What if Denmark won the 2nd Schleswig War?

I just had an idea with the Prussian Army getting lured to Als, followed by the danish navy evacuating the army (and any civilians that they can get their hands on) and blockading the island so they'd have a hard time getting back where they're useful ... is that plausible in any shape or form?

Well yes and no .Yes in that the Prussians would be unable to do much while blockaded .And no in that the Austrian navy would need to be defeated before a blockade would be an option .And also while on blockade duty the navy could not do much else in other ares were it might be needed .
 

Don Quijote

Banned
Linguistically, the difference is enormous. Finnish isn't even an Indo-European language.

OK I'm not an expert, I was just joking. (attempt to save face:p)

But Geographically you could make a case for Finland being Scandinavian, and in terms of language, it's not like Russian either. Plus the links to Sweden are a bit closer, not to mention friendlier.
 
OK I'm not an expert, I was just joking. (attempt to save face:p)

But Geographically you could make a case for Finland being Scandinavian, and in terms of language, it's not like Russian either. Plus the links to Sweden are a bit closer, not to mention friendlier.

If 700 years of being part of the Swedish realm and thus inheriting a lot of culture and societal development from the Swedish (or, rather, developing together with the Swedish in a mutual, if a bit one-sided relationship) could not make the Finns "Scandinavian" in the eyes of the people who dreamed up "Scandinavia" as an ideological, exclusive and somewhat inconsistent club for Swedes, Danes and Norwegians in the 19th century, then I believe most Finns (many Swedish-speakers included) think those people can damn well keep their terminology. The more inclusive (and more modern) idea of being Nordic, now, from Norden, the North, makes a lot more sense given all the things and history these nations in the northern fringe of Europe share with each other.
 
OK I'm not an expert, I was just joking. (attempt to save face:p)

But Geographically you could make a case for Finland being Scandinavian, and in terms of language, it's not like Russian either. Plus the links to Sweden are a bit closer, not to mention friendlier.

Russian, being an Indo-European language, is more related to the Scandinavian languages than Finnish is. The only European languages related at all to Finnish are Estonian, Karelian, Sami and (more distantly) Hungarian.

Finland is a Nordic country but not a Scandinavian one. The latter refers specifically to the three Germanic-speaking monarchies. The former covers a geographical region, including Finland, Iceland, Lapland and arguably Estonia.

You can draw some parallels to Finland's relation to Sweden and the Republic of Ireland's relationship to the UK. Geographically close, and sharing some cultural aspects due to centuries of rule by the latter - Finland/Sweden share a religious faith while Ireland/UK share a language - but differing in other ways (language for Finland/Sweden, religion for Ireland/Britain).
 
Last edited:
The former covers a geographical region, including Finland, Iceland, Lapland and arguably Estonia.

Not if you ask any other Nordic ... it gives some of the same reactions as Western Europeans get when someone's stating that Kazakhstan is European.
 

Don Quijote

Banned
Would Iceland not be classed as Scandinavian in terms of language, as it was predominantly settled by Danes and Norwegians? Personally I would have (perhaps wrongly) taken Scandinavia to be Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland, but I wouldn't have such a clear image of image of Nordic countries, as it doesn't seem to be such a specific term. Maybe Scandinavia + Estonia, northern Germany, and even the UK.
 
Maybe the conversation should begin to move more towards what the OP asked about the plausibility of his idea .Which with a few changes could be a realistic and interesting time line that I would love to see .
 
Would Iceland not be classed as Scandinavian in terms of language, as it was predominantly settled by Danes and Norwegians? Personally I would have (perhaps wrongly) taken Scandinavia to be Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland, but I wouldn't have such a clear image of image of Nordic countries, as it doesn't seem to be such a specific term. Maybe Scandinavia + Estonia, northern Germany, and even the UK.

Scandinavia is Norway, Sweden, almost always Denmark, often Finland and is for the most part geographically based... Nordic is as above plus Greenland, Faeroe islands and Iceland and is culturally based
 
Would Iceland not be classed as Scandinavian in terms of language, as it was predominantly settled by Danes and Norwegians? Personally I would have (perhaps wrongly) taken Scandinavia to be Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland, but I wouldn't have such a clear image of image of Nordic countries, as it doesn't seem to be such a specific term. Maybe Scandinavia + Estonia, northern Germany, and even the UK.

If you find yourself wondering about the terms Nordic and "Norden", why not check the website of the Nordic Council that has a handy page entitled "Facts about the Nordic Region".:p

The Nordic Region consists of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland, as well as the Faroe Islands, Greenland, and Åland.
 
Not if you ask any other Nordic ... it gives some of the same reactions as Western Europeans get when someone's stating that Kazakhstan is European.

Finland and Estonia are pretty close culturally, though, and were even more so prior to 1940. Fifty years of communism have admittedly caused Estonia to drift away a bit, though.
 
Well yes and no .Yes in that the Prussians would be unable to do much while blockaded .And no in that the Austrian navy would need to be defeated before a blockade would be an option .And also while on blockade duty the navy could not do much else in other ares were it might be needed .

This is the closest the Austrian navy got to the danish straits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Heligoland_(1864)

[I know i know Wikipedia :p]
 
Well yes and no .Yes in that the Prussians would be unable to do much while blockaded .And no in that the Austrian navy would need to be defeated before a blockade would be an option .And also while on blockade duty the navy could not do much else in other ares were it might be needed .


And the strait between Als and the mainland is pretty narrow, hardly more than a wide river, and Prussian guns on both banks would make life rather uncomfortable for any blockade ships there.

And after all, OTL the Danes were unable to stop the Prussians crossing onto Als. Why would they do any better at stopping them from crossing the other way?
 
Top