It's important to note that Muhammad Ali Pasha didn't just control 1/4 of the Ottoman Empire's span, but around a third of its population, too. And if he takes Syria that puts around half of the urban population(and most productive economic activity) under his control.
 
It's important to note that Muhammad Ali Pasha didn't just control 1/4 of the Ottoman Empire's span, but around a third of its population, too. And if he takes Syria that puts around half of the urban population(and most productive economic activity) under his control.
That is certainly a good point to make. Despite loosing a lot of its prominence under the Ottomans, Egypt still remained a rich and highly populated region. Muhammad Ali and his successors also initiated a lot of reforms and began efforts to industrialize Egypt, all of which had great benefits for it.
 
I was wondering if the Greeks have turned pirateering as a form of income. The sea borne trade passing through the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean that flies under the ottomans may be small given that their best sailors are Greeks, but it could still bring a small profit and serve as a way for the Greek navy to partially sustain itself while hurting the ottomans.
 
I was wondering if the Greeks have turned pirateering as a form of income. The sea borne trade passing through the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean that flies under the ottomans may be small given that their best sailors are Greeks, but it could still bring a small profit and serve as a way for the Greek navy to partially sustain itself while hurting the ottomans.
Thats almost exactly what happened in OTL. Although there was piracy throughout the entire war in the Aegean it was most prominent following the Greek Civil wars of 1824/1825 and the mothballing of the Greek Navy. Many Greek ship Captains were without pay for their services to the Greek Government and in order to make ends meet, these ship captains generally turned to piracy. In the process they incurred the wrath of a multitude of foreign powers, with the British and French being especially active in the Aegean, even the United States dispatched some ships to the Aegean to curtail the pirates there when several American ships were plundered in 1825.

The island of Gramvousa, located off the Northwest coast of Crete, was an incredibly active pirate den for the Greeks due to its good location and they succeeded in disrupting Ottoman and Egyptian shipping in the area for several years, they also targeted British, French, and even some Greek ships as well. When Ioannis Kapodistrias came to power in Greece in 1828, he immediately acted to remove the pirates at Gramvousa because they were doing incredible harm to the diplomatic reputation of the Greek Government.

As the civil wars were essentially non existent in TTL and the loans were managed more efficiently, the proliferation of piracy in the Aegean didn't occur to the extent it did in OTL. Piracy is not exactly the best form of income for a state to have, especially a state dependent on foreign support and recognition like Greece. So while there will still be Greek pirates in the Aegean in TTL, I would doubt they become the major issue that they were in OTL.
 
Couldn't the Greeks sanction the pirates? As long as they target the "heathen" shipping of the ottomans and Egyptians while safeguarding the vessels of the major powers.
 
Couldn't the Greeks sanction the pirates? As long as they target the "heathen" shipping of the ottomans and Egyptians while safeguarding the vessels of the major powers.
Then they'd be privateers, and it relies on the Ottomans and Egyptians tolerating this/ not retalliating with some of their own.

Also the pirates keep their bargin and don't try to attack major powers ships....
 
Then they'd be privateers, and it relies on the Ottomans and Egyptians tolerating this/ not retalliating with some of their own.

Also the pirates keep their bargin and don't try to attack major powers ships....
They could simply weaponise the navy they control as long as the vessels being used to privateer arent well suited to a lengthy navel battle but to raiding, something light and fast.
 
They could simply weaponise the navy they control as long as the vessels being used to privateer arent well suited to a lengthy navel battle but to raiding, something light and fast.
Which again, doesn't address the issue of the Ottomans tolerating this, and not simply retaliating.
 
The ottomans have a weak navy as it is, and with the Egyptian ethusiasm waning, I dont think the ottomans could really retaliate in a navel sense as long the greeks focus on their shipping and not the Egyptians. They however retaliate with a land raid in the border regions.
 
The ottomans have a weak navy as it is, and with the Egyptian ethusiasm waning, I dont think the ottomans could really retaliate in a navel sense as long the greeks focus on their shipping and not the Egyptians. They however retaliate with a land raid in the border regions.
Land raid, no.

Sending out their own pirates, yes.

Remember, the Ottomans are not happy with Greece, and a flagrant provocation (Right, "pirates" who just happen to only hit Ottoman shipping and are near Greece bases, they can put 2 and 2 together) like that will be met.
 
Land raid, no.

Sending out their own pirates, yes.

Remember, the Ottomans are not happy with Greece, and a flagrant provocation (Right, "pirates" who just happen to only hit Ottoman shipping and are near Greece bases, they can put 2 and 2 together) like that will be met.
That seems plausible, that dous make me wonder though how powerful and large the ottoman merchant fleet was, I'm guessing it was mostly controlled by the Greeks, but with them in revolt, who's filled the gap?
 
Seems you've set it up well that Crete could be included in any eventual peace settlement. Egyptians don't maintain ownership of the island and the local rebels control the western portions of the island.
 
Couldn't the Greeks sanction the pirates? As long as they target the "heathen" shipping of the ottomans and Egyptians while safeguarding the vessels of the major powers.

Oh there were privateers as well, the three islands that made up the fleet were not shy about issuing letters of marquee and reprisal. But OTL after 1825 there was also a widespread increase in smallish ships usually smaller than xebecs going pirate on their own all over the place, when Miaoulis took them on in 1828 he captured or destroyed something in the order of 150 of them IMS. I think the decrease the good Earl is mentioning here is to these. The privateers will still be around and like OTL they're shutting down most Ottoman trade in the Aegean, raiding the Asia Minor coasts and even ranging beyond, OTL there was a Greek expedition in support of Bashir Shihab II of Lebanon during the war for example.

The other issue of course is the powers respecting the Greek letters of marquee. Which depended on the power and who the target was. For Austria they were pirates either way, particularly since it was usually Austrian flagged merchantmen used by the Ottomans to supply besieged ports or even carry troops and the Greeks were not going to let such pass. For the British and French it was different, they'd accept the letters as legitimate particularly after 1823 but would tend to forget when it was one of their ships.

Earl speaking of raids what happened to the famous or infamous Greek fireship raid on Alexandria ATL? OTL by all accounts it came very close to success...
 
That seems plausible, that dous make me wonder though how powerful and large the ottoman merchant fleet was, I'm guessing it was mostly controlled by the Greeks, but with them in revolt, who's filled the gap?
I'm not exactly an expert on 19th Century Ottoman Economics but from what I gather in most cases, international trade in the Ottoman Empire was handled by the Christians, namely the Greeks and foreign merchants. With the Greeks in revolt, this allows the foreign merchants to gain a larger share of the market in the Ottoman Empire while some other groups like the Armenians and Bulgarians, among others gained a share as well. The Egyptians were also engaged in a lot of foreign trade as well, it seems that for whatever reason the Turks themselves tended to shy away from seaborne trade, leaving that to the Greeks and other denominations of the Empire, that said they were heavily active in the internal trade of the Empire.

Seems you've set it up well that Crete could be included in any eventual peace settlement. Egyptians don't maintain ownership of the island and the local rebels control the western portions of the island.
In OTL, the Greeks attempted to liberate Crete in the closing days of the war but they were ultimately defeated. That said, the island was still under consideration of joining the Greek state after the war in 1830, but the Duke of Wellington, who was Prime Minister at the time, was completely against the idea and scuttled it. Without the Egyptians, who provided the majority of the forces on Crete, the Greeks should have much more success liberating Crete which will have some interesting consequences by the time the war ends.

What's the current status of Chios and Samos?
Samos is currently independent and Chios has been under Ottoman occupation since it was reconquered by them in July 1822.

Earl speaking of raids what happened to the famous or infamous Greek fireship raid on Alexandria ATL? OTL by all accounts it came very close to success...
There were two attempts on the Egyptian fleet at Alexandria in OTL, the first was in August 1825 under Kanaris and then the second was in June 1827 under Cochrane. Both attempts surprisingly came very close to succeeding but were both foiled by poor wind in the harbor of Alexandria. Still the attempts concerned and enraged Muhammad Ali. I believe that the first attempt did happen in TTL, but it had a limited effect due to the same reasons as OTL. A second attempt was planned, but Egypt made peace before it was scheduled to take place.
 
Last edited:
Open question to anyone listening, I'm toying around with the idea of keeping George Canning alive somewhat longer ITTL than in OTL. It may be a few months longer it may be a few years, probably no more than 4 or 5 at the most, my question is aside from the omission of Wellington's 1828 to 1830 Government and a somewhat different take on the Emancipation of the Catholics, what other discernable effects would this have not only on Greece or Britain but on Europe as a whole?

In particular I'm interested in the effects this would have on the Whigs and Tories, as well as his reaction to the July Revolution. From what I gather, Canning struck up a good friendship with King Charles X during his brief stay at Tuileries in August of 1826 so I'm curious as to how he and a continued Canningite Government react to it.
 
Part 25: The Intervention of the Powers
Part 25: The Intervention of the Powers

600px-Prise_de_Coron_par_le_g%C3%A9n%C3%A9ral_de_brigade_S%C3%A9bastiani.jpg

The French Arrive in the Morea

The withdraw of Egypt from the Greek War of Independence was one of several achievements for British Foreign Minister George Canning in the year 1827. In continuation of the Protocol of St. Petersburg, Britain, and Russia, later joined by France in August of 1826, began negotiations over a united front with which to bring about a peaceful conclusion to the war in Greece. Unfortunately, the events in Greece were not the only problems facing Canning and the Powers at that time. As mentioned before, Portugal was in the throes of civil war with Britain and France arranged on opposing sides. Though the guile and bravado of Canning, war was averted between the powers sparing Europe from a far greater conflict that year. Another more internal and personal problem emerged in the February of 1827, the Prime Minister Lord Liverpool fell ill and was forced to retire from office soon after in early April leaving a power vacuum in Parliament.

Canning was by all rights the favored candidate to succeed Liverpool. He was a tenured member of Parliament, having served as Paymaster of the Forces, Treasurer of the Navy, Ambassador to Portugal, President of the Board of Control for the British East India Company, Leader of the House of Commons, and Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Foreign Minister) on two separate occasions no less. His most recent term as Foreign Minister had been especially successful, with victories in both Lisbon and St. Petersburg, he had also opened Latin America to British trade, and he was a strong proponent of abolishing slavery throughout the Empire. Most importantly, he had the support of the Duke of Clarence and his brother King George IV. Despite their tenuous history with each other, the King appointed Canning as Prime Minister on the 10th of April.[1]

Still this did not appease all members of the Tory Party. The Duke of Wellington, Arthur Wellesley, had been his chief rival for the office and resigned from the Cabinet in protest of Canning’s appointment. Many other High Tories in the cabinet, like Sir Robert Peel the Home Secretary, also resigned from the cabinet along with nearly 45 High Tories in Parliament, all of which refused to support Canning’s government leaving it on tenuous footing. As a result, Prime Minister Canning was forced to form a coalition between the moderate wing of the Tories, the Canningites, and the Whigs to form a functioning government. As such, much of the cabinet under Canning was comprised of his good friends like Lord Dudley, who served as Foreign Secretary, Viscount Goderich, the Secretary of State for War and the Colonies, and William Sturges-Bourne as Home Secretary and then later as First Commissioner of the Woods and Forests. To gain the Whig's support, Canning appointed several of their number to his Cabinet with Lord Lansdowne as Home Secretary, and George Tierney as the Master of Mint. With his cabinet established by the end of June, Canning immediately went to work finalizing the treaty with the French and the Russians regarding Greece.

When the Russian and French delegates arrived in London at the end of the month, they quickly agreed to the most recent edition of the treaty, signing it on the 5th of July. In terms of intent, the Treaty of London was very similar to the Protocol of St. Petersburg, although there were some key differences. The Treaty of London possessed 7 open articles, as well as 3 closed articles that were privy only to the signing Powers themselves. As with the Protocol of St. Petersburg the 7 open articles called for:
· Greece shall be established as an autonomous dependency of the Ottoman Empire, paying an agreed annual tribute.

· The Greeks shall choose their own governing authorities, but with significant influence by the Ottoman Empire over the proceedings.

· Greece shall have complete freedom of conscience, freedom of trade, and freedom of internal administration.

· To separate the Greeks from the Turks, the government of Greece shall acquire all Turkish property within its territory.

· If mediation is rejected by the Ottoman Empire, then these proposals shall form the basis of intervention by Britain, France, and Russia in a joint action.

· The future extent of Greece shall be settled once the conflict is ended.

· Britain, France, and Russia shall not seek for themselves any territorial gains, exclusive influence or commercial advantage from the mediation.


By in large, these articles mostly followed the terms initially set forth in the Protocol of St. Petersburg, aside from amending the terms of the Protocol to reflect the addition of France as a joint partner. There were two important, albeit minor differences between this treaty and the previous protocol, the first being the elimination of a guarantee for the agreement. In effect, the Powers were under no pressure to enforce any of the 7 open articles set forth in the Treaty of London. The Powers also agreed to refrain from acting alone in Greece preventing the unilateral engagement of one power in the conflict, ensuring a unified and unbiased endeavor for peace. The major departure from the earlier Protocol of St. Petersburg, however, lay within the three closed articles which were more determinative of the Powers’ course of action.
· Britain, France, and Russia shall establish commercial and diplomatic relations with Greece, recognizing her status as an autonomous state.

· If within a month’s time of receiving this treaty’s terms, the Ottoman Empire has refrained from accepting the joint calls for an armistice and mediation by the Powers, Britain, France, and Russia shall intervene in the conflict to enforce such an armistice.

· Lastly, should the powers intervene in the conflict, an expeditionary force of the British, French, and Russian navies shall be dispatched to the region to enforce the armistice, and they shall be permitted the use of appropriate force to achieve that end.[2]


The final two secret articles were amended over the course of the following days. The time limit for the armistice was shortened from a month to a fortnight, and the last article was modified after the signing of the Treaty of Alexandria. The admirals in command of the expeditionary force were subsequently instructed to receive the surrender of Ibrahim Pasha and his men as well as escort them safely to Egypt in addition to their previous orders to enforce peace in the region. For Canning, this was the culmination of nearly three years of work, both as Foreign Minister and Prime Minister, the effort had quite noticeably taken its toll on him however.

While his health had never strong following his duel with Castlereagh nearly 18 years prior, he had been plagued all year with terrible bouts of illness since the funeral of Frederick, the Duke of York in January. These coughing fits often left him weak and bedridden for hours, sometimes even days on a few occasions. Added to that, the rigors and exhaustion of running a government the size and scale of Britain’s weighed heavy on him at all hours. Suffice to say, the entire endeavor had left him weak and sickly, forcing him to take a temporary leave of absence from office on the first of August to save in failing health.[3]

Suffice to say, the secret articles did not remain secret for long, although surprisingly, they remained secret to the Ottomans far longer than expected. Blithely unaware of these terms and the pending interdiction by the Great Powers represented in them, the Ottomans as they had for all the prior attempts to end the war in a manner not to their liking, rejected the calls for an armistice almost immediately. The Sultan was in no mood for diplomacy with the Greeks so soon after the betrayal of Muhammad Ali and the Egyptians, and while the setbacks against his forces had been painful they were not anywhere near terminal. Even without the men and resources of Egypt, the Ottomans still possessed many times the men and resources of the Greeks. Still, officials of the Porte recognized the threat presented by Britain, France and Russia for what it was and dispatched what forces they could to the front with Greece. If they could reduce the territory held by the Greeks or defeat them entirely, which was unlikely at present, they believed they could limit their losses more so than if they accepted the current calls for peace and opted for negotiations.

When word of the treaty reached Greece, the reaction was jubilation as people danced in the streets for the Ottomans would surely reject the call for an armistice just as they had for all the others, resulting in the intervention of the Powers. Rather than being pleased by the news, Kapodistrias was more hesitant towards the Powers intervention. Accepting the meditation of the Britain, France, and Russia would put Greece at their mercy just as it would the Ottomans. Whatever terms they set for Greece would be hoisted upon them with little consideration of the Greeks themselves. Still, he would rather the Powers be his ally than his enemy and accepted their calls for an armistice.

With the Ottomans unflinching in their opposition and the Greeks reluctantly agreeing, the British, French, and Russians made their move. Enacting the last clause of the Treaty of London the Allied Fleet under the joint command of British Vice Admiral Edward Codrington, French Rear Admiral Henri de Rigny, and Russian Rear Admiral Lodewijk Heyden departed for the Aegean on the 19th of August.[4] Due to his seniority over de Rigny, and his better familiarity with the Mediterranean over Heyden, Codrington was elected as the Expeditions’ unofficial leader in matters of debate, deliberation, and diplomacy. While they were instructed to behave as neutral arbiters in Greece and promote peace there, it was clear that biases existed among its members.


16771.jpg
248px-Rigny%2C_Henri_de.jpg
310px-Sigismund_Gustaaf_graaf_Van_Heiden_Reinestein2.jpg

Sir Edward Codrington (Left), Count Henri de Rigny (Center), Count Lodewijk Heyden (Right)

The British contingent of 13 ships was stocked with various Philhellene officers like Captain Hamilton of the Cambrian who had provided the Greeks with unofficial, if not illicit support at the battle of Myloi over two years before. Codrington was himself a prominent Philhellene as well and had been a leading member of the London Greek Committee since its inception. The Russians, under Heyden, were also clearly disposed against the Ottomans and if anything, were looking for an excuse to fight them at every turn. The French were perhaps the most neutrally inclined of the three with de Rigny being personally against assisting the Greeks, their efforts were mainly focused towards the evacuation of the Egyptians from Greece.

Making port at Navarino on the 11th of September, the French began disembarking their men under Lieutenant General Nicholas Joseph Maison. Though it would take some time, Maison managed to successfully transfer control of Pylos from Ibrahim and the Egyptians. Once the Egyptians were safely away, Maison transfered control of Navarino to the Greeks. This spectacle was repeated at Methoni, Koroni, Kyparissia, Gastouni, Kastro, Kyllini, Andravida, Dymi, Larissos, Movri, and Olenia. By Christmas, the entirety of the Morean coast from Kalamata to the outskirts of Patras had been returned to the Greeks.

The Ottomans in Patras would continue to resist the Greeks and the French for a time, but with their commander Yusuf Pasha trapped in Missolonghi its garrison soon capitulated to the allied forces as well in late January 1828. The fall of Patras set off a cascade of capitulations by the remaining Ottoman holdouts in the region with Rio, Antirrio, the Castle of the Morea, and the Castle of the Roumeli all surrendering to the Greeks between February and March of 1828. Missolonghi, surprisingly, would be the last Ottoman position in the region but it too surrendered in the late April as starvation finally forced Yusuf Pasha to surrender. While events in the Morea proved relatively peaceful, they were anything but in the Aegean.

Greece Timeline Map Part 25 Intervention of Powers(1).png

Greece on the 1st of May 1828
Purple - Greece
Green - Ottoman Empire
Pink - The United States of the Ionian Islands​

Next Time: Crete, Chios, and the Cesme Incident

[1] Canning had been especially vocal in opposing King George IV’s efforts to divorce his wife Queen Caroline and for his shameful treatment of her. He also distrusted Canning for his more liberal leanings, Canning was from the more moderate wing of the Tory party, whereas the King was a staunch Conservative. Still, the King recognized his talents and did not oppose his appointment as Prime Minister.

[2] The call for an armistice was little more than an excuse for the Powers to intervene in Greece. They provided the Ottomans with terms that they would obviously reject and use that rejection as a casus-belli for their involvement in the region.

[3] George Canning died on August 8th, 1827 only a month after the passing of the Treaty of London. The cause of his death is generally attributed to the illness he caught during the funeral service of the Duke of York back in January. The service had been held in an unheated church, and the resulting illness left him deathly ill. While he would survive for several more months the rigors of office took their toll on him resulting in his OTL death. Immediately after the completion of the Treaty of London, Canning delved into efforts to entice Muhammad Ali away from Sultan Mahmud II which occupied his attention and energies, in addition to his other work. With the Treaty of Alexandria already accomplished, Canning has an opportunity for a brief respite to rest, resulting in his prolonged life ITTL.

[4] These are the same Admirals who led the OTL intervention. While the Russian and French ships are tentatively under the supreme leadership of Codrington they are more or less autonomous. There are 13 British warships, 7 French warships, and 8 Russian warships in this peace keeping force. Codrington was only given overall command of the operation because of his seniority over de Rigny and his experience in the Mediterranean over Heyden.
 
Last edited:
Open question to anyone listening, I'm toying around with the idea of keeping George Canning alive somewhat longer ITTL than in OTL. It may be a few months longer it may be a few years, probably no more than 4 or 5 at the most, my question is aside from the omission of Wellington's 1828 to 1830 Government and a somewhat different take on the Emancipation of the Catholics, what other discernable effects would this have not only on Greece or Britain but on Europe as a whole?

In particular I'm interested in the effects this would have on the Whigs and Tories, as well as his reaction to the July Revolution. From what I gather, Canning struck up a good friendship with King Charles X during his brief stay at Tuileries in August of 1826 so I'm curious as to how he and a continued Canningite Government react to it.

There's been timelines on here about a surviving Canning if you're interested in talking to their authors. @Utgard96

I think his conclusions were a weaker reform act without Wellington's refusal to compromise turning off moderates. And an earlier soloution to the oregon boundary despute with the usa, since Canning cared about solving it in a way Wellington and his successors didn't.
 
And so the greeks on the mainland arrive at otl borders more or less victorious. Now the true battle begins, which will decide if most of the islands and Crete make it into this new greek state..
 
How would a territorially larger Greece postwar impact its future economically and politically? Crete could be difficult because of the Cretan Muslims (but Greek speakers) who were a large part of the island’s population at this point. Do they flee the island as OTL from sectarian violence?
 
Top