Austria-Hungary attacks the Ottoman Empire during Russo-Turkish war of 1870s-

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I'd request that we hand-wave away all the reasons they would not *want* to do that, and let's just say they decide to do it for prestige, expansion and influence, and whatever else. What could they achieve military against the Ottomans and on the side of the Serbs and Montenegrins?

What would the effects be if they had joined the fighting as early as possible, sometime in the middle (say they enter while the Russians are having trouble at Plevna) or at the tail end? How would early, middle, late timing change things.

Where's the most probable dividing line between between Russian and Austro-Hungarian commanded areas of operation in the Balkans?
 
I don't think its too difficult to get them involved. Sort of better negotiations beforehand.

Military I assuem Austria could easily deploy 100-200K troops and use them to occupy Bosnia - like it did a year later. But asa poils of war it could simply take it at the peace negotiations.

An interesting alternative might be a split of Bosnia with Serbia and taking Albania in addition to the Western half of Bosnia + Hercegovina (Eastern Bosnia including Novi Pazar goes to Serbia)

An Austro Russian Alliance might also prevent the Congress of Berlin (OTL Austria did backstab russia there - sort of).

You get a bigger Serbia/Bulgaria/Greece 30 years early and MUCH better relations between Austria and Russia. In the long run it even may come to an Austro/Russian/French Alliance - Prussia will be in dire straits ;)
 
Would this accelerate the decline of the Ottoman-empire and more importantly would it make it more likely that the Ottoman-empire would be completely expelled from Europe including Eastern Thrace and Constantinople?
 

LordKalvert

Banned
As Salisbury told his cabinet collegues "If Austria and Russia ever unite in the Balkans, they will carry all before them"

If the Austrians join in with Russia, the Turks are likely to throw down their arms and run in mortal terror

The likely division of the spoils would be that Austria gets Serbia, Montenegro, Albania and Salonika. The Russians get Bulgaria and the Black Sea coast. Constantinople and the Straits.

Romania is probably allowed to keep its independence

This really works if the Austrians decide they want their Italian lands back
 
Last edited:
I agree with Lord K about the results of Austro-Russian cooperation against the Ottomans. But in 1878, this is going to make Britain go bananas. They went bananas anyway but this takes it to the next level. What could they do in the face of such an occurrence? Are there any allies who would likely step in (even diplomatically or with threats of war) to roll back the gains of the A and R? I think Germany might be unsettled by the prospect of an Austro-Russsian alliance.
 
I don't think Germany would mind. Historically Germany wanted to stay allied with both Austria-Hungary and Russia Via The League of the Three Emperors. If Austria-Hungary and Russia are able to reconcile and divide the Balkans between them as this thread implies that means they aren't at each other's throats and thus the Three Emperor's League remains in force.

Which in turn means that Eastern/Central Europe is largely stable and united and peaceful, which will make France/Britain completely shit their pants.
 

LordKalvert

Banned
I agree with Lord K about the results of Austro-Russian cooperation against the Ottomans. But in 1878, this is going to make Britain go bananas. They went bananas anyway but this takes it to the next level. What could they do in the face of such an occurrence? Are there any allies who would likely step in (even diplomatically or with threats of war) to roll back the gains of the A and R? I think Germany might be unsettled by the prospect of an Austro-Russsian alliance.

I really don't think anyone is going to be in the mood of fighting the Austrians and the Russians in the Balkans. The Germans won't care, the French are still licking their wounds and the Italians would be scared that the Austrians would trade their share of the Balkans for the return of their Italian lands

Britain by herself scared nobody
 

Cryostorm

Monthly Donor
There are limits to ethnic solidarity- for Russia that's the straits and Constantinople. They'd sell out just about anyone for that

This, Constantinople had been a Russian objective since its fall and the creation of the Russian Empire, especially once it could beat the Ottomans whenever it felt like it, add in the straits and Russia would give the entire Western Balkans to Austria. I am honestly surprised Austria and Germany never offered that kind of deal.
 

LordKalvert

Banned
This, Constantinople had been a Russian objective since its fall and the creation of the Russian Empire, especially once it could beat the Ottomans whenever it felt like it, add in the straits and Russia would give the entire Western Balkans to Austria. I am honestly surprised Austria and Germany never offered that kind of deal.

It was widely debated in Austria- Franz Ferdinand, Beck and Aerenthal recommended it during the Armenian crises of 1894-96 for example. The Germans urged it as well- telling the Austrians that Stamboul isn't worth a war

Franz Joseph always opposed it as did Goluchowski. The main argument is that they thought that the Russians in possession of Constantinople would exert too strong of an influence on the Slavs within Austria. Personally doubt that one. The problem with the Slavs in the AH Empire stemmed from their unequal treatment. Most of them, practically all in fact, were Catholics and therefore not inclined towards Russia

Personally, I always thought the Franz Joseph never accepted that he was "King of Hungry, not by the Grace of God" but by the Grace of Nicholas Pavolvich Romanov. He could forgive the House of Savoy for kicking him out of Italy and the Prussians for kicking him out of Germany, but he could never forgive the Russians for giving him Hungary.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
It was widely debated in Austria- Franz Ferdinand, Beck and Aerenthal recommended it during the Armenian crises of 1894-96 for example. The Germans urged it as well- telling the Austrians that Stamboul isn't worth a war

I was reading a biography of Beck, and I believe he was angling to stir up trouble and acquire Bosnia from the early 1870s.

Franz Joseph always opposed it as did Goluchowski. The main argument is that they thought that the Russians in possession of Constantinople would exert too strong of an influence on the Slavs within Austria. Personally doubt that one. The problem with the Slavs in the AH Empire stemmed from their unequal treatment. Most of them, practically all in fact, were Catholics and therefore not inclined towards Russia

Weren't the Hungarians a huge factor in this too? I think they, far more than the Austrians, were paranoid about ethnic dilution from adding more Slavs to the empire. But they were equally opposed to Russian or Russian-client gains in the Balkans, so the Hungarians' default preference was always for the Ottomans to keep the maximum amount of their territory.


---but supposing Franz-Joseph decides to go with the Russian flow to get along with the Russian flow, is the attached a decent delineation of spheres of influence in the Balkans?

Balkans1877popC.gif
 
Salisbury is an odd fellow, one minute he's pledging to support the Turks against the Russians, the next he is talking about sending warships up the Tigris and the Euphrates and dismantling the the Ottomans completely. If the Austrians join the war, I'm inclined to think that he'd probably sell the Turks out for Iraq. This isn't 1853, Germany won't lift a figure to help the British, the Italians are to weak (even if they will be pissed over the conquest of Albania), and the French aren't in any position to act. Salisbury won't be happy about the Russians getting Tsargrad, but he'll probably see that taking on the Russians, Austrians, and possibly even Germans isn't in the UK's best interests and secure Mesopotamia for the empire. Maybe you end up getting and Antioch to Calcutta railroad.
 
WI the Balkans were divided up along religious lines, with Roman Catholic Croatian regions gradually absorbed by Austria.
Eastern Orthodox Serbian regions would enjoy increased support from Russia, Muslim Albanians and Kosovars steadily being squeezed eastwards towards the Ottoman borders?
Remember that "ethnic cleansing" was much easier before the invention of television or DNA labs.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
LordKalvert-

It was widely debated in Austria- Franz Ferdinand, Beck and Aerenthal recommended it during the Armenian crises of 1894-96 for example. The Germans urged it as well- telling the Austrians that Stamboul isn't worth a war

but wasn't this the same Armenian crisis where it was the British leading the charge against the Ottomans with only the Italians willing to follow, with the Russia, Austrians, Germans and French all opposed to dismantling the OE at this time?

Lord Kalvert-
If the Austrians join in with Russia, the Turks are likely to throw down their arms and run in mortal terror

The likely division of the spoils would be that Austria gets Serbia, Montenegro, Albania and Salonika. The Russians get Bulgaria and the Black Sea coast. Constantinople and the Straits.

Romania is probably allowed to keep its independence

This really works if the Austrians decide they want their Italian lands back

I'm not quite sure how the bolded final sentence in your post from February 18th, 2015 09:20 AM necessarily follows from the sentences above it.

General Finley, that's definitely an intriguing post you left:

Salisbury is an odd fellow, one minute he's pledging to support the Turks against the Russians, the next he is talking about sending warships up the Tigris and the Euphrates and dismantling the the Ottomans completely. If the Austrians join the war, I'm inclined to think that he'd probably sell the Turks out for Iraq. [was Salibury making policy yet in the 1870s or was it still Disraeli? - RH] This isn't 1853, Germany won't lift a figure to help the British [help the British against the Russians in the 1870s you mean, right?], the Italians are to weak (even if they will be pissed over the conquest of Albania), and the French aren't in any position to act. Salisbury won't be happy about the Russians getting Tsargrad, but he'll probably see that taking on the Russians, Austrians, and possibly even Germans isn't in the UK's best interests and secure Mesopotamia for the empire. Maybe you end up getting and Antioch to Calcutta railroad.

So it sounds like your thinking above is a speculation on the 1870s war mentioned in the OP, and not during the 1890s Armenian crisis, or am I wrong about that?

The partition you're describing has three parts so far: Russians getting the straits, Austrians getting the western Balkans (including Albania), British getting Mesopotamia. The Germans presumably are not getting anything and the Italians are pissed Austria is getting Albania. Is that as far as to goes or were you seeing British control of Mesopotamia reach into the northern Levant (Antioch) or the southern Levant (Palestine). I wonder if you envisioned Greater Armenia (eastern Anatolia) Levant and Tripoli remaining under Ottoman control, or those areas also being partitioned at the same time as Mesopotamia and the Balkans, possibly by some combination of the British, French and Italians?
 
General Finley, that's definitely an intriguing post you left:



So it sounds like your thinking above is a speculation on the 1870s war mentioned in the OP, and not during the 1890s Armenian crisis, or am I wrong about that?

The partition you're describing has three parts so far: Russians getting the straits, Austrians getting the western Balkans (including Albania), British getting Mesopotamia. The Germans presumably are not getting anything and the Italians are pissed Austria is getting Albania. Is that as far as to goes or were you seeing British control of Mesopotamia reach into the northern Levant (Antioch) or the southern Levant (Palestine). I wonder if you envisioned Greater Armenia (eastern Anatolia) Levant and Tripoli remaining under Ottoman control, or those areas also being partitioned at the same time as Mesopotamia and the Balkans, possibly by some combination of the British, French and Italians?

I got my dates mixed up, Salisbury isn't making policy yet with the late 1870s that I was going with Disraeli is still PM and his position on Russia advancing on the Ottomans was far concrete than Salisbury.

The scenario I'd envisioned had the Ottomans retaining control of the Levant and Eastern Anatolia as a land buffer between the Russians and the British Mesopotamia. Maybe Antioch has a 99 year lease to the British with Northern Syria within the British Sphere of influence, but it probably makes more sense for the British to simply carve off the Palestine. Maybe the Italians get compensated for 'losing' Albania by being given Libya? The Ottomans would still control Anatolia and Syria.
 
Top