When people think of "pulling a Meiji", they always imagine countries in regions outside Europe and America, such as China, Ethiopia or Egypt. But at that time Balkan countries were quite underdeveloped compared to Western Europe. Low literacy rate, lack of industrialization and sad (if not non-existing) infrastructure. Your challenge is to make one of the Balkan countries/nations (Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, etc, your choice) pull a Meiji, chase the Ottomans out of Europe and make it an emerging great power. Is this even remotely possible?
AHC: Meiji Balkan
- Thread starter Mimihitam
- Start date
Not likely. First of all, the comparison is off. Not only did Japan have comparably higher literacy, they had a common identity and religion, and their institutions were in place for a unified state. They also didn't have to chase out anyone, especially not a power so immensely more powerful and populous than them.
I'll give that one a go. (There is a lot of Handwavium involved here, forgive me)
1453 ends with an Ottoman near-defeat, that erupts into political chaos - during which the Byzantines manage to take control of the Bosporus and Dardanelles. Hungary, and other Christian nations provide some backing, and some invade Ottoman Europe, forcing some sort of peace that leaves the Byzantines in charge of the straits, and able to pay for some semblance of a standing army that brings the Morea in line properly - furthering the Byzantine Renaissance in the Morea, and allowing Constantinople to become of the the hearts of the Renaissance proper (their Meiji).
With their old knowledge, and an economy on the up, the New Byzantines, with some European backers, retake Greek Europe, with Genoa and Venice getting Anatolian territories.
With Anatolia... pacified, they focus on expanding in Europe, Albania, Serbia, etc - adopting a heavy siege component and gunpowder infantry after seeing the formers success in demolishing the Theodosian walls. This ratcheted up military doctrine helps them reconquer previous territories until they are, alongside Hungary, the defacto rulers of the Balkans. Throw in a marriage that leads to an opportune union of the Byzantines and you have a Balkan Meiji. (And one that might even have cannon-fired napalm to boot if you want to have nightmares).
EDIT : I'll hasten to add that if you want the Balkans, ANY Balkans power to pull a Meiji, it needs to be big on immigration, just to boost tax revenue and manpower. Plus, having a large number of Jews at this point could pay dividends in terms of enabling lending, however unintentional.
1453 ends with an Ottoman near-defeat, that erupts into political chaos - during which the Byzantines manage to take control of the Bosporus and Dardanelles. Hungary, and other Christian nations provide some backing, and some invade Ottoman Europe, forcing some sort of peace that leaves the Byzantines in charge of the straits, and able to pay for some semblance of a standing army that brings the Morea in line properly - furthering the Byzantine Renaissance in the Morea, and allowing Constantinople to become of the the hearts of the Renaissance proper (their Meiji).
With their old knowledge, and an economy on the up, the New Byzantines, with some European backers, retake Greek Europe, with Genoa and Venice getting Anatolian territories.
With Anatolia... pacified, they focus on expanding in Europe, Albania, Serbia, etc - adopting a heavy siege component and gunpowder infantry after seeing the formers success in demolishing the Theodosian walls. This ratcheted up military doctrine helps them reconquer previous territories until they are, alongside Hungary, the defacto rulers of the Balkans. Throw in a marriage that leads to an opportune union of the Byzantines and you have a Balkan Meiji. (And one that might even have cannon-fired napalm to boot if you want to have nightmares).
EDIT : I'll hasten to add that if you want the Balkans, ANY Balkans power to pull a Meiji, it needs to be big on immigration, just to boost tax revenue and manpower. Plus, having a large number of Jews at this point could pay dividends in terms of enabling lending, however unintentional.
Last edited:
Romania has performed a quick modernization after the unification in 1859 becoming independent and even a regional leader by the end of the century. However it lacked the demographic and the literacy part to play the role.of Japan
Byzantines seem to be the easiest route, but it seems like cheating to use them, especially since they weren't solely a Balkans power 
Ottomans need to either not exist or go down sooner, as their repression of the Balkans prevented the region from progressing as much as it could have.
I honestly feel like you need a pre-Ottomans PoD to get a Balkan Meiji. Here's an interesting alternative: what if the South Slavs had remained more culturally united and actually formed a stable Yugoslavia?
Ottomans need to either not exist or go down sooner, as their repression of the Balkans prevented the region from progressing as much as it could have.
I honestly feel like you need a pre-Ottomans PoD to get a Balkan Meiji. Here's an interesting alternative: what if the South Slavs had remained more culturally united and actually formed a stable Yugoslavia?
It's possible, but not on that exact scale. So, no one country pushing the Ottomans from the peninsula alone, or becoming a "great power" in the global sense.
Mind you, the Balkan countries did develop at a fairly rapid pace after freeing themselves of Ottoman rule (if certainly not rapid or well-directed enough to be considered a true Meiji); and they did eventually chase the Ottoman Empire out of the region.
One major obstacle to development and industrialization was that formally vassal countries (like Romania or Serbia before the 1870s, or Bulgaria until even later) were not allowed to conduct their own tariff policy until they became totally and formally independent. They had to abide by the Ottomans' extremely awkward tariffs and commercial concessions with little to no deviation. So a "Meiji period" couldn't really kick off until the Ottoman Empire is dealt at least one major blow, as in 1878.
After the events of 1875-1878 (whether they happen earlier or at the same time), there are fewer obstacles.
I believe Romania might have done much better if Alexander Cuza remained Prince and later became its first King instead of Carol. Introducing a more radical land reform and breaking the power of the aristocrats - something Carol had neither the will nor the courage for - would be good for national cohesion, stability, and overall modernization; and it would break Romania's biggest lobby against tariffs and industrialization. Romania did take some big steps in that direction anyway, and achieve some degree of industrialization, but I believe it could have been done earlier, bigger, better etc.
As for Serbia, it's easier to point out the exact problem than in Romania's case; the idiotic caprices of King Milan Obrenovic delayed the country's development for a good 25 years. Have any other dynasty or branch take the throne instead of him; they enter a tariff war with Austria around 1880, find new markets, diversify exports, start building up industry...with a head start of two decades compared to OTL.
That's one way to have a more radical and clearly visible "Meiji" in Serbia or Romania. The rapid industrialization would also stimulate the development of infrastructure; increase the country's prestige and influence in the region; and last but not the least, lead to a more developed military, ready to go on a spree of liberation and/or conquest.
This is all assuming a PoD in the 1800s. If we stretch OP's parameters a bit and allow, say, a resurgent Byzantium to enter the picture, that naturally opens up a lot of new possibilities.
Mind you, the Balkan countries did develop at a fairly rapid pace after freeing themselves of Ottoman rule (if certainly not rapid or well-directed enough to be considered a true Meiji); and they did eventually chase the Ottoman Empire out of the region.
One major obstacle to development and industrialization was that formally vassal countries (like Romania or Serbia before the 1870s, or Bulgaria until even later) were not allowed to conduct their own tariff policy until they became totally and formally independent. They had to abide by the Ottomans' extremely awkward tariffs and commercial concessions with little to no deviation. So a "Meiji period" couldn't really kick off until the Ottoman Empire is dealt at least one major blow, as in 1878.
After the events of 1875-1878 (whether they happen earlier or at the same time), there are fewer obstacles.
I believe Romania might have done much better if Alexander Cuza remained Prince and later became its first King instead of Carol. Introducing a more radical land reform and breaking the power of the aristocrats - something Carol had neither the will nor the courage for - would be good for national cohesion, stability, and overall modernization; and it would break Romania's biggest lobby against tariffs and industrialization. Romania did take some big steps in that direction anyway, and achieve some degree of industrialization, but I believe it could have been done earlier, bigger, better etc.
As for Serbia, it's easier to point out the exact problem than in Romania's case; the idiotic caprices of King Milan Obrenovic delayed the country's development for a good 25 years. Have any other dynasty or branch take the throne instead of him; they enter a tariff war with Austria around 1880, find new markets, diversify exports, start building up industry...with a head start of two decades compared to OTL.
That's one way to have a more radical and clearly visible "Meiji" in Serbia or Romania. The rapid industrialization would also stimulate the development of infrastructure; increase the country's prestige and influence in the region; and last but not the least, lead to a more developed military, ready to go on a spree of liberation and/or conquest.
This is all assuming a PoD in the 1800s. If we stretch OP's parameters a bit and allow, say, a resurgent Byzantium to enter the picture, that naturally opens up a lot of new possibilities.
I'll just say it...it's honestly easier to pull it off with a reinvigorated Ottoman Empire than it is with any lone country due to the common market the OE offers any industrializing province. You'd lose far more in the longterm breaking off say, Bulgaria from Anatolia and the Levant, than you would by getting a strong Bulgaria that has no easy markets with which to sell its industrial productions.
I think a number of Balkan countries in a number of eras have the potential to do well. But being a proper Great Power? Only if you totally butterfly the Ottomans away, but the OP clearly specified that they have to be there.
If you get the sense of unity dreamed about by Yugoslavists and a Greater Yugoslavia realised, including Bulgaria, once given a Meiji-esque boost, they could be a lesser great power on the tier of Italy.
That doesn't explain how, of course. But the solution to Balkan success is the collapse of the Ottomans by the mid-19th century or so. What would that take? Russia wins the Crimean War or something? But it seems a lot of the worst economic and demographic damage was done in the late 18th century, with several deadly plagues and in general just neglect. That was an empire-wide phenomena, hence explaining the demographic and economic stagnation of the empire in that era. So maybe a better Ottoman Empire with a more successful periphery, and aided by European powers they manage to break free, and then happens to have the gift of brilliant leaders and the desire of unity to defend against outsiders (giving the finger to the Austrian Empire), meaning a strong Yugoslavia is formed during the 19th century. Presumably this includes both the Turks and Austrians being beaten multiple times, and probably also the Greeks too. We're probably getting on near-ASB tier success at this rate.
I feel if the Bosnians and Albanians never convert to Islam in any real numbers, that would add to the stability of this Yugoslav state.
In any case this uber-Yugoslavia will be just as divided as the OTL one. This hinders great power status, as any larger crisis (economic or other) or a sobering defeat in a war could lead to it fracturing.
Also, if the Russians win the Crimean war, the Balkans will inevitable get divided into spheres of influence, the Russians can only exert their influence so far. Probably to the Danubian Principalities and Bulgaria. Rest probably goes to Austria, which might change in any future conflict between the two, but that doesn’t matter: the division is already there.
I don't agree any collapse of the Ottoman Empire would help. Having a massive country entering collapse/civil war is never good for your economy.
On the contrary, I'd say a successful Balkan country would have a peaceful Ottoman by its side to exploit economically. That's a massive relatively unified market in which to extract raw materials and inject finished goods.
So if you have a semi-independant state within the Ottoman Empire with good enough leadership, that'd be possible.
That's how the Dutch became a Great Power: by exploiting the Iberian Peninsula and the Baltic Sea after all
On the contrary, I'd say a successful Balkan country would have a peaceful Ottoman by its side to exploit economically. That's a massive relatively unified market in which to extract raw materials and inject finished goods.
So if you have a semi-independant state within the Ottoman Empire with good enough leadership, that'd be possible.
That's how the Dutch became a Great Power: by exploiting the Iberian Peninsula and the Baltic Sea after all
I understand the perspective. But unlike the Dutch, any Balkan state is pretty much sitting waiting to be conquered with little to nobody agreeing to help preserve them.
The Dutch on the other hand were balancing the power of the Geemans, English and French. With alliances galore to make.
I see what you mean, but in that case, alliances is the easiest bit.
First, if it is still a vassal of the Ottoman, that limits the potential issues. Even then, you have the Ottomans, the Russian and the Austrian who would be there to be allied with
I feel inclined to repeat a post I made some 1½ month ago
Balkans doesn't have high Literacy, they lack a significant group of rich people which have proto-industrialization down, they have weak institutional infrastructure/tradition and they have big neighbours that would get angry if they didn't show loyalty towards a certain ideology (or perhaps more succinctly, if they showed loyalty towards ideologies which was anathema to them) which was not at all afraid of making their grievances known and acting militantly on them.
Balkans doesn't have high Literacy, they lack a significant group of rich people which have proto-industrialization down, they have weak institutional infrastructure/tradition and they have big neighbours that would get angry if they didn't show loyalty towards a certain ideology (or perhaps more succinctly, if they showed loyalty towards ideologies which was anathema to them) which was not at all afraid of making their grievances known and acting militantly on them.