WI Austria doesnt lose Serbia and Oltenia in 1739

Austria acquired Serbia and Oltenia in 1718 however lost them again in 1739. I dont think this loss is too hard to avoid, lets say the war ends a draw without territorial exchange. I think this can be reached by making the Austrian leadership less horrible.

I just read in Michael Hochedlinger's Austria's Wars of Emergence, 1763-1797 that the Austrian plan with the territories was settlement with german catholics like in the Banat. This was less successfull than there but it still happened.

So what are the effect? IMO in short term the war doesnt devastate the Banat so even more germans there which would be a pretty strong presence (was already OTL). The military frontier would be south of the Danube. This would avoid a lot of the tension between the hungarian nobility and the dinasty - not reintegrating this territories into Hungary was one of the main reason of resentment. Also this butterflies the fleeing of a few hundred thousend serbs into Hungary.

The territories are not significant enough themselfs to influence the other wars of the 18th century and honestly I dont think they strengthen Austria in this time period to be significant.

The interesting question would be how things develop in the 19th century. We have a Serbian Kingdom under Austrian rule for a century with significant german populace and I would think much better developed than OTL. Also the whole or nearly the whole of it is part of the military frontier. Austrian Wallachia or Oltenia is the same except that the other part is only an Ottoman vassal instead of direct control.

How would the national movements look in the 19th century? How is Vienna viewed by the serbs and romanians? In one hand they were freed from the Ottomans by the Habsburg. In the other hand attempts to catholisation, german settlement and much more efficient Austrian administration (and taxation) may not endear the state to the locals.
 
Last edited:
Honestly as for the Austrian policies of settling Germans and try to "Catholise" the Serbs, I doubt it will alienate them much. The Austrians will likely try to reach a deal with the Serbian Orthodox Church to enter union with Rome making them Greek Catholic. At the same time the Austrian only settled people in regions where there was unused land (often land populated by Muslim before. At last the Austrians will deliver a non-predatory and mostly competent governance, which the Serbs will love after having dealt with Ottoman (mis)rule.
 
Austria acquired Serbia and Oltenia in 1718 however lost them again in 1739. I dont think this loss is too hard to avoid, lets say the war ends a draw without territorial exchange. I think this can be reached by making the Austrian leadership less horrible.

I just read in Michael Hochedlinger's Austria's Wars of Emergence, 1763-1797 that the Austrian plan with the territories was settlement with german catholics like in the Banat. This was less successfull than there but it still happened.

So what are the effect? IMO in short term the war doesnt devastate the Banat so even more germans there which would be a pretty strong presence (was already OTL). The military frontier would be south of the Danube. This would avoid a lot of the tension between the hungarian nobility and the dinasty - not reintegrating this territories into Hungary was one of the main reason of resentment. Also this butterflies the fleeing of a few hundred thousend serbs into Hungary.

The territories are not significant enough themselfs to influence the other wars of the 18th century and honestly I dont think they strengthen Austria in this time period to be significant.

The interesting question would be how things develop in the 19th century. We have a Serbian Kingdom under Austrian rule for a century with significant german populace and I would think much better developed than OTL. Also the whole or nearly the whole of it is part of the military frontier. Austrian Wallachia or Oltenia is the same except that the other part is only an Ottoman vassal instead of direct control.

How would the national movements look in the 19th century? How is Vienna viewed by the serbs and romanians? In one hand they were freed from the Ottomans by the Habsburg. In the other hand attempts to catholisation, german settlement and much more efficient Austrian administration (and taxation) may not endear the state to the locals.

The Ottomans will another war later to get Belgrade back. Belgrade is too important to let it in Austrian hands. In this case there would be a second attempt during the succesion war or 7 years war... if it happens.
 
Belgrade was fortified by the Austrians so it was a modern fortress. OTL it was not taken by the Ottomans - the Austrian delegate was successfuly tricked into giving it up at peace negotiations - He received his instuctions when the situation looked the worst and though it improved a lot and Belgrad was never in actual danger the Ottomans prevented any of this information reaching him and he concluded the negotiations on this very outdated basis. Changing only this would leave Belgrad with the Austrians - they would probably still loose part of their previous gains.

However as Belgrad was a modern fortress thanks to the Austrians I simply dont see it swiftly falling to the Ottomans and I dont think they can pull of a prolonged siege without some major victroy against the Austrians - which is unlikely in the absence of the formentioned very poor Austrian leadership. Also OTL in the 18th century they had more problems with the Russians than the Austrians. And from 1756 Austria is allied to France as well - the traditional Ottoman western ally at the time.They too would try to keep the piece between Vienna and the Porte.
 
Top