Swedish Intervention in the Crimean War

For my Afrikaner TL, I'm thinking of having the Swedes intervene in TTL's analogue of the Crimean War.

This analogue is similar enough that I could probably learn from a more limited What-If.

What if the Swedes had intervened in the Crimean War? Could they take any of the territories lost in the Great Northern War back?

I did some reading about the Baltic campaign and it seemed like the Brits and French had gotten into a stalemate--they keep the Russian fleet trapped against the forts, but could not take the forts themselves. Having a land army coming out of the north might be helpful for the allies, but I don't know much about the Swedish army of the period, so I don't know how helpful (if at all) they would be.

If the British and French go along with it, it would be possible, but it would also be an extremely stupid move. Sweden is a small and weak country sharing a border with the greatest land power of its day. A policy of careful neutrality could preserve its political options, but taking part in an aggressive venture would mortgage its future to Franco-British loyalty. It could never hold on to these gains on its own.

carlton_bach said:

If the British and French go along with it, it would be possible, but it would also be an extremely stupid move. Sweden is a small and weak country sharing a border with the greatest land power of its day. A policy of careful neutrality could preserve its political options, but taking part in an aggressive venture would mortgage its future to Franco-British loyalty. It could never hold on to these gains on its own.

Click to expand...

Ah.

If the Swedes found themselves faced with an angry Russia, might they find ways of becoming strong enough to keep their gains? Perhaps by building up their military or making various reforms? A century or so earlier, they were strong enough to fight the Russians on equal terms.

Or are they just SOL once the Russians recover?

Hmm...might Sweden ally with Germany if the Russians start making threatening moves and the Brits and French aren't helpful (assuming they can hold their gains until 1871-72)?

MerryPrankster said:

Ah.

If the Swedes found themselves faced with an angry Russia, might they find ways of becoming strong enough to keep their gains? Perhaps by building up their military or making various reforms? A century or so earlier, they were strong enough to fight the Russians on equal terms.

Or are they just SOL once the Russians recover?

Hmm...might Sweden ally with Germany if the Russians start making threatening moves and the Brits and French aren't helpful (assuming they can hold their gains until 1871-72)?

Click to expand...

By the time the Crimean war rolls around there is no chance for Sweden to take on Russia. In the great northern war they had much more territory and an army that was absolutely enormous compared to the size of the country. By the time the Crimean war rolled around, they had lost to Russia not only the baltic territories, but also Finland. In return, they had taken Norway from Denmark. If Sweden is run by revengethirsty fools, then perhaps a war with Russia, to take back Finland, is a possibility, but I highly doubt such a situation ever coming up. By this time, Swedens days as a great power is over, and also her days as a warring nation (the last one this country saw was the napoleonic wars).

raniE said:

By the time the Crimean war rolls around there is no chance for Sweden to take on Russia. In the great northern war they had much more territory and an army that was absolutely enormous compared to the size of the country. By the time the Crimean war rolled around, they had lost to Russia not only the baltic territories, but also Finland. In return, they had taken Norway from Denmark. If Sweden is run by revengethirsty fools, then perhaps a war with Russia, to take back Finland, is a possibility, but I highly doubt such a situation ever coming up. By this time, Swedens days as a great power is over, and also her days as a warring nation (the last one this country saw was the napoleonic wars).

Click to expand...

Could new forces be raised from Finland? I know that later on, the Russians became very repressive with Finland and thus the Finns might hate the Russians, but IIRC that was under Alexander III. The Swedes might not be able to count on Finnish anti-Russianism when the revenge-war comes...

Incorporated western Finland into Sweden might help with the manpower problem somewhat, along with universal military service (the Wiki describes how the land-tax was phased out and replaced with conscription, or something to that effect).

Of course, Russia STILL has the advantage of numbers, so even if Sweden militarized to a ludicrous degree, that could pose some major problems.

Hmmm...thus far, I'm getting a "not a chance" vibe from everyone thus far.

If we move the POD back a bit so that Sweden is less affected by the Napoleonic wars, would they stand a better chance?

MerryPrankster said:

Could new forces be raised from Finland? I know that later on, the Russians became very repressive with Finland and thus the Finns might hate the Russians, but IIRC that was under Alexander III. The Swedes might not be able to count on Finnish anti-Russianism when the revenge-war comes...

Incorporated western Finland into Sweden might help with the manpower problem somewhat, along with universal military service (the Wiki describes how the land-tax was phased out and replaced with conscription, or something to that effect).

Of course, Russia STILL has the advantage of numbers, so even if Sweden militarized to a ludicrous degree, that could pose some major problems.

Hmmm...thus far, I'm getting a "not a chance" vibe from everyone thus far.

If we move the POD back a bit so that Sweden is less affected by the Napoleonic wars, would they stand a better chance?

Click to expand...

If they don't lose Finland then they might have a better chance, but it would also mean less incentive to fight.

Finland in the mid-19th century seems by and large to have been OK with Russian rule, so a pro-Swedish groundswell is unlikely. But more importantly, Sweden in 1700 could fight Russia on near-equal terms not so much because of its larger population and territory as because of Russia's significantly smaller one. By 1850, that is gone, as is Sweden's technological lead. A giovernment eager to reclaim Finland and the Balitics could do it, probably, with the support of France and Britain, but it would afterwards be perpetually reduced to their catspaw because the second they end their support, Russia will be back. I doubt that is worth it.

The rather successful outcome of the Crimean war for the allies was only possible because Crimea was so distant from the Russian "centre of gravity" but relatively accessible for the allied seapowers. The Baltic and Finland would be another matter, as the Russians by mid 19th century could focus a much larger share of their force in this region. Sweden-Norway alone would be dead meat and the allies wouldn't make a big difference.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

The swedish military at the time of the crimean war was in a poorly state. Our arms were state of the art during the time of Napoleon and the troops we could muster were poorly trained.

carlton_bach said:

Finland in the mid-19th century seems by and large to have been OK with Russian rule, so a pro-Swedish groundswell is unlikely. But more importantly, Sweden in 1700 could fight Russia on near-equal terms not so much because of its larger population and territory as because of Russia's significantly smaller one. By 1850, that is gone, as is Sweden's technological lead. A giovernment eager to reclaim Finland and the Balitics could do it, probably, with the support of France and Britain, but it would afterwards be perpetually reduced to their catspaw because the second they end their support, Russia will be back. I doubt that is worth it.

Click to expand...

Well that´s because they had a pretty good deal with Russia. Russia pretty much just allowed the Finns to rule themselves, atleast at first.

Fabilius said:

Well that´s because they had a pretty good deal with Russia. Russia pretty much just allowed the Finns to rule themselves, atleast at first.

Click to expand...

Very good deal I would say. IMHO before Nicholas II, there wasn't much to complain about.

Actually Sweden could have become involved in the Crimean War. The British and French did carry out attacks on the Russian positions in Finland and with the support of Sweden might have been able to seize Finland and force an earlier end to the war. But this would have also reguired Britain to give its word to aid Sweden should Russia ever attempt to regain Finland.

There is a big difference which you're missing, which is that in the Great Northern War Sweden was on her own, and in the Crimean War she'd have Britain, France, Sardinia, and the Ottomans on her side.

Swedish entry would be a big problem for Russia, and could very well recover Finland in the peace settlement.

With so many more important things going on for Russia, I think Sweden would have a decent chance of holding onto Finland, as I doubt Russia would risk a general war to take it.

Recovering the Baltics is a non-starter and Sweden would have to be crazy to attempt it.

raniE said:

By the time the Crimean war rolls around there is no chance for Sweden to take on Russia. In the great northern war they had much more territory and an army that was absolutely enormous compared to the size of the country. By the time the Crimean war rolled around, they had lost to Russia not only the baltic territories, but also Finland. In return, they had taken Norway from Denmark. If Sweden is run by revengethirsty fools, then perhaps a war with Russia, to take back Finland, is a possibility, but I highly doubt such a situation ever coming up. By this time, Swedens days as a great power is over, and also her days as a warring nation (the last one this country saw was the napoleonic wars).

Click to expand...

But also in this period, the Russians were not capable of mobilizing a very large percentage of their population.

Even in the 1877-78 war with the Ottomans, the Russians had to strip their other borders to overpower the Ottomans, with about 400,000 combat troops representing a very large percentage of the troops available.

In the Crimean War, especially with Sweden involved, the Russians will have to assign large numbers of troops to defend against invasions (they did this to guard against Ottoman landings (!) in the Black Sea in OTL), and less than you might think would be available to fight in Finland.

Your point is good regarding "centers of power", but the Crimea was still a very serious logistical problem for the Allies - the Baltic is a better proposition, especially with Sweden as a base.

Redbeard said:

The rather successful outcome of the Crimean war for the allies was only possible because Crimea was so distant from the Russian "centre of gravity" but relatively accessible for the allied seapowers. The Baltic and Finland would be another matter, as the Russians by mid 19th century could focus a much larger share of their force in this region. Sweden-Norway alone would be dead meat and the allies wouldn't make a big difference.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

Click to expand...

MerryPrankster said:

For my Afrikaner TL, I'm thinking of having the Swedes intervene in TTL's analogue of the Crimean War.

This analogue is similar enough that I could probably learn from a more limited What-If.

What if the Swedes had intervened in the Crimean War? Could they take any of the territories lost in the Great Northern War back?

I did some reading about the Baltic campaign and it seemed like the Brits and French had gotten into a stalemate--they keep the Russian fleet trapped against the forts, but could not take the forts themselves. Having a land army coming out of the north might be helpful for the allies, but I don't know much about the Swedish army of the period, so I don't know how helpful (if at all) they would be.

Click to expand...

The British and French took the Russian fort at Bomarsund in the Aaland Isles. The war for a long time entered stalemate because of especially Austria trying to mediate peace.

It might simply not be a question of the Sweden "intervening". They'd need approval of Britain and France which might not be a given thing. Becoming a pet you need feeding and looking after.

Denmark had to choose and chose neutrality - an alliance wasn't a given thing.

Sweden was like the other Scandinavian countries in essence small poor nations at the time.

If they did enter and took something back the big bad wolf would be at their door when the allies left.

Sweden at this time for had gotten what they had wanted for almost 200 years - Norway. In exchange with Finland - but that was the deal.

The Swedish army at this time wasn't even considered a serious threath to Denmark!

Swedish revenge would be a bad idea and possibly not something they'd be allowed to carry out. And they had attained their objective...

arctic warrior said:

The British and French took the Russian fort at Bomarsund in the Aaland Isles. The war for a long time entered stalemate because of especially Austria trying to mediate peace.

It might simply not be a question of the Sweden "intervening". They'd need approval of Britain and France which might not be a given thing. Becoming a pet you need feeding and looking after.

Denmark had to choose and chose neutrality - an alliance wasn't a given thing.

Sweden was like the other Scandinavian countries in essence small poor nations at the time.

If they did enter and took something back the big bad wolf would be at their door when the allies left.

Sweden at this time for had gotten what they had wanted for almost 200 years - Norway. In exchange with Finland - but that was the deal.

The Swedish army at this time wasn't even considered a serious threath to Denmark!

Swedish revenge would be a bad idea and possibly not something they'd be allowed to carry out. And they had attained their objective...

Click to expand...

An excellent post!

IMHO, pretty mutch sums up the "realpolitik" of the time

Oddball said:

An excellent post!

IMHO, pretty mutch sums up the "realpolitik" of the time

Click to expand...

Been cheating actually.
Am reading that particular part of History of Danish Foreign Policy right now. Just a few touches of my own.

Abdul Hadi Pasha said:

But also in this period, the Russians were not capable of mobilizing a very large percentage of their population.

Even in the 1877-78 war with the Ottomans, the Russians had to strip their other borders to overpower the Ottomans, with about 400,000 combat troops representing a very large percentage of the troops available.

In the Crimean War, especially with Sweden involved, the Russians will have to assign large numbers of troops to defend against invasions (they did this to guard against Ottoman landings (!) in the Black Sea in OTL), and less than you might think would be available to fight in Finland.

Your point is good regarding "centers of power", but the Crimea was still a very serious logistical problem for the Allies - the Baltic is a better proposition, especially with Sweden as a base.

Click to expand...

Historically they did hold back troops to repel British-French amphibious assaults, especially around St Petersburg, where over 1/4th of the Russian Army was kept.

Also, the allied offensive plans of Jan 1856 were based around the following strategy:

1. Austria had indicated they would ally with the British-French-North Germans-Ottomans-Sardinians (henceforth "the allies"), and Prussia had indicated they would follow the Austrian lead the bring the entire German Confederation in against Russia

2. Sweden and Denmark had agreed to come in with the allies in 1856, and a force of 30,000 Swedes, 30,000 British 16,000 Danes and 10,000 French were to land in Estonia, while the remainder of the Swedish Army attacked into Finland.

3. In the Crimean, the British and French had opposing ideas, the French wanted to move north with 125,000 French and 65,000 British* troops, leaving 70,000 Troops as a rearguard in Sevastapol, while the British wanted to move those 65,000 Troops into Georgia


* The British Army of the East included a British Turkish Corps of 25,000 commanded by Vivian and the Sardinian Corps of 15,000. Both were paid for by Britain. Actual British troops in this Army were only 80,000

There wasn't a deal per se at the Congress of Vienna, rather Norway was given to Sweden as compensation for the loss of Finland(several years earlier), and also to punish Denmark which waited a bit too long to abandon Napoleon's side.

Abdul is correct on the list of allies a belligerent Sweden would have enjoyed which leaves open the idea that Sweden might have been able to enjoy some Russian concessions in return for continued neutrality.

67th Tigers said:

Also, the allied offensive plans of Jan 1856 were based around the following strategy:

1. Austria had indicated they would ally with the British-French-North Germans-Ottomans-Sardinians (henceforth "the allies"), and Prussia had indicated they would follow the Austrian lead the bring the entire German Confederation in against Russia

2. Sweden and Denmark had agreed to come in with the allies in 1856, and a force of 30,000 Swedes, 30,000 British 16,000 Danes and 10,000 French were to land in Estonia, while the remainder of the Swedish Army attacked into Finland.

Click to expand...

1. Denmark was due to the Danish King being Duke of Holstein and Lauenburg part of the German Confederation. Denmark had put the brigade of Holstein on higher state of readiness but hadn't agreed to be part of an aggression.

2. Denmark would not enter as an ally. Tsar Nicholas 1 had claims to Holstein and thus could influence the succession of the Kingdom. Thats why Denmark wouldn't enter. Having an unsolved succession question would also fire off the German Confederation. And NOBODY was willing to write off the Tsar's claims.
So in short AND referring to my privious post Denmark would NOT enter the war against Russia, it just succeeded in convincing everybody it was a good thing it stayed neutral.