Why did Austria-Hungary want Bosnia and Herzegovina?

[Portucale]

Why exactly did Austria-Hungary want Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1877-78? I know it served as the hinterland to Austrian Dalmatia and had mines, but were Hungarian and Croatian historical rights to Bosnia and Herzegovina also a factor? It's worth noting that Serbia had a pro-Austrian government under Milan Obrenovic at the time so I don't know if fear of Serbia was much of a factor. On the other hand, I have been told that while Milan Obrenovic was pro-Austrian, everyone surrounding him was pro-Russian, even his own wife.

 

[raharris1973]

Great question:

I know it served as the hinterland to Austrian Dalmatia

I assume mainly this? And getting such a hinterland for Dalmatia and Croatia had never been urgent before the time Italy had unified and become a threat?

Hungarian and Croatian historical rights

Sure - maybe also these. Although these seemed to be ignored during episodes like the 1840 Bosnia Revolt and in Habsburg warring and treaties with the Ottomans in the 18th and 17th centuries.

Maybe two other factors besides the emergence of the Italian rival in the Adriatic were newly at play to drive Austria's interest?

1. By the 1870s it might have appeared to be "bad form" to leave a territory where Christians revolted against the Turks back under Turkish authority, at least without heavy Christian oversight & regulation. Double-so for Catholics.

2. By the 1870s, Austria-Hungary literally 'got nowhere else to go' being fully excluded from Germany and Italy. Before 1866, their thoughts were more on how to hold on to lands or institutional influence over both of them over changing any status quo in the Balkans, which had been adequate for about a century.

 

[riggerrob]

Great question:

... 1. By the 1870s it might have appeared to be "bad form" to leave a territory where Christians revolted against the Turks back under Turkish authority, at least without heavy Christian oversight & regulation. Double-so for Catholics. .... "

The Balkans were one big battle ground where the Greek, Eastern Roman, German, Austro-Hungarian Empire, Holy Roman Empire, Persian Empire, Russian Empire and later Turkish Ottoman Empire fought over their differences. Serbs, Croats, Kosovars, etc. were just cannon-fodder for these empires.
The sad thing was when those cannon-fodder ... er ... hill tribes continued those feuds long after the empires collapsed.

 

[Jürgen]

I feel the main mistake the Austrians did was that they didn’t carve up the entire Balkans themselves in the early 19th century, the Serbs would been much better having inside the empire than outside. Let the Bulgars and Greeks get their independent states and makes Serbo-Croats the third leg in the Habsburg domain.

 

[raharris1973]

I feel the main mistake the Austrians did was that they didn’t carve up the entire Balkans themselves in the early 19th century, the Serbs would been much better having inside the empire than outside. Let the Bulgars and Greeks get their independent states and makes Serbo-Croats the third leg in the Habsburg domain.

When would have been the moment when this would have been:
"natural" or conceived of?
possible
relatively inexpensive
not a cause of a ruinous war with another major non-Ottoman power

Bulgar and Greek independence harmless to Austria, eh? What about Albanian?

What about Romanians/Vlachs? Their independence OK, or must they be added to the deluxe Habsburger or partitioned a Polonaise with the Romanovs?

 

[Jürgen]

When would have been the moment when this would have been:
"natural" or conceived of?
possible
relatively inexpensive
not a cause of a ruinous war with another major non-Ottoman power

That’s the major question, maybe they could have done so as part of the Greek War of Independence and supported a Russian candidate for Tsar of Bulgaria.

Bulgar and Greek independence harmless to Austria, eh? What about Albanian?

The Austrians should obvious take Albania themselves, no one before Italian unification would have cared.

What about Romanians/Vlachs? Their independence OK, or must they be added to the deluxe Habsburger or partitioned a Polonaise with the Romanovs?

Leave them as a buffer states. The border between the Romanian principalities and Transylvania was easy to defend.

 

[Portucale]

I feel the main mistake the Austrians did was that they didn’t carve up the entire Balkans themselves in the early 19th century, the Serbs would been much better having inside the empire than outside. Let the Bulgars and Greeks get their independent states and makes Serbo-Croats the third leg in the Habsburg domain.

The early 19th century may have been too late for that. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austro-Turkish_War_(1788–1791)#Serbia, the Serbs turned away from Austria and towards Russia for national liberation when Austria abandoned them to the Ottomans in 1791.

 

[Diego]

When would have been the moment when this would have been:

January 1878 would be the date, the Russians were at the gates of Constantinople, but their advance had been stopped, their effort plagued with bad logistics and bad luck in general, they were forced to the table in a rather disadvantageous position, at the time the Austro-Hungarian Army wanted to join Russia, but the Austro-Hungarian Diplomacy didn't want to be on the bad side of Britain, nor compromise permanently its relations with Turkey. If other more hawkish faction had the power at the time Austria could have tipped the scales in favor of Russia enough to participate in the carving of the Ottomans. The alliance of the three emperor would probably survive for more time, but Britain's reaction and how the Austrians and Hungarians would deal with the sudden increase of people is everyones's guess.

Austria should at least demand Serbia, Montenegro and Bosnia in the aftermath.

What about Romanians/Vlachs? Their independence OK, or must they be added to the deluxe Habsburger or partitioned a Polonaise with the Romanovs?

If not outright annexed they should never be allowed to unify and be kept both as protectorates of AH, but it would be better if they are kept inside, it is always good to have more of the Danube.

Bulgar and Greek independence harmless to Austria, eh? What about Albanian?

Bulgaria + Istanbul/Constantinople as a Russian Protectorate, to satisfy them, even better if Bulgaria becomes a multinational state. Albania should be a protectorate or heavily dependant of Austria, because their coast could be used to block or harass Austrian shipping leaving the Adriatic. Greece fully independent with OTL 1914 borders would be ok, if kept neutral or friendly to Austria.

 

[SavoyTruffle]

I feel the main mistake the Austrians did was that they didn’t carve up the entire Balkans themselves in the early 19th century, the Serbs would been much better having inside the empire than outside. Let the Bulgars and Greeks get their independent states and makes Serbo-Croats the third leg in the Habsburg domain.

Problem was that Russia pretty much viewed the Balkans as its backyard by then, and used the Pan-Slavic movement as a fig leaf for establishing a sphere of influence in the area.

If Austria wanted to make the Balkans their playground the time was in the 18th century after they had pushed out the Ottomans from Hungary, but they were too tied up in Western European politics to do so effectively.

 

[anotherlurker]

Bulgaria + Istanbul/Constantinople as a Russian Protectorate, to satisfy them, even better if Bulgaria becomes a multinational state. Albania should be a protectorate or heavily dependant of Austria, because their coast could be used to block or harass Austrian shipping leaving the Adriatic. Greece fully independent with OTL 1914 borders would be ok, if kept neutral or friendly to Austria.

That puts half of Austria/Austria-Hungary into the gaping maw of the bear, teeth to its north, east and now south as well. From the View of A the Balkans should either belong to A oder a smaller power, not a larger one and not one that's already somewhere else at A's borders. Yes to Ottomans and smaller independent states. No to Russia and Italy. And that's the policy Vienna persued IOTL.

 

[Evil Crusader]

Why exactly did Austria-Hungary want Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1877-78? I know it served as the hinterland to Austrian Dalmatia and had mines, but were Hungarian and Croatian historical rights to Bosnia and Herzegovina also a factor? It's worth noting that Serbia had a pro-Austrian government under Milan Obrenovic at the time so I don't know if fear of Serbia was much of a factor. On the other hand, I have been told that while Milan Obrenovic was pro-Austrian, everyone surrounding him was pro-Russian, even his own wife.

As is being discussed, it boils down to Balkan ambitions. Russia was getting the upper hand and A-H had to either keep up, or give up.
Italian rivalry was not a factor, as threatening Dalmatia required a degree of naval supremacy that could not be achieved even during the Great War.

 

[Atterdag]

Leave them as a buffer states. The border between the Romanian principalities and Transylvania was easy to defend.

Buffer states that actively want your territory probably isn’t a great recipe for long-term stability.