AHC: Romania Wank

Tsarist Russia takes the "Third Rome" title more seriously. During the decline of the Ottoman Empire, it enthusiastically supports nationalist movements in Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, and Serbia.

Through a series of political manoeverings, these Orthodox nations are recreated as Russian clients. A bloody tied of ethnic cleansing and pogroms ensues, as Orthodox in the Ottoman Empire and Muslims in the Orthodox nations move.

Not content with Russia being first among equals, the *Tsar merges all Orthodox nations into a Roman Empire, or Romania for short. The Romance-speaking people are now called Dacians.

Romania now borders the Pacific, Turkestan, Sweden, *Germany, and the Mediterranean. Enough of a wank.
 
Not exactly what I had in mind

Gotta agree with you. But how much bigger could Romania get? I mean OTL they got all or nearly all of the territory that ethnic Romanians lived on. Any more and they would have a problem with minorities. I mean I suppose that Romania could keep Moldova and Silistra but other than that, what else could the possibly get?
 
Gotta agree with you. But how much bigger could Romania get? I mean OTL they got all or nearly all of the territory that ethnic Romanians lived on. Any more and they would have a problem with minorities. I mean I suppose that Romania could keep Moldova and Silistra but other than that, what else could the possibly get?

Well, they briefly held Odessa during WW2. Maybe seizing it during the Soviet revolution like they did with Bessarabia and then holding on to it.

They also lost Southern Dobruja.

And, there's a part of Serbia that was dominated by ethnic Romanians.

They just really need to find a way to keep everything once they've expanded thusly.
 
Well, they briefly held Odessa during WW2. Maybe seizing it during the Soviet revolution like they did with Bessarabia and then holding on to it.

They also lost Southern Dobruja.

And, there's a part of Serbia that was dominated by ethnic Romanians.

They just really need to find a way to keep everything once they've expanded thusly.

I actually did not know that - the city would certainly be a huge gain for Romania, as would the surrounding Oblast.
 
Hm. If we get a unified and independent Wallachia-Moldova earlier on (Catherine the Great has a really good run against the Ottomans?) and the Romanians are in a position to move against the Ottomans in the 19th century, how stable could a united Kingdom of Romania-Bulgaria be? Let's say the Romanian rulers have a rush of brains to the head and give the Bulgarians some local liberties and so on so they don't feel like a Romanian colony.

Bruce
 
Hm. If we get a unified and independent Wallachia-Moldova earlier on (Catherine the Great has a really good run against the Ottomans?) and the Romanians are in a position to move against the Ottomans in the 19th century, how stable could a united Kingdom of Romania-Bulgaria be? Let's say the Romanian rulers have a rush of brains to the head and give the Bulgarians some local liberties and so on so they don't feel like a Romanian colony.

Bruce

Highly unlikely. Romania was offered a dual monarchy by both Hungary and Bulgaria and both proposals were rejected. Romania's strategic objective during the 19th century was unify all territories inhabited by ethnic Romanians and/or territories that once belonged to any of its predecessor states without adding a large minority that would upset the ethnic balance.

The only way I could see it including an alien territory is by making it a protectorate or colony, and I highly doubt the Bulgarians were willing to trade the Ottoman overlordship for the Romanian one. It could work if Romania is strong enough to keep the empires it's surrounded by at bay and to secure their Bulgarian subjects' loyalty (then again, we're in the era of nationalism so that'll be rather hard).

The only way to make a Romanian "Empire" viable is with a POD way earlier, maybe around Michael the Brave's conquests.
 
Last edited:

katchen

Banned
If Austria was strong enough to drive the Turks out of Transylvania, Wallachia and Moldavia and Dobruja and Silistria to the Crimea to Circassia in the 18th Century instead of just Hungary and incorporate those areas into the Austrian Empire, it would be Romanians rather than Russian cossacks that populated the Black Sea littoral, probably all the way to the Volga, the Caspian Sea and the Terek. Romanians would expand into these areas in the 18th Century. Even if the Russians conquered the area in the early 19th Century, the area would remain Romanian speaking, much as Bessarabia has.
And if the Russians DIDN'T conquer the Black Sea littoral from Austria, there is every chance that Austria (and therefore Romania) would expand further east into what is ITTL Kazakhstan and Central Asia, possibly even Sinkiang and Mongolia at the expense of China, paralleling the Russians in Siberia. (You wanted a Romania wank didn't you?)
 
Highly unlikely. Romania was offered a dual monarchy by both Hungary and Bulgaria and both proposals were rejected. Romania's strategic objective during the 19th century was unify all territories inhabited by ethnic Romanians and/or territories that once belonged to any of its predecessor states without adding a large minority that would upset the ethnic balance.

Hm? So Romania's 19th century strategic objectives were set in stone by the late 1700s? Indeed, since the 1600s? (Micheal the Brave died 1601). I am skeptical.

Bruce
 
The problem with any timeline post-Michael the Brave is that it deals with the Romanian black centuries 1601-1821, a period where the Ottomans increasingly strenghtened their control over the two principalities, while Transylvania drifted towards the Habsburg Monarchy. By the 18th century, the Ottomans abolished the principalities' "elective" monarchy and simply placed puppet Greek nobles from Constantinople on the thrones in Bucharest and Iași. The Sultan had become so influent in the principalities' internal affairs that he even alienated parts of their territories (Lesser Wallachia and Bukovina to Austria and Bessarabia to Russia). In this situation, I believe it'll be rather hard to have any durable Romanian power in the Balkans or Eastern Europe, especially since the Russian Empire was soon to become its neighbour.

If Austria was strong enough to drive the Turks out of Transylvania, Wallachia and Moldavia and Dobruja and Silistria to the Crimea to Circassia in the 18th Century instead of just Hungary and incorporate those areas into the Austrian Empire

Regarding this there's another point to be made: if Austria manages to secure both Wallachia and Moldavia during the 18th century and they manage to hold on to them late into the 19th, then instead of Austria-Hungary we might have an Austria-Romania or Austria-Wallachia, but that's only if things go relatively the same as OTL, which isn't that likely.
 
Last edited:
Hm? So Romania's 19th century strategic objectives were set in stone by the late 1700s? Indeed, since the 1600s? (Micheal the Brave died 1601). I am skeptical.

Bruce
You're right to be skeptical, because Romania was perfectly happy with expanding beyond territories populated by Romanians or traditionally Romanian. See for example the takeover of Dobruja, especially Southern Dobruja, the attempt to expand up to the Tisza river after WWI or the conquest of Transnistria during WWII. All Balkan states have made declarations of only wanting what was theirs, but it has rarely been true in practice.
 
With a POD in the early 1800's we have to consider:
1) the size and the autonomy of the Romanian Principalities in relation to today's Romania;
2) The sparse distribution of Romanians outside the Principalities (IIRC Romanians were a small plurality between Magyars and Germans in Transylvania and the Aromanians were just a small group of wandering shepherds in Turkish and Greek lands);
3) The lack of an influent national aristocracy as most of them were Greek Phanariotes selected by the Porte;
4) The poor economic background of the country: 10% of the population of the Principalities was made of Roma Slaves (IIRC Romania was the last European country to have slaves) and the rest of the people were just serfs;
5) A considerable part of modern Romania was populated by different ethnicities since the Middle Ages (Dobrudja, Most of Transylvania...).

So, taking all this into account, IMHO Romania was already GREATLY wanked in OTL if we compare the situation in 1800 with that one after the WWI.
By the way, I'm sorry if I offended Romanian people. Not my intention.

Regarding this there's another point to be made: if Austria manages to secure both Wallachia and Moldavia during the 18th century and they manage to hold on to them late into the 19th, then instead of Austria-Hungary we might have an Austria-Romania or Austria-Wallachia, but that's only if things go relatively the same as OTL, which isn't that likely.

This wouldn't mean a large influx of other nations into the Principalities? First the Greek and South Slavics fleeing the "Turkish yoke" and later the Germans and Hungarians from the HRE and Austrian Dominions, making the Principalities a melting pot like the Banat or Transylvania? This wouldn't be bad to a national identity after all?
 
Vlad was hard pressed to keep his throne and his existing lands as long as he did. Not really a good time for expansion.

I see. Well, I guess I'll just have to settle for possibly writing an ASB TL where the House of Dragons (Dracula/Draculesti) is given actual dragons to satisfy my current Romania-wank mood.
 
Top