A different Finnish War - Page 19

Julius Vogel · #**361** September 23rd, 2011, 10:43 AM

I am glad to see this is back

von Adler · #**362** September 23rd, 2011, 11:09 AM

The problem is that both languages WERE equal in the Kingdom of Sweden from at least 1735, when a permanent translation office was established at the Riskdag, ensuring that the subjects had the right to address the King and the Riksdag in Finnish if they wanted to. While officials were required to be able to speak Swedish, the Finnish peasantry often demanded and were almost always successful that the officials in their are also spoke Finnish. Finnish newspapers were being printed, as were Finnish books, Finnish poetry etc.

By the time language becomes a nationalist issue, there will already be a long tradition of bi-lingual people in the administration and everybody speaking, reading, studying, writing, setting up theater plays etc in whatever language they want - as long as the taxes are paid, no revolts happen and the subjects and authorities can communicate, the Swedish state traditionally did not not give a rat's arse what language the subject spoke.

There will be a Finnish nationalist revival. The old tales and epics will be written down, set up as plays, read publically. There'll be a a smattering of authors writing national epics in Finnish. Some people will give their children Finnish rather than Swedish names. There'll be pushes that the administration in Finnish-speaking muncipalities should be in Finnish, and regiments raised in Finnish-speaking areas be allowed to conduct command in Finnish. Local muncipalities will fight over Finnish or Swedish place names and road signs. All of which will most likely be granted, while cultural imperialists in Stockholm harumph.

Swedish will remain a mandatory subject in school, officials will almost all be bi-lingual, the Finnish-speaking Finns will continue to have the right to speak their language in school (education in Finnish-speaking regions will be in Finnish, with Swedish as a mandatory subject), at home, in business and with authorities. Speaking Swedish will open a lot of opportunities like working in the merchant navy, in Sweden or Norway, becoming an official or officer in the Army and so on, so the incentive will be quite strong as well.

The issue will probably be far less of an issue than Tornedalsfinska is in Sweden today or Swedish is in Finland today.

DuQuense · #**363** September 23rd, 2011, 11:26 AM

Sounds like Canada - with every product having both french and english printing on the back.

Golden Helmet Of Mambrino · #**364** September 23rd, 2011, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by von Adler

The problem is that both languages WERE equal in the Kingdom of Sweden from at least 1735, when a permanent translation office was established at the Riskdag, ensuring that the subjects had the right to address the King and the Riksdag in Finnish if they wanted to. While officials were required to be able to speak Swedish, the Finnish peasantry often demanded and were almost always successful that the officials in their are also spoke Finnish. Finnish newspapers were being printed, as were Finnish books, Finnish poetry etc.

Well, the Finnish historians tend to say that actually the Finnish language was becoming less equal during 18th century. The officials were not required to speak Finnish, and often did not despite protests of the Finnish peasantry. The Finnish language was thought not to be suitable for official government usage in Finland, the translations of Swedish laws were done by individuals and not officially recognized, etc. Almost every school in Finland was Swedish-speaking - Finnish language was rarely used even if the pupils were Finnish.

The few Finnish newspapers that there were, proved to be short-lived - the upper classes that could read, would read in Swedish. For example, the first Finnish newspaper, Suomalaiset Tieto-Sanomat, survived about one year (1776); there wasn't enough readers. The next Finnish newspaper, Turun Wiikko-Sanomat, was published forty years later, in 1820s.

There wasn't that much Finnish literature: before 1809, there were 174 Finnish books printed in total, of which 80 were religious material, and the number of both religious and non-religious books printed were in decline. H. G. Porthan and the other fennophiles of 18th century (intellectuals interested in Finnish culture, mythology and language) thought that it was natural, even favourable, that as the Finnish people became more educated and civilised, they started to speak Swedish instead of Finnish. Porthan himself saw that during his lifetime the Swedish language replaced Finnish as the major language of Turku/Åbo, and he welcomed this process.

So, Finnish and Swedish were not equal in 18th century any more, like they were before the time of Swedish Empire. Maybe Finnish language wasn't actively repressed, but certainly it wasn't doing as well as the Swedish language.

So what this means in regard of 19th century in this TL?

Quote:

Originally Posted by yourworstnightmare

I think very much of the early nationalist wave in both Finland and Norway would be to force Sweden to federalize and accept Finland and Norway as autonomous entities with their own legislature. When that fails (I can't see Sweden accept it) there will be a slow change in attitudes towards independence. And of course the language war in Finland will be on like Donkey Kong. Without the threat of Russification there will be little interest in any form of unity. The Swedish speakers will furiously try to block Finnish from becoming an official language, while the Finnish speakers will push hard for their language to be considered equal with Swedish.

I agree with this. For reasons von Adler stated (economical and political) the Finnish national movement most likely won't seek for independence but for more autonomy and rights (some hotheads will surely want full independece).

As upper classes will stick to Swedish, the movement advocating the Finnish language will also be more peasant and working class profiled than it was OTL. Equal rights for Finnish speaking people will surely be amongst the demands of Finnish socialists and agrarian parties.

Interesting question is what happens if communists take over in Russia like in OTL - will Finnish left-wingers speak for independent (socialist) Finland that would be allied with Soviet Russia?

However, I'm fairly sure that if Finnish is given more "equal" status in Sweden, that will not happen very easily or without great years-long political quarrelling, especially if Finland is not a separate entity. Some historians (I'm referring to Heikki Ylikangas) argue that there was a possibility that Finnish language was in a situation somehow similar to Irish language during 19th century -- in OTL.

As in this TL Finland is still part of Swedish state, Finnish will be a language spoken by just a minority, maybe a significant minority but minority nevertheless; the Finns defending Finnish language will not have that much power in any parliamentary system, especially when they're coming from lower classes (socialists, agrarian party) -- and I don't if they'll get that much support from the Swedish working class and peasants. During 18th century and great part of 19th century the Finnish language was thought not to be a language suitable for higher culture, literature etc. Also, there will surely be big economical incentive for every Finn to learn Swedish - but would Finns have a reason stay bilingual and teach both Finnish and Swedish to their children?

von Adler · #**365** October 12th, 2011, 02:34 PM

The last part is very interesting - might Finnish go like Welsh, Scottish and Irish in this timeline, becoming a language spoken mostly by nationalists and people trying to preserve it for cultural and historical reasons? I don't know yet. I must thing further on the subject, but for now, an update.

von Adler · #**366** October 12th, 2011, 03:07 PM

Meanwhile, in Portugal and Spain.

1809-05-10.
By now Marshal Soult's army has been completely driven from Portugal by the combined armies of Britain, Portugal and the Spanish Regency under La Romana. Wellesley, commanding the combined armies, left the Portugese militia and the competent General William Carr Beresford in the fortified positions around Lissabon while he advanced into Spain to link up with General Gregorio García de la Cuesta's Spanish Army, which had sworn itself to the La Romana Regency as opposed to King Joseph.

1809-06-15.
Wellesley found de la Cuesta to be insular, reluctant to advance and fearful for the safety of his troops. To his defence, it can be stated that the whole of Spain seemed to be cracking at its seems at this time, with uprisings, liberals fighting conservatives, bonapartists against nationalists, guerillas and everyone taking the oppurtunity to run off to the hills or settle old grudges as the very social fabric of the country was torn to shreds. A brutal and bloody war is fought all over Spain, a simultaneous civil war between La Romana Regency supporters, supporters of King Joseph and King Ferdinand VII and even Charles IV, the French Army, various militias, including regional ones declaring various parts of Spain as independent nations and pure bandit gangs fought each other in a vicious war that was a sad and bloody evidence of the old saying that a civil war is anything but civil.

1809-07-10.
Massive British reinforcements for Wellesley have started to arrive in Portugal. Having abandoned the plans to land in Flanders, and with the peace in Sweden freeing up Moore's army, the British can pour most of their army into the Peninsular War. However, they need to rest after sea travel, and be organised to join Wellesley and the combined army in southwestern Spain. The upcoming battle at Talvera would be too early for these reinforcements.

imperialaquila · #**367** October 12th, 2011, 03:19 PM

Interesting. How much of the chaos in Spain is OTL?

von Adler · #**368** October 12th, 2011, 06:11 PM

90-95%. The addition of La Romana as a Regent (who he is regent for is not entirely clear yet, it has been delayed until after the war) adds some extra confusion, at least at this time.

von Adler · #**369** October 13th, 2011, 06:22 AM

1809-07-20.
As Wellesley's forces joined up with the Spanish army, problems arose between La Romana and de la Cuesta, resulting in a heated argument on who really was commanding the Spanish forces. At a joint dinner and strategy meeting, Wellesley forces the issue by placing the two men at opposing sides of the table, declaring that they should also fight that way - with La Romana's veterans at his left flank and de la Cuesta's army on his right. While this was more or less siding with de la Cuesta, both men accepted the solution, although under protest.

The joint army could now muster;
7 000 Spanish soldiers of La Romana's division.
21 000 British soldiers.
34 000 men of de la Cuesta's army (although not all would be present at the upcoming battle, with de la Cuesta keeping reserves and garrisons too far from the battlefield for them to reach it in time).

In total, the Sixth Coalition Armies fielded for the battle 9 000 men cavalry, 36 000 men infantry and 64 guns.

Opposing them were Marshal Claude Victor-Perrin's I. Corps, with some reinforcements from Marshal Jean-Baptiste Jourdan (who in the name of King Joseph led the battle), in all 8 500 men cavalry, 37 000 men infantry and 80 guns.

While the army of the Sixth Coalition was superior in numbers, not all were present in the battle, and as experience would show, the inadequate drill and experience of de la Cuesta's Spanish army severely reduced their effectiveness in the battle.