WI Austrians took Bosnia in 1830s or 1840s?

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
a) Austrians decide to back the local Muslim rebellion and make independent Bosnia an ally and vassal from the early 1830s

b) The Austrians press for Bosnia as payment for their intervention alongside Britain and Russia to roll back Muhammad Ali, which featured Austrian ships and landing parties operating as deep into the empire at Lebanon and Palestine.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
I “hate” the Byzantines too and have gotten them killed off early in a few threads in recent months.

If you go back further I have several threads I started where I try to prevent their losses in the 1870s or Balkan Wars.

This one was more for “love” of Austria anyway.

I try to give the Turks ASB assistance in one thread where I send Inonu back in time.
 
The most important changes:
1. Bosnia will be much more integrated in to Austria
2. Butterflies the Great Eastern crisis in 1878 - thus creating the possibility of the three emperors league to last longer
3. Without the bosnian rebellion as a catalist and the great eastern crisis we see a delayed bulgarian independence and a prolonged Ottoman presence of the Balkans. Though its hard to imagine that the Russians leave the turks alone without the bosnian rebellion as a pretext. They will find or create something else.
5. Most likely a bulgarian rebellion on the Balkans some time, however its hard to guess when that would happen.
 
a) Austrians decide to back the local Muslim rebellion and make independent Bosnia an ally and vassal from the early 1830s

b) The Austrians press for Bosnia as payment for their intervention alongside Britain and Russia to roll back Muhammad Ali, which featured Austrian ships and landing parties operating as deep into the empire at Lebanon and Palestine.

Austria post-1815 did not want to expand anymore feeling that it would cause only more problems. They were in favor of Ottoman Territorial integrity. This is not happening anymore.

And in the 1830s there is a Bosnian rebellion. Husein Gradascevic might even get more support to keep the Habsburgs out.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Austria post-1815 did not want to expand anymore feeling that it would cause only more problems.

Well, you would need to make Metternich a little bit less of a "man of his word" and more flexible about his principles.

They were in favor of Ottoman Territorial integrity.

Why didn't they stay that way in the 1870s?

And in the 1830s there is a Bosnian rebellion. Husein Gradascevic might even get more support to keep the Habsburgs out.

What if they offered HG rulership as Austria's vassal. The Bosnian Emirate and Austrian Empire have an offensive and defensive alliance, and economic and diplomatic coordination?
 
Well, you would need to make Metternich a little bit less of a "man of his word" and more flexible about his principles.


Why didn't they stay that way in the 1870s?
Because they got greedy maybe to counter the Hungarians. Or they really believed the Ottomans would fall wanted to prevent Serbia with connecting to Montenegro.


What if they offered HG rulership as Austria's vassal. The Bosnian Emirate and Austrian Empire have an offensive and defensive alliance, and economic and diplomatic coordination?
.

Could work. Even in the 70s. But really goes against what Metternich wanted.
 
a) Austrians decide to back the local Muslim rebellion and make independent Bosnia an ally and vassal from the early 1830s

b) The Austrians press for Bosnia as payment for their intervention alongside Britain and Russia to roll back Muhammad Ali, which featured Austrian ships and landing parties operating as deep into the empire at Lebanon and Palestine.

I would say this will probably have major effects down the line for any potential conflict arising from the Balkans. The main thing here is that Russian dominance in the Danubian Principalities will be viewed differently since the Austrians possess Bosnia. More immediately, the preexisting tensions and issues within Europe will probably still cause revolutions and revolts akin to the Springtime of Nations. During such chaos the Ottomans might attempt to retake Bosnia or we could see the Serbians (both in the Austrian Empire and out of it) decide to fight against the Hapsburgs in an attempt to free Bosnia.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
I would say this will probably have major effects down the line for any potential conflict arising from the Balkans. The main thing here is that Russian dominance in the Danubian Principalities will be viewed differently since the Austrians possess Bosnia. More immediately, the preexisting tensions and issues within Europe will probably still cause revolutions and revolts akin to the Springtime of Nations. During such chaos the Ottomans might attempt to retake Bosnia or we could see the Serbians (both in the Austrian Empire and out of it) decide to fight against the Hapsburgs in an attempt to free Bosnia.

Would the Ottomans try and could they succeed? It would be a big gamble.

The Serbs could try for Bosnia but they probably get beaten worse than the Piedmontese were. If the try this it might even bring Ottoman and Habsburg to cooperate.

You figure with the Bosnia move, Europe would accept permanent Russian puppetization or annexation of Moldavia and Wallachia to “compensate”?
 
Or Russia could end up annexing Moldavia and Austria taking Wallachia. No more Danubian buffer states. Of course this would have major implications on Romania and send the fate of that country and its people in a much more Yugoslavian direction than in OTL.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Or Russia could end up annexing Moldavia and Austria taking Wallachia. No more Danubian buffer states. Of course this would have major implications on Romania and send the fate of that country and its people in a much more Yugoslavian direction than in OTL.

If that’s how things are sliced instead, might Austria get northern Dobruja as part of the package? Or would Russia always have Dobruja open as a pathway to make forays against Thrace and Constantinople?
 
If that’s how things are sliced instead, might Austria get northern Dobruja as part of the package? Or would Russia always have Dobruja open as a pathway to make forays against Thrace and Constantinople?
Under all ordinary circumstances I think Russia would be hostile to the idea of an Austrian Dobruja. They did not want another European Power bordering the Black Sea. Which was one of the advantages OTL Romania had, an free state in a contested territory between two Great Powers, in that sense it was almost like Belgium, though it grew out of that role and became a regional power player in the Balkans. But if the Danubian Principalities do not exist than Austria and Russia will be clashing over the Balkans much more openly and much sooner than in OTL.

Saying anything more than that risks us talking about all the possible different ways the Balkans could have divided up. That is a topic that could be a ten page thread in itself.
 
The problem is Austria was focused on Germany and Italy during this time. It's only after the Italian and German unifications that Vienna turned it's attentions southwards. Austria had no interest in focusing on three fronts.
 

Deleted member 109224

I think it is more likely that we would see an independent Bosnia in Austria's orbit than an Austrian Bosnia.

Might we see efforts at "Serbian unification" of Bosnia, Montenegro, and Serbia?


I like the idea of an Austrian Wallachia and Russian Moldavia, but the point about Russia not wanting Austria on the black sea is valid. Perhaps an Austrian-dominated United Principalities (including Bessarabia) and a Russian Dobruja and Budjak?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
But if the Danubian Principalities do not exist than Austria and Russia will be clashing over the Balkans much more openly and much sooner than in OTL.

This in itself is an interesting point. You figure that based on the proposed OP, an Austrian and Russian annexation of their respective Danubian principalities by 1845 or so would be likely?

That does not leave alot of time for Austrian-Russian clashing ahead of the time of Austria's OTL ultimatums in the mid 1850s. Of course it could be very consequential. With Austria taking more revisionist action in the 1830s or 1840s, and Russia doing so in response, we could well see the Russians *not* want to help Vienna suppress the Hungarians.

The problem is Austria was focused on Germany and Italy during this time. It's only after the Italian and German unifications that Vienna turned it's attentions southwards. Austria had no interest in focusing on three fronts.

I wonder if the unification of Italy was important to Austria deciding Bosnia was important for two reasons: a) First, After 1866 Austria could *not* have Italy as a dependent sphere and obviously also Germany so the Balkans were the only direction left. But also, b) With Italy united, and incorporating Venetia, and possessing a modern ironclad navy, there was a plausible claimant to Austrian Dalmatia and threat to it that had not existed before, and this made additional inland ground-lines of communication to Dalmatia seem more strategically desirable/relevant/important. In the pre-Italian unification period (1815-1860) Dalmatia's neighbors in the Adriatic were just Austria, the perceived as feeble Ottomans and the definitely feeble Papal States and Naples, so this sort of defensibility rationale for Bosnia was not seen as relevant.

I like the idea of an Austrian Wallachia and Russian Moldavia, but the point about Russia not wanting Austria on the black sea is valid. Perhaps an Austrian-dominated United Principalities (including Bessarabia) and a Russian Dobruja and Budjak?

That's a potential solution, if "fairness" is a principal concern along with buffering the Black Sea and Hungary. The problem with this is that I don't see Russia giving up Bessarabia, which it has owned since 1809. I suspect in the short-run, Russia would have Moldavia, Austria would have Wallachia, and Dobruja would remain attached to the Ottoman Empire.

Might we see efforts at "Serbian unification" of Bosnia, Montenegro, and Serbia?

The Muslim soldiers and administrators and landowners would be dead set against such unification. Bosnian Serb peasants may want it, but will not get into political authority without outside intervention or a surprisingly successful "jacquerie" peasant uprising.
 

Deleted member 109224

That's a potential solution, if "fairness" is a principal concern along with buffering the Black Sea and Hungary. The problem with this is that I don't see Russia giving up Bessarabia, which it has owned since 1809. I suspect in the short-run, Russia would have Moldavia, Austria would have Wallachia, and Dobruja would remain attached to the Ottoman Empire.

Hmmm... maybe Austrian Moldavia (minus Bessarabia) and Russian North Dobruja?

Dobruja remaining Ottoman as the Danubian Principalities are split seems like something bound for more trouble later. It might be wiser for Russia to grab Dobruja before the Austrians have an opportunity, no?

Austria on the Black Sea would be a fascinating predicament however.


If Austria gets Dobruja, Russia is sort of blocked off from the Balkans. Maybe Austria and Russia will agree on the establishment of Greater Bulgaria (or at least a Bulgaria that controls Dobruja) in order to create a different "Belgian solution".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top