Your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to devise a scenario in which Neo-Byzantine Empire is created with a pod from 1815 onwards. This state would essentially be a modern Greek state with a national identity more focused around the idea of Greeks being Romans (Rhomaoi) rather than Ancient Greece of the Classical Era. The Empire would would be a more monarchical state with a much more militarized society mirroring the old Empire of old. In terms of territory its capital would be centered in Constantinople with perhaps some territory in Anatolia. Though the max it could take is the Byzantine lands in Anatolia prior to 1204.

How do you see this Empire develop and expand in terms of territory? Would it be a lesser Great Power much like otl's Italy here? Who would be an ideal monarch for this type of Greece? Would Greece here mirror Bulgaria in otl which was known as the "Prussia of the Balkans" ?
 
1. Hard. The areas on the Aegean and the islands likely. Maybe parts of Southern Bulgaria too but that is no guarantee. Development in economy through trade could work out better without capitulations, which I assume. Education wise is up to assumption. It would be on parr with Italy or even be higher in standards of living. That is for the Greek Christians of course. Non-Greek Christians and Muslims will experience a living hell, not exaggerated. This Greek State is dependent on a land force or their Bulgarian and Turkic Allies will be unbearable to hold off.

2. It would hardly be a Great Power. Not enough Greeks and too much pissed off Muslims on the frontiers and rural areas. Population is too low. The actual Great Powers will use this state, the Serb state and the Bulgarian State against each other.

3. Alexander Ypsilantis. Jokes aside, any Phanariot is better than a German Prince

4. If it tries to become a highly militarised state that tries to resemble Prussia, yes. No guarantee though.

I think a Neo-East Roman Empire (I refuse to call it Byzantine, my preference) is impossible to be formed with a PoD of 1815 while also centred in Constantinople. The early Greek rebels had no chance to enforce it and the Bulgarians will not suddenly endorse a new Greek state taking land they live in as well, not even counting the Muslims who will resist even more. Great Power support is no option either.

But this is how it would look like.
 
Maybe if he would marry the daughter of a Greek noble, you could reach a compromise.

Again, which Bulgarian? I can't name one prominent enough to marry a daughter from a high standing Greek Family, let alone be Emperor.

There are more prominent Bulgarians in the late Ottoman period post-1876. But none who would be accepted as Emperor. The easiest PoD is in the early 15 years from 1815, with even less prominent Bulgarians.
 
After 1815 is tricky. I think you can possibly do it during the Napoleonic wars if Alexander can convince Napoléon to join him in a campaign against the Ottomans.
 
After 1815 is tricky. I think you can possibly do it during the Napoleonic wars if Alexander can convince Napoléon to join him in a campaign against the Ottomans.

It wasn't that Alexander couldn't convince Napoleon, as he wanted it way more than the Tsar ever could, it would tie Russia to himself, securing his dominion over Europe, for his life at least. What stopped Napoleon was the Ottomans not going into a major catastrophe, the Ottomans at this time were corrupt, decedent, and on their last legs, I believe their Sultan had no heir. Everyone thought that the Turks were done for, except, the Ottomans lasted another hundred years, but, we could change that, all we need is the Sultan's death. A civil war would ensue, and both Napoleon and Alexander would take full advantage of it, ensuring that the alliance between Napoleon and the Romanovs would last. Easy, but that falls outside of the parameters and restrictions of this thread, as @Basileus_Komnenos most likely already thought of this, so I say we should focus on what we have.
 
But then the Greeks won't see themselves as Romans, which is one of the requirements of this thread I believe.
Well I think King Constantine I was also known at the time as Constantine I and XII. Many Greeks at the start of his reign saw him as a successor to the Marble Emperor who would take Contantinople and liberate the other Greeks across the Aegean. So maybe this alternate Greece that doesn't screw up in WW1 will avoid the political turmoil between Venizelos and the King. If say King Georgios I lives a bit longer, I could see Greece enter WWI on the Entente's side earlier. This would pretty much force Constantine to work with Venizelos here. This alternate Greece could see the idea of Greeks as Rhomaoi revived especially if they take Constantinople.

I think there were rumors that King Georgios' assassination in otl involved German support to get the more Germanophillic Constantine on the throne who was the Kasier's brother-in-law. If Constantine believes this he might actually set aside his differences and declare war on the central powers early on.

It wasn't that Alexander couldn't convince Napoleon, as he wanted it way more than the Tsar ever could, it would tie Russia to himself, securing his dominion over Europe, for his life at least. What stopped Napoleon was the Ottomans not going into a major catastrophe, the Ottomans at this time were corrupt, decedent, and on their last legs, I believe their Sultan had no heir. Everyone thought that the Turks were done for, except, the Ottomans lasted another hundred years, but, we could change that, all we need is the Sultan's death. A civil war would ensue, and both Napoleon and Alexander would take full advantage of it, ensuring that the alliance between Napoleon and the Romanovs would last. Easy, but that falls outside of the parameters and restrictions of this thread, as @Basileus_Komnenos most likely already thought of this, so I say we should focus on what we have.
True. Just have Mustafa IV succeed in getting Mahmoud II assassinated, and when Mustafa is later deposed the Ottoman Empire falls into Civil War. I could see Egypt here make power plays or perhaps various factions emerge to perhaps install the Girays on the throne. Though Napoleon, Kaiser Franz, and Tsar Alexander here likely smelling blood in the water would invade and try kick the Turks out of Europe.

After 1815 is tricky. I think you can possibly do it during the Napoleonic wars if Alexander can convince Napoléon to join him in a campaign against the Ottomans.
Maybe Napoleon here manages to eek out a victory in ttl during his Russian invasion. This was possible in otl had Napoleon stuck to his original plan to liberate Poland-Lithuania. If he had been more calculating, he likely could have gotten Sweden to invade as well and have Bernadotte seize the Crown of Finland.

Though what about a Romanov Greece in ttl? Do you guys think its possible for the Russians to get a Romanov King instead of Otto of Bavaria or the House of Glucksburg?
 
Napoleon dies at Ratisbon. Joseph manages to hold on, barely, but Eugene secures his place in (northern) Italy. With peace holding in central and western Europe for the moment, more interest and attention gets directed toward the rumblings in Serbia, and, fortunately for them, there are soldiers of assorted nationalities in a revolutionary mood with no war to fight...
 
After 1815 is tricky. I think you can possibly do it during the Napoleonic wars if Alexander can convince Napoléon to join him in a campaign against the Ottomans.

That is one way. But there is something needed to keep the Greeks in power there once Nappy leaves.
It wasn't that Alexander couldn't convince Napoleon, as he wanted it way more than the Tsar ever could, it would tie Russia to himself, securing his dominion over Europe, for his life at least. What stopped Napoleon was the Ottomans not going into a major catastrophe, the Ottomans at this time were corrupt, decedent, and on their last legs, I believe their Sultan had no heir. Everyone thought that the Turks were done for, except, the Ottomans lasted another hundred years, but, we could change that, all we need is the Sultan's death. A civil war would ensue, and both Napoleon and Alexander would take full advantage of it, ensuring that the alliance between Napoleon and the Romanovs would last. Easy, but that falls outside of the parameters and restrictions of this thread, as @Basileus_Komnenos most likely already thought of this, so I say we should focus on what we have.

There was a Janissary revolt in November 1808. If that killed both Mahmud II and Mustafa IV, there is no male member of the House of Osman left. The Pasha's in Istanbul and the Ayans of Much of Anatolia and Bulgaria will declare loyalty to a Giray member and let him marry a Princes, maybe Esma Sultan. The others could not care at all as the new Sultan has no authority there. But a type like Ali Tepelene can cause huge problems in 1808, while Mehmed Ali cannot yet. As soon as the new Sultan tries to enforce authority it can turn out worse as areas like Bosnia, Albania, Iraq and Egypt will openly refuse to acknowledge such attempts and you risk a huge Civil War.

So you have an even worse decentralized Empire with the Janissaries as the only "military force" in Istanbul while the reformists and their forces are settled outside in Bulgaria and Anatolia. The result is a break up during a Civil War or a Sened-I ittifak like treaty to bound the Pashas and Ayans to the Capital by giving up more power to the provinces. A break up is more likely in my opinion.

So yes, 1808 was pretty much the best era to get rid of the Empire. Apparently, Allah liked Mahmud II so much he saved his life twice :s
 
Last edited:
Top