Sweden and Russias joint military History

Dalregementet

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #21
Would you like to respond to my objections in regards to your attempts to relate this to modern Russo-Swedish relations?
You're questions was a bit vague, but one was more distinct. I stated that russians had the general opinion that they had the right to dominate others (people) and this was due to historic/socio reasons. You wanted me to show that in a more tangible way.

Well, history is tangible. Muscovy has expanded ever since the 14th century, it's in the fabrics so to say. The russian serf society creates a mentality where you foremost takes care of yourself. It's also very high numbers of people that are attracted by Zhirinovskys and Putins ultra nationalistic message - here you have a lot of quotes were they think they have a right to meddle in other countries domestic affairs but the other way around is not accepted. You, yourself didn't think that the Estonians had the right to move a monument that an occupant, russia, has raised in their soil. If that had been Sweden, that "monument" had been blown away in seconds.
Is this tangible enough? If you insist, I can dig up russian polls that support my statement.

Do you really think that a society today, russia, that has been a serf society since the 13th century isn't partly a product of serf mentality?

- - - - - - -
By the mid-19th century, the peasants composed a majority of the population, and according to the census of 1857 the number of private serfs was 23.1 million out of 62.5 million Russians. By comparison, the United States had approximately 4 million slaves by 1860, the British Empire had 776,000 slaves when it abolished slavery in 1834, and Brazil had a slave population of roughly 750,000 by the time slavery was abolished in 1888.

The exact numbers, according to official data, were: entire population 60,909,309; peasantry of all classes 49,486,665; state peasants 23,138,191; peasants on the lands of proprietors 23,022,390; peasants of the appanages and other departments 3,326,084.[7] State peasants were considered personally free, but their freedom of movement was restricted.[8]
- - - - - - - -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_serfdom
http://home.freeuk.net/russica2/books/russia/28.html
 
Last edited:

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Hello Feanor, I remember you from WAB.
You are accusing Dalregementet, yet you make the same mistake yourself. You are accusing the Baltics of desecrating the graves, yet you have not mentioned that it was a removal or re-locating, with full military honours etc. etc. We went through this back on WAB.
As for the parades on Hitler´s B-day - i´m aware of only one such occasion, which happened 5 or 6 years ago, with about 40 skinheads walking with torches. Disgusting as it is, you should remember that they are much, much more marginal in influence and numbers here than national bolshevists or even your own party, the Radical Communists (AKM) or even nazi skinheads in Russia.
Touche. I agree the issue has become excessively politicized, and heavily over-aggravated in Russian media in particular. I wouldn't be surprised if instructions came down from above to push the issue.

Secondly - the issue of recognizing sovereignty. The very definition of ´near-abroad´ is limiting the ´near-abroad´countries sovereignty to Russia´s needs.
The definition of near abroad has nothing to do with the sovereignty of those states, but rather with historical, cultural, linguistic, economic and political ties to Russia.

Besides there is the question of interpretation of the whole independence of Baltics. Are we legitimate children of pre-WW2 states, as the existing exile goverments transferred their authority in 1992 as we claim, or are bastards, who have no legal continuity as Russia claims.
Because admitting it would open a big can of worms for Russia - from broken treaties to legal actions and maybe the worst nightmare of all- a public apology....
I would question the legitimacy of modern Russia as a politically continuous authority of the Soviet Union. But that is an interesting question. However the real question here is Russo-Swedish relations and the history between Russia and Sweden, and it's relation to modern discourse.

bd1 (braindead in WAB):)
I do remember you.
 

Dalregementet

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #23
I've read all you said here Dalregementet and I want to say that you are a patriot of your country but the main weakness of most part of patriots is that they are blind. I also see that you have your opinion about Russia as a Metropoly has an opinion about it's colony. Russia has it's own way, own history and culture - you'll never understand the way of Russian thinking - I don't claim here that it is good or bad - I only say that we are different and you even don't try to understand us, because you don't need this.

About Baltic republics - what are doing the governments of these countries is a propagand of fascism. they revived the shadow of Hitler.

Today in the "West" everybody think that WW2 was won by GB and USA - and what about USSR?? Oh its role was not so important - this is the way most of people think in the west. This is just example - you are doing the same with RU-SWE relations. May be some guys here will believe you, some not - but the truth is out there =)

I won't post in this thread anymore
You're right that I´m a patriot, but I'm not blind. If you understand "russian thinking" (now how you want to define that?), then you're free to particiapte in the dialogue. There is no 100% own history and culture - you are influenced by historical events, your neighbours and occupants etc. For example - How can russia has it's "own" history if russia was founded by Swedes? How has the Mongol occupation influenced russian culture and thinking?

When you talk about the Baltic states, my impression is that you are inflenced by russian state propaganda. It is legitimate for Baltics to fight against an occupant, Soviet Union/Russia, in what ever way they want - so did the Finns by the way but Russia never brings that up as an issue.

I know that Russia was the primary reason to that Germany lost - that and because of a number of veird decisions by Hitler (thank god) that helped the Soviet Union. There is though one major difference between the Soviet Union and UK/US - UK/US was not part of the initial Molotov/Ribbentrop pact. Stalin and Hitler was equally bad, the naziz and the soviet/russian communists was, in my eyes, equally bad. That is the fundamental difference! If the Soviet Union not had been an accomplice to Hitler, the Soviet Union/Russia had got more credit for it's contribution.

Regarding Sweden and Russia - I don't understand what you mean? Russia has never defeated a Swedish force, where the Swedish force was superior in numbers. All Swedish defeats were against a numerically superior force. In most times Sweden won anyway, some times Sweden lost. My explanation to this fact, is that Swedish men were free and the russians were mostly serfs, hence their low morale and low fighting spirit. You saw the same under communism, just another name for the same thing - serfdom, thus the extremely bad performance by the red army in the Finnish Winter War - 26 662 dead Finnish soldiers and according to comrade Nikita Chrustjef (his memoirs), 1 million dead russians.

Today i bought a new book about the battle at Fraustadt 1706 - started to read it now. It gives a new picture of the battle due to intense research in the primary sources like eyewitnesses to the battle. I will now enjoy :D
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
I am surprised that you downplay Karaganov since he is viewed as one of the most influential persons in Russia regarding security and foreign policy?

Karaganov is the only intellectual from the former Soviet Union listed in the 2005 Global Intellectuals Poll, and only one of four, with Pavol Demeš, Václav Havel and Slavoj Žižek, from Eastern Europe. He´s ranked no 79 of the most influential public intellectuals in the world... So why do I choose his opinion? Because of that Putin seems to follow his advice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Karaganov
I don't consider Putin an independent figure. He is only a representative of very powerful gas-industry related spheres. In the late 90's he came to power as their representative, and since then natural gas industry has managed to defeat the oil industry in Russia, producing Putin, and so far it looks like Medvedev also, as their representatives in politics. Being the dominant branches of Russian export, they managed to also get a solid hold on much of the defense industry, with the following consolidation of Russian defense industry into large corporations, as a solidifying of their grasp on power. The result is that the "advice" of important intellectuals is hardly a major influence in Russian politics. Even in regards to Ukraine (which you brought up earlier) the main problem isn't even NATO. It's the gas transit agreement. Instead of agreeing to sell gas to European countries at the Russian border, and letting them negotiate with Ukraine on their own about transit, Russia agreed to sell them gas at the western Ukrainian border, resulting in Russia having to deal with the Ukrainian transit issue. Nord Stream and South Stream are both attempts to escape the deadlock.

Legitimate interests? That doesn´t allow a nation to directly interfere in other countries domestic politics. Threaten them depending on their choice of security solutions. According to the Karaganov plan, establishing a russian "sphere of interest" is one part of the plan to recreate the old empire - we have a mentality disagremment here.
The USA does it on a regular basis. Who funded the orange revolution? ;)

Zhirinovsky is a clown. Yes, agree that he is a clown, but a dangerous clown, and and far too many russians vote on him, especially ultra nationalists in the russian military.

In the 1993 elections, Zhirinovsky's LDP party got a majority of the votes from the russian military. From the Black Sea fleet, the Pacific Ocean fleet, the North sea fleet, 45% of the air defence and the special forces in Tajikistan - Russias choice with Yegor Gaydar got only got 1% of the votes... So Zhirinovsky's message appealed to the russian military - that says a lot.
Votes for Zhirinovsky are typically not votes "for" him but votes "against" everyone else. I also have a strong suspicion that if he is allowed to come to power he will quickly curb his radical rhetoric and become a nice "enlightened" despot along the lines of Mr. Putin. Russia's choice, and all the other little pro-western liberal coalitions have no chance of ever coming to power. They have no connection to the population, and instead come across as almost foreign, ivory-tower elitists. They have no real political weight.

http://www.demokratizatsiya.org/Dem Archives/DEM 02-04 tsygankov.pdf

Estonia "Desecrating graves" - another mentality disagrement... Each country is free to make decisions of this character on their own - it´s about sovereignity. Besides, the moving of the graves were acknowledged by the world community as being done in an ethical way. Besides, if this so called "monument" had been raised in Sweden - we hadn´t moved it, we had removed it completely.
The situation is very different, and your comparison is thoroughly invalid. However I doubt anyone can question that such action could be taken as offensive by people in Russia. I've responded above to the politicized nature of the discourse surrounding it, and I think we should leave it at that and return to the topic this was originally about. Russo-Swedish relations, in particular their military confrontations.

Regarding the marches, as I understand it, it is the baltic soldiers that fought against the soviet union that parades, i.e. freedom fighters, so nothing wrong with that either. Many Swedes and Finns fought against the Soviet Union in the SS Nordland division - many of these men wanted to fight against the soviet union/bolsjevism, not for Hitler which is a big difference.
There is a lot wrong with that and there is much historical evidence of Baltic and Ukrainian (and lets be fair Russian, too) Nazi's that committed atrocities during the war. Later attempts to rehabilitate them as freedom fighters are hardly legitimate.
 

Dalregementet

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #25
I don't consider Putin an independent figure. He is only a representative of very powerful gas-industry related spheres. In the late 90's he came to power as their representative, and since then natural gas industry has managed to defeat the oil industry in Russia, producing Putin, and so far it looks like Medvedev also, as their representatives in politics. Being the dominant branches of Russian export, they managed to also get a solid hold on much of the defense industry, with the following consolidation of Russian defense industry into large corporations, as a solidifying of their grasp on power. The result is that the "advice" of important intellectuals is hardly a major influence in Russian politics. Even in regards to Ukraine (which you brought up earlier) the main problem isn't even NATO. It's the gas transit agreement. Instead of agreeing to sell gas to European countries at the Russian border, and letting them negotiate with Ukraine on their own about transit, Russia agreed to sell them gas at the western Ukrainian border, resulting in Russia having to deal with the Ukrainian transit issue. Nord Stream and South Stream are both attempts to escape the deadlock.



The USA does it on a regular basis. Who funded the orange revolution? ;)



Votes for Zhirinovsky are typically not votes "for" him but votes "against" everyone else. I also have a strong suspicion that if he is allowed to come to power he will quickly curb his radical rhetoric and become a nice "enlightened" despot along the lines of Mr. Putin. Russia's choice, and all the other little pro-western liberal coalitions have no chance of ever coming to power. They have no connection to the population, and instead come across as almost foreign, ivory-tower elitists. They have no real political weight.



The situation is very different, and your comparison is thoroughly invalid. However I doubt anyone can question that such action could be taken as offensive by people in Russia. I've responded above to the politicized nature of the discourse surrounding it, and I think we should leave it at that and return to the topic this was originally about. Russo-Swedish relations, in particular their military confrontations.



There is a lot wrong with that and there is much historical evidence of Baltic and Ukrainian (and lets be fair Russian, too) Nazi's that committed atrocities during the war. Later attempts to rehabilitate them as freedom fighters are hardly legitimate.
I dont think the US has the right to intervene either - so here we have different opinions.

Zhirinowski will never be nice - he has no respect for other countries independence, but he's a weak person and nothing that we really care about - it's just that he gets relatively many russian votes that makes you a bit thoughtful.

There probably won't be any "streams" - Sweden and Ukraine will stop that.

Both communists and nazis committed atrocities - who was worst? Not a clue about how you can measure that.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
I dont think the US has the right to intervene either - so here we have different opinions.
I'm just saying that it's a reality of modern politics. So when you accuse Russia of it just keep in mind it is generally true of any regional or global power and has nothing to do with Russian mentality.

Zhirinowski will never be nice - he has no respect for other countries independence, but he's a weak person and nothing that we really care about - it's just that he gets relatively many russian votes that makes you a bit thoughtful.
He is not just a clown. I suspect he is simply a good actor. His beliefs and public statements are not only ridiculuos, self-contradictory at times, they're just out of line with reality. I'm fairly sure if he ever is allowed to come to power, he will not be the radical figure of Russian nationalism that he tries to paint himself as.

There probably won't be any "streams" - Sweden and Ukraine will stop that.
I highly doubt that Ukraine has ANY leverage over South Stream. Nord Stream, I suppose time will tell.

Both communists and nazis committed atrocities - who was worst? Not a clue about how you can measure that.
I wouldn't label the Soviet Union as communist.

In any event this discussion has wandered all over the place, from military Russo-Swedish history, to modern politics, the Baltics, Russian mentality, and even political figures of the modern Russian scene. Hardly any of this has anything to do with military tactics and strategies. If either Braindead or Dalregement want to continue the discussion pm me and we will carry it on via pm's. It doesn't belong anywhere at this forum.
 

Dalregementet

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #28
I'm just saying that it's a reality of modern politics. So when you accuse Russia of it just keep in mind it is generally true of any regional or global power and has nothing to do with Russian mentality.



He is not just a clown. I suspect he is simply a good actor. His beliefs and public statements are not only ridiculuos, self-contradictory at times, they're just out of line with reality. I'm fairly sure if he ever is allowed to come to power, he will not be the radical figure of Russian nationalism that he tries to paint himself as.



I highly doubt that Ukraine has ANY leverage over South Stream. Nord Stream, I suppose time will tell.



I wouldn't label the Soviet Union as communist.

In any event this discussion has wandered all over the place, from military Russo-Swedish history, to modern politics, the Baltics, Russian mentality, and even political figures of the modern Russian scene. Hardly any of this has anything to do with military tactics and strategies. If either Braindead or Dalregement want to continue the discussion pm me and we will carry it on via pm's. It doesn't belong anywhere at this forum.
I think it definately fits in. What I have wrote about is the background to todays situation between Sweden, to a degree Finland, and Russia. That in order to understand the basic historical background - so you understand why.

If you understand the background, then you will also understand why Sweden and Russia has chosen specific tactics against each other. Without the background there is no foundation to the different battles that has taken place between Sweden and Russia. Hardly that informative.

The reason to that the discussion has covered many issues, some out of scope, is that I have got questions, and since I'm polite, I answer.

The next thing I will write about is the battle at Fraustadt 1706 - it will be very much tactics and psychology. :D Besides that involves Swedish soldiers vs Saxon and Russian soldiers, it is the first time that Sweden, to my knowledge, encounters Swiss soldiers.
 

ewen55

New Member
When reading posts on this forum, I have noticed a great deal of ignorance about Swedens and Russias joint military history. A history notorious for it´s violence and long term mutual hostility and distrust.

The battles have been fought over a large geographical area - Swedish troops has entered Moscow and Russian troops has in its turn raided Sweden. Strangely enough, the geographical frontiers between Sweden and Russia are, in the big picture, the same as a millenium ago.

I do hope we can discuss Swedens and Russias joint military history in a positive spirit with the objective to shed new light on the topic. I think the topic is especially interesting since Russia plan to celebrate it's 300 year anniversary regarding the victory over Sweden 1709, the battle at Poltava.

I hope that if some individual can´t stick to the forum rules, the mods warns/bans that individual instead of closing the thread entirely.

- - - - - - - - - -

A background:

Swedes with the label "Ros" founded Russia (Novgorod Rus and Kiev Rus) about 1200 years ago according to the Russian Primary Chronicle, written by the monk Nestor in Kiev 1113. This is also backed up by archeologial findings.
According to the Primary Chronicle, The Rus prince, Rurik, set up a Viking kingdom at Novgorod. The kingdom later expanded to also include Kiev. The dynasty is called the Rurikids. Out of the name of the "Rus" people derived the name "Russia". Note - The original Russia has nothing to do with the Muscovy Duchy.

We shall not mix the original Russia with the Muscovite Duchy - the Muscovites emerges later in Russian historý.

Read "viking Rus" by the russian archeologist Wladyslaw Duczko
Primary Chronicle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rus_(people)

Sweden is to this day still called "Ros" by Finns and Estonians - "Ruotsi".

The ruling house in the new founded Rus was the Swedish Rurikids, a house that ended 1598 when Tsar Feodor I died.

Rurik Dynasty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Swedens first city, as far as we know, was Birka (750-975). A city mentioned in the late 9th century by Rimbert, the arch bishop of Bremen.

Vita Ansgari - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The city was well defended by a standing garrison of about 40 professional warriors, warriors that was a part of a structure that streched from Sweden to Kiev and beyond. The new findings from Birka are sensational in many ways. The warriors had a common uniform and their weaponry was to a high degree standardised. However, specific wepaons was brought in from other places, helmets from Kiev and composite bows from inner asia.

The town was destroyed by an enemy 975 AD and then never rebuilt again. Analyzes of the enemy arrow heads, type M68, shows that the enemy came from the area of Gnëzdovo, Smolensk in Russia. Thus the first known war between Svea Rike (Sweden) and Rus (Russia). This was probably an internal power struggle between different Rus fractions that were related to each other.

As example, Yaroslav I the Wise (978-1054), Grand Prince of Novgorod and Kiev, was married to Ingegerd Olofsdotter, daughter of the Swedish King Olof Skötkonung.

So - A joint origin, geographically and ancestry - Sweden, but then different interests over time that leads to a split.

This was a beginning. Why I started so far back in history is of great importance in order to understand later historic events/wars between Sweden and Russia, as well as events in our time. Ukrainian identity as well as Russian identity are related to the above mentioned facts and are also a part of an ongoing power struggle between theses states. Also, in todays Putin neo nationalistic Russia , it doesn´t fit in that Russia was founded by Swedish Vikings, the Rus. In the Soviet times, this fact was tabu as described by Wladyslaw Duczko and there's a risk that this will happen again under Putin.

End of Part 1.
Interestingly, a majority of the Male (Y-DNA) in Ukrainians is Norse, not Slav. Check out Y_Haplogroups_In_Europe for a detailed picture. There is more Norse blood in the Ukrainians than there is in the Danish, who were the recipient of many centuries of Scottish and Irish mercenaries who settled down with their pensions after military service.

The Russians, however, show little Norse or German blood, and are either Slav or Slav/Asian mixed. Although the languages are closely related, there is little sharing of blood between Ukrainians and Russians even today in eastern Ukraine.
 

regstrup

Member
There is more Norse blood in the Ukrainians than there is in the Danish, who were the recipient of many centuries of Scottish and Irish mercenaries who settled down with their pensions after military service.
As a dane, this is the very first time I have heard the story about Scottish and Irish mercenaries settling in Denmark.

How many are we talking about and in what period. It would also be nice with some sort of documentation of your claim.
 

Spetsznaz

New Member
Man this whole thing seems like a little battle between you and feanor.

I am from Chechnya, but I don't view Russia as a evil force in anyway, but that's all politics so blah. Look it seems to me like you started this thread in order to preserve a view that Sweden is a nation of great strength and wont let Russia push it around.

But here is another Idea relating to Military History between Russia and Sweden, Sweden is not yet part of NATO, (its in the partnership for peace though) so it has 3 options

1) Stay on its own

2) Perhaps seek alliance with Russia

3)Attempt for full NATO membership (Which I think NATO will let them in)

If my post is a little confusing let me know
 

ewen55

New Member
As a dane, this is the very first time I have heard the story about Scottish and Irish mercenaries settling in Denmark.

How many are we talking about and in what period. It would also be nice with some sort of documentation of your claim.
Haplogroups_In_Europe , Also anything on Wikipedia.org on Y Haplogroups concerning R1b (Alpine/Celtic). Most Norse, Balts, and Slavs are haplogroup R1a, which split from R1b an estimated 8,000 to 9,000 years ago. So called Scots, often Irish, were commonly used as mercenaries in the 16th and 17th centuries.

The supposed Danish massacre of the male population of Stockholm in 1520 (ordered by Christian II) was actually a mutiny by many Celtic mercenaries, who had not been paid in months. It is thought Christian only wanted certain hostile members of the nobility beheaded, but it grew into an orgy of murder and robbery that lasted for three days and eliminated most of the city's male population..

Gustavus Vasa forgave those of the Scots who didn't return to Denmark or Poland, used them in his army, and resettled them in the Vasternorrland area, from Virdso inland to the Norwegian border. Look for maps showing either R1b haplogroup or blood type O (Norse are heavily type A, alpines O)on the Swedish map and you will see that area of north central Sweden is quite different from the rest of the country.

In Denmark by comparison, the R1b gene seems to be evenly spread across the country. How much of the gene is from retired soldiers and how much from the many Scottish merchants and peddlars in the Baltic area is an open point of contention, but it should be noted that this is a Y chromosome, from male ancestors only. Also, if Sweden is any guide, much of the male population was eliminated in the 1600's, from the constant wars. Much of Sweden's Finnish population moved to that country during that time, to fill large areas of empty space, but there seems to be almost no Finnish movement to Denmark.

I haven't yet gotten any information on mtaDNA in Denmark, the female line of decent. If the amount of Celtic blood is noticably less among ancestral women, I imagine that would imply soldiers marrying local women. If the number approaches the male amount, I think that might signify merchants bringing their families to settle in areas that had lost large amounts of population.

In studying Scottish history, the high point of emigration to the Baltic seems to be immediately after 1655, when large numbers of disaffected Scottish soldiers took off for the region rather than live under the rule of Oliver Cromwell. How many took their wives? Again, finding out the numbers for female DNA would give some rough figures.

I find it interesting that the Catholics and many of the Episcopalians among the Scots predominantly settled in coastal Poland, with the Calvinist Scots heading for Scandinavia.

After the treaty of Altranstadt, the Poles were required to release all their foriegn mercenaries, mostly Irish and Scot, with some German artillerymen from the Hanseatic cities. By the time the returning soldiers had marched across the lowlands and southern Scandinavia to France, they were almost all Irish, who were recruited by the French into the Brigade Irlandais, which later morphed into the Foriegn Legion. What happened to the Scots?

We can only suppose, but I would think that, sharing a common religion and more than a century's familiarity and political loyalty with the people of the area, most of them would have settled into the Flanders, Holland, Denmark, Northern Germany area. Northern Germany is too mixed to assign any real genetic markers, but the haplogroup map puts Holland at almost 50% R1b, similar to Denmarks 50%, so obviously the Dutch got their share too.

The Swedes average about 25%, with signifcantly more in the south than the north. Which would make sense, since the empty land in the north was being competed for by newly arrived Finns, probably with families in tow.

You've peaked my curiosity, and I will do some research on the female side of the equation. Soldiers,merchants, political refugees from Cromwell, land hungry settlers moving to newly emptied areas, or some combination of all?

For a quick reference, try File:R1A map.jpg - Wikimedia Commons for a good breakdown of the R1a (Norse) variation in different parts of Scandinavia. The northern part of Denmark resembles eastern England or coastal Scotland more than most of Norway or inland Sweden.

Also, go to Ask.com and punch in Modern Human Variation: Distribution of Blood Types It's part of a lesson from Palomar College School of Anthropology. You will notice that unusual blob of type O in east central Sweden, and on the type A map, the striking resemblence between northern Denmark and southern England/Wales/Cornwall. Very different from southern Norway and Sweden just across the water.
 

kgb_agent

New Member
Interestingly, a majority of the Male (Y-DNA) in Ukrainians is Norse, not Slav. Check out Y_Haplogroups_In_Europe for a detailed picture. There is more Norse blood in the Ukrainians than there is in the Danish, who were the recipient of many centuries of Scottish and Irish mercenaries who settled down with their pensions after military service.

The Russians, however, show little Norse or German blood, and are either Slav or Slav/Asian mixed. Although the languages are closely related, there is little sharing of blood between Ukrainians and Russians even today in eastern Ukraine.
??? you MUST give facts to this interesting statements.
I sense you want to make a new, genetic borger among russians and ukranians, but if this borders are - it is not Norse- nonNorse blood.
Ukraine and european Russia have mostly slavic blood. North Russia has a big fraction of ugro-finnish blood. Asian blood is microscopic, if you are not talking about asians, which have slavic names and surnames(like indians in usa have now english names and surnames).
Norse impact was much stronger in Novgorod area(it is simpy closer to Scandinavia), vikings in russia used to be as small varrior teams, so simply could not gave a big blood impact to slavs.
 

Gungner

New Member
Haplogroups_In_Europe , Also anything on Wikipedia.org on Y Haplogroups concerning R1b (Alpine/Celtic). Most Norse, Balts, and Slavs are haplogroup R1a, which split from R1b an estimated 8,000 to 9,000 years ago. So called Scots, often Irish, were commonly used as mercenaries in the 16th and 17th centuries.

The supposed Danish massacre of the male population of Stockholm in 1520 (ordered by Christian II) was actually a mutiny by many Celtic mercenaries, who had not been paid in months. It is thought Christian only wanted certain hostile members of the nobility beheaded, but it grew into an orgy of murder and robbery that lasted for three days and eliminated most of the city's male population..

Gustavus Vasa forgave those of the Scots who didn't return to Denmark or Poland, used them in his army, and resettled them in the Vasternorrland area, from Virdso inland to the Norwegian border. Look for maps showing either R1b haplogroup or blood type O (Norse are heavily type A, alpines O)on the Swedish map and you will see that area of north central Sweden is quite different from the rest of the country.

In Denmark by comparison, the R1b gene seems to be evenly spread across the country. How much of the gene is from retired soldiers and how much from the many Scottish merchants and peddlars in the Baltic area is an open point of contention, but it should be noted that this is a Y chromosome, from male ancestors only. Also, if Sweden is any guide, much of the male population was eliminated in the 1600's, from the constant wars. Much of Sweden's Finnish population moved to that country during that time, to fill large areas of empty space, but there seems to be almost no Finnish movement to Denmark.

I haven't yet gotten any information on mtaDNA in Denmark, the female line of decent. If the amount of Celtic blood is noticably less among ancestral women, I imagine that would imply soldiers marrying local women. If the number approaches the male amount, I think that might signify merchants bringing their families to settle in areas that had lost large amounts of population.

In studying Scottish history, the high point of emigration to the Baltic seems to be immediately after 1655, when large numbers of disaffected Scottish soldiers took off for the region rather than live under the rule of Oliver Cromwell. How many took their wives? Again, finding out the numbers for female DNA would give some rough figures.

I find it interesting that the Catholics and many of the Episcopalians among the Scots predominantly settled in coastal Poland, with the Calvinist Scots heading for Scandinavia.

After the treaty of Altranstadt, the Poles were required to release all their foriegn mercenaries, mostly Irish and Scot, with some German artillerymen from the Hanseatic cities. By the time the returning soldiers had marched across the lowlands and southern Scandinavia to France, they were almost all Irish, who were recruited by the French into the Brigade Irlandais, which later morphed into the Foriegn Legion. What happened to the Scots?

We can only suppose, but I would think that, sharing a common religion and more than a century's familiarity and political loyalty with the people of the area, most of them would have settled into the Flanders, Holland, Denmark, Northern Germany area. Northern Germany is too mixed to assign any real genetic markers, but the haplogroup map puts Holland at almost 50% R1b, similar to Denmarks 50%, so obviously the Dutch got their share too.

The Swedes average about 25%, with signifcantly more in the south than the north. Which would make sense, since the empty land in the north was being competed for by newly arrived Finns, probably with families in tow.

You've peaked my curiosity, and I will do some research on the female side of the equation. Soldiers,merchants, political refugees from Cromwell, land hungry settlers moving to newly emptied areas, or some combination of all?

For a quick reference, try File:R1A map.jpg - Wikimedia Commons for a good breakdown of the R1a (Norse) variation in different parts of Scandinavia. The northern part of Denmark resembles eastern England or coastal Scotland more than most of Norway or inland Sweden.

Also, go to Ask.com and punch in Modern Human Variation: Distribution of Blood Types It's part of a lesson from Palomar College School of Anthropology. You will notice that unusual blob of type O in east central Sweden, and on the type A map, the striking resemblence between northern Denmark and southern England/Wales/Cornwall. Very different from southern Norway and Sweden just across the water.
It was a lot of false statements in your post... Lets take them in order.
- Most Norse, Balts, and Slavs are haplogroup R1a - "Norse", i.e. Scandinavians, are I1 (~50%), then R1b (~25%) and R1a (~25%).
- "Stockholm blod bath" - about 80 (82) people were excuted - no orgy of murder and robbery...
- There are no Scottish settlement in the Västernorrland area - I know. I do ancestry reserach in the area and there in no trace of any scotsman all the way back to 1500...
Finnish emigration to Sweden: Finnish emigration to Sweden has been going on in phases since the 16th century, that due to wars in Finland. Regarding "empty land in the north", most of the "north". i.e. Norrland, was not empty but you had some pockets here and there were Finns settled. In many cases the Finns settled on Sami land which in many cases led to violence between the groups. It also happened that Finns irritated the Swedish population and also in this case, some Finns were killed.
 
Top