Featured By Owner Jun 6, 2014  Hobbyist Artist
Denmark works, frankly.
Reply
:iconmdc01957:
mdc01957 Featured By Owner Jun 4, 2014
This looks very well done!
Reply
:iconkuusinen:
Kuusinen Featured By Owner Jun 4, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Thanks :) allthoug i see now that I'm not satisfied yet, going to have to tweak it a bit
Reply
:iconmdc01957:
mdc01957 Featured By Owner Jun 4, 2014
Looking forward to it though. :)
Reply
:iconcoralarts:
CoralArts Featured By Owner Jun 4, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Very well done map. I absolutely have to favorite this! :D
Reply
:iconkuusinen:
Kuusinen Featured By Owner Jun 4, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Thanks!
Reply
:iconcoralarts:
CoralArts Featured By Owner Jun 4, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
You're welcome! :D
Reply
:iconarminius1871:
Arminius1871 Featured By Owner Jun 3, 2014
Beautiful, I would support this!

What about Ingermanland?

de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingerman…
Reply
:iconkuusinen:
Kuusinen Featured By Owner Jun 4, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Thank you! Ingermanland and St. Petersburg is/was far too important for the Russians to let go of it. I think they would have claimed it as first priority in every peace negotiations in every war between Russia and Scandinavia over the years. Besides, the Scandinavians were interested in the natural borders of Fenno-Scandinavia, not the Baltic coast.
Reply
:iconarminius1871:
Arminius1871 Featured By Owner Jun 4, 2014
That´s right, Russia wanted a city at the East Sea, there would´ve been to many wars for it then.
Reply
:iconkuusinen:
Kuusinen Featured By Owner Jun 4, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Yeah, I think that if they were in a tight situation in some peace negotiations, the Russians would gladly give up Karelia and Kola for said access to the East Sea.
Reply
:iconcheeseburgertom:
CheeseburgerTom Featured By Owner Jun 3, 2014
Sort of sad that they couldn't hold on to more of the east coast of the Baltic.
Reply
:iconkuusinen:
Kuusinen Featured By Owner Jun 4, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
No no, why hold on to overseas territories inhabited by foreign nations surrounded by power hungry continental powers like Germany and Russia? Sure, at some point Estonia, Ingermanland and even bits of Germany answered to the Scandinavian  kings, but the Scandinavian geopolitical policy in the 19th century was exclusive to Fenno-Scandinavia. Russia, of course, lost Eastern Karelia and the Kola peninsula in a series of wars and treaties, one can not have everything.
Reply
:iconienkoron:
Ienkoron Featured By Owner Jun 3, 2014
hmm After my mercantile Japanese empire might try this in EU....
Reply
:iconjanus366:
Janus366 Featured By Owner Jun 3, 2014
Beautiful map, it reminds me how much I like to form Scandinavia everytime I play a videogame made by (the Swedish) Paradox Interactive games like Europa Universalis or Victoria. I have always believed that Scandinavia was a country that should have unified much like Italy or Germany. Its a shame that it didn't happened, but i don't really know the nordic opinion about that matter or if a pan-escandinavian movement exists today.
Reply
:iconkuusinen:
Kuusinen Featured By Owner Jun 4, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Thank you sir. I agree, the Paradox games are awsome. 
Reply
:icondaneofscandinavy:
DaneOfScandinavy Featured By Owner Jun 3, 2014
I can assure you that a pan-Scandinavian movement still exists, I'm part of it, and I know many people who want to unite the Nordic Countries.
Reply
Add a Comment: