Kalmar Union was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Delisted version: June 9, 2006
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Flag
- 2 Graphic of the royal lineages
- 3 The Sture party and Vasa's rise to power
- 4 Delisted
- 5 Denmark "allied with" or "at war" with Holstein
- 6 Subject for possible inclusion
- 7 Dissolved 1523 or 1536?
- 8 Norway (with Iceland and Greenland)?
- 9 Capital= Copenhagen?
- 10 Alternative History
- 11 Praise
- 12 Move
- 13 Factually wrong probably
- 14 Incomprehensible heraldic note moved here so that...
- 15 "explain reason of removal before removing"
Graphic of the royal lineages
I added a graphic of the royal lineages in Scandinavia around 1400. The graphic could use a translation from Danish to English but most people should be able to make sense of it. Anyone should feel free to make an english version.--Heelgrasper 03:48, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The Sture party and Vasa's rise to power
I think a page is needed (or perhaps on this page) for a more cohesive description of the events leading up to Sweden leaving the Kalmar Union and afterwards. Right now, this content is spread out over the pages for Christian II of Denmark, the Stockholm Bloodbath, Christina Gyllenstierna and Gustav I of Sweden. There is a bit of redundancy between these pages, yet other parts of the story are missing. (I personally wrote up the Battle of Bogesund.) So I'd like to add some more info on this, but I'm not sure what to call it? There doesn't quite seem to be an accepted term for it. I've seen "Sten Sture den yngres krig mot Danmark" (Sten Sture the Younger's war on Denmark), which is what I used. Maybe it should be put under a "Sture party" (Sturepartiet) page. Comments? --BluePlatypus 22:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I have to delist this from a GA, there are no references, that's not right! Homestarmy 16:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for attempting to put this article on the right track, early in its history. This article is a case study in why articles should not be allowed to develop, from the point of their inception, without sources. We now have a morass of unreferenced material waiting for a saviour to return to it to attempt to determine, post hoc and forensically, what information is valid, and from whence it can be sourced. I would recommend a scholar in these matters, sources in hand, just begin replacing whole paragraphs, one by one, with well-written, well-sourced prose. For the dearth of sourcing is just one indicator of the article's poor quality; the writing is substandard as well. Bonne chance. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Denmark "allied with" or "at war" with Holstein
In the introduction Sweden is described as unhappy with the Danish and Holsteinish influence implying that these two were allied, yet later in the article Denmark makes war on Holstein (among others). I've read about this period but not enough to resolve this seeming contradiction.
- reply: Since 1460, Holstein was a principality whose ruler was Denmark's king, too. Not actually an alliance, but a personal union. Danish kings tended to draw cadres of officials from Holstein, to serve in various other places. However, in 1530s or so, a portion of Holstein was given to a younger son of the Danish king. And future kings would have wars against that guy's descendants, who were, for shorthand, called Dukes of Holstein, though they did not possess the whole Holstein.
- Moreover, sometime in 1470s or so, Danish king, the new ruler of H., launched conquest to subjugate some small border districts in or near Holstein, such as Ditmarschen. some could call that also a Holstein war. Suedois 17:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Subject for possible inclusion
o There was considerable political conflicts about the charters in which the Union was settled that are not included at the moment.
o I'm also missing that the important struggle between the Danes and the Hansa was over Danish aspirations to tax trade through the Sound. As a result of fighting the question was raised about compensation for losses due to Danish piracy.
o Of some importance for the formation of the Union was the fact that the Swedish and Danish nobility owned land on both sides of the borders so they had a common interest with the Union. As the conflicts grew between the countries the nobility were forced by the kings to take sides losing the cross-border property. This also influenced increased polarization as time passed.
o Aftermath: several wars were fought between Sweden and Denmark were the latters kings wanted to restore their kingdom.
Dissolved 1523 or 1536?
According to the article the Union was still existing formally until 1536, yet the opening paragraph claims it was dissolved in 1523, which is really when Sweden seceded.
- The union was never actually formally dissolved! (Just like the Korean war is still ongoing - formally:-). It was de facto dissolved when Gustav Vasa seized power - or - when Christian III declared in his accession charter that Norway should remain "a province of Denmark eternally" (Ledemodt af Danmarks Rige) I.e the new royal union succeeded the old Kalmar one. Depending on how you interpret the history H@r@ld 09:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Norway (with Iceland and Greenland)?
But Shetland & Orkney came under Scottish control from 1470/71 (formally annexed '71) - so the map is wrong to include them at 'the start of the sixteenth century' - could someone fix that?Costesseyboy (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Although both island groups were de facto part of Scotland, de jure they still belonged to the Kingdom of Norway, as they had only been "pawned" (put up as collateral) against a promised dowry, but with a stipulation that they could be redeemed against a certain lump sum later (210 kg gold): This was apparently attempted several times during the 17th and 18th century (but it was refused) according to the Wikipedia entry on Orkney and its sources. So in principle, both Orkney and Shetland were still part of the Kingdom of Norway and thus the Kalmar Union.
- Mojowiha (talk) 08:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- The map shows entire Greenland as a part of the union. In the beggining of the 15th century didn't Scandinavia have any controll or contact with the Greenland settlements and had not had any since the last ship from the Norway in 1406. I don't know wether Norway and later Denmark kept their claim on the Eastern Settlement until the 16th century but the rest of Greenland wasn't claimed by them and never had been(except the Western Settlement that was abandoned long before). This map could be used instead if Orkney and Shetland is added http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kalmar_Union_c._1500.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Copenhagen was not the capital of the Kalmar Union. Infact, there was no official capital but the city you shuld count as a capital was kalmar. Cause that was were the King and Queen lived. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- I dont think they lived in Kalmar. IIRC Margrete resided in Falsterbo, but I could be wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I believe that in this period there is a gradual transition towards a "sedentary" rather than a "travelling" monarchy. A medieval European monarch would often spend much time personally travelling his kingdom, collecting taxes and having his retinue supported by local nobles en route. Note the references in the type of document called "håndfæstning"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%A5ndf%C3%A6stning) which set limits to the duration of a royal stay in a locality, to avoid abuse (called "voldgæstning", litt. "violent guesting") of this form of mandatory "hospitality".
- So a capital in the modern sense of the word did not necessarily exist, and Copenhagen would only become the undisputed capital of Denmark during the latter half of the 15th century. According to the Danish Wikipedia article on the history of Copenhagen (http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B8benhavns_historie), Christopher of Bavaria (Christopher III) made the city his permanent residence in 1443, and its position was strengthened by the foundation of the University of Copenhagen in 1479. Much of the now iconic buildings of "royal Copenhagen" (Rundetårn, Børsen, Rosenborg, Holmens Kirke, Kastellet etc.) was built even later during the rule of Christian IV, 1588-1648).
- This argues in favour of a removal or at least qualification "(*)" of the claim of Copenhagen as Kalmar Union capital
- Mojowiha (talk) 08:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm removing the external link Alternative history scenario in which the Kalmar Union survived per WP:CRYSTAL. Alternative histories are, by their nature, speculative and unverifiable. They have no place in a Wikipedia article such as this one. This link is arguably pertinent at Counterfactual history, but not here. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I would characterize it that way, exactly. But in a history article, including alternative history hypotheticals like this one runs against the pursuit of historians: sorting out what happened, why, and what it all means; and it can become very confusing to the general reader, who may be very unfamiliar with that history. We must assume that most people reading this article are largely unfamiliar with the factual history of the Kalmar Union. It is difficult enough for us to explain and clarify that history within the policies and customs of WP, without diverting people onto such confounding tangents.
- Even this link does have its place, however, as it may be appropriate to the Counterfactual history article. Indeed, this alternative history exercise serves far better to clarify and enlighten to the general reader the nature of alternative history exercises than it does about the Kalmar Union. While it may be of trivial interest to Scandinavian history buffs, it could only serve to confuse the general reader—and that is, after all, ultimately whom Wikipedia is for. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 02:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Factually wrong probably
The intro states:
- The countries had not technically given up their sovereignty, nor their independence, but in practical terms, they were not autonomous, the common monarch holding the sovereignty and, particularly, leading foreign policy...
In practical terms the Kalmar Union was a failure and most time not functioning, at least regarding Sweden, who repeatedly rebelled against the union king, and either chosed a Swedish regent in the place of a king, or one time elected their own union king that practically had no power except over Sweden. Those repeated episode were interspersed with the Swedish nobility negotiating an agreement with the union king, under the conditions that all union administration was in the control of the Swedish nobility. The agreements were invariably broken by the union king, and then Sweden rebelled anew. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 18:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- - I fail to see where your claims necessarily contradicts the quotation. The quote does not imply that the Kalmar Union was a success, but that the monarch "lead" the "foreign policy" (a problematic term when dealing with pre-Westphalian Europe). Sovereignty in the sense used here is a de jure question of kingship and need not imply effectiveness "on the ground", which was always a problem for medieval rulers. Furthermore, Charles VIII and the struggle over control and kingship is mentioned in the article. All in all these struggles are not much different from other conflicts in medieval Europe, note for instance the struggle surrounding the de facto dissolution (1332-40) of the Danish kingdom and its restoration (in general the period ca. 1240-1375). Also, please add your sources as the article in general is pretty short on references.
- Mojowiha (talk) 08:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Incomprehensible heraldic note moved here so that...
...text can be turned into sentences understandable to lay readers unversed in heraldic jargon. Here is the note that was moved (with ref markup language removed for sake of appearance):
depicting: (Centre): a lion rampant crowned maintaining an axe (representing the Hereditary Kingdom of Norway) within an inescutcheon upon a cross over all; Quarterly: in Dexter Chief, three lions passant in pale crowned and maintaining a Danebrog upon a semy of hearts (representing Denmark); in Sinister Chief: three crowns (representing Sweden or the Kalmar Union); in Dexter Base: a lion rampant (Folkung lion) (representing Sweden); and in Sinister Base: a griffin segreant to sinister (representing Pomerania).
...so you decided to remove it because you thought it could be phrased better. Good luck with that approach on Wikipedia. The real reason why you might have been justified in removing it is that it was apparently unreferenced, and that the best place to give a description of the coat of arms of Eric of Pomerania may conceivably be the article dedicated to Eric of Pomerania. --dab (𒁳) 13:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)