Why did a scandinavian state never happen like how Italy and Poland got unified?

[ThaHoward]

Language did matter. So much that in Norway they got two written languages. And one of the langauges was considered un-patriotic because it was derived from Danish. Even though they (poets, novelists etc) were quite nationalistic, such as Bjørnson, many other nationalists thought they were Danish.

Indeed the two.written forms were one based upon old Danish elite in Oslo, the other on selected dialects. The common people spoke a variety of dialects, some who had been isolated for centuries, while the elite wrote Danish. During the nationbuilding a common language was centerpiece. That's why the whole ordeal of two written languages. In case of Norway common language and shared culture made them resist integration into Sweden or Denmark. If Scandinavia had united, naturally languages that are close to eachother would be emphasized in their nationbuilding. During this time Swedish court and parliament spoke Swedish, not French or German..this is the 19th century not 1200s.

So with that and Denmark focusing on their own language and Schleswig-Holstein Question (which.Sweden-Norway "betrayed" them on) the languages and cultures really were more of a thing for nationbuilding in the specific country, and not creating some pan Scandinavian identity.

Norway had been connected to Denmark politically and administrative since the middle ages. During Sweden-Norway, intellectuals went to Copenhagen, Norwegian administration and education was based upon Danish model. Copenhagen was seen as the cultural and intellectual capital for Norwegians. Still they considered Denmark and that Union as their first obstacle to independence. Hence why many nationalists did not consider those who wrote Riksmål (written language derived from Danish) Norwegian. "Out of both Unions" were the slogan of the nationalists at the time. Aka out of both Denmark and Sweden. Culture played a bigger role in 19th century and early 20th century nationalism. Bavaria did not join Prussia since they had a common administration. Yes there was the Zollverein, but Scandinavia also had a monetary and customs union.

 

[JodelDiplom]

Language did matter. So much that in Norway they got two written languages. And one of the langauges was considered un-patriotic because it was derived from Danish. Even though they (poets, novelists etc) were quite nationalistic, such as Bjørnson, many other nationalists thought they were Danish.

Indeed the two.written forms were one based upon old Danish elite in Oslo, the other on selected dialects. The common people spoke a variety of dialects, some who had been isolated for centuries, while the elite wrote Danish. During the nationbuilding a common language was centerpiece. That's why the whole ordeal of two written languages. In case of Norway common language and shared culture made them resist integration into Sweden or Denmark. If Scandinavia had united, naturally languages that are close to eachother would be emphasized in their nationbuilding. During this time Swedish court and parliament spoke Swedish, not French or German..this is the 19th century not 1200s.

So with that and Denmark focusing on their own language and Schleswig-Holstein Question (which.Sweden-Norway "betrayed" them on) the languages and cultures really were more of a thing for nationbuilding in the specific country, and not creating some pan Scandinavian identity.

Yes all of that is true. But I was talking about the middle ages and you're talking about the 19th century. Of course language played a supremely important role for national movements of the 19th century, but that wasn't the case in he middle ages

 

[ThaHoward]

Yes all of that is true. But I was talking about the middle ages and you're talking about the 19th century. Of course language played a supremely important role for national movements of the 19th century, but that wasn't the case in he middle ages

Yes I suspected as much. At least we can give different perspectives on why it failed during different time periods then.

 

[bz249]

Bavaria did not join Prussia since they had a common administration. Yes there was the Zollverein, but Scandinavia also had a monetary and customs union.

Bavaria joined Prussia since they were defeated in 1866 (even though Bavarians were one of the worthy opponents of the Prussian Army)... and after the Franco-Prussian war they saw military benefits from a German Empire guarding their western borders.
And there were some level of separatism in Bavaria for quite a long time (ok, the current 1.7% is not that much )

2018 Bavarian state election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Jopa79]

also unlike germany and italy scandinavia hadn't been as ravaged by the napoleonic wars, sure there were incidents but there wasn't a sense of "if we don't unite then they'll end us all"

The Finnish War of 1808-1809. While signing the Treaty of Tilsit of 1807 between Alexander I and Napoleon, France also approved the Russian aggression against Sweden, the Russian claim for conquering Finland. The Finnish War was fought between the Kingdom of Sweden and the Russian Empire and it was mainly fought on the soil of the modern-day Finland.

As the result of the war, sicknesses and diseases spread among the civilians leading into decrease in total population. The Swedish Army (including the Finnish conscripts) was heavily defeated, nearly annihilated. Sweden lost the whole Finland and the autonomous Grand Duchy of Finland was established within the Russian Empire. In 1812 the Russian Empire approved the Swedish claim for conquering Norway as the Swedish expansion to west would favor the Russians. This resulted the Swedish-Norwegian War of 1814 and led to Norway being forced into the United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway until its dissolution in 1905.

 

[ThaHoward]

Yes, but it wasn't ravaged and Scandinavian nations did not percieve themself to be occupied by a hostile force as the Germans did. Finland was swapped with Norway, the Swedish monarchs were pleased with that, and by public perception the loss of Finland was more important than uniting with Denmark and Norway.

 

[demanvanwezel]

The Finnish War of 1808-1809. While signing the Treaty of Tilsit of 1807 between Alexander I and Napoleon, France also approved the Russian aggression against Sweden, the Russian claim for conquering Finland. The Finnish War was fought between the Kingdom of Sweden and the Russian Empire and it was mainly fought on the soil of the modern-day Finland.

As the result of the war, sicknesses and diseases spread among the civilians leading into decrease in total population. The Swedish Army (including the Finnish conscripts) was heavily defeated, nearly annihilated. Sweden lost the whole Finland and the autonomous Grand Duchy of Finland was established within the Russian Empire. In 1812 the Russian Empire approved the Swedish claim for conquering Norway as the Swedish expansion to west would favor the Russians. This resulted the Swedish-Norwegian War of 1814 and led to Norway being forced into the United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway until its dissolution in 1905.

well yeah, the loss of finland was a heavy blow to sweden and the loss of norway was a heavy blow to denmark but they were used to heavy blows at this point but like you said, the new territories were administred autonomically, there were no overt plans to make the fins all speak russian and like was said earlier the swedes weren't powerfull enough to force the norwegians to start speaking swedish even if they wanted to

in the meanwhile you had the french trodgin around the rhineland and tuscany proclaiming that "don't worry, we're going to make proper french citoyen out of all of you"

 

[Jopa79]

Yes, but it wasn't ravaged and Scandinavian nations did not percieve themself to be occupied by a hostile force as the Germans did. Finland was swapped with Norway, the Swedish monarchs were pleased with that, and by public perception the loss of Finland was more important than uniting with Denmark and Norway.

It depends on how you measure the values. For instance, the disastrous Swedish effort already during the ongoing Finnish War led into the Coup of 1809 and to changes in the Swedish fundamental laws and these changes were valid until 1974. Some might say that the old instruments of the Swedish Government were ravaged as a result of the Napoleonic Wars.

I'm not sure of which kind of approach you fellows support here while speaking of Scandinavia, because there are several understandings about the countries included in Scandinavia, but for sure, in any existing view of this matter, Sweden is considered as a Scandinavian nation and during the Finnish War, the easterly area of the Kingdom of Sweden - Finland - was pretty much occupied by a hostile force, the forces of the Russian Empire. By occupying Finland, the Russian intention was first to make Sweden to follow the Continental System, the blockade against the Great Britain and after the Swedes would agree to follow the blockade, the Russian occupation of Finland would come to an end. However, during the war, the Russians renewed their plans and Sweden lost its former "Österland" for good.

 

[loup99]

I'm not sure of which kind of approach you fellows support here while speaking of Scandinavia, because there are several understandings about the countries included in Scandinavia, but for sure, in any existing view of this matter, Sweden is considered as a Scandinavian nation and during the Finnish War, the easterly area of the Kingdom of Sweden - Finland - was pretty much occupied by a hostile force, the forces of the Russian Empire. By occupying Finland, the Russian intention was first to make Sweden to follow the Continental System, the blockade against the Great Britain and after the Swedes would agree to follow the blockade, the Russian occupation of Finland would come to an end. However, during the war, the Russians renewed their plans and Sweden lost its former "Österland" for good.

Finland is a part of the Nordic countries, not Scandinavia. From the point at which it was no longer a part of Sweden and became a part of Russia it was no longer a part of Scandinavia. That is the commonly admitted definition. Note that the whole Finland wasn't only Österland, but also the eastern part of Norrland. The ideas of reconquering Finland from Russia were Swedish nationalism, not Scandinavism

 

[fr-rein]

One of the major factors is a political union. Nations and centralized administration often formed from the foreign obstacles that molded them.

For Poland, Germany and in particular Teutons were a major existential threat that pushed them to unify earlier than most nations. With Hungary from South and Kievan Rus (later replaced by Lithuania and Galicia-Volhyn Kingdom) they had a little room to wiggle, so it was either being torn apart or establish the administration which they managed to.

For Italy there was a major push for the union against Germans and French. And even there South Italy joined them relatively by accident as it wasn't pushed as much by outside forces but by inner issues which called for Garibaldi bringing revolution.

For Russia, there was Sweden, Mongols and Tatars and Poland-Lithuania that pushed to the unification their very diverse land. I don't think that most will doubt that Muscovy initially was not even Slavic at majority, with different types of local people around and many different duchies with local elites (Tver, Ryazan, Novgorod, etc etc). However, the outside pressure molded Muscovy to become a state and a nation where a lot of local population simply assimilated and adopted the Russian culture.

And then again, for Russia, there is an issue of why it failed to assimilate Ukraine, Belarus and others - by the time of expansion to them, Russia was no longer contained by outside pressure and projected itself outside in imperial fashion. Even though many local elites were assimilated in Russian state with annexation, the local identities didn't become one, there was no reason for people to truly say that they are just like people from Moscow. With a failure to tie country with economy and literacy, the assimilation didn't happen and in case of Poles it failed absolutely.

For Romania, which had a few separate states, unification was also about grouping against the outside threats.

For UK it was easy to integrate Wales and other smaller duchies/petty kingdoms in England, but to integrate Scotland it took much more time and effort as it wasn't pressed with outside threats (in fact it was siding with outsiders more often than not). And Ireland was a case of how even major economic integration and linguistic dominance didn't achieve integration.

For Scandinavia there was never such outside pressure at all. It was projecting influence and trade outside since the times of vikings. It rarely was threatened itself. Thus it had developed multiple centers. I would say that there were more aspiring kingdoms, but they were too weak to stand test of time. Even Norway majorly withstood thanks to the geography in my opinion.

 

[Jopa79]

Finland is a part of the Nordic countries, not Scandinavia.

As a Finnish person I should be very ashamed if I didn't know those facts. However, I don't want to be absolutely strict in this matter, I wouldn't blame someone who accidentally - while speaking about Scandinavia - also refers to Finland in the case, it's quite common while speaking in English.

From the point at which it was no longer a part of Sweden and became a part of Russia it was no longer a part of Scandinavia. That is the commonly admitted definition.

I would like to know, according to who(m) this is the commonly admitted definition? If so, how is Finland defined before the Swedish rule or after the Russian rule?

According to local definition, Scandinavia covers the kingdoms of Denmark, Norway and Sweden. However, the extended usage in English covers also the Åland Islands, the Faroe Islands, Iceland and Finland included in Scandinavia. What comes to Svalbard, Jan Mayen and Greenland - they are not included in Scandinavia, but the extended usage and definition of the Nordic Countries covers also those islands.

The political and societal construct of Finland, being for more than six hundred years a part of Sweden highly affiliates Finland to Scandinavian world, however, the creation of the Finnish identity was affected also by another imperial model, the Russian. A Fennoman (early steps of the Finnish national identity) credo has it: "Swedes we are no longer, Russians we don't want to become, let us therefore be Finns." Fennoscandia is a geological term which includes the Scandinavian Peninsula, (Norway and Sweden) Finland and Karelia, but excludes Denmark and other wider definitions of the Nordic world.

Since 1991, while again gaining its independence, Estonia has been interested in joining the Nordic region. This desire comes from common linguistic, historical and genetic commons and closeness with the other Nordic Countries. The 2020 University of Tartu survey with 6th grade students depicted Estonia the most, together with Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Norway, leaving Latvia, Lithuania and Russia undrawn by the ethnic Estonian students. The non-Estonian students portrayed Estonia with the Baltic States and Russia.

Note that the whole Finland wasn't only Österland, but also the eastern part of Norrland.

Yes, I agree, it's better to say that Sweden lost Finland during the Finnish War, than saying Sweden lost Österland during the Finnish War.

The ideas of reconquering Finland from Russia were Swedish nationalism, not Scandinavism

This matter I didn't earlier say anything, but I accept the view.

 

[ThaHoward]

No longer part of Scandinavia as no longer part of Kingdom of Sweden, which is a Scandinavian nation. For Estonia, no one in the Nordic consider Estonia a Nordic nation. Go figure. Eitherway, it (Estonia) has no relevance to a united Scandinavia. Finland is only relevant if it is part of Sweden, and then Scandinavia would be united because of Scandinavian languages and cultures, Finland would just happen to be part of Scandinavia/Sweden. Just like Germany, the unification of Germany would have happened with or without the Polish people living in Prussia. They united because of shared German language and identity, Prussia just happened to have subjucated parts of Poland. Germany exist to this today without Poznan.

In comparison Austria and Hungary was close for several hundred years. Despite this none consider Hungary a German nation. When Austria joined Germany, Hungary did not. If, for some reason, all of the Austrian Empire joined the German Empire, Hungary would not be counted as German, and German unification would have happened because of what was going on in Austria and rest of Germany and not Hungary.

 

[Jopa79]

For Estonia, no one in the Nordic consider Estonia a Nordic nation. Go figure. Eitherway, it (Estonia) has no relevance to a united Scandinavia.

I'm not sure if you mean that Estonia has not relevance to Scandinavia and therefore it's not suitable member state of the Nordic Countries or only Scandinavian nations should be Nordic Countries.

However, besides Finland, Estonia has strong historical connections with Denmark and Sweden. In combined Estonia was part of kingdoms of Denmark and Sweden some 300 years during the 13th century until the 18th century. And during the Danish and Swedish eras Estonia was highly affected by Scandinavian influence. As a one remnant of the Scandinavian relevance and the common history with the other Scandinavian nations are the Estonian Swedes - Estlandssvenskar still living in modern Estonia. This ethnic group is small and during the centuries it mixed with the local population. Estonian Swedes were granted by cultural autonomy in Estonia.

 

[ThaHoward]

That modern day Estonia is not relevant for why Scandinavia never unified when Poland did it (middle ages) and Italy did it (19th century).

 

[Jopa79]

That modern day Estonia is not relevant for why Scandinavia never unified when Poland did it (middle ages) and Italy did it (19th century).

But if Scandinavia did unify under one flag during the 16th, the 17th, or the 18th century, Estonia probably would had been part of it.

 

[Jopa79]

Finland is only relevant if it is part of Sweden, and then Scandinavia would be united because of Scandinavian languages and cultures, Finland would just happen to be part of Scandinavia/Sweden.

So, what I read here, you are saying that if a nation becomes a part of Sweden, Norway or Denmark, it's automatically granted a status belonging to Scandinavia, because it's a part of the three kingdoms.

You suggest that Finland is only relevant to Scandinavia if it's part of Sweden, how about if Finland becomes a part of Norway, or Denmark - is Finland then a Scandinavian nation, or is it only when belonging to Sweden?

But let's also think it this way, if Sweden becomes a part of Finland, does Sweden then lose her status as a Scandinavian nation, because there's no Sweden anymore - it's just Finland and because you noted that Finland can only be relevant with Scandinavia if it's part of Sweden...I now understand, in this equation there's only Denmark and Norway in Scandinavia...and Finland alone not being a part of Scandinavia.

 

[ThaHoward]

Sweden, Denmark, and Norway are Scandinavia. For Scandinavia to unify as one nation those three nations must unify. If Finland is then part of Sweden it will be part of the Scandinavian Union because it is part of Sweden. The Finnish people itself would not be a Scandinavian people.

If Finland for some reason annexed Norway, Scandinavianism would likely seek to liberate Norway, or Scandinavia would not form without Norway. Scandinavianism was effectively put to a stop because Schleswig-Holstein was annexed by Germany.

 

[Jopa79]

Sweden, Denmark, and Norway are Scandinavia. For Scandinavia to unify as one nation those three nations must unify. If Finland is then part of Sweden it will be part of the Scandinavian Union because it is part of Sweden. The Finnish people itself would not be a Scandinavian people.

I see your opinion, but you didn't answer what happens to Sweden if it becomes part of Finland?

Finland becomes part of Sweden, then there is only Sweden and Scandinavia.

Sweden becomes part of Finland, Sweden cannot be anymore considered being a part of Scandinavia, because its now Finland and Finland is not Scandinavia.

 

[ThaHoward]

Read the part on Finland annexing Norway. Scandinavianism would either fall apart or focus on liberating Sweden. Sweden would still be a Scandinavian nation. When Russia, Germany, and Austria held Poland, the people living there was still Polish despite not having a nation state of their own.

If Scandinavia did unify, it might have become a revisionist power down the line. They might have sought to incorporate Finland, not because they were Scandinavian, but to project imperial power and gain Finland due to historical "claims" and ties, as France some times considered the Rhine their natural borders.

And yes, a Scandinavia would be ethnocentric, chauvinist and in modern terms "racist". Germany did not unify to include Poles, Hungarians, Croats and so on, they unified to unify all Germans... Austria who did not want to lose their non-German lands did not join Germany despite being the traditional German leader.

Scandinavia would again be centered around the Scandinavians. Pan-nationalism is by definition inclusive to only a few cultures and exclusive to the rest. Their treatment of the Sami people, Kvens etc. would likely not have been any better than what happened historically in the seperate nations.

 

[demanvanwezel]

I see your opinion, but you didn't answer what happens to Sweden if it becomes part of Finland?

Finland becomes part of Sweden, then there is only Sweden and Scandinavia.

Sweden becomes part of Finland, Sweden cannot be anymore considered being a part of Scandinavia, because its now Finland and Finland is not Scandinavia.

slovenia isn't seen as a part of germany, yet once upon a time it's land was part of the german confederation because it was essentially austria and would've been included in a germany that included austria, same story really