Alternate History Ideas and Discussion

Reader mode
WolfBear said:
Was the Italian monarchy more reactionary than the German one?
Click to expand...

Note I said possibly even in Germany - i.e. excluding them from my initial suggestion - thinking of Britain, the Low Countries and Scandinavia.

In terms of Germany the monarch was very autocratic except in the tragically short rule of Wilhelm's father but there was a fairly strong parliamentary system and also Bismarck while deeply conservative himself did realise the importance of having the population happy and supportive. I don't really know that much about the Italian monarchy at this point but get the idea that Italian politics was somewhat more polarized and hence the left was more excluded and as a result would be more committed to major changes.
 
"PC: Earlier independence of Bulgaria, between the 1820s to the 1870s."

I'm surprised that in the midst of the Greek War of Independence and the Russo-Turkish War occurring in that same time period, there was never any serious attempt at raising the idea of an earlier independence of Bulgaria. The Russian possession of Bessarabia edged them closer to Dobruzha, and if the Russians really wanted to hurt the Ottomans the most, they would have aimed for inciting the Bulgarians to revolt.

Why was there no push for an earlier independent of Bulgaria in the first place? An earlier independent of Bulgaria (even if they would start off with northern Bulgaria and the area around Sofia) would have changed a bit of dynamics in the Balkans. In addition to the autonomous Serbian Principality, an autonomous Bulgarian Principality would have built up its institutions and even form an earlier Bulgarian Exarchate.
 
TheRomanSlayer said:
"PC: Earlier independence of Bulgaria, between the 1820s to the 1870s."

I'm surprised that in the midst of the Greek War of Independence and the Russo-Turkish War occurring in that same time period, there was never any serious attempt at raising the idea of an earlier independence of Bulgaria. The Russian possession of Bessarabia edged them closer to Dobruzha, and if the Russians really wanted to hurt the Ottomans the most, they would have aimed for inciting the Bulgarians to revolt.

Why was there no push for an earlier independent of Bulgaria in the first place? An earlier independent of Bulgaria (even if they would start off with northern Bulgaria and the area around Sofia) would have changed a bit of dynamics in the Balkans. In addition to the autonomous Serbian Principality, an autonomous Bulgarian Principality would have built up its institutions and even form an earlier Bulgarian Exarchate.
Click to expand...

Have Russia and Austria-Hungary agree to jointly implement Catherine the Great's Greek Plan, only with an independent Bulgaria, during the Crimean War?
 
WolfBear said:
Have Russia and Austria-Hungary agree to jointly implement Catherine the Great's Greek Plan, only with an independent Bulgaria, during the Crimean War?
Click to expand...
A Greek Plan would have envisioned a Greater Greece with Bulgaria attached to it. Not exactly a good recipe for success, given the Greco-Bulgarian rivalry. There's a reason why the Bulgarian Exarchate was created, with the support of the Sultan IOTL.
 
TheRomanSlayer said:
A Greek Plan would have envisioned a Greater Greece with Bulgaria attached to it. Not exactly a good recipe for success, given the Greco-Bulgarian rivalry. There's a reason why the Bulgarian Exarchate was created, with the support of the Sultan IOTL.
Click to expand...

That's why the goal should be to expand the existing Greek state while also creating an independent Bulgaria. Or simply creating an independent Bulgaria without expanding the existing Greek state. A Greek state has already come into being by the time of the Crimean War; this was not the case seventy years earlier.
 
True, but the problem is that the Western powers feared that an independent Bulgaria might be used as a satellite state by Russia to expand its influence in the Balkans, which was evident by the Russians' proposal in the Treaty of San Stefano, which essentially created a Greater Bulgarian state.

I honestly think that the partition of the Balkans should have been that Britain or France would acquire Greece as a satellite state (there were a lot pf Philhellenes in the West, though they were more romanticized on the Ancient Greek civilization), while Austrlia would acquire influence in Bosnia (like OTL), and Russia would have influence in the Danubian Principalities and Bulgaria. Leaving Serbia as a neutral zone in which the interests of the Great Powers would converge. Serbia in this case would become the Euro-Balkan version of Thailand, playing off one Great Power against another.
 
TheRomanSlayer said:
True, but the problem is that the Western powers feared that an independent Bulgaria might be used as a satellite state by Russia to expand its influence in the Balkans, which was evident by the Russians' proposal in the Treaty of San Stefano, which essentially created a Greater Bulgarian state.

I honestly think that the partition of the Balkans should have been that Britain or France would acquire Greece as a satellite state (there were a lot pf Philhellenes in the West, though they were more romanticized on the Ancient Greek civilization), while Austrlia would acquire influence in Bosnia (like OTL), and Russia would have influence in the Danubian Principalities and Bulgaria. Leaving Serbia as a neutral zone in which the interests of the Great Powers would converge. Serbia in this case would become the Euro-Balkan version of Thailand, playing off one Great Power against another.
Click to expand...

Then expand Greece along with the creation of Bulgaria. Greece can be pro-Western and Bulgaria can be pro-Russian. Heck, even give Greece Constantinople if necessary.

Interesting analysis. That might work here, I suppose. Will Serbia's neutrality be guaranteed by international treaty just like Belgium's was?
 
Hopefully, though it might be a tough pill for Austria to swallow if they were convinced to let Serbia have the Novi Pazar region, and creating the conditions to have it unite with Montenegro, under the House of Petrović-Njegoš (most likely Petar II, who was the Prince-Bishop at that time, and would certainly carry more legitimacy than both the Obrenović and Karadjordjević dynasties)
 
TheRomanSlayer said:
Hopefully, though it might be a tough pill for Austria to swallow if they were convinced to let Serbia have the Novi Pazar region, and creating the conditions to have it unite with Montenegro, under the House of Petrović-Njegoš (most likely Petar II, who was the Prince-Bishop at that time, and would certainly carry more legitimacy than both the Obrenović and Karadjordjević dynasties)
Click to expand...

Why would the ruling Serbian dynasty be willing to give up its own power in Serbia, though?
 
'AHC: Have the CPs win WWI, take Venetia from Italy, and then create a Kingdom of Venice on it that mimics the previous Republic of Venice, except without the long Adriatic coastline (so, only limited to Venetia)'


@sillygoose has previously told me that A-H didn't want more Italians inside of the empire, but this doesn't necessarily mean that creating a separate independent Kingdom of Venice under some junior Hapsburg prince would necessarily be a bad idea.
 
WolfBear said:
'AHC: Have the CPs win WWI, take Venetia from Italy, and then create a Kingdom of Venice on it that mimics the previous Republic of Venice, except without the long Adriatic coastline (so, only limited to Venetia)'


@sillygoose has previously told me that A-H didn't want more Italians inside of the empire, but this doesn't necessarily mean that creating a separate independent Kingdom of Venice under some junior Hapsburg prince would necessarily be a bad idea.
Click to expand...
That only works if they could find Italian collaborators to make that work and have enough of the population go along with it.
 
Just started a 7th Crusade TL, where a much older Louis IX is inserted into his body during the council of Damietta. What would you view as to what he would do? Personally I view it likely he would attempt to keep a moderate pace, instead of attempting lightning warfare.
 
VictortheMonarch said:
Just started a 7th Crusade TL, where a much older Louis IX is inserted into his body during the council of Damietta. What would you view as to what he would do? Personally I view it likely he would attempt to keep a moderate pace, instead of attempting lightning warfare.
Click to expand...

Sounds reasonable.
 
WolfBear said:
I'm intrigued that even being in the same country with the more backwards southern Italians did not cause northern Italians to have a more favorable opinion of Austria-Hungary.
Click to expand...
Geographic isolation and dreams of a Roman past. Plus Italian nationalist propaganda about the A-Hs and memories of fighting the Austrians during the wars for liberation. Northern Italy was a pretty big stomping ground in the 1800s.
 
sillygoose said:
Geographic isolation and dreams of a Roman past. Plus Italian nationalist propaganda about the A-Hs and memories of fighting the Austrians during the wars for liberation. Northern Italy was a pretty big stomping ground in the 1800s.
Click to expand...

By geographic isolation, do you mean southern Italy specifically or all of Italy?

Also, off-topic, but other than Franz Ferdinand and Jean Jaures, who were some of the biggest doves in pre-WWI Europe? Kaiser Bill was arguably a dove until his friend FF got murdered in Sarajevo, but who else?
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top