AHC: Hapsburg Romania

Have Austria win he 1735-39 war against the Turks.

--ish. :)

How about creeping Habsburg dominance in the area?

1718: Oltenia
1739: Greater Wallachia
1774: Bukovina
1790: Moldavia, Dobrugea

I like the earlier POD better than the Crimean War. I think Austria would be used and abused by Britain and France even if they contributed fully to the effort. But in the 18th century and better performance in the various and sundry wars of the time there would be no such interference. The annexation of the provinces would set up an interesting rivalry with an emergent Russia.
 
That would turn conflict with Russia up to 11, they're now sitting astride the Danube estuary and thus the route to the straights.
 
It would have to be more than just Habsburg, the problem with the Commonwealth was it's insane constitution, not her monarchs.

Maybe the Habsburgs could reform it, or at least parts of the territory could be put more directly under the emperor?
 
Carol I was elected Ruling Prince (Domnitor) in 1866.
He was proclaimed King of Romania in 1881.
What is the earliest year in the timeline that an Archduke of Austria can take the leadership of Romania?
Would he begin as Ruling Prince then become King? Or does he become King right away?
 
Let's review this bunch of PODs which should result in an Habsburg king of Romania:
  1. 1737-39 (from 1735 to 1737 it was just Russia vs. the Ottomans): it might look like a nice opportunity (Tussia is concentrating on the trans-Dnjeper and Crimea and does not care too much about Moldovia and Wallachia). The problem is that the Austrian army has gone to pot ober the 20 years between the treaty of Passarowitz and the entry into the war. Over less than two years of war the Austrians get trounced at Banja Lucka and Grocka and the cherry on the cake is the successful Ottoman siege of Belgrade which forces the Austrians to negotiate. The peace treaty cancels almost all the gains of Passarowitz. Russia also has to make peace given the intervention of Sweden. It is quite obvious that the Austrians did not take notice of the parlous state of their army. It would have taken a not-so-minor miracle to save Belgrade at least. The idea that the Rumanian principalities might become a sort of Austrian protectorate is certainly farfetched.
  2. 1829: Nicholas Romanov declares war against the Ottomans and the Russian army enter the Principalities (no one mentioned this POD but it is still a possibility IMHO). The war has its ups and its downs. When the dust settles Russia gains a right of intervention in the Principalities, as well as the mantle of protector of Christian subjects of the empire. It looks like it was a nice opportunity for Austria, but no deal. Austria does not intervene (same as they refused to participate in the naval intervention in Greece that ended up with the destruction of the Egyptian fleet at Navarino). Austrian passivity is at least coherent. The last of the Congresses directly stemming out of the Congress of Vienna (Verona, 1822) managed to produce one single policy document, which slammed the Greek insurrection as a "criminal and dangerous enterprise" (Russia, Prussia and Austria signed this protocol which was the brainchild of Metternich (France and Great Britain were present in Verona as observers only). However the net result is that after this particular Russo-Ottoman war Moldova and Wallachia enter the orbit of czarist Russia.
  3. 1854 (war of Crimea): Austria stays out of the war, for a number of reasons which can be discussed in a different thread, but the outcome is that it manages to royally piss the Russians (who were expecting to cash in on the recent help to the Habsburgs during the Hungarian insurrection of 1849 (and certainly does not endear themselves to Great Britain and France. Suppose that Austria intervenes on the side of the Western Powers. It is quite likely the war is shortened, and the human losses on both side (in large part to be abscribed to poor hygienic conditions) are significantly reduced. However please remember that the objective of France and Great Britain was to preserve the integrity of the Ottoman empire. No territorial losses were imposed on Russia (just limitations on the number of warship in the Black sea): it would have been quite ironic that the ally of the Western Powers was to loose a couple of provinces in victory. It is conceivable that Austria might be able to replace Russian influence in Wallachia, but I doubt it (Russia and the Ottomans had intervened in Wallachia in 1849 to repress the liberal agitations, but the Hungarians had showed a lot of coldness toward the insurgent and Kossuth himself coldly rebuffed a proposal of Wallachian insurgents to join forces).
  4. 1866: death of Cuza and a new Prince selected by the Powers. The selection of Karl of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen and his appointment as Ruling Prince came before the Austro-German-Italian war (Carol I was crowned on 20 April 1866). It is however quite unlikely (I'm trying to be generous) that an Austrian arch-duke might be selected. Certainly Russia would oppose this choice very strongly (up to and including the possibility of a war), and no one wanted to give Austria a full control over the Danube (and at the same time to introduce another player in the already tense Black sea situation). Coincidentally, Romania in 1866 was still subject to the suzerainty of the Sultan: would anyone be able to conceive an Austrian arch-duke (even a second or third class one since the brothers of F-J were certainly never considered) as a (nominal) vassal of the Sultan (and - less nominally - under the "protection" of Russia? At least Karl was from a cadet branch of the Hohenzollern and there was no contiguity between Romania and Prussia.

Did I forget any possible POD? Note that - with the possible exception of 1739 - the Austrian themselves never considered any annexation scheme. At least a whiff of rationality in a mad world :D
Now introducing a fifth major national group in the rickety structure of the Habsburg empire would have been madness. I do beg you not to come out with fancy plans for federalization. Even the alleged (and most famous) promoter of such a scheme knew very well that the factions of the Vienna court (the German faction, the Hungarian faction, the army, the bureaucracy) were deadly against any federal possibility. The unmentioned policy was to hold the structure intact as long as possible (and to believe that a "short victorious war" would be the best bet to give a new lease on life to the empire).
 
Now introducing a fifth major national group in the rickety structure of the Habsburg empire would have been madness. I do beg you not to come out with fancy plans for federalization. Even the alleged (and most famous) promoter of such a scheme knew very well that the factions of the Vienna court (the German faction, the Hungarian faction, the army, the bureaucracy) were deadly against any federal possibility. The unmentioned policy was to hold the structure intact as long as possible (and to believe that a "short victorious war" would be the best bet to give a new lease on life to the empire).

All's good, with the exception of one matter. There were already a creeping number of Romanians in the Austrian Empire/Austria-Hungary as it was, without the Romanian Principalities. See Romanians in Transylvania, which at the time rivalled the Hungarians living there in number if not even outright surpassing them. The country was a multinational mess. Its conservative structures (staunchly maintained by none other than your friendly Emperor Franz Joseph I) would be the death of it. There was a fragile balance of power and one short blow could have threatened the very existence of the Vienna Empire itself. No option remained for Austria, except federalisation.
 
All's good, with the exception of one matter. There were already a creeping number of Romanians in the Austrian Empire/Austria-Hungary as it was, without the Romanian Principalities. See Romanians in Transylvania, which at the time rivalled the Hungarians living there in number if not even outright surpassing them. The country was a multinational mess. Its conservative structures (staunchly maintained by none other than your friendly Emperor Franz Joseph I) would be the death of it. There was a fragile balance of power and one short blow could have threatened the very existence of the Vienna Empire itself. No option remained for Austria, except federalisation.

Which is why the Hungarians had one foot on the neck of the Slavs under the crown of St. Stephen, and another one on the neck of the ethnic Rumanians in Transylvania. Wasn't expecting they'd welcome a major increase of the numbers of either one. Oh, wait .... they did not :D
Then there are the various people under the Austrian crown: ethnic Germans in Austria, Bohemia and Tyrol, Slavs in Bohemia-Moravia and Slovenia (not to mention the Croats in Dalmatia who were not exactly the same as the ones in Croatia), Italians in Istria, Dalmatia and Trentino, other assorted minority group (the Moslems in Bosnia, the Jews a bit everywhere). As I said, a rickety structure kept together by the emperor, the army and the bureaucracy (but only until someone makes a change, or the respective self-interest is protected and the enemy - everyone of these different group has an enemy, and sometimes more than one - gets nothing. It is a rigid structure that maybe can totter along if no one rocks the boat too much; make a major change (say a true attempt at federalizing, or a major war or even a very bad economic crisis) and it becomes a free for all.
 
Besides what kind of federalization will be another question. After the 'Ausgleich' it will be even harder.

Before the OTL 'Ausgleich', there are perhaps some possibilities. Maybe Bohemia and Croatia could become members of a Quadruple monarchy (which still wouldn't be like a federation for all nationalities within the Empire). However for most of the other minorities (like Rumanians and Italians) that won't change much.
 
Last edited:
Archduke Charles Ferdinand of Austria-Teschen (1818-1874) is the father of:
Ferdinand born 1856
Charles Stephen born 1860
Eugene born 1863

What if one of these Archdukes was chosen for Romania?
 
What if during the peace negotiations concerning the Crimean War, Austria offers to purchase the all of Bessarabia up to it's black sea coast. France & Russia would be very much against this, but if Austria manages to convince the Ottoman (it was nominally returned to them via Moldavia I believe) money to cover Ottoman debts and promises of neutrality in the event of another war with Russia, if Russia can't pass through Bessarabia only true land front is the Caucasus region more defensible & possibly relatively easier troop concentration. GBR might be convinced with this as well as it'll contain Russian influence and her threat to the Ottomans (more specifically the straits of constantinople).
Assuming this goes through, and we still have a Russo-Turkish war of 1877, seeing as Austria already has control over most of the regions inhabited by Romanians they could unify with them under the Habsburgs with tactic agreements of autonomy of course. Too much of a stretch?

Habsburg benefit: port on the black sea at the end of the Danube, assuming more naval investment & increased trade with the ottomans doesn't seem like a bad deal, plus with that in pocket she maybe less inclined to getting involved with Bosnia (maybe just take the Croatian populated parts). Port on the black sea would give her another outlet as opposed to the potential bottleneck on the adriatic.
 
Top