Yes, unfortunately adopting Christianity will be necessary to be able to import the knowledge needed for some kind of centralization of the empire. And both the Catholic and Orthodox churches (depending on which the Finns choose) could serve as an important class of bureaucrats. Otherwise I'm afraid the empire would quickly fall apart if it's just a loose federation of tribes, as soon as the main tribe show any form of weakness, the other tribes would just attack them. Also, without a clear legal code there would probably be succession issues (should a son of the former chief inherit, which son should inherit, or should a powerful warrior or a wise elder take over). So Finland kind of need the benefits from Christianity to keep the empire together.
1) Finns would need to unite under central power which means finnish agriculture would have to sustain a permanent military and bureaucracy. Unfortunately finland did not become self sufficient until after WW2 with introduction of industrial fertilizers in medieval time finns are into sustenance farming supplemented by hunting fishing and food imports.
Without a major climatic change around iron age the population is simply not there.
2) Even if united, Finnish chieftain or priest/king would be under unbearable pressure between Greek Catholics from Novgorod and Roman Catholics from Sweden. Swedes were not really enthusiastic to annex Finland, because it was dirt poor and not really worth fighting over they were coaxed into it by Rome because of the advance of orthodox christianity in Karelia. Sooner or later Finland would be pressured to accept alliance and conversion byt either east or west.
1) Finns would need to unite under central power which means finnish agriculture would have to sustain a permanent military and bureaucracy. Unfortunately finland did not become self sufficient until after WW2 with introduction of industrial fertilizers in medieval time finns are into sustenance farming supplemented by hunting fishing and food imports.
Without a major climatic change around iron age the population is simply not there.
2) Even if united, Finnish chieftain or priest/king would be under unbearable pressure between Greek Catholics from Novgorod and Roman Catholics from Sweden. Swedes were not really enthusiastic to annex Finland, because it was dirt poor and not really worth fighting over they were coaxed into it by Rome because of the advance of orthodox christianity in Karelia. Sooner or later Finland would be pressured to accept alliance and conversion byt either east or west.
Would Finland do better economically if it were united under a central ruler, however? It seems to me that Finland, since it was united/conquered by the Swedes was put into an effective colonial relationship with Sweden. In other words, most of their surplus would then be exported to Sweden or taxed. Since it was seen as a backwater by the Swedish crown, which would have been more focused upon Scandinavia or the southern Baltic region, Finland wouldn't have had the same access to new technologies or agricultural developements under Sweden that it might if it had been independent.
Is the Finnish soil that much poorer than the Scandinavian nations, who were able to economically support a state?
A quick wikipedia search shows that Sweden consolidated its control of Sweden during the Northern crusade, roughly during the 12th and 13th century. So, lets handwave a strong cheiftan during this same period. He, likely would some from the southern shore or interior of Finland. He is able to unite the local tribes, converts to Christianity (I'm thinking Orthodox would be the most likely, but it could well be Catholicism). He is able to defeat the Swedes, chase them from the coast, and creates a united Finnish Kingdom.
Now, we have a christian ruler who is going to be tied into mainstream European society to a greater extent than in OTL. A dynamic ruler, and one who is going to have to go out of his way to legitimize his own rule, is likely going to invite in foreign intellectuals, likely through the church, to christianize and modernize his society.
Finland is not going to develope into an economic powerhouse during this time. But, if its united and tied into the greater European economy and society, wouldn't it be able to modernize its economy enough to support even a limited governmental structure?
Would Finland do better economically if it were united under a central ruler, however? It seems to me that Finland, since it was united/conquered by the Swedes was put into an effective colonial relationship with Sweden. In other words, most of their surplus would then be exported to Sweden or taxed.
Is the Finnish soil that much poorer than the Scandinavian nations, who were able to economically support a state?
So, lets handwave a strong cheiftan during this same period.
Derekc2
How about a much earlier start? Weren't the Finnish people once spread over a lot of what's now northern Russia, before they were displaced by the Slavs? I think I read once that even the Moscow area was settled by them.
If you could get a strong state being founded, possibly to defend against Slavic incursion, this might persist and keep the Slavs outside the region, giving the Finnish state far more resources to play with.
Not sure what could prompt a fairly dramatic increase in their potential but shouldn't be impossible. They may still be largely limited to the northern forests and hence a steady and reliable food supply could be a problem. If they can hold out until the Scandinavia Rus arrive and possibly form links with them. Then a bit later the assorted steppe invasion, [Bulgarians, Magyars, Cumans etc and ultimately the Mongols hit the Slavs in the open steppes a hell of a lot harder than the Finns in the forested areas.
Steve
Sorry but I dicided to do what I dicided to do but that is a nice idea, I might try that some time.Derekc2
How about a much earlier start? Weren't the Finnish people once spread over a lot of what's now northern Russia, before they were displaced by the Slavs? I think I read once that even the Moscow area was settled by them.
If you could get a strong state being founded, possibly to defend against Slavic incursion, this might persist and keep the Slavs outside the region, giving the Finnish state far more resources to play with.
Not sure what could prompt a fairly dramatic increase in their potential but shouldn't be impossible. They may still be largely limited to the northern forests and hence a steady and reliable food supply could be a problem. If they can hold out until the Scandinavia Rus arrive and possibly form links with them. Then a bit later the assorted steppe invasion, [Bulgarians, Magyars, Cumans etc and ultimately the Mongols hit the Slavs in the open steppes a hell of a lot harder than the Finns in the forested areas.
Steve