Wank norway.

[Gukpard]

I have been wondering how much can we wank norway without turning into something else, as in, making it cease to be norway and turn into some form of "Empire of Scandinavia".

For now I have been thinking that the best case scenario would be modern norway borders plus scotland, Shetland, Greenland, iceland and at the most Newfoundland. What do you think?

 

[Lalli]

Most important thing is keep Medieval Norway as independent so don't let its male lineage going to extinct at least not such way which would just get it too under foreign boot. Norway was too bigger at this time and had Iceland, parts of Greenland, Faroe Islands and Orkney Islands. Scotland could become part of Norway. Just let Maid of Norway, Margaret arrive to Scotland alive and health so she becomes queen of the Scots. She marries future Edward II of England (was actual plan in OTL but she died before even got to Scotland). Then let couple generations to pass and with some way Scotland becoming independent and joining to Norway with way or another.

In 16th century Norway could begin colonisation of North America.

 

[Viking25]

Most important thing is keep Medieval Norway as independent so don't let its male lineage going to extinct at least not such way which would just get it too under foreign boot. Norway was too bigger at this time and had Iceland, parts of Greenland, Faroe Islands and Orkney Islands. Scotland could become part of Norway. Just let Maid of Norway, Margaret arrive to Scotland alive and health so she becomes queen of the Scots. She marries future Edward II of England (was actual plan in OTL but she died before even got to Scotland). Then let couple generations to pass and with some way Scotland becoming independent and joining to Norway with way or another.

I don't think that makes all that much sense. In a theoretical splitting of the crowns I honestly think it's more likely that England gets Scotland not Norway due to the distance and sheer population difference between the two(Not to say it couldn't, just that its unlikely). Though there is a way to pull this off. Just have Margaret be born a boy thus uniting Scotland and Norway without those pesky English getting a say.

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

Nerf the Hanseatic League and try and mitigate the plague as much as possible (Norway got hit harder than the rest of Europe).

 

[Gukpard]

Nerf the Hanseatic League and try and mitigate the plague as much as possible (Norway got hit harder than the rest of Europe).

Most important thing is keep Medieval Norway as independent so don't let its male lineage going to extinct at least not such way which would just get it too under foreign boot. Norway was too bigger at this time and had Iceland, parts of Greenland, Faroe Islands and Orkney Islands. Scotland could become part of Norway. Just let Maid of Norway, Margaret arrive to Scotland alive and health so she becomes queen of the Scots. She marries future Edward II of England (was actual plan in OTL but she died before even got to Scotland). Then let couple generations to pass and with some way Scotland becoming independent and joining to Norway with way or another.

In 16th century Norway could begin colonisation of North America.

I don't think that makes all that much sense. In a theoretical splitting of the crowns I honestly think it's more likely that England gets Scotland not Norway due to the distance and sheer population difference between the two(Not to say it couldn't, just that its unlikely). Though there is a way to pull this off. Just have Margaret be born a boy thus uniting Scotland and Norway without those pesky English getting a say.

Ok, understood, so let's work with that.

The royal house of Norway survives. Norway doesn't get all Scotland or get it and loses to prevent the Anglos from assimilating it. The plague hits Norway less than OTL.

In this scenario I think we got the the borders I proposed with a difference that instead of Norway having all Scotland, maybe it only hold the Highlands. How strong would Norway be today?

 

[Arkenfolm]

If Norway gains all Scotland, then they won't be recognisably Norwegian, given medieval Scotland had more people. I also think that Norway's Scottish territories will end up more Scottish than not given they were ruled by Scottish lords long before they were legally pawned to Scotland.

Realistically, it would be something akin to what the WWII-era puppet regime of Vidkun Quisling desired. There is plenty of precedent for all of these claims minus the Kola Peninsula, which merely had a strong component of Norwegian fishermen. But Bohuslan (including modern Gothenburg) and Jamtland seem quite feasible to me. As do the Arctic islands of Russia like Novaya Zemlya and Franz Josef Land--could have a strong Norwegian component of fishermen and whalers leading to permanent Norwegian control, particularly the latter since it's well-removed from the Russian mainland.

The big one is going to be Vinland. Sponsor a mission there, use Vinland's resources to revitalise the dying Greenland colonies (which might do better anyway since neglectful as Norway was, they were still better than Denmark), and then gradually expand the settlements there. In just 150 years, Massachusetts alone went from just a few hundred white settlers to over 230,000 whites. This was fairly common in New England given the high rate of natural increase due to the need for large families thanks to poor agricultural conditions. Vinland would likely do similarly over the course of centuries, so starting with a few hundred Norwegian settlers in Newfoundland around 1500, we could see 2-3 million Norse in the Maritimes, Newfoundland+Labrador, Quebec, and into Ontario and northern New England/upstate New York.

Ultimately the problem Norway would have is lack of resources and manpower. It's like the Dutch situation but even worse, and Norway will have to pick either Britain or France as their ally and operate as an adjunct to their own empire. Given their huge amount of timber and naval stores and large fishing/whaling fleet to draw sailors from, they'll probably be a reasonable naval contender (and IMO far stronger than Denmark-Norway IOTL)--behind England, France, Spain, and the Netherlands, but well ahead of anyone else. But ultimately this constrains what territories Norway might retain and where they might colonise. I'm thinking they could take the Ohio/Illinois Country OR make an early claim overland for the Pacific Northwest, but they couldn't do both since both regions will be heavily contested. The former might be easier since they could set up a strong alliance of Indians and keep out anyone else until they have a "Northwest Confederacy" sort of state which they could slowly absorb and colonise. The Pacific Northwest won't come into play until the mid-18th century and is likely to have every naval power worth a damn plus Russia attempting to expand influence there.

Overall I'd say their trajectory would be like a northerly version of Portugal--heavily naval-focused, reliant on fishing (plus timber), and increasingly dominated by their primary colony.

 

[von Adler]

@Arkenfolm has a very good take on it, IMHO.

A few things that could help Norway do better.

• A continued papal ban on trade with the muslims, or at least some restrictions on Venice's blatant violation on it. One of the primary trade goods of the Greenland colony was walrus tusks as a replacement for ivory. If that trade remains profitable, the Norwegian Kings will have a reason to keep their bargain to send ships to Greenland to trade and to continue to explore North America.

• As others have said, Norway doing better in the plague. Some scholars thing Norway lost up to 80% of her population. Norway had a law where people could squat on free (ie non-noble, non-church, non-royal) land and if no-one claimed it, it became theirs after 60 years. During the plague, the tenants of the nobility simply left and squatted on land void of owners after the plague, forcing the Norwegian nobility (informal so, Norwaynever had a system of formal nobility on its own) to revent to farming their own land, more or less eradicating them as a social class. This of course

• Have Luther and the protestants still observe lent. One of the primary trade goods of Norway was dried cod for people to eat during lent, when meat was forbidden. This would also mean the great cod banks would be more profitable once discovered.

• You would probably have to weaken both Sweden and Denmark and their ambitions - they will be fighting over Norway as the way to gain supremacy over the other. This was the case OTL after Norway was weakened by the plague. OTL Sweden had been weakened both by the plague and Bo Jonsson (Grip)s personal crusade against royal power in Sweden, so Denmark won out.

• Norway would probably have to limit its ambition to not try to compete with Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands and England over the spice and sugar trade. That way they become a non-threatening reliable trade partner with whale oil, walrus tusks, dried cod, salted herring and salmon, lumber, hemp and tar as well as able and willing sailors for their merchant marine (OTL a significant part of the Dutch merchant marine was manned by Norwegian sailors).

 

[Lord High Executioner]

Bohuslan (including modern Gothenburg)

Gothenburg was founded in 1604, which is probably a bit late to wank Norway unless you want to wait until Quisling to do so,
but a wanked Norway (which presumably controls the mouth of Göta älv) would presumably get a proper city going somewhere
around the same place earlier.

 

[von Adler]

Gothenburg was founded in 1604, which is probably a bit late to wank Norway unless you want to wait until Quisling to do so,
but a wanked Norway (which presumably controls the mouth of Göta älv) would presumably get a proper city going somewhere
around the same place earlier.

The place was used for trade with a yearly fairly lage fair long before there was a castle or a town at the site. In Norwegian hands it would be a valuable location that woudl require strong fortifications to hold (just ask Sweden who paid throught he nose four times - two constructions and two ransoms) for it.

 

[Gukpard]

@Arkenfolm has a very good take on it, IMHO.

A few things that could help Norway do better.

• A continued papal ban on trade with the muslims, or at least some restrictions on Venice's blatant violation on it. One of the primary trade goods of the Greenland colony was walrus tusks as a replacement for ivory. If that trade remains profitable, the Norwegian Kings will have a reason to keep their bargain to send ships to Greenland to trade and to continue to explore North America.

• As others have said, Norway doing better in the plague. Some scholars thing Norway lost up to 80% of her population. Norway had a law where people could squat on free (ie non-noble, non-church, non-royal) land and if no-one claimed it, it became theirs after 60 years. During the plague, the tenants of the nobility simply left and squatted on land void of owners after the plague, forcing the Norwegian nobility (informal so, Norwaynever had a system of formal nobility on its own) to revent to farming their own land, more or less eradicating them as a social class. This of course

• Have Luther and the protestants still observe lent. One of the primary trade goods of Norway was dried cod for people to eat during lent, when meat was forbidden. This would also mean the great cod banks would be more profitable once discovered.

• You would probably have to weaken both Sweden and Denmark and their ambitions - they will be fighting over Norway as the way to gain supremacy over the other. This was the case OTL after Norway was weakened by the plague. OTL Sweden had been weakened both by the plague and Bo Jonsson (Grip)s personal crusade against royal power in Sweden, so Denmark won out.

• Norway would probably have to limit its ambition to not try to compete with Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands and England over the spice and sugar trade. That way they become a non-threatening reliable trade partner with whale oil, walrus tusks, dried cod, salted herring and salmon, lumber, hemp and tar as well as able and willing sailors for their merchant marine (OTL a significant part of the Dutch merchant marine was manned by Norwegian sailors).

Is this doable?

Spoiler: Norwegen controlled Scotland

 

[von Adler]

Is this doable?

Spoiler: Norwegen controlled Scotland

Might be. Not that it gives the Norwegians anything tangible of value that he islands do not. The islands already gave the Norwegians basing to intervene on the British Isles should they wish to.

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

I feel like the Norwegians staying in Scotland to any significant degree comes with a needless risk of getting entangled in British affairs and all the complications therein. Better for them to just leave the island to the Scots and English and focus on maintaining a grip on everything north of the British Isles.

 

[Lord High Executioner]

The place was used for trade with a yearly fairly lage fair long before there was a castle or a town at the site. In Norwegian hands it would be a valuable location that woudl require strong fortifications to hold (just ask Sweden who paid throught he nose four times - two constructions and two ransoms) for it.

Japp.

 

[Gwyain]

Most important thing is keep Medieval Norway as independent so don't let its male lineage going to extinct at least not such way which would just get it too under foreign boot. Norway was too bigger at this time and had Iceland, parts of Greenland, Faroe Islands and Orkney Islands. Scotland could become part of Norway. Just let Maid of Norway, Margaret arrive to Scotland alive and health so she becomes queen of the Scots. She marries future Edward II of England (was actual plan in OTL but she died before even got to Scotland). Then let couple generations to pass and with some way Scotland becoming independent and joining to Norway with way or another.

In 16th century Norway could begin colonisation of North America.

Margaret is a non-starter for Norway. She's not in the line of succession, the future Haakon V is. The fact that she's betrothed to Edward is another issue, since England and Scotland will come into union long before anything with Norway can even be contemplated.

 

[Jürgen]

The place was used for trade with a yearly fairly lage fair long before there was a castle or a town at the site. In Norwegian hands it would be a valuable location that woudl require strong fortifications to hold (just ask Sweden who paid throught he nose four times - two constructions and two ransoms) for it.

The early value of Elfborg/Gothenburg was that it gave Sweden access to the Atlantic around Danish controlled territories, later after the conquest of Scania, Halland, and Bohuslän, it was simply inertia of it already being a major town which kept it going.

I would say that to wank Norway you need to instead to think how can you strengthen Norway while still keeping it Norwegian? I would say Norway getting control of Västre Götaland, Warmland and Lappmarken would be the thing to get from Sweden. With Denmark Norway is better off if Denmark ends up splintering in the kingless time.

 

[CaedmonCousland]

I also think that Scotland is more a hindrance than anything. At least mainland. Outer Hebrides and Orkney provide the naval stops to interfere in the British Isles, while also requiring enemy action take naval action. Inner Hebrides and any mainland territory would be too easily taken. Norway would have to militarily eviscerate Scotland every few generations to keep them, and a personal union with Scotland would be more a slow cultural loss there. Haakon IV's expedition seems the easiest place to change with little impact. He died in the middle of his expedition, hadn't been decisively defeated, etc. A different Battle of Largs or Haakon just living a few extra years and there's a chance for victory there, with same Magnus VI following. You'd then have to follow it up though with Norwegian kings determined to assert control, because appointing nearby Scottish lords merely sworn for this land to Norway to avoid conflict is just a slow slide to same result.

Now, I consider the Black Death and aftermath as the most important part of any Norway boost. Even if you were willing to allow a Kalmar Union type deal (honestly starting to not like that way of referencing it. Personal unions shouldn't be put with that baggage), I'd consider an enduring Kingdom of Norway inside a personal union as an absolute win compared to OTL. Not a wank as people imagine, but the degradation of Norway till Denmark-Norway lead to a 500 year nadir. A Norway even inside the Union that had the population and strength to ensure it didn't fall into a Danish-Swedish feud/diarchy is basically what I planned for my old Bjelbo TL attempt.

Still, even avoiding that. While Norway was always in line for some hard times with the Little Ice Age, but the timing of the Plague and its subordination in that time to Denmark really screwed it. Norway needed people inside the country intent on it recovering, and Denmark never quite wanted it. Mitigating the initial plague is unlikely. Norway was as well suited to it as elsewhere. Plentiful farmhands cultivated secondary land while returning to central homesteads. There was immense trade between inland and coastal villages. Norway actually had a surprising number of pilgrims during this time. Plague wiped out many nobles by opening up land to be claimed till few surviving nobles were forced to work their own land, but it also created a shift from grain to livestock. Latter was more lucrative for people and required less farmhands, but it was overall less productive for national population and tore down local trade structure. Coastal villages couldn't trade their fish for inland grain, necessitating more reliance on Hanseatic grain. Inland regions also now needed grain shipped.

Which all caused a repeated pattern of plague near every decade or so. Remember, the plague was a pretty consistent thing even after 13501. Grain trade was ideal way for it to spread, and Norway had effectively lost its local grain production and became reliant on international Hanseatic ships for it.

So, something needs to mitigate these later waves. King that focuses strongly on encouraging grain production. Work against Hanseatic domination. If Norwegian population grows enough that it naturally shifts back to grain production, it would be a hard short-term shift but far more beneficial in the long term.

Now, here's arguably the second biggest thing. Hanseatic League. That was the reverse in that it was beneficial in the short-term, but detrimental in long term. Even before the Black Plague, that was showing itself. As soon as it achieved a main monopoly on trade, it was using it. Almost every time Norway had a precarious food or supply situation after it's native traders degraded, League started withholding its goods in return for rights. After the Plague, this accelerated. Norway became dependent on foreign grain, Hanseatic League started blockading Norway, and Hansa waged war several times where they were very destructive. Even attacking in official ceasefires. Have notes somewhere which has more specifics on how deep their control went. Like in lean years, coincidentally often during years Hansa was blockading Norway or attacking it, Hansa offered equipment and stuff to actual stockfish farmers which basically forced them to sell to Hansa at lower rates. In its nadir times, Norway wasn't able to produce ships and didn't have enough influence over their trade to get things like wine for religious ceremonies. Despite Hansa using Norway as part of its network trade with wine producing regions, they instead insisted on selling beer in Norway even as literal bishops were saying they didn't have enough wine. Hansa had beer, wanted to trade that for all the Norwegian good they sold elsewhere on network, and I'm pretty sure even caused incidents of leaving boats at docks (halting traffic) until they sold all the beer.

So, yeah. Hansa was beneficial in beginning, but by decades after plague were an absolute net-loss if Norway could figure out some way to stabilize internal food situation. Someone limiting their growth is absolutely essential. Whether that is a post-plague recovery that coincides with Danish efforts against the League or an earlier thing in never allowing them to get such a stranglehold over Norwegian trade, it has to be done. So, some method of encouraging merchants. Just as important is shipbuilding though. Hansa had huge advantage because Lubeck became major center of shipbuilding, and it wasn't till centuries later that Scandinavians didn't have far smaller ships. Proper trade vessels mean more cargo space, more security in traveling, adapting docks, etc. Maybe something on the Gota alv, it only because it would provide easier access to Swedish metals.

Honestly, a lot of other things are just secondary in comparison. If it happens, the Norway-Sweden personal union till dissolved should have been aimed at Novgorod's Finnish and Karelians land. Norway expanding alongside coast till Kola and then into White Sea is something plausible, and Sweden had enough eastern conflicts that a Norwegian focus on eastern targets too could have been source of cooperation. Vinland is such a future thing that you basically need a healthy Kingdom of Norway already established for it to take effect. Norway alone would also quite soon be outnumbered by any steady Vinland colony, although a basically New World colony becoming national metropole that uses Norway as foothold in Europe has some interesting possibilities. For Vinland though, it's another area where trade control and robust native shipbuilding is necessary. You need crown with enough excess funds to keep sending expeditions to Greenland primarily for prestige and side trade, and better and cheaper ships make it easier to do it consistently and safely.

 

[von Adler]

The early value of Elfborg/Gothenburg was that it gave Sweden access to the Atlantic around Danish controlled territories, later after the conquest of Scania, Halland, and Bohuslän, it was simply inertia of it already being a major town which kept it going.

I would say that to wank Norway you need to instead to think how can you strengthen Norway while still keeping it Norwegian? I would say Norway getting control of Västre Götaland, Warmland and Lappmarken would be the thing to get from Sweden. With Denmark Norway is better off if Denmark ends up splintering in the kingless time.

I'd argue that Norway could keep Älvsborg or whatever the name of the fortress they build to control the mouth of Göta Älv without going deeper into Västergötland, like Sweden kept Bremen (except the actual city). Like Bremen allowed Sweden to put tolls on any trade entering or leaving the Weser river, the Norwegian Älvsborg would allow Norway to do the same to Swedish trade. It would be a very profitable thing, and a source of real coin in the 15-17th centuries, when peasants paid their taxes in goods.

 

[Jürgen]

I'd argue that Norway could keep Älvsborg or whatever the name of the fortress they build to control the mouth of Göta Älv without going deeper into Västergötland, like Sweden kept Bremen (except the actual city). Like Bremen allowed Sweden to put tolls on any trade entering or leaving the Weser river, the Norwegian Älvsborg would allow Norway to do the same to Swedish trade. It would be a very profitable thing, and a source of real coin in the 15-17th centuries, when peasants paid their taxes in goods.

The thing is that Västergötland is not the Weser basin, there lives more than 10 million people in Weser basin today (at the time there likely lived around 2-3 million people in the region) and it includes some very valuable regions.

 

[von Adler]

The thing is that Västergötland is not the Weser basin, there lives more than 10 million people in Weser basin today (at the time there likely lived around 2-3 million people in the region) and it includes some very valuable regions

Yes, buy Norway would not have the grand power ambitions that Sweden had - Norway would not need to maintain an army capable of taking on Russia, Poland-Lithuania, Denmark and the Holy Roman Empire (and often 2-3 of them at the same time), only enough to keep a less strong Sweden out.

Älvsborg would still be a good boon to a wanked Norway.

 

[Plickety Cat]

1263 - Haakon VI leaves Bergen with his war fleet in late spring, as soon as the weather improves, doesn't tolerate Alexander's delay tactics, and attacks midsummer. The Battle of Largs (or wherever) is a decisive victory for Norway, a right proper trouncing. However, Haakon realizes the futility of trying to keep mainland territory if the native highland clan isn't aligned to the Norwegian Cause. The new Treaty of Perth concluded before October or the following April, after Haakon survives the winter in Orkney, sells/rents the Argyll peninsula (turned Scoto-Norman in 1250) and the Isles of Clyde to Scotland; but keeps Kintyre, Knapdale, and Lorne still happy with Norwegian suzerainty. Likewise, Norway keeps the Hebrides and Mann with a proper appointed Jarl of Sudreyjar to reduce the clan feuds, which Magnus VI's new law code (crimes are offenses against the state) will soon curtail. Most importantly, Haakon lives at least until 1270, dying around 65 like Henry III, to conclude trade agreements and defensive treaties... and build more ships

1270 - Magnus VI doesn't stop having kids after an heir and a spare, doesn't die in 1280, and lives until at least 1305, dying around 68 like Edward I, after Erik and Haakon are both legal age (21) and Norway has formidable fleets (plural) in the Baltic, North, and Irish Sea. Immigration incentives -- Don't want to Normanize? Nordicize!

1282 - Llewelyn ap Gruffud doesn't get tricked into dying at the Battle of Orewin Bridge, trounces the English, and at least keeps them busy in Wales for a few more years. Edward outright breaks Princess Eleanor's betrothal to Alfonso of Aragon, or at least swaps her for Joan of Acre, when Peter and Constance are put under papal interdict over Sicily and negotiates her marriage to Prince Alexander instead. The Papacy loves England, so the betrothal annulment/swap and dispensation for consanguinity are promptly issued. Haakon, Duke of Norway is betrothed to Richeza of Denmark, firstborn daughter of Eric V Klipping. The Papacy loves Norway, so the dispensation for consanguinity is issued. Agnes Haakonsdotter is legitimate, Um, Harald, Duke of East Norway is betrothed to first born Ingeborg Magnussdotter of Sweden (she married Eric VI Menved OTL). The Norwegian-Swedish alliance against Denmark and its constant Slesvig-Holstein-internecine issues strengthens and Danish influence in the Baltic diminishes.

1283 - Margaret Dunkeld, Queen of Norway doesn't die in childbirth. She and Erik have plenty of sons and daughters -- none of whom become heirs to the Scottish throne but do keep the Norwegian monarchy and Jarldoms of Nordreyjar, Sudreyjar, Iceland and Greenland--subsequently navy and trade--going strong.

1284 - Alphonso, Earl of Chester lives to marry Margaret of Holland and have plenty of sons and daughters with her. Edward of Caenarfon is stillborn, and Eleanor of Castile dies in childbirth. Edward marries Margaret of Flanders. Thus he and Guy don't plot Floris's assassination and proto-Belgium and Netherlands continues to pull away from France without getting completely sucked into the HRE, and the Hansa remain more heavily west of Jutland. Alexander IV doesn't die and has plenty of sons and daughters with Eleanor of England--no succession crisis or war of independence.

1286 - When Eric V is assassinated (4th in a row) in 1286, the Danehof elects Haakon king of hereditary Denmark based on the claims of his mother and wife, halting the "Age of Decay". The Danish royal House of Sverre-Estridssen flourishes. Magnus VII Erikson, junior king of Norway, marries Margarethe Eriksdotter (aka Martha of Sweden in OTL). The Norwegian royal House of Sverre continues to flourishe.

1299 - Erik II doesn't die until Magnus VII is legal age with an heir and a spare. Harald and family establish the hereditary Kingdom of Iceland, which administers the Greenland colonies and remains closely tied to Norway, Sweden, and the Isles, which now includes Sudreyjar, Nordreyjar, and Faereyjar... possibly Gaelic Ireland. Forming a Scottish-Welsh alliance, Prince Alexander marries Gwenlian ferch Llewelyn of Gwenydd (captured as an infant and imprisoned her whole life in a Lincolnshire convent OTL).

1306, Birger--oops!-- dies during the Hatuna Games because Norway and Denmark don't intervene. Thus, his more competent brothers aren't captured at the Nyköping Banquet and starved to death.

Erik is elected king of hereditary Sweden and Valdemar still becomes Duke of Finland. Erik "XII" the Wise marries Ingeborg Eriksdotter of Norway and Valdemar marries Ingeborg Haakonsdotter of Denmark. Both Swedish Sverre-Bjelbo lines flourish and the Kingdom of Finland is formed, begins re-absorbing Karelia from Novgorod, but Scandinavia learns vital republican lessons from the proto-Russians. The Nordic Commonwealth forms with internal autonomy, similar tailored domestic policies, common foreign policies (blend of bloc merchantilism and capitalist free trade), and top-tier Kings Council (rather than one king, which killed Kalmar OTL). Most importantly, Scandinavian Royal and Merchant Navy is HUGE, totally dominating--but sharing/taxing--the Baltic, North, Irish, and White Seas and North Atlantic/South Arctic, especially after absorbing the Pomors.

Great Famine and Black Death less devastating for the Nordic Commonwealth due to larger interrelated aristocracy that isn't fighting each other all the time, immigration policy, and mobility... and eating fish rather than bread!

Heavy recruitment, religious/ethnic tolerance, and bilateral expansion while remaining as neutral as possible in Anglo/Continental European affairs sets them up for an Arctic Empire during the Age of Discovery, especially as they'll likely have already colonized "Eriksson's Bay" and possibly reached Alaska already because their indigenous and transplanted population is already uniquely adapted to the frigid polar Pre-Industrial climate.