Talk:Cudgel War

Plagiarism, "Swedish influence", and other problems with this article

 * Parts of the article are identical with this essay. Since the essay cites its sources and this article doesn't, I suspect that the article was copied from the essay.

Suggestion: Rewrite the offending parts.


 * It would be nice to have a fuller account of the peasants' grievances. The article currently talks about "exploitation by nobility and military", but doesn't explain the nature of this exploitation. The system where the military directly taxed the peasants for upkeep and its widespread abuse by the nobility are often held to be the proximate cause for the insurgency, e.g. by Heikki Ylikangas in "Nuijasota" (1996). The other school stresses the importance of Duke Carl's "careless words" to Ostrobothnian petitioners who wanted him to take action against Fleming.

Suggestion: Write a more thorough explanation. (What's English for "linnaleiri"?)


 * Does it make sense to speak of "the Swedish knights" in the first paragraph when the second paragraph refers to "the Finnish nobility"? These two groups overlap considerably. The way it is currently stated can give the misleading impression that the knights came from Sweden. Further, even if we take the description as signifying the knights' first language, it's unlikely that all of them were native Swedish-speakers. For one thing, not all of them were a part of the nobility.

Suggestion: Remove the word "Swedish".


 * On the same note, re the final paragraph, it's difficult to see the rebellion as being directed against Swedish influence. Surely Fleming, born and raised in Finland, was less of a Swedish influence than Duke Carl! In addition to eagerly seeking help from Sweden, the insurgents included Swedish-speaking peasants among their number; Ilkka's first mini-rebellion, for which he was jailed, took place in a Swedish-speaking area. Maybe some people interpret the conflict in the described way, but I would like to see some evidence that it's not a fringe belief. Does any historian describe the conflict as a rebellion against Swedish influence? Are there any published works where someone puts forward such an interpretation?

Suggestion: Delete the whole paragraph. Alternatively, if someone can provide a cite for the viewpoint presented therein, point out that the insurgents sought help from Sweden, included Swedish-speaking peasants among them, etc. Jouten 01:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed four paragraphs of text that mostly matched word for word the essay to which I linked above, from "At first glance the war may look like..." to "...and executed in the last days of January". A few sentences had been rewritten, but without context they would have been useless. ("He was opposed by soldiers led by Lord Clas Fleming, Governor at Åbo, Marshal of Sweden and Admiral of the Royal fleet" and "he met a 300-strong cavalry squadron led by Akseli Kurki.") I also added a paragraph on the insurgents' motivation, although I wouldn't call it a particularly thorough treatment of the issues. Unless there are objections, I'll solve the Swedish question next. Jouten 13:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Swedish question solved. In its place I put up a paragraph on notable historical interpretations of the conflict, naming some prominent studies and artistic works on the topic. I guess the next move would be to start adding details to the account and maybe improve the article's structure. Jouten 09:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

"Occupation"?
The recent |recent edit by 192.100.124.219 seems quite problematic to me. I'd be interested to know what sources state that the rebels viewed themselves as fighting against a foreign occupation. How do these sources explain the rebels' repeated requests that the rather Swedish Duke Charles intervene on their behalf against Parainen-born Klaus Fleming? I'd also like to hear about the basis for the claim that the historical community has largely dismissed both Renvall's and Ylikangas's interpretations. --Jouten 12:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Also remember the definition of occupation is according to wikipedia

Occupation occurs when the control and authority over a territory belonging to a state passes to a hostile army.

So you better correct that first as there never was a state of Finland (In fact even the name "Finland" as a name is an anachronism if we are talking about pre 19th century events) before it being considered historically a part of Sweden. There may have been a number of persons high on national romantic fumes at some point claiming otherwise, but never any considerable part of "the historical community". This was a peasant's uprising against a king. Something that happened far more in other place around Europe, and still never considered as a rebellion to occupation. Gillis 14:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Weapons
The yeomen did not use cudgels and maces because they couldn't have afforded swords and spears. They used blunt weapons because they simply were the most efficient weapons against plate armour. Ostrobothnia was the wealthiest region of Finland, and Ostrobothnian yeomen could well afford any wapons they wished. The cudgels, flails and maces were primary weapons; the yeomen also had swords, guns and two cannon.82.181.79.37 (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)