While I work on fixing the earlier Germany post and getting the next one out, I thought I'd leave you one question: What direction would you like to see the Balkans go in?
ITTL, with their roles in the Napoleonic wars and German Unification war, Austria will likely come out weaker than IOTL, however, as IOTL, being unable to project power into Italy, Poland, or Germany, the only direction they can go is south. This means Austria becomes VERY interested in the Balkans, but is in a weaker position, so Russia will likely dominate in the region.
Lots of Background information:
Following the unification of Germany and that of Italy, the South Slavs wanted to emulate these states and unite. IOTL, Russia supported this as a way to drive Austria and the Ottomans out of the Balkans. Their alternative was to unite the Balkan peoples' around Orthodox christianity (as this was also an identity that was common in the region that neither the Ottomans nor the Austrians fit into). So basically there were 2 options. One was to support Greek and Slavic nationalists and endorse the unification of the South Slavs and the Greek reconquest of their lands, this can be called the Yugoslavist approach. The other was a sort of Pan-Orthodox Balkan "Rumelian" movement, which was about as popular as you would think. The Rumelian approach would only be favored in Russia if it wanted to avoid war with Austria, which it would not ITTL, and was never super popular within the Balkans. This means that the Russian diplomatic approach, as well as the goals of the Balkan groups would be for Romanians, Slavs, and Greeks to work together to create their separate states, all allied with each other and Russia. This would work out nicely in Serbia and Greece.
The problems are Romania and Albania, as well as potentially Bulgaria. Romanian nationalists ITTL, as IOTL, have overlapping claims with Russia, with the Romanians wanting Bessarabia (modern day Moldova), which is a part of Russia, and the Russians potentially wanting to annex more Romanian land. Albania is neither Slavic nor Orthodox, and is doing pretty well under Ottoman Rule. Many Albanians would aspire towards independence, but they would not want to ally with Russia in particular. A less powerful Austria might even see them as a useful launching-off point for further spreading of their influence into the Balkans. Bulgaria is a large nation with a strong separate identity from Serbia, both culturally and historically. Why is this important? Well, Serbia, as the first large South Slavic kingdom to gain independence will ITTL likely still see itself as a leader of Yugoslav unification, and try to use the movement to further its own strategic goals, namely, getting swole as heck. Croatia may also emerge as a leader (the Illyrian movement is going strong at this point in the timeline, I'll get to that soon), however, Serbia and Croatia, though they have been part of separate states for a long time, share a lot culturally and linguistically (don't get mad, I'm not saying that they don't have their differences, they're just VERY similar, more so that either of them is to Bulgaria), so the idea of unifying to face larger and more powerful enemies would make a lot of sense to people. Bulgars (and Macedonians, whose identity at the time was not yet fully and clearly established), would likely seek a separate state from the Serbo-Croatian Yugoslavia, and if the Serbs do not interfere in Macedonia, the animosity that existed IOTL might not transfer over into TTL. The Serbs weren't super interested in Macedonia IOTL. Bosnia and Croatia, with their large Serb populations and *Serbocroatian-speaking majorities were the goal. The expansion into Macedonia was a result of Austria's presence in Bosnia. Macedonia was a place for the Serbs to expand into, to grow stronger, and eventually take Bosnia, rather than the main ambition. So this means that if Austria expands less or breaks up earlier, Serbia and Bulgaria might not hate each other. If the Russians and Serbs don't piss off the Bulgarians as much as they did IOTL, full South Slavic unification is possible. On the other side, Austria could end up even bigger than IOTL, and cause more problems for the unification of the Southern Slavs.
Now, these Illyrians I've been talking so much about. They were pan-Yugoslavist romantic nationalists from Croatia and Slovenia, though they were, as would be expected of such a movement, accepting of Serbs, and quite a few of the major members were ethnic Serbs. They wanted to unite the south or southwestern Slavs under the blanket name "Illyrians", and developed a whole orthography for a central dialect for the South Slavs which is actually quite different from modern standard Štokavian Serbocroatian (speakers of the modern languages can understand it, but things like noun cases are a bit different, and more closely resemble other Slavic languages and favor Ijekavica rather than Ekavica as the OTL standardization and modern Serbian did, though neither manner of speech is incorrect in this or the OTL official standardization, also spelling was very different and favored the Latin script). IOTL they revolted against Hungarian rule semi-successfully but were destroyed following the revolutions of 1848. For the Illyiran movement to be the driving force behind South Slavic unification (which at this point is a given, regardless of how long that unity will last), Austria-Hungary would have to break up earlier than IOTL and the movement would have to survive longer. The latter is quite plausible, the former depends on other developments in the TL.
In Summary:
There are a number of directions in which South Slavic history could go ITTL, and I want your opinions on which you find most interesting and which you find most realistic/plausible
If Austria Gains as much or more than IOTL:
- Like IOTL, Serbia, as the only major independent state other than the not too interested Bulgaria leads the struggle for independence, resulting in a Serb-dominated Yugoslav state which has bad relations with Bulgaria over preexisting tensions around Northern Macedonia (regardless of who owns the region)
If Austria breaks up early:
If Austria breaks up on its own, this may mean a larger than IOTL Austria and Hungary, and thus likely a smaller Romania, Italy, Czechia, Slovakia and Slovenia.
- Serbs again, just bigger, but likely with a bit less power over the other groups in Yugoslavia
- Illyria, a Croatian-led Yugoslavist state, likely has tensions with Serbia over Bosnia, Serbia may unite with Montenegro. There are two, much more distinct languages.
- Illyria but with Serbs. It ends up being sort of like TTL Germany. Serbia is still a major player, but is not so completely dominant, Ljudevit Gaj's Illyrian language likely has greater influence. Croatia is likely quite large territoriality within the union, and possibly post-breakup.
- Fully united Yugoslavia (this may require some help from the Russians to stimulate the Bulgars)
If Austria stays around but doesn't grow significantly:
- Serbian-Dominated state containing Serbia, Bosnia, and Montenegro, in good relationship with Bulgaria, possibly a slightly larger Croatia, maybe a larger Hungary.
Here are some layers of Irredentism. They might help. Blue is the Illyrian movement/Croatian Pan-Yugoslavists, Red is Serbia and to an extent Serbian Pan-Yugoslavists, Green is the sort of general Yugoslavist ideal. Keep in mind, these are all VERY rough maps i quickly slapped together, but they might help you visualize things.
Romania:
- I need more time to do research, I'm a South Slav, so I know a lot about South Slavic history, but not so with Romania.
- Possibly:
- Smaller Romania if A-H breaks up on its own due to Hungary ending up with more Transylvania.
- Romanians could go anti-Russian over Bessarabia, this may result in Russian annexation or occupation of western Moldavia to keep control over the area and push its borders further away from lands it cares about.
- This may mean a more divided Romania later on ITTL
- Same as IOTL more or less
Greece:
Again, some of the same problems as with Romania.
- I'm seeing Greece expanding into the Epirus/Western Rumelia thing on the postnapoleonic Europe map, meaning Greece might end up with a lot of OTL Albania
- Or not, and instead the Greeks focus on Southern Macedonia, Thrace, and Ionia, causing problems in their relations with Bulgaria.
- Or it stays roughly the same as IOTL
Have I rambled on for too long again?