Losing Finland: The Arch-traitor of Swedish History

Verbose

Deity
Joined
May 17, 2004
Messages
12,462
Location
Sweden / France
Loosing Finland: The arch-traitor of Swedish history

The greatest single act of betrayal in Swedish military history was performed on May 3 1809. On this day Carl Olof Cronstedt (1756-1820) the commandant of the fortress ”Sveaborg” (”Suomenlinna”, Fin.) outside Helsinki handed it over to the Russian army without a fight.


The background was the war of 1808-1809. As tsar Alexander of Russia and Napoleon had given each other a free hand to settle whatever scores they had in their neighbourhoods without interference by the other. Russia in early 1808 turned on Sweden with the intent of conquering the duchy of Finland, the eastern half of the kingdom since the middle ages.

After some heavy fighting all through 1808 the Swedish-Finnish army was virtually driven out of the country. However, one important toehold remained in the south, the fortress “Sveaborg”. Swedish military planners had put together a realistic plan and assembled the men and goods for a great spring offensive that, so it was hoped, would drive the Russians out. It would be a two pronged attack, one army advancing south from the Swedish border in the high north, another would be shipped to “Sveaborg” and execute a breakout northwards, to link up with the northern army. The control of “Sveaborg” was the key to this plan.

So what was “Sveaborg”?
It is an enormous fortress built by the Swedish government, using French money, in the mid 18th century. Just after its construction it was quite possibly the most powerful fortress in the world. The French wanted something that might rein in Russian expansion in the Baltic. So did France’s best buddies at the time the Swedes. The answer was a whopping big fortress.

It isn’t really one fortress, but more of a whole range of fortifications spanning the islands around the inlet to Helsinki. It’s a tourist attraction and nice to visit in the summer. Parts of it are still restricted military areas. In Finnish it’s known as “Suomenlinna”. As “Sveaborg” means “The Swedish fortress”, “Suomenlinna” means the Finnish fortress. The Russian gave it a third name of their own.

To give you some idea of what an awe inspiring fortification it was for its time, one can cite what happened in the Crimean war. Russian had two “locks” to its interior, Sebastopol in the Crimean and this fortress outside Helsinki. While the fight on land was taken to Crimea, a combined Anglo-French fleet sailed into the Baltic, ranged itself outside Helsinki and let fly for two consecutive days without doing much damage When the fleet had used up its ammunition it sailed home again. 70 defenders were killed as the fortress was banged about for a bit and that was about it. (Though the British claim “extensive damage” was done.)

Cronstedt was put in charge of these massive fortifications in 1801. For him it was a form of banishment. He had made his career in the navy, rising to the rank of vice-admiral (blue flag) in 1801. His rise to fame and power really began in 1790, when Cronstedt filled the role of flag-captain in the naval battle of “Svensksund” under king Gustaf III, who had assumed personal command of the Swedish navy in his war with Russia.

The king and the fleet had become trapped by the Russian fleet, and on July 9 it attempted a break out. This was 100% successful and garnered Sweden its greatest naval victory in its history. Since the king was an inexperienced dunce when it came to naval warfare (or warfare in general) credit went to his flag captain who directed a lot of the battle. Up until “Svensksund” this had been a bad war for Sweden. The victory ended the war on a positive note and “snatched victory from the jaws of defeat”.

From then on Cronstedt rose pretty quickly, becoming politically influential as well. But as he was made admiral in 1801, he also lost a political power struggle and his enemies managed to get him sent of to command this fortress, a task that thoroughly disgusted him.

So, after sitting in his fortress in a gloomy mood for seven years, there was finally a war. As said, 1808 wasn’t a good year for the Swedish arms, but hopes were that 1809 would be better. Besides as long as Sweden held “Sveaborg” the Russians couldn’t be sure of their control of much if anything in southern Finland.

Of course, as Helsinki was captured, the Russian forces laid siege to “Sveaborg”. A siege of sorts at least. The situation was roughly as follows: in the city of Helsinki a couple of thousand Russian infantry and cavalry commanded by general Suchtelen. Oh, and he had at his disposal only 46 pieces of field artillery.
Sitting off the coast was one of the world’s most powerful fortresses, manned by 6000+ Swedish troops, bristling with cannons (several thousand). The Russians were outnumbered 2 or 3 to 1. Technically they could have attacked across the ice, but that would have been suicide. The risk, had the Swedish commander realised how superior his forces were, of a Swedish break out was much greater.

As the ice lay, it would be impossible to resupply the fortress, but there would be no real need for this until much later in the year. The garrison hand plenty of provisions and ammunition. If the Russians wanted to take the place they would have to concentrate considerable forces and bring up plenty of heavy siege artillery. Given time they could certainly do that, but for the time being the fortress was in no danger whatsoever. Besides, in the fortress harbour lay the entire Swedish archipelago fleet, a hundred or more ships. (A peculiar aspect of naval warfare in the Baltic, heavily armed, small low-draft ships, often galleys, ideal for fighting in narrow, shallow waters.) Even if things got out of hand, Cronstedt could have waited for the ice to break and then simply sailed his entire garrison to Stockholm unopposed, at least saving his troops.

In this situation Suchtelen turned out to be a cunning old fox. He deployed and rotated his scarce troops in such a fashion as to give the impression of a much larger force. He also set his field arty to laying down a constant nuisance fire against the fortress. We are talking small bore guns useful against troops on an open battlefield. Despite of constant shelling over several months, when Cronstedt eventually gave up the fortress his, casualties, out of a 6000+ garrison, numbered 5 killed and 28 wounded. As long as the troops didn’t do anything stupid or were extremely unlucky, all they had to do was to keep their heads down to be safe. With a kill rate of 1 in 1200, “Sveaborg” must have been the safest place in the entire Swedish army in late 1808 and early 1809.

Cronstedt’s big mistake was that he started negotiating with Suchtelen and his senior officers. On several occasions during the siege in the winter of 1808-1809 they met on the ice halfway between fortress and city. The Russians played Cronstedt like an instrument. They would be full of sympathy and somehow by hints suggest to him that his position was utterly desperate and hopeless. In this frame of mind Cronstedt would then return to continue to brood over his “untenable position”.

The entire situation became strange indeed when Cronstedt on Arpril 6 decided to come to an “agreement” with the Russians. According to this he would give the fortress up on May 3 1809 unless a certain number of Swedish warships had entered the fortress harbour. But in the mean time the Swedes would immediately give up three outer fortifications. In this month the Russians pressed every advantage they could and insinuated themselves into the fortifications to the point where what could have been an impregnable position looked flimsy indeed. In the end Cronstedt did find himself in the untenable position he had thought he was in all along and gave up the fortress on the stipulated date.

This effectively ripped the bottom out of any immediate plans for a continued war to retake Finland. It was left in Russian hands pending a resolution to the crisis it had produced in Sweden:
— In 1809 king Gustaf IV was deposed in a military coup d’état, and his childless uncle the very simple Charles XIII made king. This ended royal absolutism (a second time, it had been reinstated by Gustaf III’s coup d’état of 1772) and Sweden got a parliamentary constitution based on division of power.
— A popular, obese Danish prince named Fredrick called in as the new heir to the throne. He died under “mysterious circumstances” (he fell of his horse, dead, at a military review, it is now assumed from a stroke or similar due to his obesity).
— The senior politician Axel von Fersen (who had been Marie Antoinette’s lover and possibly the father of her son the duke of Normandy) was suspected, and at the opening of the Parliament he was dragged from his carriage and beaten to death by an angry mob while a passive Royal Guard look on (probably under orders from Fersen’s enemies).
— In this situation it was decided to get try to get Napoleon to hand Sweden some princeling of his to make king, but the young officer charged with the mission struck up a friendship with Bernadotte and managed to sell him as future king of Sweden instead.
— Bernadotte became crown prince as it was hoped he would lead a successful war of reconquest with French aid against Russia. Bernadotte was no fool however. He knew the score, including the fact that by 1812 France was toast anyway, and decided that Finland had to be left to Russia. Instead he would nick Norway from the Danes as compensation. (The Danes had thrown in with the French after Nelson’s unprovoked attack that destroyed the Danish fleet and burned Copenhagen.)

Considering the strangeness of the situation in which Cronstedt had given up the fortress immediate debates broke out over what the devil Cronstedt had really been up to. There were allegations that the Russians had bought him. These rumours seem to have ended with Suchtelen’s book about the war, where he portrayed Cronstedt as an honest idiot. Cronstedt himself was given a country estate in Finland by the Emperor, the arch-duke of Finland and Tsar of all Russians, where he lived out his life hated by the Swedes and despised by Finns and Russians alike.

As far as his relative lack of notoriety, already in the 19th c. the Finnish national poet (who wrote in Swedish) Johan Ludwig Runeberg wrote a poem about “Sveaborg” and the traitor, but without mentioning his name. He thought this was a fit retribution, to loose his name and go down in history simply as The Traitor. It worked, or so it would seem.

Another reason might of course be that Sweden quickly set about getting over the loss of Finland, and with liberalisation and industrialisation it had a busy 19th century where Finland was only rarely missed.
On its own Finland became the window of the Russian empire, where it showed itself of to Europe from its most pleasing side. Finnish officers repaid the compliment by throwing themselves whole heartedly into Russian empire building. From 1809 to the independence in 1917 there were more than 400 Finnish officers of the rank of general or above in the Russian armies.
 
Nice post about a little know event in Scandanavian and Napoleonic history.
 
Reno said:
Sparing the lives of your men and stopping useless strugle wich would have ended in a Russian victory anyway because help from Sweden was hopeless, i would hardly call that a traitor. This is just my opinion. (I am finnish)
That was Cronstedt's line of course.;)

And I'm interested in traitors less for reasons of moral outrage but because these guys are people who "think outside the box", are just damn unlucky, get the blame etc. Traitors cross lines, do "the unthinkable" things and live with the consequences.
 
Reno said:
I actually would say that Sweden losing Finland was lucky (for the finns) because under Sweden there had not been almost anykind of national indentity for Finland, and under Sweden we did not a our own Government. (The Russians gave us Autonomy)
the exact same reason as to why Swedes hate the losing of Finland to Russia.
 
about the Finish: I've a Finish friend and she told me that the Finish dislike the Russians but they are good friends to to Swedish(except in Sports). She wasn't sure why it is like this, because in history Finland was occupied by both of them. Maybe the memory on WW II is a little "fresher".
 
Well the are cultural similarities for one. There are a lot of swedish speakers in Finland and finnish speakers in Sweden.
 
"Occupation" is a bit of an overstatement when describing Finnish-Swedish relations. The kingdom of Swedish started attaching bits and pieces of southern Finland in the 12th c. as part of the crusading done in the Baltic. Eventually Finland became recognised as duchy within the Kingdom.

The Finns weren't unified politically (at least the medieval christian world didn't recognise any kind of Finnish political entity), so it's not as if there was an outright occupation, never mind what local resistance was beaten down.

So, for some 700 odd years Finland was a province in the kingdom of Sweden. For most of that time linguistic nationalism wasn't an issue. Not that the Finns got to rule themselves, but when the religious, scholarly and administrative language is latin anyway, whether one speaks Finnish or Swedish at home is not necessarily a big issue. Besides Sweden was a polyglot empire comprised of Swedes, Finns, Germans, Estonians etc. etc., though the social elites tended to speak Swedish and German. Finnish was the language of part of the common people.

Since Sweden lost Finland in 1809 it didn't have to deal with the 19th c. brand of linguistic-ethnic nationalism. And since the Russians for the most part let the Finns do their own thing (changed in the 1890's or so and triggered politcal assassinations etc.) the Finns got to work the Swedish-Finnish thing out for themselves.

The Finns tend to be pissed at the Swedes when they forget to include them properly in Swedish history. That actually happens and is a good measure of how totally over this loss the Swedes are. The possible reconquest of Finland last popped up during the Crimean war, but it seemed such a dicy proposition all plans like that were canned for good. For the last 150 years or so Sweden has been happy leaving the Finns to run themselves.
There are some irrational ghost pains; I find myself feeling good about it when Swedish and Finnish troops are deployed together in UN missions. If we're in it with the Finns, things won't get too bad, kind of thing.

No doubt Finnish posters will have a thing or two to say about the snooty attitude of the Swedes. ;)
 
There is also something to be said about the cultural, administrative, economic elite of Finland belonging to ethnic swedes... but ofcourse, not by me.
 
superisis said:
There is also something to be said about the cultural, administrative, economic elite of Finland belonging to ethnic swedes... but ofcourse, not by me.

That's because before the autonomy in 1809, the only really educated people in Finland were Swedish immigrants, that all changet when we started building public schools around here. :)
 
superisis said:
Well there are cultural similarities for one.

Finland is a Finno-Ugric nation and Sweden is a Germanic nation there are not too many similiarities, and language is just spoken really by Swedes in Finland and not real Finns. Finn-Swedes are Swedish really so that's a no go.
 
Reno said:
That's because before the autonomy in 1809, the only really educated people in Finland were Swedish immigrants, ...
:dubious:
I highly doubt any Swedes moved to Finland at the start of the 19th century. Or did you mean "immigrant" as "someone who's family have lived in the same place the last 500 years"? :lol:
 
mrtn said:
:dubious:
I highly doubt any Swedes moved to Finland at the start of the 19th century. Or did you mean "immigrant" as "someone who's family have lived in the same place the last 500 years"? :lol:

I meant that they were not original finnish but swedish people who's ancestors had moved here a few hundred years back. :p
 
About the Swedish speaking elite:
It was commented on by one of the professors, Porthan, at the University of Åbo (in Finland) in the late 18th c., that most of the S-speaking social elite were the grandsons of Finnish peasants anyway. It was more a question of swedification as part of social climbing than the introduction of a foreign elite. And in the end the Finnish elite went back to Finnish.
Unless we are talking about those parts of Finland that have been Swedish speaking since age immemorial (possibly). But then Swedish is no mark of social distinction since everyone speaks it, patricians and plebs alike.
 
Reno said:
Finland is a Finno-Ugric nation and Sweden is a Germanic nation there are not too many similarities, and language is just spoken really by Swedes in Finland and not real Finns. Finn-Swedes are Swedish really so that's a no go.
What on earth do you think are the fundamental characteristics of Germanics vs. Finno-Ugrians that would make them so different? :confused:

Historically Swedes and Finns have both lived mostly from agriculture with a bit of hunting, fishing etc.
These farmers lived in village communities, or isolated self reliant farmsteads. They lived in similar landscapes: mostly deep forests with clearings for the fields, lots of lakes and rivers, in a similar cold climate.
They share the same kind of “wood based” culture. Household implements, furniture, building even their machinery have historically for the most part been built out of wood.

Most importantly, historically speaking, they have had the exact same religion since the advent of Christianity. Roman Catholicism until the 16th c and protestant Lutheranism since then.

700 years as one country tends to give even people with radically different languages a host of similarities.
Swedes have more in common with the Finns than with either Danes or Norwegians.

Would you consider the Welsh, Irish and Scots radically different from the English?
 
Top Bottom