WI/AHC: Both Denmark-Norway survives & Sweden retains Finland after Napoleonic Wars

During the Napoleonic Wars, Denmark-Norway and Sweden (Who owned Finland at the time.) changed greatly after the war.

On one side, Denmark-Norway initially tried to stay neutral, but later sided with the French after Britain blew up their fleet, twice in 1801 and then 1807. In the end, Denmark had to give Norway to Sweden in the Treaty of Kiel, who fought a brief war with Norway and formed Sweden-Norway

On the Swedish side, the reason why they gotten Norway was because as compensation for their earlier loss of Finland to Russia, during the disastrous Finnish War, which saw the overthrow of Gustav IV Adolf, and eventually the establishment of the French House of Bernadotte in Sweden.

Challenge: What would it take for both Sweden to retain Finland and for Denmark-Norway to survive into the 19th Century? And how would each of the effect Europe?
 
If the first battle of Copenhagen can be avoided, and it very well could be in several ways, then Denmark would be way more open to British cooperation a few years down the line. Ideally they wanted to continue trade with both France and Britain, and the continental system would make this impossible - could well bring a more Britain-friendly Denmark into a anti-French stance. This probably means most of continental Denmark occupied by French troops until a Napoleonic defeat, but Norway and Copenhagen are safe from France with an intact Danish navy. The reorganization of Denmark and the duchies in an alt-Vienna could have some fascinating possibilities for the future of the century.
 
If the first battle of Copenhagen can be avoided, and it very well could be in several ways, then Denmark would be way more open to British cooperation a few years down the line. Ideally they wanted to continue trade with both France and Britain, and the continental system would make this impossible - could well bring a more Britain-friendly Denmark into a anti-French stance. This probably means most of continental Denmark occupied by French troops until a Napoleonic defeat, but Norway and Copenhagen are safe from France with an intact Danish navy. The reorganization of Denmark and the duchies in an alt-Vienna could have some fascinating possibilities for the future of the century.

Yes, Northern Jutland, the duchies and likely Hamburg united first into one Napoleonic Kingdom (kingdom of Cimbrian?) and later annexed into France would likely have some interesting effects on the the entire peninsula. A good question is what city would be the capital of the Napoleonic kingdom, I think Hamburg/Altona may be the best choice as the other big towns lies mostly on the east coast, giving the Danish easy access and removing much of the benefit sea travel, but a few other towns could be interesting choice; Aalborg lies well defended from naval attacks and is the third biggest town after Flensburg and Hamburg-Altona, Viborg is the historic capital of Jutland, lies inland and on Hærvejen, Schleswig town also lies well defended from naval attack, while lying in a important strategic chokepoint, there could be historical argument for Ribe and Jelling, but both are quite minor towns (Jelling far more so than Ribe), through Ribe would be interesting from a geographic POV with its access to the North Sea.
 
Yes, Northern Jutland, the duchies and likely Hamburg united first into one Napoleonic Kingdom (kingdom of Cimbrian?) and later annexed into France would likely have some interesting effects on the the entire peninsula.
Given the precedent set by Westphalia it may well be named something like Nordalbingia…

I’m also not sure Hamburg would be included, Napoleon could’ve easily included it in Westphalia in otl but preferred a direct occupation and I’m not seeing any reason that’d change here.

A good question is what city would be the capital of the Napoleonic kingdom, I think Hamburg/Altona may be the best choice as the other big towns lies mostly on the east coast, giving the Danish easy access and removing much of the benefit sea travel, but a few other towns could be interesting choice; Aalborg lies well defended from naval attacks and is the third biggest town after Flensburg and Hamburg-Altona, Viborg is the historic capital of Jutland, lies inland and on Hærvejen, Schleswig town also lies well defended from naval attack, while lying in a important strategic chokepoint, there could be historical argument for Ribe and Jelling, but both are quite minor towns (Jelling far more so than Ribe), through Ribe would be interesting from a geographic POV with its access to the North Sea.
I think Napoleon would actually want a capital that was off the coast, to not make it to vulnerable to a British/Danish attack, and not to far north so it can’t be cut off from French support if the south should fall. So probably a town somewhere in Holstein, maybe Rendsburg.
 
What are the consequences of Bernadotte not heading off to Sweden?
Potentially huge, dependent on the specifics.

Assuming Sweden manages to hold Russia off from conquering Finland, somehow, then Gustav IV and the Gustavian absolutism is of course greatly strengthened. Sweden will probably keep its eyes to the east and dream of a reconquest of the Baltic from Russia. If there anything resembling a 1812 invasion in ttl Sweden could partake in that, and St Petersburg would be severely exposed, if they can get around Viborg.

But of course, depends on the specifics of the scenario .
 
It's an interesting scenario. The two countries would be much larger and as such, would probably be more active on European affairs compared to OTL, engaging on more wars and on19th century imperialism.
 
Russia needs to do less heavy lifting in the war and get bailed out so that it doesn't feel like it needs a reward other than coming out.
 
How does Sweden accommodate the rising Finnish movement? Finnish is completely unrelated to the Scandinavian languages - it’s not even in the Indo-European family. Does Sweden become a bilingual country?
 
Last edited:
How does Sweden accommodate the rising Finnish movement? Finnish is completely unrelated to the Scandinavian languages - it’s not even in the Indo-European family. Does Sweden become a bilingual country?

My thoughts have been that the main linguistic effect of continued Swedish rule of Finland, would mainly be that northern Finland turn Swedish speaking (thanks to it being settled in a similar manner to northern Sweden and Norway in the 19th century. Helsinki stay a less important town (200k people by modern day) thanks to it not becoming the Finnish capital but stay Swedish speaking, this also keep the southern coast as coherent Swedish speaking region. Vaasa stay completely Swedish speaking. Turku end up an either a 50/50 bilingual city or end up the Brussel of Finland (Swedish speaking with a mostly Finnish hinterland), Turku also end up the major city of Finland (around one million people). Beside that I expect the linguistic borders to stay mostly the same, but the number of Swedish speakers will be significant bigger just with these small changes.

Political I expect the linguistic strife to be just as ugly or uglier than in OTL, and the Finns to have a strong independence movement. But in the end the fact that Sweden are richer than Finland and Sweden would obvious cut out the Swedish coastal exclaves in case of independence will likely keep the independence movement peaceful and as a minority.
 
My thoughts have been that the main linguistic effect of continued Swedish rule of Finland, would mainly be that northern Finland turn Swedish speaking (thanks to it being settled in a similar manner to northern Sweden and Norway in the 19th century. Helsinki stay a less important town (200k people by modern day) thanks to it not becoming the Finnish capital but stay Swedish speaking, this also keep the southern coast as coherent Swedish speaking region. Vaasa stay completely Swedish speaking. Turku end up an either a 50/50 bilingual city or end up the Brussel of Finland (Swedish speaking with a mostly Finnish hinterland), Turku also end up the major city of Finland (around one million people). Beside that I expect the linguistic borders to stay mostly the same, but the number of Swedish speakers will be significant bigger just with these small changes.

Political I expect the linguistic strife to be just as ugly or uglier than in OTL, and the Finns to have a strong independence movement. But in the end the fact that Sweden are richer than Finland and Sweden would obvious cut out the Swedish coastal exclaves in case of independence will likely keep the independence movement peaceful and as a minority.

I'll add my stock comment, that not only would the eastern provinces be more Swedish than IOTL, Sweden in general would be significantly more Finnish than it has been after 1809 IOTL. Many comments on Sweden retaining Finland tend to emphasise just the differences east of the Sea of Åland, while the fact that one third of the realm being Finnish-speaking, and otherwise culturally, etc, Finnish would have major knock-on effects for Sweden at large rarely seems to come up. Just imagine how many more politicians, soldiers, bureaucrats, artists and professionals of different stripes this bigger Sweden would have that Sweden didn't have IOTL, and what kind of an effect this would have. Many of these people would come from families where Finnish is the first language, and many would have a distinct "Finnish" identity (even if that identity would be different from IOTL). The comparative number of Finnish speakers having a voice in the realm would also increase through the 19th century, with the growth of a Finnish linguistic and cultural identity, and the spread of better education also in the eastern part of Sweden. While the main language of the realm would be Swedish, the eastern part of the realm would stay at least 70-80% Finnish speaking, and "Sweden proper" would also possibly have a bigger Finnish speaking minority than Finland has a Swedish speaking minority today, say 10% or so.

As for northern Finland becoming more majority Swedish speaking, I don't know if that is at all a foregone conclusion. While Stockholm would like to populate Lapland more to better utilise it economically, it is the Finnish speakers that have a history and tradition of being settlers of new lands in the realm. Populating Lapland with Finns might need smaller economic incentives than using comparatively more affluent Swedish speaking population for that effort.

Turku/Åbo would be the biggest town in the eastern part of the realm, and one high up among the hierarchy of the country in general, an important centre of the economy and of governance and learning. The university there would likely be among the top three in the country, given its catchment area would be one third of the realm. Population-wise, Turku/Åbo could stay 50/50 Swedish and Finnish well into the 19th century, but generally speaking it would see its growth coming from mainly Finnish speaking areas. It would thus transform into a clearly majority Finnish speaking city by the end of the century. Otherwise, any major centres in the interior of Finland would be obviously Finnish speaking in the main. The internal structure of this Swedish Finland, and which towns rise up in prominence, would be dependent on many things, say on the placement of the railways when they arrive. Like has been discussed in previous threads on the subject.
 
Last edited:
Turku end up an either a 50/50 bilingual city or end up the Brussel of Finland (Swedish speaking with a mostly Finnish hinterland), Turku also end up the major city of Finland (around one million people).
Any particular reason Turku would grow bigger than otl Helsinki, especially considering Stockholm will be able to pull many more Finnish immigrants as industrialization and urbanization ramp up. If anything I’d imagine Finland to be less urbanized and cities like Stockholm and other east-coast cities to be bigger with a larger Finnish community.

Political I expect the linguistic strife to be just as ugly or uglier than in OTL, and the Finns to have a strong independence movement. But in the end the fact that Sweden are richer than Finland and Sweden would obvious cut out the Swedish coastal exclaves in case of independence will likely keep the independence movement peaceful and as a minority.
Unless the Finns get a strong foreign backer - I.e Russia. Just because Sweden retains Finland in 1809 doesn’t mean Russia won’t try again sooner or later.
 
It's an interesting scenario. The two countries would be much larger and as such, would probably be more active on European affairs compared to OTL, engaging on more wars and on19th century imperialism.
I mean Sweden-Norway was of a comparable size to what a surviving Sweden-Finland would be, and was still sidelined by the major powers when it came to imperialism in the 19th century. It will of course depend on the specifics but I doubt we see Scandinavian colonial empires in this scenario.

As for wars in Europe that’s another deal, and will probably come down to the specifics. Swedish “neutrality” (which is largely a later construction anyway) was far from a forgone conclusion after 1814.
 
Any particular reason Turku would grow bigger than otl Helsinki, especially considering Stockholm will be able to pull many more Finnish immigrants as industrialization and urbanization ramp up. If anything I’d imagine Finland to be less urbanized and cities like Stockholm and other east-coast cities to be bigger with a larger Finnish community.

Helsinki's metropolitan area has about one million people today. It would be feasible for "Greater" Turku/Åbo be similar, even if the city proper would not be any bigger than, say, 400-500K. Geographically speaking, Helsinki is in an awkward position on a small head of land, for Turku/Åbo at the mouth of a river expansion is an easier proposition.

I see Turku/Åbo as a bit of a satellite to Stockholm, like Viipuri was to St. Petersburg in the Finnish Grand Duchy. The closeness of the capital would likely serve to make it bigger rather than smaller, acting as a gateway to it.

IOTL, Finland was a very rural country for quite long, well after WWII, moreso than most of Europe. I don't know how realistic or feasible it would be for Finland ITTL be even *less* urbanised than we have been in known history. In general, I don't think the western Finnish areas would necessarily only lose people to "Sweden proper", they would also gain from the trade and greater economic activity between the eastern and western coasts of the Gulf of Bothnia. The likely smaller wages in the eastern part of the realm would make it competitive. I can see towns like, say, Vaasa/Vasa, Pori/Björneborg and Kokkola/(Gamla)Karleby get bigger ITTL than IOTL out of increased trade, shipping and shipbuilding and other growing industry in the 19th century.

Comparative losers can be found among interior towns in the east along Lake Saimaa, say, as there is less trade with St. Petersburg and with Russia in general than IOTL. There would likely be internal migration in Finland from east to west, and only some of that would lead to these people then continuing on across the sea. Also IOTL, Turku served as "ersatz America" for many people from the interior who never made it out of the country. A similar dynamic would exist ITTL, only moreso.
 
Last edited:
I mean Sweden-Norway was of a comparable size to what a surviving Sweden-Finland would be, and was still sidelined by the major powers when it came to imperialism in the 19th century. It will of course depend on the specifics but I doubt we see Scandinavian colonial empires in this scenario.

As for wars in Europe that’s another deal, and will probably come down to the specifics. Swedish “neutrality” (which is largely a later construction anyway) was far from a forgone conclusion after 1814.

Sweden and Norway were virtually separated countries during the whole period. I imagine arrangements proposed on the thread could work better.
 
This minority would quickly be assimilated.

I don't think that is likely. It would be constantly replenished by migrants from the majority Finnish speaking areas, and it would be in constant communication with relatives, friends and allies across the Gulf of Bothnia. Many people would also move back and forth within the realm, to find seasonal work in other provinces or towns, etc. Altogether, Finnish speakers would make up 25-30% of the national population.
 
I don't think that is likely. It would be constantly replenished by migrants from the majority Finnish speaking areas, and it would be in constant communication with relatives, friends and allies across the Gulf of Bothnia. Many people would also move back and forth within the realm, to find seasonal work in other provinces or towns, etc. Altogether, Finnish speakers would make up 25-30% of the national population.
Forest Finns largely assimilated and even post-WW2 migrants seemed to have largely stopped speaking Finnish.
 
Forest Finns largely assimilated and even post-WW2 migrants seemed to have largely stopped speaking Finnish.

Apples and oranges. You are not considering the implications of, again, nearly 30% of the Swedish realm's population being Finnish speakers in the long term in this scenario, and of the eastern provinces being a Finnish majority part of the realm equally in the long term. The post-WWII migrants to Sweden never made up significantly over 5% the national population, and the Forest Finns were an even smaller minority. More to the point, neither group really had consistent groups/power bases to represent them in Swedish politics of the day, while ITTL by the late 19th century there would a Finnish movement (or movements) demanding cultural, linguistic and political rights for Finns within the realm, based in the eastern provinces.
 
Apples and oranges. You are not considering the implications of, again, nearly 30% of the Swedish realm's population being Finnish speakers in the long term in this scenario, and of the eastern provinces being a Finnish majority part of the realm equally in the long term. The post-WWII migrants to Sweden never made up significantly over 5% the national population, and the Forest Finns were an even smaller minority. More to the point, neither group really had consistent groups/power bases to represent them in Swedish politics of the day, while ITTL by the late 19th century there would a Finnish movement (or movements) demanding cultural, linguistic and political rights for Finns within the realm, based in the eastern provinces.
This simply is not what we see happening in other places such as Belgium where despite Flemish being around half of the population they were unable to stop the Frenchizafion of Brussels, Finns in Sweden wouldn't be able to demand anything because they are not a substantial amount of population in any specific place nor natives to Sweden and neither can they create a permanently segregated society or have any reason to as they lack a separate religious identity.
Intermarriage alone would be a strong vector of assimilation.
 
Top