Sides in an Escalated Russo-Turkish War (1877-1878)?

So, the POD in a TL I've been planning is during the 11th Russo-Turkish War, fought by Russia to increase its eastern power, with the Ottoman's mistreatment of Christian minorities in present-day Bulgaria as a cassis belli, the Russians threatened to conquer Istanbul. Prime Minister Disraeli urged Germany and Austria-Hungary to fight and prevent the Russians from accomplishing this. This never went through IOTL, as the Russians sued for peace soon after. But if they hadn't, then an early Great War could occur.

My question is, what would the sides look like? Obviously, Britain, Germany, and the Austro-Hungarian Empire would be part of one faction, and Russia another, but who else would join? I was thinking France and Italy join with Russia to reclaim territory from Germany and Austria respectively, but that might be ASB. Maybe China would fight against Britain, but IDK.

Also, what would such a war be fought like, and what might be its consequences?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Given the realities of the "opportunity" to feast on the

So, the POD in a TL I've been planning is during the 11th Russo-Turkish War, fought by Russia to increase its eastern power, with the Ottoman's mistreatment of Christian minorities in present-day Bulgaria as a cassis belli, the Russians threatened to conquer Istanbul. Prime Minister Disraeli urged Germany and Austria-Hungary to fight and prevent the Russians from accomplishing this. This never went through IOTL, as the Russians sued for peace soon after. But if they hadn't, then an early Great War could occur.

My question is, what would the sides look like? Obviously, Britain, Germany, and the Austro-Hungarian Empire would be part of one faction, and Russia another, but who else would join? I was thinking France and Italy join with Russia to reclaim territory from Germany and Austria respectively, but that might be ASB. Maybe China would fight against Britain, but IDK.

Also, what would such a war be fought like, and what might be its consequences?

Given the realities of the "opportunity" to feast on the remains of the Ottoman empire, it's as likely the Germans and Austrians come to an understanding with the Russians as to oppose them...

The alliance system, de facto and de jure, was in flux from the 1870s to the 1890s, at least; the possibilities of the Continental powers finding different ways to line up then who (historically) ended up in the Entente and Alliance, respectively, were quite possible, as Italy demonstrated.

As far what it would be like, bloody and prolonged.

Best,
 
Given the realities of the "opportunity" to feast on the remains of the Ottoman empire, it's as likely the Germans and Austrians come to an understanding with the Russians as to oppose them...

The alliance system, de facto and de jure, was in flux from the 1870s to the 1890s, at least; the possibilities of the Continental powers finding different ways to line up then who (historically) ended up in the Entente and Alliance, respectively, were quite possible, as Italy demonstrated.

As far what it would be like, bloody and prolonged.

Best,

Thanks. I don't think the U.S. would get involved, but what about some of the other major powers?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
If there's a scramble in the 1870s, some possible

Thanks. I don't think the U.S. would get involved, but what about some of the other major powers?



If there's a scramble in the 1870s, some possible players and their aims:
  • Russia - wants proxies or control in the eastern Balkans, Thrace, eastern Anatolia, mix of Orthodox (good) and Moslems (bad) from the Russian perspective, but nothing they're not used to...;
  • Austria - wants proxies or control in the western Balkans; mix of Catholics (good) and Moslems (bad); they'll cope;
  • Germany - To get the Russians facing the south? May be willing to support the Russians and Austrians in the Balkans in return for concessions in Central Europe (think Russian and/or Austrian Poland/Silesia - more Catholics, but strategic depth)
  • France - Deep rivalry with the Germans, but has eyes on the North African and Levantine littoral, along with trying to work Egypt as a proxy; may sign on as well. If they do, the Italians may swallow their amibitions in the Adriatic in return for territorial gains alongside the French; Spanish - not that they have a lot to offer - might line up as well, given the possibilities of cheap gains in North Africa.
Basically, if it does shape up like the above, the British are in the unfortunate position of trying to prop up the Turks against all the Mediterranean powers, including the Austrians, and their great rivals the Russians...

Far from certain, of course.;)

Best,
 
Last edited:
If there's a scramble in the 1870s, some possible players and their aims:
  • Russia - wants proxies or control in the eastern Balkans, Thrace, eastern Anatolia, mix of Orthodox (good) and Moslems (bad) from the Russian perspective, but nothing they're not used to...;
  • Austria - wants proxies or control in the western Balkans; mix of Catholics (good) and Moslems (bad); they'll cope;
  • Germany - To get the Russians facing the south? May be willing to support the Russians and Austrians in the Balkans in return for concessions in Central Europe (think Russian and/or Austrian Poland/Silesia - more Catholics, but strategic depth)
  • France - Deep rivalry with the Germans, but has eyes on the North African and Levantine littoral, along with trying to work Egypt as a proxy; may sign on as well. If they do, the Italians may swallon their amibitions in the Adriatic in return for territorial gains alongside the French; Spanish - not that they have a lot to offer - might line up as well, given the possibilities of cheap gains in North Africa.
Basically, if it does shape up like the above, the British are in the unfortunate position of trying to prop up the Turks against all the Mediterranean powers, including the Austrians, and their great rivals the Russians...

Far from certain, of course.;)

Best,

Ok. Thanks. I think I'll work this out into something fuller.
 
If there's a scramble in the 1870s, some possible players and their aims:
  • Russia - wants proxies or control in the eastern Balkans, Thrace, eastern Anatolia, mix of Orthodox (good) and Moslems (bad) from the Russian perspective, but nothing they're not used to...;
  • Austria - wants proxies or control in the western Balkans; mix of Catholics (good) and Moslems (bad); they'll cope;
  • Germany - To get the Russians facing the south? May be willing to support the Russians and Austrians in the Balkans in return for concessions in Central Europe (think Russian and/or Austrian Poland/Silesia - more Catholics, but strategic depth)
  • France - Deep rivalry with the Germans, but has eyes on the North African and Levantine littoral, along with trying to work Egypt as a proxy; may sign on as well. If they do, the Italians may swallon their amibitions in the Adriatic in return for territorial gains alongside the French; Spanish - not that they have a lot to offer - might line up as well, given the possibilities of cheap gains in North Africa.
Basically, if it does shape up like the above, the British are in the unfortunate position of trying to prop up the Turks against all the Mediterranean powers, including the Austrians, and their great rivals the Russians...

Far from certain, of course.;)

Best,

In the 1870s Bismarck was quite secure in his position, and the löast thing he would have wanted would have been even more territory, populated by non-Germans. Having Russian Poland or Austrian Silesia does not bring remote as many advantages as problems.

Why does ah.com always think in terms of territory? Is it the appeal of games, beginning with Risk? I cannot name specific cases current in 1878, but if he tries to get concessions for German support of anyone's Balkan aspirations, it will be money (that is, stuff like favorable tolls/import duties or trade agreements), but mostly the sincere promise that the other one supports Germany next time some problem has to be solved vis international diplomacy.

Two comments about the UK: The UK did have a strong interest in a part of the whole "Orient", namely Egypt. In 75 the bought the Canal shares of the Egyptian viceroy, in 1876 they started to administer the Egyptian finances, together with France, because that country was ddeply in debt. Add to this the interest in Cyprus.
Plus: Only the long Russian siega and Turkish defense of Plevna changed the British public opinion from "support the suffering Christians of the Balkans" towards "sympathy for plucky little Turkey". If Osman Nuri Pasha continues his march towards Nikopol, hemight be caught in the open and be forced to surrender, so the Russians reach Constantinople almost 5 months earlier, while the public opinion in the UK is still mildly favourable.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Hence the "if there's a scramble" predicate...

In the 1870s Bismarck was quite secure in his position, and the löast thing he would have wanted would have been even more territory, populated by non-Germans. Having Russian Poland or Austrian Silesia does not bring remote as many advantages as problems.

Why does ah.com always think in terms of territory? Is it the appeal of games, beginning with Risk? I cannot name specific cases current in 1878, but if he tries to get concessions for German support of anyone's Balkan aspirations, it will be money (that is, stuff like favorable tolls/import duties or trade agreements), but mostly the sincere promise that the other one supports Germany next time some problem has to be solved vis international diplomacy.

Two comments about the UK: The UK did have a strong interest in a part of the whole "Orient", namely Egypt. In 75 the bought the Canal shares of the Egyptian viceroy, in 1876 they started to administer the Egyptian finances, together with France, because that country was ddeply in debt. Add to this the interest in Cyprus.
Plus: Only the long Russian siega and Turkish defense of Plevna changed the British public opinion from "support the suffering Christians of the Balkans" towards "sympathy for plucky little Turkey". If Osman Nuri Pasha continues his march towards Nikopol, hemight be caught in the open and be forced to surrender, so the Russians reach Constantinople almost 5 months earlier, while the public opinion in the UK is still mildly favourable.

Hence the "if there's a scramble" predicate... and the "Far from certain, of course" caveat, as well.

Best,
 
Plus: Only the long Russian siega and Turkish defense of Plevna changed the British public opinion from "support the suffering Christians of the Balkans" towards "sympathy for plucky little Turkey". If Osman Nuri Pasha continues his march towards Nikopol, hemight be caught in the open and be forced to surrender, so the Russians reach Constantinople almost 5 months earlier, while the public opinion in the UK is still mildly favourable.

I'm sorry, could you please clarify? I'm not sure I quite get what you're saying here.
 
Top