ASB or not? Romanian Colonial Empire
- Thread starter Ellie
- Start date
What if somehow the Romanian states created a pact with the Ottoman Empire that in the event that they attacked Austria during the 1787 Austro-Turkish War and won, they would become de facto independent? I could see a unification in the foresight, along with a newly-acquired Transylvanian State. With the Ottomans on their side, and thus having possession to passage through the Bosporus, could further expansion be a viable option?
ASB no, but extremely hard, yes. A long succession of enclosed sea to get to the nearest ocean, for one, meaning that contact with the colonies can only be kept depending on the goodwill of whoever controls Bosphorus, Dardanelles and Suez/Gibraltar.
However, here's a take (caution: highly concentrated handwavium):
- Napoleon delays his attack on Russia to 1813. Russia has additional time to mop the floor with the Ottomans in the Danubian principalities and forces a treaty whereby they are ousted from the area altogether, among other gains (Kars, maybe). However Alexander is quite aware that trouble with France is coming, doesn't want trouble down there (like, Austria is quite vocally unhappy with the arrangement) and likes to appear more a liberator than a conqueror for political PR reasons, so he decides that "Romania" is a brand new kingdom made of Moldavia and Wallachia, including Bessarabia (that's critical since Dobruja remains Ottoman) and gives it to, let's say, his brother Constantine.
This Romania is somewhere between Russia's close friend and Russia's puppet, and is bound to remain so, not only because the King is a Romanov but also having issues with both Austria and Turkey. However, kill a trillion butterflies for the sake of the scenario, and fast-forward a few decades (assuming a Napoleonic defeat and post-Napoleonic arrangement that follow the broad outlines of OTL, leading to a recognizable situation, although I admit that the POD does not grant that): Romania has been Russia's pal and maybe gained Dobruja and some other area in another Russo-Turkish war, whereby Serbia, Greece, and maybe a Bulgarian state have gained sort of independence with Russian aid (let's say that Austria is given Bosnia to sweeten the deal, though the Serbs are unhappy about it). The result is an alliance of Orthodox states in the Balkans that are friendly to Russia and very much make a point of being Orthodox, very very much so. Romania is somewhat senior in this group due to actual participation in the liberation of the others and dimension.
Constantine and his successors are generally a fairly reactionary bunch politically, but do some steps toward economic and infrastructural modernization and by 1850 there's some industry going.
The "Orthodox alliance", in the general pursuit of its "Orthodoxness" reaches out to Orthodox communities or something like that, but making fuss about the ones in the Ottoman Empire is very actively discouraged by a British naval squadron.
Romania, looking for a way to affirm itself on the international stage without much trouble and distract local hotheads from potentially unwieldy irredentism re. Transylvania, begins to send ecclesiastical, trading and diplomatic missions to Ethiopia, in cooperation with Russia and Greece of course but being the main drive. Relationships with the Ethiopians are actively sough after by the Romanian government and church as a matter of prestige. However, protecting the increased Romanian presence in the Horn proves tricky and, instead of abandoning the whole venture after the first few incidents, a small military presence somewhere on the Eritrean coast is established through the agreement of some local chief that has a nominal alllegiance to the Ethiopian crown, over Ottoman protest (the Ottomans claim suzerainity over the area, maybe outsourcing it to Egypt like IOTL, though not necessarily).
An uprising in, say, Macedonia sparks another Russo-Turkish war vaguely mirroring OTL's one in 1877-78. Romania of course is in on the Russian side. The Ottomans are defeated again, not crushingly maybe. Romania sees the opportunity, and decides to throw a demand for a stretch of Red sea coast at the peace table. The Ottomans care more about the Balkans and anyway they don't actually know what to make of much of their claim on that coast, that mostly theoretical anyway.
Egypt is like OTL with enough of a debt problem that it sells its own right on the area to Romania for some hard cash without much of a problem.
Romanian Eritrea* for you
* Probably significantly smaller than OTL's Eritrea, I guess it's only the coastal strip north of the Gulf of Arafali and maaaybe as far inland as Keren, or not even there; it may stretch a little beyond the borcer with Sudan, tough).
However, here's a take (caution: highly concentrated handwavium):
- Napoleon delays his attack on Russia to 1813. Russia has additional time to mop the floor with the Ottomans in the Danubian principalities and forces a treaty whereby they are ousted from the area altogether, among other gains (Kars, maybe). However Alexander is quite aware that trouble with France is coming, doesn't want trouble down there (like, Austria is quite vocally unhappy with the arrangement) and likes to appear more a liberator than a conqueror for political PR reasons, so he decides that "Romania" is a brand new kingdom made of Moldavia and Wallachia, including Bessarabia (that's critical since Dobruja remains Ottoman) and gives it to, let's say, his brother Constantine.
This Romania is somewhere between Russia's close friend and Russia's puppet, and is bound to remain so, not only because the King is a Romanov but also having issues with both Austria and Turkey. However, kill a trillion butterflies for the sake of the scenario, and fast-forward a few decades (assuming a Napoleonic defeat and post-Napoleonic arrangement that follow the broad outlines of OTL, leading to a recognizable situation, although I admit that the POD does not grant that): Romania has been Russia's pal and maybe gained Dobruja and some other area in another Russo-Turkish war, whereby Serbia, Greece, and maybe a Bulgarian state have gained sort of independence with Russian aid (let's say that Austria is given Bosnia to sweeten the deal, though the Serbs are unhappy about it). The result is an alliance of Orthodox states in the Balkans that are friendly to Russia and very much make a point of being Orthodox, very very much so. Romania is somewhat senior in this group due to actual participation in the liberation of the others and dimension.
Constantine and his successors are generally a fairly reactionary bunch politically, but do some steps toward economic and infrastructural modernization and by 1850 there's some industry going.
The "Orthodox alliance", in the general pursuit of its "Orthodoxness" reaches out to Orthodox communities or something like that, but making fuss about the ones in the Ottoman Empire is very actively discouraged by a British naval squadron.
Romania, looking for a way to affirm itself on the international stage without much trouble and distract local hotheads from potentially unwieldy irredentism re. Transylvania, begins to send ecclesiastical, trading and diplomatic missions to Ethiopia, in cooperation with Russia and Greece of course but being the main drive. Relationships with the Ethiopians are actively sough after by the Romanian government and church as a matter of prestige. However, protecting the increased Romanian presence in the Horn proves tricky and, instead of abandoning the whole venture after the first few incidents, a small military presence somewhere on the Eritrean coast is established through the agreement of some local chief that has a nominal alllegiance to the Ethiopian crown, over Ottoman protest (the Ottomans claim suzerainity over the area, maybe outsourcing it to Egypt like IOTL, though not necessarily).
An uprising in, say, Macedonia sparks another Russo-Turkish war vaguely mirroring OTL's one in 1877-78. Romania of course is in on the Russian side. The Ottomans are defeated again, not crushingly maybe. Romania sees the opportunity, and decides to throw a demand for a stretch of Red sea coast at the peace table. The Ottomans care more about the Balkans and anyway they don't actually know what to make of much of their claim on that coast, that mostly theoretical anyway.
Egypt is like OTL with enough of a debt problem that it sells its own right on the area to Romania for some hard cash without much of a problem.
Romanian Eritrea* for you
* Probably significantly smaller than OTL's Eritrea, I guess it's only the coastal strip north of the Gulf of Arafali and maaaybe as far inland as Keren, or not even there; it may stretch a little beyond the borcer with Sudan, tough).
Another possibility (caution as per above):
After the assassination of Umberto I in 1900, the government in Italy decides that the answer to the country's many social issues is more crackdown on the left.
Protests only worsen as a result and by 1903 the country is approaching a situation of low-level civil war, that further devolves into all-out and quite messy civil war as the Syndacalist component of the Socialist movement upgrades its incrasingly common general strikes into armed confrontations and the economic situation degrades steadily, pushing a lot of destitute people into increasing radical left.
It's all over by around 1910 with a moderate, inclusive government leaning to the left that is very markedly inward-looking and focused on rebuild, no time for silly business like colonies.
In the rest of the world things continue more or less business as usual (France is bolder in Morocco and Germany gets compensated in Camerun, both earlier and with less fuss) the Young Turks still stage a coup, Austria sill annexes BiH, and what's left of the Ottoman Balkans is still a powderkeg.
In 1911 part of Albania revolt over Turkification policies. The Balkan states see the chance at landgrab, for the Balkan League and a fairly close First Balkan War analog takes place, with the Ottomans performing better (not having fought the Italians in Libya) but not enough to change the outcome. Romania choses to join the League, although no prospect of big gains are there for her.
At the same time, however, the more effective Ottoman response bring the League to look for a way to weaken the opponent, and they chose to exploit mounting disaffection in Ottoman Libya. A small joint force of Romanian troops (since they have not much to do in the Balkans anyway) and Greek naval forces land near, say, Derna.
At the end of the war Romania, which unlike the other allies has got no territorial gain in the Balkans, is granted Cyrenaica at the peace table just as a reward to having joined the party.
After the assassination of Umberto I in 1900, the government in Italy decides that the answer to the country's many social issues is more crackdown on the left.
Protests only worsen as a result and by 1903 the country is approaching a situation of low-level civil war, that further devolves into all-out and quite messy civil war as the Syndacalist component of the Socialist movement upgrades its incrasingly common general strikes into armed confrontations and the economic situation degrades steadily, pushing a lot of destitute people into increasing radical left.
It's all over by around 1910 with a moderate, inclusive government leaning to the left that is very markedly inward-looking and focused on rebuild, no time for silly business like colonies.
In the rest of the world things continue more or less business as usual (France is bolder in Morocco and Germany gets compensated in Camerun, both earlier and with less fuss) the Young Turks still stage a coup, Austria sill annexes BiH, and what's left of the Ottoman Balkans is still a powderkeg.
In 1911 part of Albania revolt over Turkification policies. The Balkan states see the chance at landgrab, for the Balkan League and a fairly close First Balkan War analog takes place, with the Ottomans performing better (not having fought the Italians in Libya) but not enough to change the outcome. Romania choses to join the League, although no prospect of big gains are there for her.
At the same time, however, the more effective Ottoman response bring the League to look for a way to weaken the opponent, and they chose to exploit mounting disaffection in Ottoman Libya. A small joint force of Romanian troops (since they have not much to do in the Balkans anyway) and Greek naval forces land near, say, Derna.
At the end of the war Romania, which unlike the other allies has got no territorial gain in the Balkans, is granted Cyrenaica at the peace table just as a reward to having joined the party.
Perhaps the Romanians participate in the Berlin Conference might help?
Maybe or they can get Thailand, some Indonesian islands or Indochina, Formosa or Korea to the very limit? And what will happen to these colonies after WW1 or WW2? Or otl German, Italian or Belgian colonies or Morocco? Or a concession in Tianjin from China or the historical Central Powers? Or a part of the Middle East or Libya from the Ottoman Empire during the First Balkan War with Greek help for Romania?
Maybe or they can get Thailand, some Indonesian islands or Indochina, Formosa or Korea to the very limit? And what will happen to these colonies after WW1 or WW2? Or otl German, Italian or Belgian colonies or Morocco? Or a concession in Tianjin from China or the historical Central Powers? Or a part of the Middle East or Libya from the Ottoman Empire during the First Balkan War with Greek help for Romania?
Last edited:
TFSmith121
Banned
Wouldn't a move by sea toward the Caucasus or
Wouldn't a move by sea toward the Caucasus or Anatolia make slightly more sense?
The Georgians and Armenians seem natural allies/partners for Romania (and Bulgaria, for that matter) in the event of either one becoming a nation state early enough to preempt the Russians, for example.
Depends hugely on the time frame, of course.
Best,
Wouldn't a move by sea toward the Caucasus or Anatolia make slightly more sense?
The Georgians and Armenians seem natural allies/partners for Romania (and Bulgaria, for that matter) in the event of either one becoming a nation state early enough to preempt the Russians, for example.
Depends hugely on the time frame, of course.
Best,
two questions:Perhaps the Romanians participate in the Berlin Conference might help?
Maybe or they can get Thailand, some Indonesian islands or Indochina, Formosa or Korea to the very limit? And what will happen to these colonies after WW1 or WW2? Or otl German, Italian or Belgian colonies or Morocco?
first would be why the great powers would be willing to cede their colonies to Romania. countries/regions such as Thailand, Indonesia, Indochina or Northeast Asia have seen centuries of foreign influence from nations other than Romania; Romania suddenly jumping into the party may cause mayhem and even a War of Containment(of the sudden Romanian expansionism).
second would be upon the scenarios stated by other members- could those be applicable to other Balkan countries, i.e. Greece or Bulgaria? if so, we may see a healthy growth of Balkan-wanks later in other 19th-century TLs(or at least I hope).
Balkan scramble for Africa, anybody?[1] I mean instead of, not taking from other countries.two questions:
first would be why the great powers would be willing to cede their colonies to Romania. countries/regions such as Thailand, Indonesia, Indochina or Northeast Asia have seen centuries of foreign influence from nations other than Romania; Romania suddenly jumping into the party may cause mayhem and even a War of Containment(of the sudden Romanian expansionism).
second would be upon the scenarios stated by other members- could those be applicable to other Balkan countries, i.e. Greece or Bulgaria? if so, we may see a healthy growth of Balkan-wanks later in other 19th-century TLs(or at least I hope).
[2] Yes, it is possible. Greek or Italian empires with the colonies more likely than Bulgarian and Romanian ones.
Greece is indeed a relatively obvious candidate to have some colonial holdings in alt-history. Both scenarios I outlined above would make way more sense for Greece than for Romania, for example.
The Russians and the Ottomans are both likely to disagree to such a move.
Taking for granted that any Romanian colony in the timeframe is an extreme stretch at best, their best bet is to somehow land is some remote tiny bit of land that everyone else does not care much about (or cares not to see in someone else's hands so that Romanian presence is felt fine). This is the way Belgium and Italy managed to take their colonies.
The big problem however is motivation on Romanian side.
My Romanian Eritrea scenario adresses it bringing the religious factor and having Romania essentially acting as a proxy to an equivalent to OTL's Russian activity in the Horn of Africa, but I admit it's nowhere near likely.
thaddeus
Donor
along the lines of my mooted TL in which Romania has a LOT MORE oil and conspires with Greece (and maybe Yugoslavia) to butcher Bulgaria and reach the Med.
maybe a combined Romania-Greek colony in one of the oil producing areas?
not aware of oil production in Africa and its history.
maybe a sliver in the Middle East would be more plausible if Romania had oil expertise earlier and more money.
maybe a combined Romania-Greek colony in one of the oil producing areas?
not aware of oil production in Africa and its history.
maybe a sliver in the Middle East would be more plausible if Romania had oil expertise earlier and more money.
what about Bulgaria? no oil for them?
Bulgaria could ally with Serbia and slaughter the rest...
