In the late 18th century, there was an idea pushed by Catherine II of Russia to partition the Ottomans' European territory, which ran roughly as follows:
Not the most exact representation, but I prefer it to the map provided on Wikipedia.
As previous threads on this site have discussed, there are a variety of reasons why this plan wouldn't work even with full Austrian support. However, if it did, how might trade and culture develop differently in the Russian-backed states and the region as a whole? Here's a few ideas:
Thanks for reading, and let me know your thoughts on this scenario!
- Austria would receive Bosnia, Serbia, northern Albania, and western Wallachia.
- Russia would receive Pontus in Anatolia and create two new client states:
- the Kingdom of Dacia in the former Romanian principalities, ruled by a Russian noble (most likely Prince Potemkin, the main originator of the whole scheme).
- the restored Eastern Roman Empire in Greece, Macedonia, Bulgaria, and Constantinople, ruled by Catherine's son Constantine.
- Venice would receive various islands including Morea, Crete, and Cyprus.
Not the most exact representation, but I prefer it to the map provided on Wikipedia.
As previous threads on this site have discussed, there are a variety of reasons why this plan wouldn't work even with full Austrian support. However, if it did, how might trade and culture develop differently in the Russian-backed states and the region as a whole? Here's a few ideas:
- A more Russophilic nobility in Dacia could influence the development of the standardized Romanian language to use more Slavic loanwords rather than introducing vocabulary derived from French (though to be fair, the Russian nobility were also big fans of French culture in this era).
- Scholarly narratives on Greek culture would take a different form than the philhellenism embraced by many European intellectuals which put classical-era Greek culture on a pedestal and largely ignored the impact of the Eastern Roman Empire. This scenario effectively turns that upside-down, with Russia conquering "Tsargrad" and giving their self-image as the "Third Rome" a serious boost.
- How would the neo-Byzantine identity develop both within and outside the nation, if it could manage not to fracture right away into Hellenic and Slavic camps (as well as Aromanian, Albanian, etc)? Since it becomes independent before the rise of romantic nationalism, there's a lot potential for the history of the Balkans to go in a radically different direction. With the Russians backing the new Byzantine state, it's possible that later periods with nationalism and centralizing state power pushing a single national identity could privilege *Bulgarians and other South Slavs over Greeks and other groups while still embracing the aesthetics and culture of the old ERE.
- I know from timelines like "Pride Comes Before a Fall" that there was a major farmers' movement for land reform in Greece due to the power of Turkish landlords. In a scenario where they become part of the new Eastern Roman state through Russian military intervention rather than a fully indigenous revolution, it's possible that the landlord class would simply be replaced with newly imported nobles rather than pushing through any major land reform.
- It would be remiss of me to overlook the other beneficiaries of the Greek Plan, Austria and Venice, and how this would affect them. Would they be able to handle their gains or let them slip through their fingers?
- The latter possibility is certainly a concern for Venice, since this is not long before the Napoleonic Wars of OTL which ended the Serene Republic. If they do collapse, their island possessions could be annexed by Rhomania, but it's also possible for Britain to snap them up since they did so with the Ionian Islands IOTL. A restored Principality of Achaea in personal union with the United Kingdom would be fun to see, if only temporarily. This split could have some staying power if Greek nationalism is not realized in the Rhomanian state due to its aforementioned potential to elevate Slavic nobility and culture, resulting in a Greek state in the former Veneto-British insular possessions that views itself as separate from the mainland—no enosis coming any time soon. If Russian Pontus becomes independent later on, this could mean three separate states with distinct claims on Hellenic identity!
- Austria, meanwhile, now has even more land in the Balkans, and to be honest I have no idea how this would affect things with it occurring decades before the Ausgleich. For administrative purposes, maybe their Bosnian gains are simply included as an autonomous part of the Habsburg Kingdom of Croatia. In later years, operating on the previous possibility of a Slav-centric Rhomania, there could be an attempt to court the South Slavs in the Austrian Balkans as fellow Romans (or rather римляни—"Rimlyani"). This would be a weird take on *Yugoslavism, albeit one that's probably more limited to Serbians as fellow Orthodox Christians (and that reminds me that the Ecumenical Patriarchate would be in a different position, but I don't know what that would look like).
- Finally, how would the Ottomans react to such a crippling defeat? (Obviously things would already need to be going horribly for this to work, but let's just handwave a bit for the sake of the prompt.) Would they have any chance of reversing some of the Russo-Austrian gains later on, or just be doomed to collapse even further over the next few decades? The Middle Eastern power projection capabilities of the western European powers would be limited compared to a century later with Sykes-Picot, but they could probably still make some inroads in the region, possibly backing the Ottomans themselves as a counterweight to Russian dominance. Closer to home, resurgent players like Egypt (if it becomes independent) and Iran could assert their influence in such a scenario.
Thanks for reading, and let me know your thoughts on this scenario!
Last edited:
