Scandinavian Empire

In the 1850's a political movement began in Scandinavia calling for Scandinavianism, a union of Scandinavia. In the 1870's Sweden and Denmark formed the Scandinavian Monetary union. What if the Union led to a bigger unification? What if all the Scandinavian Countries united under a single government and a single ruler? How might this work?

I had an Idea of an empire consisting of Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Greenland, Svalbard, and possibly some of the Baltic countries that were part of the Russian empire at the time, this for a possible doctrine of a Nordic Lake. I would imagine to get Finland and other Baltic countries they would have to go to war with Russia. I personally think the Scandinavians would win such a war if they fought together. This would create bitter feelings between Scandinavia and Russia, which might lead to the Scandinavian Empire cuddling up with Germany for Protection from Russia. I feel that Uniting the governments and thrones of these countries wouldn't be too hard.

What do you think?
 
Fiddle with the Second Schleswig War and you can at least go further with pan-Scandinavism. Problem is, in the upper levels of government it didn't have too many big partisans. The Swedes would need to feel genuinely threatened by somebody or something to want to unify with Denmark.

Something to think about for me, I guess, since I'm doing a TL around that time period. :p
 
Firstly one would need to make the idea popular, the mentioned movement was a student on. Secondly, Norway. The country is working as hard as i can to separate from Sweden. You would have to remove the power of the Storting and the constitution to doe this and that would lead to violence. The liberal who were also the nationalists were clamoring for more rifle training in the schools as late as the 1930`s, and were actively impeaching as much as they could, Norwegian independence was gained bye parliamentarian means.
And Scandinavia is Denmark, Sweden and Norway.
 
1863 Scandinavism was just talk no substance and thus no Swedish Brigade as in 1848.

It was a students movement that lacked political backing because of too differing interests of the countries.
Norway wanted independence of Sweden and looked west to Britain because of her merchantmen and premier market.
Sweden was securitywise concerned with the East/Russia and Denmark the South/Germany.
Russia is at this time the traditional ally of Denmark and there is the succession question to consider.

Also you don't get Denmark to commit itself to the Crimean War Baltic Theatre as the Swedes would like to. Because of the succession issue.

And Denmark wouldn't run for Germanys cover unless forced to like OTL.

You just don't find political will at this moment to unite the three.

It is a nice thought to have a Scandinavian Union - did something myself on this - but come up with a POD and a plausible chain of events to sustain it and we'll see! ;)
And be prepared for merciless critique!! :D
 

Thande

Donor
Preach the truth, brother!

I raised my eyebrows on your behalf when a pub quiz question the other day asked "What's the only republic in Scandinavia?"

Because if you're going by the silly broader Norden=Scandinavia definition (insert argument between me and Susano about the definition of Europe here), then Iceland is also in it, and that's a republic too. I guessed they meant Finland and got it right, but I did roll my eyes.
 
Finland is not part of Scandinavia.

That is all.

I have always thought that the term is very tricky. Is it geographic or cultural? Or just linguistic? Because if it is geographic, then Denmark is not on the Scandinavian Peninsula, when as a part of Finland arguably is. I could understand cultural or linguistic, but then you would have to remember that a part of Finns (as in Finländare not Finne) share the same language, and in cultural terms (Lutheranism, common history) the majority of the people are much closer to Sweden than Russia.

So, then, how does "Scandinavia" work?


(Personally, because of the problems inherent in "Scandinavia", I tend to think "Nordic countries" or "Norden" is much more useful as a explanatory grouping.)
 
I raised my eyebrows on your behalf when a pub quiz question the other day asked "What's the only republic in Scandinavia?"

Because if you're going by the silly broader Norden=Scandinavia definition (insert argument between me and Susano about the definition of Europe here), then Iceland is also in it, and that's a republic too. I guessed they meant Finland and got it right, but I did roll my eyes.
I suppose it's too much to ask that non-Finns would get it when even many Finns are confused about it.

Indeed. Finland is not part of Scandinavia. Finland is part of Sweden, which, however, is part of Scandinavia.

:p
Tsk, tsk, Sweden got castrated 1808-09 ;)
 

Redbeard

Banned
I have always thought that the term is very tricky. Is it geographic or cultural? Or just linguistic? Because if it is geographic, then Denmark is not on the Scandinavian Peninsula, when as a part of Finland arguably is. I could understand cultural or linguistic, but then you would have to remember that a part of Finns (as in Finländare not Finne) share the same language, and in cultural terms (Lutheranism, common history) the majority of the people are much closer to Sweden than Russia.

So, then, how does "Scandinavia" work?


(Personally, because of the problems inherent in "Scandinavia", I tend to think "Nordic countries" or "Norden" is much more useful as a explanatory grouping.)

It is a definition which simply states that Scandinavia = Denmark, Norway and Sweden, and Norden/Nordic is Finland and Iceland too.

I guess the reason is a mix of culture, language and history. Danish, Norwegian and Swedish usually can be understood in all three countries, which isn't the case for Icelandic and certainly not for Finnish (probably one of the most complicated languages to understand, speak or learn - I understand they have 20+ casus!). When the idea of pan-scandinavism was born in 19th century, is was on the background of the history of three independent Kingdoms, those of Denmark, Norway and Sweden (the three crown symbol from both Danish and Swedish coat of arms refers to these three Kingdoms). Iceland was part of Denmark and before that had been part of Norway, and Finland was part of Russia and before that of Sweden. Norway in most of 19th century shared a King with Sweden, and in 15th-18th century with Denmark, but had a degree of "home rule", and anyway a background as independent Kingdom.

When the ideas re-emerged after WWI it was as the "Nordic idea", not at least bacause the Swedes insisted that Finland wasn't left alone outside and all the nations anyway had great sympathy for the Finns and their strugle for freedom. In the world of "real-politik" it however was impossible to unite Norden over the borders of great power interests. Today nobody mention the Nordic idea any longer, and Scandinavians to an increasing degree speak English with each other. But I personally keep one part of the old traditions alive - when I visit Norway or Sweden it usually is for a kill or two - although it nowadays is wild game and not people. Got a boar recently in Sweden and go hunting in Norway in 10 days :)

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
Last edited:
I raised my eyebrows on your behalf when a pub quiz question the other day asked "What's the only republic in Scandinavia?"

Because if you're going by the silly broader Norden=Scandinavia definition (insert argument between me and Susano about the definition of Europe here), then Iceland is also in it, and that's a republic too. I guessed they meant Finland and got it right, but I did roll my eyes.
Hah! The correct answer would be the Republic of Jämtland/the Jämtish Republic!:D
Granted, the Jämts aren't serious about it, but they do have a President, Anthem, and such...
 
It is a definition which simply states that Scandinavia = Denmark, Norway and Sweden, and Norden/Nordic is Finland and Iceland too.

I guess the reason is a mix of culture, language and history. Danish, Norwegian and Swedish usually can be understood in all three countries, which isn't the case for Icelandic and certainly not for Finnish (probably one of the most complicated languages to understand, speak or learn - I understand they have 20+ casus!). When the idea of pan-scandinavism was born in 19th century, is was on the background of the history of three independent Kingdoms, those of Denmark, Norway and Sweden (the three crown symbol from both Danish and Swedish coat of arms refers to these three Kingdoms). Iceland was part of Denmark and before that had been part of Norway, and Finland was part of Russia and before that of Sweden. Norway in most of 19th century shared a King with Sweden, and in 15th-18th century with Denmark, but had a degree of "home rule", and anyway a background as independent Kingdom.

When the ideas re-emerged after WWI it was as the "Nordic idea", not at least bacause the Swedes insisted that Finland wasn't left alone outside and all the nations anyway had great sympathy for the Finns and their strugle for freedom. In the world of "real-politik" it however was impossible to unite Norden over the borders of great power interests. Today nobody mention the Nordic idea any longer, and Scandinavians to an increasing degree speak English with each other. But I personally keep one part of the old traditions alive - when I visit Norway or Sweden it usually is for a kill or two - although it nowadays is wild game and not people. Got a boar recently in Sweden and go hunting in Norway in 10 days :)

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

Thank you for your answer. I understand "Scandinavia" as it is commonly used is a historical concept, born at a certain time among (a) particular interest group(s).

I like for us to dissect the term here because it is interesting, not to say controversial, in the context of Finnish nationalism and politics.

When the Finnish nationalist movement was born in the 19th century, it was very much crystallized in the phrase coined by A.I. Arwidsson, "Swedish we are not, Russians we do not want to be, let us be Finns". The Finnish identity was built on the idea of Finland being "not of the East", not "Russian" and not tainted by all the negative ideas of, say, laziness, byzantine politics and oppression attributed (more or less fairly) to it. The Finnish state was to become a nation after the Western model, enlightened, democratic and modern, diffused with what was considered the "essential Finnish national character": honesty, frugality and trustworthiness presided over by a sombre, stolid Lutheranism. The great national quest became to rise from obscurity and the shadow of "the East" and join the "civilized world", ie. "the West", and assert our right to stand as a member among that secular pantheon of nations. A sort of national eschatology, as it were, with that certain Paradise as the ultimate object.

It is easy to see that in many ways the framers of this ideology considered the Swedish as model, and why not, they had achieved mature nationhood much earlier, inhabited a similar land and adhered to the same creed. Basically, the Finn was considered pretty much like a Swede, even if one little (or more) less well off, less fashionably dressed and not so eloquent but making up those deficiences in strength of character and hard work.

It was just the fact of being disconnected from Sweden that made Finnish nationalism being built, side by side, separate but still connected, to Swedish nationalism, not in direct opposition to it as was with Russian nationalism. This happened in spite of the campaign by part of the Swedish-speaking intelligentsia in Finland to actively discredit the possibility of the Finnish culture and language ever becoming "fit for civilization": it was like growing in a shadow of a big brother, whom you much admired, but who constantly and unfairly derided you for your (real or imaginary) shortcomings.

The Finnish political leadership of the early 20th century was very much raised in this atmosphere. After independence was reached, they naturally sought to "reconnect" Finland with the "Scandinavian" community. Some headway was made, but frequently it seemed the Swedish were not so keen to make Finland welcome as they would have wished. They even attempted to annex part of the young nation (Åland). Overtures for defensive arrangements were rebuffed, and Finland left to fend for itself against the Red Menace.

When the school books exhorted the students that Finland was part of the West and the Swedes were our friends and mentors since time immemorial, the coldness of the Swedish state and nation was hard to understand. Many people who lived through the war have told me that when the Winter War begun, it was very much a national shock that Sweden did not officially join Finland in the fight against "the East". It was as if they did not care! Despite all we had in common!

After this long prologue, let's return to "Scandinavia". When, someone says that Finland is Scandinavian and someone, say, a Swede, insists that that is not the case, some Finns might find it an affront. From the Finnish nationalist perspective, outlined above, this exclusion seems petty and unfair. "Is common culture and history nothing? Lutheran religion and democratic system not enough?" Our imaginary Finn might event go as far as to put out a rant such as "You force your religion on us, make us use your language in anything official and take it as your prerogative to rule us - for centuries. We take care of our land - for you to benefit. We fight your wars for you. When we are in the greatest peril of all, you abandon us. Still, we manage to build our nation up, as affluent and enlightened as yours. And yet, we are still not good enough to join your little club?"

You see, of course there is a certain inferiority complex there. In regards to Sweden, I think Finns might never get it out of our national system. But still, when all kinds of good and beautiful attributes are connected to "Scandinavian" many a Finn would want to be part of that little club. (Re)joining "the West" and "Scandinavia" and solidifying our presence there was -and is- to many people here the very raison d'être of the Finnish state and nation. These people are very likely to regard "Scandinavian" a badge of honour and to be left out of that category, something else entirely, especially considering "all the work and sacrifices" Finland has had to endure to (re)join "the West". This model of thinking is dialectic: either "West" or "East". If we are not accepted by those we consider our equals in "Scandinavia", we are left with "Eastern Europe" (of which "Baltic" is a subset).

Like I wrote above, this is very much due to the way Finnish nationalist ideology was built in the period, say, 1830 to 1930. Not all Finns think like this, but I think this aspect of Finnish nationalism is something that can be of help considering Finland's position in Northern Europe (and vis-a-vis "Scandinavia" or "Norden") IOTL or any possible timeline with a PoD within the last 200 years. I hope you find this useful in understanding Finland or Finnish trains of thought.
 
Last edited:
Agreed - Drakon, that was very interesting reading, so thank you.

It is a nice thought to have a Scandinavian Union - did something myself on this - but come up with a POD and a plausible chain of events to sustain it and we'll see! ;)
And be prepared for merciless critique!! :D

I came up with this one a while ago and have cross-posted it at least once already, but I don't think many people saw it b/c it only appeared on threads that didn't get much attention.

The original challenge was "get Sweden to annex Fiji", which explains the Fiji-centric explanation. But it is (I think, at least) a fairly plausible way to get Scandinavia united and powerful in the early 19th century - PoD in 1805. This was before pan-Scandinavianism emerged. The movement would instead emerge in a country that was already united.

me said:
Alright, in OTL Sweden rushed into war against Napoleon in 1805 and found itself caught between two Napoleonic allies, Denmark and Russia. Sweden was quickly defeated by 1809 and had to hand Finland and Åland over to Russia. When the king died in 1810, he was replaced with Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte, Prince of Pontecorvo. Suffice to say he was not a Swede. But, like many others, including the Czar, Bernadotte turned against Napoleon in the end, attacking Denmark and getting Norway added to the Kingdom as a thank-you gift from the Brits.

Suppose that in 1805, Sweden remained neutral. So Sweden keeps its full territory. With King Charles' death in 1810, Frederick of Denmark and Norway is the logical heir - a second Scandinavian union. Frederick was also a Napoleonic ally, but acquiring a border with Russia and a country full of people who did not fancy the Little Corporal, he was persuaded to turn against France and join the final offensive. As a reward, Scandinavia received some land in Africa and the rest of the Virgin Islands.

Denmark/Scandinavia now had more incentive to hold on to its trading ports in India. By mid-century, Scandinavians were important and active traders in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. The government actively sought expansion in Oceania. When Britain declined to annex Fiji in 1858, Scandinavia stepped in in 1869, signing a treaty and claiming the islands.

The European situation was very different with Scandinavia as a "medium-large" power. The colonies in Africa were definitely expanded late in the 19th century, and Danish-Swedish troops intervened against Prussia as well, acting as a balance against the rising German Empire.

There was a World War at some point. Definitely different time, place, and circumstances, but just as heinous. The conditions of the Northern Front in Schleswig horrified the Danes, and not long after the war the government fell apart. When the dust settled, Denmark was a republic, and Sweden-Finland-Norway remained in possession of the colonies.

As the 20th century drew on, Finns and colonials resented Scandinavian rule. Norway was actually all right with it, since Norwegians had much better representation than minorities at the high levels of power. Finland broke away in the 1930s, and the colonies were let go or transformed to dominion-type entities over the next several decades. Today, King Christian XI of Sweden and Norway is also King of Fiji, although the Swedish-Norwegian government has not had any say in the islands since the 1980s.

Based on Drakon's comments, ISTM that Finland would prefer equality and autonomy within a united Scandinavia to total independence.
 
Top