Scandinavian Empire

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.
Surely that was more Åland wanting to join Sweden (and quite rightfully so)
 
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.



Based on Drakon's comments, ISTM that Finland would prefer equality and autonomy within a united Scandinavia to total independence.
Uhm... there seems to be a slight few problems with the timeline. To begin with, the war was from 1808 to 1809, even if the Swedish actions that made it happen might have begun in 1805.
Secondly, Charles XIII became King of Sweden to a large degree because of the War, and he didn't die until 1818.
Now, I guess I'm supposed to raise the fact that Bernadotte actually turned against Bonaparte pretty much the moment he arrived in Sweden, and, of course, he was merely the Crown Prince at the point in time.
And thirdly, it is interesting to note that Bernadotte was the *second* choice of Crown Prince...
 
Benkarnell said:
Based on Drakon's comments, ISTM that Finland would prefer equality and autonomy within a united Scandinavia to total independence.

Not necessarily. ITTL, because of the Eastern Provinces staying a part of Sweden, we have Finnish nationalism diverging from its OTL path early on. It would become a movement created in opposition to Swedish nationalism and therefore more critical of "Scandinavism". This would not be a "state ideology" from the beginning as our OTL nationalism was, rather a critical, even revolutionary one. Thus, there might develop a sort of home-grown blend of ethnic nationalism, Socialism and Karelian mysticism (I'd quite like that, myself). (BTW, I wrote a bit about this in another thread some time ago, can't remember which, though.)

So I think your earlier text sounds about right - though the Finland that breaks away might be a Small Finland, so to speak, only consisting fully Finnish speaking provinces with the western coast choosing to remain with the Mother Country.


Surely that was more Åland wanting to join Sweden (and quite rightfully so)

The initiative was mainly local, yes. My emphasis on the text above was on how the Finnish political leadership at the time saw the situation. What with the Swedish troops landing on the islands and perceived support from Stockholm for the secessionists, the Swedish attitude seemed if not hostile, then at least quite suspect in Helsinki.


Benkarnell said:
True, Åland was always part of Sweden, not Finland, until the Russians took it. They wouldn't take a trunk without the keys, I believe was the phrase.

As the Treaty of Fredrikshamn had granted the islands to Russia in 1809, in 1917-1920 their status should have been handled entirely between Russia and Finland in the discussions regarding the specifics of Finnish independence. Stockhom was not a party to those negotiations: as the League of Nations commission argued in 1921, since Finland gaining independence, granting the islands to Sweden would have been a "impairment of the status and rights of Finland".

One may say that the Ålanders had and have a right to join Sweden, sure, just like Eastern Karelians had the right to join Finland or the Sudetenland Germans had the right to join Germany. In this case, though, the status of the islands was decided entirely according to the international law and I guess it would be hard to say that the Ålanders have suffered as a result. Rather to the contrary, I think. As a part of Sweden, the islands would hardly have the same special status and as far-reaching autonomy.
 
Last edited:
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.

A serious weakness in this scenario is that Sweden staying neutral in 1805 does not make for it being allowed to remain so in 1808 when the Continental System is put into effect by Emperors Napoleon and Alexander.
In this case you still may get Gustav 4. Adolf dethroned and his son not made elegible for the throne.
But if not I don't see Frederick 7. getting to the Swedish throne (and actually he didn't want it because it being offered by usurpers and Gustav 4. Adolf's mother had been a Danish Princess so the coup against Gustav was viewed by Frederick as against his family and besides he was an autocrat - don't expect him to get along the coup makers - although I did just that in another TL ;))
 

I researched this fairly quickly in response to a "challenge." No need to belittle me for it.

there seems to be a slight few problems with the timeline. To begin with, the war was from 1808 to 1809, even if the Swedish actions that made it happen might have begun in 1805.

Which is why the PoD is in 1805 - stopping the series of events that led to Sweden's joining the war.

Secondly, Charles XIII became King of Sweden to a large degree because of the War, and he didn't die until 1818.

Something I missed in my research, apparently. Bernadotte was designated heir, not king, in 1810 - correct? Could the TL be modified so that Frederick is designated heir that year - or is there something else I'm missing?

Now, I guess I'm supposed to raise the fact that Bernadotte actually turned against Bonaparte pretty much the moment he arrived in Sweden, and, of course, he was merely the Crown Prince at the point in time.

So you're saying that Frederick instead of Bernadotte would not have changed a whole lot. That would, indeed, invalidate most of the repercussions that I suggested.

And thirdly, it is interesting to note that Bernadotte was the *second* choice of Crown Prince...

Who was Choice #1?
 
Last edited:
A serious weakness in this scenario is that Sweden staying neutral in 1805 does not make for it being allowed to remain so in 1808 when the Continental System is put into effect by Emperors Napoleon and Alexander.
In this case you still may get Gustav 4. Adolf dethroned and his son not made elegible for the throne.
But if not I don't see Frederick 7. getting to the Swedish throne (and actually he didn't want it because it being offered by usurpers and Gustav 4. Adolf's mother had been a Danish Princess so the coup against Gustav was viewed by Frederick as against his family and besides he was an autocrat - don't expect him to get along the coup makers - although I did just that in another TL ;))

Was Fred really offered the throne in real life?
 
I researched this fairly quickly in response to a "challenge." No need to belittle me for it.
Sorry for that- I seem to have picked up a nasty habit of adding 'uhms' to my post, and it wasn't meant to belittle you.:eek:

Something I missed in my research, apparently. Bernadotte was designated heir, not king, in 1810 - correct? Could the TL be modified so that Frederick is designated heir that year - or is there something else I'm missing?
Well, the three-state solution had already fallen out of favour by the time Bernadotte was designated- that said, it might be possible to change things so that it is adopted, though it would, as arctic warrior noted, require changes both in Sweden and in Denmark. And indeed he was designated Crown Prince, not King- though he effectively controlled Sweden, nonetheless (Charles XIII wasn't the strongest king, which was so-to-speak the point of him- that and being childless and old).


So you're saying that Frederick instead of Bernadotte would not have changed much. That would, indeed, invalidate most of the repercussions that I suggested.
The changes necessary to get Frederick on the throne would have had repercussions, though... and, of course, it is still a united Scandinavia.

Who was Choice #1?
A Dane by the name of Christian August, though he changed his name to Charles August upon accepting the Crown Princehood of Sweden. Became highly popular seemingly from the moment he arrived in Sweden (and he had previously gotten highly popular in Norway).
He died in a riding accident five months after becoming Crown Prince, so they had to find a new one. A pity, since he seemed to be a nice chap (and his death resulted in a mob killing the head of government of Sweden).
He was in favour of three-state Scandinavism under Frederick. If that fails, you might get something similar to OTL, but with a more popular Swedish-Norwegian Union, which would make a united Scandinavia somewhat easier to pull off.
 
Last edited:
A Dane by the name of Christian August, though he changed his name to Charles August upon accepting the Crown Princehood of Sweden. Became highly popular seemingly from the moment he arrived in Sweden (and he had previously gotten highly popular in Norway).
He died in a riding accident five months after becoming Crown Prince, so they had to find a new one. A pity, since he seemed to be a nice chap (and his death resulted in a mob killing the head of government of Sweden).
He was in favour of three-state Scandinavism under Frederick. If that fails, you might get something similar to OTL, but with a more popular Swedish-Norwegian Union, which would make a united Scandinavia somewhat easier to pull off.

Interesting... suppose that Christian August survived - make that the point of divergence. There would be no French puppet on the Swedish throne, but there would be a nascent Scandinavianist. Not a bad POD for a united Scandinavia, actually.

I had never heard of him, and his English Wikipedia entry, at least, is scanty at best. It says he died of stroke rather than riding accident. The Swedish WP naturally has a better article, but I can't make much sense of it.
 
Interesting... suppose that Christian August survived - make that the point of divergence. There would be no French puppet on the Swedish throne, but there would be a nascent Scandinavianist. Not a bad POD for a united Scandinavia, actually.

I had never heard of him, and his English Wikipedia entry, at least, is scanty at best. It says he died of stroke rather than riding accident. The Swedish WP naturally has a better article, but I can't make much sense of it.
He lost control of his horse while riding aside from an 'attack' during a military parade by Hussars, the horse set off, and then he fell off the horse. The fall from the horse was caused by the stroke (at least, so said the autopsy), but, well, it might not have been lethal without the fall, or it might have been triggered by the sudden stress of his horse setting off.
 
Was Fred really offered the throne in real life?

After the death of Christian August the offering of the throne was made to both King Frederick 6 and the Duke of Slesvig-Holstein-Soenderborg-Augustenborg.
Christian August dies 1810 of a heartattack and Frederick 6 is once again brought up as successor but Sweden wants Christian August’s brother, Frederick Christian; who is blockaded in his home by Frederick 6 because of fears of having the age old strife of Sleswig-Holstein versus Denmark reinvigorated.
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]The Swedes then go for an approval of Frederick Christian by Napoleon but ends up with Bernadotte - the Swedish envoy offering the throne to Bernadotte.[/FONT]
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Scandinavism was always too weak, and thus can't result in a Scandinavia Union.

The best chances would be;
1) Union of Kalmar (best possible solution)
2)Uber Sweden (might be possible, border ASB)
3) Napoleonic victory (Bernadotte get his ass burned, the House of Oldenburg get the Swedish throne, ASBish)
 
Scandinavism was always too weak, and thus can't result in a Scandinavia Union.

The best chances would be;
1) Union of Kalmar (best possible solution)
2)Uber Sweden (might be possible, border ASB)
3) Napoleonic victory (Bernadotte get his ass burned, the House of Oldenburg get the Swedish throne, ASBish)

Scandinavism - no too weak political basis.

1) No - have it survive for 300+ years! ASBish!!

2) Possible if you rule out early British/Netherlands interest in the Baltic.

3) Probably impossible. But the House of Oldenburg; Slesvig-Holstein-Gottorp line already had the throne! ;)
As it briefly had Russia! Quite successfull them Counts of Oldenburg.

4) IYWYMBKOS!

5) Christian August survive his accident and then unite the Kingdoms when Frederik 6. dies 1837.
 
1) No - have it survive for 300+ years! ASBish!!

I suspect that the longer it survived, the more stable it would get. Nobles gaining lands and income in multiple countries, intermarriage etc. Down the line, the citizens and nobles of Kalmar might be regarding the original Scandianvian nations in much the same way as the UK looks at Scotland, Cornwall and Wessex today.
 
I suspect that the longer it survived, the more stable it would get. Nobles gaining lands and income in multiple countries, intermarriage etc. Down the line, the citizens and nobles of Kalmar might be regarding the original Scandianvian nations in much the same way as the UK looks at Scotland, Cornwall and Wessex today.

Perhaps - if not the last era of nobility unrest and Swedish faction would kill it off anyway.
But then it could perhaps continue as the Scandinavian Nobility Republic! :D

Problem was that the Kings of Denmark tried to solve the border issue, keep the Union together AND spank the Hanse all at the same time. Does really spell trouble.
 
Top