"Io Mihailŭ, Împĕratul Românilor" - A Michael the Brave Romania Wank

Which are the possible allies for Romania in the coming anti-Ottoman war?
Already having an alliance:
1. Sarmatia (Poland-Lithuania)
2. Slovakia (very weak)

Potential allies:
3. Rump Austria?? (has to watch its back!)
4. Venice?
5. Genoa? (playing nice with its rival Venice?)
6. Spain? (can it forgive Romania's beating of Rudolf?)
7. Don Cossacks??
8. Somebody else?

Thank you for any suggestions.
Given recent wars and it's shaky financial status,I don't think Spain would enter the war.Venice is definitely a must.I can't see Genoa entering because it's not really the power it was in the 13th century and is more or less just a financial capital--more or less the 17th century equivalent of Switzerland.Not sure about the cossacks.Austria is too f#4ked to attempt anything.
 

Zagan

Donor
I might be Persia...

Maybe a Serbian, Bulgarian and Greek revolt. :D

OTL Mihai had large support of Serbian haidouks (led by Baba Novac).

1. Persia would be very useful, but is there any way to contact them?
2. A revolution in the Balkans... Nice as well, but Mihai really does not like the idea of Bulgarian or Serb statehood, because he want all that land for Romania. Maybe a revolution started by the Balkan Romanians?
3. The Greeks had already heard some rumors about a future planned Greek state, but they are very annoyed by Romanian Church Autocephaly. Can they get over it?

Given recent wars and it's shaky financial status,I don't think Spain would enter the war.Venice is definitely a must.I can't see Genoa entering because it's not really the power it was in the 13th century and is more or less just a financial capital--more or less the 17th century equivalent of Switzerland.Not sure about the cossacks.Austria is too f#4ked to attempt anything.

4. Yes, we shall give some islands and Dalmatian cities to Venice.
5. I did not know that the Genovese have already lost much of their power, but it seems that you are right about it.
6. Did the Cossacks act independently from Moscow if it suited them? Moscow was still in much internal trouble, but the Cossacks might attack the Ottoman vassals in the Caucasus maybe.
7. Spain still get lots of silver and gold from the Americas so it can recover financially very quickly.
8. Austria is ******, that's right. We can forget about them.
 
Last edited:
I realize that this is supposed to be a Romania-wank, but I still hope that the war against the Ottomans will have a realistic result, and Romania won't just suddenly reconquer all of Alexios Komnenos' empire because nationalism str0nk. And that nationalism won't just erupt literally everywhere right away.
 

Zagan

Donor
I realize that this is supposed to be a Romania-wank, but I still hope that the war against the Ottomans will have a realistic result, and Romania won't just suddenly reconquer all of Alexios Komnenos' empire because nationalism str0nk. And that nationalism won't just erupt literally everywhere right away.

I am trying hard to be moderate... ;)
Romania and its allies will drive the Ottomans out of Europe, but:
- Not in a single war.
- Not in a very short time.
- Romania will not get it all.

TTL kind of Nationalism is not identical with OTL 19th century nationalism.
In Romania, Poland and elsewhere it was / will be imposed from the top to bottom. In some countries it will be understood differently.
Most Kings saw that something changed in Romania, Poland, Germany etc and the result was positive for those countries, so they might do something themselves. The approaches will not be identical; some will attempt to centralize the state, others will appeal to propaganda etc.
 
Last edited:
Could certainly see both Denmark-Norway and England-Scotland integrating the minor in their respective unions, so they're both one kingdom with one crown, instead of two kingdoms that happen to have the same king ... Same really with Spain, actually making up a 'Kingdom of Iberia' instead of sitting on half-dozen of more or less autonomous crowns, maybe even attempting to roll Portugal into them, as a fully integrated unit, which could easily explode into a much more violent War of the Portugese succession.
 
Which are the possible allies for Romania in the coming anti-Ottoman war?
Already having an alliance:
1. Sarmatia (Poland-Lithuania)
2. Slovakia (very weak)

Potential allies:
3. Rump Austria?? (has to watch its back!)
4. Venice?
5. Genoa? (playing nice with its rival Venice?)
6. Spain? (can it forgive Romania's beating of Rudolf?)
7. Don Cossacks??
8. Somebody else?

Thank you for any suggestions.

I say you should send some diplomats to Austria to convince the Austrian crown that the only way they can survive is through an alliance with Romania. That way you can gain a march between you and the German Empire, and some help against the turks. The austrians can storm Pannonia at the beginning of the war, making the turks send armies towards Hungary. You can intercept them from behind and boom, you have yourself a dutch sandwitch, and a important battle won. Over the years you can try to tie your economy with that of Austria, making them dependent of Romania.
Venice, maybe, but if you wish for a Balkan empire, it will be an alliance useful only for one or two wars, and after that you must ditch them. This in turn will affect Romania's reputation. So Venice is a tricky one.
Genoa is useless, though if they still own anything in Taurica then I think they could be considered an enemy, but only if you want to take Crimea in the future, which I advise you to do :).
Don Cossacks are very useful, if expendable. They can be used to wreck havoc across Turkish Crimea while you wage your war in the balkans. If they succeed, then create a buffer state which would answer to you and you alone. If they fail, well then, they were good while they lasted. Albeit what I advise is machiavellian.
Send an envoy to Persia, with some gifts, and one of those Mihai-style letters to convince the Shanshah to help you against the turks. During this period there was a strong rivalry between the Turks and the Persians. However watch out, if you wish to truly create an eastern roman empire, and so if you wish to conquer anatolia at one point, which I advise you to do, they will be your next big rival, since Persia is/was/will always be known to have been the rival of any power that owned the strait of Bosphorus, be it the Turks, the Byzzies, the Greeks or the Romans.
Also, if the Franco-Ottoman alliance already exists, then try either Germany or Spain.
Sorry for the typos :).
 

Zagan

Donor
Could certainly see both Denmark-Norway and England-Scotland integrating the minor in their respective unions, so they're both one kingdom with one crown, instead of two kingdoms that happen to have the same king ... Same really with Spain, actually making up a 'Kingdom of Iberia' instead of sitting on half-dozen of more or less autonomous crowns, maybe even attempting to roll Portugal into them, as a fully integrated unit, which could easily explode into a much more violent War of the Portugese succession.

You are thinking very much like me. It is almost eery.

Countries are going to centralize and the number of crowns and titles will greately diminuish:
1. Denmark-Norway-Schleswig-Feroe-Iceland-Greenland
2. Denmark and Sweden, not capable anymore to attack their now more powerful neighbours will devote all their energy... (spoiler end)
3. England-Scotland-Ireland
4. Castillia-Aragon-Portugal-Naples-Sicily-Sardinia-Baleares-ETC
5. Italian States
6. Others... ... ...
With varied success, short and long term.

Another thing...
Nobody has yet mentioned that an earlier age of nationalism coupled with more medieval concept of human rights (actually lack thereof) may lead to some horrible methods of building a cohesive Nation.
Things can easily get ugly for those who:
I. Do not want to assimilate (be part of the greater Nation), example: the Portuguese in the greater Iberian Nation.
II. Happen to live on the wrong side of the border, example: the Germans now living in the territories just incorporated into France.
 
Last edited:

Zagan

Donor
I say you should send some diplomats to Austria to convince the Austrian crown that the only way they can survive is through an alliance with Romania. That way you can gain a march between you and the German Empire, and some help against the turks. The austrians can storm Pannonia at the beginning of the war, making the turks send armies towards Hungary. You can intercept them from behind and boom, you have yourself a dutch sandwitch, and a important battle won. Over the years you can try to tie your economy with that of Austria, making them dependent of Romania.
Venice, maybe, but if you wish for a Balkan empire, it will be an alliance useful only for one or two wars, and after that you must ditch them. This in turn will affect Romania's reputation. So Venice is a tricky one.
Genoa is useless, though if they still own anything in Taurica then I think they could be considered an enemy, but only if you want to take Crimea in the future, which I advise you to do :).
Don Cossacks are very useful, if expendable. They can be used to wreck havoc across Turkish Crimea while you wage your war in the balkans. If they succeed, then create a buffer state which would answer to you and you alone. If they fail, well then, they were good while they lasted. Albeit what I advise is machiavellian.
Send an envoy to Persia, with some gifts, and one of those Mihai-style letters to convince the Shanshah to help you against the turks. During this period there was a strong rivalry between the Turks and the Persians. However watch out, if you wish to truly create an eastern roman empire, and so if you wish to conquer anatolia at one point, which I advise you to do, they will be your next big rival, since Persia is/was/will always be known to have been the rival of any power that owned the strait of Bosphorus, be it the Turks, the Byzzies, the Greeks or the Romans.
Also, if the Franco-Ottoman alliance already exists, then try either Germany or Spain.
Sorry for the typos :).

Wow, deep analysis!

1. Rump Austria still does have some army, true. The problem seems to be that their army has to guard the armistice line with Germany. If they accept some foreign army on their soil (e.g. the Poles, sorry Sarmatia) either to guard the German armistice line or to invade Ottoman Hungary from Austria... I do not know.

2. Venice might be content with Adriatic and Ionic islands plus some cities / ports on the coast without a sizeable hinterland.

3. Genoa is indeed useless, I researched a little. Taurica / Taurida / Crimea is promissed to Sarmatia (Poland), since it really does not have anywhere alse to expand in Ottoman territory. Romania cannot anger the Poles. Maybe later, way later.

4. The Cossacks can cross the Don into Ottoman Nogay and Ottoman Circassia. Romania has zero interest there for the foreseable future.

5. Yes, send an envoy to Persia, very good plan. But how?? Around the Cape of Good Hope? Through Russia and Central Asia / Caspian Sea?? Really, how to get to Persia? It is like on another planet!

6. Really, conquering Anatolia and other thoroughly Muslim Lands, while desirable can not happen in this century. It would remain something like the Testament of Peter the Great perhaps. Something to be attempted by the subsequent generations.
 
Last edited:
Wow, deep analysis!

1. Rump Austria still does have some army, true. The problem seems to be that their army has to guard the armistice line with Germany. If they accept some foreign army on their soil (e.g. the Poles, sorry Sarmatia) either to guard the German armistice line or to invade Ottoman Hungary from Austria... I do not know.

2. Venice might be content with Adriatic and Ionic islands plus some cities / ports on the coast without a sizeable hinterland.

3. Genoa is indeed useless, I researched a little. Taurica / Taurida / Crimea is promissed to Sarmatia (Poland), since it really does not have anywhere alse to expand in Ottoman territory. Romania cannot anger the Poles. Maybe later, way later.

4. The Cossacks can cross the Don into Ottoman Nogay and Ottoman Circassia. Romania has zero interest there for the foreseable future.

5. Yes, send an envoy to Persia, very good plan. But how?? Around the Cape of Good Hope? Through Russia and Central Asia / Caspian Sea?? Really, how to get to Persia? It is like on another planet!

6. Really, conquering Anatolia and other thoroughly Muslim Lands, while desirable can not happen in this century. It would remain something like the Testament of Peter the Great perhaps. Something to be attempted by the subsequent generations.

1. I do not believe Germany is capable to declare war on Romania-Austria-Sarmatia-Slovakia-anyoneelse, even if they would open a second front for said nations, the germans are in a sorry state, since there were lots of dead germans in their last war.

3./6. Well, I didn't mean during Mihai's reign ofc. But a giant eastern empire ruled by the romanians would be the truest wank of all the wanks, and not that impossible at all, if played realistically. Anatolia is rough and shady, so a few ghettos here and there and the turks that were in anatolia for 400/500 years (so not a lot) are now a minority. Assimilate and introduce taxes on the muslims similar to those introduced by the turks themselves. Push them to dissent and them masacre them, with the excuse that they were going to revolt anyway.

4. Yup. So a friendly state on the shores of the black sea is welcome. Who cares if they are ruled by a minority, so was most of the Commonwealth, and it still survived.
 
I don't see Sweden reintegrating into a Scandinavian Union any time soon, since specially with the loss of Österland (Finland) and Swedish Estonia, Its still Denmark (specially with Norway succesfully integrated at all levels) that is the undisputed leader of the area ... Sweden was nearly at the point where they could contest it, but they weren't actually able to before Denmark flundered 30 years war badly. Sure Denmark didn't get much if anything out of it, but Sweden have lost quite a bit (specially in terms of prestige).

The Integration between Denmark-Norway was at this point little more a bureaucratic question, and a question of prestige in having the most crowns, as the Norwegian nobility had a large majority of Danes in it, and Christian IV was from what i can tell the most 'norwegian' of the union kings, so if any king would have been inclined to unite the kingdoms, it would be him that would have the best chances of getting the Norwegians to accept the deal.

f all Personal Unions i'd actually except that DN would have the easiest time at it, Commonwealth is protentially unstable until either the integration have been around for a generation or two or if they run into some bad luck on the royal authority (Regency, wars going against them), which could call forth seperatistic elements in the Baltics and Lithuania. their Black Sea coast is probably so sparesly populated, and have seen so much polish colonization that they'll stay loyal unless someone makes them a very good offer, and England-Scotland-Ireland have religious differences that can make it difficult to co-exist if they're integrated in one crown to quickly, throwing specially the Kingdom of scotland on the historical junkyard.
 

Zagan

Donor
1. I do not believe Germany is capable to declare war on Romania-Austria-Sarmatia-Slovakia-anyoneelse, even if they would open a second front for said nations, the germans are in a sorry state, since there were lots of dead germans in their last war.

3./6. Well, I didn't mean during Mihai's reign ofc. But a giant eastern empire ruled by the romanians would be the truest wank of all the wanks, and not that impossible at all, if played realistically. Anatolia is rough and shady, so a few ghettos here and there and the turks that were in anatolia for 400/500 years (so not a lot) are now a minority. Assimilate and introduce taxes on the muslims similar to those introduced by the turks themselves. Push them to dissent and them masacre them, with the excuse that they were going to revolt anyway.

4. Yup. So a friendly state on the shores of the black sea is welcome. Who cares if they are ruled by a minority, so was most of the Commonwealth, and it still survived.

1. You do realize quite correctly that Germany cannot wage another big war right now. But do the Austrians realize that as well?

3/6. Looks interesting. I have quite similar plans myself. The timetable for it is not yet certain.

4. Eventually all land occupied by the Cossacks gets into Russia proper. Romania would probably like to have Sarmatia and Russia quite evenly matched. Either of them curbstomping the other would spell trouble for Romania down the road.
 
Last edited:

Zagan

Donor
I don't see Sweden reintegrating into a Scandinavian Union any time soon, since specially with the loss of Österland (Finland) and Swedish Estonia, Its still Denmark (specially with Norway succesfully integrated at all levels) that is the undisputed leader of the area ... Sweden was nearly at the point where they could contest it, but they weren't actually able to before Denmark flundered 30 years war badly. Sure Denmark didn't get much if anything out of it, but Sweden have lost quite a bit (specially in terms of prestige).

The Integration between Denmark-Norway was at this point little more a bureaucratic question, and a question of prestige in having the most crowns, as the Norwegian nobility had a large majority of Danes in it, and Christian IV was from what i can tell the most 'norwegian' of the union kings, so if any king would have been inclined to unite the kingdoms, it would be him that would have the best chances of getting the Norwegians to accept the deal.

f all Personal Unions i'd actually except that DN would have the easiest time at it, Commonwealth is protentially unstable until either the integration have been around for a generation or two or if they run into some bad luck on the royal authority (Regency, wars going against them), which could call forth seperatistic elements in the Baltics and Lithuania. their Black Sea coast is probably so sparesly populated, and have seen so much polish colonization that they'll stay loyal unless someone makes them a very good offer, and England-Scotland-Ireland have religious differences that can make it difficult to co-exist if they're integrated in one crown to quickly, throwing specially the Kingdom of scotland on the historical junkyard.

1. Sweden is still led by the great warrior Gustavus Adolphus. While he could not defeat Germany, a power 20 times Sweden's size, he may try his luck with Denmark (he will not, though). Things will proceed at in a calmer, slower way.

2. The centralization of Denmark-Norway is certain.

3. Sarmatia will be just fine as long as Sigismund is alive. Afterwards...

4. Oh, the problem with the Irish Catholics. Even if Cromwell is butterflied away, something else may strike the Irish. After all, an early nationalist England will not let Ireland slip away...
 
Last edited:
1. Sweden is still led by the great warrior Gustavus Adolphus. While he could not defeat Germany, a power 20 times Sweden's size, he may try his luck with Denmark (he will not, though). Things will proceed at in a calmer, slower way.

Sure, Gustav II have a great, deserved reputation for being a battlefield commander, but with the polish-swedish war being a resounding loss, losing everything east of the Baltic Sea, he have lost the superiority of the upper Baltic sea and large parts of his recruitment ground for the army, so he's stuck between Samartia (Much greater power, Hostile), Germany (Greater Power, if in need of a stronger economy, neutral/hostile), and Denmark (Similar size if not slightly larger post-Poloswedish war, Hostile) and doesn't have any obvious direction to advance, specially as Denmark, being the weakest of his neighbours have a very solid alliance with England qua the marriage between James I and Christian IV's older sister, which would certainly trigger if Sweden gets to frisky. So question is if he can get the wars to shapen his natural talent.
 

Zagan

Donor
Sure, Gustav II have a great, deserved reputation for being a battlefield commander, but with the polish-swedish war being a resounding loss, losing everything east of the Baltic Sea, he have lost the superiority of the upper Baltic sea and large parts of his recruitment ground for the army, so he's stuck between Samartia (Much greater power, Hostile), Germany (Greater Power, if in need of a stronger economy, neutral/hostile), and Denmark (Similar size if not slightly larger post-Poloswedish war, Hostile) and doesn't have any obvious direction to advance, specially as Denmark, being the weakest of his neighbours have a very solid alliance with England qua the marriage between James I and Christian IV's older sister, which would certainly trigger if Sweden gets to frisky. So question is if he can get the wars to shapen his natural talent.

Yes, poor Gustavus needs some wars. Who needs mercenaries?
 
Last edited:
I.25. Europe in 1622

Zagan

Donor
In less than 20 years, the European geopolitical equilibrium was shattered.


Europe in 1622



In the 17th century, the World was dominated by three groups of powers:
1. Christendom, Europe and its Colonies scattered all over the World, emerging as the most formidable global force the World has ever seen.
2. Islam, its most powerful representative being the Ottoman Empire, run by the Caliph of the Muslims.
3. East Asia, dominated by China, content and self-sufficient, but with its significance to the outside World gradually fading.

Unlike East Asia and the Islamic World, Christian Europe lacked a hegemon, power being instead shared between a variable number of Great Powers. Around 1620, these were: Spain, France, Germany, Sarmatia and England.
This system, based on the competition of the Great Powers, was possibly one of the cornerstones of the eventual success of Europe which, in less than two centuries, would thoroughly dominate the entire World.

The first decades of the turbulent 17th century saw many changes, some deep and some shallow. The most visible phenomenon was the strenghening and centralization of existing European States and the creation of new ones like Romania and Germany.
The National Idea was like a ghost, haunting the European Monarchs with its inherent hopes and fears. While some chose to prevent its growth, most rulers wisely chose to channel it to their own advantage and promote nationalism to further strenghten their states and themselves as rulers of those states.
Just 20 years after Mihai united the Romanian Principalities into a Romanian National State, feudal fragmentation was doomed all over Europe. It was clear that those who failed to reform and modernize their old state structures were to lose their position in that new European concert.
The masses seemed rather slow to embrace the new ideas promoted by their leaders, but where they did, as in Germany, the consequences were tremendous.

By 1622, Christian Europe consisted of about 20 States.


1. Spain

Territory: The entire Iberian Peninsula (Aragon, Castile, Leon, Navarre, Portugal), African outposts (Ceuta, Mellila), the Southern half of the Italian Peninsula (Naples), Mediterranian Islands (Baleares, Sardinia, Sicily), Altlantic Islands (Azores, Madeira, Canaries, Cape Verde); Colonies (Almost all of mainland South America and Central America, parts of mainland North America, Islands and territories in the Americas, Africa, Asia and the Pacific). Spain was by far the largest country in the World and one the greatest the World has ever seen.

Religion: Roman Catholics, a few Pagans in some of the colonies.

Ruler: King Philip IV (Felipe IV) of Habsburg (from 1620).

Recent History: During the rule of the former King, Philip III, Spain had lost the German War in a catastrophic manner and bankrupted the country. He lost the Spanish Netherlands and all influence in the former Holy Roman Empire.
Philip IV embarked upon an ambitious plan of reforms, with the aim to unify and centralize his realms. He unilaterally declared a total lack of interest in German matters and ditched his former ally, Austria.

Near Future: Spain will focus mainly on the Americas and will continue the Reconquista, the target being now the former Roman Africa. European affairs will become less important.


2. France

Territory: France proper, German States (Southern Netherlands, Lorraine, Burgundy, Savoy, Bishoprics, Western Swiss Cantons); Colonies (parts of North America, Islands in the Caribbean and elsewhere, outposts in India).

Religion: Roman Catholics, a few Protestants in the Eastern parts of the country and in the occupied German States.

Ruler: King Louis XIII of Bourbon (from 1610; of age from 1617).

Recent History: France took advantage of the German War and enlarged its territory by about 16%, incorporating the Western German States. Although the population of the new territories was thoroughly Catholic, from an ethnic point of view they were a mixture of Frenchmen, Germans and Italians. While the Italians had not posed any problems so far, some Germans had.
Rather a strange exception, France was actually less centralized than before. While they have absorbed French Navarre, the territories aquired from the Holy Roman Empire were not annexed but administered separately. The issue was that both France and Germany viewed their border as a temporary demarcation line pending the final peace treaty.
No reforms of any kind were undertaken.

Near Future: France will focus less on its colonial endeavours and more on expanding its influence in Italy, Germany and the Netherlands. Military spending will increase.


3. Holy Roman Empire

Territory: De jure, all its former territory; de facto, most of Austria, a few Bishoprics enclaved into Austria and a part of Salzburg.

Religion: Roman Catholics, Protestants.

Ruler: None. No Holy Roman Emperor could be elected because of lack of quorum.

Recent History: The German War all but destroyed the Holy Roman Empire. The newly proclaimed German Empire annexed most of it, the Netherlands, the Swiss Cantons and the Italian States are de facto independent and only Austria still maintains the legal fiction of the Holy Roman Empire.

Near Future: The Holy Roman Empire is going to be officially dismantled.


4. Austria

Territory: Austria, Styria, Carinthia, Carniola, Tirol, enclaved Bishoprics, Westernmost Croatia, Westernmost Hungary, (de facto) Salzburg. Almost a third of its territory is occupied by Germany which claims all of it.

Religion: Roman Catholics, numerous Protestants.

Ruler: King Ferdinand II of Habsburg (from 1612).

Recent History: A former Great Power, in two disastruous wars Austria lost three quarters of its territory (most of Royal Hungary and Croatia, Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia, a third of Austria proper) and is now trying to avert incorporation into the German Empire. The country is bankrupt and depopulated. Its remaining territory was belatedly unified into a centralized Kingdom.

Near Future: Bleak, as war will soon resume.


5. Switzerland

Territory: Most of it is under German occupation; all of it is claimed by Germany.

Religion: Roman Catholics, Protestants.

Ruler: Federal Council.

Recent History: While de facto independent from the Holy Roman Empire, it was invaded by the German Empire which quickly occupied all the Protestant Cantons with the support of the local population. The Catholic Cantons just managed to avoid total occupation.

Near Future: Saved only by the Prague Armistice, rump Switzerland has really no hope of defending against a renewed German aggression. Only diplomacy can now save the Helvetic Republic.


6. Netherlands

Territory: Some of it is under German occupation; all of it is claimed by Germany; Colonies in the Carribean, outposts in India and the East Indies.

Religion: Protestants, a few Muslims in the East Indies.

Ruler: States General.

Recent History: While de facto independent from the Holy Roman Empire, it was invaded by the German Empire which managed to occupy the central part of the Netherlands all the way to the Zuiderzee, cutting the country in two.

Near Future: Even with the help of the English, defence against either Germany or France would likely be impossible in the long run. Playing Germany and France against each other would be the best chance of the Netherlands. Meanwhile, the focus remains on the colonial endeavours.


7. Germany

Territory: Most of the former territory of the Holy Roman Empire. Claims all the German parts of the Holy Roman Empire, i.e. the rest of Austria, Switzerland and the Netherlands, possibly some regions occupied by France, although nothing clear was ever declared about that issue.

Religion: Protestants, a significant minority of Catholics.

Ruler: Emperor Augustus Siegfried I of Wettin (from 1612).

Recent History: Born just before the German War, it became a Great Power in just a few years and managed to frighten all its neighbours.

Near Future: Plans to finish the occupation and annexation of the remaining German States: Austria, Netherlands and Switzerland. Modernization is taking place at an accelerated rate. The German War will reignite.


8. Italian States

Territory: Informal confederation of the former Italian States of the Holy Roman Empire. Savoy is under French occupation and the rest of them are under French influence.

Religion: Roman Catholics.

Ruler: None. (independent States with different rulers)

Recent History: Virtually independent for a long time, the fall of the Holy Roman Empire meant almost nothing to them.

Near Future: They seem resigned to fall in France's sphere of influence.


9. Venice

Territory: Venice proper, Adriatic and Ionic Islands, Crete, Adriatic Port Cities.

Religion: Roman Catholics.

Ruler: Elected Doge.

Recent History: Nothing interesting.

Near Future: Venice will join a new Anti-Ottoman Alliance and fight in the subsequent war.


10. Rome

Territory: Papal States.

Religion: Roman Catholics.

Ruler: Pope Paul V (elected).

Recent History: Nothing interesting.

Near Future: The Papacy will play a role in the developing Concert of Europe and the future Great Power Council.


11. Slovakia

Territory: Slovakia proper, the Perekop Isthmus.

Religion: Freedom of Religion, Protestants, Roman Catholics.

Ruler: Polish Prince (Voivode).

Recent History: Liberated from Habsburg rule by Mihai, Slovakia is now a de facto independent country under nominal Ottoman suzerainty and moderate Sarmatian influence.

Near Future: Will enter the Anti-Ottoman War alongside its allies in order to achieve full independence.


12. Sarmatia

Territory: Unitary State composed of former Poland, Lithuania, Prussia, Livonia, Estonia, Zaporogian Host, the Black Sea Steppe, Russian annexed lands etc. Finland is an autonomous territory.

Religion: Roman Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, Muslims, Jews.

Ruler: King Sigismund III Vasa (from 1587).

Recent History: Allied with Romania, the Commonwealth embarked upon major reforms greatly strenghtening the State. It won wars and annexed territory from the Crimean Khanate, Sweden and Russia.

Near Future: Will continue the modernization and centralization of the country and wage more wars with almost all of its neighbours.


13. Russia

Territory: European Russia up to the Arctic Ocean and the Caspian Sea, parts of Siberia.

Religion: Ortodox, some Muslims, Jews and Pagans.

Ruler: Various Pretenders.

Recent History: Time of Troubles. Low to high intensity Civil War with foreign intervention (Sarmatia). No reforms whatsoever. Many territories lost, access to the Baltic Sea and the Azov Sea included.

Near Future: The Civil War will end, the internal situation eventually stabilizing. Some prospects of further expansion in Siberia and towards the Caucasus.


14. Sweden

Territory: Sweden proper only.

Religion: Protestants.

Ruler: King Gustavus II Adolphus (from 1610).

Recent History: Beaten by Poland-Lithuania, Sweden avoided invasion but lost Estonia and Finland. The intervention in the German War was equally ill-fated.

Near Future: Getting closer to Denmark.


15. Denmark

Territory: Denmark proper, Schleswig, Scania, Norway, Gotland, Danish Estonia, Bornholm, Feroe, Iceland, Greenland; Colonies.

Religion: Protestants.

Ruler: King Christian IV (from 1588)

Recent History: Lost control over Holstein and other German fiefs during the German War. The Danish and Norwegian Crowns and all their associated territories were unified into a single country called Scandinavia.

Near Future: Plans to incorporate Sweden in order to make Scandinavia whole again.


16. England

Territory: England proper, Wales, Ireland, Personal Union with Scotland; Colonies in North America, the Caribbean, the Pacific, Africa, Asia.

Religion: Protestants, Catholics.

Ruler: King James VI (of Scotland from 1567) and I (of England from 1603).

Recent History: Recently got all British Isles under one King. Helped the Netherlands to defend against the German invasion.

Near Future: A Kingdom of Britannia is planned. More focus on colonial affairs and less on continental matters.


17. Romania

Territory: From the Tissa to the Black Sea, from the Southern Bug and the Dniester to the Danube.

Religion: Romanian Orthodox, Catholics, Protestants, a few Muslims.

Ruler: Great Voivode and Lord Mihai I (of Romania from 1601)

Recent History: Achieved unification and de facto independence. Won wars against the Habsburgs and the Tatars and enlarged the Country's territory. Modernized and strenghtened the State, the Church and the Army.

Near Future: It will attack the Ottoman Empire.


Besides those Christian Countries, the South-Eastern part of Europe was still occupied by a foreign Muslim Power, the Ottoman Empire.
In the Northern Caucasus and on the Southern shore of the Mediterranian Sea there were some smaller Muslim States, most of them vassals of the Ottoman Empire.
 
Last edited:
I.26. Tensions in the Balkans

Zagan

Donor
In the first decade of the 17th century, Emperor Mihai needed peace.
Twenty years later, what he needed was a casus belli.


Tensions in the Balkans



Exerpts from the 1977 Medina Symposium of Muslim History

A question frequently asked by historians is: What should the Ottomans have done about Romania and its meteoric rise?

One naïve answer might be: Well, invade it, of course, what else? In 1602, the Ottoman Empire was the undisputed hegemon of South-Eastern Europe. It could have conquered Romania easily.

Indeed? The situation was not so simple. If we look at the lessons offered by history we can see that the Ottomans had much trouble with Wallachia and Moldavia in the past. In fact, the Ottomans were defeated several times by the small Romanian Principalities and were never able to actually conquer them. Yes, neither Moldavia nor Wallachia were ever turned into Ottoman provinces, being instead sovereign countries under Ottoman suzerainty. And United Romania was about four times larger and more populous than any of the former Principalities.
The Ottomans were not that stupid. Had they had an easy way to subdue the Romanians, they would most certainly have attempted that. But as the ill-fated Austrian campaign of 1601 clearly showed, an easy conquest of Romania was a chimera. During the 1603 Tatar War, the Ottomans correctly assumed that they would need at least 300,000 of their best soldiers in order to successfully invade Romania.

And now the question rises again: So, why did they not do it?
The answer to this question is not so simple and can be approached in several ways:
1. Romania was already an Ottoman vassal which payed a reasonable yearly tribute and showed no aggressive intentions. Was all that worth risking by invading Romania?
2. War with Romania implied war with Poland-Lithuania and maybe Austria as well. Was it possible to beat them all?
3. Even if Romania was successfully and completely occupied and annexed, was it feasable to hold it? How many soldiers would be needed there on a permanent basis? At what cost?
4. And was it even desirable? After all, Romania was the major producer of food and timber for the Ottoman Empire. If annexed, the productivity would certainly plummet as has been the case of Bulgaria and Serbia.
5. By the time the Ottoman Empire was able to fetch the 300,000 needed soldiers, Romania had become stronger and therefore even more soldiers were needed. In fact, Romania was modernizing and improving its military capabilities so quickly that by 1620 a successful Ottoman invasion of Romania had been out of the question.

And all this prompts just another question: Good. So in 1620 the Ottoman Empire was already on the defensive. But what should the Ottomans have done to avert their fate?
Well, this is indeed a good question. And it has three possible answers:
1. Absolutely nothing. By 1602, they had been already doomed.
While this may be true, they still should have at least tried to do something.
2. Attempt to weaken Romania by inciting internal strife and to sour the relations between Romania, Slovakia and Poland-Lithuania.
This was indeed reasonable and was actually attempted, albeit unsuccessfully. The Ottomans tried to create a separatist movement in Moldavia in 1604, which was squashed by Mihai's Secret Police before it could pose an actual danger. They also tried to bribe Sigismund offering him parts of Romania only to be laughed at.
3. Invade Romania anyway, though having no real prospects of conquering it. Despite the perceived absurdity of waging a clearly losing war, this may have actually been the only chance the Ottomans ever had.

I would like to elaborate further on the latest topic. What would have been the effects of repeated Ottoman invasions of Romania, let's say every three or four years?
Most probably, the Ottomans would have advanced hundreds of miles inside Romanian territory, destroyed and plundered everything in their path and killed numerous Romanian civilians and soldiers.
Eventually, the Ottoman armies would have bogged down or even been decisively beaten by Mihai's armies. In any case, with each invasion Romania would have lost proportionally more wealth and manpower than the huge Ottoman Empire with its virtually endless resources.
The final and most important result would have been that Romania might have been denied the luxury of 20 years of peace during which it had developed tremendously and had finally managed to overcome the Ottoman Empire and become a Great Power itself.

Could the policy makers of the Ottoman Empire of that time have realized all this without knowing what we know today? Almost certainly not.
So, they were doomed after all? By all means, yes.



19 October 1604, Constantinople, Ottoman Empire

After three years of diplomatic overtures, the Greek Patriarchy of Constantinople declared the Autocephalous Romanian Orthodox Church to be heretical and excomunicated all its leaders and followers. Like the Western Church with the Protestant Reformation, from now on the Eastern Church was split as well.
Days later, the Romanian Orthodox Church declared itself out of communion with the Greek Orthodox Church. The split was thus accepted and formalized.


4 May 1605, Constantinople

Sultan Ahmed I split the Rum Millet into the Yunan Millet (Greek Orthodox) and the Ullah Millet (Romanian Orthodox).
While the Ottomans thought to employ the old principle of divide and impera to their own advantage, it backfired horribly in the following years. Some historians even consider this as yet another fatal mistake made by the Ottomans.

The actual number of Romanians in Ottoman Europe is very difficult to estimate. If you are to believe the later Romanian censuses, the Romanians were about a quarter of the Christian population in the Balkan Peninsula north of Greece.

Now these Romanians had just been recognized as a Nation inside the multinational Ottoman Empire. They were thus entitled to an autonomous religious and national life. This would have far-reaching consequences:
1. The Romanian Orthodox Church started to open Romanian Churches all over Ottoman Europe.
2. Like in Romania, schools were opened by almost all the churches.
3. Thousands of Romanian priests and teachers were sent from Romania to cater the needs of their conationals still under Ottoman rule.
4. All those Romanians were exposed to liturgical service and learning in their own language as well as copious amounts of national propaganda.
5. Large amounts of money were siphoned into the Ottoman Empire in order to encourage proselytism in the Balkan populations. It is thus very probable that the romanization of the Bulgarians, Serbs and Albanians started even before the actual incorporation of their lands into the Romanian Empire.
6. A low level conflict started in the Balkan Peninsula between the Greek and Romanian Churches. Priests were killed, churches were burned to the ground and worshipers were harassed and intimidated. The Ottoman authorities made no effort to stop the lawlessness.
7. The Romanian State started to smuggle weapons over the border in order to enable the Romanians to defend themselves from the attacks of the Greeks. The Ottomans were usually bribed in order to ignore the issue.
8. Slowly, the Romanian minority got the upper hand and the Romanian Church expanded all over Ottoman Europe with the exception of the territories with an overwhelming Greek majority.
9. In the end, the Romanian State benefited from a heavily armed and thoroughly indoctrinated Romanian fifth column inside the Ottoman Empire which were to help very much the advancing Romanian armies during the First Romanian-Ottoman War.


25 December 1620, Constantinople

It had become imperiously necessary for the Ottoman Empire to smother those foci of Romanian propaganda digging at the very foundations of the Empire.
Sultan Mustafa I the Deranged signed a law that severely restricted the rights enjoyed so far by the Romanian minority. All Romanian schools were closed and all Romanian citizens were expelled. The Romanian churches were forbidden to receive money from Romania anymore.
Romania issued a diplomatic protest and threatened to discontinue the payment of the tribute as well as to sever all commercial links with the Ottomans. No answer was ever received.


January - August 1621, Europe

The tolerant position of the Ottomans towards their Romanian minority had come to an abrupt end. All kinds of abuse were commonplace once again.
Romania, Slovakia and Sarmatia started to prepare for war. The tribute for 1620 was withheld. The relations with the Ottoman Empire quickly deteriorated to the point where all diplomatic personnel was either called back or expelled.

Despite the ominous signs, the Ottomans made no clear preparations for war; they only increased the suppression of the Romanian political and cultural organizations.

Mihai was aware that, for the first time in Romanian history, 16 years had passed without fighting any war. Worried about the lack of fighting experience, Mihai ordered his armies to engage in mock battles with one another.
These military exercises proved to be very useful and extremely popular. Soon afterwards, whole Romanian and Sarmatian armies exercised together in Edisan and Podolia. This practice would become widespread all over Europe in the following years.


2 September 1621, Ottoman Europe

The Balkan Romanians rose against their Ottoman oppressors, setting Ottoman Europe aflame.
The Ottomans started at last to bring troops from all over their Empire in order to quell the revolt.
By the end of the month, the rebellion had spread from the Black Sea to the Adriatic and from the Danube to the Pindus Mountains, important numbers of Bulgarians, Serbs and Albanians joining the Romanians in their Anti-Ottoman struggle. The Ottoman armies had to spread thin all over the Balkans.


15 October 1621, Venice, Republic of Venice

Venice joined the Anti-Ottoman Alliance.
Pope Paul V blessed the Christian Alliance against the Heathens and proclaimed yet another Crusade.
The diplomats headed for Spain.


13 December 1621, Lisbon, Portugal, Spanish Monarchy

Treaty of Lisbon

I. His Catholic Majesty King Philip IV of the Spanish Realms answers the call of His Holiness Pope Paul V and joins the Anti-Ottoman Crusade with all the combined might of his Catholic Realms.

II. The Crusaders - Spain, Sarmatia, Venice, Rome, Romania and Slovakia - will coordinate their military actions against the Ottoman Empire with the purpose of completely vanquishing it and driving the Mahomedans out of Europe and the Mediterranian.

III. If All-Mighty God will grant us victory over the unfaithful, the liberated territories will be partitioned as follows:
- Spain: The former Roman Provinces of Mauretania, Africa and Cirenaica;
- Sarmatia: Constantinople, Peninsular Taurida, Azov and any other lands on the far side of the Black Sea;
- Venice: Dalmatia, the Adriatic and the Ionian Islands, Cyprus and at least four strategically important Aegean Islands;
- Slovakia: Some territories inhabited by their people in the former Kingdom of Hungary;
- Romania: The rest of Ottoman Europe except the lands of the Greeks, who should be awarded a country of their own in view of their great contribution to the European Civilisation;
- Rome: No territories, but a solemn guarantee by Romania and its King that the Catholic faith will be protected in all Romanian Lands.


IV. Some thoroughly Catholic Lands in Hungary and Croatia shall be forfeited by Romania to nearby Catholic Austria which would most certainly help us in our Holy Crusade if not so viciously beleaguered by the German Schismatics. After all, Romania is a National State and there are surely no Romanians in those Lands.

V. If less territory will be liberated during this Holy War, these provisions will remain in force for the subsequent Holy Wars until the final victory. If the mercy of God will be even greater and even more territory will be liberated, it will be appropriated by those who shed their blood for its liberation.

VI. All the Crusaders shall contribute to the common cause proportionally to their military might.

So help us God,
[Signatories]


Anno Domini MDCXXI, December XIII


31 December 1621, the Ionian Sea

The Venetian Navy sunk two Ottoman Ships. The First Romanian-Ottoman War, the Great Crusade against the Godless Turks for the Liberation of Christian Lands, and so on and so forth, started.
 
Last edited:
Map #13. Lisbon Treaty

Zagan

Donor

Lisbon Treaty


Europe 1620 Lisbon Treaty.png

Legend:
Areas with diagonal lines: Muslim territories assigned to Spain, Sarmatia, Venice, Slovakia, Austria, Greece and Romania in case of Crusade victory.

Notes:
1. Finland is an Autonomous Realm of Sarmatia.
2. The de jure situation in HRE is shown.
3. Most Islands assigned to Venice and Greece are too small to get colored.
4. These are not definitive borders, but only a preliminary agreement as will soon become clear.
5. The Crusaders will not be able to conquer all the claimed territory. Some will be more successful than others.
6. The demarcation lines from the Treaty are only inferred since the Treaty was not accompanied by any maps.

Errata: Spain does not plan to conquer all of Sahara! The map does not show a Southern border, because in the middle of the Desert there is not supposed to exist a clear-cut border.
 
Last edited:

Zagan

Donor
The Chapter(s) about the First Romanian-Ottoman War is (are) almost ready.

Would you like to guess how much (or how little) of their goals will be achieved by the participants in the Crusade?
- Spain
- Sarmatia
- Venice
- Slovakia
- Romania

Will Austria get anything for free, like in the treaty?
Will the Greeks receive statehood, even if in a smaller territory?
How soon will the Second Romanian-Ottoman War start?

Thank you for your insight.
 
Last edited:
Spain is probably the one most unlikely to achieve most of their goals,closely followed by the Venetians.This is mainly because look at HOW BIG the parts of Africa they wanted.They even wanted the bloody Sahara!

By the way,Morocco isn't a part of the Ottoman Empire.

By the way,the Knights of Saint John are also probably interested in the war.

Constantinople probably wouldn't be captured.

Romania is probably going to capture at least Hungary and Serbia.

Poland is definitely going to conquer the Black Sea regions allocated to her.
 
Last edited:
Top