What is less implausible in the period from 1563-1863 - Habsburg or Romanov annexation of Moldavia and Wallachia?

[raharris1973]

What would be less implausible in the period from 1563-1863 - Habsburg or Romanov annexation of Moldavia and Wallachia, the Ottoman-ruled or visualized regions that went on to form Romania by the mid-nineteenth century?

Between Austria or Russia, which could more realistically and plausibly overcome the challenges of a) ousting Ottoman influence of the 'Danubian principalities' and b) cementing their own direct control?

 

[Yokai Man]

I’ll be honest,both are implausible as hell. The Habsburgs didn’t want to annex them at all,they returned Oltenia to Vallachia because of how ungovernable it was. Their view was “don’t get involved,just wage war there for time to time and then leave”. At best some of their generals in 1689-1714 had plans to turn Moldova,Vallachia and parts of Transylvania into a new Dacian kingdom but it never happened.

I suppose you could have them invade and defeat the Ottomans in 1699-1714 in order for that to happen but it needs a lot of butterflies beforehand and I don’t know which.

The Romanovs could have turned Moldova (and only Moldova) in a vassal if the battle of Stănilești wasn’t a disaster but didn’t have the forces needed to conquer Vallachia. Today's eastern Romania (from Iași to Mangalia) would speak Russian, and Wallachia would have fought serious battles and allied with whomever it was necessary after 1715 to defend itself from Russia.

Again though,you need major butterflies before for this to happen because damn,the Prut Campaign was shit.

 

[BBadolato]

Nether. With Russia Ivan the Terrible has bigger things to care about, and then you have either a succession issue and/or some of the OTL chaos of the Time of Troubles, then the Romanov's have better things to do. Because the Romanov's did come to power until the 1600's and that was more by 'bad luck' than anything else, even then there are bigger concerns that the remote fringes that Moldavia and Wallachia would be.

With the Hapsburgs any control of Moldavia or Wallachia at all would be taxing a stretched enough border as it is, to say nothing of fact the Hapsburgs also had more immediate concerns like controlling Hungary proper. But you also had the Reformation, Franco-Spanish shenanigans and what have you.

 

[Yokai Man]

Nether. With Russia Ivan the Terrible has bigger things to care about, and then you have either a succession issue and/or some of the OTL chaos of the Time of Troubles, then the Romanov's have better things to do. Because the Romanov's did come to power until the 1600's and that was more by 'bad luck' than anything else, even then there are bigger concerns that the remote fringes that Moldavia and Wallachia would be.

With the Hapsburgs any control of Moldavia or Wallachia at all would be taxing a stretched enough border as it is, to say nothing of fact the Hapsburgs also had more immediate concerns like controlling Hungary proper. But you also had the Reformation, Franco-Spanish shenanigans and what have you.

This.

 

[Ricardolindo]

What would be less implausible in the period from 1563-1863 - Habsburg or Romanov annexation of Moldavia and Wallachia, the Ottoman-ruled or visualized regions that went on to form Romania by the mid-nineteenth century?

Between Austria or Russia, which could more realistically and plausibly overcome the challenges of a) ousting Ottoman influence of the 'Danubian principalities' and b) cementing their own direct control?

I’ll be honest,both are implausible as hell. The Habsburgs didn’t want to annex them at all,they returned Oltenia to Vallachia because of how ungovernable it was. Their view was “don’t get involved,just wage war there for time to time and then leave”. At best some of their generals in 1689-1714 had plans to turn Moldova,Vallachia and parts of Transylvania into a new Dacian kingdom but it never happened.

I suppose you could have them invade and defeat the Ottomans in 1699-1714 in order for that to happen but it needs a lot of butterflies beforehand and I don’t know which.

The Romanovs could have turned Moldova (and only Moldova) in a vassal if the battle of Stănilești wasn’t a disaster but didn’t have the forces needed to conquer Vallachia. Today's eastern Romania (from Iași to Mangalia) would speak Russian, and Wallachia would have fought serious battles and allied with whomever it was necessary after 1715 to defend itself from Russia.

Again though,you need major butterflies before for this to happen because damn,the Prut Campaign was shit.

Nether. With Russia Ivan the Terrible has bigger things to care about, and then you have either a succession issue and/or some of the OTL chaos of the Time of Troubles, then the Romanov's have better things to do. Because the Romanov's did come to power until the 1600's and that was more by 'bad luck' than anything else, even then there are bigger concerns that the remote fringes that Moldavia and Wallachia would be.

With the Hapsburgs any control of Moldavia or Wallachia at all would be taxing a stretched enough border as it is, to say nothing of fact the Hapsburgs also had more immediate concerns like controlling Hungary proper. But you also had the Reformation, Franco-Spanish shenanigans and what have you.

A Russian annexation of Moldavia in 1814 is plausible, they could have annexed all of Moldavia rather than just the eastern half.

 

[Simon]

Between Austria or Russia, which could more realistically and plausibly overcome the challenges of a) ousting Ottoman influence of the 'Danubian principalities' and b) cementing their own direct control?

One idea I had previously was the Habsburg ending up with them and Northern Dobruja in the wake of the Crimean War mainly as a way of blocking Russia from the Balkans. This was as an independent neutral state under a cadet branch but adding it directly to the Empire works, if more difficult.