Innostrasnniy zviestnik

[The Rock Doctor]

Or what his definition of "Finland" is.

[ledeper]

The highest "mountain" in Finland is the Halti at 1,324 metres, is found in the extreme north of Lapland at the border between Finland and Norway. ;D ;D

[Blooded]

Greetings,

While the northern fells in no way compare to the alps, many still consider them mountains, albeit small ones. Wiki says "A mountain is a landform that extends above the surrounding terrain in a limited area, with a peak. A mountain is generally steeper than a hill, but there is no universally accepted standard definition for the height of a mountain or a hill although a mountain usually has an identifiable summit." Britannica Student Encyclopedia, the term "generally refers to rises over 2,000 feet (610 m)". Ever see the movie "The Englishman who went up a hill and came down a mountain"- that was a 1,000' definition, I find it laughable myself- but I live in the Rocky Mountains.

I have always considered Mountain Infantry to consist of light infantry for combat in highlands, rugged terrain and mountains, with special equipment for winter warfare.

If that definition is unacceptable, why did no one question the UNKs use of Mountain Troops for Scotland and the Appalachian 'Mountains'? They are certainly no more rugged than Finland, less so IMO.

I was trying to show the difference from regular light infantry. I suppose 'jaeger' or "Jäger" troops would have been a better term. I am willing to alter the title. What would your preferences be?

BTW, What should I call the Siberian troops? Should I just stick with Light Infantry? I suppose the moniker 'Siberian' alone could suggest the familiarity with Skis and winter survival. Thus, Siberian Light Infantry?

[Korpen]

If that definition is unacceptable, why did no one question the UNKs use of Mountain Troops for Scotland and the Appalachian 'Mountains'? They are certainly no more rugged than Finland, less so IMO.

Now one of course can argue what is rugged or not. Most of Finland is very flat, and the only hilly part is really in the north granted that everything is relative). True is that much of the inland is wooded and swampy with very limited infrastructure. But along the costal areas and in the south it not any really difficult terrain, even if it is largely wooded.

And as we are in the middle of the most oppressive period in the Russian occupation I suspect that most of the troops are were there are most people.

Light infantry or Jäger works fine for me. "Mountain" for me indicates stuff like man/mule portable artillery, for which there is no feed for in Finnish terrain.

[Blooded]

 I am not all that familiar with the Finnish Landscape, but from what I quickly found on the national parks showed photos of rugged hills and forests. As forested as the Appalachians but the hill/mountains seemed more steep and barren(suggesting they are above the tree line- in my area that means big). Thinking a bit about it, the tourist shots are probably the most picturesque POV. Suggesting a more varied terrain. My atlas just shows it to be very bumpy except the southern 10-15%. I'll bow to your knowledge of the area, since you are half a planet closer.  :)

I haven't found anything in the history yet that suggests that this would be the most repressive period in Finland. I would have thought that with the breakaway of Kazakhstan and the Ukraine, anyone wanting freedom would have gotten it.

I have been trying to come up with a more detailed history of the 'Time of Troubles' and directly afterwards. Thoughts of spending far more money on higher army and navy upkeep to quell unrest/fight socialists, and less income from various reasons. I picture it thusfar as the 1905 revolution plus a mix of the 1917 Revolution, only this time the Whites came out on top. Exiling or killing off the leading Socialists/Bolsheviks. From what I have read thus far the Finns supported the whites.

Trying to tie in Kseniya Alexandrovna (Xenia Alexandrovna Romanova) has been my toughest hurdle so far, since it was illegal for females to rule(unless all males are gone). A consitutional Monarchy is what I am supposed to have.

I was planning on true emancipation of the peasants, vast-effective reforms, and better local and provincial governing. I think it is the only way the nobility could keep their heads. I certainly don't want a later communist coup. Stalin was evil IMO. I don't want to go that way at all.

Any suggestions are welcome.

[Korpen]

I am not all that familiar with the Finnish Landscape, but from what I quickly found on the national parks showed photos of rugged hills and forests. As forested as the Appalachians but the hill/mountains seemed more steep and barren(suggesting they are above the tree line- in my area that means big). Thinking a bit about it, the tourist shots are probably the most picturesque POV. Suggesting a more varied terrain. My atlas just shows it to be very bumpy except the southern 10-15%. I'll bow to your knowledge of the area, since you are half a planet closer.  :)

The treeline is usally at only 7-800m height above the sea. But that as you go north it get lower. But in the extreme north you will hit tundra, and there will be very little trees if any.

I haven't found anything in the history yet that suggests that this would be the most repressive period in Finland. I would have thought that with the breakaway of Kazakhstan and the Ukraine, anyone wanting freedom would have gotten it.

Wikipedia have quite all of info on the russification camapaign / time of opression. And yes It is weierd that it have not broken away when the rest of the empire did as it have the most developed nationalism and defined identity.

I have been trying to come up with a more detailed history of the 'Time of Troubles' and directly afterwards. Thoughts of spending far more money on higher army and navy upkeep to quell unrest/fight socialists, and less income from various reasons. I picture it thusfar as the 1905 revolution plus a mix of the 1917 Revolution, only this time the Whites came out on top. Exiling or killing off the leading Socialists/Bolsheviks. From what I have read thus far the Finns supported the whites.

Finland did not support the whites in the Russian civil war. However it its own civil war the whites under Mannerheim and Svinhufvud won.
The reason that the russian whites did not get help from the Finns was easy; they would not recognise Finnish independence.

I was planning on true emancipation of the peasants, vast-effective reforms, and better local and provincial governing. I think it is the only way the nobility could keep their heads. I certainly don't want a later communist coup. Stalin was evil IMO. I don't want to go that way at all.

Looking at it in a purely Finnish context, all of that is quite irrelevant. There have never been any peasants in Finland (same as in Sweden), and as the old administrative system was kept in Finland its administration was leagues better then the rest of the Russian empire. That was one of several reasons for the large degree of autonomy was granted.

[The Rock Doctor]

Embrace your inner evil.  It'll be fun.