Finland stays Swedish

arctic warrior

Red said:
Nope. If I were, I would certainly not use the word "nuts":p :D

Look, if the danes were so keen on joining the various alliances against Napoleon, why did they not do so in 1807 imediatly before Copenhagen?

But yes, you are partialy right about the situation in 1813. But it is very important to be aware of the fact that all the way up to the summer of 1812, the Danes were a sincere and loyal ally of Napoleon.

So my point was basicaly that you were wrong about what threw Denmark into Napoleons arms. That reason for that can only be given to Britains actions in 1807. But after 1813 you are right that the question about Norway keept Denmark in Napoleons camp.

About the final peace treaties I stand by my first version... ;) :)
Click to expand...

Okay - there is always national or some other bias with the writer and perception change over time.
1801 - Battle of Copenhagen Roads. Denmark-Norway forced out of the Neutrality League.
1807 - Denmark-Norway wanted to stay neutral and had actually 1806 been at ends with French forces persuing Prussian forces into Holstein. The Danish army were in Holstein and the Prince Regent in Kiel (as I remember) with the army command. The Danes tried to convince Canning of their neutrality but Canning wanted to neutralize the Danish-Norwegian navy and get it out of reach by Nap. The Danish deployment was a clear signal but Canning went ahead. (Danish point of wiew)
1808-09 - Denmark-Norway was an ally to Nap and the invasion of Sweden planned but didn't come off because of events in Spain, and the Spanish army in Denmark was shipped from Fyen by RN to Spain. Big sigh of relief in Denmark-Norway.
1813 - Denmark-Norway wanted to join the coalition but would only be allowed in on ceding Norway or at least Trondheim to Sweden. Which was unacceptable to Denmark. And so it went with Nap again.

IMHO 1813 would be different in this AH and Denmark-Norway allowed into the coalition. And we seems to agree on this.

About 1815 - I only have the Danish sources that state my offered point of wiew, but I know they could be biased as any writing of history.

Then Denmark ceded Norway to Sweden who were so overjoyed that they gave Prussia Pommerania. That made Prussia give Denmark Lauenburg that the Hannoveranians (British) had given the Prussians.
Who made the Prussians give away anything? Why would anybody give Denmark anything? It was also told to send off 5000 troops to participate in the occupation of France.
 

arctic warrior

Iñaki said:
Hmm, I thought that the danish were searching a neutral politic, if I remember well there was a Neutral League formed by Russia, Denmark and others around 1800 against the agressive policy in the seas of Great Britain against the neutrals, and Copenhagen was bombed in 1801 ending definitively with this League.

I suppose that the real thing that searched the danish was to try to have a third block that could neutralize the powers of France and british, I suppose that the bombing of Copenhagen in 1801 and 1807 open the eyes to Denmark about the not possibility of being neutral.

I have curiosity Do you think that was there any possibility of the Neutral League had could survived effectively making possible the existence of a third block of neutral countries formed by the scandinavian countries and Russia during the napoleonic wars,? if this were possible, this alliance between russians and scandinavians had meant that Swede had continued having Finland and the danish Norway.
Click to expand...

The Danish point of wiew is that Denmark-Norway wanted to keep its neutrality and thus be able to trade freely. In order to do so convoy was initiated by the Danish-Norwegian navy leading to a number of incidents with the RN.
The Neutrality League was set up by the Zar, but Denmark-Norway was reluctant in joining and actually after the battle of Copenhagen Roads 1801 was happy to learn that the Zar was dead and the Neutrality League dissolved.

I think the Danes wanted freedom of trade and if nobody would give it to them they would stay neutral as in 1806 - 07. That was the main objective by Danish politicians but the 1807 made it clear that a choise had to be made and Denmark-Norway ended up alongside Nap. Nap let Denmark-Norway incorporate Holstein 1808, big security arrangement for Denmark as that had been a troublespot for the Royal line for centuries.
But an alliance with England would have been preferable. That was only possible if Denmark-Norway let its navy spend the duration of the war as part of RN or surrender it to England both choises unacceptable to Denmark-Norway as was the demand of Norway or Trondhein for the acceptance of Denmark-Norway into the coalition 1813.
The Navy was the pride of Denmark-Norway and Norway was the hereditary land of the King of Denmark since 1380 (Oluf).
To surrender either was unthinkable.

I think Denmark-Norway would try to go on their own as during the Seven Years War, and were in the belief that it would be possible. But that was shattered in 1807 and sides had to be chosen.
 

Max Sinister

Banned
@Anthony: Here's the link.

Thande said:
("Esperanto is deader than Latin will ever be, for it has no legends to provide analogies and phrases").
Click to expand...

Now that would be an idea too: WI the inventors of Esperanto, Volapük or another artificial language had worked together with a fantasy / sci-fi author who'd provide said legends?
 

Redbeard

Banned
I basically agree with Artic Warrior in his claims about Denmark-Norway trying to avoid the French alliance, but never really had the chance, it was especially difficult after 1807.

But anyway, if Finland for some reason stays Swedish, 99% of the reason behind Sweden getting Norway is gone.

AFAIK the Russians from 1809 until very late in 19th century allowed a very broad autinomy of Finland and the Finns, and that it was only in the last couple of decedaes that an aggressive Russification campaign was conducted.

I have seen it claimed that the Finnish nation was born during the Russian rule, which I will believe, as not many nations in the cultural meaning were born before 1809, but I don't know how early/late the "schwerpunkt" was placed - I guess more late than early.

If staying Swedish I'm sure the Finnish will create their nation anyway, that was a very strong European trend in the 19th century. I guess it will be development similar to what happened in OTL Norway . Here the Swedes also allowed a broad autonomy, but the Norwegian nation nevertheless grew strong and by early 20th century couldn't be kept leashed anylonger.

BTW, as in this ATL Norway is most likely to stay Danish after 1814, we might end up with a situation where Denmark-Norway and Sweden-Finland by early 20th century are in very similar problems: The Norwegians/Finns practically not possible to stop from getting independence, but Danish/Swedish national pride making that concession very difficult. I wonder if a simultaneous Norwegian/Finnish liberation and creation of a Nordic Union would make it easier as all the Nordic nations could be said to gain something? This of course requires the OTL Scandinavism from 19th century remains in place, but I don't see why it shouldn't. After all those kind of "regionalisms" were quite a trend too.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 

arctic warrior

Redbeard said:
BTW, as in this ATL Norway is most likely to stay Danish after 1814, we might end up with a situation where Denmark-Norway and Sweden-Finland by early 20th century are in very similar problems: The Norwegians/Finns practically not possible to stop from getting independence, but Danish/Swedish national pride making that concession very difficult. I wonder if a simultaneous Norwegian/Finnish liberation and creation of a Nordic Union would make it easier as all the Nordic nations could be said to gain something? This of course requires the OTL Scandinavism from 19th century remains in place, but I don't see why it shouldn't. After all those kind of "regionalisms" were quite a trend too.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
Click to expand...

Perhaps the developments in Germany during the 19. century from 1848 onwards would further that process, making Danish-Norwegian and Swedish-Finnish interests in Northern Germany of the same kind or rather both the target of German nationalism and tie the nations closer together. Then the advent of pan-scandinavianism would further the process into 4 independent states tied together in a union.
 

Fabilius

Thande said:
Tolkien was primarily a linguist, spoke many European languages. Finnish was the one he loved above all others, and his Quenya Elvish was based (in terms of spelling system and grammar structure) directly on Finnish. He only wrote the mythology which eventually led to Lord of the Rings, as he put it, to actually provide a background for the vocabulary he was making for Quenya. ("Esperanto is deader than Latin will ever be, for it has no legends to provide analogies and phrases"). So all his stories actually stem from his love of the Finnish language.
Click to expand...

Of course how could I forget. Did it start with Finnish though? Didn´t know that.
 
Thande

Thande

Donor
Fabilius said:
Of course how could I forget. Did it start with Finnish though? Didn´t know that.
Click to expand...
Yep! In 1916.

His other favourite language of all time was Welsh, apparently.
 
Oddball

Oddball

Monthly Donor
Redbeard said:
I basically agree with Artic Warrior in his claims about Denmark-Norway trying to avoid the French alliance, but never really had the chance, it was especially difficult after 1807.
Click to expand...

This is what happened OTL:

1800: D-N joins "the armed neutrality league."

1801:A British fleet under Nelson appears at Copenhagen harbour. The British fleet forces D-N to withdraw from the league and to end the practise of escorting merchant ships. Great Britain charts Storebelt.

1807:

7. July: Tilsit peace. Russia becomes an "allied" of France.

3. August: A British fleet enters Öresund and Storebelt.

6. August: French ultimate versus D-N is presented to the ambassador in Paris.

7. August: British ultimate versus D-N is presented to the crown Prince in Kiel.

16. August: After the British starts bombarding and landing in Copenhagen D-N declares Great Britain war. The war with Great Britain leads to an almost immediately loss of both the merchant and the armed fleet.

31. October: D-N alliance with France. Due to distance and lack of communication, D-N government doesn’t know the French ultimate before war with Great Britain is de facto, and it is later kept secret.
Click to expand...

Based on this I would agree to the statement that D-N tried to stay neutral all the way up til 1807. But to state that D-N tried to avoid a French alliance after 1807 and all the way up til 1812-13 would IMHO be wrong

An interesting what if would be if the British ultimatum is delayed until after the French ultimatum reaches Copenhagen.

But anyway, if Finland for some reason stays Swedish, 99% of the reason behind Sweden getting Norway is gone.
Click to expand...

Agree
 

Nicole

EvolvedSaurian said:
BUMP

Does anyone know how many Finns actually spoke Finnish in 1809, as a percentage?
Click to expand...
Well, the upper class spoke Swedish, but the lower class spoke Finnish- I seem to recall something saying that prior to the Russian conquest, 25% of Finns were at least bilingual to some extent, but I don't know how many solely spoke Swedish as opposed to Finnish. Finnish was definately the majority language, though.
 

AuroraBorealis

going with the original post only... would it not be possible to get a United parliament to Rule a united Kdm of Sweden and Finland in the same manner as Scotland and England. All you have to do is have a number of Finns or Finns of Swedish descent from the Western part of the terr. become key players of influence in the gov't of the United Parliament.

With Russia still a potential threat to the east, one would think that Swedes would have a vested interest in courting the political support of prominent Finns and Swedes from Finland to keep the area out or Russian influence.
 

mattep74

Niord said:
For that to work you´ll have to get rid of Gustav IV( who utterly hated Napoleon), and come up with someone able to boolster the swedish economy to support the army and navy wich where poorly supplied after the assasination of Gustav III in 1792.

Personally I`d suggest letting Gustav III survive the attempt on his life and produce an heir(Karl), born in say 1795. Say Gustav lives for another 15-20 years or so and is succeded by his (only) son Karl XIII Gustav.:D
Click to expand...

why not have Gustav die as OTL but dont have a son at all. Then the next king is his brother who become Karl XIII after Gustav IV is desposed anyway and he wouldnt be to intressted in making new enemies.
 

mattep74

Redbeard said:
I basically agree with Artic Warrior in his claims about Denmark-Norway trying to avoid the French alliance, but never really had the chance, it was especially difficult after 1807.

But anyway, if Finland for some reason stays Swedish, 99% of the reason behind Sweden getting Norway is gone.
Click to expand...

Not necessary. Just import a french general who sees Norway as a threat to Sweden like Bernadotte saw
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top