What would 19th C Russia's wet-dream scenario in the Balkans look like?

[Thande]

I'm wondering how far actually annexing the Balkans is practical, though. If the Powers are all involved with their own business then Russia going to war with the Ottomans unimpeded is one thing. However, Russia directly annexing the Balkans, and especially Constantinople makes it a direct threat to the British route to India. If Russia takes Constantinople, I think it sets up an inevitable conflict with Britain.

Indeed, but Russian motivations w.r.t Constantinople seem often quite messianic and ideological-destiny type stuff so just because it makes war inevitable doesn't, I think, mean they necessarily wouldn't do it.

 

[Flocculencio]

Indeed, but Russian motivations w.r.t Constantinople seem often quite messianic and ideological-destiny type stuff so just because it makes war inevitable doesn't, I think, mean they necessarily wouldn't do it.

Interestingly enough, I recently finished reading (well, listening- it was an audiobook) Bible and Sword by Barbara Tuchman which argues that British dealings with the Levant were most often the product of messianic thinking even if they were dressed up in terms of politics. According to her the the CoE's Evangelical wing (and even much of the moderate wing of the CoE) and the nonconformists did very much see themselves theologically and ideologically as Israelites, so to speak.

Arguably, in my view, the existence of the Ottomans at least gave both these trends in Russia and Britain an external Other to be suspicious of but this PoD means that two of the Powers driven (at least in part) by two ideologies of this sort come into conflict due to developments like this, things could get interesting...

 

[Ofaloaf]

To my mind the major question is whether the Russians attempt to directly annex Constantinople and perhaps the whole of the Balkans - I have heard they had rather extraordinary plans to even move their capital there if they ever too the city - or whether they would set up a puppet reborn Byzantium, or perhaps several separate Slavic and/or Orthdox puppet states across the whole of the Balkans.

I don't think a puppet Byzantium would be that appealing to even the most idealogical of Russians. They did, after all, claim to be the Third Rome-- why resurrect the Second as a separate entity?

 

[Thande]

Interestingly enough, I recently finished reading (well, listening- it was an audiobook) Bible and Sword by Barbara Tuchman which argues that British dealings with the Levant were most often the product of messianic thinking even if they were dressed up in terms of politics. According to her the the CoE's Evangelical wing (and even much of the moderate wing of the CoE) and the nonconformists did very much see themselves theologically and ideologically as Israelites, so to speak.

Arguably, in my view, the existence of the Ottomans at least gave both these trends in Russia and Britain an external Other to be suspicious of but this PoD means that two of the Powers driven (at least in part) by two ideologies of this sort come into conflict due to developments like this, things could get interesting...

Yes, it was a relatively common belief in the 19th century that the English were, literally or metaphorically, one of the Lost Tribes of Israel.

 

[Admiral Matt]

I'm wondering how far actually annexing the Balkans is practical, though. If the Powers are all involved with their own business then Russia going to war with the Ottomans unimpeded is one thing. However, Russia directly annexing the Balkans, and especially Constantinople makes it a direct threat to the British route to India. If Russia takes Constantinople, I think it sets up an inevitable conflict with Britain.

It might well set up an inevitable conflict, but I think it's reasonable to guess that the actual confrontation might be a decade or a generation down the road. Look at Russia's own response to the annexation of Bosnia IOTL - not noticing an ideological outrage at the time doesn't stop its being an outrage.

Post script: It would seem to me easier to pull his situation off if there had not been a Crimean War in the first place. Russia would be in a much more confident place and, once the other powers were distracted, would be spoiling for a fight.

 

[Jimbrock]

They would probably annex Constantinople and environs, but set it up as a de facto puppet state. As for the Balkans and Armenia, might Russia, after having completed its reforms, go forth to incorporate them all and (though they would need Croatia, Slovenia, Bohemia and Slovakia) unite all the Slavic peoples in one Empire? It sounds very far fetched, and I dont think it will be possible.

 

[Nassirisimo]

Well, wet dream or no wet dream, I have a feeling that even if Britain and France decide not to intervene in any war, direct annexation of the Ottoman Balkans into the Russian empire cannot be ignored by Austria. The Balkans had been a battleground between the Austrians and the Russians since the 18th century, so I don't think the Austrians would allow too much of the Balkans to slip directly into Russian hands. So the Russians would have to settle for satellite states, or a partition. (which would be difficult for the Austrians as they even had trouble taking Bosnia in 1878)

 

[Ian the Admin]

(In response to a listing of ethnic cleansings of Muslims, after going nuts about Ottoman treatment of Christians)

Well i dont care if i am the oppression.... i just dont wanna be the oppressed.


Again, where is the problem? After all "what kind of empire doesnt oppress someone?"


Again again..... so what?


Sounds like Russia.

Banned.

 

[Tobit]

One thing that would be interesting is would the pan-slavists re-introduce serfdom to the Balkans, or if the Balkans had serfdom and Alexander II still institutes his liberal reforms would the Balkan local elites take kindly to the freeing of their own serfs. That might create resistance of itself either way.

I don't really know if the Balkans had serfdom in Ottoman controlled territory.

 

[Basilisk]

Banned.

What motivation does Russia really have to prop up a separate state based around Constantinople? It'd be much easier for them to exert power directly controlling the city. In fact, any Greek state would be in the way of this goal, they don't have any benefit from propping up the greeks at all if the Turks are out of the picture.

 

[Iori]

In fact, any Greek state would be in the way of this goal, they don't have any benefit from propping up the greeks at all if the Turks are out of the picture.

That made me think of a Hetalia-esque scene;


Russia: W'eve captured Constantinopol and fulfilled our destiny as the New Rome!
Greece: But, but WE wanted the whole region!!
Ottoman Empire: *Glares at Russia and looks at Greece wickedly*

Five Minutes Later

Ottoman Empire: Hey, Russia, I know we just fought and all, but no hard feelings, yeah?
Russia: That's very generous and good hearted of you Ottomania..what do you want?
Ottoman Empire: Well, you know how Greece has been acting bitchy and threatening to invade Constantinopol?
Russia: Da.
Ottoman Empire: Well, since you don't care about Greece anymore, and they're a pain in both of our sides, what would you say to me annexing them, heck I'll give you one of those islands near the Straits in return.
Russia: Hm, well they're not slavs, so go ahead, I don't care about them.

 

[Grey Wolf]

The name Constantine featured in the Russian imperial family because it was hoped to set up a second empire based upon Constantinople ruled by this scion of the Romanovs. To call it Greek would be something of a misnomer since at the time of the idea's birth, Greeks were still subjects of the Ottomans.

By the 1860s the idea had more probably evolved into taking Constantinople for Russia itself, whereby its more probable that Bulgaria would become part of Russia (after all, like the Poles they were also Slavs) than any independent Bulgar state is set up. If one is, it would be in personal union with the Tsar, as Congress Poland had been.

The situation in the (Rumanian) Principalities is more complicated but Russia taking the Dobruja would probably solve the issue of territorial contiguity

Additional land would be the Asiatic shore and the provinces there as a bugger for Constantinople, plus all of Thrace, and probably Salonika as an anchor on the Aegean

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

Not getting into a discussion of the realism of the whole thing. I'll just list what I know. What I'm discussing here is an unrealistically successful scenario for Russia.

The Russians would seek to either annex the Straits directly or turn them into a puppet state. They would be less than enthusiastic about letting the Greeks have them due to the presence of pro-English and pro-French parties in Athens and the implicit danger that they'd be inviting those powers into the Black Sea. They might change their opinion on this if Nicholas of Leuchtenberg, a nephew of the tsar, is made king of Greece. They'd also want northeastern Anatolia (no state for the Armenians, don't wanna encourage irredentism in the other direction), southern Bessarabia (if this is after the Treaty of Paris), the mouth of the Danube, and maybe the Dobruja.

Concerning the Principalities, the feeling I got is that they renounced their expansionist aims there after the Crimean War - not counting the desire to regain southern Bessarabia, of course. But they'd want to keep them under their influence and as disunited as possible. A Russian prince (Leuchtenberg was discussed here too) or a native one with pro-Russian inclinations would be a bonus, either one for both or one in each.

I doubt they'd seek to annex Bulgaria, but it's the one place where they'd have the biggest interest and the best odds of placing a Russian on the throne, so they'd go for that. There was, around 1860, the prospect of Serbia coming under a Romanov, and that too would be preferred. The Montenegrins would get the Herzegovina and a southern extension into Albania. No idea on the likelyhood of a Serbo-Montenegrin union. I'm ignoring Austria here.

Concerning borders between Greece to the south and the South Slavs to the north, you'll have to wait until I get my notes on the line of division that Athens and Belgrade negotiated at around that time. It might take me a few days. The Russians wouldn't be too thrilled about it (the Greeks get quite a lot), but I think that they would acquiesce in something like it west of the Strymon.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Russian historical narratives of the 19th century (and indeed the late 18th century) tend to take the form of 'we were just on the verge of overthrowing the corrupt and failing evil Turk and liberating the Christians to avenge Byzantium, and we would have got away with it too if it hadn't been for those meddling French (and British, sometimes)'.

Now obviously that's not the whole story. But it got me thinking. What if Tsarist Russia ever did get the chance to go all-out against the Ottomans without any other great powers being able to intervene?

Here's a half-arsed scenario to suggest how this could happen:

It's the 1860s. America is in the middle of a civil war (not necessarily the exact OTL one, but similar) and something like the classic Trent Affair POD has happened - Britain has become embroiled in the war, with troops going to defend Canada and the Royal Navy engaging the USN. Fenian terrorism at home, perhaps American-backed, focuses public anger and paranoia on the conflict. At the same time, Austria-Hungary has collapsed into revolution after the assassination of the Emperor by a Hungarian nationalist. An ambitious Prussia mobilises its army to 'stabilise the situation' in Austria, but it's obvious to everyone that their real goal is to split up the Hapsburg empire and subsume its German-speaking parts into a new, Prussian-dominated German Confederation. France, realising this, demands Prussian withdrawal and when this fails to happen, declares war on Prussia. Italy also becomes involved as it did in OTL with the Austro-Prussian wars.

Not brilliant but you get the idea - the point is that all the western powers have other concerns and can't really do more than send strongly worded letters to St Petersburg if Russia starts up another war with the Ottomans.

The Ottoman Empire, of course, is not the tottering zombie that the Russians (and everyone else) painted it as, but it is still pretty weak, stuck in the middle of the tanzimat reforms and still recovering from the Crimean War. We'll assume Persia doesn't become involved on either side for simplicity's sake.

So, here is the question: the Russians have a clear run at the Ottoman Empire. What happens? And what will Europe look like afterwards?

I'm confused by the question. The Russians did have a clear run at the Ottoman Empire in 1877, and stripped it of the Balkans, ending it as a major power. I'm not sure how much more could have been achieved. The only part of their program they weren't able to achieve was the creation of a mega-Bulgaria, which is lucky for them, because it was a Bad Idea (for Russia). You can't ignore that Russia operated in Europe, and that placed limits on their policy; also, the 1877 war brought Russia to the point where it was running on fumes, and even that was only possible because of the constitutional revolution that had left the government temporarily in disarray.

The Ottomans survived so long for many reasons that were not related to British interference (and in reality, the British did as much to undermine the empire as support it - actually probably quite a bit more) - these included the difficulty of campaigning in the Balkans and Anatolia, and the far greater administrative and military vitality of the empire than everyone assumed.

That's another factor that is in play - Russia's resources to throw at them are not unlimited.

The 1860s would have been a much worse time to attack, as the internal situation of the empire was much better - no default, no famine, plenty of money for arms, and the great statesmen of the Tanzimat were still alive and in control (Ali and Fuat pashas). The American Civil War greatly improved the empire's position as the war cut off cotton and tobacco, which the empire was able to produce.

Russia was also undergoing a transformation with the liberation of the serfs, and had not yet begun to modernize the military, which the Ottomans were already deep into.

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

OK, I found the original source and used it to edit a map. The blue dots are places mentioned as assigned to Greece and the red dots those assigned to Serbia - the black border west of the Balkan Mountains is an approximation drawn with the dots as guide. The gray border is a fallback in case the Greeks don't get Thrace and Constantinople - they take "central Albania" instead and the Serbs get their eastern border moved to the Iskar as compensation. This was all part of a very unrealistic 1861 Greco-Serbian convention.

Abdul, make some room in your inbox.

 

[Thande]

Thanks for the input, Pervie.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

One thing that would be interesting is would the pan-slavists re-introduce serfdom to the Balkans, or if the Balkans had serfdom and Alexander II still institutes his liberal reforms would the Balkan local elites take kindly to the freeing of their own serfs. That might create resistance of itself either way.

I don't really know if the Balkans had serfdom in Ottoman controlled territory.

There was no serfdom. Ottoman policy tended to favor peasant "freehold" (complicated) in the interest of having a conservative peasant class with no large territorial magnates or nobility. As a result, peasants in the Balkans were much better-off than Russian peasants - which was very much commented on when Bulgaria was invaded in 1877.

That left the empire fairly immune to revolution, but it also meant no capital accumulation and no elite class of landholders with a sense of service like the British nobility. The Ottoman elites were the urban educated classes who operated within the bureaucracy and so were dependent on the imperial administration.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

OK, I found the original source and used it to edit a map. The blue dots are places mentioned as assigned to Greece and the red dots those assigned to Serbia - the black border west of the Balkan Mountains is an approximation drawn with the dots as guide. The gray border is a fallback in case the Greeks don't get Thrace and Constantinople - they take "central Albania" instead and the Serbs get their eastern border moved to the Iskar as compensation. This was all part of a very unrealistic 1861 Greco-Serbian convention.

Abdul, make some room in your inbox.

There's room now.

That division doesn't look like it would work too well - I don't see how Greece could possibly have the resource to hold such a massive territory. They'd have way, way too much non-Greek land; heavily Islamic, and what isn't is Bulgarian. It seems to me that a large Bulgaria is a lot more practicable.

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

That division doesn't look like it would work too well - I don't see how Greece could possibly have the resource to hold such a massive territory. They'd have way, way too much non-Greek land; heavily Islamic, and what isn't is Bulgarian. It seems to me that a large Bulgaria is a lot more practicable.

I mentioned before that this is just an indication of what the border might look like west of the Strymon if European Turkey were to be divided in the 1860s. The Russians would simply never accept a Greece extending to the Balkans and the Black Sea, regardless of its chances of actually keeping control over that much territory. I'd expect the region east of the river (except the Straits and possibly Adrianople), as well as some places west of it (maybe even Nis), to be assigned to Bulgaria.

Keep in mind that this is before the Bulgarian Exarchate was founded, so many in Greece would view the Bulgarians coming under their rule as simply Slavified Greeks. The later the division, the greater the Greco-Bulgarian rivalry - and the larger the Bulgarian share of Macedonia.

 

[rcduggan]

I don't think a puppet Byzantium would be that appealing to even the most idealogical of Russians. They did, after all, claim to be the Third Rome-- why resurrect the Second as a separate entity?

That was Catherine the Great's so-called "Greek scheme," IIRC. A plan to place her grandson Constantine Pavlovich on the throne of a revived Roman empire of the European Ottoman Empire. Needless to say this never got anywhere beyond hearsay and speculation, but it indicates that the resurrection idea was indeed floated in the Russian court.