WI/AHC: Both Denmark-Norway survives & Sweden retains Finland after Napoleonic Wars
- Thread starter GameBawesome
- Start date
Is that an apt comparison? There’s no land connection that would allow the towns to be tied closer together than they already were when railroads come around.
Finns make up the absolute majority of the eastern third of Sweden in this scenario, population-wise. They are also natives to the Swedish realm. Integrated to it, as well. Very few people would want a "segregated" society. But many people would want a Sweden where native Finnish speakers have equal political, cultural and linguistic rights as native Swedish speakers do. Should Sweden retain Finland into the 20th century, at some point they would also start advocating for autonomy or home rule for Finland in the style of Ireland IOTL.
It seems to me that you are thinking about this scenario in OTL terms, not in ATL terms where the eastern territories have been a part of Sweden for many centuries and continue to be so well past 1809. ITTL, what is "Sweden" is understood differently from the OTL, we're not talking about the "Little Sweden" of post-1809 world as we see it. It is a world with a different understanding of what it means to be "Swedish", too.
I have a vague feeling that the Torne Valley Finns should be mentioned somewhere around here...
They are majority in Finland and they are natives there, they are NOT majority in most of Sweden and are not the native population.
Intermarriage, public schooling or just sheer contact would eat away Finnish speakers numbers rapidly, I've no idea why you seem to thinks Finns in Swedes would be able to have more support than Finnish speakers in the Aland islands do today.
And how does that help preserving the language of Finnish migrants in Sweden? You are contradicting yourself, you can't advocate for the idea that Finns everywhere in the Swedish kingdom would be treated as if they were living in >50% Finnish speaking areas and have better means to preserve their language that 95% of minorities in Europe while still arguing that Finland would get home rule because they are a separate nation, it makes 0 sense.
Last edited:
I tend to think of city as a entire urban area and not just as the municipality/county itself. In that case Helsinki have slightly above a million inhabitants, I imagnie that Turku would somewhat smaller than OTL Hesinki, but as the city with the Finnish university (even if the language taught there are Swedish) and much of the regional administration Turku will be the biggest city in eastern Sweden and I think the bigger hinterland than Malmö will ensure it’s bigger. Honestly there’s not really a lot of alternatives to Turku for a big Finnish city, OTL development of Helsinki was pretty unique and a result of Russian rule.
I disagree with first part, Finns in Swedish speaking areas will be assimilated fast, the Finnish speakers will fight through the 19th century for Sweden to become a true bilingual state, but even if it become so it will only become so in the 20th century. At most the Finnish language will get some protection and representation, but any interaction between a Finnish and Swedish speaker will happen in Swedish. Some isolated villages in Sweden proper may speak Finnish, but the Finnish workers in Swedish proper cities and even in a few Finnish cities will shift to Swedish in a generation. It’s also why I expect the northern frontier to end up Swedish speaking, as Finns and Swedes settle it together. The shift to Swedish will be strengthen by strong labor union and Social Democrats whixh will favor a united working class over nationalism (it’s what we saw with Danes in Flensburg).
As for the last part, I expect that Finland will have slightly over 4 million inhabitants (Russian Old Finland and lack of flight of the Finnish Karelians gives Finland a smaller population), between 1-1,5 million will be Swedish speakers (I lean toward the lower range. I expect around a 500-600.000 Swedish speaker outside Turku. So the precise status of Turku will decides how big the Finnish population are. Of course Sweden will likely also have a significant Finnish population of 1st generation migrants. The problem is that they don’t stay Finnish in the second generation, honestly It’s also hard to imagine a bigger modern Finnish diaspora in Sweden than in OTL, but it will be far bigger in the 19th century and early 20th century than in OTL, but those will be assimilated by modern day. So let’s go with half a million Finnish speakers in Sweden proper. So that will be 3,5 million people sparking Finnish as first language. Of course the inclusion of Finland will make Stockholm bigger (bigger land bigger capital). So Stockholm will likely have half a million inhabitants more. So that gives Sweden(-Finland) 15 million inhabitants. You can make argument for a bigger population, but this is just a fast estimate. That makes Finns around 22% of the population.
Well... The Tornedalians are the native population there and Meänkieli survived being banned in school/suppressed between
1888 and 1957 and has been one of the five official minority languages since 2000.
It is apparently sort of dying, but that seems to be as much due to now being less isolated from standard Finnish as anything.
All true, but I am saying that quite apart from Sweden, there could be huge consequences for the Napoleonic wars and for France's internal politics if Bernadotte is still a French Marshal.
A general few thoughts
Sweden with Finland don’t radically change, yes it have more people, a big non-Swedish speaking minority (likely also a German one in Swedish Pomerania) and likely a more developed Bothnian Bay, but it will still be very structural similar to OTL 19th century Sweden. They have to deal with a big Russian neighbors and they will be a major manufacturing hub. I expect it to develop rather similar to OTL Sweden.
Denmark-Norway on the other hand are a quite different beast to OTL. Norway gives Denmark access to raw material which it didn’t have in OTL, while Denmark give Norway access to investments they didn’t get in OTL from Sweden, making Norway the center of Danish heavy industry. The duchies will stay economic centered around major landowners o the Baltic coast rather than shift to manufacturing in southern Holstein, this will keep the major landowners in Schleswig-Holstein loyal to the Danish government, create a regional split between pro-German unification liberals and pro-unionist conservatives, rather than a anti-Danish alliance between these two groups. Foreign policy Denmark will keep seeing the Norwegian sea as its territory, making the control and development of this region the center of Danish politics. With a bigger industrial sector and being richer Denmark is also likely to have a greater colonial focus to produce raw material for its industry.
Sweden with Finland don’t radically change, yes it have more people, a big non-Swedish speaking minority (likely also a German one in Swedish Pomerania) and likely a more developed Bothnian Bay, but it will still be very structural similar to OTL 19th century Sweden. They have to deal with a big Russian neighbors and they will be a major manufacturing hub. I expect it to develop rather similar to OTL Sweden.
Denmark-Norway on the other hand are a quite different beast to OTL. Norway gives Denmark access to raw material which it didn’t have in OTL, while Denmark give Norway access to investments they didn’t get in OTL from Sweden, making Norway the center of Danish heavy industry. The duchies will stay economic centered around major landowners o the Baltic coast rather than shift to manufacturing in southern Holstein, this will keep the major landowners in Schleswig-Holstein loyal to the Danish government, create a regional split between pro-German unification liberals and pro-unionist conservatives, rather than a anti-Danish alliance between these two groups. Foreign policy Denmark will keep seeing the Norwegian sea as its territory, making the control and development of this region the center of Danish politics. With a bigger industrial sector and being richer Denmark is also likely to have a greater colonial focus to produce raw material for its industry.
It is difficult to guess what the swedish constitution would have been during the 19th century sans the revolution of 1809, but the gustavian autocracy would not have lasted for that much longer.
The Riksdag will regain powers sooner or later. People from Finland would have been a significant part of the Riksdag, and it would be very difficult to form a majority without them. The swedish-speakers would probably have a lot more votes than their share of the population, but they would be likely to push for the interests of Finland such as a stronger military defence. If I understand it correctly, Sweden had huge political problems deciding how to reorganise its defence and deciding who should pay for it, during the second half of the century. With the Finland in the Riksdag military reform should be much easier.
The Riksdag will regain powers sooner or later. People from Finland would have been a significant part of the Riksdag, and it would be very difficult to form a majority without them. The swedish-speakers would probably have a lot more votes than their share of the population, but they would be likely to push for the interests of Finland such as a stronger military defence. If I understand it correctly, Sweden had huge political problems deciding how to reorganise its defence and deciding who should pay for it, during the second half of the century. With the Finland in the Riksdag military reform should be much easier.
It’s fine, the problem is economy and population size. Denmark will likely have some colonies, but they will be of lesser importance.
Nitpick: Some more colonies. Everybody forgets about Danish India.
Or the fact that Denmark did have colonies in Africa.
Danish Gold Coast - Wikipedia
Heh. I missed/forgot about those as Wikipedia sneaked those onto the list before the ones that ended in the 17th century
before finishing the list with a
I decided to look up the demography of Denmark-Norway. In 1834 Denmark had roughly 1,2 million inhabitant, Schleswig 0,35 million, and Holstein 0,45 million. While Norway had 1,2 million in 1835. So that give us a population of around 3,2 million inhabitants, this of course exclude the Oversea possessions, which made up around 100.000 people with around half of them being Icelanders. German and Frisian speakers likely made up around 0,5-0,6 million people.
While I think this point is the latest point in time, we can use OTL demography, it's interesting to see how it look by 1900.
In 1900, Denmark has 2,5 million, Norway 2,2 million, and Schleswig-Holstein 1,4 million. Which give us a population of 6,1 million people. I expect that the population in TTL would be bigger. Norway with a more developed economy and with Copenhagen as emigration target would keep more people at home. I could easily see that instead of 750K emigrating to USA from Norway, that 300-400K would stay in the union either emigrating to the Copenhagen or the growing industrial area around Oslo. I could also see Swedes migrating to Oslo like they did to Copenhagen. Schleswig-Holstein will also see a greater population, OTL Schleswig-Holstein suffered under the connection to Denmark being cut, their industry being outcompeted by industry elsewhere in the empire, and the existence of Altona losing it point by now being in the same state as neighboring Hamburg. So, let's raise Denmark's population to 3 million, keep Schleswig-Holstein at 2/3 of Denmark's population at 2 million and keep Norway equal to Denmark at 3 million. This gives Denmark-Norway a population of 8 million people plus oversea population. I would set the German-Frisian population at 1,2-1,5, the low estimate is in case that german assimilation of South Schleswig population are stopped, while the high estimate is if it follows OTL pattern.
8 million may not sound like a lot of people, but it's enough that DN will be wooed by the great powers to join the different alliances. It's also more than enough for a colonial empire.
While I think this point is the latest point in time, we can use OTL demography, it's interesting to see how it look by 1900.
In 1900, Denmark has 2,5 million, Norway 2,2 million, and Schleswig-Holstein 1,4 million. Which give us a population of 6,1 million people. I expect that the population in TTL would be bigger. Norway with a more developed economy and with Copenhagen as emigration target would keep more people at home. I could easily see that instead of 750K emigrating to USA from Norway, that 300-400K would stay in the union either emigrating to the Copenhagen or the growing industrial area around Oslo. I could also see Swedes migrating to Oslo like they did to Copenhagen. Schleswig-Holstein will also see a greater population, OTL Schleswig-Holstein suffered under the connection to Denmark being cut, their industry being outcompeted by industry elsewhere in the empire, and the existence of Altona losing it point by now being in the same state as neighboring Hamburg. So, let's raise Denmark's population to 3 million, keep Schleswig-Holstein at 2/3 of Denmark's population at 2 million and keep Norway equal to Denmark at 3 million. This gives Denmark-Norway a population of 8 million people plus oversea population. I would set the German-Frisian population at 1,2-1,5, the low estimate is in case that german assimilation of South Schleswig population are stopped, while the high estimate is if it follows OTL pattern.
8 million may not sound like a lot of people, but it's enough that DN will be wooed by the great powers to join the different alliances. It's also more than enough for a colonial empire.
In my timeline where Washington wins at Brandywine, I have something like this - Closer US ties to Britain mean a little more cooperation and willingness to fight the French in 1798, thus delaying British ships going to Denmark by a few weeks, time enough for Denmark to back out of that Neutrality pact because of the Russian Tsar's death. Some other factors keep Sweden from losing most of Finland, although as I later researched I think that it would have been hard for Sweden to avoid this . I is possible though. Maybe more likely is that Russia has more trouble with the Ottomans and therefore can't devote the time to attacking Swedish Finland.
One Big change is that Swedish neutrality after 1815, or whenever these napoleonic wars end - it's 1809 in my timeline - is not as likely. In our timeline, Sweden was devastated by the war but also they were content with having a piece of the pie with Norway and, having lost both Finland and Pomerania, didn't have anything in the East to cause them to push forward.
Prussia would probably receive Pomerania still in this timeline, Though a scenario where they did still lose Finland But Denmark kept Norway might cause them to retain it which would also be very interesting.
Sweden would fear Russian aggression toward Finland. Either they attacked and were defeated or they never attacked but are looking lustily at it. Either way, Sweden would feel forced to enter into the slowly developing system of coalitions which formed after the war. It is likely that russhah would continue to side with France as they would have Austria has an opponent in the balkans. Sweden would also be seen as a key player against Prussia if in fact they kept Pomerania, and might anyway because Prussia and Russia might be growing closer together.
Either way, they would ask the British to assist them as Britain enthird into the great game later in the 19th century against Russia. Or possibly even earlier. You might very well see Sweden take part in the Crimean war. I could see a scenario where Russia did attack Sweden to get fanloaded in the 1820s answeden takes it back in the 1850s.
There might be reproachment with Denmark in this case. After all Denmark Norway and Sweden fought on the same side in the Napoleonic wars. It wouldn't be really close at 1st, but they would start to realize they had things in common. Perhaps you could see nobles intermarrying.
I'm not saying a personal Union is likely. It's just as likely, with Denmark having seen a lot of damage during the war and perhaps tens of thousands of deaths, Denmark Norway might be the one celebrating over a century of isolation and neutrality.
But yes, keeping Holstein they may actually get some looks from the other great powers for alliances. Even if they're not sure if they wante them.
One Big change is that Swedish neutrality after 1815, or whenever these napoleonic wars end - it's 1809 in my timeline - is not as likely. In our timeline, Sweden was devastated by the war but also they were content with having a piece of the pie with Norway and, having lost both Finland and Pomerania, didn't have anything in the East to cause them to push forward.
Prussia would probably receive Pomerania still in this timeline, Though a scenario where they did still lose Finland But Denmark kept Norway might cause them to retain it which would also be very interesting.
Sweden would fear Russian aggression toward Finland. Either they attacked and were defeated or they never attacked but are looking lustily at it. Either way, Sweden would feel forced to enter into the slowly developing system of coalitions which formed after the war. It is likely that russhah would continue to side with France as they would have Austria has an opponent in the balkans. Sweden would also be seen as a key player against Prussia if in fact they kept Pomerania, and might anyway because Prussia and Russia might be growing closer together.
Either way, they would ask the British to assist them as Britain enthird into the great game later in the 19th century against Russia. Or possibly even earlier. You might very well see Sweden take part in the Crimean war. I could see a scenario where Russia did attack Sweden to get fanloaded in the 1820s answeden takes it back in the 1850s.
There might be reproachment with Denmark in this case. After all Denmark Norway and Sweden fought on the same side in the Napoleonic wars. It wouldn't be really close at 1st, but they would start to realize they had things in common. Perhaps you could see nobles intermarrying.
I'm not saying a personal Union is likely. It's just as likely, with Denmark having seen a lot of damage during the war and perhaps tens of thousands of deaths, Denmark Norway might be the one celebrating over a century of isolation and neutrality.
But yes, keeping Holstein they may actually get some looks from the other great powers for alliances. Even if they're not sure if they wante them.
What would these two nations look like in the modern day? I'm at least somewhat convinced that Finland and Norway would end up with large amounts of political autonomy, but I'm very interested to consider their cultural development.
I’m not sure how much of a deciding factor a larger population in and off itself is. If you look at what countries became colonial powers otl they were all either major powers, countries who already had a long colonial traditions (I.e Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands) or were in a very specific diplomatic position I.e Belgium. Even among the major powers it was only those that already had a longer history of colonialism that achieved large empires.
No doubt Denmark-Norway will have a stronger grip on the North Atlantic than otl, but I doubt the ability to establish larger colonies in Africa or Asia.
When I think about DN colonies, I think more something like Belgium had. Danish colonies won’t rival the Dutch or Portuguese. I think colonies along the southern coast of West Africa (best case Togo/East Ghana and Cameron), maybe a Danish Sabah or some other pretty worthless territory in South Asia/Oceania. I could DN best case is that it begin expanding after Napoleon III begins to set up French colonies, this will give Denmark an opportunity to take some areas before the bigger players like Italy and Germany arrives on the scene. DN won’t have the power of the bigger power, so it need to go after area without central states. DN have an edge on Belgium of already having a minor colonial empire, vast mercantile interest around the world and a real navy. They’re behind the Dutch and Portuguese by their colonial possession being far smaller. They’re ahead of the Portuguese by being a bigger economy.