It is now 200 years since Sweden was split in half and Finland created

[Salem1]

What do you think about this? personally I think it's just a shame that Sweden and Finland are no longer one country.

[Watchman]

*shrug* What happened, happened. Although it's something of a consensus here in Finland that in the long run it was actually a pretty good deal for us.

[Panzerbear]

I dont really have an opinion on this. good for Finns and bad for Swedes?

[Watchman]

I dunno, Sweden seems to have done pretty well for itself since then too. No more costly eastern wars and such.

[jankren]

Scandinavia should merge. No more petty little kingdoms in Northern Europe.

[Watchman]

Eh, Finland hasn't been a monarchy since that silly little fling in 1918... (the current male heir of the proposed royal line actually literally refuses to touch the kitschy crown made for his ancestor )

Although I'll give you we're strictly speaking not a part of Scandinavia anyway.

[Salem1]

Although I'll give you we're strictly speaking not a part of Scandinavia anyway.

That'll depend on who you're asking. I frankly find that refering to Finland as its own region or as part of the Baltic is quite ridiculous. Finland is as much of a part of Scandinavia as Denmark, Norway and Sweden are. But then again this is just imo

Finland was far better under the rule of Russia at the time. Finland was given extended autonomy and unlike under Swedish rule, we were allowed to govern ourselves pretty much like independent nation outside foreign policies and military. It was bad for Swedes, but definetly positive for Finns themselves.

Well of course you were allowed to govern yourselves as a semi-independant nation. You at that point were one, after all, unlike before the treaty in which Finland was one of the core lands of Sweden. To give you an idea of why Finland was never governed as a semi-independant nation, Scotland and Finland have been incorporated into the UK and Sweden respectively for roughly the same amount of time. Now you wouldn't think it so strange for Scotland not to be semi-independant, would you? As for it being positive for the Finns themselves, not sure I agree with that either, but now we're getting into speculation. I personally believe that Finland would've been better off today alongside Sweden rather than as an independant nation, and so would Sweden. But that also depends a lot on who you ask. I think most Finns will disagree with me and most Swedes will disagree with you

I dunno, Sweden seems to have done pretty well for itself since then too. No more costly eastern wars and such.

Pretty well, yes, but it could've been better. And as for the costly eastern wars, if I may say so myself the lack of conflict has decayed Sweden.

[Bwaho]

don't think the Finns particularly liked us... you know, making them fight in a bunch of our wars and all that stuff.

[Adar]

don't think the Finns particularly liked us... you know, making them fight in a bunch of our wars and all that stuff.

They fought in the wars just as much as the swedes (proportionally were Finns and people from northern Sweden actually overepresentated due the way the conscription system was set up). And almost the entire finnish nobility reached their status by fighting in wars.

I recently finished Stig Ramels biography of Göran Magnus Sprengporten, the first guvernor of the grand duchy of Finland and it's a very fascinating portrait not only him but also of Finland, Sweden and Russia. One of the major reasons for Finlands success within the Russian empire was the scepticism felt among the common people against Russian rule. The average finnish farmer did not want to come under the same kind of serfdom as the people in "Old Finland" (the Karelian parts taken by Russia in 1721). This provided a very good negotiation position for Göran Magnus Sprengporten and other finnish nationalists that argued for finnish independance. By allowing the people of Finland to keep their freedom would they minimize the risk of violent uprisings and thereby create a stable buffer state between Russia and Sweden.

This was however not appreciated by all finnish nationalists that had defected to the Russian crown. Many of them had been given land in Karelia. As a part of the incorporation of Finland into the Russian empire were these areas moved to the grand duchy of Finland and thereby subject to the same laws regarding serfdom as in the rest of the grand duchy. This caused some finnish nationalists to argue against the reunification of karelia and Finland despite them calling themselves nationalists and patriots. This inorder for them to be able to treat their serfs in the same way as other russian noblemen.

Göran Magnus Sprengporten had worked for this solution for almost 25 years before succeding and was appointed as the first general guvernor of Finland. Tsar Alexander thought he was doing the finnish people good by appointing a finnish nationalist Sprenporten but was forced to accept Sprenportens resignation less than half a year later becuase the people of Finland still resented him as a traitor and he was also making himself impopular with russian authorities. The guvernorship of Finland therefor instead ended up in the hands of Gustaf Mauritz Armfelt, a man who had fought loyally for Sweden but moved back to Finland in 1810 and entered the service of Tsar Alexander I.

Personally I think Bogdan von Knorring (general leading the russian forces in the war) and Tsar Alexander acted brilliantly during the campaign. Von Knorring led a highly effective hearts and minds campaign in Finland and did not allow the same kind of plundering as Russian armies are normally known for. This combined with Tsar Alexanders quick and honest promises of far going self determination ment that there never was any point of a finnish resistance movement. Russia could have tried to squeeze more money out of the finnish countryside but wisely chose to instead form a reliable buffer state.

This solution was probably advantageous for all the involved nations. Sweden lost a third of it's military might but instead found itself free of any enemies. The rise of scandinavism and Germany ment that Denmark stopped being a threat and the independance of the grand duchy of Finland ment that Russia was very unlikely to try to make any further attempts of invading Sweden. Russia suddenly got rid of it's troublesome enemy to the west and could focus on more dangerous enemies. And Finland found itself with the same laws as during the Swedish era but without the risk of facing further Russian invasions.

[Cavalier]

don't think the Finns particularly liked us... you know, making them fight in a bunch of our wars and all that stuff.

I don't know. The Swedes ruled them for what? 800 years? They oughta have liked them atleast once.

[Ragabash]

That'll depend on who you're asking. I frankly find that refering to Finland as its own region or as part of the Baltic is quite ridiculous. Finland is as much of a part of Scandinavia as Denmark, Norway and Sweden are. But then again this is just imo



Well of course you were allowed to govern yourselves as a semi-independant nation. You at that point were one, after all, unlike before the treaty in which Finland was one of the core lands of Sweden. To give you an idea of why Finland was never governed as a semi-independant nation, Scotland and Finland have been incorporated into the UK and Sweden respectively for roughly the same amount of time. Now you wouldn't think it so strange for Scotland not to be semi-independant, would you? As for it being positive for the Finns themselves, not sure I agree with that either, but now we're getting into speculation. I personally believe that Finland would've been better off today alongside Sweden rather than as an independant nation, and so would Sweden. But that also depends a lot on who you ask. I think most Finns will disagree with me and most Swedes will disagree with you

Pretty well, yes, but it could've been better. And as for the costly eastern wars, if I may say so myself the lack of conflict has decayed Sweden.

Finland had to pay huge price for being governed by the Swedish, who saw Finnish as expendable easterns. Over 100,000 thousand men died in Swedish expansion wars during the 17:th century alone (the number is really high considering Finland did not had even one million people at the time). Taxes and old class system, where Finns were no more than second class citizens to Swedes had its toll also. We were just agricultural hub-, and recruiment centre to Swedes. Eastern province that had to bleed for Swedish ambitions we had very little to do with.

All in all, Finland was far better under Russian rule. Now we didn't had to send our men to die on foreign wars we had nothing to do with, neither we had to give our taxes to Russian crown, we were allowed to use all that money to improve Finland. Old laws were also kept, and government offices excluded to Finnish themselves (that had a huge importance as now we were finally able to govern ourselves truly).

You have to understand that Swedes themselves were very dependant on Finnish agriculture and soldiers, and they drained our countryside for their own purposes, Swedish purposes that Finland always had to pay. That is why Finland was far better under Russian rule. We were no longer second class subjects and could finally have a say how we wanted to mold our own country.

[Adar]

Finland had to pay huge price for being governed by the Swedish, who saw Finnish as expendable easterns. Over 100,000 thousand men died in Swedish expansion wars during the 17:th century alone (the number is really high considering Finland did not had even one million people at the time). Taxes and old class system, where Finns were no more than second class citizens to Swedes had its toll also. We were just agricultural hub-, and recruiment centre to Swedes. Eastern province that had to bleed for Swedish ambitions we had very little to do with.

How would a smålander gain more from the conquests of Kexholm, Karelia and Ingria than a finn? Gustav II Adolphs conquests were done with the intent of providing a secure front against the Russian empire. The conquest of good farmland in the baltic also greatly strengthened Finland due to the increased ability of the Swedish government to transfer grain to Finland during famines.

Despite this would Finland suffer 100 000 deaths during the great famine in 1696-7. The same number of deaths as you claim for the 17th century when Kexholm, Karelia and Ingria was added to the dutchy of Finland. The kingdom of Sweden conquered alot of land during the 17th century but alot of it was conquered in close vicinity to modern Finland rather than modern Finland. Applying a regionalistic view on "who gained the most" doesn't make much sense, a peasant in Småland and a peasant in Tavastehus would in the 17th century have suffered the same burdens but also shared the same limited benefits of having the border moved farther away from their homes. A class based view makes much more sense since the major difference was between nobility and commoners rather than ethnicity.

The benevolence of the Russian empire in the 19th century was bought by a Russian wish to create a stable buffer state quickly. The finns living in lands conquered in 1721 and 1743 were far less lucky and forced into serfdom just like their russian counterparts.

[Haakon]

That'll depend on who you're asking. I frankly find that refering to Finland as its own region or as part of the Baltic is quite ridiculous. Finland is as much of a part of Scandinavia as Denmark, Norway and Sweden are. But then again this is just imo

No thats not correct. Scandinavia = Sweden+Norway. denmark is included because of cultural and language connections.

[Ragabash]

Finland was far better under the rule of Russia at the time. Finland was given extended autonomy and unlike under Swedish rule, we were allowed to govern ourselves pretty much like independent nation outside foreign policies and military. It was bad for Swedes, but definetly positive for Finns themselves.

[Exarch]

why does it seem like finland has a history of always being someone else's ?

[Ragabash]

why does it seem like finland has a history of always being someone else's ?

Because for a long time we were under-developed, scarcely populated region in a rather unimportant location and -natural resources; not to mention that as we had very invidual and strong culture it made as outsiders in every foreign empire that ruled over us. We were never powerful enough to resist foreign rulers, until the set of events that took place in the first chapter of the 20:st-century. That is if you don't count pre 13:th-century period.

That Russia invaded, and finally conquered Finland was more of a resolution than actual reason. Napoleon wanted to add Sweden to continental blockage against British Empire, and gave Russia right to invade Finland, and so force Sweden to join the blokage as agreed on 1807 treaty. Before this, Russia had no ambitions to conquer this poor and rather unimportant region. However, it was under the Russian Empire when we were finally able to prosper and build foundation for modern day Finland. Ironically, Russia was also the largest threat to Finnish identity with its Russification acts during the late 19:th-century, and later by invading our sovereign nation.

[Panzerbear]

However, it was under the Russian Empire when we were finally able to prosper and build foundation for modern day Finland.

needless to say, what was the last name of that guy who created the first brewery in Finland (which now makes Karhu or Koff, for example) ?

[Ragabash]

needless to say, what was the last name of that guy who created the first brewery in Finland (which now makes Karhu or Koff, for example) ?

Sinebrychoff? I don't know others...

[Bwaho]

They fought in the wars just as much as the swedes

They wouldn't have fought in those wars if they weren't apart of Sweden. Would have saved a lot of Finnish lives over the course of history.

[Panzerbear]

Sinebrychoff? I don't know others...

exactly! the Russian guy . what would Finns do without their booze ?