Wallachia and Translyvania survive to present day?
- Thread starter Starseed
- Start date
In An Alternate History of the Netherlands, they are independent countries following the collapse of the Union of Balkan Socialist Republics, and remain so until the unifcation of Romania in the 1980s. I don't go over either state in much detail, however. 
Centuries of alternate world history is a pretty big place to work within.
Centuries of alternate world history is a pretty big place to work within.Susano
Banned
Strange to ask for Wallachia and Transylvania, but not Moldavia... (presentd ay Moldavia is just the eastern half of the region and then not even all of it)
Anyways, I guess Transylvania could survive due to the Hungarian and German minorities, if they keep the Romanian population down. It wouldnt be a happy place, in modern times most likely at best a kinda Apartheid, but it would be possible. But keeping Wallachia and Moldavia from uniting? Eh...
Anyways, I guess Transylvania could survive due to the Hungarian and German minorities, if they keep the Romanian population down. It wouldnt be a happy place, in modern times most likely at best a kinda Apartheid, but it would be possible. But keeping Wallachia and Moldavia from uniting? Eh...
Grey Wolf
Donor
1848 could be a turning point here; Transylvania was til then a Grand Principality with a viceroy under the Habsburg crown. The leaders threw in their lot with the Hungarians more or less by a pro-Hungarian coup (which was one of the reasons the Russians were involved even before they invaded Hungary proper).
Maybe if the Russians don't go into Hungary proper, just remain in Transylvania and exert influence over the Principalities, post-1848 there may be THREE principalities in the Romanian lands.
In time, since we're getting rid of Moldavia, one has to suppose that the Russian Empire annexes it, whilst Transylvania and Wallachia retain their independence
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Maybe if the Russians don't go into Hungary proper, just remain in Transylvania and exert influence over the Principalities, post-1848 there may be THREE principalities in the Romanian lands.
In time, since we're getting rid of Moldavia, one has to suppose that the Russian Empire annexes it, whilst Transylvania and Wallachia retain their independence
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Susano
Banned
A Transylvania that doesnt go with the Hungarian uprising will most likely have the Romanian population in a dominant position, though, or not? So there would be few reason not to unite with the other two Romanian grand-principalities, or at least with Wallachia if Moldavia becomes Russian.
Grey Wolf
Donor
Well, it took til the 1860s to formally bring about unification of Walllachia and Moldavia, even though they shared the same prince for a decade or so before that. Its up to Russia and the Ottomans to retain their strength over the Principalities that they don't allow them to unite
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Thande
Donor
How about a situation where the Ottomans are still the main power in Wallachia, Moldavia falls into the Russian sphere of influence, and Transylvania manages to sustain its own independence by playing the two off against each other? A POD for this might be a successful Hungarian revolution during the War of the Spanish Succession, but Transylvania manages to break off in the process.
Susano
Banned
The problem with both is the present day requirement in the original post. It would require both the Russians and the Ottomans in whatever incarnation to be more or lest perpetually stable, powerful and watching the region. Oh, and the opening post also excluded the principalities being vasalls
I Blame Communism
Banned
Well, you'd think so, but "Transylvania" in the sense of its people didn't go with the Magyar revolt, and of course the revolt failed. In the next decade, Austrian policy was basically Vienna Rulez Okay. Everywhere was placed under tightly centralised neo-absolutist governance, but this meant that while for the aristocratic Hungarian and Polish revolutionary types things got worse, for the peoples who had been most voiceless before 1848 they got better. The Austrian military regime in Transylvania gave Romanians citizenship and abolished serfdom, while going back to the Josefian policy that if you wanted to get anywhere, you'd better learn German.
The natural development after neo-absolutism ended in 1859-61 would have been for Germanisation to be ditched, more power entrusted to local assemblies, and the Austro-Romanianism to prevail, as happened in Galicia; and indeed, for a few years that was the plan.
1867 was a total disaster for the new pseudo-federal ideas, which would hopefully have made the Hapsburg monarchy both liberal and effective: the most advanced and hegemonic national movement, the Hungarians, took the opportunity to seize the state hostage and crush the Serbian and Romanian institutions (and embryonic Slovak ones) cultivated by Vienna and even subordinate the Croats.
(The Poles, of course, had an equally advanced movement, but between the end of military rule in 1865 and the new status-quo of 1873, Galicia had effectively become another component of the monarchy in the breadth and dept of its autonomy: it never made the status formal simply because that would have ignited yet another constitutional crisis when the Czechs came along for their slice of the pie).
If we were to imagine Austria winning in 1866, it seems that the development of autonomous Transylvania would have continued within a "devolved" Hapsburg empire. But since that province would by its very nature come to be dominated by the Romanians, it seems to me that it would either be part of Austria of part of Romania.
(An interesting footnote to the whole thing is that when they occupied them during the Crimean War, the Austrians thought about keeping Moldavia and Wallachia if it proved at all possible, and Napoleon tried to get them to swap the Danube states for Venetia just before the 1866 debacle. What about a united Austro-Romania?)
Did they? I was only aware that they assisted the evacuation of the brief loyalist-Romanian coalition after Transylvania was invaded by the revolutionaries to bring it to heel, and only invaded it in earnest at the same time as the rest of Hungary.
Susano
Banned
Oh I do like making the Danube Principalities Austrian. Mind, I mostly let the Habsburgs take them directly over from the Ottomans during the Austro-Ottoman wars, but your scenarios work, too
Still, while your analysis is correct and the provided AH scenarios cool, you miss the point, I think: If Transylvania is Austrian, then it is not independant. And if it is independant but with the Romanians in the strongets position, its likely to unite with Wallachia and Moldavia, if possible.
Still, while your analysis is correct and the provided AH scenarios cool, you miss the point, I think: If Transylvania is Austrian, then it is not independant. And if it is independant but with the Romanians in the strongets position, its likely to unite with Wallachia and Moldavia, if possible.
I Blame Communism
Banned
I know: I don't think the scenario is particularly plausible. When was the last time I stayed on topic?
Susano
Banned
Well then :
Napoleon offering Austria the Principalities, and Austria accepting, could mean some great changes. IOTL the Ottomans were only in so much involved in the Napoleonic Wars that they fought Russia, not really a Napoleonic War at all (except that Russia had allied with France to gain a free hand). Here, of course, that would need to change, wouldnt it?
:Napoleon offering Austria the Principalities, and Austria accepting, could mean some great changes. IOTL the Ottomans were only in so much involved in the Napoleonic Wars that they fought Russia, not really a Napoleonic War at all (except that Russia had allied with France to gain a free hand). Here, of course, that would need to change, wouldnt it?
I Blame Communism
Banned
Well then
Napoleon offering Austria the Principalities, and Austria accepting, could mean some great changes. IOTL the Ottomans were only in so much involved in the Napoleonic Wars that they fought Russia, not really a Napoleonic War at all (except that Russia had allied with France to gain a free hand). Here, of course, that would need to change, wouldnt it?
Whoops, I meant Napoleon III. I'd think the main way to change the outcome of the French Revolutionary... disturbances for Romania would be to have the Russians annex them. They'd occupied during them during the war and several times before and after, and liked to think of the Danube as their back-garden until 1856 (Taylor said that independent Romania was the only lasting consequence of the Crimean War). Since they settled for Besserabia as a consolation prize to get them out of Turkey as the Patriotic War loomed, then all these succesful Tilsit ideas ought to result in Russian Romania, since the Russians were pretty spick and span and going up an Ottoman empire which, at the time, was almost as dysfunctional as the Wikipedi Sultanate. It subsequently got better, of course...
I Blame Communism
Banned
Ah that makes more sense then
But by 1856 the Austrians were really not that big anymore about expanding, having enough ethnic problems as it was...
True, but Napoleon III didn't always have the best ideas. And they did blunder into Bosnia...
Corvinus dinasty
One posibility would been Johm Corvinus to transform transylvanian nobility int one predominant romanian, and to establish a Corvinus dinasty for many generations. Would followed control over Wallachia, then over Moldavia, under designation Great Wallachian Kingdoom. Then the complete independence from turks and habsburgs
One posibility would been Johm Corvinus to transform transylvanian nobility int one predominant romanian, and to establish a Corvinus dinasty for many generations. Would followed control over Wallachia, then over Moldavia, under designation Great Wallachian Kingdoom. Then the complete independence from turks and habsburgs