In the end, any land gained peacefully in Thessaly is a net gain for Greece from OTL. Acquiring any amount of Greek land from the Turks will boost significantly the popularity of whichever party is in charge of the country.
In addition to that, the Turks have to take into account risk/gain analysis. In its current state, how likely is the Greek army to overrun Thessaly if it declared war ? And is Thessaly such a productive Eyalet that it is worth having a war over ?
Thessaly has the potential to be very productive
 
Apologies for the double post, but I just realized something: Mount Lebanon is in TTL isolated and it has lost its connection with the breadbasket of south Syria. The Maronites were restless in this period and sent a lot of embassies to Napoleon III to seek his protection. This google preview describes well the national awakening of the Maronites in this period. If they were seeking independendence when they were surrounded by ottoman land, how would they act now that they have only a north border with the empire and a friendly Ibrahim in south and east? What is the relationship of Napoleon II with the Catholic Church?



@DracoLazarus , I would say Thessaly has a great potential but at the time didn't have much economic value. Volos was the only export outlet of the region and it was severely under-developed. Only after Thessaly was annexed by Greece, Volos became a major port to export the produce of the fertile thessalian plain. Until then, the ottoman landlords that controlled the land followed 18th century practices. A greek annexation of Thessaly before the American Civil War has the potential to develop a smallish but profitable cotton region.

Moreover Epirus doesn't have much economic value. Greece controls already the best agricultural region of Epirus and the whole Ambracian Gulf with its fishery. The rest is just mountains, sheep herders and the important cultural center of Ioannina. A greek cultural center where even the muslim minority went to greek schools.
 
In the end, any land gained peacefully in Thessaly is a net gain for Greece from OTL. Acquiring any amount of Greek land from the Turks will boost significantly the popularity of whichever party is in charge of the country.
In addition to that, the Turks have to take into account risk/gain analysis. In its current state, how likely is the Greek army to overrun Thessaly if it declared war ? And is Thessaly such a productive Eyalet that it is worth having a war over ?

In OTL 1854 a large chunk of it was overun by Greek rebels, let alone a regular army in the tens of thousands. But if you declare war how do you stop the Royal Navy from burning down Piraeus, Patras, Syros and every other Greek port in sight? The TTl Greek navy is much larger than OTL and none ever accused it of lacking in quality and fighting spirit but the RN can always bring to bear overwhelming force. The old Greek strategic maxim "either be the prime naval power or allied to it" still applies.
 
Apologies for the double post, but I just realized something: Mount Lebanon is in TTL isolated and it has lost its connection with the breadbasket of south Syria. The Maronites were restless in this period and sent a lot of embassies to Napoleon III to seek his protection. This google preview describes well the national awakening of the Maronites in this period. If they were seeking independendence when they were surrounded by ottoman land, how would they act now that they have only a north border with the empire and a friendly Ibrahim in south and east? What is the relationship of Napoleon II with the Catholic Church?



@DracoLazarus , I would say Thessaly has a great potential but at the time didn't have much economic value. Volos was the only export outlet of the region and it was severely under-developed. Only after Thessaly was annexed by Greece, Volos became a major port to export the produce of the fertile thessalian plain. Until then, the ottoman landlords that controlled the land followed 18th century practices. A greek annexation of Thessaly before the American Civil War has the potential to develop a smallish but profitable cotton region.

Moreover Epirus doesn't have much economic value. Greece controls already the best agricultural region of Epirus and the whole Ambracian Gulf with its fishery. The rest is just mountains, sheep herders and the important cultural center of Ioannina. A greek cultural center where even the muslim minority went to greek schools.

In OTL 1854 a large chunk of it was overun by Greek rebels, let alone a regular army in the tens of thousands. But if you declare war how do you stop the Royal Navy from burning down Piraeus, Patras, Syros and every other Greek port in sight? The TTl Greek navy is much larger than OTL and none ever accused it of lacking in quality and fighting spirit but the RN can always bring to bear overwhelming force. The old Greek strategic maxim "either be the prime naval power or allied to it" still applies.

So, to put it simply. It is a region that is rather underdeveloped, that the Ottomans have significant issues controlling, and with a population that is not part of their core manpower pool since they got rid of the Janissaries. In other words, more likely than not a net drain on Ottoman manpower and finances, while they are at war and on the defensive against a more-than-peer opponent.

Under those conditions, it is likely best for the Ottomans to sell it to Greece in exchange for as many concessions possible, of the financial and/or diplomatic type, than to hold on to it.
 
Apologies for the double post, but I just realized something: Mount Lebanon is in TTL isolated and it has lost its connection with the breadbasket of south Syria. The Maronites were restless in this period and sent a lot of embassies to Napoleon III to seek his protection. This google preview describes well the national awakening of the Maronites in this period. If they were seeking independendence when they were surrounded by ottoman land, how would they act now that they have only a north border with the empire and a friendly Ibrahim in south and east? What is the relationship of Napoleon II with the Catholic Church?


Mount Lebanon... we know that Bashir Shihab II held to power in the emirate of mount Lebanon till his death in 1850. He's likely to be succeeded by another member of the Chehab clan, possibly his grandson OTL Bashir III. In the meantime Syria is split between Egypt and the Ottomans so the Lebanese emirate likely also survives between the two.

The elephant in the room is that we don't know if Ibrahim is still alive or not. Presumably he is but that's going to be significant, Egyptian Syria is supposed to revert to Ottoman rule at his death and he's ill... which brings multiple questions. TTL Egypt kept a much larger army, a higher degree of independence, I expect the Egyptians refused to remove their tarrifs at the time of the Ottoman-British treaty of 1842, and has also been directly ruled by Ibrahim for several years. So when so called Napoleon of the East dies first comes the question of his succession, I expect Ismail as his son will be heavily favoured over Said and Abbas. And then whether the Egyptians will be actually willing to give up their control of Syria... or we are heading to a 3rd Egyptian war.
 
Under those conditions, it is likely best for the Ottomans to sell it to Greece in exchange for as many concessions possible, of the financial and/or diplomatic type, than to hold on to it.
I dont think any selling plans existed in otl. The concessions of a diplomatic type would be neutrality as an alliance is ASB. At best, the OE can ask the right to charter greek merchantmen to support its logistics.

What I wonder is whether the Ottomans and the British can actually win without France. Imagine training, arming and supplying a new ottoman army of 300,000 with rifles and modern artillery. The cost is huge. I doubt the British would pay everything themselves: I would think they would provide loans to the Porte, increasing their influence and control of the OE. At the very best case, the war will be a draw: the Ottomans will have suffered additional ~150-200k casualties compared to OTL, the bulgarian provinces would have been a battlefield for 2 years at least and Britain will control a huge debt and the strings of the imperial purse. And that's the best case senario!

The worst case senario will include the loss of everything north of the Balkan Mountains, part of the Armenian Highlands, part of Syria and Lebanon, along with any compensation to Greece.

All of that due to the Eaglet and the dissolution of the Austrian Empire. Not to mention that after 2 years of bloody and expensive war, Napoleon can come and play peacemaker under his own terms.

Edit: @Lascaris, imagine a Kingdom of Lebanon under Charles-Louis Napoleon. The Eaglet continues the family tradition of giving crowns to family. Only this time we have a napoleonic middle eastern realm!
 
Last edited:
Next Time: The Price for Peace
Under those conditions, it is likely best for the Ottomans to sell it to Greece in exchange for as many concessions possible, of the financial and/or diplomatic type, than to hold on to it.
sell it to greece?
no it is more likely that they will concede land to greece in exchange for not entering the war than sell it
the ottomans are in a worse situation than otl where they were supported by the british,the french and the austrians
given that this is a Greece that has been modernising both industrially and militarilly,it is very big threat to the Ottoman flank in the south given they have to content with the russians to the north and the British have only 18,000 soldiers participating in the war(given that they have about 120,000 soldiers and that 2/3 are in the colonies they can only muster a strength of 40,000 soldiers,but at this point have only sent 18,000)
there are definitely going to be concecions ,but its not going to be greece that gives concecions to the ottoman empire
now as for the land that greece could gain,there is a high chance that thessaly will be in it given that while the thessalian plains are good for agriculture the demographics dont favour the ottomans and it is not that rich of a province,there is a high chance that epirus will be ceded as well given that greece already has the best land of the region outside of Ioannina
the ottomans thougth will probably not cede anything north of the Aliakmon river given that Thessaloniki was a very productive city of the empire and giving concecions of that kind will compromise the city
i imagine the ionian islands will be ceded to greece as well,there is already a movement that advocates enosis with greece and and they almost succeeded in throwing the british yoke in the spring of nations(the british would have certainly ocuppied the islands back after they gathered a sufficient force but still)the islands hold a hostile population and they are not that useful given that the british now hold malta and will raise relations with greece(as much as appeasing a country so they don't enter a war you caused raises relationships)
 
Last edited:
@Noblesse Oblige who said anything about a crusader kingdom? Are there any otl sources that show the 19th century Maronites conspiring for a crusade? We are talking about strictly Lebanon, a region with a greater percentage of christians than most of the parts of the Danube eyalet. In the same spirit should we argue that a free Bulgaria under a German monarch is a crusading kingdom? Do Bulgarians have a right for self government? Would the Armenians form a crusader kingdom if they get liberated? Whats the difference?

In the book I posted, the greatest "conquests" the Maronites dreamed was the Beqaa valley in order to have some agricultural land . So, the most nationalistic Maronites wanted a country smaller than today's Lebanon. Applying a medieval concept on the
statehood aspirations of the christians of Middle East is a bit of a fallacy. Communities that existed for 2000 years have a right to aspire self government, even if it wont happen. Frankly, avoiding some genocides would be a nice notion. I am referring of course on the blockade on foodstuffs implemented by the Ottoman authorities during WW1 that resulted in the deaths of half the Maronite population.
 
Last edited:
@Noblesse Oblige who said anything about a crusader kingdom? Are there any otl sources that show the 19th century Maronites conspiring for a crusade? We are talking about strictly Lebanon, a region with a greater percentage of christians than most of the parts of the Danube eyalet. In the same spirit should we argue that a free Bulgaria under a German monarch is a crusading kingdom? Do Bulgarians have a right for self government? Would the Armenians form a crusader kingdom if they get liberated? Whats the difference?

In the book I posted, the greatest "conquests" the Maronites dreamed was the Beqaa valley in order to have some agricultural land . So, the most nationalistic Maronites wanted a country smaller than today's Lebanon. Applying a medieval concept on the
statehood aspirations of the christians of Middle East is a bit of a fallacy. Communities that existed for 2000 years have a right to aspire self government, even if it wont happen. Frankly, avoiding some genocides would be a nice notion.

Well maybe so, and I do not doubt the Maronites desire for their own nation, I have no problem with that. My sticking point is...why a Bonaparte though? Why not someone more native to take the reigns? That's what irks me and makes me think "Crusader Kingdom."
 
When greece gains Thessaly it should immediately expand and develop volos and it's port...it would help connect the region to the rest of greece and ofcourse it would benefit greece as a whole.. finally providing a breadbasket for the Kingdom but also cotton and iron..not to mention the possibility of another railroad (from larisa to volos)
 
That's what irks me and makes me think "Crusader Kingdom."
Why a lot of people wanted foreign monarchs in the Balkans? Because they were foreign as well to clan or tribal hatreds and was a sign of being "civilized" and thus accepted by the West. A local Maronite king may have feuds with Druze, Sunnis, Orthodox Christians and even other maronite clans. Moreover, a french king would be the most popular and accepted by Maronites, as their elite was french educated and influenced. Check the book I mentioned in a previous post: the educated Maronites saw themselves as Frenchmen-in-the-East.
 
Last edited:
When greece gains Thessaly it should immediately expand and develop volos and it's port...it would help connect the region to the rest of greece and ofcourse it would benefit greece as a whole.. finally providing a breadbasket for the Kingdom but also cotton and iron..not to mention the possibility of another railroad (from larisa to volos)
greece should also break the hold that the chiflik system had on the region,there was also the matter that the previous owners from before the greek acquisition sold the land to wealthy greeks of the Diaspora which caused tension with the local greek population
 
Last edited:
When greece gains Thessaly it should immediately expand and develop volos and it's port...it would help connect the region to the rest of greece and ofcourse it would benefit greece as a whole.. finally providing a breadbasket for the Kingdom but also cotton and iron..not to mention the possibility of another railroad (from larisa to volos)

Volos? Oh you mean the city of Demetrias surely? :angel:
 
.....ah yes this is the time where Katharevousa reigned Supreme and dimotiki was thougth of as a lowly language , i can actually picture intelectuals of the period renaming Volos

At this point it's just a village around modern Ano Volos IMS. I'm somewhat surprised the whole town got the name in the 1880s instead of using the ancient name. A generation earlier when it's even less developed? Most likely you get Demetrias, with Volos being the name of the neighbourhood.
 
To be fair katharevousa did it's job..it removed a lot of turkish and other foreign influences from dimotiki and when compared to the dimotiki and it is a source of unity...just try to imagine the the endless debate among the islanders and the mainlands if lets say that the dialect of Athens or Crete was chosen as the official language....well with katharevousa you only have those that support it and those who don't😂😂
 
To be fair katharevousa did it's job..it removed a lot of turkish and other foreign influences from dimotiki and when compared to the dimotiki and it is a source of unity...just try to imagine the the endless debate among the islanders and the mainlands if lets say that the dialect of Athens or Crete was chosen as the official language....well with katharevousa you only have those that support it and those who don't😂😂
true,thougth i have seen a lot of hatred for Katharevousa around intelectual circles declaring it an artificial construct,i guess in the end katharevousa was in a way merged with dimotiki and today we are a mix of the two dialects
 
Top