One of the more intriguing episodes of the First World War is the bravura performance of Serbia. It's not generally realized, but pound for pound, Serbia outfought any other power large or small. An isolated nation of less than five million people with a miserable strategic position held off Austria-Hungary for over a year, launched one near-successful offensive deep into enemy territory, and was only defeated by a combination of German intervention (Mackensen coming down from Poland with an army corps) and a stab in the back from Bulgaria.
There were several reasons for Serbia's startling military effectiveness, but I want to focus on one in particular: the social structure established when Serbia gained independence from the Ottomans.
Serbia was unique in the Balkans in that she was a nation, not of peasants, but of yeoman farmers. On the eve of WWI more than 60% of Serbian households owned land -- a figure unmatched anywhere in Eastern Europe, or indeed in the West outside the United States. Since the country was only just beginning to urbanize, what this meant was that the average Serb in 1914 was a small farmer who owned his own land.
This was so because Karageorge, the liberator of Serbia, made a far-sighted decision to distribute land seized from the Turks. Specifically, he distributed it not to himself and his friends, but to the _raiah_, the landless Christian tenant-peasantry. This policy, which was followed by Karageorge's successors, created a blood-and-soil bond between the Serbian people and their land that was strong even by Balkan standards... with long-term consequences that are still being felt today.
But suppose that this hadn't been the case?
Let's kill Karageorge off -- it's easy enough -- and let's say this butterflies his rival and successor, Obrenovitch, out of history too. Serbian independence is delayed 10-20 years. And when it takes place, let's say it happens under a Montenegrin prince, who descends from his mountains to defeat the Ottomans.
This is IMO plausible. The Montenegrins of this period considered themselves "mountain Serbs", and were the only Balkan peoples who had never formally submitted to the Turks. OTL there were a couple of near-miss conjunctions between Serbian uprisings and Montenegrin raids into the lowlands.
So Prince *Miodrag whips the Turks and establishes a new Serbian state. Perhaps he even moves his capitol from Montenegro north to Belgrade. But instead of distributing land seized from the Ottomans to the _raiah_, he simply hands it over to his Montenegrin friends and relatives.
Unfortunately, while 19th century Montenegrins were brilliant fighters, they otherwise pretty damn primitive. They were illiterate hillmen, often semi-nomadic, who lived by the bullet, the blade, and the code of vendetta. Highly religious, ruthless and violent even by the broad standards of the contemporary Balkans, they had nothing but contempt for tradesmen, owland peasants, and foreign ideas. As a ruling class, they'd be... colorful... but disastrous in almost every way.
So alt-Serbia's social structure now looks a lot like OTL Romania's: landless tenant peasants, arrogant and quarrelsome aristocrats, and hardly any middle class except for the Jews.
Now what?
Well... this Serbia is a lot weaker, both economically and militarily. Compare and contrast the WWI performances of Serbia and Romania! It's pretty striking, and IMO the two countries' different social structures had a lot to do with it. So alt-Serbia may never be strong enough to present a plausible threat to Austria; or, if it does, it'll be much easier to whip.
I think this may butterfly WWI right out of existence. *Serbia is rather weak and corrupt, and run by a small group of quarrelsome aristocrats. It will not be as attractive to Bosnian Serbs. Using the Romanian analogy again, ethnic Romanians in Transylvania were much less rebellious than ethnic Serbs in Bosnia -- even though Hungarian rule was much harsher for them. Pre-WWI Romania was just obviously inferior to Austria-Hungary in every way, so it didn't inspire the Transylvanian Romanians to yearn for union with the motherland.
Even if we do get a Princip, alt-Serbia will probably cave in to Austrian demands. It's going to be a lot weaker.
But let's say for argument's sake that WWI goes off much as in OTL. *Serbia will probably not be able to resist nearly as effectively as OTL's Serbia did. Much of the aristocracy will be Teutonophile, the government will likely be internally divided, corrupt and incompetent, and the army will consist of landless, illiterate peasant conscripts instead of freeholders fighting for their own hearths -- again, much like OTL's Romania.
Two questions arise:
1) Assume alt-Serbia collapses in 90-120 days, with Austrian armies arriving in Macedonia by Christmas 1914. How much difference will this make in the greater war?
Okay, this actually a rather roundabout way of asking the question, how important was Serbia's stubbornly heroic defense to OTL's WWI. I have my own opinion on the matter, but I'd be interested to hear what the rest of you think.
2) Assume (and I grant that this is a stretch) that the war ends much as in OTL, with an Allied victory and the disintegration of Austria-Hungary. alt-Serbia claims a seat at the victor's table... and incorporation of all the South Slav territories into a "Yugoslavia" dominated by the descendants of the Serbo-Montenegrin aristocracy.
"Montenegroslavia" is going to be a much uglier piece of work than OTL's Yugoslavia. Frex, OTL the interwar Croats were all over the board WRT Yugoslavia. That is, some were strongly pro-union and pro-Yugoslav, others were violently secessionist, and every shade of opinion in between was represented as well. In this TL, almost all Croats are going to probably correctly) see themselves as the subject peoples of a hostile and alien state. And as for the various peoples of Bosnia...
Hmm, a worse Yugoslavia. Dear me.
Knock-on effects, anyone?
Doug M.
There were several reasons for Serbia's startling military effectiveness, but I want to focus on one in particular: the social structure established when Serbia gained independence from the Ottomans.
Serbia was unique in the Balkans in that she was a nation, not of peasants, but of yeoman farmers. On the eve of WWI more than 60% of Serbian households owned land -- a figure unmatched anywhere in Eastern Europe, or indeed in the West outside the United States. Since the country was only just beginning to urbanize, what this meant was that the average Serb in 1914 was a small farmer who owned his own land.
This was so because Karageorge, the liberator of Serbia, made a far-sighted decision to distribute land seized from the Turks. Specifically, he distributed it not to himself and his friends, but to the _raiah_, the landless Christian tenant-peasantry. This policy, which was followed by Karageorge's successors, created a blood-and-soil bond between the Serbian people and their land that was strong even by Balkan standards... with long-term consequences that are still being felt today.
But suppose that this hadn't been the case?
Let's kill Karageorge off -- it's easy enough -- and let's say this butterflies his rival and successor, Obrenovitch, out of history too. Serbian independence is delayed 10-20 years. And when it takes place, let's say it happens under a Montenegrin prince, who descends from his mountains to defeat the Ottomans.
This is IMO plausible. The Montenegrins of this period considered themselves "mountain Serbs", and were the only Balkan peoples who had never formally submitted to the Turks. OTL there were a couple of near-miss conjunctions between Serbian uprisings and Montenegrin raids into the lowlands.
So Prince *Miodrag whips the Turks and establishes a new Serbian state. Perhaps he even moves his capitol from Montenegro north to Belgrade. But instead of distributing land seized from the Ottomans to the _raiah_, he simply hands it over to his Montenegrin friends and relatives.
Unfortunately, while 19th century Montenegrins were brilliant fighters, they otherwise pretty damn primitive. They were illiterate hillmen, often semi-nomadic, who lived by the bullet, the blade, and the code of vendetta. Highly religious, ruthless and violent even by the broad standards of the contemporary Balkans, they had nothing but contempt for tradesmen, owland peasants, and foreign ideas. As a ruling class, they'd be... colorful... but disastrous in almost every way.
So alt-Serbia's social structure now looks a lot like OTL Romania's: landless tenant peasants, arrogant and quarrelsome aristocrats, and hardly any middle class except for the Jews.
Now what?
Well... this Serbia is a lot weaker, both economically and militarily. Compare and contrast the WWI performances of Serbia and Romania! It's pretty striking, and IMO the two countries' different social structures had a lot to do with it. So alt-Serbia may never be strong enough to present a plausible threat to Austria; or, if it does, it'll be much easier to whip.
I think this may butterfly WWI right out of existence. *Serbia is rather weak and corrupt, and run by a small group of quarrelsome aristocrats. It will not be as attractive to Bosnian Serbs. Using the Romanian analogy again, ethnic Romanians in Transylvania were much less rebellious than ethnic Serbs in Bosnia -- even though Hungarian rule was much harsher for them. Pre-WWI Romania was just obviously inferior to Austria-Hungary in every way, so it didn't inspire the Transylvanian Romanians to yearn for union with the motherland.
Even if we do get a Princip, alt-Serbia will probably cave in to Austrian demands. It's going to be a lot weaker.
But let's say for argument's sake that WWI goes off much as in OTL. *Serbia will probably not be able to resist nearly as effectively as OTL's Serbia did. Much of the aristocracy will be Teutonophile, the government will likely be internally divided, corrupt and incompetent, and the army will consist of landless, illiterate peasant conscripts instead of freeholders fighting for their own hearths -- again, much like OTL's Romania.
Two questions arise:
1) Assume alt-Serbia collapses in 90-120 days, with Austrian armies arriving in Macedonia by Christmas 1914. How much difference will this make in the greater war?
Okay, this actually a rather roundabout way of asking the question, how important was Serbia's stubbornly heroic defense to OTL's WWI. I have my own opinion on the matter, but I'd be interested to hear what the rest of you think.
2) Assume (and I grant that this is a stretch) that the war ends much as in OTL, with an Allied victory and the disintegration of Austria-Hungary. alt-Serbia claims a seat at the victor's table... and incorporation of all the South Slav territories into a "Yugoslavia" dominated by the descendants of the Serbo-Montenegrin aristocracy.
"Montenegroslavia" is going to be a much uglier piece of work than OTL's Yugoslavia. Frex, OTL the interwar Croats were all over the board WRT Yugoslavia. That is, some were strongly pro-union and pro-Yugoslav, others were violently secessionist, and every shade of opinion in between was represented as well. In this TL, almost all Croats are going to probably correctly) see themselves as the subject peoples of a hostile and alien state. And as for the various peoples of Bosnia...
Hmm, a worse Yugoslavia. Dear me.
Knock-on effects, anyone?
Doug M.
