AHC: Make a Finno-Ugric language be spoken in the Americas, Africa or Australia

Your challenge is to make a Finno-Ugric language be spoken in the Americas, Africa or Australia by a large amount of people. It has to be a regonized minority language (It should survive to the present, but doesn't have to).

POD is any time after 1300's
Theres a tribe in Africa allegedly originated from intermarriage with Hungarian soldiers. They even have incoporated Magyar language.
 
Gustav III escapes his assassination in March 1792, and follows through with his sponsorship of Bolts' venture to colonize Western Australia; with the Australian colonies subsequently utilized by the Swedes in the same manner that of the British used theirs, but to a even greater extent. It had been with the Riksdag of 1786, and his subsequent passage from semi-constitutionalism to semi-absolutism, that his foreign policy had become more adventurous; in doing so, Gustav had aroused popular indignation against the mutinous aristocratic officers, resulting most infamously in the Anjala Conspiracy to declare Finland an independent state, but Gustav III ultimately quelled these rebellions and arrested the leading conspirators, with public opinion on his side. Capitalizing on the powerful anti-aristocratic passions thus aroused, Gustav summoned a Riksdag early in 1789, at which he put through an Act of Union and Security on 17 February 1789 with the backing of the three lower estates. This reinforced monarchical authority significantly, and further inflamed the nobility's hatred of the king. Most of those aristocrats who were found to be conspiring against him, and convicted of high treason, were sentenced to death; but only one or two were actually executed, with the overwhelming majority either sent to prison or deported. And in Russia and Denmark, where most of them ended up, they were far from isolated, continuing to incite regicide against him.

So, where better to send all of these rebels, dissidents, political prisoners and independence activists, instead of into the open arms of Sweden's enemies, than to his newly established colony in South-West Australia? Given that he agreed to sponsor William Bolts' proposal to colonize Australia immediately after the Riksdag of 1786, within less than a week of it, it seems fairly likely that this was the chief motive and incentive behind Gustav III's desire for an Australian colony in the first place. And remember, in the Third Coalition against Napoleon, Sweden and Portugal were Great Britain's only European Allies against Napoleon, after Russia allied with France. Considering events closer to home, Sweden's status as a critical British ally, and that the Swedish colony's in a location which the British were deeply concerned that the French would lay claim to, I'd say they'd have a more than decent chance of the British being fully supportive of the Swedes' claims to Western Australia. They'd be the ones keeping it out of the hands of the French, after all; and it'd lighten the British Royal Navy's own load. Would it be profitable as a colony, or trade post? Probably not for a while. But it'd be immensely valuable in maintaining the coherence and stability of Gustav III's revived Swedish Empire, especially in its early stages.

The British had the Irish that they wanted to send far, far away; the Swedish, at this stage, still had the Finns to fill the same role. And as such, with the Finnish nationalists all deported to Western Australia, and Swedish Australia having a Finnish majority, it's Finnish, not Swedish, which becomes the majority language in Western Australia ITTL.

I'd say that while this is an interesting and novel idea, there is a compelling argument against it: demographics. The Swedish population in the 18th century, c. 2 million, was quite low in comparison to any major European state and most critically Russia, Sweden's great rival. Deporting a major number of Finnish nationalists and other suspect people would make Sweden a lot weaker in many ways from a manpower perspective: as it was, Sweden could not afford to lose a lot of people from an economic and military POV. This is a factor that separates Sweden from Britain: for the British, there was in no way the same risks involved in treating the Irish badly than there was for Sweden in decimating the Finns would be. The Eastern provinces were Sweden's bulwark against Russia, and the population of the area made defending it possible. The number of people Sweden could exile to Australia, then, without shooting itself in the leg, would likely to be in tens rather than hundreds of thousands, and it is not at all a given that they would make up a majority in even a part of Australia.

Then again, what if Sweden deports so many Finns to Australia ITTL that it critically weakens Sweden itself (say, 300 000 or more), and breaks the back of the Finnish nationalism in Finland? In the worst option for the Finns, Russia then takes Finland, Russifies the area, and come the late 20th century, there is only one place in the world where the Finnish language is still commonly used - Western Australia.
 
Last edited:
Top