What is less implausible in the period from 1563-1863 - Habsburg or Romanov annexation of Moldavia and Wallachia?

[raharris1973]

What would be less implausible in the period from 1563-1863 - Habsburg or Romanov annexation of Moldavia and Wallachia, the Ottoman-ruled or visualized regions that went on to form Romania by the mid-nineteenth century?

Between Austria or Russia, which could more realistically and plausibly overcome the challenges of a) ousting Ottoman influence of the 'Danubian principalities' and b) cementing their own direct control?

 

[WolfBear]

Would a Romanov-puppet Romania count for this? Because that's what Catherine II apparently wanted with her Greek Plan:

Greek Plan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I suppose that we could also see a direct Russian annexation of all of Moldavia while the Neo-Byzantine Empire led by a Russian Romanov cadet branch (Catherine's grandson Constantine, perhaps?) annexes Wallachia.

 

[WolfBear]

The Hapsburgs briefly controlled Craiova, in western Wallachia, in the early 18th century, so I do think that having the Hapsburgs control Wallachia is probably more realistic than having the Hapsburgs control Moldavia (other than Bukovina).

 

[stevep]

The Hapsburgs briefly controlled Craiova, in western Wallachia, in the early 18th century, so I do think that having the Hapsburgs control Wallachia is probably more realistic than having the Hapsburgs control Moldavia (other than Bukovina).

IIRC that occupation along with that of northern Serbia ended with a fiasco in 1739 where Austria and Russia were again allied against the Turks but due to some soldiers getting drunk a firefight started between the two allies.

Checking wiki it doesn't mention that but gives some details here. Sounds like a doze of hubris by the Austrians after their earlier fairly easy successes led by Prince Eugen of Savoy.

Of course with the death of Charles VI the following year you get the war of the Austrian succession which will lead to the loss of Silesia and tie up Austria for most of the coming decade - followed by the desire for revenge against Prussia and to regain clear dominance inside Germany which never actually comes and then a generation later the continental wide meltdown following from the collapse of the ancient regime in France.

If at any point Austria did gain control of either or both provinces they block the land path for Russia into the Balkans and towards Constantinople. Which is likely to make Russia an enemy and given how widely spread Austrian forces [and foes] are this is likely to be followed by Russia gaining control of the area at some stage. So it could well be that both powers rule the provinces in the stated time period.

My money would be on Russia once you have the success of Peter the Great in making Russia the greatest power in eastern Europe and following on Catherine's conquest of Ukraine and Crimea which opens up land and sea options for advancing toward Constantinople. They will not only have greater resources overall than Austria but the latter will always be likely to be focused more on Germany and fighting off the closer French threat than retaining control of distant possessions on the Black Sea.

 

[Buba]

This is three hundred years.
IMO both Powers had equal chances of annexing and holding the Danubian Principalities several times over such a period.
Although I'd use 1683 as starting date - before that date Ottoman too stronk.

 

[ATP]

What would be less implausible in the period from 1563-1863 - Habsburg or Romanov annexation of Moldavia and Wallachia, the Ottoman-ruled or visualized regions that went on to form Romania by the mid-nineteenth century?

Between Austria or Russia, which could more realistically and plausibly overcome the challenges of a) ousting Ottoman influence of the 'Danubian principalities' and b) cementing their own direct control?

What @Buba said - after 1683 both countries have equal chances.

 

[WolfBear]

If at any point Austria did gain control of either or both provinces they block the land path for Russia into the Balkans and towards Constantinople.

Not necessarily; Russia can still access Constantinople through Dobruja in Europe as well as through Asia Minor (Anatolia) if it will ever conquer it.

 

[WolfBear]

IIRC that occupation along with that of northern Serbia ended with a fiasco in 1739 where Austria and Russia were again allied against the Turks but due to some soldiers getting drunk a firefight started between the two allies.

Checking wiki it doesn't mention that but gives some details here. Sounds like a doze of hubris by the Austrians after their earlier fairly easy successes led by Prince Eugen of Savoy.

Of course with the death of Charles VI the following year you get the war of the Austrian succession which will lead to the loss of Silesia and tie up Austria for most of the coming decade - followed by the desire for revenge against Prussia and to regain clear dominance inside Germany which never actually comes and then a generation later the continental wide meltdown following from the collapse of the ancient regime in France.

If at any point Austria did gain control of either or both provinces they block the land path for Russia into the Balkans and towards Constantinople. Which is likely to make Russia an enemy and given how widely spread Austrian forces [and foes] are this is likely to be followed by Russia gaining control of the area at some stage. So it could well be that both powers rule the provinces in the stated time period.

My money would be on Russia once you have the success of Peter the Great in making Russia the greatest power in eastern Europe and following on Catherine's conquest of Ukraine and Crimea which opens up land and sea options for advancing toward Constantinople. They will not only have greater resources overall than Austria but the latter will always be likely to be focused more on Germany and fighting off the closer French threat than retaining control of distant possessions on the Black Sea.

Steve, do you know why Austria-Hungary never made the recovery of Oltenia a war aim after Romania's entry into World War I?

 

[stevep]

This is three hundred years.
IMO both Powers had equal chances of annexing and holding the Danubian Principalities several times over such a period.
Although I'd use 1683 as starting date - before that date Ottoman too stronk.

Well unless some earlier disaster really screws over the Sublime Porte.

 

[stevep]

Not necessarily; Russia can still access Constantinople through Dobruja in Europe as well as through Asia Minor (Anatolia) if it will ever conquer it.

Well the Anatolia route is a lot longer and goes through some bloody bad terrain as well as the Turkish heartlands so that would be a hell of a lot more difficult.

I think for most of its history Dobruja has been part of Wallachia so I was assuming it would be included in the latter so that route would be closed with Austria controlling Wallachia. Even if it is its a fragile link so I would expect that there would be conflict over it.

Steve, do you know why Austria-Hungary never made the recovery of Oltenia a war aim after Romania's entry into World War I?

No. Checking on the region's wiki entry

Modern times

Main articles: Early Modern Romania, History of the Russo-Turkish wars, Phanariotes, and National awakening of Romania

After 1716, the Ottomans decided to cease choosing the voivodes from among the Wallachian boyars, and to appoint foreign governors. As the governors were Orthodox Greeks living in Phanar, Constantinople, this period is known as the Phanariote regime.

Two years later, in 1718 under the terms of the Treaty of Passarowitz,[1] Oltenia was split from Wallachia and annexed by the Habsburg monarchy as the Banat of Craiova (de facto, it was under Austrian occupation by 1716); in 1737, it was returned to Wallachia under Prince Constantine Mavrocordatos (see Austro-Turkish War of 1716–1718 and Austro-Russian–Turkish War (1735–1739)). Under the occupation, Oltenia was the only part of the Danubian Principalities (with the later exception of Bukovina) to experience Enlightened absolutism and Austrian administration, although these were met by considerable and mounting opposition from conservative boyars. While welcomed at first as liberators, the Austrians quickly disenchanted the inhabitants by imposing rigid administrative, fiscal, judicial and political reforms which were meant to centralize and integrate the territory (antagonizing both ends of the social spectrum: withdrawing privileges from the nobility and enforcing taxes for peasants).

As such the Austrians seem to have made themselves fairly unpopular quickly so that could be an additional issue. Also checking on Romania it mentions that:

Romania is a secular state and has no state religion. An overwhelming majority of the population identify themselves as Christians. At the country's 2022 census,[3] 85.83% of respondents identified as Orthodox Christians belonging to the Romanian Orthodox Church (85.32%). Other denominations include Protestantism (7.49%), Roman Catholicism (4.52%), and Greek Catholicism (0.70%). From the remaining population 84,967 people belong to other Christian denominations or have another religion, which includes 58,335 Muslims (mostly of Turkish and Tatar ethnicity) and 2,707 Jewish (Jews once constituted 4% of the Romanian population—728,115 persons in the 1930 census). Moreover, 71,417 people have no religion, 82,690 have atheist, whilst the religion of the rest is unknown.[3]

The Romanian Orthodox Church is an autocephalous Eastern Orthodox Church in full communion with other Orthodox churches, with a Patriarch as its leader. It is the third-largest Eastern Orthodox Church in the world,[373] and unlike other Orthodox churches, it functions within a Latin culture and uses a Romance liturgical language.[374] Its canonical jurisdiction covers the territories of Romania and Moldova.[375] Romania has the world's third-largest Eastern Orthodox population.[376][377]

I.e. I don't know about Oltenia itself but Romania as a whole is largely Orthodox and the traditional mistrust of Catholics possibly the Austrians - wisely in my viewpoint - decided they didn't want yet more Slavs/Orthodox?

 

[Buba]

Oltenia is Orthodox, same as rest of Vallachia.
The Habsburgs might decide to impose a Church Union and force the proto-Romanians to become Greek Catholics i.e. Uniates.
Before repression - by Kingdom or People's Republci equally - north Transylvania was majority Romanian and Uniate.
In OTL the Habsburgs did not bother with converting the Orthodox (the Transylvanian Uniates are the product of the previous semi-independent duchy there), but considering how early the POD could be, the gloves are off

 

[WolfBear]

Oltenia is Orthodox, same as rest of Vallachia.
The Habsburgs might decide to impose a Church Union and force the proto-Romanians to become Greek Catholics i.e. Uniates.
Before repression - by Kingdom or People's Republci equally - north Transylvania was majority Romanian and Uniate.
In OTL the Habsburgs did not bother with converting the Orthodox (the Transylvanian Uniates are the product of the previous semi-independent duchy there), but considering how early the POD could be, the gloves are off

Why did southern Transylvania never become Uniate-majority like northern Transylvania did?

 

[Buba]

Why did southern Transylvania never become Uniate-majority like northern Transylvania did?

Look at map.
Direct Ottoman rule.

 

[WolfBear]

Look at map.
Direct Ottoman rule.

Southern Transylvania was not under direct Ottoman rule in 1700:

The Banat was but apparently not southern Transylvania.

 

[WolfBear]

Southern Transylvania was Orthodox in 1850 (first map above) and 1930 (second map below):

Whereas apparently all of Transylvania was already under Hapsburg rule by 1700!

 

[Buba]

Look at situation pre-1699
I clearly wrote that the Unites were created by the vassal principality of Transylvania.

 

[stevep]

Southern Transylvania was not under direct Ottoman rule in 1700:

The Banat was but apparently not southern Transylvania.

Yes but it had been under Ottoman rule - or occasionally influence - since the collapse of Hungary in 1526 until the defeat of the Ottoman 2nd siege of Vienna in 1683 and the following war than only ended in 1699.

 

[WolfBear]

Look at situation pre-1699
I clearly wrote that the Unites were created by the vassal principality of Transylvania.

But wasn't all of Transylvania a vassal, not just the northern part?

 

[raharris1973]

Not necessarily; Russia can still access Constantinople through Dobruja in Europe

Technically yes, if the Russians move fast enough to Dobruja and if they have grabbed the Yedisan region (basically the southwest province of Ukraine today) providing a land link rather than the Austrians absorbing it first as part of their Moldavia annexation.

But- Moldavia in those days included Bessarabia- and getting that close, the Habsburgs will be sorely tempted to make sure their Moldavia annexation ‘goes the extra mile to touch the Black Sea shore at Yedisan, at least on the Danube’s left bank, north of Dobruja. Occupation of Wallachia will create a temptation to occupy north Dobruja or at least the islands of the Danube delta.

 

[Buba]

Land between lower Dnepr and Dnester - Yedisan
Land between lower Danube and Dnester - Budiak, which made part of Bessarabia