Talk:Finnish War

Chronology of Battles and Events

These dates are according to the Gregorian (west European) calendar. Russian sources might refer to Julian calendar dates. See also {{Campaignbox Finnish War}} and {{sv:Kampanj Finska kriget}}.

Date	Event	Location	Geo coord.	Map	Photos	Comment, interwiki
February 20, 1808 (c. 5:00 a.m)	Russian army crosses Finland's border	Kymmene älv, border river, near Hamina. There is a map of the area. Can we map the exact marching order?	no	no
February 21, 1808	Outbreak of Finnish War	Hämeenlinna	?	no	no
March/April, 1808	Russian army	Kuopio, Tampere, Jakobstad	?	no	no
March/April, 1808	Russian navy	Gotland, Åland Islands	?	no	no
March 18, 1808	Russian army conquers Svartholm fortress		?	no	no
March 21, 1808	Russian army conquers Hanko Peninsula		?	no	no
March 22, 1808	Russian army conquers Turku		?	no	no
April 6, 1808	Suomenlinna commander Cronstedt negotiates with Russian army		?	no	no
April 16, 1808	Battle of Pyhäjoki	Pyhäjoki	?	no	no	sv
April 18, 1808	Battle of Siikajoki		?	yes	no
April 27, 1808	Battle of Revolax		?	yes	no
May 2, 1808	Battle of Pulkkila		?	no	no
May 3, 1808	Siege of Sveaborg	Suomenlinna at Helsinki	?	yes	no
May 9, 1808	Battle of Kumlinge		?	no	no	sv
June 19-20, 1808	Battle of Lemo		?	no	no	sv
June, 1808	Alexander I calls for elections and invites Finnish representatives to gather in St Petersburg. The deputies are led by Carl Erik Mannerheim.		?	no	no
June 24, 1808	Battle of Nykarleby	Nykarleby	?	no	no	sv
June 25, 1808	Battle of Vaasa	Vaasa	?	no	no	sv
June 30, 1808	Battle of Rimito Kramp		?	no	no	sv
July 11, 1808	Battle of Kokonsaari		?	no	no	sv
July 14, 1808	Battle of Lapua		?	yes	no
August 2-3, 1808	Battle of Sandöström		?	no	no	sv
August 10, 1808	Battle of Kauhajoki		?	no	no
August 17, 1808	Battle of Alavus		?	yes	no
August 21, 1808	Battle of Karstula	Karstula	?	yes	no	sv
August 28, 1808	Battle of Lappfjärd		?	no	no	sv
August 30, 1808	Battle of Grönvikssund		?	no	no	sv
September 1, 1808	Battle of Ruona		?	yes	no	sv
	Battle of Ruona and Salmi		?	no	no
September 2, 1808	Battle of Kuortane-Salmi		?	no	no
September 6, 1808		Ömossa	?	no	no	sv
September 13, 1808	Battle of Jutas		?	no	no
September 14, 1808	Battle of Oravais		?	yes	no
September 18, 1808	Battle of Palva Sund		?	no	no	sv
September 29, 1808	Truce at Lohteå		?	no	no
October 27, 1808	Battle of Koljonvirta		?	yes	no
November 10, 1808	The Moonlight Raid		?	no	no
November 19, 1808	Convention at Olkijoki: Finnish army retreats north of Kemi river		?	no	no	sv
March 21, 1809	Convention at Åland		?	no	no	sv
March 25, 1809	Convention at Seivis / Kalix, after Russian navy raids in Gulf of Bothnia		?	no	no
March 25-July 19, 1809	Diet of Porvoo		?	no	no
May 15, 1809	Encounter at Skellefteå		?	no	no
July 5-6, 1809	Battle of Hörnefors		?	no	no	sv
August 19, 1809	Battle of Sävar		?	no	no
August 20, 1809	Battle of Ratan		?	no	yes
August 25, 1809	Battle of Piteå	Piteå	?	no	no	sv
September 2, 1809	Truce at Frostkåge gästgivargård		?	no	no
September 17, 1809	Treaty of Fredrikshamn		?	no	no

Name of the war

Is not the right name for the war Russo-Swedish war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.152.51.10 (talk) 07:21, 11 November 2004 (UTC)

Maybe. Which source uses that name? --Johan Magnus 08:02, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The established name is Finnish War which is a translation from Swedish Finska kriget. It is the same in Spanish wikipedia.

There are strong reasons for this name as the result meant for Finns the creation of Finland as a separate state entity, for Sweden the loss of Finland, and for Russians gaining of Finland. Finally the major battles were fought in Finland.

In Finland the war is called Suomen sota which literally translated is Finland's war (genetiv) the meaning being more or less "war fought in Finland" or "War in Finland" (and not a war that is some how "owned" and caused by Finland as in "Hitler's War").

"War of (area name)" structure is perhaps more common in original English language names for wars. For example "War of Vietnam". But War of Finland is not established as the name for this particular war. I suppose the French wiki versio,La Guerra de Finlande, translates roughly War of Finaland?

Russo-Swedish war of 1808-09 used in German and Russian wikipedia is not as distinctive since Russia and Sweden fought several wars over the years before this one.

The term Final war used in some Swedish sources has a strong Swedish bias since this was was not the last one for the main battle area of the Finnish war, for Finns nor Finland, nor for Russia.

Spespatriae 07:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

---

The argument that bribes would have been used in order to get the castles to surrender is highly speculative. According to research it is most unlikely that any bribes would have been used in the case of Sveaborg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.186.133.226 (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Why did Sweden lose?Of all the battles that are described in respect to this war, only one is described as a marginal (!) Russian victory, and the many others, both before and after, are Swedish victories. Nevertheless, the outcome was an unquestionable Swedish defeat. Does it mean that the Swedes lost the war without really losing a single battle? Or does it mean that the authors chose to ignore the battles in which the Swedes were beaten? Of note, the article on Barclay de Tolly mentions Swedish defeat when Umea was first taken by the invading Russians, but it isn’t mentioned here at all. This article mentions that Swedes were running from a superior Russian force, but the numbers in the battle boxes tell otherwise. It is unlikely that the whole Russian army was available for this campaign because of the concurrent large-scale war between Russia and Turkey. In fact, the listed battles often had Swedish numeric advantage, whilem typicallym it is the invader who has to have greater numbers for any chance to succeed. Moreover, Swedes on the battlefield are also described as battle-hardened spirited heroes with superb tactical skills. So, why did they run? BTW, the omission of the references to the sources is quite conspicuous. For example, if the reader knows that the descriptions are taken from some Swedish of Finnish history books, the paradox of a strong brave unbeatable army running from a beaten-up foe would appear less confusing. --EugeneK 05:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be completely rewritten. I will get to work once I have enough time. Cheers, Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The point is that the Russians had several easy victories, including important towns and harbors. Where there was any resistance at all, there was a battle with a name. --LA2 (talk) 06:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with previous comments largely; A few small data points to include in a revision are that the (i) swedes lacked real battle experiences after 20 pretty peaceful years, whereas the russians had plenty (Napoleon, Turkey), (ii) the Swedes lost quite a few battles (will not start to list them here), (iii) a large part of the swedish officers thought the war was meaningless (fighting both Napoleon and Russia at the same time, and a king that was considered incompetent), (iv) Russia had superior numbers of troops available even though they were not always deployed in each battle, (v) the russians promised (and gave) very favourable prospects to the finnish nobility as an autonomous part of a very strong and rich Russian empire (lowering morale further). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Castreneino~enwiki (talk • contribs) 07:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the Swedes won most battles in this war - the indecisive ones - but they lost the decisive ones. That´s why any description of this war easily looks like a litany of Swedish victories, followed by a Russian triumph. To be more presice, the Swedish army retreated towards Northern Finland as it was their pre-planned strategy; unfortunately, this strategy failed when the "invincible" Sveaborg fortress surrendered. Afterwards the Swedish counter-attack was quite hopeless, although it had initial success. Kraak 19:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether the strategy to withdraw to the north made any sense is highly disputable. It weakened morale even further (retreating with no indications of Swedish reinforcements), left the fortresses isolated and subject to russian psychological warfare, it was built on a belief that the fortresses (Svartholm and especially Sveaborg) whose "maintenance" had been neglected for 20+ years where invincible (it is also interesting to compare with the quick surrender of all german/preussian fortresses during the Napoleonic wars) and built on an assumption that Sweden would send significant reinforcements during the summer (which was very unlikely to happen due to the anticipated french invasion from Denmark, the kings interest in invading Norway and the overall weak swedish military situation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Castreneino~enwiki (talk • contribs) 08:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't this war the "thing" that marked the end of Sweden's era as, if not a "great power", a notable power? It lost between a third and half of its territory, also losing a large part of its population (although not much of its industry, if it had any, as Finland only began to industrialise after the war). After the war, Sweden wasn't really ever considered important by the "great powers". --HJV 03:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Finland's toponyms in a contemporary English text

Please read these United Nations toponymic guidelines for Finland: [1]. In essence: "In foreign languages, names of monolingual areas should appear in the form they have in the official language of those areas (for instance fi Iisalmi, sv Mariehamn), unless there are no other established names in the languages in question. In bilingual areas, the names in the majority language should be preferred (for instance fi Helsinki, Turku, Vaasa; sv Jakobstad, Nykarleby, Pargas, Ekenäs.)" The article is CONTEMPORARY and so the UN guidelines are recommendable even when dealing with matters of the past. The recommendation is not changed by the fact that in Finland Finnish only gained an equal status with Swedish in 1892 as municipal place names are about equally old in both languages. (The case here is pretty much similar to e.g. Irish place names.) There's no necessity to switch place names according to a particular historical period especially if the different place names happen to be equally old. In Finland's case (as in Ireland's), the place naming should not follow according to the linguistic policies of the past. Overall, using multiple place names results easily in "historical multiplicity" - many strories for the same thing - which makes history totally clustered and obscure. In many cases, this article should use the Finnish place name as primary the Swedish minority place name being in parentheses for a more objective approach. Clarifer 15:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't start it all over again. I have an impression that you and Krohn, without contributing anything valuable yourselves, stalk my new articles with the purpose of uglifying them as much as possible. Please take notice that stalking is frowned upon and may lead to admin action. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel like that. It seems that you take your information from older books? Just trying to update your articles here and make them look a bit more contemporary and neutral... Finland is a bilingual country and perhaps you are unfamiliar with such a country? You can compare the situation with that in Belgium, Switzerland or Canada and with Ireland (perhaps the best analogy) if you wish to... if it helps... but please, please, inform yourself on this, ok? Clarifer 16:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh and I'm not "stalking", I just saw this in the box of "russo-swedish wars" and followed the link. I didn't know you wrote it. Again, as to the content I have nothing to add or remove. The content seems very good. However, you seem to use the toponyms in a very odd way.... Clarifer 16:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Stalking? Many of your new articles have appeared on the Main Page in newest articles. If you find us visiting your articles, it is only because you produce good and intersting content. -- Petri Krohn 02:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I tried to correct the spelling of Bernadotte's first name (Jean-baptiste), but the edit links seem to point to the wrong paragraphs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.237.150.190 (talk) 09:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The picture

Is it a swedish or a russian soldier on the picture? --212.247.27.92 22:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a Swedish soldier to me

84.219.25.230 19:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The soldier is definitely from the Swedish army, though probably Finnish by nationality, as were most of the lower ranks in Finland (the musket with fixed bayonet marks him as not an officer). Note the Swedish pattern headgear. The painting is by Helene Schjerfbeck (1862-1946), Finland's bet-known woman artist. It is called "Wounded soldier in the snow, from the year 1808" and was painted in 1880.--Death Bredon 16:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Commanders

The text gives the impression that Johan Adam Cronstedt was in command of the whole Swedish army in Finland at the beginning of the war. This is incorrect; J.A. Cronstedt was only the commander of the Savo Regiment, which was responsible for the eastern sector. The C-in-C was originally lieutenant general Carl Nathanael af Klercker, who was prepared to defend Hämeenlinna against the initial Russian attack but was replaced on March 1st 1808 by field marshal Wilhelm Mauritz Klingspor, who ordered the army to retreat. Klingspor was unwilling to commit to battle, and was removed from command in September 1808, being replaced by af Klercker.--Death Bredon 17:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Finland's personal union with Russia

Drieakko, I can't see your point. Do you really dispute that the Great Duchy of Finland was in personal union with the Russian Empire? I believe the union was modeled on that of Norway and Denmark. What's the difference? --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where this personal union thing is coming from. Finland was given to Russia by Sweden as provinces, and the emperor had promised to maintain local laws to Finnish estates that he had called to Porvoo before the treaty. The emperor decided to use "Grand Duke of Finland" as one of his many titles. There was no "Grand Duke of Finland" in the Swedish constitution at all, so how could an office without content be in personal union? Personal union would have also required that Finland was recognized internationally, which it was not. Russian emperor was free to organize Finnish legislature as he saw best. Whatever Finland was to be, it was an internal Russian affair at the time. This can be compared to the Congress Poland of 1815 that was in personal union with Russia, with international recognition to the arrangement.

Union of Norway and Denmark was a whole different thing that had happened when the crown of Norway ended up with the Danish king by legal succession. --Drieakko 21:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ghirla; Finland was in personal union, not with the Russian Empire, but with Russia, as part of the Russian Empire. The Empire also consisted of Poland. In Russia the Emperor's title was Tsar, in Finland he was always refered to as the Emperor, never as Tsar. This "personal union" was disputed by Russians, but only in the end of the 19th century, as part of the Russification of Finland.

As to the question, where this "Grand Duchy" thingy originated from?

Finland as a state was formed at and by the Diet of Porvoo. The assembly of the diet constituted a treaty between the Emperor and the estates of the realm. Alexander I offered Finland statehood in exhange for high treason against the Swedish Crown. The Tsar was not at libety to treat Finland at will. He needed the approval of the Finnish estates to legally annex Finland into the Russian Empire.

The Treaty of Fredrikshamn is completely irrelevat in this discussion. It was signed after Finlands status was decided at Porvoo. Even if no peace treaty had ever been signed, Finland would have been a Grand Duchy in the Empire. By declaring themshelves a state, separate from Sweden, the Finnish estates made themselves fully competent of entering into a treaty of union with Russia. Without a peace treaty we might however still have an "occupation theory" and revanchist groups in Sweden. -- Petri Krohn 22:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. However, I seriously doubt that none of the players of 1809 would have understood them.

Snapshot of emperor's titles from 1809: ALEXANDRE I:r, Empereur et Autocrateur de toutes les Russies, de Moscovie, Kiowie, Wladimirie, Novogorod, Czar de Cazan, Czar d'Astracan, Czar de Siberie, Czar de la Chersonèse Taurique, Seigneur de Plescou, et Grand-Duc de Smolensko, Lithuanie, Volhynie, Podolie et de Finlande, Duc d'Estonie, de Livonie, de Courlande et Semigalle, de Samogitie, Carelie, Twer, Jugorie, Permie, Viatka, Bolgarie et d'autres: Seigneur et Grand-Duc de Novogorod inférieur, de Czernigovie, Resan, Polozk, Rostow, Jaroslaw, Belo-Osorie, Udorie, Obdorie, Condinie, Witepsk, Mstislaw, Dominateur de tout le Côté du Nord, Seigneur d' Iverie, de Cartalinie, Grusinie et de Cabardinie, Prince Héréditaire et Souverain des Princes de Czircassie, Gorsky et autres; Héritier de Norvège, Duc de Slesvic Hollstein, de Stormarie et de Ditmarsen, Comte d'Oldenbourg et de Delmenhorst &c. &c. Note that there is no "Czar of Russia" at all which had been gone since Peter the Great. All emperors always used the title of emperor when they made decisions in Finland, naturally followed by a selection of other titles, among them the Grand Duke of Finland. There was no "personal union" between any of the above listed areas. Emperors had been around making promises of maintaining old laws and rights all over the vast empire, which started to integrate only after the Polish rebellion in 1830.

Treaty of Fredrikshamn is by no way irrelevant in this discussion, since it defined the sovereignty on the area of Finland to belong to Russia. The claim that Alexander "needed the approval of the Finnish estates to legally [annex Finland into the Russian Empire" is ... well, he only needed the approval of Sweden for that since the sole legal owner of Finland was Sweden. What ever he was playing with Finns was not because he needed to, but because he was living his idealistic period and wanted to treat conquered people kindly.

Furthermore, I need to remind that the small selection of estates at Porvoo did not form a legal quorum in any definition of what the Swedish constitution gave to its riksdag. The participants did not even use that name, but they called it lantdag which was a regional meeting, still occasionally used to handle local matters.

To sum up:

• Personal union is an international legal arrangement
• There was no definition whatsoever what the "Grand Duke of Finland" was. Emperor adopted the title on his own whim, but there never was any law to back its existence
• There was no international recognition for Finland
• Finland was a part of Sweden and Sweden gave its area to Russia without reservations
• There was no treaty of any kind that defined emperor's relation with Finland be a personal union
• The Lantdag at Porvoo was not and did not claim to be the riskdag of Sweden nor had they made any arrangements to define that they were not a part of Sweden any more

From the legal perspective, there is no support to the view of a personal union between Finland and Russia. I also don't know any Finnish historian that would support such an idea, which seems to live in Wikipedia only. --Drieakko 04:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

One more thing. The Swedish constitution strictly denied any rights to the crown if the person was not Lutheran. The governance of Finland and what its "constitution" actually was, became an issue only from the 1860s onwards, and was never settled before Finland declared independence in 1917. Along the way, understanding of the 1809 events also changed and were strongly affected by nationalistic-romantic views. --Drieakko 04:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yet one. Claim that the estates would have "declared themselves a state" is not correct since no such declaration was ever made. The emperor, in his eloquent speech, cherished his audience by calling them a "nation", that's all. --Drieakko 05:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a couple of questions which I probably ought to raise on WP:RD/H. Did the Pauline laws stipulate that the empire was indivisible or perhaps the Emperor could detach the Grand Duchy and pass it to his relative? Could Alexander III of Russia, theoretically speaking, bequeathe the aggregate of his Russian, Georgian, etc. titles to the eldest son, the Polish crown to Michael, and the Finnish crown to his daughter? --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Commenting that for the Finland part: there was no crown of Finland of any kind. If Alexander had wanted to establish it, I don't think anyone would have stopped him, but there is no document of such an event. He did that for Poland in 1815, but he never did it for Finland. However, there was a Polish crown already in place before, so he more or less just adopted an existing concept for himself. --Drieakko 10:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I get your point. While some Russian monarchs did go to Warsaw to be crowned as Kings of Poland, they never went to Helsingfors to be crowned as Grand Dukes of Finland. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) There is a related question: Did the ordinal numbering of the ruler in Finland follow that of Russia, or was it independent, as between England and Scotland? We wil never know, as the issue never came up. -- Petri Krohn 10:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Alexander was present in Porvoo in 1809 when he assured to the estates that their old rights and laws would be maintained. All future emperors gave the same assurance, even Nicholas I and II. They however just signed it in Saint Petersburg. No additional festivities were related to the matter. --Drieakko 10:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Wishlist for the 200th anniversary

The Finnish War started on February 21, 1808, which means this year will see a string of anniversaries of the various battles. So this gives us a nice time schedule to improve various articles relating to the war, perhaps starting with the battle chronology at the top of this talk page. But apart from this, maybe we also need literature references, geographic coordinates for the various battle grounds, local maps, overview maps, current day photos, scans/photos of paintings from the battles, biographies of the people involved, etc. Please help to fill this list. --LA2 (talk) 10:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Places: Åland Islands, Grand Duchy of Finland, Kalix River, Old Finland, Piteå, Suomenlinna, Svartholm fortress, Umeå

People: Carl Johan Adlercreutz, Alexander I of Russia, Johan Fredrik Aminoff, Fyodor Buxhoeveden, Carl Olof Cronstedt, Charles XIII of Sweden, Johan Adam Cronstedt, Georg Carl von Döbeln, Carl Gustaf Ehrnrooth, Otto von Fieandt, Gustav IV Adolf of Sweden, Nikolay Kamensky, Wilhelm Mauritz Klingspor, Boris Knorring, Yakov Kulnev, Gustaf Adolf Montgomery, Johan af Puke, Johan August Sandels, Wilhelm von Schwerin, Georg Magnus Sprengtporten, Gregori Fredrik Tigerstedt, Barclay de Tolly, Nikolay Tuchkov, Gustaf Wachtmeister, Olof Wibelius, Jakob Henrik Zidén

Fiction: Johan Ludvig Runeberg, The Tales of Ensign Stål, Maamme, Lotta Svärd (poem), Sven Dufva

Treaties: Diet of Finland, Diet of Porvoo, Treaty of Fredrikshamn, Treaty of Paris (1810)

Multilingual coordination: sv:Wikipedia:Projekt Fänrik Stål

Out of copyright reference literature:

• (in Swedish) Sveriges krig åren 1808 och 1809, 9 volumes published by the history department of the General Staff of the Swedish armed forces, 1890-1922
• (in Swedish) Carl Otto Nordensvan, Finska kriget 1808-1809, 1898, electronic edition from Project Runeberg
• (in Swedish) Carl Johan Ljunggren (published by Reinhold Hausen), Skildring af krigshändelserna i Öster- och Västerbotten 1808-1809, 1903; reprinted in 2006, ISBN 951-583-140-7
• (in Swedish) Hugo Schulman, Striden om Finland 1808-1809, 1909, electronic edition from Project Runeberg
• (in Swedish) Nordisk familjebok, encyclopedic article Finland (Historia), 1908

Recent titles:

• (in Swedish) Martin Hårdstedt, Finska kriget 1808-1809, 2006, ISBN 978-91-518-4101-4
• (in Finnish) Martin Hårdstedt, Suomen sota 1808-1809, suomentanut Seppo Hyrkäs, 2007, ISBN 978-951-0-33102-6

The 31 articles found under category:Finnish War were visited 499 times during January 8, 2008, with the following popularity ranking: Finnish War (with 111 visits), Suomenlinna (69), Michael Andreas Barclay de Tolly (51), Diet of Finland (27), Treaty of Fredrikshamn (24), Nikolay Kamensky (18), Battle of Koljonvirta (16), Battle of Siikajoki (15), Battle of Ratan and Sävar (15), Diet of Porvoo (12), Battle of Oravais (12), Yakov Kulnev (11), Battle of Revolax (11), Georg Carl von Döbeln (10), Battle of Jutas (10), Battle of Lapua (9), Svartholm fortress (8), The Tales of Ensign Stål (7), Johan August Sandels (7), Carl Olof Cronstedt (7), Battle of Alavus (7), Wilhelm Mauritz Klingspor (6), Friedrich Wilhelm von Buxhoeveden (6), Battle of Pulkkila (6), Siege of Sveaborg (5), Gustaf Adolf Montgomery (5), Georg Magnus Sprengtporten (4), Carl Johan Adlercreutz (4), Battle of Kauhajoki (3), Category:Battles of the Finnish War (2), Lotta Svärd (poem) (1).

Of the 114 articles found under the corresponding category on the Swedish Wikipedia, the following were the most popular during four weeks of 2007-2008: sv:Gustav IV Adolf (1796), sv:Finska kriget (1211), sv:Johan Ludvig Runeberg (757), sv:Sveaborg (572), sv:Vårt land (563), sv:Georg Carl von Döbeln (557), sv:Fänrik Ståls sägner (412), sv:Alexander I av Ryssland (331), sv:Sven Dufva (301), sv:Björneborgarnas marsch (279), sv:Slaget vid Jutas (236), sv:Freden i Fredrikshamn (185), sv:Slaget vid Sävar (184), sv:Lotta Svärd (171), sv:Fänrik Stål (155), sv:Slaget vid Oravais (151), sv:Carl Johan Adlercreutz (133), sv:Johan August Sandels (126), sv:Slaget vid Virta bro (121), sv:Kategori:Slag under finska kriget (116), sv:Slaget vid Hörnefors (110), sv:Döbeln vid Jutas (109), sv:Slaget vid Lappo (102), sv:Slaget vid Alavo (102), sv:Carl Olof Cronstedt (97), sv:Slaget vid Siikajoki (94), sv:Sandels (88), sv:Johan Bergenstråhle (fältherre) (68), sv:Slaget vid Revolax (64), sv:Slaget vid Kauhajoki (64), sv:Fänrik Ståls sägner-del I (64), sv:Von Essen (dikt) (62), sv:Träffningen vid Ratan (59), sv:Slaget vid Nykarleby (57), sv:Slaget vid Piteå (56), sv:Fredrik Vilhelm von Buxhoevden (55), sv:Slaget vid Pyhäjoki (54), sv:Mauritz Klingspor (53), sv:Karl Nathanael af Klercker (52), sv:Slaget vid Karstula (51), sv:Kumlingeslaget (51), sv:Västerbottensexpeditionen (50), sv:Sveaborg (dikt) (50), sv:Slaget vid Vasa (49), sv:Jakob Henrik Zidén (47), sv:Slaget vid Pulkkila (45), sv:Slaget vid Ömossa (45), sv:Slaget vid Lemo (45), sv:Skärgårdsslaget vid Grönvikssund (44), sv:Nikolaj Kamenskij (44), sv:Molnets broder (44), sv:Slaget vid Kokonsaari (42), sv:Slaget vid Ruona (41), sv:Otto von Fieandt (40), sv:Löjtnant Zidén (40), sv:Johan Adam Cronstedt (40), sv:Joakim Zakarias Duncker (40), sv:Konungen (39), sv:Kategori:Personer i finska kriget (39), sv:Carl Magnus Gripenberg (39), sv:Skärgårdsslaget vid Palva sund (38), sv:Kulneff (38), sv:Jakov Petrovitj Kulnev (38), sv:Wilhelm von Schwerin (37), sv:Soldatgossen (36), sv:Skärgårdsslaget vid Sandöström (36), sv:Skärgårdsslaget vid Rimito Kramp (36), sv:Konventionen på Åland (36), sv:Konventionen i Olkijoki (36), sv:Kategori:Fänrik Ståls sägner (36), sv:Torpflickan (35), sv:Salomon von Rajalin (35), sv:Carl Gustaf Ehrnrooth (35), sv:Pjotr Bagration (33), sv:Johan Fredrik Aminoff (33), sv:Hans Henrik Gripenberg (33), sv:Den femte juli (33), sv:Den döende krigaren (33), sv:Fänrikens hälsning (32), sv:Fältmarskalken (32), sv:Nr femton, Stolt (31), sv:Landshövdingen (31), sv:Gamle Hurtig (31), sv:Fänrik Ståls sägner (film, 1910) (31), sv:Von Törne (dikt) (30), sv:Von Konow och hans korporal (30), sv:Carl Wilhelm Malm (30), sv:Olof Wibelius (29), sv:Karl Leonhard Lode (29), sv:Fänrik Ståls sägner-del II (29), sv:August Fredrik Palmfelt (27), sv:Otto von Fieandt (dikt) (26), sv:Adlercreutz (dikt) (25), sv:Veteranen (24), sv:Kategori:Personer i Fänrik Ståls sägner (24), sv:Gregori Fredrik Tigerstedt (24), sv:Bröderna (dikt) (24), sv:Främlingens syn (23), sv:De två dragonerne (23), sv:Trosskusken (21), sv:Önnert Jönsson (21), sv:Johan Adolf Grönhagen (21), sv:Fänrikens marknadsminne (21), sv:Johan Fredrik Eek (20), sv:Döbelnsmedicin (20), sv:Adolf Ludvig Christiernin (20), sv:Gamle Lode (19), sv:Nikolaj Tutjkov (16), sv:Munter (dikt) (15)

I have begun a slow translation of the Finnish wikipedia article on the Finnish War. Have patience. I will try to complete it as soon as possible. --MoRsE (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Anachronistic map images

The four map images in this article are anachronistic as they use modern borders, not the ones at the time of this war. It would be best to have map images that correspond to the time period in question.  –– TimSE 19:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I second this. Why hasn't anyone done anything in two years?71.225.100.80 (talk) 06:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The name - a (maybe) silly question

Why is this known by the Swedish name if the war was begun by the Russian Empire? In any case, the fact that it was fought in what is today Finland does not mean it is a "Finish" war, but rather a part fo the conflict between Russian and England, and Sweden as England's ally. So, while every other war is known by the states that fought them, or the causes they fought for (the Coalition wars against France), this one is named after a province of a state? Why would that be?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is the Crimean War called the Crimean War when it was part of a conflict between Russia and England, France, Sardinia, Turkey, et al.? Because it was fought mainly in the Crimea! How about the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta, or the Peninsular War between Britain and its ally Portugal against France? There was also a Pomeranian War between Sweden and Prussia in the mid-1700's, though it is commonly considered only a part of the great 7 Years' War. The Finnish War is also called that in Finland ("Suomen sota", literally "The War of/over Finland") even though it was only the last in a series of wars between Sweden and Russia over a period of some six centuries. Incidentally, a sideshow to the Crimean war, the escapades of a British-French naval squadron in the Baltic (which included attacks on several Finnish coastal towns, the shelling of the fortress of Sveaborg outside Helsinki and the destruction of the Bomarsund fortress in the Åland Islands) is referred to locally as the "Åland War" (Oolannin sota). I would think the name "Finnish War" would be preferable to, say, the Twenty-Somethingth Russo-Swedish War.--Death Bredon (talk) 09:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Casualties

Is there any guess for casualties? Any book or other source that would throw a estimation?Kuhlfürst (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the Russian article, there were about 24,000 men on the Russian side, 21,000 on the Swedish-Finnish side; among these were about 6,000 resp. 7,000 casualties (it is not clear whether they account for the only wounded).       Trassiorf (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)