Alarico Rodríguez
Banned
What the title says. By Scandinavia, I mean Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland and their colonies, mainly Greenland. Certainly the Russians did grab Finland but I want to know about the rest of Scandinavia.
Finland was grabbed during the Napoleonic Wars, not after the Great Northern War.What the title says. By Scandinavia, I mean Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland and their colonies, mainly Greenland. Certainly the Russians did grab Finland but I want to know about the rest of Scandinavia.
My question is more along the lines of why, after defeating Sweden, didn't the Russians decide to conquer the rest of Scandinavia, not necessarily immediately but at least in the next century or so. They were militarily weak afterwards (though I'm most likely wrong here or at least overstating this) and the Russians would go on to annex Kazakhstan and Central Asia and even momentarily hold Alaska, not to mention Poland too. It simply seems weird to me that the Russians never decided to swallow the rest of Scandinavia when it is right there next to them and they conquered bigger territories with bigger populations in the next century and a half.Finland was grabbed during the Napoleonic Wars, not after the Great Northern War.
Why didn't Russia conquer Scandinavia?
Because it wasn't a war goal of Russia in the first place. The goal was a window to the Baltic, which it got by getting the Baltic possessions of Sweden.
Two reasons. First, while significantly weakened Sweden was still capable of putting up a stout defense against the Russians, particularly at sea in the Baltics. Conquering Sweden would've been a pain in the ass.My question is more along the lines of why, after defeating Sweden, didn't the Russians decide to conquer the rest of Scandinavia, not necessarily immediately but at least in the next century or so. They were militarily weak afterwards (though I'm most likely wrong here or at least overstating this) and the Russians would go on to annex Kazakhstan and Central Asia and even momentarily hold Alaska, not to mention Poland too. It simply seems weird to me that the Russians never decided to swallow the rest of Scandinavia when it is right there next to them and they conquered bigger territories with bigger populations in the next century and a half.
I guess it depends on what you consider the northern part of Norway, but I get the impression that Narvik-as-an-all-year-ice-free-port didn't really developThey could’ve gone for the northern part of Norway and Sweden alongside all of Finland if it helps. At least it can get a warm-water part without having to drag itself into a serious insurgency.
I guess it depends on what you consider the northern part of Norway, but I get the impression that Narvik-as-an-all-year-ice-free-port didn't really develop
until the 1870s.
I've also been lead to believe that one of the points of getting an all-year-ice-free port is that you're able to use it, i.e. move things to and from it during
the periods when yourother ports are iced up... Which would be one reason why Narvik didn't really develop as one until the railroad.
Their navy sucked.What the title says. By Scandinavia, I mean Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland and their colonies, mainly Greenland. Certainly the Russians did grab Finland but I want to know about the rest of Scandinavia.
Ironically in OTL personal union with Sweden was much closer thingMaybe if Russia and Denmark-Norway get into a personal union in the 18th century, they can swallow Sweden together and unite the Baltic sea under one dynasty
Well thats even better and makes everything easier. Denmark and Norway have no chance at all against a Russian Swedish union, the Baltic sea is theirs and they have a huge advantage on land.Ironically in OTL personal union with Sweden was much closer thing
Well, there was a tiny problem: requirements to the ruler’s religion in Russia and Sweden were mutually exclusive, which means that the Swedes would have to make serious adjustments. It was much easier to make them to accept the Russian candidate (and to get Finland back after the lost war).Well thats even better and makes everything easier. Denmark and Norway have no chance at all against a Russian Swedish union, the Baltic sea is theirs and they have a huge advantage on land.
Physical possibility is not always the same as “makes sense”. Practical sense in Russian conquest of Sweden was absent with the exception of Finland, which was occupied by the Russians more than once to be returned to Sweden after the ongoing war was over (Elizabeth even created Kingdom of Finland with Peter Ulrich as a king but then opted for just setting Peter’s uncle as the King of Sweden). Finland made sense exclusively as a buffer against the further Swedish attacks and Alexander needed to show some gains after Tilsit Treaty.There was a period where the Swedes suddenly realised that the Russians MIGHT try and annex them soon and it spurred them onto reforms
It is certainly a possible thing that might have happened. It happened to Poland so nobody can say it wasn't possible to happen to Sweden, and as I say it suddenly appeared in the consciousness of the Swedes and led to them sorting things out somewhat
I'll have to find the references at home, if people can't find them online
Well, there was a tiny problem: requirements to the ruler’s religion in Russia and Sweden were mutually exclusive, which means that the Swedes would have to make serious adjustments. It was much easier to make them to accept the Russian candidate (and to get Finland back after the lost war).
As for the rest, the obvious problem with the potential advantage (control of the Baltic Sea) was that it was absolutely useless for Russia of that period: it did not have any merchant marine worth mentioning and the Baltic Fleet was rarely sailing outside the Gulf of Finland. All naval trade had been done by the foreign ships, mostly British, and Denmark was an ally. So why bother?
Even by the end of the XVIII Russia did not conduct any serious foreign trade of its own and it not even try to create it. The necessary credit institutions had been lacking and so was the interest: the merchant class was too weak and owners of the good (the nobility) simply were not interested in putting their money into the naval adventures. The Brits, AFAIK, did not pay for passage of the Straits so everybody was happy and “goodwill” was not a factor because both sides had been interested: the Brits needed Russian materials to such a degree that at the time of CII they were OK with having a negative trade balance. As for divertisification of the foreign merchants, the Brits got on the top of the list more or less natural way. The French, for example, demonstrated almost a complete absence of interest in a direct trade and at the time of CII their good had been routinely carried by the British ships (see memoirs of Count Segur, French ambassador at Catherine’s court).Having the Baltic ports does mean the Russians no longer have to pay yet another middleman for the privilege of having Russian goods loaded in the Baltic ports and having foreign goods come in via the same ports. That inevitably would save a lot of money on import/export tariffs and adds a pretty large revenue source for the Russian government. It also means the Russians are less dependent on the goodwill of foreign powers for foreign trade. A lot more countries have merchant ships then a single power (Sweden) controlling the relevant ports.
Even by the end of the XVIII Russia did not conduct any serious foreign trade of its own and it not even try to create it. The necessary credit institutions had been lacking and so was the interest: the merchant class was too weak and owners of the good (the nobility) simply were not interested in putting their money into the naval adventures. The Brits, AFAIK, did not pay for passage of the Straits so everybody was happy and “goodwill” was not a factor because both sides had been interested: the Brits needed Russian materials to such a degree that at the time of CII they were OK with having a negative trade balance. As for divertisification of the foreign merchants, the Brits got on the top of the list more or less natural way. The French, for example, demonstrated almost a complete absence of interest in a direct trade and at the time of CII their good had been routinely carried by the British ships (see memoirs of Count Segur, French ambassador at Catherine’s court).
The only practical thing in having the Baltic ports was, as you noticed, in an absence of need to pay tariffs to Sweden but for the practical purposes only the ports on the Eastern Coast of the Baltic Sea mattered and not all of them but only those with the convenient links to the Russian interior, aka, initially Riga, Revel and to a lesser degree Narva and then St. Petersburg (to which during the reign of PI all trade had been channeled including even one that was traditionally going through the White Sea). This task being accomplished during the GNW, the further acquisitions would not make practical sense. The same goes about control of the Baltic Sea: why bother if secure passage was British problem?