Sweden retakes Finland during Crimea

The Finnish elites preferred the Czar (much better career prospects), the regular population enjoyed their autonomy and not living in a battleground. If Sweden could provide the same autonomy and peace (which it had not been able to do during the 18th century), the regular Finns should not be too unhappy.

It is in fact definitely questionable if being under Swedish rule would be more advantageous for the Finns than being under Russian rule. In the short term, Finland becoming a battleground for several years would certainly be a change for the worse in comparison to the OTL. And then after the recovery starts... Could the Swedish provide the same benefits as Russia did for the Finnish Grand Duchy, some of which von Adler has detailed above? Could Swedish rule ITTL guarantee peace and increasing prosperity in Finland, until as far as 1914, like being a part of the Russian empire did IOTL? It is not at all obvious that the answers to these questions would be positive.
It seems that Finland was a battleground in this war, with war on Åland, raids on the other coasts, and its entire merchant fleet sunk, and had it still been part of Sweden, it might not have been attacked at all.
 
It seems that Finland was a battleground in this war, with war on Åland, raids on the other coasts, and its entire merchant fleet sunk, and had it still been part of Sweden, it might not have been attacked at all.

In comparison to the wars of the 18th century, the Crimean War was very easy on the Finns. Sure the coastal areas suffered from Anglo-French depredations, fortifications were bombarded, some buildings were torched and many ships were sunk. But then the Finnish mainland was pretty much entirely spared from battles and war damage. In all previous wars, many problems had been caused for the local population by the heavy presence of Russian troops in Finland (and this would be true for WWI as well) but in this war the problem was a shortage of Russian troops, one that caused Finnish commoners to pick up weapons themselves in several towns and villages to fight off the foreign invaders burning down warehouses and scaring children and womenfolk along the coast.

Had there been an actual invasion of the mainland of the Grand Duchy, by the troops of Sweden and its allies, Russia would have been forced to bring significant numbers of troops to Finland as well to try to defend itself. The result would have necessarily been a war that would have caused a lot more destruction and human and economic losses to Finland than the OTL "War of Åland" did.
´
IOTL, we can argue that losing Finland was the last nail in the coffin of Sweden trying to be a major power in the Baltic Sea area. On the other hand, not getting Finland in 1809 would most likely not stop Russia from trying to be a pre-eminent Baltic Sea power, and Sweden would still be a major speed bump on that road. The Finnish War would not have been the war to end all wars between Sweden and Russia in all possible timelines - to think so would be OTL bias. IOTL the outcome of the war created such borders between the waning Swedish power and the growing Russian Empire that could be easily maintained without a war becoming necessary between the two nations in the 19th century. If Sweden had retained Finland, the Eastern Provinces would have continually been a potential source of conflict, an area to be fought over for Russia to both be able to protect the imperial capital and to become the leading Baltic power.

When Finland was a part of Sweden in the 17th and 18th centuries, it was a battleground for a war with the Russians every 20 years or so. Had the same pattern continued, by 1854 a Swedish Finland would have seen maybe two or three wars against the Russians in the 19th century. Now, it is possible that Sweden winning the Finnish War would lead to a long period of peace in the northern Baltic Sea area. Why not. On balance, though, I think that continued periodical hostilities between Sweden and Russia would have been more likely.
 
Last edited:
Now, it is possible that Sweden winning the Finnish War would lead to a long period of peace in the northern Baltic Sea area. Why not. On balance, though, I think that continued periodical hostilities between Sweden and Russia would have been more likely.
Around 1850, Sweden had 3 million inhabitants, while Russia had 68 million. Even with Finland, Sweden is still comparatively very small, and in the post-1800 era, any sensible government would avoid war in such circumstances (not that governments are sensible). On the other hand, Sweden was (with Prussia) about to join this war if it had continued, and Sweden was close to have joined in some parts of ww1 and ww2, so two centuries of peace were not written in stone.

Finland might not have been a battleground now anyway, if the Swedish participation is to provide a part of the manpower for the attack on Petersburg.
 
It seems that the Swedish king Oscar I discarded the Swedish military's plan for invading Latvia with 60 000 men, since he wanted to take Finland instead. If so, then the fighting might have taken place more on Finnish land than OTL, if the Swedes actually manage a large offensive. I can only imagine a large disaster, but the persons back then were optimistic about this, and the king aged ten years in a day (according to the crown prince) when he heard that peace had come, before the Swedish entry in the war.

Of course, it might be that the fighting in Finland is limited to taking Sveaborg and some other coastal forts, while the main effort is towards Petersburg to get a decisive action, but it does not sound very easy, and if it had occurred, then the Baltic could have become Balkan-ish, with everyone hating everyone else due to the atrocities that probably would happen.

The British judged the Swedish troops as capable at this time, before the alliance treaty of november 1855 was made.
 
Top