Reconquest of Constantinople in the 19th Century

Leo Caesius

Banned
Grey Wolf said:
Was that not part of the 1918-1919 intention for Constantinople
I believe the King-Crane Commission suggested that there be established a "Zone of the Straits" which would include territory on either side of the Bosporos, to be independently managed as an international trust. I remember them suggesting that maybe, just maybe, the Turks would up and leave and more of the "right sort" of people would move back in. King and Crane were funny like that.
 
Leo Caesius said:
At least in English, the first reference to the country Rumania comes after 1859, when the principalities were united. Since 1966, when the country officially changed its name to Romania, it has been known almost exclusively as such in English.

Prior to that I would imagine that they were Wallachs and Moldovans. There are Romance-speaking populations all over the Balkans called Vlachs, a term which is related to Wallachia, Wallonia, and Wales. This, at least in English, was the proper term before Rumania was united. The 1881 Encyclopaedia Britannica notes that the Wallachians refer to themselves as Rumeni, but their neighbors almost universally referred to them as Vlachs.

Thanks. But wouldn't this mean that whilst the Greeks may refer to themselves as "Romaioi", their neighbours and the rest of Europe may just call them "Greeks"?


Grey Wolf said:
I studied a lot about this whilst writing AFOE, which is of course all knowledge that is beginning to slip away from me now.

Wallachia was generally known as Muntenia to its political inhabitants. Admittedly that was news to me as well.

I believe 1848 really gave the boost to the idea of unifying the principalities as Rumania. Cuza, who was to emerge as the first prince of both principalities, was a man of 1848.

Hmm...Muntenia...interesting. odd. How on earth did that name arise?
 

Leo Caesius

Banned
Sean Swaby said:
Hmm...Muntenia...interesting. odd. How on earth did that name arise?
I'm going to guess that it's akin to Italian montagna, "mountain" - certainly apt for Wallachia, characterized as they are by the Carpathians.
 
Following the battle of Navarino in 1827, during the Greek War of Independence, the Russian Empire and the Ottoman Empire drifted into war with each other so to speak! :) The Ottomans halted all shipping through the Straits, thus stopping Russia’s profitable grain trade. During the next two years, the Russian Black Sea Fleet and a squadron operating in the Mediterranean blockaded the Straits, while France and Britain was helping out the Greeks (the French even landed troops in the Peloponnes in Octobet 1828). When the Treaty of Adrianople was signed in September 1829, Imperial troops were within 100km of Constantinople.

So, what if the Russians seize the moment and, while somewhat allied with France and especially our British chums, launches an all-out attack on the City? I find it hard to believe the Brits doing a 180, dropping the Greek Cause and going to war angainst their former ally (Russia) side by side with their former enemy (The Ottomans)...

Other than that, both the Greeks (in the early 20th century) and the Austrians (mid-19th century?) are prime contenders to take the City, I'd say! Bulgarians should have a chance at some time too, but I'm not that well read regarding Bulgarian history.
I really can't see, and this is not Ottoman bashing of any sort, Pasha, how the Ottoman Empire could stop either Austria or Russia if they really came gunning for Constantinople...

Best regards!

- Bluenote.
 

Grey Wolf

Donor
Leo Caesius said:
Perhaps in this TL we can rename the nascent Rumanian state "Montana"?

I don't think so - I get the impression that the name 'Romania' (Rumania/Roumania) has been applied to Transylvania, Wallachia (Muntenia) and Moldavia (with or without Bessarabia) for some time, e.g. centuries. After all what is the Rumanian Orthodox Church if not a catch-call for these principalities ?

Grey Wolf
 
By chance several sources from Avalanche Press, and other works, have given me an idea that there may be a way for Austria to extend down to the Aegean Sea - if it should take Constantinople is strictly up for grabs.

The exerts are from 2-3 paragraph scenarios, so there are some generalizations for the players.

From Dreadnoughts p.18:

'During the 1780's, Austrian Kaiser Josef II formed what he terms his "Eastern Project," a plan to extend Austrian rule over all the European land held by Ottoman Turkey. He saw the great port of Salonika as the key to this; in Austrians hands, it would became the great marketplace where East and West did business. In 1912, some Austrian leaders urged occupation of Turkish Macedonia, including the huge port, lest it fall into unfriendly Bulgarian, Serbian or Greek hands. From there, not only could trade profits be hand but Austrian naval power could be projected eastwards."

***** I think the editors at AP have made a mistake and mixed up Josef II for his father Franz II.

from p.56:

"As early as 1815, Austrian naval officers pointed out how useful a 'well-ordered squadron' of fast warships would be to assert influence in the Mediterranean Sea...."

From The Great War at Sea: Mediterranean p.57:

"When the Congress of Vienna re-ordered Europe in 1815, the Austrian Empire received the old territories of the Republic of Venice. These included the island of Corfu and six others along the Greek coast. Unwilling to take such far-flung responsibility, the Austrians passed them to the British, who ruled the "Seven Islands" until 1864. "Had the Ionian Island of Corfu...belonged to Austria," Austrian naval historian Anthony Sokol wrote, "the Austrian fleet need not have been locked in the Adriatic; communications with Turkey would have been possible, and some of Austria's trade with the Levant would have been maintained."

Right now I can't really verify exactly what Josef II thought about the Eastern Mediterranean or the bit about Austria getting, but turning down, the Ionian Islands. However, I agree that a POD very early in the 19th century is needed for Austria to really do anything.

So here are some free floating ideas that at least may but Austria in striking distance at Constantople by the late 19th century.

1. Kaiser Franz, either by early death or by being very unpopular for siding with Napoleon too often, is forced to abdicate. So his removal from the scene could be anywhere between 1810 to 1815.

2. Archduke Charles becomes either Emperor or Regent for Kaiser Josef of Austria. Whatever way Charles and his brother Archduke John get into power and begin various reforms that get the country back on its feet. The Habsburg Court is certainly cleaned out.

3. Austria begins to industrialize and modernize throughout the 1830-1850s.

4. Political reforms eliminate most social unrest and increase loyalty to the Crown. There will be a slow evolution towards a federal type of government representing all nationalities.

5. The Hungarian revolt of 1848 is crushed by the Austrians and Hungary is broken into smaller states - like Transylvania, etc.

6. Corfu and the Ionian Islands are retained by the Austrians from the Congress of Vienna. Corfu becomes Austria's major Mediterranean port. Since 1815 it will be the policy of Austria to acquire a land route down towards the islands.

7. 1870s Prince Milan Obrenovich (1854-1901) of Serbia sells his country to Austria. The Habsburg Court also arranges the marriage of his son Alexander to a Habsburg princess to united the crowns.

8. 1878 Congress of Berlin - Austria acquired Bosnia-Hercegovina.

9. 1880-1890s Austrian annexation of Bosnia-Hercegovina and a 'short victorious war' that nets it Albania and Macedonia, along with Salonika. Granted this will be fighting it mountainous areas, but an enlarged Austrian fleet, along with help from the Greeks - who get territorial gains also.

10. Regarding Germany. In this ATL it is the Austrians that develop 'Drag noch Osten" (if I can remember my German correctly). The Austrians turn over their leadership in the German states to the Prussians. There is no Seven Weeks War.

11. No Italian unification. Tho the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies does acquire the Papal States.

Other odd ideas:

Napoleon II, the Duke of Reichstadt does live a long life, perhaps serves in the Austrian Army in the wars against the Turks.

Close ties between the Habsburgs and Romanov families. Alaska is given as a wedding gift from the Tsar of Russia to the Kaiser of Austria when he marries his daughter. (A very long shot) Perhaps a real place to be named "Franz Josef Land".

However, such a deal does get the Austrians to support the Spanish Empire, since one would need the Philippines to help get to Alaska. Which could lead to a Austro-Spanish-American War.

As a good sport, Prussia will annex Taiwan, as it thought about doing in the 1860s.

Just some ideas really.
 

Grey Wolf

Donor
Very interesting basic premise that I will have to look into in some detail

The Hungarian revolt of 1848 is crushed by the Austrians and Hungary is broken into smaller states - like Transylvania, etc.

If by this you are thinking of Hungary as the Hungarian half of the Austro-Hungarian empire, forget it

In 1848 Hungary was just Hungary, Transylvania was a Grand Principality and I think you can be sure that Croatia, the Banat, Bukovina what-have-you were all separate entities as that was how the Austrian Empire was organised at the time

Grey Wolf
 
Grey Wolf said:
Very interesting basic premise that I will have to look into in some detail

If by this you are thinking of Hungary as the Hungarian half of the Austro-Hungarian empire, forget it

In 1848 Hungary was just Hungary, Transylvania was a Grand Principality and I think you can be sure that Croatia, the Banat, Bukovina what-have-you were all separate entities as that was how the Austrian Empire was organised at the time

Grey Wolf

You are right. I was looking at a later map of the AH Empire.

I think the POD I'll looking at has to do with the Battle of Wagram. If its a greater Austrian victory it would solidify Archduke Charles' position within the Imperial Court. I guess I'm looking at an Austria without Metternich. At least I figured out a likely list of rulers and one just the right age to marry a Romanov Grand Duchess.

Charles Louis, Archduke of Austria
B: 1771
D: 1847
Ruled as Kaiser Karl I 1809-1847
Married Henriette of Nassau-Weilburg in 1815
B: 1797
D: 1829
Two children:
Marie Therese (1816-
Charles Ferdinand (1818-1874)

Charles Ferdinand
B: 1818
D: 1874
Ruled as Kaiser Karl II 1847-1874
married Maria Nicholiava Romanov in 1839
B: 1819
D: 1876
Maria is the younger sister of future Tsar Alexander II
 
Leo Caesius said:
Perhaps in this TL we can rename the nascent Rumanian state "Montana"? :p

Montania would be the correct spelling. The name for the US state came from the Spanish word montaña which is also pronounced "montania."
 
Ah, damn. You know, I was having a good time reading this, until I got to page 5. Then I just had to intervene here.

abdul hadi pasha said:
In the case of the Armenians in WWI, that can't be said, nor did the Armenians refrain from comitting atrocities of their own, with hundreds of thousands, if not millions of victims - and continue to today. Further, since the current Armenian agenda, and you can find this clearly stated on any Armenian site, is to annex about a quarter of Turkey and get reparations, I don't necessarily think that a unilateral apology is appropriate or wise.

Well, several points: A, what millions of victims? I've never understood how people are able to deflate our population down to two million, and yet say we ourselves killed millions of people. I've read claims that "about a million" Armenians lived in the whole of the Ottoman Empire; does that mean we killed many times our entire population? How on Earth did we lose our homeland if we are able to perform military miracles such as that?

B: Continue to today? Oh, you mean that time when we didn't sit down to be massacred again. Well, damn it all, being butchered becomes tiring after centuries.

C: Other than a single political party, no Armenian group claims any land in modern Turkey (note, I am a part of that single political party). The current "Armenian agenda" is for an apology and reparations.

Just because I don't say much about it doesn't mean I don't watch the posts here; just making a tally of all the little snipes here and there, despite the "truce" we apparently have going on Ian's request.

Oh, and the Mashtots Chair of Harvard University is one James R. Russell, who is also, as it so happens, Jewish. Now, I've heard about the stereotype of the self-hating Jew too, but if anyone would have the "right" to criticize an organization without being blasted as some sort of "-ist" for it, I think he would in this circumstance.
 
A. Millions of victims total, not by the Armenians, and for both the Armenians and the Muslims, the majority of deaths were not violent, meaning mostly by disease, exposure, and starvation. Nobody is deflating the Armenian population - it was agreed by everyone (with one exception) that the population was around 1.5-1.75M - and by "everyone", I mean the Ottomans, and ALL the foreign services, including the Russians, AND the Armenians except for a spurious claim at the Congress of Berlin later revived. In any case, since all the Muslim men were at the front, it would be fairly easy to slaughter defenseless villagers - that is how it always is. That is the most common reason given in reports by Ottoman Army commanders for not protecting Armenian refugees; they didn't have enough men to protect Muslim villages against Armenian bands and Kurdish bandits as it was. In any case, genocides are not usually carried out by large segments of a population.

B. If you think committing atrocities today is excused by past suffering, then I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. Azerbaijan is no threat to Armenia. If you think ejecting the entire Muslim population of Armenian or Armenian-occupied territory is justified for self-defense, then you have no right to criticize the Ottomans.

C. A single, but extremely large political party. Try evacuating Azeri territory and we'll see how relations develop. Turkey was the first country to recognize Armenia the first time it gained independence, and among the first the second time.

Knight Of Armenia said:
Ah, damn. You know, I was having a good time reading this, until I got to page 5. Then I just had to intervene here.



Well, several points: A, what millions of victims? I've never understood how people are able to deflate our population down to two million, and yet say we ourselves killed millions of people. I've read claims that "about a million" Armenians lived in the whole of the Ottoman Empire; does that mean we killed many times our entire population? How on Earth did we lose our homeland if we are able to perform military miracles such as that?

B: Continue to today? Oh, you mean that time when we didn't sit down to be massacred again. Well, damn it all, being butchered becomes tiring after centuries.

C: Other than a single political party, no Armenian group claims any land in modern Turkey (note, I am a part of that single political party). The current "Armenian agenda" is for an apology and reparations.

Just because I don't say much about it doesn't mean I don't watch the posts here; just making a tally of all the little snipes here and there, despite the "truce" we apparently have going on Ian's request.

Oh, and the Mashtots Chair of Harvard University is one James R. Russell, who is also, as it so happens, Jewish. Now, I've heard about the stereotype of the self-hating Jew too, but if anyone would have the "right" to criticize an organization without being blasted as some sort of "-ist" for it, I think he would in this circumstance.
 
chrispi said:
Montania would be the correct spelling. The name for the US state came from the Spanish word montaña which is also pronounced "montania."

How about the "United Kingdom of Wallachia and Moldavia"?

Maybe "Danubia"?

Or the "United Principalities of Wallchia and Moldavia", commonly referred to as the "Principalities"?

In any case, whoever had Constantinople has "dibs" on "Rumania".
 
earlier post:[QUOTE-Abdul Hadi Pasha]In the case of the Armenians in WWI, that can't be said, nor did the Armenians refrain from comitting atrocities of their own, with hundreds of thousands, if not millions of victims - and continue to today. Further, since the current Armenian agenda, and you can find this clearly stated on any Armenian site, is to annex about a quarter of Turkey and get reparations, I don't necessarily think that a unilateral apology is appropriate or wise.[/QUOTE]

last post:
Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
A. Millions of victims total, not by the Armenians, and for both the Armenians and the Muslims, the majority of deaths were not violent, meaning mostly by disease, exposure, and starvation.

Well, Pasha, whilst I am not overly interested in the little low level, mostly now resolved feud (or whatever you want to call it) between yourself and Redbeard, or yourself and Knight, I would like to point out that what you say above, doesn't agree in any way with what you said earlier. Now, in truth, you may have written your earlier post in a hurry and with heated feelings, but if anybody compares your two posts, they might well be confused. In your earlier posts the subject of your sentence was the Armenians and then you refer to their also committing atrocities and then specifying numbers, all without ever notifying that the numbers were for total atrocities by all sides, and not by the Armenians. That would imply that the numbers were for Armenian atrocities, not overall.

Just pointing this out though, to show why feuds can start here...because people do not express their point clearly, leading to misunderstandings and then flame wars.


Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
C. A single, but extremely large political party. Try evacuating Azeri territory and we'll see how relations develop. Turkey was the first country to recognize Armenia the first time it gained independence, and among the first the second time.

But is this party in power now? Has it ever been? What are its chances of ever being in power? Again, this is how flame wars start. In the earlier post you generalize about a current Armenian agenda, which would imply to readers ignorant about the area that either:
a) the current Armenian government or
b) most Armenian (if not all) political parties, including those in government
have an agenda to claim a quarter of Turkey. so again, I would like to use this as an example and an appeal to all to be careful with what you post, and not to generalize when possible since it can very well mislead other posters and readers.



And back to the topic.

Hmm...Romania and Montania (or Muntenia). Since the Rumanians called themselves "Rumeni", might'n the new nation be called "Rumenia"? or maybe they would call their nation "land of the Romans of the mountains"? (however that would be rendered) to distinguish it from the new "land of the Romans" to their south?
 
Sean Swaby said:
And back to the topic.

Hmm...Romania and Montania (or Muntenia). Since the Rumanians called themselves "Rumeni", might'n the new nation be called "Rumenia"? or maybe they would call their nation "land of the Romans of the mountains"? (however that would be rendered) to distinguish it from the new "land of the Romans" to their south?

I thought that they called themselves "Wlachs?"
 

Leo Caesius

Banned
chrispi said:
I thought that they called themselves "Wlachs?"
That's what everyone else calls them. It's from an old Germanic root meaning something like "foreigner." Apparently whenever Germanic tribes arrived in a new area, like Wales, Belgium, or the Carpathian mountains, they marvelled at the number of "foreigners" walking about. The Chinese do this as well; I never get use to being called a waiguoren in my own country (foreigner, literally someone from outside of the country).
 
Leo Caesius said:
That's what everyone else calls them. It's from an old Germanic root meaning something like "foreigner." Apparently whenever Germanic tribes arrived in a new area, like Wales, Belgium, or the Carpathian mountains, they marvelled at the number of "foreigners" walking about. The Chinese do this as well; I never get use to being called a waiguoren in my own country (foreigner, literally someone from outside of the country).
Kind of like the Greeks and "barbarian," I suppose. :D
 
Top