As I understand it (and Wiki agrees, for what that's worth), Herceg Novi was part of Venice's territories, attached to Kotor. Austria and then France too over all of these. Most maps also show France occupying the little bits of Ottoman territory surrounding the Republic of Ragusa and keeping it from contact with the Venetian territories, though I have never seen an explanation of how or when this occupation took place.
WI - First Serbian Revolt succeeds
- Thread starter Višeslav
- Start date
As I understand it (and Wiki agrees, for what that's worth), Herceg Novi was part of Venice's territories, attached to Kotor. Austria and then France too over all of these. Most maps also show France occupying the little bits of Ottoman territory surrounding the Republic of Ragusa and keeping it from contact with the Venetian territories, though I have never seen an explanation of how or when this occupation took place.
You are correct. I was unaware that it changed hands after the treaty of Karlovac.
All kinds of ways. First off, Montenegro was very supportive of the Serbian revolution albeit not in much of a position to help, being a microstate at that point. Still, Montenegro was known for its fierce warriors and, certainly in the 1800s, Serb patriotism, so there were plans for Montenegro to join in the fighting alongside Serbia. It didn't pan out IOTL because by the time they were supposed to join in, Serbia was already visibly losing. ITTL, Montenegro is CERTAINLY campaigning against the Turks and linking up with Serbia over land, cutting off Ottoman Bosnia at least during the revolution.
I imagine Montenegro making some gains, perhaps in the highlands, but more importantly, I imagine it seizing the port of Bar.
Whether or when Montenegro and Serbia unite is another matter. As I discussed in other posts, there was a huge movement for this at the time, as, prior to the revolution, Montengro saw itself as the primary liberator of the Serb people, so the idea of Montenegro not eventually being part of some united Serb state was not really around yet in the early 1800s. On the other hand, not only would there be an awkward situation vis a vis the Montenegrin monarchy, although as a Prince-Bishopric in a time when may ecclesiastical domains were being incorporated into nearby larger, generally ethnically and historically connected, secular states, it would be far less awkward than later down the line IOTL when Montenegro was a fully secular kingdom. There was actually a proposal in 1848 for Montenegro to be annexed into Serbia but for the Prince-Bishop to be made patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church, assuming that a planned rebellion succeeded in connecting the two by land. The rebellion never happened, so no land connection, no union, but ITTL a similar idea may come up. Some foreign powers may very well actively intervene to prevent union though. Either way, I expect Montenegro to be happy to let Serbia use Bar as a seaport and generally have very chummy foreign policy vis a vis Serbia and Russia, much like IOTL.
Basically Montengro is likely to get a coast early by joining the war on the side of the rebelling Serbs, and have a land connection to Serbia. It will be either a very close Serbian ally/sister state, or outright unite but will almost certainly allow Serbia to access the sea.
raharris1973
Gone Fishin'
How willing/able would Austria be to support Muslim interests in Bosnia when they clash with Orthodox Christian and especially Catholic interests in Bosnia at this early point in the 19th century
Or perhaps the Romanian principalities can be directly annexed into Russia, without a rushed peace, or Romanian principalities can be united into a Romanov secundoture?
But would the Russia ever design a campaign with their main avenue of approach to Europe being the Adriatic?
If taking on Napoleon, would Alex make this longest, southern route via the Danube to the Illyrian provinces, and out of range of potential Prussian allied support, his schwerpunkt?
Depending on how Russophilic Serbia is, and the Russophiles were definitely strong towards the OTL end of the first revolt (Austrophile cabinet ministers were exiled and such), I can maybe see Austria letting Bosnia's hyper-reactionary Ayans abuse Orthodox Christians in exchange for some kind of protections for the Catholics.
Bosnia would put Austria in an awkward position no matter what though, because the Bosniak autonomists of the late 1800s were almost cartoonish reflections of the Oriental Despot stereotype, demanding autonomy precisely in order to continue outdated Ottoman practices against the Christian population and retain what they viewed as their rightful higher position in society.
I actually have an idea for this worked out wherein the Austrians allow a kind of religious apartheid system where only Muslims can hold high political offices, Catholics and Jews can't and must pay Jizyah but also can't be held as serfs, and Orthodox Christians can be held as serfs and must give sons to a Bosnian janissary army (this idea comes from the premise of Bosniak autonomist rebels siding WITH Bosnian janissaries who refused to disband after the system was abolished, rather than ignoring them, since support for the janissaries was pretty widespread IOTL too). Basically, it lets Muslims keep their dominance, protects the Catholics, and encourages Serbs in Bosnia to convert to Catholicism and be absorbed into Croat and Austroslavist identity.
I have this happening after Serbia backs a revolt in Herzegovina against mistreatment of Christians and use it to annex the region. This, of course, pisses Austria off, as the Austrians had been hoping Serbia would focus in southward and eastward expansion rather than encroaching on their occupation zone. After the revolt succeeds, the remaining Bosnia splits off from the Ottoman empire and petitions Austria for protection, and Austria is only too happy to oblige, securing its control, at least in military and trade affairs, over Bosnia and halting Serbian westward expansion for now in exchange for the above deal with the Muslims.
By independence I do mean from the Turks, not true independence. Im picturing them uniting under a Russian-installed local prince but with some autonomy guaranteed by the international community to avoid rocking the boat of balance of power politics too much.
Perhaps not. In my own take on TTL I am not including a southward Russian campaign in the Napoleonic wars, at least not until later, perhaps they emerge in Dalmatia after pushing France out of Poland.
Yes indeed, without the collaboration with Vuk, I’ve been thinking about Croatian being standardized around Zagreb Kajkavian.
This may alienate Štokavian Dalmatia and Slavonia somewhat though but then again their concept of belonging to a wider Croatian identity was already there to an extent.
Hmm. The thing is, the Bosniaks rebelled agains the Ottomans partly as pushback against the Christians gaining political freedoms, there’s nothing to stop them waging war on Austria too. Granted they will probably lose but Serbia would likely take the opportunity to swoop in and grab land & Austria doesn’t want that.
I was thinking maybe a more gradialist approach to Austria’s “civilizing” mission but ehh maybe it IS unrealistic
Serbia is going to be too busy consolidating to risk open conflict with Austria.
True but if Austria goes to war with Bosnia, Serbia could move in under the pretense of “helping quell the rebellion” but then again, you’re right Austria will probably just say “thanks now give”
My guess is that there will be some deal made with St. Petersburg with respect to the Orthodox in Bosnia.
I feel the Austrians would be bothered by Russian influence in Bosnia no? Especially with Russia already having a somewhat strong russophile Serbia on its border
Right, so better to get ahead of the issue than let it become a problem. It's also a way to get Russia to keep Serbia on a leash.
If Austria annexes Bosnia but includes privileges for the Orthodox, then they can get Russia to accept the arrangement. Russia can then pressure Serbia to not interfere with the Austrian conquest of Bosnia.
Randomly got linked this thread, and golly! As an advocate for a successful Ičko's Peace TL, or rather, a TL that involves the Russians to a lesser degree than OTL, per my signature, this is quite an interesting scenario.
Part of the reason why I find an Ičko's Peace scenario so interesting is because it enables the fledgling revolutionary republic to decide for itself whom it would side with, which, in a scenario where Russia and France may fight or might work together or anything, sounds like an attractive prospective. Plus, we already have somewhat of an idea what the policies demanded by the peace would look implemented, to a degree, given how Obrenović's Serbia would get them belatedly implemented by the 1830s. And most interesting for me, a lot of the post-1807 institutional changes, especially post-1811, are avoided, which weakens Karađorđe's position and enabled Serbia to actually possibly be a republic, which could have its own quirks.
In contrast here, Serbia is very much stuck in terms of whom it might side with, especially since it's clear in this scenario that Russia and France will inevitably fight. With Austria bolstering up Bosnia, Serbia is definitely going to be on the side of the Russians, and that means the Russians could continue to use the Serbs as cannon fodder just as they had in 1806-1812 Russo-Turkish War. Depending on how things go, the Serbs might be able to demand the terms of Ičko's Peace TTL as well, so that much might still remain the same. But the big thing is that Karađorđe is likely to work on consolidating his position as Grand Vožd. This could actually cause issues with Montenegro later on, especially if the Montenegrin court maintains a position of "we're the ones to unify the Serbs" as it did OTL, since I could entirely imagine a scenario where, post-secularization, a unification proposal between the two countries fails because Karađorđe's successor is unwilling to allow Danilo I Petrović-Njegoš to take his position as head of state (so we kind of end up with two dynasties fighting anyway).
Of course, my point on Russia could be entirely mute if this scenario was paired with a "France and Russia maintain friendly relations instead of fighting" scenario (reminiscent to TRH's Marche Consulaire), but that might be going too far.
On the topic of language, honestly, in a Russophilic Serbia and Austrian Bosnia scenario, I don't think Slaveno-Serbian would win out - mainly because it is a construct of the Habsburg Serbs, developing out of the literary linguistic developments in those areas. I honestly think that Vukavian Serbian actually has a higher chance of winning out TTL. Miloš Obrenović resisted the adoption of Vuk's Serbian because he viewed it as too patriotic, which was something that would have not added him politically with either the Ottomans or the Austrians. Karađorđe and co. would very likely not be as resistive, and the Russians would be all on board, especially since it could enable the further development of public education, since I think Vukavian Serbian is more accessible (plus with the territory Serbia's going to control, it just makes sense).
However, in turn, just because Vukavian Serbian would work out TTL, doesn't mean all developments associated with it would. Vuk would very likely not spend as much in Austria, since he wouldn't have much reason to leave for Austria with a victorious Serbia, which might actually end up changing how his Serbian reforms actually turn out. He might not even meet Jernej Kopitar, which I think is a massive PoD in of itself! Sava Mrkalj might remain a presence, meanwhile, along with Old Rashko. And more importantly, as has been noted so far, this means there would be less opportunity for Serbo-Croatian collaboration on language, which may result in Croato-Slovene collaboration instead. Frankly, I don't think the Illyrian linguistic conceptions have any chance of working out, especially with Jernej Kopitar around. We could end up in a scenario where Slovene, Čakavian and Kajkavian are lumped into one language, Croato-Slovene, and Štokavian is split between two languages - Serbian, which would be largely Ekavian-based (assuming Montenegro doesn't become the dominant partner), and Bosnian (following Croato-Slovene reforming principles, and with Latin and Arebica as writing systems - I could in turn imagine an earlier manifestation of the rhetoric of 'Bosnians are just Muslim Croats'), which would be Ijekavian-based - with some cross-pollination between the two (sorry Ikavian, it's hard to fit you anywhere).
Part of the reason why I find an Ičko's Peace scenario so interesting is because it enables the fledgling revolutionary republic to decide for itself whom it would side with, which, in a scenario where Russia and France may fight or might work together or anything, sounds like an attractive prospective. Plus, we already have somewhat of an idea what the policies demanded by the peace would look implemented, to a degree, given how Obrenović's Serbia would get them belatedly implemented by the 1830s. And most interesting for me, a lot of the post-1807 institutional changes, especially post-1811, are avoided, which weakens Karađorđe's position and enabled Serbia to actually possibly be a republic, which could have its own quirks.
In contrast here, Serbia is very much stuck in terms of whom it might side with, especially since it's clear in this scenario that Russia and France will inevitably fight. With Austria bolstering up Bosnia, Serbia is definitely going to be on the side of the Russians, and that means the Russians could continue to use the Serbs as cannon fodder just as they had in 1806-1812 Russo-Turkish War. Depending on how things go, the Serbs might be able to demand the terms of Ičko's Peace TTL as well, so that much might still remain the same. But the big thing is that Karađorđe is likely to work on consolidating his position as Grand Vožd. This could actually cause issues with Montenegro later on, especially if the Montenegrin court maintains a position of "we're the ones to unify the Serbs" as it did OTL, since I could entirely imagine a scenario where, post-secularization, a unification proposal between the two countries fails because Karađorđe's successor is unwilling to allow Danilo I Petrović-Njegoš to take his position as head of state (so we kind of end up with two dynasties fighting anyway).
Of course, my point on Russia could be entirely mute if this scenario was paired with a "France and Russia maintain friendly relations instead of fighting" scenario (reminiscent to TRH's Marche Consulaire), but that might be going too far.
On the topic of language, honestly, in a Russophilic Serbia and Austrian Bosnia scenario, I don't think Slaveno-Serbian would win out - mainly because it is a construct of the Habsburg Serbs, developing out of the literary linguistic developments in those areas. I honestly think that Vukavian Serbian actually has a higher chance of winning out TTL. Miloš Obrenović resisted the adoption of Vuk's Serbian because he viewed it as too patriotic, which was something that would have not added him politically with either the Ottomans or the Austrians. Karađorđe and co. would very likely not be as resistive, and the Russians would be all on board, especially since it could enable the further development of public education, since I think Vukavian Serbian is more accessible (plus with the territory Serbia's going to control, it just makes sense).
However, in turn, just because Vukavian Serbian would work out TTL, doesn't mean all developments associated with it would. Vuk would very likely not spend as much in Austria, since he wouldn't have much reason to leave for Austria with a victorious Serbia, which might actually end up changing how his Serbian reforms actually turn out. He might not even meet Jernej Kopitar, which I think is a massive PoD in of itself! Sava Mrkalj might remain a presence, meanwhile, along with Old Rashko. And more importantly, as has been noted so far, this means there would be less opportunity for Serbo-Croatian collaboration on language, which may result in Croato-Slovene collaboration instead. Frankly, I don't think the Illyrian linguistic conceptions have any chance of working out, especially with Jernej Kopitar around. We could end up in a scenario where Slovene, Čakavian and Kajkavian are lumped into one language, Croato-Slovene, and Štokavian is split between two languages - Serbian, which would be largely Ekavian-based (assuming Montenegro doesn't become the dominant partner), and Bosnian (following Croato-Slovene reforming principles, and with Latin and Arebica as writing systems - I could in turn imagine an earlier manifestation of the rhetoric of 'Bosnians are just Muslim Croats'), which would be Ijekavian-based - with some cross-pollination between the two (sorry Ikavian, it's hard to fit you anywhere).
Last edited:
A Serbian success would have the interesting effect on the planning's of the Philike Hetereia. On the one hand coordination with an independent Serbia might be a a powerful factor on planning the revolt. On the other hand even in 1821 there were members of the Hetereia that worried that if the Serbs joined the revolt they might take Selanik/Thessaloniki.