Finnish culture in a unified Scandinavia

Yeah I know. (Suomi and Sami are cognate terms if I'm not mistaken.) I was just wondering if English speakers would call it that.
Probably yes, because in this alternate timeline English speakers would already correlate "Finnish" with people of mainly Norse descent speaking a North Germanic language that was once an eastern dialect of Swedish.
 
It was certainly different, but more different than Highland to Lowland Scotland at that time? I'm not sure. We look at it now through the OTL lens where Finnish is a full national language and not just what peasants spoke to each other (when they had to write, it was in Swedish).

Absolutely, since Finland was the name given to those provinces of Sweden, first as Österland and then as the grand principality of Finland.

Suomi is how the Finns call themselves. If their native language was displaced that's probably how we would call them and their tongue, like we do with the Sami people.

Except the Sami were known as Lapps or Finns throughout history.

Probably yes, because in this alternate timeline English speakers would already correlate "Finnish" with people of mainly Norse descent speaking a North Germanic language that was once an eastern dialect of Swedish.

The Welsh are not Cymry in English, while the Scots and Irish are distinguished between whether they speak English or Gaelic. So why would a regional dialect of Norse deserve any note above the more distinct local dialect? Thus "Finnish" would denote speakers of the Uralic language while "Finnish Norse" denote speakers of the local Norse dialect, similar to how no one calls Welsh English simply "Welsh" and the Welsh language "Cymry".
 
They were significantly less so 200 years ago. Two centuries of political separation have allowed Finnish culture to revive.
I was not aware that the Baltic has expanded.
In fact I vaguely recall something about the land rising as much as one centimeter
per year along parts of it.

It was certainly different, but more different than Highland to Lowland Scotland at that time?
The word is "separate", not "different".
Forest finns, Swedish and Swedified upper class and the blurry lines around the Torne aside, you can still
easily draw a clear line (in fact, a rather wide blue and wet one) and point to how Swedish was spoken
on one side and Finnish on the other.
You can't as draw one between the Scots-speaking and the Gaelic-speaking parts of Scotland quite as easily, as it was not as simple as highlands vs. lowlands.

If their native language was displaced that's probably how we would call them and their tongue, like we do with the Sami people.
And like we call the Irish Na hÉireannaigh...
Not to mention that most people called the Saami things like Laplanders or Lapps until comparatively
recently.
 
I was not aware that the Baltic has expanded.
In fact I vaguely recall something about the land rising as much as one centimeter
per year along parts of it.
In tectonic terms (if I understand it correctly, I might be wrong), it is still expanding, and Scandinavia or Fennoscandia will be an island in the very far distant future, unless the seas have dried up by then.

The word is "separate", not "different".
Forest finns, Swedish and Swedified upper class and the blurry lines around the Torne aside, you can still
easily draw a clear line (in fact, a rather wide blue and wet one) and point to how Swedish was spoken
on one side and Finnish on the other.
You can't as draw one between the Scots-speaking and the Gaelic-speaking parts of Scotland quite as easily, as it was not as simple as highlands vs. lowlands.
Finland has had Scandinavian-speaking areas for a very long time, without even any highland-lowland distinction, and way before the forest finns, some people claim that southern Sweden had a part-Uralic population pre-Justinian plague, noticeable in some Finnish place-names such as Motala.

Demographic data supports this hypothesis: mid-18th century Finland was inhabited only by slightly more than four hundred thousand people, and only about 83% of those actually spoke Finnish, so, even without actively suppressing their native language, Sweden could have digested and assimilated the Finns without a hitch.
I heard (on the radio a few years ago, unless it was a book, darn, remembers so little these days) that the Finnish language actually expanded in Finland in the 1700s, and in the 1800s, when a Finnish-speaking middle class became numerous, Finnish really became a strong language, so I am not so sure that Finnish would be smaller in a Scandinavian state. If a heavy 1900-style nation-state "Finnish-not" oppression came about, then it might wane, but otherwise it could have been viable.
 
In tectonic terms (if I understand it correctly, I might be wrong), it is still expanding, and Scandinavia or Fennoscandia will be an island in the very far distant future, unless the seas have dried up by then.
It's also supposedly still rising after having been pressed down by the Ice Age glaciers.

Finland has had Scandinavian-speaking areas for a very long time, without even any highland-lowland distinction, and way before the forest finns, some people claim that southern Sweden had a part-Uralic population pre-Justinian plague, noticeable in some Finnish place-names such as Motala.
Uhm… What I said was that Gaelic didn't have any highland-lowland distinction (back when it was
the language spoken i most of Scotland).

Apart from pre-Justinian plague part-Uralic population being at best as relevant for the question asked as the Picts for the perception of the Gaels, maybe some source on Motala being of Finnish origin?
All I can find with a quick googling is the Old Swedish roots of Mot- and -ala/-ale, with a pretty old source
(thus subject to the possibility of later discoveries), and the name first being mentioned in 1288.
 
Apart from pre-Justinian plague part-Uralic population being at best as relevant for the question asked as the Picts for the perception of the Gaels, maybe some source on Motala being of Finnish origin?
All I can find with a quick googling is the Old Swedish roots of Mot- and -ala/-ale, with a pretty old source
(thus subject to the possibility of later discoveries), and the name first being mentioned in 1288.

It is not the official opinion, instead it is a minority view held by e.g. the late Henrik O. Andersson. His 2004 book "Ortnamn i Sverige" is not a coherent work, but a collection of articles treating a number of placenames where he claims that a Uralic interpretation gives a more sensible meaning than the Germanic one. The professional onomasticists do not agree with him, and find his interpretations shallow. Andersson on the other hand mentions that earlier researchers were more inclined to see Finnish placenames in Sweden, but that the nordicists later had discarded everything non-Germanic, so that southern Scandinavia is the only area in Europe lacking non-Indoeuropean names.
 
I heard (on the radio a few years ago, unless it was a book, darn, remembers so little these days) that the Finnish language actually expanded in Finland in the 1700s, and in the 1800s, when a Finnish-speaking middle class became numerous, Finnish really became a strong language, so I am not so sure that Finnish would be smaller in a Scandinavian state. If a heavy 1900-style nation-state "Finnish-not" oppression came about, then it might wane, but otherwise it could have been viable.
AFAIK Swedish declined only in the 19th century, IMHO in a united Scandinavia Finnish would very fragile as the demographic and linguistic pressure could be way stronger and considering 1/5 of the Finnish population spoke Swedish at its peak the groundwork is already there, surely it's possible considering the many examples we have from Ireland, Wales, Britanny, Basque region etc.
 
AFAIK Swedish declined only in the 19th century, IMHO in a united Scandinavia Finnish would very fragile as the demographic and linguistic pressure could be way stronger and considering 1/5 of the Finnish population spoke Swedish at its peak the groundwork is already there, surely it's possible considering the many examples we have from Ireland, Wales, Britanny, Basque region etc.

The comparative number of Swedish-speakers in "Österland" declined slowly all through the 17th and 18th centuries IOTL, from 17,5% in 1610 to 14,6% 1815. I can't immediately see why demographic and linguistic pressure against the Finnish language would be worse and make its position significantly worse in a united Scandinavian state, at least prior to the early 19th century, than in the context of Sweden IOTL. Sweden was quite modern and efficient in terms of state government and bureaucracy as it was, and I don't think that a united Scandinavian state would be more heavy-handed in Finland by 1809 or so. It would then be expected that Finnish-speakers still make up a significant majority in what makes up modern Finland in the early 19th century, 70-80% or so.

Where we might see the Finnish language and culture start getting into trouble would be the latter part of the 19th century, especially if the united Scandinavian state by then has developed a united Scandinavian identity and nationalism which seeks to marginalize Finnish as a "non-Scandinavian", "lesser" peasant language.
 
The comparative number of Swedish-speakers in "Österland" declined slowly all through the 17th and 18th centuries IOTL, from 17,5% in 1610 to 14,6% 1815. I can't immediately see why demographic and linguistic pressure against the Finnish language would be worse and make its position significantly worse in a united Scandinavian state, at least prior to the early 19th century, than in the context of Sweden IOTL. Sweden was quite modern and efficient in terms of state government and bureaucracy as it was, and I don't think that a united Scandinavian state would be more heavy-handed in Finland by 1809 or so. It would then be expected that Finnish-speakers still make up a significant majority in what makes up modern Finland in the early 19th century, 70-80% or so.

Where we might see the Finnish language and culture start getting into trouble would be the latter part of the 19th century, especially if the united Scandinavian state by then has developed a united Scandinavian identity and nationalism which seeks to marginalize Finnish as a "non-Scandinavian", "lesser" peasant language.
That might have been a fluke moment, considering Finns expanded even into Sweden itself, but without any sort of autonomy backing them up and by possibly diverting part of the historical 19th century Scandinavia migration to Finland the % could easily increase rapidly, the example of the Irish decline in the 18th and 19th century and other languages shows.

Finland would surely resemble more integrated regions in many West European countries than breakaway ethnicities in Eastern Europe, especially considering you don't even have a religious divided you had in other cases.
 
Where we might see the Finnish language and culture start getting into trouble would be the latter part of the 19th century, especially if the united Scandinavian state by then has developed a united Scandinavian identity and nationalism which seeks to marginalize Finnish as a "non-Scandinavian", "lesser" peasant language.

This is where I think the language would have trouble. That's the beginning of the era of universal education and across Europe, many minority languages begin to seriously decline as they are not taught in school and students are often punished for speaking them.
 
I feel Iberia might be a better analogy than the British Isles. Scandinavia lacks the population and food-production center that was England in the UK. The component parts are closer to being of equal size.

In between Finnish and the nine Saami languages, I don't know how many were mutually intelligible, you have a large number of languages.
 
That might have been a fluke moment, considering Finns expanded even into Sweden itself, but without any sort of autonomy backing them up and by possibly diverting part of the historical 19th century Scandinavia migration to Finland the % could easily increase rapidly, the example of the Irish decline in the 18th and 19th century and other languages shows.

Finland would surely resemble more integrated regions in many West European countries than breakaway ethnicities in Eastern Europe, especially considering you don't even have a religious divided you had in other cases.

Why would there be Scandinavian migration to Finland significantly over and above the numbers of Swedish migration into Finland in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries? Out of all the Nordic areas, the Eastern part of Sweden was the most remote, poor and wild. It might well also remain less wealthy and less developed than IOTL in the 19th century, without the very favorable economic conditions Finland enjoyed under the Russian Empire. What would draw migrants into Finland ITTL? Scandinavia being united does not create more migration into Finland in itself, at least not in major numbers.
 
Last edited:
Why would there be Scandinavian migration to Finland significantly over and above the numbers of Swedish migration into Finland in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries?
I don't have the exact numbers at the moment, but between 1 and 2 million Scandinavians migrated to the US in the 19th century, if we divert even 10% or 20% of that to Finland it can cause a important shift.

Out of all the Nordic areas, the Eastern part of Sweden was the most remote, poor and wild. It might well also remain less wealthy and less developed than IOTL in the 19th century, without the very favorable economic conditions Finland enjoyed under the Russian Empire. What would draw migrants into Finland ITTL? Scandinavia being united does not create more migration into Finland in itself, at least not in major numbers.
Well being poor and wild wouldn't necessarily stop some migration from happening, especially if the migration is motivated by the idea of diverting people without good prospects to exploit "untapped" resources in Finland, while reinforcing the borderlands with the increasingly strong Russia. I'm not even saying that it's solely because Scandinavia is united, but also because Finland is under direct rule too.
 
I don't have the exact numbers at the moment, but between 1 and 2 million Scandinavians migrated to the US in the 19th century, if we divert even 10% or 20% of that to Finland it can cause a important shift.

Well being poor and wild wouldn't necessarily stop some migration from happening, especially if the migration is motivated by the idea of diverting people without good prospects to exploit "untapped" resources in Finland, while reinforcing the borderlands with the increasingly strong Russia. I'm not even saying that it's solely because Scandinavia is united, but also because Finland is under direct rule too.

IOTL, people also left Finland in droves to settle in North America in the 19th century due to the expected economic benefits across the ocean. There were no better economic prospects in Finland than there were in the other parts of the Nordic area at the time. So while a major influx of Scandinavian migrants into Finland would change the demographics and the language situation, I still can't see why, exactly, this would be happening, and what the "untapped resources" would be that the Finnish workforce can't handle itself, with the addition of limited immigration in the form of engineers, technicians and other rare but needed specialists. What are the incentives ITTL to move in mass numbers into an area that IOTL saw mass emigration, even if it was (arguably) economically better off than it would be ITTL?
 
How would Finnish culture be affected in a unified Scandinavia that also managed to include much of Karelia (sans the Saint Petersburg area) and the Kola peninsula?
 
IOTL, people also left Finland in droves to settle in North America in the 19th century due to the expected economic benefits across the ocean. There were no better economic prospects in Finland than there were in the other parts of the Nordic area at the time.
Emigration from a region doesn't necessarily stop other immigration from happening, I mean there was some migration towards Sweden in the late 19th and early 20th century from Finland too, even when Sweden was experiencing emigration.

So while a major influx of Scandinavian migrants into Finland would change the demographics and the language situation, I still can't see why, exactly, this would be happening, and what the "untapped resources" would be that the Finnish workforce can't handle itself,
Does the presence of a sizeable local population remove all reasons for migration to happen? I mean you literally said that it was "undeveloped", why wouldn't the state seek to change that and use some migrants to reinforce the assimilation of the region and try to develop a region? Migration is not just fueled by labor shortage.

with the addition of limited immigration in the form of engineers, technicians and other rare but needed specialists. What are the incentives ITTL to move in mass numbers into an area that IOTL saw mass emigration, even if it was (arguably) economically better off than it would be ITTL?
I'm not talking about some huge migration, in any case I'm thinking the groups migrating or settling there would be military personnel, industrial and specialized workers to cities, some government officials and on top of that some state sponsored settlers, it doesn't need to look like Prussian controlled Posen with colonial-like planning but some degree of internal migration is probable and considering the demographic dominance of the Scandinavian population(I think Finns would be about 20% of the population of a realm that compromises all Nordic countries) I think that this would mean more Scandinavians going in than going out, especially compared to IOTL.

In any case the main drive for assimilation wouldn't be migration; it would be more schooling, urbanization and other factors.
 
Honestly we’re unlikely to see much migration to the areas of Finland where Finns dwelled in the early 19th century. Instead we will likely see a mix of Swedes, Finns and Norwegian settle in the empty north, and we will almost certainly see Scandinavian winning out there. Beside that Helsingkii will stay a minor and Swedish speaking city, while Turku/Åbo will stay the administrative center of Finland. I expect that it will end up majority Swedish speaking, but likely with Finnish speaking suburbs to the north. Tampere will likely end up the center of the Finnish speaking world. All in all I expect Finnish speakers to make up 50-65% of the population in modern Finland if it stay in union with Sweden.
 
Honestly we’re unlikely to see much migration to the areas of Finland where Finns dwelled in the early 19th century. Instead we will likely see a mix of Swedes, Finns and Norwegian settle in the empty north, and we will almost certainly see Scandinavian winning out there. Beside that Helsingkii will stay a minor and Swedish speaking city, while Turku/Åbo will stay the administrative center of Finland. I expect that it will end up majority Swedish speaking, but likely with Finnish speaking suburbs to the north. Tampere will likely end up the center of the Finnish speaking world. All in all I expect Finnish speakers to make up 50-65% of the population in modern Finland if it stay in union with Sweden.
You think it would look something like this?

(Red means Scandinavian majority, Light blue Finnish)

MG2ZCM1.png
 
You think it would look something like this?

(Red means Scandinavian majority, Light blue Finnish)

MG2ZCM1.png

Yes, Central Ostrobothnia and North Ostrobothnia could each go the other way, but beside that it was precisely what I meant
 
Top