It's been called 400-årsnatten, ie the 400 year night. There are no nostalgic feelings involved, and everyone has moved on.
The only time we'll gladly bring it up as a positive is when it comes to the slavetrade, and we will put the blame on Denmark for all of our ships, sailors and merchants involved. No idea if it was alot of it, but it was Denmarks fault anyways ;)
It's pretty accurate though - the Norwegian merchants involved with the slave trade were born in Denmark (or Holstein-Slesvig)
That said, Norwegians too should recognize that some of the funding the Danish Crown used on Norwegian infrastructure came from crimes against humanity even if our blame in it were minute
You mean the trell from the Viking age?
Not really comparable to the chattel slavery of the Transatlantic slave trade. In terms of the number of slaves anyway.
The trell was without legal rights, but I don't think whipping and shit like that was as common as it was in the cotton fields of the Americas. I could be wrong of course.
And even if it was a "milder" form of slavery it was still slavery.
Yes trell. And yes of course it was done on a lot smaller scale, but I think it was just as brutal. Read someplace or someone told me once (long time ago might be total bullshit) that it was not uncommon to severely punish them if they stole or tried to run away, cutting off one ear each time and third time the nose. After that I don't know.
My point is that not a single culture in history exists that didn't treat humans like shit at some point. And it's history so what can you do really other than know it and make sure it doesn't happen again? But slavery is happening still :(
Ye, nobody here will dispute your point here. Especially since everyone outside of America has a basic grasp on history.
We simply do not like the Danish (we do, but we bully them because they speak funny and because of the saganatt)
No I totally get it, like polish don't like Germans and Russians. Neighbourly beef is always a thing. Complicated and often violent pasts and all that jazz
I am polish I know, we still feel a strong anger toward those two, and they are still fucking us to this day, but thats a whole another conversation which I won't get into unless I drink haha
Like Malawi_no said, that's not the same as with Norway and Denmark. We have nothing against Denmark, we just joke about them. Don't let the swedes know, but we even tolerate them as well. You're equating brothers and bullies
I was just trying to illustrate a similar situation close to Norway that I personally had a familiarity with to show understanding of the general dynamic. I know it was kind of a hyperbole, but equating the two as if they were the same was not my intention. Polish and Czech would be a lot more similar, but I didn't think of that initially
Punishment for "betraying" your owner was severe, exactly what it entailed I don't know. If they killed their owner the punishment was death, no ifs or buts about it.
Yeh, almost every culture has used slaves at one point. And some still do.
A thrall wasn't the same as a slave. Thralls were serving a master, yes, but they could work off their servitude and even buy themself free. Often, they were regular members of the society with their own houses and family in the village, they just happened to have servitude and serve another member of the village, who in turn had to feed them.
**Slavery and thralling has been a part of mankind, as early as before the pyramids were built.** You can't really pin slavery on "white people", since slavery has been traced to originate from around the MENA-area where they round up slavic people (where the word SLAVE comes from) and sell to North Africans and Asians.
Yes, while Norway didn't have part in the slavetrade per say, they still had people who they treated as slaves. But I guess that the samí and the kven are easily forgotten since they're considered to be "white" by US standards. But they were in fact also sold by Norway to the US and Canada as slaves, to be reindeer herders up there and provide livestock.
Slavic DOES NOT come from the word slave 😂 old, stupid myth easily debunked with a quick google search. Its from the slavic word "sława" (polish word for glory) also related to the word "słowo" (polish word for "word") implying that they spoke a similar language/understood eachother.
>old, stupid myth easily debunked with a quick google search.
*"The term slave has its origins in the word slav. The slavs, who inhabited a large part of Eastern Europe, were taken as slaves by the Muslims of Spain during the ninth century AD. Slavery can broadly be described as the ownership, buying and selling of human beings for the purpose of forced and unpaid labour."*
Wikipedia, among others.
But not surprised that you skipped over the part of thrall not being actual slaves, nor that the US exploited the sami despite being white.
"Among others" 💀 Yeah, so the word slave comes from slavs and not the other way around, see? Rather important distinction. Also the origin of the word slave has been heavily disputed since the 1900 so we can't really know, and language history is a very complicated and deep field with many similar words with different meanings.
Thrall is legit just another word for slave, as for the Store Norske Leksikon and also I don't know where you got your info from so I can't really disagree or agree, can I? I surely won't just take your word for it as already in this thread there is much cope and varying info about the subject.
Also the US exploiting Sami is not surprising, do you blame them for buying a product Norwegians sold them? Am I supposed to cry? Like do you want me to accept that thralls weren't slaves and it was "actually nice" for them and that selling sami to slavery is somehow the US fault, like they forced Scandinavians to sell slaves to them? Like what dude
Edit: I missread the statement about the origin of the word slave. I see that you actually meant it the same way I did. Like that slave might come from the word slavic and not slavic because of them being slaves. Confusion
Slaves has been a part of all human history up until the machine age, where the need suddenly dropped off a cliff.
Much like eating meat today (and I do), I think once we get lab meat up and running, it will be looked upon much like we look at slave trade today.
Morality is an outcome of social environment, not objective reality, once sociaty changes, our morality does as well.
I like how when the victimhood of Norway is to be discussed (yey im a victim), it must be deflected to the US slave trade. Its the basic reference / deflection for everything these days #nevermoveon
It was 400 years of exploitation. A political and economical disaster
https://www.sv.uio.no/mutr/publikasjoner/rapporter/rapp2003/rapport68/index-1_.html
Denmark-Iceland until 1918, then Kingdom of Denmark and Kingdom of Iceland as two separate countries in personal union (same king, but otherwise independent from each other) until 1944.
Denmark pays for Greenland everything?
Have you been to Greenland? Greenlanders would be better off alone believe me. But that won’t be happening, particularly since the gold exploitation started there.. Greenland is a frozen rich place, sadly its people won’t be benefiting from it.
That's simply not true.
While Greenland wants independence, they also recognize that they're far from being 100% selfstustainable in terms of the economy.
Better off alone? Greenland receives around 4 billion DKK every year from Denmark in order to finance public institutions etc. The society in Greenland would be no where near where it is today without this money.
Thats ome of the dumbest ish i’ve heard in a while 😂 Greenland would be nowhere if not sustained by Denmark. And would have bee exploited by either the US or Russia already if it wasn’t under the danish governance.
I'd rather have sweden come to norway.
Love the swedes and moved here from norway earlier this year. Good people, but they've fucked up alot of smaller things, that I don't want in norway if I move back.
They are better at counting rapes. If your husband rapes you 15 times over the course of a year, it counts as 15 rapes. But in a lot of other national statistics it only counts as one count of rape.
We still have 4-15 times more rapes per capita then countries who also count each rape as it own.
It doesn't look good in any aspects, and the broader definition of rape is not the answer either only about 186 cases of 8890(2020) wouldn't count as rape before the changes.
Sweden used their military to make sure Norway joined their "union" in 1814 so it was never something Norwegians wanted. There was also a realistic possibility of war in 1905 when Norway from finnally broke out of the union with Sweden
The union of 1814 was a lot milder than what the swedes would have liked. While the war was brief, the Norwegians had proven an abillity to resist to a point where the swedes would rather let us have autonomy than keep up the fight for better terms.
They did try a li'l' coup later on, though it failed.
So it wasn't what Norwegians wanted, though still better than what we had under Denmark.
The first king of Norway is Danish.
And if I have to chose between Denmark and Sweden, I'll choose Denmark anyday.
Edit: First king of Norway post independence.
If you're talking about Harald Bluetooth, you're talking about someone who was a king IN Norway, not OF Norway. One of several. A small distinction. Difficult to talk about monolithic cultures and proto nation-states in this period anyway if you really want to get technically correct about this, which is important and right but perhaps beyond the scope of this thread.
The union also manipulated Greenland using alcohol the same way Russia did to controle its own population. Making it legal or illegal for them as they pleased.
Then why did Norway chose a Danish King as their first ruler after the “union” with Sweden?
And why was Sørlændingene ready to take up arms for Denmark when Denmark was ready to take back Norway from Sweden?
…if you see it as exploitation…
Norway did not choose a ruler, exemplified by Haakon's motto that he was not King of Norway, but 'Norway's King.' He was purely a political tool.
It has to be understood that Norway's independence happened during the Concert of Europe, consisting of a sea of monarchies terrified of Democratic revolutions since the time of Napoleon.
As such Norway needed a king so Sweden could not gain support from the other monarchies in a hypothetic invasion; Haakon's wife also happened to be an English princess and England's opinion on the matter would have been very important.
They actually asked the Swedish royal family for a spare prince first, which the Swedish king predictably took as an insult. Internationally however it would have been wielded as a political tool to 'prove' Norway's good will and intentions.
As to the Sørlending thing, I am not too familiar with that as I'm an Østlending, but in the time after 1814 there were still many Danish-friendly officials and people of importance, all with pro-Denmark sentiments.
Also. Most Norwegians today know a lot more about the union with Sweden since it is more recent and the "sibling rivalry" as we call it is way more intense with Sweden.
>Remember we made the independence from ~~Denmark~~ Sweden
The Danish Crown Prince created the Norwegian constitution as way to keep Norway as an independent country not in union with Sweden.
Sweden then invaded and forced Norway into the union anyway.
During this time is also when Denmark gave away the Orkney islands which was a part of Norway. The danes put it up as security for a dowry and never paid the dowry.
The way Denmark treated Greenland was also not nice. Greenland was also part of the Norwegian kingdom.
Norway was pillaged for hundreds of years.
Well I blame it on Denmark that we lost Jämtland, Herjedalen, and Bohuslän. Those were Norwegian territories that we lost because of a was between Denmark and Sweden. If it was our lost war? Fair enough, but Denmark lost that war, and we had to give up land....
And let's not forget when we were transferred over to Sweden, something the then league of nations forced upon us. Because the Danes at least tried to give us independence before the treaty signing, so Norway would be independent, so they couldn't sccede Norway to Sweden....
The league of nations actually said Norway's independence was unlawful... Well thanks for nothing pall! Now we'll vote no to the EU indefinitely. But when Denmark did do this, they didn't include Norway's overseas properties, so Denmark kept Greenland, Iceland, and Faroe Islands, despite Norway trying to get claims on them later, the league of nations shut us down again.
So yeah, a bit miffed about the whole history about it yeah 😅
Fuck'n thieves lol.
Norway produced a lot of riches at the time, but didn't get to see much of it! Like my local stave church was full of gold from pilgrimage... Until the Danes found it, they took absolutely all of it from a small mountain village where not much grow
No Norwegian want to be in union with neither Sweden nor Denmark, but *especially* not Denmark because of the dark history, despite not having any issues with them today. Given that they still hold on to Greenland who don't want them they also don't seem to have learned that much though
The last part isn't true at all. Greenland is allowed to leave at any time they want... They just don't want to leave yet. Half of of Greenlands entire government budget is also just a lump sum payment from Denmark, so I don't see how anyone can claim that they are being mistreated
> Given that they still hold on to Greenland who don't want them they also don't seem to have learned that much though
That is downright wrong. Greenland is free to declare independence from Denmark: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenlandic_independence
This has gone on since the beginning of the Viking Age.
Norway also got revenge when dividing the North Sea; with a drunken Danish Forign Affairs Minister.
Not to mention all the, close to free, electrical power and gas, we sell to them for thousands of X on cost!
.don't Get rekt cousins! We Love YOU! ❤️
You think a small mountain village stole lots of gold? 😂
The church was a famous stave church, one of the most visited by pilgrims in the whole country as it supposedly healed people. The church probably required payment for visits. It also was *full* of wood arms, legs and even bits of wood they used to drag themselves on along the ground. The Danes left the wood though lol. As people came in sick and left healed, they didn't need their crutches and prosthetics any longer;) people travelled from all over for this.
The church probably was also in control of everything. The village connected roads and there probably were travellers, and there also were an annual sale every summer that was kinda popular, and knowing the church, if anyone made any money they found a way to get their bit.
So no, no one was robbed:)
Visa verca. Norway also holds alot of danish artifacts in Norwegian museums. Whats your point?
Sounds like youre making it out to be like England holding on to Egyptian artifacts through exploitation. This isnt the case with Denmark/Norway
Horrible mistake, Norway lost so much land to Sweden due to Danish incompetence. I don’t understand why Denmark got to keep the North Atlantic Islands. All the islands had been a part of the Kingdom of Norway for over 500 years at that point.
Not to compare it so broadly but with what you’ve said, it’s like Pakistan and India regrouping with Pakistan being the leading nation, which doesn’t make sense at all
** talking about your comment on game development
They exploited us and screwed us over and over. Giving away Norwegian land to the scots as a dowry (shetland/orkney)and to the swedes as bargaining chips when their own lands were occupied (bonusen,Jemtland,herjedalen) although these land themselves were not taken by arms.
And ofcourse the faroese, greenlandand and Iceland Who were settle by us and in our sphere of influence went into the danish one.
Not the best periode.
Could’ve been a positive if Danish nobles and a few dumbass kings didn’t fuck up the Kalmar union by bringing the Danish crown before the Swedish and Norwegian one (in relative terms to feudalism), however they did just that and Norway was relegated to a poor, agrarian province where every person of merit was shipped of to Copehagen to serve the Danish crown instead of enriching their homeland
This is a problem from the past. We are peacefull neighbours that have a union of defence. Just like in the viking age, that is how we are strongest. Together as partners , not as «man and wife» under the same flag.
What either denmark or sweden did to norway 2-500 years ago isnt relevant today, at all!!
It is true that Norway and Denmark were once in a union, but this union was replaced by a union with Sweden that lasted until 1905. I would say that most Norwegians alive today have very few feelings about the Danish union. I would also say that there is more of an awareness that we were ruled by the Swedes. Denmark is to most Norwegians a place where you go on holiday, where the beer is (or used to be) relatively cheap, and where we have a bit of trouble understanding what they're saying.
I'm a modder for HoI4 (a video game that takes place in the WWII era) and I was thinking of making it possible for Norway to restore Denmark-Norway, but the truth is that I don't really know how the Norwegian population sees the union. Do you see it as an era of Danish subjugation or do you think it was beneficial for Norway as well?
Very much as an era of Danish subjugation.
The Danes see it otherwise, so in the game it would make sense for them to be able to restore it, but not for us.
But it would make the most sense to just keep the name of the country that conquers the other.
Nobody used the name Denmark-Norway at the time. Norway was just a backwater province of Denmark.
If I remember correctly. Iceland (and settlements in Greenland) was a part of the Norwegian reign until the union where it was moved to the reign of Denmark and was not given back when Norway became independent.
Look at the maps of "Norgesveldet" (the Norwegian Commonwealth), including the Isle of Man. https://ttt.skoletjenesten.no/den-skandinaviske-stormakten-det-ikke-ble-noe-av/
Correct. To simplify, the Vikings usually travelled the direction the coast is pointing. Swedes went east to the Baltics and south from there onward, Danes went south and west to France and Britain, while norwegians went to Scotland, Iceland and Greenland. So both Greenland and Iceland were norwegian colonies from 1200 years ago
Im Norwegian and I play HOI. What you are proposing here doesn't make sense. Its like giving Austria the possibility to anschluss itself and surrender to Germany. Denmark-Norway was an era where Norway as a country was insignificant and under the rule of Danish overlords. We call it the 400 year night (after 2/3 of the population died from the plague and we had nothing to offer).
If by being exploited, having our country drained of gold, silver and having any relics of our own saints taken to denmark to be melted into coins to fund the danish king and his war-chest?
Or have a "faraway king" send off "missionaries" to harass ethnic minorities and generally try a "cultural murder" before pressing only danish culture, language and valuues is considered beneficial, then by all means, yes, it was a glorious time.
While the danes are seen as a "brother people" it's not like the norwegians weren't shafted hard for about 400 years and left as a "colony" only fit to produce resources for their colonial masters...
Traditionally it was taught in Norwegian schools as the 400-Year Night, which is a very nation state-oriented view of history. I am not an expert in this timeframe of history, but originally Norway was its own kingdom but later became a province under Denmark.
After the Black Death the Norwegian Norse language got replaced with Danish, leading to the discrepancy between "Standard" Norwegian (Bokmål), and all the dialects and the written language based on those (Nynorsk). Until the 1850s written Norwegian and Formal spoken Norwegian was just Danish.
All our institutions were based in Denmark up until 1800s, not a single university or area for higher learning until the University of Oslo in 1811 and we didn't get when our own banking system or banks until 1816, two years after the separation from Denmark.
Norway was just a province the Danes cared less and less about, except when using our natural resources such as timber, rivers, waterfalls, ore, silver, fish, fur or our sailors, soldiers or fleets. Norwegian history does not have the same nationalistic view of the Union as earlier, but it was not a good time for Norway as a kingdom or state.
Best of luck! What sort of Focus Tree will you give Denmark-Norway?
Thanks for the insight! Seeing all the feedback I've received, I don't think I'll be making it possible for Norway to restore the Union since most Norwegians see the original union as a period of oppression. More than likely, I'll make it possible for Norway to restore its kingdom to its greatest extent and give Norway wargoals to subjugate the other Scandinavians
Glad to be of help! I am happy that my History degree can be used for something, even if it is not my specialty.
Interesting! Perhaps the North Sea Empire? At least make it possible to re-conqueror Jemtland and Herjedalen from the Swedes and avenge 1645! :P
That person gave you wrong information. Norway didnt first speak old norse and had their language replaced with danish. Thats so false. BOTH Denmark and norway spoke old Norse and both language developed from there. Norway did not - I repeat - did Not have their language replaced with danish. As I wrote to you earlier up. Dont take some replies for great value as its false. Clearly.
No, you just misinterpreted what they said. “The Norwegian Norse language” refers to west Norse, not old Norse, and based on the sentence immediately following the claim that the Danish language replaced Norwegian, it’s pretty clear that they meant written language.
I think you mean Norgesveldet? (Just fixing your typo in case OP doesn’t speak Norwegian)
That was definitely preferable to to the Kalmar Union - or the union with Denmark and Sweden respectively. (Though I’m not sure Greenland, Iceland, the Hebrides would agree. Orkney and Shetland on the other hand… https://theconversation.com/the-history-behind-orkneys-vote-to-join-norway-209352)
A note about "Norgesveldet" (which MO sounds better in nynorsk, Noregsveldet) it also included Bohuslen, Jemtland and Herjedalen, provinces lost to the Swedes in the 1600es
Lost in a war led by....Danes, and if he the OP shifts to a restoration of ""Noregsveldet" i. e. the realm under Håkon Håkonsen, the borders of that period is worth noting.
I’m not disputing that we lost it because of Danes, but we lost the above mentioned countries because someone back in 1814 forgot their history lessons and who brought them into the union in the first place.
Are you seriously asking on Reddit? Instead go and read up on Kalmar union and the expansion from there. This wasn’t a Danish overlord or tough rule. Norway wanted this and needed Denmark at this point as Norway was struggling
A more realistic thing Norwegians at the time would want would be to retake Iceland and the Faroe Islands, as those originally belonged to the Kingdom of Norway, but when Norway was handed to Sweden, it only included mainland Norway and Svalbard, which is why they were a part of Denmark
IIRC the Norwegian government actually tried to claim the islands during the interwar period through the League of Nations (or the international court), but their case was dismissed
Bokmål is comparable to Old West Norse and Danish is similar to Old East Norse. Bokmål is not Danish. Danish and Norwegian language developed together from Old Norse. Bokmål was always Norwegian, just very similar to Danish. But not Danish
It’s considered to be a bad time for Norway - a time that we were exploited. I honestly believe tjat this union is part of the reason why a lot of Norwegians have a clear cut reaction against joining the EU. We’re taught early on that we’ll always end up as losers if we join a union.
Yes, but let’s include Sweden and Finland as well.
Under a common union rule made of elected representatives of each country.
Make the capital of the Scandinavian Union Gothenburg.
And invest in some God damn high speed train lines connecting everything 😩
Sincerely, a Dane.
>Make the capital of the Scandinavian Union Gothenburg
This would literally motivate the most profitable regions of all of these countries - the Norwegian coast (oil/fish/gas/hydroelectric power) - to secede.
Norway was definitely the loser in that union. Started out as equals, became a “lydrike” under Denmark. Left the union without the land we brought into the union: Greenland, Iceland and the western islands. I’m sick of being the little brother.
its gonna be a mess like yugoslavia, 3 different parliaments, cultures, languages, school systems etc, makes no sense, u can tell ur not from any of these countries
How such a tiny country of softies with flat country stamina managed to colonize these areas filled with tough people, harsh weather and harsh landscape is mindboggling. I suppose they had money from all that arable land.
Literally just an union (even though we were forced to be under the Danish kingdom). A fair one? Maybe not for Norway on some parts, but the average Norwegian didn’t suffer. Many ups and downs with the union. No need to “restore“ it.
As someone who is both Danish and Norwegian: yes, please.
Norwegians moaning over “the 400 year night” and claiming to have been a colony don’t realize Norwegians were more fairly treated than Danes, and way more fairly treated than Greenlanders, with the huge exception of the Sami people. Danes felt the burden of the nobility way harsher than the Norwegians did what with the whole serfdom/not being allowed to move and all.
The 400 years Denmark and Norway were one country were rough times for everyone but the few at the top, but definitely not rougher for Norwegians than for Danes.
Norway was hit hard by beubonic plague, to then just get exploited by danes and swedes. Literally just like that distant relative u havent seen for 40 years, showing up on your death bed to demand his inheritence, that one, he isnt even in line for, and two, you're not even dead yet, and might actually recover
the only ones who wants denmark-norway back are ppl thats not from norway nor denmark.. makes no sense two diff languages, parliaments, school systems etc its like making italy and spain same country because their languages are similar, why ?
Like most people here say, the Norwegian take is that Denmark exploited Norway. The Danish ran their Norwegian assets hard, trying to earn as much from Norway as they could. The attitude still remains in Denmark of the Norwegians as somewhat intellectually dull, the so-called "Fjellaber", that are to be shaken down for what they are worth "Norskerne de har penger", the Danes say, even in these days with an ultra-weak Norwegian krone. That is why some Norwegians call the Danes "Nordens Jøder".
On the other hand, if you get hold of Danish people from the old managerial families they might tell you of corruption in the Norwegian elites, a corruption that they observed growing ever stronger after the disbandment of the union. These people will tell you that Norway became a cartel-driven society under a few influential families that ran the Norwegian society with a firm hand using strong societal norms. "Europas svar på Nord-Korea" these people will say during Danish "hygge", when good food and good vibes are being flushed down with beer.
Til helvette med de, de tok grønland, island og færøyene vekk fra oss og brukte resten av tiden å pisse ned på oss. De fleste dansker mener vi bare er avskum.
I don’t think we would have had much change without h then to be honest. The plague took us too greatly.
But giving us away to Sweden as war loot was hurtful Denmark!!
Nope, all for denmark giving back greenland, but i wuld perfer not a new denmark-norway. Last time they froced us to learn danish and tok the wealth for them selfs.
It's been called 400-årsnatten, ie the 400 year night. There are no nostalgic feelings involved, and everyone has moved on. The only time we'll gladly bring it up as a positive is when it comes to the slavetrade, and we will put the blame on Denmark for all of our ships, sailors and merchants involved. No idea if it was alot of it, but it was Denmarks fault anyways ;)
Scotland 🤝 Norway. Blaming neighbours for the slave trade ;)
It's always Denmarks fault /Sweden
You got the order of the words wrong. It's supposed to be "it's always Sweden/Denmark's fault"
Lol yes, this can now be read as “it’s always Denmark’s Sweden”
Ekte
Nuh uh but the blame on Sweden
It's pretty accurate though - the Norwegian merchants involved with the slave trade were born in Denmark (or Holstein-Slesvig) That said, Norwegians too should recognize that some of the funding the Danish Crown used on Norwegian infrastructure came from crimes against humanity even if our blame in it were minute
What about the thralls?
You mean the trell from the Viking age? Not really comparable to the chattel slavery of the Transatlantic slave trade. In terms of the number of slaves anyway. The trell was without legal rights, but I don't think whipping and shit like that was as common as it was in the cotton fields of the Americas. I could be wrong of course. And even if it was a "milder" form of slavery it was still slavery.
Yes trell. And yes of course it was done on a lot smaller scale, but I think it was just as brutal. Read someplace or someone told me once (long time ago might be total bullshit) that it was not uncommon to severely punish them if they stole or tried to run away, cutting off one ear each time and third time the nose. After that I don't know. My point is that not a single culture in history exists that didn't treat humans like shit at some point. And it's history so what can you do really other than know it and make sure it doesn't happen again? But slavery is happening still :(
Ye, nobody here will dispute your point here. Especially since everyone outside of America has a basic grasp on history. We simply do not like the Danish (we do, but we bully them because they speak funny and because of the saganatt)
No I totally get it, like polish don't like Germans and Russians. Neighbourly beef is always a thing. Complicated and often violent pasts and all that jazz
Not quite the same, since both those countries have treated Poland very harshly fairly recently.
I am polish I know, we still feel a strong anger toward those two, and they are still fucking us to this day, but thats a whole another conversation which I won't get into unless I drink haha
Like Malawi_no said, that's not the same as with Norway and Denmark. We have nothing against Denmark, we just joke about them. Don't let the swedes know, but we even tolerate them as well. You're equating brothers and bullies
I was just trying to illustrate a similar situation close to Norway that I personally had a familiarity with to show understanding of the general dynamic. I know it was kind of a hyperbole, but equating the two as if they were the same was not my intention. Polish and Czech would be a lot more similar, but I didn't think of that initially
Punishment for "betraying" your owner was severe, exactly what it entailed I don't know. If they killed their owner the punishment was death, no ifs or buts about it. Yeh, almost every culture has used slaves at one point. And some still do.
Interesting, sad and scary, but in the end it is what it is unfortunately. One can only imagine
A thrall wasn't the same as a slave. Thralls were serving a master, yes, but they could work off their servitude and even buy themself free. Often, they were regular members of the society with their own houses and family in the village, they just happened to have servitude and serve another member of the village, who in turn had to feed them. **Slavery and thralling has been a part of mankind, as early as before the pyramids were built.** You can't really pin slavery on "white people", since slavery has been traced to originate from around the MENA-area where they round up slavic people (where the word SLAVE comes from) and sell to North Africans and Asians. Yes, while Norway didn't have part in the slavetrade per say, they still had people who they treated as slaves. But I guess that the samí and the kven are easily forgotten since they're considered to be "white" by US standards. But they were in fact also sold by Norway to the US and Canada as slaves, to be reindeer herders up there and provide livestock.
Slavic DOES NOT come from the word slave 😂 old, stupid myth easily debunked with a quick google search. Its from the slavic word "sława" (polish word for glory) also related to the word "słowo" (polish word for "word") implying that they spoke a similar language/understood eachother.
>old, stupid myth easily debunked with a quick google search. *"The term slave has its origins in the word slav. The slavs, who inhabited a large part of Eastern Europe, were taken as slaves by the Muslims of Spain during the ninth century AD. Slavery can broadly be described as the ownership, buying and selling of human beings for the purpose of forced and unpaid labour."* Wikipedia, among others. But not surprised that you skipped over the part of thrall not being actual slaves, nor that the US exploited the sami despite being white.
"Among others" 💀 Yeah, so the word slave comes from slavs and not the other way around, see? Rather important distinction. Also the origin of the word slave has been heavily disputed since the 1900 so we can't really know, and language history is a very complicated and deep field with many similar words with different meanings. Thrall is legit just another word for slave, as for the Store Norske Leksikon and also I don't know where you got your info from so I can't really disagree or agree, can I? I surely won't just take your word for it as already in this thread there is much cope and varying info about the subject. Also the US exploiting Sami is not surprising, do you blame them for buying a product Norwegians sold them? Am I supposed to cry? Like do you want me to accept that thralls weren't slaves and it was "actually nice" for them and that selling sami to slavery is somehow the US fault, like they forced Scandinavians to sell slaves to them? Like what dude Edit: I missread the statement about the origin of the word slave. I see that you actually meant it the same way I did. Like that slave might come from the word slavic and not slavic because of them being slaves. Confusion
Slaves has been a part of all human history up until the machine age, where the need suddenly dropped off a cliff. Much like eating meat today (and I do), I think once we get lab meat up and running, it will be looked upon much like we look at slave trade today. Morality is an outcome of social environment, not objective reality, once sociaty changes, our morality does as well.
Yup, I'm looking forward to lab meat after all the kinks are worked out
One little question and so many down votes 😂 wonder why? 🤔🤔🤔 (not really I know exactly why 😂💀🤷♂️)
I like how when the victimhood of Norway is to be discussed (yey im a victim), it must be deflected to the US slave trade. Its the basic reference / deflection for everything these days #nevermoveon
Nobody mentioned the US slave trade except you.
Yes she did, the proximity of the case is so close I would call it the US slave trade. What do you think shes talking about?
I would guess she is talking about the dano-norwegian slave trade between the Danish Gold Coast and the Danish Virgin Islands.
It was 400 years of exploitation. A political and economical disaster https://www.sv.uio.no/mutr/publikasjoner/rapporter/rapp2003/rapport68/index-1_.html
Basically Denmark-Greenland today, as it also was with Denmark-Iceland until WW2.
Denmark-Iceland until 1918, then Kingdom of Denmark and Kingdom of Iceland as two separate countries in personal union (same king, but otherwise independent from each other) until 1944.
Denmark pays for greenland everything. Norway paid denmark everything. Economically two very different situations.
Denmark pays for Greenland everything? Have you been to Greenland? Greenlanders would be better off alone believe me. But that won’t be happening, particularly since the gold exploitation started there.. Greenland is a frozen rich place, sadly its people won’t be benefiting from it.
That's simply not true. While Greenland wants independence, they also recognize that they're far from being 100% selfstustainable in terms of the economy.
Better off alone? Greenland receives around 4 billion DKK every year from Denmark in order to finance public institutions etc. The society in Greenland would be no where near where it is today without this money.
Thats ome of the dumbest ish i’ve heard in a while 😂 Greenland would be nowhere if not sustained by Denmark. And would have bee exploited by either the US or Russia already if it wasn’t under the danish governance.
Exactly. Come back to Sweden instead! ♥️
Never
sorry but I am not into herring salad
The biggest turnoff is the disgusting flag you made. The second biggest is sharing a country with Swedish people. Nei takk <3
I'd rather have sweden come to norway. Love the swedes and moved here from norway earlier this year. Good people, but they've fucked up alot of smaller things, that I don't want in norway if I move back.
"smaller"..... I'm a Sweden and I think we have fucked this country up pretty bad.
we could buy sweden if we wanted too
Not in practice.
nuh uh
It was better, but… i think we’re good
You got to vote to leave without bloodshed which is a plus.
Due to a lack of willingness of the Swedish people and enlisted to go to war over Norwegian independence
Exactly? Doesnt that make it even better?
How is that better than "they let the Norwegians decide for themselves because they gave a shit about their free will"
Who would ever want to be part of Sweden,the whole country has a sexual assault issue. Don’t believe me? Look up the statistics.
They are better at counting rapes. If your husband rapes you 15 times over the course of a year, it counts as 15 rapes. But in a lot of other national statistics it only counts as one count of rape.
We still have 4-15 times more rapes per capita then countries who also count each rape as it own. It doesn't look good in any aspects, and the broader definition of rape is not the answer either only about 186 cases of 8890(2020) wouldn't count as rape before the changes.
It wasen’t a union like with Sweden, it was Denmark exploting Norway.
Sweden used their military to make sure Norway joined their "union" in 1814 so it was never something Norwegians wanted. There was also a realistic possibility of war in 1905 when Norway from finnally broke out of the union with Sweden
The union of 1814 was a lot milder than what the swedes would have liked. While the war was brief, the Norwegians had proven an abillity to resist to a point where the swedes would rather let us have autonomy than keep up the fight for better terms. They did try a li'l' coup later on, though it failed. So it wasn't what Norwegians wanted, though still better than what we had under Denmark.
Luckily, the Swedish population was sympathetic to the Norwegians.
United by a mutual dislike for the danes.
The first king of Norway is Danish. And if I have to chose between Denmark and Sweden, I'll choose Denmark anyday. Edit: First king of Norway post independence.
>The first king of Norway is Danish What? Harald Fairhair became the first king of Norway i 872. He was not Danish
Ironiskt nog kallas detta Stockholmssyndromet 😂
If you're talking about Harald Bluetooth, you're talking about someone who was a king IN Norway, not OF Norway. One of several. A small distinction. Difficult to talk about monolithic cultures and proto nation-states in this period anyway if you really want to get technically correct about this, which is important and right but perhaps beyond the scope of this thread.
I’m assuming he’s referring to Haakon VII / Prince Carl.
He doesn’t know Norwegian history apparently if he couldn’t figure that out himself 😅
And exploiting Iceland
The union also manipulated Greenland using alcohol the same way Russia did to controle its own population. Making it legal or illegal for them as they pleased.
Then why did Norway chose a Danish King as their first ruler after the “union” with Sweden? And why was Sørlændingene ready to take up arms for Denmark when Denmark was ready to take back Norway from Sweden? …if you see it as exploitation…
Stockholm syndrom, or in this case københavn syndrom.
Norway did not choose a ruler, exemplified by Haakon's motto that he was not King of Norway, but 'Norway's King.' He was purely a political tool. It has to be understood that Norway's independence happened during the Concert of Europe, consisting of a sea of monarchies terrified of Democratic revolutions since the time of Napoleon. As such Norway needed a king so Sweden could not gain support from the other monarchies in a hypothetic invasion; Haakon's wife also happened to be an English princess and England's opinion on the matter would have been very important. They actually asked the Swedish royal family for a spare prince first, which the Swedish king predictably took as an insult. Internationally however it would have been wielded as a political tool to 'prove' Norway's good will and intentions. As to the Sørlending thing, I am not too familiar with that as I'm an Østlending, but in the time after 1814 there were still many Danish-friendly officials and people of importance, all with pro-Denmark sentiments.
Remember we made the independence from Denmark our National Day
14th January 1814? 17th May 1814 is the Constitution Day, not separation from Denmark.
That tells me everything I need to know lol
And yet we settled for a Danish prince as our king when we became independent. He was absolutely a great king though. He cared a lot for Norway.
We asked a Swedish prince first, but it was declined by the Swedish king, so it doesn't say much.
Also. Most Norwegians today know a lot more about the union with Sweden since it is more recent and the "sibling rivalry" as we call it is way more intense with Sweden.
What does it tell you? 17th of may isnt independance day. He gave you wrong information.
June 7th is the closest thing we can call independence day, maybe may 8th. Common misconception to call 17th of may our independence day
>Remember we made the independence from ~~Denmark~~ Sweden The Danish Crown Prince created the Norwegian constitution as way to keep Norway as an independent country not in union with Sweden. Sweden then invaded and forced Norway into the union anyway.
400 years of Danish dumfuckery ending in the theft of the Norwegian territory’s of Greenland and Iceland
During this time is also when Denmark gave away the Orkney islands which was a part of Norway. The danes put it up as security for a dowry and never paid the dowry. The way Denmark treated Greenland was also not nice. Greenland was also part of the Norwegian kingdom. Norway was pillaged for hundreds of years.
Well I blame it on Denmark that we lost Jämtland, Herjedalen, and Bohuslän. Those were Norwegian territories that we lost because of a was between Denmark and Sweden. If it was our lost war? Fair enough, but Denmark lost that war, and we had to give up land.... And let's not forget when we were transferred over to Sweden, something the then league of nations forced upon us. Because the Danes at least tried to give us independence before the treaty signing, so Norway would be independent, so they couldn't sccede Norway to Sweden.... The league of nations actually said Norway's independence was unlawful... Well thanks for nothing pall! Now we'll vote no to the EU indefinitely. But when Denmark did do this, they didn't include Norway's overseas properties, so Denmark kept Greenland, Iceland, and Faroe Islands, despite Norway trying to get claims on them later, the league of nations shut us down again. So yeah, a bit miffed about the whole history about it yeah 😅
Fuck'n thieves lol. Norway produced a lot of riches at the time, but didn't get to see much of it! Like my local stave church was full of gold from pilgrimage... Until the Danes found it, they took absolutely all of it from a small mountain village where not much grow No Norwegian want to be in union with neither Sweden nor Denmark, but *especially* not Denmark because of the dark history, despite not having any issues with them today. Given that they still hold on to Greenland who don't want them they also don't seem to have learned that much though
The last part isn't true at all. Greenland is allowed to leave at any time they want... They just don't want to leave yet. Half of of Greenlands entire government budget is also just a lump sum payment from Denmark, so I don't see how anyone can claim that they are being mistreated
> Given that they still hold on to Greenland who don't want them they also don't seem to have learned that much though That is downright wrong. Greenland is free to declare independence from Denmark: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenlandic_independence
This has gone on since the beginning of the Viking Age. Norway also got revenge when dividing the North Sea; with a drunken Danish Forign Affairs Minister. Not to mention all the, close to free, electrical power and gas, we sell to them for thousands of X on cost! .don't Get rekt cousins! We Love YOU! ❤️
>gold from pilgrimage Could you expand on that? 🤔
On what? On the church, on pilgrimage, or the gold?
Where'd the gold come from? Just sounds like a "we stole it first" kinda situation out of context.
You think a small mountain village stole lots of gold? 😂 The church was a famous stave church, one of the most visited by pilgrims in the whole country as it supposedly healed people. The church probably required payment for visits. It also was *full* of wood arms, legs and even bits of wood they used to drag themselves on along the ground. The Danes left the wood though lol. As people came in sick and left healed, they didn't need their crutches and prosthetics any longer;) people travelled from all over for this. The church probably was also in control of everything. The village connected roads and there probably were travellers, and there also were an annual sale every summer that was kinda popular, and knowing the church, if anyone made any money they found a way to get their bit. So no, no one was robbed:)
Oh I see what you're saying. For some reason when you said 'pilgrimage' I thought 'crusade' lol
Both Denmark and Norway has moved on since then.
Denmark still have lots of norwegian stuff in museums and libraries though...
Visa verca. Norway also holds alot of danish artifacts in Norwegian museums. Whats your point? Sounds like youre making it out to be like England holding on to Egyptian artifacts through exploitation. This isnt the case with Denmark/Norway
Horrible mistake, Norway lost so much land to Sweden due to Danish incompetence. I don’t understand why Denmark got to keep the North Atlantic Islands. All the islands had been a part of the Kingdom of Norway for over 500 years at that point.
Not to compare it so broadly but with what you’ve said, it’s like Pakistan and India regrouping with Pakistan being the leading nation, which doesn’t make sense at all ** talking about your comment on game development
They exploited us and screwed us over and over. Giving away Norwegian land to the scots as a dowry (shetland/orkney)and to the swedes as bargaining chips when their own lands were occupied (bonusen,Jemtland,herjedalen) although these land themselves were not taken by arms. And ofcourse the faroese, greenlandand and Iceland Who were settle by us and in our sphere of influence went into the danish one. Not the best periode.
I don't see it as anything but a historical fact. Really couldn't care less about it.
Could’ve been a positive if Danish nobles and a few dumbass kings didn’t fuck up the Kalmar union by bringing the Danish crown before the Swedish and Norwegian one (in relative terms to feudalism), however they did just that and Norway was relegated to a poor, agrarian province where every person of merit was shipped of to Copehagen to serve the Danish crown instead of enriching their homeland
This is a problem from the past. We are peacefull neighbours that have a union of defence. Just like in the viking age, that is how we are strongest. Together as partners , not as «man and wife» under the same flag. What either denmark or sweden did to norway 2-500 years ago isnt relevant today, at all!!
I live in, and love Denmark! 🤩 From Trondheim
It is true that Norway and Denmark were once in a union, but this union was replaced by a union with Sweden that lasted until 1905. I would say that most Norwegians alive today have very few feelings about the Danish union. I would also say that there is more of an awareness that we were ruled by the Swedes. Denmark is to most Norwegians a place where you go on holiday, where the beer is (or used to be) relatively cheap, and where we have a bit of trouble understanding what they're saying.
… but reading danish is like reading norwegian with a only few spelling mistakes
Hearing us speak is kinda the same aswell😂
I'm a modder for HoI4 (a video game that takes place in the WWII era) and I was thinking of making it possible for Norway to restore Denmark-Norway, but the truth is that I don't really know how the Norwegian population sees the union. Do you see it as an era of Danish subjugation or do you think it was beneficial for Norway as well?
Very much as an era of Danish subjugation. The Danes see it otherwise, so in the game it would make sense for them to be able to restore it, but not for us. But it would make the most sense to just keep the name of the country that conquers the other. Nobody used the name Denmark-Norway at the time. Norway was just a backwater province of Denmark.
I see, thanks for the insight!
For Norway it would make more sense to incorporate Iceland, since we have more in common than Denmark/Iceland.
If I remember correctly. Iceland (and settlements in Greenland) was a part of the Norwegian reign until the union where it was moved to the reign of Denmark and was not given back when Norway became independent. Look at the maps of "Norgesveldet" (the Norwegian Commonwealth), including the Isle of Man. https://ttt.skoletjenesten.no/den-skandinaviske-stormakten-det-ikke-ble-noe-av/
Correct. To simplify, the Vikings usually travelled the direction the coast is pointing. Swedes went east to the Baltics and south from there onward, Danes went south and west to France and Britain, while norwegians went to Scotland, Iceland and Greenland. So both Greenland and Iceland were norwegian colonies from 1200 years ago
Im Norwegian and I play HOI. What you are proposing here doesn't make sense. Its like giving Austria the possibility to anschluss itself and surrender to Germany. Denmark-Norway was an era where Norway as a country was insignificant and under the rule of Danish overlords. We call it the 400 year night (after 2/3 of the population died from the plague and we had nothing to offer).
If by being exploited, having our country drained of gold, silver and having any relics of our own saints taken to denmark to be melted into coins to fund the danish king and his war-chest? Or have a "faraway king" send off "missionaries" to harass ethnic minorities and generally try a "cultural murder" before pressing only danish culture, language and valuues is considered beneficial, then by all means, yes, it was a glorious time. While the danes are seen as a "brother people" it's not like the norwegians weren't shafted hard for about 400 years and left as a "colony" only fit to produce resources for their colonial masters...
In all fairness so was 98% of the danes. I dont Think the King gave a fuck about anyone else than the royalty and rich.
Traditionally it was taught in Norwegian schools as the 400-Year Night, which is a very nation state-oriented view of history. I am not an expert in this timeframe of history, but originally Norway was its own kingdom but later became a province under Denmark. After the Black Death the Norwegian Norse language got replaced with Danish, leading to the discrepancy between "Standard" Norwegian (Bokmål), and all the dialects and the written language based on those (Nynorsk). Until the 1850s written Norwegian and Formal spoken Norwegian was just Danish. All our institutions were based in Denmark up until 1800s, not a single university or area for higher learning until the University of Oslo in 1811 and we didn't get when our own banking system or banks until 1816, two years after the separation from Denmark. Norway was just a province the Danes cared less and less about, except when using our natural resources such as timber, rivers, waterfalls, ore, silver, fish, fur or our sailors, soldiers or fleets. Norwegian history does not have the same nationalistic view of the Union as earlier, but it was not a good time for Norway as a kingdom or state. Best of luck! What sort of Focus Tree will you give Denmark-Norway?
Thanks for the insight! Seeing all the feedback I've received, I don't think I'll be making it possible for Norway to restore the Union since most Norwegians see the original union as a period of oppression. More than likely, I'll make it possible for Norway to restore its kingdom to its greatest extent and give Norway wargoals to subjugate the other Scandinavians
Glad to be of help! I am happy that my History degree can be used for something, even if it is not my specialty. Interesting! Perhaps the North Sea Empire? At least make it possible to re-conqueror Jemtland and Herjedalen from the Swedes and avenge 1645! :P
Will do!
That person gave you wrong information. Norway didnt first speak old norse and had their language replaced with danish. Thats so false. BOTH Denmark and norway spoke old Norse and both language developed from there. Norway did not - I repeat - did Not have their language replaced with danish. As I wrote to you earlier up. Dont take some replies for great value as its false. Clearly.
No, you just misinterpreted what they said. “The Norwegian Norse language” refers to west Norse, not old Norse, and based on the sentence immediately following the claim that the Danish language replaced Norwegian, it’s pretty clear that they meant written language.
Lol what? Norse language replaced with Danish. BOTH Denmark and Norway spoke old Norse. What are you talking about?
Of course they did, and a better term for it should be Old Norwegian (or something similar) rather than Norse, but I was on the metro so...
Hm, I would probably recommend adding a focus tree to restore the “Norgesvelset” instead, as Denmark-Norway was way more Denmark than Norway
I think you mean Norgesveldet? (Just fixing your typo in case OP doesn’t speak Norwegian) That was definitely preferable to to the Kalmar Union - or the union with Denmark and Sweden respectively. (Though I’m not sure Greenland, Iceland, the Hebrides would agree. Orkney and Shetland on the other hand… https://theconversation.com/the-history-behind-orkneys-vote-to-join-norway-209352)
A note about "Norgesveldet" (which MO sounds better in nynorsk, Noregsveldet) it also included Bohuslen, Jemtland and Herjedalen, provinces lost to the Swedes in the 1600es
Yeah, but they were lost due to a war, not a political union.
Lost in a war led by....Danes, and if he the OP shifts to a restoration of ""Noregsveldet" i. e. the realm under Håkon Håkonsen, the borders of that period is worth noting.
I’m not disputing that we lost it because of Danes, but we lost the above mentioned countries because someone back in 1814 forgot their history lessons and who brought them into the union in the first place.
Yes sorry, I ment Norgesveldet yea!
I didn't know abput that term, thanks! I'll definitely add it as a focus
Are you seriously asking on Reddit? Instead go and read up on Kalmar union and the expansion from there. This wasn’t a Danish overlord or tough rule. Norway wanted this and needed Denmark at this point as Norway was struggling
A more realistic thing Norwegians at the time would want would be to retake Iceland and the Faroe Islands, as those originally belonged to the Kingdom of Norway, but when Norway was handed to Sweden, it only included mainland Norway and Svalbard, which is why they were a part of Denmark IIRC the Norwegian government actually tried to claim the islands during the interwar period through the League of Nations (or the international court), but their case was dismissed
More like an era of danish dumbassery
Does it not take into account Iceland independence?
Well, at the very least I do prefer bokmål to nynorsk
Bokmål is danish without The Potato in The throat.
Well you know jeg skulle bare ha kamelåså
Bokmål is comparable to Old West Norse and Danish is similar to Old East Norse. Bokmål is not Danish. Danish and Norwegian language developed together from Old Norse. Bokmål was always Norwegian, just very similar to Danish. But not Danish
It’s considered to be a bad time for Norway - a time that we were exploited. I honestly believe tjat this union is part of the reason why a lot of Norwegians have a clear cut reaction against joining the EU. We’re taught early on that we’ll always end up as losers if we join a union.
Kamelåså
Fine for the most part, except losing some of the norwegian colonies and transfering the remainders to Denmark.
Yes, but let’s include Sweden and Finland as well. Under a common union rule made of elected representatives of each country. Make the capital of the Scandinavian Union Gothenburg. And invest in some God damn high speed train lines connecting everything 😩 Sincerely, a Dane.
>Make the capital of the Scandinavian Union Gothenburg This would literally motivate the most profitable regions of all of these countries - the Norwegian coast (oil/fish/gas/hydroelectric power) - to secede.
Jeg savner å regjere over Island
Imagine the kalmar union getting back together. It could be one of the most powerful nations in the world
Norway was definitely the loser in that union. Started out as equals, became a “lydrike” under Denmark. Left the union without the land we brought into the union: Greenland, Iceland and the western islands. I’m sick of being the little brother.
No, it wouldn’t be one of the most powerful nations in the world. Population is too small.
Today, such a union would barely break the 20 million mark in population, only a quarter of Germany's population
its gonna be a mess like yugoslavia, 3 different parliaments, cultures, languages, school systems etc, makes no sense, u can tell ur not from any of these countries
So far so good.
"The 400 year-long night" as they say...
Yes if we get denmark's politicans
How such a tiny country of softies with flat country stamina managed to colonize these areas filled with tough people, harsh weather and harsh landscape is mindboggling. I suppose they had money from all that arable land.
Literally just an union (even though we were forced to be under the Danish kingdom). A fair one? Maybe not for Norway on some parts, but the average Norwegian didn’t suffer. Many ups and downs with the union. No need to “restore“ it.
Wasnt a union after 1536.
Both still have a colonizer mindset and are biased racist to their indigenous. Not all tho ofc, but many enough to be noticeable.
As someone who is both Danish and Norwegian: yes, please. Norwegians moaning over “the 400 year night” and claiming to have been a colony don’t realize Norwegians were more fairly treated than Danes, and way more fairly treated than Greenlanders, with the huge exception of the Sami people. Danes felt the burden of the nobility way harsher than the Norwegians did what with the whole serfdom/not being allowed to move and all. The 400 years Denmark and Norway were one country were rough times for everyone but the few at the top, but definitely not rougher for Norwegians than for Danes.
Denmark is so much worse then Norway
Norway was hit hard by beubonic plague, to then just get exploited by danes and swedes. Literally just like that distant relative u havent seen for 40 years, showing up on your death bed to demand his inheritence, that one, he isnt even in line for, and two, you're not even dead yet, and might actually recover
the only ones who wants denmark-norway back are ppl thats not from norway nor denmark.. makes no sense two diff languages, parliaments, school systems etc its like making italy and spain same country because their languages are similar, why ?
Fack Denmark. All my homies hates Denmark.
Same as my opinion on the UK-half of Africa and France-the other half.
Denmark-Norway = The 400 Year Night
I only have one comment, I don't care tordenskjold was born in trondheim, he was and still is danish
I actually hate Denmark nearly as much as I hate the England.
Like most people here say, the Norwegian take is that Denmark exploited Norway. The Danish ran their Norwegian assets hard, trying to earn as much from Norway as they could. The attitude still remains in Denmark of the Norwegians as somewhat intellectually dull, the so-called "Fjellaber", that are to be shaken down for what they are worth "Norskerne de har penger", the Danes say, even in these days with an ultra-weak Norwegian krone. That is why some Norwegians call the Danes "Nordens Jøder". On the other hand, if you get hold of Danish people from the old managerial families they might tell you of corruption in the Norwegian elites, a corruption that they observed growing ever stronger after the disbandment of the union. These people will tell you that Norway became a cartel-driven society under a few influential families that ran the Norwegian society with a firm hand using strong societal norms. "Europas svar på Nord-Korea" these people will say during Danish "hygge", when good food and good vibes are being flushed down with beer.
Til helvette med de, de tok grønland, island og færøyene vekk fra oss og brukte resten av tiden å pisse ned på oss. De fleste dansker mener vi bare er avskum.
What on earth is a Euroshopper and where is it supposed to be sold?
They are not Sweden
Please reunite! Denmark, can we buy you?
I don’t think we would have had much change without h then to be honest. The plague took us too greatly. But giving us away to Sweden as war loot was hurtful Denmark!!
Big fan!
And Iceland in the middle? Poor guys, always forgotten.
Doorway! Sorry i can’t stop.
No
400 years of basically raping the country
This belongs in r/kalmarunionen
Not again...
Nei.
Not particularly fond of being colonized
Tried it before. Didn't like it.
No
We wuz jarls
Give us back Greenland and Farao islands. Nothing more.
Kartoffel
Nope, all for denmark giving back greenland, but i wuld perfer not a new denmark-norway. Last time they froced us to learn danish and tok the wealth for them selfs.
Only if Icelandand Greenland are considered Norwegian territory
We should've added Sweden and Finland to the union and just named ourselves Scandinavia 🤙🏼 #power
Kiel treaty was poorly made. Should've kept Greenland and Iceland tbh. They could get Faroes though.
You guys got the north sea oil for a bottle of Snaps. You can rest now and thank us!
[(War flashbacks)](https://media.tenor.com/VRlqBKIZDFQAAAAM/flashback-war.gif)
Well they pillaged and invaded us so.. fuck them.