WI: The Greek Plan was successful - Ottoman Empire partitioned

[GameBawesome]

In the late 18th Century, there was a plan drawn up by Catherine the Great, negotiated with the Habsburg Monarchy. The plan was called the Greek Plan and was an idea for a partition of the Ottoman Empire, and create a Neo-Byzantine Empire with Catherine's grandson, Constatine on the throne. Other interpretations of the plan include Austria receiving Bosnia, Serbia, and northern Albania, the creation of a Kingdom of Dacia from Wallachia and Moldavia with Prince Potemkin as king, and Venice receiving Morea, Crete and Cyprus.

However, the plan didn't go through as, despite Austria and Russia respectively going to war with the Ottoman Empire in the 1780s, it lacked Austrian backing after Emperor Joseph II's death, and more importantly the start of the French Revolution, which shifted Europe's attention West. Other things that would've complicated the Greek Plan were the Third Polish Partition and even Prince Potemkin's Death in 1791.

What if the Greek Plan was successfully implemented? Either Joseph II didn't die at the age of 48 (Which already has its own consequences) and Austrian-Russian alliance just steamrolls the Ottomans, all the way to Constantinople. In the aftermath, the Greek Plan is implemented.

(Best attempt to create a map of the Greek Plan - Map belongs to @Crazy Boris)

With that all out of the way, how would the implementation of the Greek Plan AKA partitioning the Ottoman Empire effect the course of the late 18th - early 19th Century?

 

[GodEmperorG]

Never heard of this "Greek Plan", but it is an interesting idea that would likely receive quite a bit of support by the Greeks at least though not as much from the Bulgarians. Main issue is that even if Joseph II survived, allowing the plan to go ahead, would the other great powers sit back and watch it happen?

Your best bet for a timeline where this works is to get it done by late 1783 at the latest, since after that the British (and to a lesser extent Spanish and French) would have wrapped up the American Revolution and could turn their energies east to stymie Habsburg and Russian ambitions in the Balkans. Britain in particular would definitely meddle as she did during the Crimean War of the 1850's, but if still dealing with the headache of losing most of her American colonies then her capability to do so is limited.

Another issue is that the promised territories are certain to cause trouble, the lands given to Venice are liable to cause conflict with this Neo-Byzantium due to rising Greek nationalism in the decades to come. I could easily see these lands being lost at the latest during the Italian Risorgimento, if not earlier should Napoleon still rise and end Venice's independence. Meanwhile with Serbia in the hands of the Catholic Habsburgs there is certain to be friction as the Russians will not allow Orthodox Christians to remain outside their sphere of influence for long.

As for the Ottomans, this is likely to trigger their immediate collapse. Since this would be smacking them with more than a fifth to maybe a quarter of their territories being lost all at once. Lands that in OTL took over 130 years to be lost, and even in OTL they kept Eastern Thrace at least. I would foresee the rest of the Ottoman fringe falling out of their orbit. At the very least the rising Qajar dynasty in Iran would be very likely to direct its efforts from pushing the now too powerfull Russians out of the Caucuses (which they did temporarily in our timeline in the 1790's) towards the now very vulnerable Mesopotamia. Egypt is also likely to just breakaway wholesale knowing them, which would have knock-on affects on Ottoman subjects west and east of Egypt.

 

[Gar48]

What if the Greek Plan was successfully implemented? Either Joseph II didn't die at the age of 48 (Which already has its own consequences) and Austrian-Russian alliance just steamrolls the Ottomans, all the way to Constantinople.

This would require the Ottomans to be far weaker than OTL. While Instambul was already dealing with its own internal issues, 18th century Ottoman Empire was still one of the most powerful states in Europe.

Likewise Austria and Russia may not count on the support of the inhabitants of the Balkans ITTL. Vienna and St. Petersboug's plan is to either annex most of the Balkans or create weird new states.

Besides Ottoman resistance, the two empires would also need to face tight resistance from Serbians, Albanians, Bulgrarians and muslim groups in the Balkans.

Oh, and Venice didn't really trust Vienna, as it feared its ambitions in the Adriatic. Sure, Venice has no reasons to like the Ottomans but a stronger Austrian Empire is a far bigger risk for its existence

In the end, the real winner would be Revoultionary France as two of its main OTL enemies have been significantly weakened by their war against the Ottomans.

 

[Leonidas]

I made a thread on this last year and there were some interesting discussions.

 

[Sarufiyyun]

I highly doubt that the Russians and neo-Byzantines wouldn't just go after Anatolia as well.

 

[Beatriz]

What happens to the Levant and Iraq? Some folks have proposed that earlier (<1914) partition of the Ottomans could be used to prevent intra-Great Power conflicts

 

[raharris1973]

In the late 18th Century, there was a plan drawn up by Catherine the Great, negotiated with the Habsburg Monarchy. The plan was called the Greek Plan and was an idea for a partition of the Ottoman Empire, and create a Neo-Byzantine Empire with Catherine's grandson, Constatine on the throne. Other interpretations of the plan include Austria receiving Bosnia, Serbia, and northern Albania, the creation of a Kingdom of Dacia from Wallachia and Moldavia with Prince Potemkin as king, and Venice receiving Morea, Crete and Cyprus.

Does anybody know what the direct Russian translation of the plan was? "The Greek Plan" a "neo-Byzantine Empire" or something different like a "Roman Plan"?
Indeed, are any of the sources by which we know of it, written in Russian? If not, what then, French? German?

I ask because it is interesting that the terminology used in references to the plan for the Greeks and Byzantines and Dacia is so........western, Latin, and not authentically Hellenic of Byzantine (or as they would say, Roman).

There's an idea I have seen tossed about that Russia drew from Greece via only the Orthodox Church and the East/Roman Byzantine tradition, not by the western renaissance retro-love affair with classical pre-Christian Greece and Rome. And I've heard the same about modern Greek nationalism. That the Greeks, to themselves in their own house and cultural context, hardly gave a crap about ancient/classical Greece, and wanted restore Eastern Rome and considered themselves the true Romans and Greeks and Christians all at the same time, with them possibly starting to adopt some neoclassical Greek terminology and emphasis as propaganda once they'd started the independence struggle, to lock down western support, because westerners ate that stuff up.

But some of the rhetoric and naming of things as part of this Greek Plan seems to indicate that some of the western European retro-pagan classical era nostalgia had penetrated from western European culture as far as the court circles of Russia by the late 18th century. Hence calling places always known to the Rus as Moldavia, Cumania, and Bulgaria as 'Dacia' instead. And it shouldn't be seen as crazy that western neoclassicism would penetrate eastward to Russia, and indeed, to Greece itself by that time in the 18th century, because the Russian royalty and nobility intermarried and mixed with the broader European nobility, and had commercial and educational ties across the Orthodix/Protestant/Catholic divide, and Greek merchants under Ottoman rule similarly had European exposures and contacts as well.

Your thoughts?

I highly doubt that the Russians and neo-Byzantines wouldn't just go after Anatolia as well.

The Russians can "go after it" but they would almost certainly be "out of steam" and momentum after the herculean campaign to pry away all the eastern Balkans from the Ottomans, and try to shape the high politics of that region to something approximating what they want. And they have only crappy, distant, and tenuous ground LOCs to Anatolia via the Caucasus at this point as well. They'll be taking a pause for digestion, indigestion, indeed possibly for vomiting or other oral-mandibular or gastric injuries that come with attempting such a big "feast".

What happens to the Levant and Iraq? Some folks have proposed that earlier (<1914) partition of the Ottomans could be used to prevent intra-Great Power conflicts

Levant and Iraq? Ruled by local Beys, or Mamluks or strongmen? In the case of Iraq, as mentioned, a chance for the Persians to make a bid to claim it. If the Iraqis are unlucky, the Wahhabi Saudi state can sweep in from the desert and loot the place. The Levant might easily fall into the orbit of whatever Egypt becomes. They, Levant and Egypt, were often historically, a 'set'.

 

[AlfLandonFan]

What happens to the Levant and Iraq? Some folks have proposed that earlier (<1914) partition of the Ottomans could be used to prevent intra-Great Power conflicts

Would Russia attempt to create some sort of Christian state in the Levant? If they're gonna revive the Byzantines might as well go full larp with the holy land.
Plus talks of building a canal where the Suez is now have dated back to ancient Egypt. Russia is gonna control the Bosphorus, so they might enjoy access to the Indian and Pacific oceans as well.
And if this is the case, who's to say what Russia might do in Africa. They did have that colony in Djibouti for a bit.

 

[AlfLandonFan]

I think a good question would also be: How long before everyone turns on each other.
Like @GodEmperorG said, the rise in Greek nationalism from the creation of this "Neo-Byzantium" would cause tensions between Venice, the Byzantines, and the colony of Morea.
Then there's the Orthodox Serbs and Bosniaks under the control of an inbred, catholic royal family in Vienna. Would Russia come to their aid in the event of revolt? And if there is a revolt, what would become of them? Their own independent state or absorption into Byzantium?
And don't forget the looming disaster that is revolutionary France and Napoleon coming in the next few years...

 

[Vitruvius]

The problem with implementing the Greek Plan is that Austria was not serious about pursuing it. Joseph thought it was ridiculous and really just wanted the restoration of the territories Austria lost in 1739, ie Belgrade and northern Serbia, northern Bosnia and Oltenia and preferably also some additional Bosnian territories like Bihac. To the extent that he was willing to go along with Catherine's grand design it was only to realize more modest and practical gains. And Oltenia clashes with Russian designs for 'Dacia'. Joseph also had designs on Venetian territory and sought to use Russia's grand plans in the Balkans as cover to annex Dalmatia and compensate Venice with the Morea and Crete. This led to a lot of ambiguity on what the 'Greek state' would have actually looked like since Joseph wanted areas in the west like Albania and to use portions in the south to compensate Venice.

But the bigger issue is Prussia, which was dead set against Austria gaining any territory that would upset the relative balance of power between the two. Which is why they briefly setup a Polish-Prussian alliance aimed against Russia and Austria and also pursued the British-Dutch-Prussian triple alliance. So if the Ottomans just totally collapse somehow and the powers don't get distracted by events in revolutionary France I would expect a wider war with Prussia and Poland fighting against Austria and Russia and perhaps the British and Dutch aiding the Turks and Venetians in the Adriatic and Aegean and maybe even the Black Sea. Its just hard to see Austria and Russia being able to completely reorder the Balkans as they see fit without the rest of Europe getting involved.

Concessions will have to be made to the other powers resulting in a limited modified plan. My best guess; Prussia would gain Danzig, Thorn and and Poznan with Austria in turn compensating Poland with the Polish land they annexed in 1772, ie a retrocession of Galicia. Wallachia is partitioned with Austria taking Oltenia and the rest becoming their protectorate. Moldavia is likewise partitioned with Russia taking Bessarabia and making the rest their protectorate. Venice with British backing holds Dalmatia and maybe is given Morea while the Albanian Pashaliks become Austrian or British protectorates to constrain any Russian puppet state in the Balkans (maybe Scutari is in the Austrian sphere while Berat and Janina are in the British sphere). The Brits also make sure the Ottomans retain Constantinople and Edirne and the Aegean islands to secure the straights and protect against Russian intrusion into the Mediterranean. The 'Greek state' probably just becomes a Russian puppet Bulgaria so as to keep Russian influence away from the Aegean. If the Austro-Russian alliance is particularly successful maybe it's given Salonica and Aegean Macedonia. So something like this:

Only if there is a rapid total Ottoman collapse in the Balkans and the situation is just completely irretrievable would Constantinople, Thrace and Aegean Macedonia be conceded to a Greek state but it would still be hemmed in in the west by the Albanian Pashaliks, to the north by Austria in Serbia (with Vidin) and some kind of British backed Venetian or Turkish control of the Aegean islands. And it would be an incredibly unstable state with a split Christian population of urban/merchant Greek elites on the coast and rural peasant Bulgarians in the interior alongside a huge Muslim population that if the new Russian regime tried to expel a la the Circassian Genocide would revolt en masse probably starting a new war.

I think Austria's position is actually fairly good. They'd make some kind of accommodation for the Muslims in Bosnia and their relations with the Serbs up to that point were pretty good. The Serbian Patriarchate is established as governing all orthodox slavs in Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, Slavonia and Hungary outside of Transylvania detaching it from the Greek church in Constantinople or a Russian dominated Bulgarian church (depending on the outcome of the Greek state). The loss of Galicia is a problem as it was more developed and wealthy than the newly acquired territories but in the long run it puts all Serbs under Habsburg aegis preventing any divided loyalty and would probably allow the south slavs to counterbalance the Magyars.

 

[AlfLandonFan]

View attachment 866366

Only if there is a rapid total Ottoman collapse in the Balkans and the situation is just completely irretrievable would Constantinople, Thrace and Aegean Macedonia be conceded to a Greek state but it would still be hemmed in in the west by the Albanian Pashaliks, to the north by Austria in Serbia (with Vidin) and some kind of British backed Venetian or Turkish control of the Aegean islands. And it would be an incredibly unstable state with a split Christian population of urban/merchant Greek elites on the coast and rural peasant Bulgarians in the interior alongside a huge Muslim population that if the new Russian regime tried to expel a la the Circassian Genocide would revolt en masse probably starting a new war.

So you mean to tell me drawing arbitrary borders based on long dead empires with little to no respect for the ethnic peoples purely for the empowering of the hegemon would only end in disaster and wars? What?! You're talking crazy, Vitruvius.

 

[Vitruvius]

Well obviously yes, carving up land without concern for the people who live there is always going to be problematic but I just mean in particular a Russian puppet 'Greek state' consisting of Bulgaria, Dobruja, Macedonia and Thrace with Constantinople as its capitol would not be viable, at least IMHO. Its just so much worse than any other Imperial project or nationalist project in the Balkans because I don't think you can point to one sustainable element. Its not part of some larger Empire, ie it's not like Austria or the Ottomans are carving off a piece of the Balkans for themselves, or even Russia since its theoretically supposed to be a separate state. It's not a national state since its a weird mix of some, but not all Greeks, most Bulgarians along with a large Turkish and Tatar population so it has no core polity. It has no natural frontiers. It has no strong existing administrative/economic unit at its core as its cobbled together from parts of multiple vilayets. And no one outside of Russia really wants it to exist. Even Austria was at best ambivalent.

 

[Raferty]

Seriously worth wondering if Napoleon doesn't somehow find himself in its service

We know he considered Britain and the Ottomans in OTL if his French career didn't get a rise

 

[Beatriz]

Well obviously yes, carving up land without concern for the people who live there is always going to be problematic but I just mean in particular a Russian puppet 'Greek state' consisting of Bulgaria, Dobruja, Macedonia and Thrace with Constantinople as its capitol would not be viable, at least IMHO. Its just so much worse than any other Imperial project or nationalist project in the Balkans because I don't think you can point to one sustainable element. Its not part of some larger Empire, ie it's not like Austria or the Ottomans are carving off a piece of the Balkans for themselves, or even Russia since its theoretically supposed to be a separate state. It's not a national state since its a weird mix of some, but not all Greeks, most Bulgarians along with a large Turkish and Tatar population so it has no core polity. It has no natural frontiers. It has no strong existing administrative/economic unit at its core as its cobbled together from parts of multiple vilayets. And no one outside of Russia really wants it to exist. Even Austria was at best ambivalent.

I guess “We exist to continue existing” would eventually serve as a defacto reason, even it seems to have no logical basis

 

[alexmilman]

Well obviously yes, carving up land without concern for the people who live there is always going to be problematic but I just mean in particular a Russian puppet 'Greek state' consisting of Bulgaria, Dobruja, Macedonia and Thrace with Constantinople as its capitol would not be viable, at least IMHO. Its just so much worse than any other Imperial project or nationalist project in the Balkans because I don't think you can point to one sustainable element. Its not part of some larger Empire, ie it's not like Austria or the Ottomans are carving off a piece of the Balkans for themselves, or even Russia since its theoretically supposed to be a separate state. It's not a national state since its a weird mix of some, but not all Greeks, most Bulgarians along with a large Turkish and Tatar population so it has no core polity. It has no natural frontiers. It has no strong existing administrative/economic unit at its core as its cobbled together from parts of multiple vilayets. And no one outside of Russia really wants it to exist. Even Austria was at best ambivalent.

Look, the whole thing was a byproduct of a “culture” based upon the general ideas with a minimal knowledge of the related geography, demography and other “trifles”. The 1st plan of that type was presented by either Grigory or Alexey Orlov during Catherine’s 1st Ottoman war with a resulting Mediterranean Expedition, which resulted in a lot of a glory and very few practical results both the Greece and Levant. The Greek Plan in question was a brain child of Potemkin who loved the grandiose plans (and wanted to succeed where Orlovs failed) but not very good in assessing their practicality.

Specifics of the proposed borders are, of course, very entertaining to discuss (😉) but the practical implementation, even with Austria on board and everybody else neutral, was pretty much impossible. The existing logistics was making operations across the Danube (war of 1768-74) something of an extraordinary fit and marching across the Balkans all the way to Constantinople would be plain impossible even with Rumiantsev in charge. And with Potemkin as c-in-c it was a pure fantasy. Even in 1828-29 only a small fraction of the Russian army managed to get to Adrianople and intimidate the Ottomans into making a peace. For breaking the OE these 30K troops would not be adequate. And in Catherine’s times the Russian armies had been starving already at the Danube area.

So the considerations you listed are quite valid but they’d be important only after the needed pre-requisite: a complete military destruction of the OE and occupation of its European part. With the pre-requisites not achievable within anything remotely similar to the OTL, what sense does it make to discuss what would happen afterwards? 😂

 

[Vitruvius]

Look, the whole thing was a byproduct of a “culture” based upon the general ideas with a minimal knowledge of the related geography, demography and other “trifles”. The 1st plan of that type was presented by either Grigory or Alexey Orlov during Catherine’s 1st Ottoman war with a resulting Mediterranean Expedition, which resulted in a lot of a glory and very few practical results both the Greece and Levant. The Greek Plan in question was a brain child of Potemkin who loved the grandiose plans (and wanted to succeed where Orlovs failed) but not very good in assessing their practicality.

Specifics of the proposed borders are, of course, very entertaining to discuss (😉) but the practical implementation, even with Austria on board and everybody else neutral, was pretty much impossible. The existing logistics was making operations across the Danube (war of 1768-74) something of an extraordinary fit and marching across the Balkans all the way to Constantinople would be plain impossible even with Rumiantsev in charge. And with Potemkin as c-in-c it was a pure fantasy. Even in 1828-29 only a small fraction of the Russian army managed to get to Adrianople and intimidate the Ottomans into making a peace. For breaking the OE these 30K troops would not be adequate. And in Catherine’s times the Russian armies had been starving already at the Danube area.

So the considerations you listed are quite valid but they’d be important only after the needed pre-requisite: a complete military destruction of the OE and occupation of its European part. With the pre-requisites not achievable within anything remotely similar to the OTL, what sense does it make to discuss what would happen afterwards? 😂

I agree. And though I think it goes without saying I should probably concede that I'm viewing this scenario with 20/20 hindsight and a completely different set of values so its easier to spot all of the pitfalls.

As for the military campaigning I also think that's a good point. Its another reason why I think only a partial or limited 'greek' plan is ever possible as even if you address the issues in west and prevent the powers from getting distracted with goings on in revolutionary France I don't think Austria or Russia really demonstrated an ability IOTL to totally knock out the Ottomans and conquer the whole of the Balkans.

Even if Britain doesn't get directly involved they only have to provide a little aid to the Ottomans combined with Prussia menacing Austria in the north to scupper the Austro-Russian war effort. And since Austria was never really committed to the plan anyways they'll bow out as soon as they can secure some modest gains in Serbia and Bosnia and leave Russia to carry on by themselves.

 

[alexmilman]

I agree. And though I think it goes without saying I should probably concede that I'm viewing this scenario with 20/20 hindsight and a completely different set of values so its easier to spot all of the pitfalls.

All of us are using a hindsight and available experience of others mistakes. Obviously, the contemporaries were much more optimistic because the negative experience was not available.

As for the military campaigning I also think that's a good point. Its another reason why I think only a partial or limited 'greek' plan is ever possible as even if you address the issues in west and prevent the powers from getting distracted with goings on in revolutionary France I don't think Austria or Russia really demonstrated an ability IOTL to totally knock out the Ottomans and conquer the whole of the Balkans.

If anything, both of them convincingly demonstrated inability to do so. 😂

Even if Britain doesn't get directly involved they only have to provide a little aid to the Ottomans combined with Prussia menacing Austria in the north to scupper the Austro-Russian war effort. And since Austria was never really committed to the plan anyways they'll bow out as soon as they can secure some modest gains in Serbia and Bosnia and leave Russia to carry on by themselves.

And, with all his grandiose plans expressed at the court, when he found himself in charge of implementation of these plans, Potemkin became much more modest and satisfied himself with capturing few border fortresses some of which had been taken without too much of a fanfare during the previous war and returned by peace treaty.

 

[Raferty]

One thing worth mentioning, that may be something of a problem - the identity of Byzantium was in the 18th century coming under great disrepute among Greek intellectuals and liberals, who would disproportionately make up the governing class of this new imperial project. It was seen as a failed, hidebound reactionary anachronism and one that the Greek nation should look past in terms of aspirations towards nationhood. They associated it with the failed peasant revolts of the 16th and 17th centuries, and not as something that could form the basis of a nation state.

I think if the project is too openly wrapped up in the Orthodox Church and Russian Monarchy, which it'd have to be, you may see it find difficulties establishing a support base in its new territory

 

[Whiteshore]

Honestly, what would be interesting would be what happens to the Arab bits of the truncated Ottoman Empire with the Ottoman state practically broken, Egypt and Iraq still run by the Mamluks, and the Saudis circling like vultures.