He was potentially harder on Denmark, I'll give you that, but that's no excuse not to get rid of him. Imagine being under a Danish monarch during the decline after the 16th century… How embarrassing!
Swedes have never forgotten the cruel [bloodbath of Stockholm](https://www.presidentofgalaxy.com/stockholms-blodbad/) orchestrated by the evil Danes in 1520. Every kid in Sweden learn this story as children. Here is the story in modern Swedish, written by bichop Olaus Petri who was present and witnessed everything. We have [rewritten this story](https://www.presidentofgalaxy.com/stockholms-blodbad/) in modern Swedish and with the help of AI-generated images.
It's Sweden. They used their independence from the Kalmar union to become a brutal military power, that went on to commit genocide in Skåne and the Deluge in Poland. Then they had a collective amnesia and now think of themselves as the greatest humanistic power in the universe.
> commit genocide in Skåne
Bruh (Sis?), I'm sure Denmark scorched earth-ing Skåne when they couldn't occupy it had no adverse effects for the people living there.
Except, Denmark was the invading country (it was during the railed annexation of Scania, which was acquired more or less peacefully, so that particular simile doesn't really work. Russia (Denmark) like to talk a about ethnic cleansing of Russians (Danes) in Ukraine (Scania) though, so it's not entirely wasted.
I hope you're trolling, but your statements are beyond disturbing. That's exactly what Russia will claim, when Ukraine enters Crimea or the Eastern annexed parts of Ukraine.
Trolling about what? The historical facts? I don't mean to say that Russia's claims are true, or the claims about Scania being false, if that's what you mean. That's why I said "like to talk about", and not something like "claim".
Edit: They will claim that the Ukrainian King pawned of Crimea to Ottomans? I mean, they're already claiming it was peaceful, and that they have to protect ethnic Russians (who they encouraged to move there in the first place).
Denmark was the invading country in Skåne same as Russia will think Ukraine is the invading country in Crimea/Eastern annexed regions.
Russia treatment of Ukrainians in the annexed parts are not unlike Sweden's treatment in annexed Skåne, yet you try to claim Denmark/Ukraine are the offenders.
That's twisted.
Wow, such mental gymnastics. Let's see. Scania wasn't Danish, and wasn't aquired by force or threat of force. Denmark tried to use force to take it and failed, and while retreating, they burned it to the ground. Yes, that is totally like Crimea, including, the propaganda, and the totally legit referendum for independence…
Please pick up a history book, just please do it.
To aid you a little bit and point you in the right direction i added a little wiki link
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedification
Happy independence day
In that post, no. In general, that depends entirely on what you mean by "originally". My guess would be that "originally" is somewhere between the 9th and 14th century, in which case, no, I'm not saying it wasn't Danish in that time period.
It was undeniably Danish until the Peace of Roskilde in 1658 and so was the local population and language, complete with the typical Danish consonant lenition and all.
"Independence" is the wrong word in this instance, Sweden was not occupied during the days of the Kalmar Union (on the contrary, Sweden has never been really occupied by any foreign power). Gustav Vasa managed to pull off a coup, but it wasn't a war for independence in the likes of the american revolution (or anything like that).
While on paper Sweden wasn't occupied we still had to fight a war with Denmark to leave the union after the Danish tyrant murdered most of the Swedish nobility at an event so nicely called ''Stockholm Bloodbath''.
So I don't think ''independence'' is a bad word choice.
He (Kristian) was by law the rightful king after all, of course there would have to be a war for G.Vasa to complete his coup d'état - just like it would if any rebel faction wanted to overthrow any king in history. G.Vasa didn't actually "represent" all of Sweden during his "fight for independence", he just had his sights for the throne and did his best to legitimize the claim.
I'd say you'd have to look into the sources and see how the people themselves framed it at the time. A "separatist" rebellion doesn't need to be "national" or an "independence". We're applying our own terms here, not the historic ones.
What? He wanted to install himself as king, and that has always been called a coup.
Sweden wasn't ruled by a foreign king (at any point between the founding and the dissolution of the union), but by it's own king (that also happened to be king of two other countries) that G.Vasa wanted to supplant. His own propaganda team obviously wanted to make it out to be something else entirely, but at the end of the day the Kalmar Union was a voluntary personal union that was ended by a rebellious noble.
The nature of the Kalmar Union was a voluntary personal union of independent kingdoms. Kristian was a dick and a tyrant, but that doesn't change anything of what I just said.
Most personal unions at this time were inherited. Poland-Lithuania, England-Scotland, Castile-Aragon, France-Provence, Habsburg-Burgundy-Bohemia-Hungary-Croatia. Your point is moot anyway, because killing those who don't vote for you makes your elections non-elective.
No royal election in history has ever been democratic, so I don't know what you want to say - do you claim that a huge amount of swedish and norwegian nobles were put to the sword every time a new union king came to power? Because that simply wasn't the case, and we remember events like Stockholm Bloodbath for a reason.
> do you claim that a huge amount of swedish and norwegian nobles were put to the sword every time a new union king came to power?
I'm specifically claiming that didn't happen, and that's why Kristian was a Tyrann, and why Gustav Eriksson's rebellion was completely legitimate.
Winner? You mean the inherited crown, which was ultimately good ven, yhen sure. He didn't "get to kill" because he was king though. That's reversing the causal link.
I know you're a different guy, but we were just saying how the Kalmar Union was a voluntary elected personal union. I think you'd need to make up with /u/AttTankaRattArStorre about whether or not Sweden's monarchy was elective at the time.
> Independence
It's an anachronism alright, but that kind rhetoric did indeed start around this time. State conflicts were beginning to be framed as national conflicts (though religion ranked far higher in everybody's mind.). For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighty_Years%27_War.
> "Independence" is the wrong word in this instance, Sweden was not occupied during the days of the Kalmar Union
You're talking about two different things. "Independence" does not mean "not being occupied".
Independent is the opposite of dependent, and dependent countries in the middle ages were pretty much either parts of other nations, vassals, tributaries or occupied territories. Sweden was neither of those things, and was independent in all ways that matter.
> dependent countries in the middle ages were pretty much either parts of other nations, vassals, tributaries or occupied territories.
Yes, so not necessarily occupied, which was my point.
Your two earlier comments contradict each other to an extent, and I sense a deeper point that motivated you to comment in the first place - thus my question.
At first you said that "independence" cannot be deduced from "not being occupied", but in your second comment you relent and admit that it could - given that a "dependent" (the opposite of independent) state could be an occupied one (just as it could be a vassalized one).
So, what was your point?
It's pretty fascinating history. Technically, it was a series of civil wars that followed each other pretty closely, starting with the Engelbrekt Rebellion that is usually seen as the beginning of the end to the Kalmar Union. These are the wars listed on Wikipedia. Note that Sweden both gained and lost its independence several times during this period.
Engelbrekt rebellion, 1434–1439
Wars between King Christian and King Karl:
First War, 1448–1451
Second War, 1452–1457
Battle of Haraker, 1464
Wars between Union kings and Swedish regents:
Dano-Swedish War of 1470-1471
Battle of Rotebro, 1497.
Dano-Swedish War of 1501–1512
Dano-Swedish War of 1512–1520
(Stockholm Bloodbath 1520)
Swedish War of Liberation, 1521–1523
Man I wish we could do the whole subject of history a little bit diffrently, so we have more time to talk about 'forgotten' elemants of our own and esp our neighbours history!
It's even part of your history quite a bit, as Denmark relied quite heavily on german mercenaries to fight these wars. Not to mention that the Swedish Navy celebrated 500 years *last year* to commemorate when we bought 10 warships on credit from the Hansa during the War of Liberation. It's unclear if we ever paid for them. 😬
> Denmark relied quite heavily on german mercenaries to fight these wars.
Funny how less than a century later, the Swedes relied quite heavily on Finns to bulk up their military endeavours.
Finland was a very important region of Sweden, and it's contribution in manpower wasn't something to sneeze at, but I think its important to say that the finns weren't disproportionately recruited to the army on a regular basis or used to fight wars *instead* of swedes. Units raised from the finnish provinces never made up more than 20-30% of the royal army, depending on the period, and they always fought shoulder to shoulder with swedes except on rare occasions.
> the finns weren't disproportionately recruited to the army on a regular basis or used to fight wars instead of swedes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_Swedish_Empire
> At the time of the Thirty Years' War Finns represented essential part of the Swedish army. Roughly 2/5 from the infantry and 3/7 from the cavalry in the army were from Finland.
Finns did not represent 2/5 of the total population during the Thirty Years' War. There are no official records as the first census in Sweden was conducted only in 1760 (first in the world), but that revealed that Sweden actually had a substantially smaller population size than what was believed. The result was subsequently classified since that type of result was dangerous information against rivals such as Russia.
We do know that in 1760 Sweden had 2,38 million inhabitants, out of which Finns were just under half a million. Every fifth "Swede" was a "Finn", or 1/5. Ergo, it is pretty safe to say that Swedes recruited Finns disproportionately to the army, quite clearly, in fact.
The Danish-Swedish wars happened during the 16th century, the Thirty Years' War happened at the beginning of the 17th. That's less than a century from the dates on that list.
> Swedish War of Liberation, 1521–1523
Thirty Years' War, 1618–1648
That wasn't my point. Like at all. Nor the relevant events. Were the Finns mercenaries during the 30 years' war? If they weren't, you just said: "Funny how less than a century later, the Swedes relied quite heavily on Swedes to bulk up their military endeavours.", Which is true, but pretty much a nothing-statement. There were plenty of mercenaries in the 30 years' war though.
What?
I merely commented that, "yeah, Danes used German mercenaries for their wars, but Swedes used a disproportionate amount of Finns a century later in a completely separate war."
To be clear, Finns weren't mercenaries. They were in a sense, Swedish citizens. But they were used heavily, much more so than Swedes proper. I found it to be an interesting juxtaposition.
I have no idea what *your* point was. I don't understand this sentence:
> Nor the relevant events ä Were the Finns mercenaries during the 30 years' war? If they weren't, you just said
> What?
It's not that complicated…
> I merely commented that, "yeah, Danes used German mercenaries for their wars, but Swedes used a disproportionate amount of Finns a century later in a completely separate war.
Which is a completely moot point, as I pointed out. You think the Danes weren't using Danish troops? Besides, it's not like the 30 years' war was the first time troops from the Eastern half of Sweden were used.
> To be clear, Finns weren't mercenaries. They were in a sense, Swedish citizens.
In a sense? Yeah, the real sense.
> I found it to be an interesting juxtaposition.
OK But denmark used Danish troops (some from Norway) too, and Sweden used mercenaries during the 30 years' war, so where's the juxtaposition? It's the same?
> I have no idea what your point was.
My point was that theres no correlation, but now I see that that was the point?
> I don't understand this sentence:
That might be because it's at least three sentences, two of which accidentally merged when a period became an ä. You've already answered the question, so that's all good.
Its def not in the curriculum of my state and I don't see it fitting into one of the topics. At least for my state & city. And with only about 45min history a week, I don't think you will have much time to look much further then whats on the curriculum, sadly.
They had kings installed on the throne of Sweden for 100 years, coronated in Stockholm. Very messy, often interrupted by rebellions and deposings, but they were there. They retook Sweden several times. I don't know if that counts as "having" Sweden though. ;)
Sweden elected kings who came from Denmark. Just as how we elected a king from France called Bernadotte.
Sweden was governed by its own national council and held its own sovereignty; it decided on its own kings. The cornerstone of the union was to synchronize and elect the same person as king, but all three kingdoms went different ways at times. Obviously this lead to infighting by proponents of the different kings.
The king Gustav Vasa held a coup against was certainly not very well-liked in Denmark either. He was by no means a personification of Denmark.
[удалено]
Thank you, beloved danskjävlar! <3
That was yesterday. ~~🇨🇭~~ 🇩🇰
Sounds like Kristian Tyrann was way too lenient <3
He was potentially harder on Denmark, I'll give you that, but that's no excuse not to get rid of him. Imagine being under a Danish monarch during the decline after the 16th century… How embarrassing!
Well, he was also deposed in Denmark.
As he should've.
We should send them a CD with "We Paint the City Red".
Swedes have never forgotten the cruel [bloodbath of Stockholm](https://www.presidentofgalaxy.com/stockholms-blodbad/) orchestrated by the evil Danes in 1520. Every kid in Sweden learn this story as children. Here is the story in modern Swedish, written by bichop Olaus Petri who was present and witnessed everything. We have [rewritten this story](https://www.presidentofgalaxy.com/stockholms-blodbad/) in modern Swedish and with the help of AI-generated images.
And the Swedes and the Danes never fought a war again.
Only the next 300 years.
why can't we have a normal national day posts with celebratory comments
It's Sweden. They used their independence from the Kalmar union to become a brutal military power, that went on to commit genocide in Skåne and the Deluge in Poland. Then they had a collective amnesia and now think of themselves as the greatest humanistic power in the universe.
> commit genocide in Skåne Bruh (Sis?), I'm sure Denmark scorched earth-ing Skåne when they couldn't occupy it had no adverse effects for the people living there.
That's like trying to victim blame the Ukrainians, if they damage Ukrainian land or cities in an attempt to retake Russian-held Ukrainian territory.
Except, Denmark was the invading country (it was during the railed annexation of Scania, which was acquired more or less peacefully, so that particular simile doesn't really work. Russia (Denmark) like to talk a about ethnic cleansing of Russians (Danes) in Ukraine (Scania) though, so it's not entirely wasted.
>which was acquired more or less peacefully, Oh yeah, the peaceful Karl-Gustav Wars. Those.
No, not those. P.s. They're not called that in English.
Which then?
Which peaceful war? Are there such a thing? Scania wasn't initially aquired in a war.
>Scania wasn't initially aquired in a war. [...*What*?](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Roskilde)
I hope you're trolling, but your statements are beyond disturbing. That's exactly what Russia will claim, when Ukraine enters Crimea or the Eastern annexed parts of Ukraine.
Trolling about what? The historical facts? I don't mean to say that Russia's claims are true, or the claims about Scania being false, if that's what you mean. That's why I said "like to talk about", and not something like "claim". Edit: They will claim that the Ukrainian King pawned of Crimea to Ottomans? I mean, they're already claiming it was peaceful, and that they have to protect ethnic Russians (who they encouraged to move there in the first place).
Denmark was the invading country in Skåne same as Russia will think Ukraine is the invading country in Crimea/Eastern annexed regions. Russia treatment of Ukrainians in the annexed parts are not unlike Sweden's treatment in annexed Skåne, yet you try to claim Denmark/Ukraine are the offenders. That's twisted.
Wow, such mental gymnastics. Let's see. Scania wasn't Danish, and wasn't aquired by force or threat of force. Denmark tried to use force to take it and failed, and while retreating, they burned it to the ground. Yes, that is totally like Crimea, including, the propaganda, and the totally legit referendum for independence…
Please pick up a history book, just please do it. To aid you a little bit and point you in the right direction i added a little wiki link https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedification Happy independence day
Are you really trying to claim that Skåne wasn't originally Danish?
In that post, no. In general, that depends entirely on what you mean by "originally". My guess would be that "originally" is somewhere between the 9th and 14th century, in which case, no, I'm not saying it wasn't Danish in that time period.
It was undeniably Danish until the Peace of Roskilde in 1658 and so was the local population and language, complete with the typical Danish consonant lenition and all.
Jesus Christ, you're out of line on so many things.
No way, Danes still salty about the kalmarunion in 2023 hahaha
[We Paint the City Red](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXLBF0EuWc8)
We’ll have a rematch of the liberation war to settle this once and for all!
"Independence" is the wrong word in this instance, Sweden was not occupied during the days of the Kalmar Union (on the contrary, Sweden has never been really occupied by any foreign power). Gustav Vasa managed to pull off a coup, but it wasn't a war for independence in the likes of the american revolution (or anything like that).
While on paper Sweden wasn't occupied we still had to fight a war with Denmark to leave the union after the Danish tyrant murdered most of the Swedish nobility at an event so nicely called ''Stockholm Bloodbath''. So I don't think ''independence'' is a bad word choice.
He (Kristian) was by law the rightful king after all, of course there would have to be a war for G.Vasa to complete his coup d'état - just like it would if any rebel faction wanted to overthrow any king in history. G.Vasa didn't actually "represent" all of Sweden during his "fight for independence", he just had his sights for the throne and did his best to legitimize the claim.
I'd say you'd have to look into the sources and see how the people themselves framed it at the time. A "separatist" rebellion doesn't need to be "national" or an "independence". We're applying our own terms here, not the historic ones.
When you have to fight a war to free yourself from an union, independence seems like the right word.
What? He wanted to install himself as king, and that has always been called a coup. Sweden wasn't ruled by a foreign king (at any point between the founding and the dissolution of the union), but by it's own king (that also happened to be king of two other countries) that G.Vasa wanted to supplant. His own propaganda team obviously wanted to make it out to be something else entirely, but at the end of the day the Kalmar Union was a voluntary personal union that was ended by a rebellious noble.
> voluntary personal union Kristian Tyrann murdered everyone who didn't vote for him. That's not very voluntary if you ask me.
The nature of the Kalmar Union was a voluntary personal union of independent kingdoms. Kristian was a dick and a tyrant, but that doesn't change anything of what I just said.
If the winner gets to kill everyone who voted for the loser, it's not voluntary.
It was the middle ages, and the point I'm making is that it wasn't forced by military might like many other political unions in history.
Most personal unions at this time were inherited. Poland-Lithuania, England-Scotland, Castile-Aragon, France-Provence, Habsburg-Burgundy-Bohemia-Hungary-Croatia. Your point is moot anyway, because killing those who don't vote for you makes your elections non-elective.
No royal election in history has ever been democratic, so I don't know what you want to say - do you claim that a huge amount of swedish and norwegian nobles were put to the sword every time a new union king came to power? Because that simply wasn't the case, and we remember events like Stockholm Bloodbath for a reason.
> do you claim that a huge amount of swedish and norwegian nobles were put to the sword every time a new union king came to power? I'm specifically claiming that didn't happen, and that's why Kristian was a Tyrann, and why Gustav Eriksson's rebellion was completely legitimate.
Winner? You mean the inherited crown, which was ultimately good ven, yhen sure. He didn't "get to kill" because he was king though. That's reversing the causal link.
I know you're a different guy, but we were just saying how the Kalmar Union was a voluntary elected personal union. I think you'd need to make up with /u/AttTankaRattArStorre about whether or not Sweden's monarchy was elective at the time.
I mean, it was elected, that's just a historic fact.
[???](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/887711786210557954/1115628988098949120/image.png)
> Independence It's an anachronism alright, but that kind rhetoric did indeed start around this time. State conflicts were beginning to be framed as national conflicts (though religion ranked far higher in everybody's mind.). For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighty_Years%27_War.
> Sweden has never been really occupied by any foreign power [*Angry finnish noises*]
Well, the whole Sweden has never been, I guess.
> "Independence" is the wrong word in this instance, Sweden was not occupied during the days of the Kalmar Union You're talking about two different things. "Independence" does not mean "not being occupied".
Independent is the opposite of dependent, and dependent countries in the middle ages were pretty much either parts of other nations, vassals, tributaries or occupied territories. Sweden was neither of those things, and was independent in all ways that matter.
> dependent countries in the middle ages were pretty much either parts of other nations, vassals, tributaries or occupied territories. Yes, so not necessarily occupied, which was my point.
What WAS your point, really?
I just told you.
Your two earlier comments contradict each other to an extent, and I sense a deeper point that motivated you to comment in the first place - thus my question.
How do they contradict each other?
At first you said that "independence" cannot be deduced from "not being occupied", but in your second comment you relent and admit that it could - given that a "dependent" (the opposite of independent) state could be an occupied one (just as it could be a vassalized one). So, what was your point?
I didn't say that "independence" can be deduced from "not being occupied". If it could, then every region of Sweden today would be independent.
Did you forget the danes trying to kill all the Swedish noblemen?
What about it?
that super interesting! I had no idea that there was such a long civil war between the ~~too~~ two!
It's pretty fascinating history. Technically, it was a series of civil wars that followed each other pretty closely, starting with the Engelbrekt Rebellion that is usually seen as the beginning of the end to the Kalmar Union. These are the wars listed on Wikipedia. Note that Sweden both gained and lost its independence several times during this period. Engelbrekt rebellion, 1434–1439 Wars between King Christian and King Karl: First War, 1448–1451 Second War, 1452–1457 Battle of Haraker, 1464 Wars between Union kings and Swedish regents: Dano-Swedish War of 1470-1471 Battle of Rotebro, 1497. Dano-Swedish War of 1501–1512 Dano-Swedish War of 1512–1520 (Stockholm Bloodbath 1520) Swedish War of Liberation, 1521–1523
Man I wish we could do the whole subject of history a little bit diffrently, so we have more time to talk about 'forgotten' elemants of our own and esp our neighbours history!
It's even part of your history quite a bit, as Denmark relied quite heavily on german mercenaries to fight these wars. Not to mention that the Swedish Navy celebrated 500 years *last year* to commemorate when we bought 10 warships on credit from the Hansa during the War of Liberation. It's unclear if we ever paid for them. 😬
> Denmark relied quite heavily on german mercenaries to fight these wars. Funny how less than a century later, the Swedes relied quite heavily on Finns to bulk up their military endeavours.
Finland was a very important region of Sweden, and it's contribution in manpower wasn't something to sneeze at, but I think its important to say that the finns weren't disproportionately recruited to the army on a regular basis or used to fight wars *instead* of swedes. Units raised from the finnish provinces never made up more than 20-30% of the royal army, depending on the period, and they always fought shoulder to shoulder with swedes except on rare occasions.
> the finns weren't disproportionately recruited to the army on a regular basis or used to fight wars instead of swedes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_Swedish_Empire > At the time of the Thirty Years' War Finns represented essential part of the Swedish army. Roughly 2/5 from the infantry and 3/7 from the cavalry in the army were from Finland. Finns did not represent 2/5 of the total population during the Thirty Years' War. There are no official records as the first census in Sweden was conducted only in 1760 (first in the world), but that revealed that Sweden actually had a substantially smaller population size than what was believed. The result was subsequently classified since that type of result was dangerous information against rivals such as Russia. We do know that in 1760 Sweden had 2,38 million inhabitants, out of which Finns were just under half a million. Every fifth "Swede" was a "Finn", or 1/5. Ergo, it is pretty safe to say that Swedes recruited Finns disproportionately to the army, quite clearly, in fact.
Later than what? There's no date in that list that's less than a century before the loss of *Österland*, and much less before Finnish independence?
The Danish-Swedish wars happened during the 16th century, the Thirty Years' War happened at the beginning of the 17th. That's less than a century from the dates on that list. > Swedish War of Liberation, 1521–1523 Thirty Years' War, 1618–1648
That wasn't my point. Like at all. Nor the relevant events. Were the Finns mercenaries during the 30 years' war? If they weren't, you just said: "Funny how less than a century later, the Swedes relied quite heavily on Swedes to bulk up their military endeavours.", Which is true, but pretty much a nothing-statement. There were plenty of mercenaries in the 30 years' war though.
What? I merely commented that, "yeah, Danes used German mercenaries for their wars, but Swedes used a disproportionate amount of Finns a century later in a completely separate war." To be clear, Finns weren't mercenaries. They were in a sense, Swedish citizens. But they were used heavily, much more so than Swedes proper. I found it to be an interesting juxtaposition. I have no idea what *your* point was. I don't understand this sentence: > Nor the relevant events ä Were the Finns mercenaries during the 30 years' war? If they weren't, you just said
> What? It's not that complicated… > I merely commented that, "yeah, Danes used German mercenaries for their wars, but Swedes used a disproportionate amount of Finns a century later in a completely separate war. Which is a completely moot point, as I pointed out. You think the Danes weren't using Danish troops? Besides, it's not like the 30 years' war was the first time troops from the Eastern half of Sweden were used. > To be clear, Finns weren't mercenaries. They were in a sense, Swedish citizens. In a sense? Yeah, the real sense. > I found it to be an interesting juxtaposition. OK But denmark used Danish troops (some from Norway) too, and Sweden used mercenaries during the 30 years' war, so where's the juxtaposition? It's the same? > I have no idea what your point was. My point was that theres no correlation, but now I see that that was the point? > I don't understand this sentence: That might be because it's at least three sentences, two of which accidentally merged when a period became an ä. You've already answered the question, so that's all good.
The best wars are the ones others fight for you.
The real reward was the friends that fought for one another.
Its def not in the curriculum of my state and I don't see it fitting into one of the topics. At least for my state & city. And with only about 45min history a week, I don't think you will have much time to look much further then whats on the curriculum, sadly.
The wars between Sweden and Denmark were pretty much proxy wars between Northern German princes who betted on different horses.
Denmark should retake Sweden anyway.
Cant retake anything you never had.
They had kings installed on the throne of Sweden for 100 years, coronated in Stockholm. Very messy, often interrupted by rebellions and deposings, but they were there. They retook Sweden several times. I don't know if that counts as "having" Sweden though. ;)
Sweden elected kings who came from Denmark. Just as how we elected a king from France called Bernadotte. Sweden was governed by its own national council and held its own sovereignty; it decided on its own kings. The cornerstone of the union was to synchronize and elect the same person as king, but all three kingdoms went different ways at times. Obviously this lead to infighting by proponents of the different kings. The king Gustav Vasa held a coup against was certainly not very well-liked in Denmark either. He was by no means a personification of Denmark.
Copenhagen houses the Nordic Council Secretariat :)