ASB or not? Romanian Colonial Empire
I've always been interested by the idea of a more powerful Romania. With what specific PoD after 1780 can Romania acquire overseas territory, even if it means a small sliver of land similar to OTL German Togoland? Is this ASB or not?
www.alternatehistory.com
AHC: Italy trades colonies for irredenta in Austria-Hungary
How can we get Italy and Austria to make a swap wherein Italy gets at least the Italian-speaking majority areas of the Austro-Hungarian empire if not some additional historic claims and Italy yields up its colonies in Eritrea, Somalia (and if after 1912, Libya) to Austria-Hungary? You can...
www.alternatehistory.com
ASB no, but extremely hard, yes. A long succession of enclosed sea to get to the nearest ocean, for one, meaning that contact with the colonies can only be kept depending on the goodwill of whoever controls Bosphorus, Dardanelles and Suez/Gibraltar.
However, here's a take (caution: highly concentrated handwavium):
- Napoleon delays his attack on Russia to 1813. Russia has additional time to mop the floor with the Ottomans in the Danubian principalities and forces a treaty whereby they are ousted from the area altogether, among other gains (Kars, maybe). However Alexander is quite aware that trouble with France is coming, doesn't want trouble down there (like, Austria is quite vocally unhappy with the arrangement) and likes to appear more a liberator than a conqueror for political PR reasons, so he decides that "Romania" is a brand new kingdom made of Moldavia and Wallachia, including Bessarabia (that's critical since Dobruja remains Ottoman) and gives it to, let's say, his brother Constantine.
This Romania is somewhere between Russia's close friend and Russia's puppet, and is bound to remain so, not only because the King is a Romanov but also having issues with both Austria and Turkey. However, kill a trillion butterflies for the sake of the scenario, and fast-forward a few decades (assuming a Napoleonic defeat and post-Napoleonic arrangement that follow the broad outlines of OTL, leading to a recognizable situation, although I admit that the POD does not grant that): Romania has been Russia's pal and maybe gained Dobruja and some other area in another Russo-Turkish war, whereby Serbia, Greece, and maybe a Bulgarian state have gained sort of independence with Russian aid (let's say that Austria is given Bosnia to sweeten the deal, though the Serbs are unhappy about it). The result is an alliance of Orthodox states in the Balkans that are friendly to Russia and very much make a point of being Orthodox, very very much so. Romania is somewhat senior in this group due to actual participation in the liberation of the others and dimension.
Constantine and his successors are generally a fairly reactionary bunch politically, but do some steps toward economic and infrastructural modernization and by 1850 there's some industry going.
The "Orthodox alliance", in the general pursuit of its "Orthodoxness" reaches out to Orthodox communities or something like that, but making fuss about the ones in the Ottoman Empire is very actively discouraged by a British naval squadron.
Romania, looking for a way to affirm itself on the international stage without much trouble and distract local hotheads from potentially unwieldy irredentism re. Transylvania, begins to send ecclesiastical, trading and diplomatic missions to Ethiopia, in cooperation with Russia and Greece of course but being the main drive. Relationships with the Ethiopians are actively sough after by the Romanian government and church as a matter of prestige. However, protecting the increased Romanian presence in the Horn proves tricky and, instead of abandoning the whole venture after the first few incidents, a small military presence somewhere on the Eritrean coast is established through the agreement of some local chief that has a nominal alllegiance to the Ethiopian crown, over Ottoman protest (the Ottomans claim suzerainity over the area, maybe outsourcing it to Egypt like IOTL, though not necessarily).
An uprising in, say, Macedonia sparks another Russo-Turkish war vaguely mirroring OTL's one in 1877-78. Romania of course is in on the Russian side. The Ottomans are defeated again, not crushingly maybe. Romania sees the opportunity, and decides to throw a demand for a stretch of Red sea coast at the peace table. The Ottomans care more about the Balkans and anyway they don't actually know what to make of much of their claim on that coast, that mostly theoretical anyway.
Egypt is like OTL with enough of a debt problem that it sells its own right on the area to Romania for some hard cash without much of a problem.
Romanian Eritrea* for you
* Probably significantly smaller than OTL's Eritrea, I guess it's only the coastal strip north of the Gulf of Arafali and maaaybe as far inland as Keren, or not even there; it may stretch a little beyond the borcer with Sudan, tough).
From the point when Romania gained Eritrea (around 1877-1878 as in the quote), the Romanians gained Eritrea and advanced more into Eritrea, butterflying the Italian conquest of Eritrea, Somalia and Ethiopia, the French colonization of Djibouti and the British colonization of Somalia in the 1880s. The Romanians then explored the unclaimed Pacific islands of Kiribati and around Kiribati using the cruiser NMS Elisabeta as in otl from 1896-1899, but after the news of the Romanian colonial empire reached Romania in 1900, Romanian nationalists protested and demanded that Romania exchange Eritrea and its Pacific islands for Transnitra, Greater Transnitra, Odessa and the Budjak (Bessarabia being accounted for as Romanian and the rest of Moldova having been accounted for as Transnitra or as Odessa and the Budjak), which was accomplished over 1903-1904. The Russo-Japanese War would proceed as in otl, but the Russian, ex-Romanian, colonies would remain Russian from 1903-1918 before being taken by the British during the Russian Civil War to avoid being taken by Bolsheviks or the Japanese. As the effects would be more tangible in the 20th century than earlier, this thread will be posted here in post-1900.
Romania, having exchanged colonial gains for Russia's European territory, would find gains from Austria-Hungary due to WW1 (note that this timeline would still allow the Italo-Ottoman, First World and Russian Civil Wars to occur, with Serbia being focused on Austria-Hungary even with no Ottoman or Bulgarian territory to gain by butterflying the Balkan Wars or their equivalent in this timeline). In the interwar period, after the Romanians' successful conquest of all of Hungary east of the Tisza including Transylvania, Crisiana, the Banat, Maramures and Carpatho-Ruthenia, plus Romanian retention of Bukovina and Pokuttya, the Romanians would pounce on a Bulgaria conducting a delayed, 1920s, post-WW1 version of the Second Balkan War, allowing Romania to take all of Dobruja, the entire Vidin Region and the Rusiuc-Varna Line and potentially even more from Bulgaria, followed by Romania receiving the Timoc Valley and the Serbian Banat out of Yugoslavian/ Serbian gratitude for Romania's aid to Yugoslavia/ Serbia against Bulgaria. By 1929 and the 1930s, Romania would have gained and ruled every European territory claimed by it for its rule in otl and more pride than otl and through colonial exchanges and WW1 plus anti-Bulgarian victories and an alliance with Yugoslavia/ Serbia.
Such a timeline, if WW2 wasn't butterflied or significantly altered, would see Romania losing territory to Russia/ the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia/ Serbia and Bulgaria to the extent of Romania being restricted to its 1948 borders in otl plus its territorial claims exclusively with Hungary. But Romania would have ruled and gained by 1929 and the 1930s every European territory claimed by it for its rule in otl and gained more pride than otl. This scenario may be asb, though.
Last edited: