Discussion:
Sweden in the Napoleonic Wars
(too old to reply)
troll
2013-04-29 19:40:00 UTC
Permalink
After managing to tiptoe around posting statements
to another thread about how it might have been
beneficial to the Soviet Union to have maintained
the Winter War into the summer and annex all of
Finland, since Finland did indirectly aid Hitler
later on when Operation Barbarrossa happened,
and how it might have been easier to maintain
occupation forces after the leaders had been
shipped to Siberia, then to have engaged in
active warfare on two fronts while the Soviet
Union was invaded, I decided to step back
a century when Finland first became in
personal union with Russia.

During certain parts of the Napoleonic
Wars Sweden was somewhat allied
with Great Britain and opposed to
the Continental System of Napoleon
but both Russia and Norway-Denmark
supported it.

Before Russia became opposed to
Napoleon it managed to make war
on Sweden and as a result the Grand
Dutchy of Finland within Russia was
created which became associated with
the Russian Empire until World War I.

As a net result of the Napoleonic Wars,
however, Norway was broken off from
Denmark and a personal union between
Sweden and Norway was created which
lasted until 1905.

The POD is this. Somehow Sweden
manages to remain neutral throughout
the Napoleonic Wars enough to not
get into a war with anyone.

The basic question is this. What happens
to Norway and Finland in the alternate
1800s all the way to 2010?

Is it feasible that Norway could remain
in some sort of union with Denmark
all the way to the 21st century? Is it
feasible that Finland could remain
in some sort of union with Sweden
all of the way to the 21st century?
Bradipus
2013-04-30 19:13:02 UTC
Permalink
The POD is this.  Somehow Sweden
manages to remain neutral throughout
the Napoleonic Wars enough to not
get into a war with anyone.
The basic question is this.  What happens
to Norway and Finland in the alternate
1800s all the way to 2010?
Is it feasible that Norway could remain
in some sort of union with Denmark
all the way to the 21st century?  Is it
feasible that Finland could remain
in some sort of union with Sweden
all of the way to the 21st century?
I don't think so, especially for the Finnish.

But Iceland did, so especially for Norway it could work.
--
o o
Rich Rostrom
2013-04-30 21:43:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bradipus
 Is it feasible that Finland could remain
in some sort of union with Sweden
all of the way to the 21st century?
I don't think so, especially for the Finnish.
But Iceland did, so especially for Norway it could work.
Iceland was a very small country with a
tiny population; it didn't really _want_
sovereignty till the mid-1900s.

Finland is rather different.

Finland would be a linguistic-minority
region, many of which became restive
in the late 1800s and in the 1900s:

Catalonia, Galicia, Brittany, Corsica,
Slovakia, Czechia, Slovakia, even Wales.

Ireland, Macedonia, Transylvania?

But Finland is attached to one of the
most _reasonable_ nations in Europe.
It is hard to see Sweden attempting
to Swedify Finland. There is no religious
issue or old nationalist grudge to raise
hackles over.

OTL, Finland was attached to Russia,
and left autonomous. If there was any
sort of Finnish independence movement
before WW I, I never heard of it.

I can't see relations with Sweden being
any more difficult, and thus I don't see
what would trigger an independence
movement.

The "Velvet Divorce" of Slovakia might
be a precedent; but Slovakia was not
part of the Czech kingdom; it was part
of Hungary until 1918.

One question is how much Finland would
be quietly Swedified in the 1800s, if
still attached to Sweden.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Alex Milman
2013-05-02 00:42:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Bradipus
 Is it feasible that Finland could remain
in some sort of union with Sweden
all of the way to the 21st century?
I don't think so, especially for the Finnish.
But Iceland did, so especially for Norway it could work.
Iceland was a very small country with a
tiny population; it didn't really _want_
sovereignty till the mid-1900s.
Finland is rather different.
Finland would be a linguistic-minority
region, many of which became restive
Catalonia, Galicia, Brittany, Corsica,
Slovakia, Czechia, Slovakia, even Wales.
Ireland, Macedonia, Transylvania?
But Finland is attached to one of the
most _reasonable_ nations in Europe.
It is hard to see Sweden attempting
to Swedify Finland.
It was 'Swedified' up to certain degree, especially as far as nobility
was involved.
Post by Rich Rostrom
There is no religious
issue or old nationalist grudge to raise
hackles over.
OTL, Finland was attached to Russia,
and left autonomous.
Finland got its own constitution and government and Finnish language
got official recognition. More than they got under the Swedish rule.
Post by Rich Rostrom
If there was any
sort of Finnish independence movement
before WW I, I never heard of it.
Problems started in the early XX but they were mostly due to the
attempts of the Russian government to limit Finnish autonomy.
Post by Rich Rostrom
I can't see relations with Sweden being
any more difficult, and thus I don't see
what would trigger an independence
movement.
They could be because under Sweden Finland did not have autonomy. Or
perhaps this may not matter: Finns had been quite loyal to Sweden as
long as they were part of it.
Post by Rich Rostrom
The "Velvet Divorce" of Slovakia might
be a precedent; but Slovakia was not
part of the Czech kingdom; it was part
of Hungary until 1918.
One question is how much Finland would
be quietly Swedified in the 1800s, if
still attached to Sweden.
Well, it seems (I may be wrong) that the only academy on the Finnish
soil established under Swedish rule was using Swedish. Situation could
be somewhat similar to one in (in the modern terms) Latvia and
Estonia: all the way to XIX century German was the language of the
educated people and the local language was used predominantly by a
peasantry (and perhaps by the rural clergy).
Bradipus
2013-05-02 13:17:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
Finland is rather different.
Finland would be a linguistic-minority
region, many of which became restive
Catalonia, Galicia, Brittany, Corsica,
Slovakia, Czechia, Slovakia, even Wales.
Ireland, Macedonia, Transylvania?
But Finland is attached to one of the
most _reasonable_ nations in Europe.
It is hard to see Sweden attempting
to Swedify Finland.
It was 'Swedified' up to certain degree, especially as far as
nobility was involved.
This happened everywhere.

Where I live nobility was from ancient German origin and spoke
local language but after the land fell under Venice rule (1420)
most noblemen and city bourgeoisie began speking Venetian...
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
There is no religious
issue or old nationalist grudge to raise
hackles over.
OTL, Finland was attached to Russia,
and left autonomous.
Finland got its own constitution and government and Finnish
language got official recognition. More than they got under
the Swedish rule.
Post by Rich Rostrom
If there was any
sort of Finnish independence movement
before WW I, I never heard of it.
Problems started in the early XX but they were mostly due to
the attempts of the Russian government to limit Finnish
autonomy.
Post by Rich Rostrom
I can't see relations with Sweden being
any more difficult, and thus I don't see
what would trigger an independence
movement.
They could be because under Sweden Finland did not have
autonomy. Or perhaps this may not matter: Finns had been quite
loyal to Sweden as long as they were part of it.
Post by Rich Rostrom
One question is how much Finland would
be quietly Swedified in the 1800s, if
still attached to Sweden.
Well, it seems (I may be wrong) that the only academy on the
Finnish soil established under Swedish rule was using Swedish.
Situation could be somewhat similar to one in (in the modern
terms) Latvia and Estonia: all the way to XIX century German
was the language of the educated people and the local language
was used predominantly by a peasantry (and perhaps by the
rural clergy).
Anyway in XIX century the trend pushed in one direction:
people's language -> nation (autonomy) -> state (independent)

(it lasted till the 90's of XX century... Yugoslavia etc)
--
o o
Alex Milman
2013-05-02 16:18:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bradipus
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
Finland is rather different.
Finland would be a linguistic-minority
region, many of which became restive
Catalonia, Galicia, Brittany, Corsica,
Slovakia, Czechia, Slovakia, even Wales.
Ireland, Macedonia, Transylvania?
But Finland is attached to one of the
most _reasonable_ nations in Europe.
It is hard to see Sweden attempting
to Swedify Finland.
It was 'Swedified' up to certain degree, especially as far as
nobility was involved.
This happened everywhere.
Where I live nobility was from ancient German origin
Langobards or somebody else?
Post by Bradipus
and spoke
local language but after the land fell under Venice rule (1420)
most noblemen and city bourgeoisie began speking Venetian...
And which area would it be?
Post by Bradipus
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
There is no religious
issue or old nationalist grudge to raise
hackles over.
OTL, Finland was attached to Russia,
and left autonomous.
Finland got its own constitution and government and Finnish
language got official recognition. More than they got under
the Swedish rule.
Post by Rich Rostrom
If there was any
sort of Finnish independence movement
before WW I, I never heard of it.
Problems started in the early XX but they were mostly due to
the attempts of the Russian government to limit Finnish
autonomy.
Post by Rich Rostrom
I can't see relations with Sweden being
any more difficult, and thus I don't see
what would trigger an independence
movement.
They could be because under Sweden Finland did not have
autonomy. Or perhaps this may not matter: Finns had been quite
loyal to Sweden as long as they were part of it.
Post by Rich Rostrom
One question is how much Finland would
be quietly Swedified in the 1800s, if
still attached to Sweden.
Well, it seems (I may be wrong) that the only academy on the
Finnish soil established under Swedish rule was using Swedish.
Situation could be somewhat similar to one in (in the modern
terms) Latvia and Estonia: all the way to XIX century German
was the language of the educated people and the local language
was used predominantly by a peasantry (and perhaps by the
rural clergy).
people's language -> nation (autonomy) -> state (independent)
(it lasted till the 90's of XX century... Yugoslavia etc)
Well, yes. The funny thing is that (AFAIK) in Finland most of these
things (including a complete 'legitimization' of the Finnish language)
had been promoted by the Swedish-speaking people.

However, as far as the initial question goes, while under Russia
Finland had a wide autonomy and the Finnish language was
'promoted' (including creation of the Finnish language university as
an addition to existing Swedish one) nothing of the kind existed under
Swedish rule so a movement for independence may have much harder time.
In OTL it was simply a case of the Russian Empire falling apart and
the existing local institutions picking things up (after dealing with
the local Reds): everything including a national army already existed.
In ATL scenario such a movement would have much more difficult task.

Example of Norway vs. Sweden is not a very good one because Norway was
a kingdom (with all structures) ruled by the Kings of Sweden, not just
a province.
Bradipus
2013-05-03 15:08:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Bradipus
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
It is hard to see Sweden attempting
to Swedify Finland.
It was 'Swedified' up to certain degree, especially as far
as nobility was involved.
This happened everywhere.
Where I live nobility was from ancient German origin
Langobards or somebody else?
They and also later from German Empire.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Bradipus
and spoke
local language but after the land fell under Venice rule
(1420) most noblemen and city bourgeoisie began speking
Venetian...
And which area would it be?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friuli
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchate_of_Aquileia_(State)>
--
o o
Alex Milman
2013-05-03 17:21:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bradipus
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Bradipus
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
It is hard to see Sweden attempting
to Swedify Finland.
It was 'Swedified' up to certain degree, especially as far
as nobility was involved.
This happened everywhere.
Where I live nobility was from ancient German origin
Langobards or somebody else?
They and also later from German Empire.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Bradipus
and spoke
local language but after the land fell under Venice rule
(1420) most noblemen and city bourgeoisie began speking
Venetian...
And which area would it be?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friuli
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchate_of_Aquileia_(State)>
Ah, now I see. Funny thing but I'm presently in a (very slow) process
of reading History of the Venetian Republic by Norwich (just somewhere
immediately after the fall of the Latin Empire). Quite interesting but
the style is very dry.

Rich Rostrom
2013-05-02 17:23:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
It is hard to see Sweden attempting
to Swedify Finland.
It was 'Swedified' up to certain degree, especially as far as nobility
was involved.
I was thinking of the forced "Russification",
"Hellenization", "Turkification", "Germanization"
programs imposed in certain areas: banning of
the traditional language, insistence of names
in the dominant language, etc.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
One question is how much Finland would
be quietly Swedified in the 1800s, if
still attached to Sweden.
Well, it seems (I may be wrong) that the only academy on the Finnish
soil established under Swedish rule was using Swedish. Situation could
be somewhat similar to one in (in the modern terms) Latvia and
Estonia: all the way to XIX century German was the language of the
educated people and the local language was used predominantly by a
peasantry (and perhaps by the rural clergy).
Something like that. Swedish political and
economic dominance would lead to a gradual
displacement of Finnish as a daily language.

OTL, the political separation of Finland from
Sweden greatly reduced that dominance, and
also the extent of population exchange - thus
diminishing this effect, at a time when
urbanization and other modernization greatly
increased similar effects elsewhere.

Was the Russian program of official recognition
of Finnish in any way intended to discourage
use of Swedish in Finland, and thus break down
the ties between Finland and Sweden?
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Alex Milman
2013-05-02 20:12:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
It is hard to see Sweden attempting
to Swedify Finland.
It was 'Swedified' up to certain degree, especially as far as nobility
was involved.
I was thinking of the forced "Russification",
"Hellenization", "Turkification", "Germanization"
programs imposed in certain areas: banning of
the traditional language, insistence of names
in the dominant language, etc.
I'm not sure that 'Russification' in Finland worked exactly this way.
IIRC, Russian language was introduced as one more official language,
Finnish troops started training with the Russian contingents, and
other things like that.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
One question is how much Finland would
be quietly Swedified in the 1800s, if
still attached to Sweden.
Well, it seems (I may be wrong) that the only academy on the Finnish
soil established under Swedish rule was using Swedish. Situation could
be somewhat similar to one in (in the modern terms) Latvia and
Estonia: all the way to XIX century German was the language of the
educated people and the local language was used predominantly by a
peasantry (and perhaps by the rural clergy).
Something like that. Swedish political and
economic dominance would lead to a gradual
displacement of Finnish as a daily language.
By the early XIX this was more or less the case: Finnish became more
or less a 'peasantry language'. Not that this changed noticeably until
considerably later: even under Russia Swedish remained a legitimate
language.
Post by Rich Rostrom
OTL, the political separation of Finland from
Sweden greatly reduced that dominance, and
also the extent of population exchange - thus
diminishing this effect, at a time when
urbanization and other modernization greatly
increased similar effects elsewhere.
Was the Russian program of official recognition
of Finnish in any way intended to discourage
use of Swedish in Finland, and thus break down
the ties between Finland and Sweden?
I suspect that nobody cared too much about these ties because, until
Nicholas II there was not a single reason for Finland to get closer to
Sweden (and anyway taking into an account friendly relations between
Sweden and Russia Sweden would not encourage anything of the kind).
They got autonomy, which they did not have. They got back Vyborg
(ceded to Russia as a result of the Great Northern War). They got
their own constitution, their own government, their own army, even
Finnish university. AFAIK, Swedish university(ies) continued to exist.

Pretty much like in the Baltic governorships (minus constitution,
etc.): whatever was there in German remained in German but somewhere
in XIX development of the local cultures started.
Rich Rostrom
2013-05-03 01:11:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
I was thinking of the forced "Russification",
"Hellenization", "Turkification", "Germanization"
programs imposed in certain areas: banning of
the traditional language, insistence of names
in the dominant language, etc.
I'm not sure that 'Russification' in Finland worked exactly this way.
I didn't think there _was_ any Russification
of Finland. Recognition of Russian as an
official language would be natural and not
a threat.
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
OTL, the political separation of Finland from
Sweden greatly reduced that dominance, and
also the extent of population exchange - thus
diminishing this effect, at a time when
urbanization and other modernization greatly
increased similar effects elsewhere.
Was the Russian program of official recognition
of Finnish in any way intended to discourage
use of Swedish in Finland, and thus break down
the ties between Finland and Sweden?
I suspect that nobody cared too much about these ties because, until
Nicholas II there was not a single reason for Finland to get closer to
Sweden (and anyway taking into an account friendly relations between
Sweden and Russia Sweden would not encourage anything of the kind).
Trade? The odd migration back and forth?

Why would Sweden consider this a threat to Russia?

(Which is not to say that Russia could consider
it a threat to its control of Finland.)
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Alex Milman
2013-05-03 02:50:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
I was thinking of the forced "Russification",
"Hellenization", "Turkification", "Germanization"
programs imposed in certain areas: banning of
the traditional language, insistence of names
in the dominant language, etc.
I'm not sure that 'Russification' in Finland worked exactly this way.
I didn't think there _was_ any Russification
of Finland. Recognition of Russian as an
official language would be natural and not
a threat.
The Finns did not share your opinion. :-)

My personal opinion on the subject is that, as everything else, Nicky
did it in a clumsy way and without any real need.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
Post by Rich Rostrom
OTL, the political separation of Finland from
Sweden greatly reduced that dominance, and
also the extent of population exchange - thus
diminishing this effect, at a time when
urbanization and other modernization greatly
increased similar effects elsewhere.
Was the Russian program of official recognition
of Finnish in any way intended to discourage
use of Swedish in Finland, and thus break down
the ties between Finland and Sweden?
I suspect that nobody cared too much about these ties because, until
Nicholas II there was not a single reason for Finland to get closer to
Sweden (and anyway taking into an account friendly relations between
Sweden and Russia Sweden would not encourage anything of the kind).
Trade? The odd migration back and forth?
Can't tell for sure but probably most trade was with Russia.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Why would Sweden consider this a threat to Russia?
I did not use word 'threat' but pro-Swedish political movement would
damage status quo in which both sides had been inetrested.
Post by Rich Rostrom
(Which is not to say that Russia could consider
it a threat to its control of Finland.)
I don't think so but who needs extra trouble?
Bradipus
2013-05-03 15:09:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
On Apr 30, 5:43 pm, Rich Rostrom
Post by Rich Rostrom
It is hard to see Sweden attempting
to Swedify Finland.
It was 'Swedified' up to certain degree, especially as far as
nobility was involved.
I was thinking of the forced "Russification",
"Hellenization", "Turkification", "Germanization"
programs imposed in certain areas: banning of
the traditional language, insistence of names
in the dominant language, etc.
IIRC that also happened after 1866 in Hungary using strong
manners.
I've seen maps showing increasing area of Hungarian speaking
zones with time passing.

Beating children at school for "bad language use", everybody did
that, I suppose, with different means and for different but
close purposes. France, Britain etc.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Rich Rostrom
One question is how much Finland would
be quietly Swedified in the 1800s, if
still attached to Sweden.
Well, it seems (I may be wrong) that the only academy on the
Finnish soil established under Swedish rule was using
Swedish. Situation could be somewhat similar to one in (in
the modern terms) Latvia and Estonia: all the way to XIX
century German was the language of the educated people and
the local language was used predominantly by a peasantry (and
perhaps by the rural clergy).
Something like that. Swedish political and
economic dominance would lead to a gradual
displacement of Finnish as a daily language.
OTL, the political separation of Finland from
Sweden greatly reduced that dominance, and
also the extent of population exchange - thus
diminishing this effect, at a time when
urbanization and other modernization greatly
increased similar effects elsewhere.
Was the Russian program of official recognition
of Finnish in any way intended to discourage
use of Swedish in Finland, and thus break down
the ties between Finland and Sweden?
A good idea. That has been done elsewhere.
--
o o
Loading...