Benefits for Austria of implementing the Greek plan

[Janrey]

Lately I've been reading about Catherine the Great and Josef of Austria's plan to dismantle the Ottoman Empire and replace it with a reborn Byzantine Empire. The doubt I have is that Austria would have won with this since a great orthodox state would be established in the south that would tend to be clearly subservient to Russia. I suppose Austria would annex Bosnia and create a battery of small puppet kingdoms that would separate it from the Neo-Byzantines, but these states would also be orthodox.

Another thing I have thought, is there any chance of Austria claiming the Holy Land or Cyprus?

 

[AltoRegnant]

I suppose that, as long as the greeks were pointed south, this would help Austria keep its german hegemony, at least for a while. It might even help them with france, since the byzantines would naturally be allied to both powers, meaning that Austrai and Russia can get their balkan armies to the front with more security

 

[DocJamore]

Austria wouldn’t gain very much. Getting Bosnia and a thin slice of the Adriatic isn’t worth the rest of the Balkans falling under Russian influence. A key goal of the Greek plan was that Russia and Neo Byzantium would be in personal union. That’s why every other Austrian ruler not named Josef II was against the plan.

 

[Ultima Ratio]

Austria wouldn’t gain very much. Getting Bosnia and a thin slice of the Adriatic isn’t worth the rest of the Balkans falling under Russian influence.

I kind of disagree, this is not the 1800s, Austria will be probably happy with not having a huge threat to their south. At this point they didn't have a great geopolitical interest in the Balkans and were more focused on the Empire. This of course shifted after Napoleon dismantled it and the Ottomans became gradually weaker and weaker. The Russians want the Bospurus most of all, and Austria would probably be happy to have some buffer states in the Western Balkans, such as Serbia and/or Bosnia. Maybe a little extra of being given the title of protector of the Christians in the Levant.

 

[Drunkrobot]

It would help solve the Ottomon threat for Austria, but crucially in a way that tries to avoid stoking the fires of nationalism which the extremely multiethnic empire will always consider an ideological threat. Neo-Byzantium would be a bi-ethnic (Greek and Turkish) monarchy, naturally interested in containing nationalism and liberalism, perhaps also helping Austria smother Italian nationalism in exchange for influence or control over Sicily. While Neo-Byzantium would start predominantly under Russian influence, a patient Austria could wait for opportunities to pry it into a more equilateral triangular relationship between Russia and Austria: Byzantium would probably have territorial ambitions in Anatolia and the Middle East up to the Zagros Mountain Range, just has its Ottomon, Byzantine, and Roman forebears had, which would put it in direct conflict with Russia. This Neo-Byzantium would also have an interest in building a navy to secure its extensive and valuable Mediterranian waters, indirectly letting Austria contest British naval dominance in the Mediterranian, at least enough that Austria can establish itself as holding the balance of power, siding with France and Byzantium or with Britain depending on who has the best concessions to offer it.

 

[Vladyslav]

The main benefit for Austria from Greek plan is Russian troops in Berlin. Prussia was ready to support Turkey and Prussian ultimatum was reason why Leopold II ended 1788-1791 war by status-quo. Joseph II wanted to destroy Prussia and return Austrian hegemony in HRE.

Russia and Neo Byzantium would be in personal union

No. Catherine II wanted dynastic alliance between Russian Empire under Alexander I and Greek Empire under Constantine XII like Austro-Spanish alliance in XVI-XVII centuries or Bourbon alliance in XVIII century

 

[alexmilman]

Lately I've been reading about Catherine the Great and Josef of Austria's plan to dismantle the Ottoman Empire and replace it with a reborn Byzantine Empire. The doubt I have is that Austria would have won with this since a great orthodox state would be established in the south that would tend to be clearly subservient to Russia. I suppose Austria would annex Bosnia and create a battery of small puppet kingdoms that would separate it from the Neo-Byzantines, but these states would also be orthodox.

Another thing I have thought, is there any chance of Austria claiming the Holy Land or Cyprus?

The plan was impractical fantasy but if it is implemented Austria is getting Bosnia and Serbia and, I assume, freedom of navigation on the Danube plus no future problems with the Turks. In other words, it is getting secure Eastern flank and, as a result, free hands in Germany.

Russia is getting mostly a hot air (geopolitical fantasies of Catherine and Potemkin usually did not bother with practicalities). Neo-Byzantine state is anything but “great” in size and power and would be a permanent drain on the Russian resources. Then there is a ticking bomb: “Kingdom of Dacia” created for Potemkin who does not have children and is going to die within few years. What are the succession rules? His only male relative was cousin Paul Potemkin. Is he going to become a new king? Not to mention that for maintaining even Potemkin’s usual life style resources of that poor kingdom would not be adequate and financial help from Russia is inevitable. And Russian finances during the reign of CII were going from bad to lousy with growing foreign debt and falling course of the paper money.
Plus there are “trifles” on the other side of the Bkack Sea: areas from the Kuban River and all the way to the green line mostly have to be conquered from the Ottomans and Persia and some of the formally Ottoman lands of the Northern Caucasus were not under any effective Ottoman control and, after being ceded, had to be conquered (it took decades and massive expulsions to pacify “Circassia”).

So who is going to get a worse deal is an open question.

 

[alexmilman]

The main benefit for Austria from Greek plan is Russian troops in Berlin. Prussia was ready to support Turkey and Prussian ultimatum was reason why Leopold II ended 1788-1791 war by status-quo. Joseph II wanted to destroy Prussia and return Austrian hegemony in HRE.

IMO, this expectation would be as realistic as the rest of the Greek Plan: of course, CII gradually switched from pro-Prussian to pro-Austrian orientation but a full scale war with Prussia hardly was on her list of priorities even just because it would make all other plans impossible. The 7YW approved to be an extremely costly affair and Russian troops in Berlin did not end it. Not to mention that Russia would not going to get any tangible benefit and excessive strengthening of Austria also was not in the Russian interests.

No. Catherine II wanted dynastic alliance between Russian Empire under Alexander I and Greek Empire under Constantine XII like Austro-Spanish alliance in XVI-XVII centuries or Bourbon alliance in XVIII century

This would be logical and more advantageous than marriages to the obscure German royalties.

 

[Vladyslav]

gradually switched from pro-Prussian to pro-Austrian orientation

It was more step-wise and caused by Prussian opposition to Russian plans

Russian troops in Berlin did not end it

Only reason why Prussia didn't lose 7YW is changing of Russian politics under Peter III

full scale war with Prussia

Greek plan was impossible without full scale war with Prussia

excessive strengthening of Austria also was not in the Russian interests

Returning of Prussia to 1740 of 1700 borders is not mean transformation HRE to Habsburg-lead federation. Saxony, Hannover and weaker Prussia will stay counterweight to Austria in HRE

 

[alexmilman]

It was more step-wise and caused by Prussian opposition to Russian plans

Yes, this opposition can be traced back to the 1st Partition but the meaningful factor was Austrian readiness for the anti-Ottoman alliance. Prussian opposition was mostly on a declarative side: Prussia was not ready to go into a war with Russia for the Ottoman interests.

Only reason why Prussia didn't lose 7YW is changing of Russian politics under Peter III

I was commenting on the statement regarding the Russian troops in Berlin which kind of assumes that it would be of some strategic importance: it happened in OTL and proved to be of no importance at all. As for the Prussian loss, let’s not forget that even before the death of Elizabeth for all practical purposes Russian war with Prussia was over: Russian army was staying in Poland with its commander refusing to move anywhere and the only operation on the Prussian soil, siege of Kolberg, had been conducted for providing ability to supply the troops by the sea (cheaper then by the land and Polish territory was already exhausted).

Greek plan was impossible without full scale war with Prussia

Greek plan was impossible. Period. Look at the maps of two OTL Ottoman wars conducted by CII. Operations on the right bank of the Danube were extent of the Russian logistics and even collecting supplies in Moldavia and Wallachia was a very difficult task with unclear outcome. Marching all the way to Constantinople, not to mention Greece, was a typical Potemkin’s fantasy and him being in charge of its implementation put the last nail in the coffin because Potemkin was absolutely lacking skills beyond commanding a small cavalry unit. In 1737 it too Munnich 3 days to force capitulation of Ochakov. In 1788 Potemkin spent 6 months.

Returning of Prussia to 1740 of 1700 borders is not mean transformation HRE to Habsburg-lead federation. Saxony, Hannover and weaker Prussia will stay counterweight to Austria in HRE

Why would Russia bother with the unreliable speculations like that (BTW, Saxony was Austrian ally) if status quo was just fine and definitely not worthy of an expensive war?

 

[kasumigenx]

They have a claim to Byzantium themselves.

 

[Cymry-Korean]

View attachment 675309
The plan was impractical fantasy but if it is implemented Austria is getting Bosnia and Serbia and, I assume, freedom of navigation on the Danube plus no future problems with the Turks. In other words, it is getting secure Eastern flank and, as a result, free hands in Germany.

Russia is getting mostly a hot air (geopolitical fantasies of Catherine and Potemkin usually did not bother with practicalities). Neo-Byzantine state is anything but “great” in size and power and would be a permanent drain on the Russian resources. Then there is a ticking bomb: “Kingdom of Dacia” created for Potemkin who does not have children and is going to die within few years. What are the succession rules? His only male relative was cousin Paul Potemkin. Is he going to become a new king? Not to mention that for maintaining even Potemkin’s usual life style resources of that poor kingdom would not be adequate and financial help from Russia is inevitable. And Russian finances during the reign of CII were going from bad to lousy with growing foreign debt and falling course of the paper money.
Plus there are “trifles” on the other side of the Bkack Sea: areas from the Kuban River and all the way to the green line mostly have to be conquered from the Ottomans and Persia and some of the formally Ottoman lands of the Northern Caucasus were not under any effective Ottoman control and, after being ceded, had to be conquered (it took decades and massive expulsions to pacify “Circassia”).

So who is going to get a worse deal is an open question.

Were there any chances of success? I've always seen the plan as doomed from the start, even with Austrian participation. Britain would never stand for it, and with British support I'd expect the Ottoman Empire to hold out.

 

[Fernan3451]

Were there any chances of success? I've always seen the plan as doomed from the start, even with Austrian participation. Britain would never stand for it, and with British support I'd expect the Ottoman Empire to hold out.

I think it depends on how willing Britain is to let Venice, Austria, and Russia partition of the Ottoman Empire (most likely, they wouldn't accept Russia getting too much power on the Eastern Mediterranean, given how Russia is the main benefficiary if the Greek Plan is a reality).

 

[alexmilman]

Were there any chances of success? I've always seen the plan as doomed from the start, even with Austrian participation.

There were no chances because neither Russia nor Austria had military systems capable of defeating the Ottomans to a necessary degree: aka, kick them out of all their European possessions and keep pressing them into Anatolia so that they can’t continue war and are ready to agree to the loss of Rumelia, Armenia and their other holdings on the Caucasus just to survive. The Russian and Austrian armies did not have numbers and logistics capable of delivering that type of a victory even if there is no Austrian pathetic performance and Potemkin’s incompetence.

Britain would never stand for it, and with British support I'd expect the Ottoman Empire to hold out.

A legend about omnipotent Britain is more than a little bit exaggerated. After all, it just lost military conflict with the rebelling colonies. 😂

If we are assuming implementation of a rather unrealistic scenario leading to occupation of the European part of the Ottoman Empire then Britain in that scenario is pretty much irrelevant. It can’t provide the Ottomans with any significant number of the additional troops, it can’t modernize the Ottoman army, and even its success on the Black Sea, uncritical as it is, is anything but granted because Ushakov is a very capable admiral. Taking into an account that most of the operations are happening inland, the British ability to project power within range of the naval guns is rather irrelevant even for defense of Istanbul.

 

[Vladyslav]

Greek plan was impossible

I agreed that war reasons lead to fail of Greek plan with very very big probability

Prussia was not ready to go into a war with Russia for the Ottoman interests

Prussia feared Russian and Austrian expanse and was interfering their plans. As I remember Prussian ultimatum was one of reasons of Austrian way out of the war

Saxony was Austrian ally

Saxony was part of Fürstenbund, that is, Prussian ally in this period

 

[Teutoberg Forest]

Perhaps an earlier Bulgarian-style Greek independence might work, with the southern part becoming independent and Macedonia/Epirus gaining internal autonomy a la OTL Eastern Rumelia. A Greece that has unified with Macedonia early, say 20-30 years after the independence war, would naturally be aligned with Austria and/or Hungary to promote stability in the Balkans, while also benefitting Russia little enough to be satisfactory to the rest of the Great Powers.