When will school be mandatory in greece?
Given that greece is cultivating an intellectual class(and it is currently 1854)it will happen in the ensuing decades of the 19nth century given that they will be pretty critical about education,furthermore there needs to be regulation regarding children in industrial and civil jobs(even in Britain children worked)that limit children to work in dangerous jobs and offer safety regulations
 
Last edited:
After rereading some of the past updates, I realized: What do people think of one of Greece's concessions being that Britain completes the Corinth Canal, along with whatever land concessions there are? Cause Greece ITTL can actually influence this war imo with somewhere between 40k - 80k (I don't remember exactly what Earl stated in earlier updates) troops depending on how mobilized they become regardless of how powerful Britain's Navy is, Greece's land forces could definitely get close to taking Thessaloniki before the Ottos can move troops to defend. Not saying they should join, in fact they should definitely NOT, but being on a wartime footing could definitely aid their concessions.
 

formion

Banned
Fellas, we haven't talked about the fact that Kars is Russian since 1828 instead of 1878 and that there is a russian army wintering in the gates of Erzurum. I wonder the demographic impact in the Armenian Highlands if the Hamidian Massacres are avoided , or rather focus on Anatolian Armenians. As the Russians start their campaigning from Kars and they have a bigger army there than in OTL, while the Ottomans have way bigger commitments in the Danube, we may see further russian enroachment of the region. Dont forget that if the Danubian front collapses, Constantinople is in peril. This is the main ottoman front of the war.

Between 1894 and 1896, 200-250k Armenians, 25k Assyrians and up to 100k Greeks (I doubt the greek figure though) were killed in the east. That is well-known. What is not known is that the Hamidian Massacres were accompanied by mass conversions. The British consul in Diyarbakir had stated that in just that region, 25k Armenians converted to Islam and 500 women were abducted. If that was accurate, then the total conversions should have been quite many. It is difficult to find how many returned to christianity afterwards, as apostacy carried a death sentence or at the very least not being able for children to inherit. The combination of massacres of that scale and conversions, almost a generation before the main armenian genocide, must have had quite the demographic impact.

Therefore, I think a bigger Russian Armenia will have a tremendous demographic impact.
 
Between 1894 and 1896, 200-250k Armenians, 25k Assyrians and up to 100k Greeks (I doubt the greek figure though) were killed in the east. That is well-known. What is not known is that the Hamidian Massacres were accompanied by mass conversions. The British consul in Diyarbakir had stated that in just that region, 25k Armenians converted to Islam and 500 women were abducted. If that was accurate, then the total conversions should have been quite many. It is difficult to find how many returned to christianity afterwards, as apostacy carried a death sentence or at the very least not being able for children to inherit. The combination of massacres of that scale and conversions, almost a generation before the main armenian genocide, must have had quite the demographic impact.

Therefore, I think a bigger Russian Armenia will have a tremendous demographic impact.
We can only hope that the Armenians do better out of all of this; they're basically like the Poles of the middle east in terms of all the hardship, occupation, and killings they've endured over the years
 
So here's a few factors that I think need to be considered by Greece-

  1. What they want. Remember, they have to consider any new territory something that could take up a considerable amount of time and cash to pacify. No sense asking for a island that will literally cost more then it ever earns in revenue, for instance.
  2. What the public wants. TO be blunt, what the common man on the street wants, which usually is far far FAR into the realm of fantasy. At best.
  3. What Turkey/Britain is willing to accept. This is the real sticking point. Turkey won't mind handing over some territory, but at the same time, insecurity over their decline, coupled with pressure from their ole rival, to say nothing about possibly paranoid fears of a grand Orthodox conspiracy against them.....
    1. And Britain, well, they want stability. They might like greece, but that's not infinite, and if they keep stirring up shit to milk it....
 
So here's a few factors that I think need to be considered by Greece-

  1. What they want. Remember, they have to consider any new territory something that could take up a considerable amount of time and cash to pacify. No sense asking for a island that will literally cost more then it ever earns in revenue, for instance.

Most areas up for annexation have Greek populations between ~75% (Cyprus) to over 90-95% (East Aegean islands and Thessaly). So no they are not hostile colonies in need for pacification, nor will need time and effort to do so. Investment for public works are a different matter but they'd be a net gain economically. Even if they were not Athens wants the territory because it's inhabited by its fellow nationals not for the revenue.
 

formion

Banned
Most areas up for annexation have Greek populations between ~75% (Cyprus) to over 90-95% (East Aegean islands and Thessaly).
Indeed!
One should have in mind that the statistics include also Ottoman administrators, civil servants, army etc, that they did not inhabit permanently a region . So in some Aegean islands one may see a 5% muslim population, while the actual muslim inhabitants were less than that percentage.
 
I'm not very knowledgeable on the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, but they will most likely be absorbed into the Orthodox Church as @Bloodmage suggests.


Right now.
Apologies for the longer than expected wait, but in return here's a longer than expected update!
Wonderful update, don't worry for the Time, patience is mother of vertu
 
What they want. Remember, they have to consider any new territory something that could take up a considerable amount of time and cash to pacify. No sense asking for a island that will literally cost more then it ever earns in revenue, for instance
All of the territory they will ask for is inhabited by a majority greek population,the islands are greek,thessaly has a majority greek demographic and epirus is mostly greek(given that the albanians were impacted quite heavily by the consequences of the revolts two decades earlier )
Most of the greeks in those regions want enosis with Greece
Furthermore the party that will secure the deal that will unify those lands with greece will receive a lot of support from the common Hellene as such I would expect it to secure its hold in politics for some time
What the public wants. TO be blunt, what the common man on the street wants, which usually is far far FAR into the Realm of fantasy.
At best
The public wants enosis with greece,tell me would you rather be a citizen of a country that considers you second rate(the ottoman empire is liberalising but we talk about the view of the common man)or join the country that literally represents greeks.

The ottomans imposed harsh tax laws,the chiflik system in thessaly,their refusal to acknowledge christians(see incidents where Christians asked for acknowledgement and the authorities refused)moreover they imposed a lot of taxes on merchants(greeks and armenians)to fund their empire,they took children into the janisaries(even if the janisharies corps has been abolished,the consequences that it has had on the hellenic mindset will not disappear)
So tell me will the common man stay with the ottoman empire or join greece?(of course there were greeks that chose to side with ottomans as well but the common man in thessaly that is suffering under the chiflik sustem will tell them otherwise)

The islands will join greece given that it is quite the trade giant in eastern Mediterranean and they have no reason to refuse.
The only reason I can see epirus not having an enosis with greece is because of the albanian minority in epirus but again the ottomans gutted the albanians two decades earlier(mostly muslims) and I presume the orthodox albanians will have no problem joining greece(the albanians and greeks consider themselves kin and i imagine such an idea has been strengthened given that Hellas sheltered albanian refugees)
What Turkey/Britain is willing to accept. This is the real sticking point. Turkey won't mind handing over some territory, but at the same time, insecurity over their decline, coupled with pressure from their ole rival, to say nothing about possibly paranoid fears of a grand Orthodox conspiracy against them.....
  1. And Britain, well, they want stability. They might like greece, but that's not infinite, and if they keep stirring up shit to milk it....
Britain almost lost the heptanese in the spring of nations(revolutions of 1848)they know they have a rebellious population that wants to join the kingdom of Hellas furthermore the strategic importance of the heptanese has actually lessened given that the british now hold malta(there is also the ties that greece has with Britain,both in diplomacy and dynasty)

The ottoman empire is not in a good situation,France has not joined the war on its side,neither has the austrian empire(wonder why,they are not in a good position rigth now)

thats what?300.000 troops gone,France will most likely seek concesions from the ottomans,we will have to see how things develop,while Britain can only offer the ottomans 40.000 troops(at the moment only 18.000)so a second flank with a greece that has a good military and forces that number about 40.000-80.000 men is quite the worry and gives greece quite a big leverage and Leo the I/VII will extract that goldmine dry.
 
Last edited:
Excellent update Earl !Well worth the wait.
You had me worrying about the Russians in the Balkan and Black Sea fronts and even in the Caucasus till the very end with all those setbacks they had and a very nice description that you made for each one of them.The Balkan front will be the decisive factor in the war so if the Russians win in the first year there would be no war really so I get why they have stalled there. Also the Ottomans have been beefing up their defenses there for quite some time .The Black Sea is not a winning sector for the Russians either way cause when the Royal Navy arrived that front was over so for the Turks to win gives them some credit and a morale boost. The Caucasus is a very difficult front to attack really with all those mountains that supply lines are not the best and I loved what you did there a mirror to the Russian Balkan attack (bogged down by the strong forts) but with a heavy Russian response.I am eagerly waiting for the continuation.
On the matter of Greece intervening,I believe its a total suicide if they go with it till war both because the Royal Navy will bomb Piraeus and kill the lifeline of the Greek economy ,trade, and because the Greeks haven't fought a war since their independence and most of that time they haven't buffed up their army at all,even in the 1830's they cut the funding there due to financial problems.Playing so hard diplomatically with GB is not the best way but I will wait the next update to see what happens.To get what they want they have to wait till the end of the war to see who wins.If Russia wins if they stay neutral they wouldn't get that much and Bulgaria may be the huge winner.If The Allies win maybe the Turks wouldn't want to give anything the little Greece.Also I would like to add here that other that land Greece should strive for some trade agreements with the Ottomans as they are the major trade partner.
The is another Ottoman neighbor who can take advantage of this war,Egypt.It was mention in the comments here and I agree absolutely .They should go for keeping Damascus indefinitely and maybe some more concessions if they can like Aleppo or something like that or even full independence . Another front would be the Central Asia with all those British allies there that haven't sprung to action there.They could keep some Russian troops there that would be useful on another front.
This war ,as OTL Crimean war is the beginning of modern war with better equipment ,trenches and old tactics.Russia runs on time here till the British blockade kills its economy . The Allies have just to hold on till the bear collapses and then they strike.Cause if they strike earlier they have not that many chances of winning due to them being completely outnumbered.
 

Gian

Banned
BTW, @Earl Marshal, I should point out that somebody did make a couple of images of L'Aiglon himself. I suggest you go and take a gander.
Some photomanips of Napoleon II as Emperor of the French I had made for a personal project of mine. Not the best but I'm fairly pleased with how some of these turned out.
 

Gian

Banned
They're not bad in all honesty and they're certainly better than what I could probably do.
Maybe you could try incorporating those for future turns (or even replace the stock of pics you have of OTL Napoleon III with those pictures in previous turns).

And yes, my design of the Greek coat of arms is still available to use:
bitmap.png
 
Maybe you could try incorporating those for future turns (or even replace the stock of pics you have of OTL Napoleon III with those pictures in previous turns).

And yes, my design of the Greek coat of arms is still available to use:
bitmap.png
Thank you very much. I'll definitely take you up on your offer for the Coat of Arms as the one I used in part 30 is a bit rough around the edges, and I'll check to see where these Napoleon II images might work best.
 
BTW, @Earl Marshal, I should point out that somebody did make a couple of images of L'Aiglon himself. I suggest you go and take a gander.
Raised quite an eyebrow when I saw the quote notification since I was pretty sure I had never even clicked on this thread before, thought I might have lost it for a second 0_o
Glad it's been brought to my attention though since it seems like an interesting timeline and if it involves L'Aiglon in some way or another I'm sure I'll enjoy it 👍
 

Gian

Banned
Raised quite an eyebrow when I saw the quote notification since I was pretty sure I had never even clicked on this thread before, thought I might have lost it for a second 0_o
Glad it's been brought to my attention though since it seems like an interesting timeline and if it involves L'Aiglon in some way or another I'm sure I'll enjoy it 👍
Oh it does involve L'Aiglon ... surviving and forging the Second Empire after a war in Belgium and some typical 1848 shit.
 
I was reading old threads on the Crimean War. It seems there was a general consensus that with a friendly Austria, Russia could more than double the troops in Crimea, as almost 300 battalions of infantry and 200 cavalry squadrons were screeening the austrian and moldavian border where they faced a 327,000 austrian army. Only the russian army in Poland numbered 250,000 men and a similar army was overlooking the Dniester.

It seems that in this timeline 309,0000 french troops are written off from the Allied war effort, while something like 400,000 russian troops are added ( if 100,000 are left in russian Poland). . Certainly, there must be logistics constraints to utilize all in a single theater, but that leaves more for Muravyev, the best russian general of the war. I wonder how the Baltic Campaign will develop without the french fleet and most importantly without the threat of the french army. In otl, 200 russian infantry battalions were posted in the Baltic.

All and all, it seems the Allies have to cover a 600,000 -700,000 men gap compared to the original timeline.



 
I was reading old threads on the Crimean War. It seems there was a general consensus that with a friendly Austria, Russia could more than double the troops in Crimea, as almost 300 battalions of infantry and 200 cavalry squadrons were screeening the austrian and moldavian border where they faced a 327,000 austrian army. Only the russian army in Poland numbered 250,000 men and a similar army was overlooking the Dniester.

It seems that in this timeline 309,0000 french troops are written off from the Allied war effort, while something like 400,000 russian troops are added ( if 100,000 are left in russian Poland). . Certainly, there must be logistics constraints to utilize all in a single theater, but that leaves more for Muravyev, the best russian general of the war. I wonder how the Baltic Campaign will develop without the french fleet and most importantly without the threat of the french army. In otl, 200 russian infantry battalions were posted in the Baltic.

All and all, it seems the Allies have to cover a 600,000 -700,000 men gap compared to the original timeline.



what i am wondering is what will Russia do with Russian Alyaska,given that the crimean war will be certainly in their favour and given the troop disparity they could elect to keep the colony(though the reason they elected to sell the colony was financial but the financial difficulties that led them to that decision were acrued during the crimean war),there was also a apparently proposal by the tsar to sell the colony to the House of Lichtenstein
 
Last edited:
what i am wondering is what will Russia do with Russian Alyaska,given that the crimean war will be certainly in their favour and given the troop disparity they could elect to keep the colony(though the reason they elected to sell the colony was financial but the financial difficulties that led them to that decision were acrued during the crimean war),there was also a apparently proposal by the tsar to sell the colony to the House of Lichtenstein
From my understanding the British could have easily taken the territory OTL but chose not to to avoid expanding the war. They may make a different choice here if they realize their going to lose and want to soften the blow domestically.
 
From my understanding the British could have easily taken the territory OTL but chose not to to avoid expanding the war. They may make a different choice here if they realize their going to lose and want to soften the blow domestically.
It seems a decent way to save face if the war is a stalement or a defeat in land-victory at sea. The same goes for Nicholas: if he has to choose between a Romanov on the throne of Romania or Erzurum /Trabzon and Alaska, he would drop Russian America in a second.

The Eaglet is in an enviable strategic position. He just conquered the french speaking and coal producing parts of Belgium, while he doesn't face an immediate threat from Germany. At least half the Royal Navy and basically the whole British Army are committed against Russia. He can basically dictate his terms while the massive french navy remains in its ports.

The French Navy during the Crimean War was nothing to sneeze at: 12 screw ships of the line, 3 screw frigates, 9 screw corvettes, 19 paddle frigates, 14 paddle corvettes. In total the French had 290 sailing warships and 117 steamers. In contrast, the Royal Navy had 300 sailing warships and 190 steamers. The Royal Navy had to blockade a russian fleet of 60 sailing ships of the line, 100 sailing frigates and lighter ships and 40 paddle steamers.


 
Top