The Pagan Finnish empire

This is about a idea of having the finns unite and be ruled as a pagan power in a world of cristidom. I will begin the timeline in about a week. Begin descussing in 3...2...1...GO!
 
This would really depend on when it all went down. There isn't even a widely agreed upon date for when the Finns arrived in Finland. If it occures in the mid-Middle Ages it would likely go the same way as Lithuania eventually. Even if you could get a Soumi chief to unite the tribes into a single state the pressures to Christianize are going to be to great. You have Sweden to the west, Novogorod/Russia to the east and the Teutonic Knights to the south.
The most likely eventuality is that a strong ruler unites the Finns into a single state and either he, or his heir, convert to Christianity in order to legitimize their rule as well as get the stability and prestige that comes with being Christian. After all, having a large pagan state during this period, surrounded by Christian rulers, is jsut begging for a crusade to be launched against you, as happened against the Balts.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
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.
 
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.

I do want to say, however, the the presense of a centralized Finnish state in the Middle Ages is a very interesting one, and something that could offer up some very interesting timelines. Its just that such a state is going to have to be either Catholic or Orthodox due to the politicla realities of the time.
Now, that doesn't mean that Finnish paganism is going to die immediately, or that it won't be better recorded than in OTL. Hell, the presense of the Kalevala shows how tenacious some of those beliefs and folklore really were. Just as in Scandinavia where kings still tried to trace their bloodlines back to (a human) Odin, or Sigurd, there wouldn't be any reason to jettison the entire mythology. Most likely it will be recorded, much better than in OTL even.
In fact, its possible that the Finns, if they retain a fondness for their ancestral beliefs while remaining Christian, may well produce a literature on par with that of Iceland. Namely, recording the stories because of their cultural importance, while failing to ascribe them any theological significance. This, in and of itself, is fodder for a very interesting story!
 
Just two problems :)

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.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
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.

Not entirely true, Sweden wanted to control the coast to secure the sea lanes. It was the inland they were not that interested in. Also Swedish migration to the archipelago started before the invasions.
 
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?
 
The main drives for the Lithuanians to take power in the region were 1) Teutons on their doorstep 2) lots of small Russian principalities nearby. Finns had neither. Without a slowly building, strongly militaristic and religious threat, there's nothing to band them together, and without small principalities to feed on, there's nothing to build their power on (Novgorod was not a beating kid the likes of, say, Polotsk, proved to be). Sorry, paganism in Finland was doomed.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
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?

Well, one thing the Finnish kingdom would have to do is of course legitimizing it's existence. But before that centralization is necessary, otherwise it would collapse with the death of the first king. They'd also need to adopt a Code of Law, but if they invite priests they could take legal traditions from their home lands with them. Of course old Finnish traditions would also have to be taken into account.

For centralization, the Finnish king would have to be both powerful and ruthless. Basically he need the power and the will to exterminate every rival, or otherwise powerful potential rivals. For legitimization, well if the Finnish royalty can marry into the royal Houses of Novgorod and Sweden, they would pretty much have legitimized their position as a Christian kingdom in the eyes of their neighbors.
 
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.

Depends, Finland was not a colony but a province of Sweden and integral part of the kingdom.

Is the Finnish soil that much poorer than the Scandinavian nations, who were able to economically support a state?

Yes and no, the most fertile land of finland is concentrated on narrow coastal strip from Pori to Kotka which itself is north when compared the agricultural areas of Sweden and Norway. These areas abopted permanent settlements with fixed fields.

Central and eastern Finland practiced slash-and-burn method until around 17.th centtury wtih fairly sophisticated methods. This provided food but was not beneficial to the development of tax base and population density for centralized government.

Fixed fields agriculture combined with little ice age lead to series of famines, culminating in great famine of 1695-1697 which kille one third of the population. Repeating famines of 1857-1869 killed 15%
Total Finnish population at the start of the Swedish crusades is estimated to be around 50 000

So, lets handwave a strong cheiftan during this same period.

You don't even have to handwave such, there were local tribal "kingdoms" in central Finland (Häme/Tavastia) and Karelia, some say that Karelians sacked Sigtuna in 1187. Written record are lacking and oral history is tainted due to finnish nationalists making a ton of shit up to support their cause in early 20th century. But these histories tell raiding and periodic resource wars to both west against swedes and east against Novgorod.

What was lacking was permanent warrior class. There were specific seasons for war in the summer between planting and harvest an winter.

I'll try to dig a historical reference for you.
 
Last edited:
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
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
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

Finno-Ugric peoples: Yes. But where to draw the line what's Finnish and what's not Finnish? Also there are now theories that the Finnish language could originate from Finnish Stone Age cultures, which kind of change the old theories a bit.

The Finno-Ugric tribes were less organized and had less things in common than the East Slavic tribes that later were organized into the Rus. And we'd probably end up with something more like a Mordvin Empire, than a Finnish Empire.
 
The Unification of Finns

1066: The Cheifdom of Slovaks comes under the rule of Kalivi the great of Slovaks how would later unite Finland(with Karila) and OTL Estonia.

1075: The first of the Finnish wars of unification begin betrean Cheifdom of Slovaks and Cheifdom of Karila.

1080: Karila fall and the native ruling family is killed and the Karillans are forced to become part of Slovaks cheifdom and are assimulated.

1085: Cheifdom of Trasivites(These are from Crusaeder Kings for tribal names sorry) and Cheifdom of Slovaks go to war for tye second one.

1095: The Slovaks are victorius and the same thing happened to them as with the Karillans.

1100: The Cheifdom of Itsis and The Chifdom of Slovaks go to war.

1101: The Itsises are overruned and they to have what happened to the previus tribes.

1105: The Cheifs in OTL Estonia declare aligance to the Cheifdomof Slovaks.

1110: Kalivi the Great declares himself King of the Kingdom of the Finns.
He declares that the Eldest son is made King of Finns.
 
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.
 
Top