BYRON NORDSTROM – Ph.D. University of Minnesota – Professor at Gustavus Adolphus College
Dear Dr. Kolkey,
I fully agree with your basic premise that studying early modern decision making processes, actors, etc. regarding war can be a useful for understanding contemporary decisions. I suspect some kind of special interest groups have long been directly involved in such decisions, be they bored knights, canon-casting iron mongers, job-hungry or bored nobles, or ____.
So, as to Sweden in the 18th century.
The 1741-3 ("Finnish War," as some Swedes call it) and Sweden's involvement in the 7 Years' War appear both to be the result of the Hat faction's interesting in revenge against Russia, recovery of Sweden's status as a great power (hah!) in the Baltic, diversionary adventures, avenues for military experience and promotion. . .with little connection to resource realities in Sweden - human, economic, material. The standard argument for the first is that the younger generation nobles, who had not experienced the Great Northern War, came of age and sought to flex their muscles - while mocking the older generation, conservative (night) Caps. The war was a disaster. Several officers were condemned. There was considerable public unrest. And there was the issue of succession to the throne - in which the Russians played an important role. The Hats came through it all relatively well. In this fairly early stage of the Era of Liberty, the kind of organization of factions that developed later had not emerged. Nor had the public discourse in bars, coffeehouses, a newspapers developed."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY F. UPTON - Ph.D. – Professor at St. Andrews University
You are correct regarding all three 18th Century Swedish wars.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. ARNOLD BARTON – Ph.D. Princeton University – Professor at Southern Illinois University
Dr. Kolkey,
Your thesis about the self-interested motives of political factions as causes for many wars, especially it would seem wars of aggression, is surely well borne out. Sweden's wars during the 18th century, after end of the Great Northern War in 1721, were all wars of aggression and political calculations are evident in each case.
Sweden's war with Russia in 1741-42 was essentially a partisan undertaking. The "Ins" after 1721 were the Cap faction, led by Count Arvid Horn, which supported the new king, Frederik I of the Hessian dynasty and favored a pacifist policy and on the whole good relations with Russia. The "Outs" were the supporters of the unsuccessful Holstein candidature to the succession, who evolved into the Hat party which kept alive traditions of Sweden's lost military and imperial greatness. Russia's recent conflict with Turkey revived among the Hats the old dream of a Swedish-Ottoman-Polish alliance against Russia that might restore to Sweden the Baltic territories it had lost in 1721. The unstable succession of Elisabeth to the Russian throne seemed to offer a welcome chance to intervene. There was also a generational factor. The Hat leaders by 1741 were younger nobles who had not experienced their war, which they were eager not to miss. Enthusiasm for a war of revenge against Russia offered the golden opportunity to depose Count Horn and the Cap leaders and bring the Hats to power. That is what happened--although the war turned out badly for Sweden....
I hope this may be of some help in your research.
Sincerely,
Arnold Barton
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADDITIONAL SCHOLARLY CONFIRMATIONS WILL BE POSTED AS SOON AS THEY ARE RECEIVED
