Serbian Revolution Failed/didn't happen. What's next ?

For anybody who hasn't heard about it, here's the genocide article.

Well, because I know this from Genocide, I won't blaming anyone for being critical towards it ;) I also want to know whether that was really a revolution itself. Whatever it is, however, it was the fact that this event ultimately cultivated the formation of a Serbian de facto independent state after centuries of Ottoman rule. But what if, for all its purposes, this attempt would ultimately failed ? What would be the consequences ? Would this Ottoman's position in the Balkans for the long term ? I am well aware that it wasn't actually as critical as the loss of Bulgaria after 1870s Russo-Ottoman War, but will this provide a meaningful help, some kind of a set back ? Or was it actually preventable with any PoD no earlier than 1791 (the last year of the last Austro-Ottoman War IOTL) ?
 
Last edited:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=2020228&postcount=217

I kind of did it for my TL (look to the bottom of the post) although i havent elaborated on the effects yet. The sub-POD is a militarily stronger Ottoman Empire, which with the crushing of Serbia cows Austria to the north and leads ultimately to a more dynamic Ottoman Empire...which kind of crushes the Greek Revolution and ends up playing a major role in the next Great (World) War....

Looks nice. ;) However, because this reemergence of the Ottoman Empire is partly being influence by one of your TL's main feature, frankly I don't think this is satisfying for me. I brought this subject in order to find a suitable PoD during this time frame for my purpose.
 
The Serbian Revolt was pretty complicated, and began on behalf of the Sultan against the Janissaries. The weakness of the central government made it impossible for the Ottomans to protect the Serbs from exploitation and oppression by local Janissary lords, which led to more aggressive Serb moves. A stronger Ottoman Empire could easily have kept Serbia in the fold. Even a slightly stronger empire.

The failure of Selim III really did kind of screw the Ottomans. If he had been a little more resolute, the world would look very different right now.
 
The Serbian Revolt was pretty complicated, and began on behalf of the Sultan against the Janissaries. The weakness of the central government made it impossible for the Ottomans to protect the Serbs from exploitation and oppression by local Janissary lords, which led to more aggressive Serb moves. A stronger Ottoman Empire could easily have kept Serbia in the fold. Even a slightly stronger empire.

Did the revolt start out on behalf of the Sultan the same way that Spanish Americans decided to overthrow their colonial governments in the name of the deposed Spanish king? Because claiming that one is fighting for an incapacitated monarch is a really good cover for a revolt that is actually aiming at independence. The set-up of separate Serbian institutions during the First Revolt might point to some of the population having a national consciousness.

The breakaway of the Slavs from the Empire was inevitable in the 19th century, whether they do it on their own, as the Serbs did, or with Great Power sponsorship.
 
Did the revolt start out on behalf of the Sultan the same way that Spanish Americans decided to overthrow their colonial governments in the name of the deposed Spanish king? Because claiming that one is fighting for an incapacitated monarch is a really good cover for a revolt that is actually aiming at independence. The set-up of separate Serbian institutions during the First Revolt might point to some of the population having a national consciousness.

The breakaway of the Slavs from the Empire was inevitable in the 19th century, whether they do it on their own, as the Serbs did, or with Great Power sponsorship.

No, they were appealing to him to free them from the Janissaries and provide orderly and just government. They had to set up institutions, because the existing ones were what they were rebelling against. The Second Revolt is a different matter. By then they were interested in controlling their own affairs.
 
No, they were appealing to him to free them from the Janissaries and provide orderly and just government. They had to set up institutions, because the existing ones were what they were rebelling against. The Second Revolt is a different matter. By then they were interested in controlling their own affairs.

This is from the First Revolt:

Karađorđe insisted that the dahis leave Belgrade, and in achieving this he abolished Feudalism in the liberated areas of Serbia and installed his military commanders and local leaders as governors of nahis (Turkish administrative units). (The dahis, however, refused to leave and were captured and executed after the Serbian liberation of Belgrade.) The Ottoman government did welcome the rebellion against the dahis and decided to install a new governor in Belgrade. Karađorđe and the Serbs, after tasting the fruits of liberty decided to not let the new pasha enter the liberated area and defeated his army in the Battle of Ivankovac of 1805. This battle signified a turn of events, since the uprising was not a rebellion against the dahi terror anymore, but a war of liberation against the Ottoman rule. The rebels achieved several victories, including in the Battle of Mišar in 1806, and the Battles of Deligrad and Belgrade in 1806. At the end of 1806 Belgrade was freed from Ottoman rule. In 1807 Šabac and Užice were also freed. After this both sides agreed to sign a peace treaty. However, In the same year Karađorđe aligned with the Russian Empire in a war against the Ottoman Empire, in spite of this the war continued.
 
This is from the First Revolt:

Karađorđe insisted that the dahis leave Belgrade, and in achieving this he abolished Feudalism in the liberated areas of Serbia and installed his military commanders and local leaders as governors of nahis (Turkish administrative units). (The dahis, however, refused to leave and were captured and executed after the Serbian liberation of Belgrade.) The Ottoman government did welcome the rebellion against the dahis and decided to install a new governor in Belgrade. Karađorđe and the Serbs, after tasting the fruits of liberty decided to not let the new pasha enter the liberated area and defeated his army in the Battle of Ivankovac of 1805. This battle signified a turn of events, since the uprising was not a rebellion against the dahi terror anymore, but a war of liberation against the Ottoman rule. The rebels achieved several victories, including in the Battle of Mišar in 1806, and the Battles of Deligrad and Belgrade in 1806. At the end of 1806 Belgrade was freed from Ottoman rule. In 1807 Šabac and Užice were also freed. After this both sides agreed to sign a peace treaty. However, In the same year Karađorđe aligned with the Russian Empire in a war against the Ottoman Empire, in spite of this the war continued.

Not surprisingly simplistic and nationalistic. It's a complicated explanation, but the Serbs didn't want to replace one bad local notable for another and the government was unable at this time to assert itself to appoint one of its choosing.
 
Top