Just waiting for more; looks like the Ottoman Empire might fall sooner than OTL...

BTW, I had no idea the Greek War of Independence was so bloody...
 
Just waiting for more; looks like the Ottoman Empire might fall sooner than OTL...

BTW, I had no idea the Greek War of Independence was so bloody...
I'm currently in the midst of writing the next update which may or may not be up tomorrow. My hope is to have the war and the Peace Conference finished by the end of the year at the latest.

The Greek War of Independence was an especially bloody conflict considering the limited scope of the conflict, relatively speaking. I'm not entirely sure of the exact numbers but its around 25,000 dead for the Greeks, 40,000 dead for the Ottomans and well over 100,000 dead civilians on both sides which is a remarkable amount considering Greece only had a recorded population of 700,000 in the census taken after the war.
 
Mahmud II was certainly was one the better Sultans for the Ottoman Empire and his reforms were extremely beneficial to the Empire. Unfortunately, he was dealt a really bad hand for much of his reign with a series of conflicts from the Serbian Revolution, the Wahhabi Wars, the Greek Revolution, the war with Russia, and the two Wars with Egypt, not to mention the growing influence of the Powers over his country. The point you made about their currency was especially problematic for the Ottomans with the Piastre losing more than half its value in the span of five years from 1820 to 1825 and mounting debt would plague the Empire for the rest of its existence.

In terms of the immediate future for the Ottoman Empire, Muhammad Ali is eyeing up Syria and unlike OTL, he is in a better position as his fleet was not destroyed at Cesme. The Bosnians and Albanians are also on the verge of rebellion as well, mostly stemming from their dissatisfaction with Mahmud's reforms and the terms in the Treaty of Adrianople. Reshid Pasha will surely be missed by the Ottomans in both those engagements and while his replacement Khosref Pasha is loyal and moderately capable, he isn't as talented or skilled as Reshid was. The next 10 to 15 years will be extremely trying times for the Ottomans, and in all likelihood they will struggle immensely but if they survive that they may limp along for some time yet.

Husrev was a very capable administrator and played a close role in the creation of the European style army but the fact remains that he was not a soldier per se. He was a moderately competent admiral, certainly a more difficult opponent than his predecessors for the Greeks although still defeated in the battles of Samos and Gerontas but this does not translate to being a capable general on land as well...
 
I'm currently in the midst of writing the next update which may or may not be up tomorrow. My hope is to have the war and the Peace Conference finished by the end of the year at the latest.

The Greek War of Independence was an especially bloody conflict considering the limited scope of the conflict, relatively speaking. I'm not entirely sure of the exact numbers but its around 25,000 dead for the Greeks, 40,000 dead for the Ottomans and well over 100,000 dead civilians on both sides which is a remarkable amount considering Greece only had a recorded population of 700,000 in the census taken after the war.


Hoping to see this thread continue sooon..... the best GREECE WANK for years
 
Last edited:
Hoping to see this thread continue sooon..... the best GREECE WANK for years
Some would call it that. Rather, it is a well researched piece with the intent to buff Greece in mind but without straying into the wanking territory, the Greeks still have to fight hard for their gains and victories.
 
Some would call it that. Rather, it is a well researched piece with the intent to buff Greece in mind but without straying into the wanking territory, the Greeks still have to fight hard for their gains and victories.

I’m really interested in seeing what Greece does with its improved position going into the future.

How do the power plays between Britain and Russia in the region go with a stronger Greece? Could it even play one side off the other like Siam did in Southeast Asia?

What happens when the other Balkan nations gain independence? Does Greece gain more territory during their struggles? Does it gain more political influence than OTL in places like Serbia? How does Aegean Bulgaria play out? What about Slavic Macedonia?

It seems incredibly unlikely but could Greece even go for colonization? (I highly doubt it, it’s a dumb move for expansion when there are territories far more valuable and important in the next country over, but that didn’t stop France in the late 19th century, did it?)

Finally, what happens to the Ottomans? Do they collapse, and if so does Greece end up with more of their land than OTL? If not, do they modernize?

This is all far in the future—I don’t want answers to these questions now—but it’s exciting to me to see where this more stable, more powerful Greece will go in the tumult of the 19th century.
 
Some would call it that. Rather, it is a well researched piece with the intent to buff Greece in mind but without straying into the wanking territory, the Greeks still have to fight hard for their gains and victories.

Lapsus linguae. Sorry
 
Hoping to see this thread continue sooon..... the best GREECE WANK for years

Some would call it that. Rather, it is a well researched piece with the intent to buff Greece in mind but without straying into the wanking territory, the Greeks still have to fight hard for their gains and victories.
It probably is a bit of a wank but I wouldn't consider it a full on wank as the Greeks have still had a reasonable amount of setbacks and defeats.

I’m really interested in seeing what Greece does with its improved position going into the future.

How do the power plays between Britain and Russia in the region go with a stronger Greece? Could it even play one side off the other like Siam did in Southeast Asia?
The King I'm considering for Greece was well known for his diplomacy and his balancing of relations with differing Powers so I would expect some degree of this to happen.

What happens when the other Balkan nations gain independence? Does Greece gain more territory during their struggles? Does it gain more political influence than OTL in places like Serbia? How does Aegean Bulgaria play out? What about Slavic Macedonia?
There may be some more rebellions in the Balkans coming sooner than you might think, whether they lead to independence for their peoples is to be determined at this point. In regards to Serbia they are presently a "principality" of the Ottoman Empire, but for all intents and purposes they are independent, aside from a small Ottoman garrison at Belgrade Castle. The Greeks will probably attempt to develop some diplomatic relation with Serbia after the war ends. Bulgaria will most likely be one of the last states to revolt like OTL and at this point I haven't really thought about their extent or how they really factor into the story thus far. I have a rough outline for the next 40ish years planned and Bulgaria really only comes into play at the end of that so I'm open to suggestions if you would like.

It seems incredibly unlikely but could Greece even go for colonization? (I highly doubt it, it’s a dumb move for expansion when there are territories far more valuable and important in the next country over, but that didn’t stop France in the late 19th century, did it?)
Well I will let you know that colonization will be different this go around.

Finally, what happens to the Ottomans? Do they collapse, and if so does Greece end up with more of their land than OTL? If not, do they modernize?

This is all far in the future—I don’t want answers to these questions now—but it’s exciting to me to see where this more stable, more powerful Greece will go in the tumult of the 19th century.
Let's just say that the Ottomans will have a tough time ahead of them.
 
It probably is a bit of a wank but I wouldn't consider it a full on wank as the Greeks have still had a reasonable amount of setbacks and defeats.


The King I'm considering for Greece was well known for his diplomacy and his balancing of relations with differing Powers so I would expect some degree of this to happen.

That rules out Otto von Wittelsbach. Will it be Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha ? Oh well, hyped.
 
That rules out Otto von Wittelsbach. Will it be Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha ? Oh well, hyped.
An Otto and surviving Kapodistrias timeline would certainly be interesting and its something I don't believe I've seen on this forum before, but Otto only received the offer for the throne of Greece in the first place after Leopold rejected it. So it goes without saying that if Leopold accepts in 1830, and with the improved situation for Greece he most certainly will, then Otto won't even get the offer in 1832. Sorry for all those Otto fans out there, but its my understanding that any significant POD prior to 1830 would result in a King Leopold of Greece.
 
An Otto and surviving Kapodistrias timeline would certainly be interesting and its something I don't believe I've seen on this forum before, but Otto only received the offer for the throne of Greece in the first place after Leopold rejected it. So it goes without saying that if Leopold accepts in 1830, and with the improved situation for Greece he most certainly will, then Otto won't even get the offer in 1832. Sorry for all those Otto fans out there, but its my understanding that any significant POD prior to 1830 would result in a King Leopold of Greece.
That leaves Belgium in a very interesting situation. A Belgium ruled by Otto leading to him being deposed there might very well lead to another european war...
 
There may be some more rebellions in the Balkans coming sooner than you might think, whether they lead to independence for their peoples is to be determined at this point. In regards to Serbia they are presently a "principality" of the Ottoman Empire, but for all intents and purposes they are independent, aside from a small Ottoman garrison at Belgrade Castle. The Greeks will probably attempt to develop some diplomatic relation with Serbia after the war ends. Bulgaria will most likely be one of the last states to revolt like OTL and at this point I haven't really thought about their extent or how they really factor into the story thus far. I have a rough outline for the next 40ish years planned and Bulgaria really only comes into play at the end of that so I'm open to suggestions if you would like.

I don’t know if I have any suggestions necessarily, but I’ll try to think about it.

I do know a little bit about Slavic Macedonia because I read up on it a little bit after stumbling onto a bizarre pro-Macedonia website. There were lengthy diatribes on how the Jews of Solun/Thessalonica were actually ethnically Macedonian, how the Greeks weren’t a real ethnicity, how modern Macedonian derived from the language of Alexander the Great, and other kookiness...

Anyway, the one thing I learned is that Macedonian identity, and really most of the Balkan ethnic identities, were in flux. It really could be swayed by the local political leader. In other words, “Macedonian identity” could never come into existence in its own right starting at this point ITTL and instead could become a subset of Serbian or Bulgarian identity quite easily. I’d argue it wouldn’t become Greek so easily just because of the linguistic and religious (Bulgarian autocephaly) barrier, but it could happen too.

I think Albanian identity is still tenuous at this point too—many Orthodox Albanians in Greece, the Arvanites, were an important part of the War of Independence and then assimilated. The Muslim Albanians still have more motivation to be their own nation, of course, but it can play out differently. For instance, if Macedonia does just become part of Bulgaria, its northwestern section is mostly ethnically Albanian and you might see it be added to a greater Albania if some great power helps it.

Well I will let you know that colonization will be different this go around.

It sounds at least like Belgian Congo will be gone, thank goodness!
 
Last edited:
I don’t know if I have any suggestions necessarily, but I’ll try to think about it.

I do know a little bit about Slavic Macedonia because I read up on it a little bit after stumbling onto a bizarre pro-Macedonia website. There were lengthy diatribes on how the Jews of Solun/Thessalonica were actually ethnically Macedonian, how the Greeks weren’t a real ethnicity, how modern Macedonian derived from the language of Alexander the Great, and other kookiness...

Anyway, the one thing I learned is that Macedonian identity, and really most of the Balkan ethnic identities, were in flux. It really could be swayed by the local political leader. In other words, “Macedonian identity” could never come into existence in its own right starting at this point ITTL and instead could become a subset of Serbian or Bulgarian identity quite easily. I’d argue it wouldn’t become Greek so easily just because of the linguistic and religious (Bulgarian autocephaly) barrier, but it could happen too.

I think Albanian identity is still tenuous at this point too—many Orthodox Albanians in Greece, the Arvanites, were an important part of the War of Independence and then assimilated. The Muslim Albanians still have more motivation to be their own nation, of course, but it can play out differently. For instance, if Macedonia does just become part of Bulgaria, its northwestern section is mostly ethnically Albanian and you might see it be added to a greater Albania if some great power helps it.

It sounds at least like Belgian Congo will be gone, thank goodness!

The Bulgarian exarchate is still 40 years in the future as of 1830, it was established in 1870, promptly declared schismatic by the patriarchate of Constantinople and the schism wasn't lifted till 1945. For half a century between 1870 and the Balkan wars the standard separation line between Greek and Bulgarian (slavic Macedonian included) was whether you were "patriarchic" in which case your kids were also being sent to a Greek school if going to school at all or "schismatic" (in which case you ended to the rival Bulgarian school). And this is how "grecomani" (Slavophone patriarchics on the Greek side of the Macedonian struggle) is still a cuss word north of the Greek border and a good word south of it. And I stop here lest we get a flamewar dropping on the good Earl's thread. That said the Bulgarian national awakening is already underway at this point and a very big part of it is opposition to the prevalent Greek influence in the church in Bulgaria.

For Albanians barring some of the Greek-Albanian or Greek-Turkish dual monarchy proposals coming to being, which seems to me unlikely, I don't really see things veering much from OTL. After all religion proved to be the important separating factor in ethnic identification all over the Balkans and near east, much more so than other factors.
 
The Bulgarian exarchate is still 40 years in the future as of 1830, it was established in 1870, promptly declared schismatic by the patriarchate of Constantinople and the schism wasn't lifted till 1945. For half a century between 1870 and the Balkan wars the standard separation line between Greek and Bulgarian (slavic Macedonian included) was whether you were "patriarchic" in which case your kids were also being sent to a Greek school if going to school at all or "schismatic" (in which case you ended to the rival Bulgarian school). And this is how "grecomani" (Slavophone patriarchics on the Greek side of the Macedonian struggle) is still a cuss word north of the Greek border and a good word south of it. And I stop here lest we get a flamewar dropping on the good Earl's thread. That said the Bulgarian national awakening is already underway at this point and a very big part of it is opposition to the prevalent Greek influence in the church in Bulgaria.

For Albanians barring some of the Greek-Albanian or Greek-Turkish dual monarchy proposals coming to being, which seems to me unlikely, I don't really see things veering much from OTL. After all religion proved to be the important separating factor in ethnic identification all over the Balkans and near east, much more so than other factors.

That’s actually really interesting, I suppose I didn’t know as much as I thought about the autocephaly. I do remember reading about the schooling and conflicts over it, though. So Bulgarian and Greek identities were already diverging along religious lines, which was really the case throughout the Balkans—religion makes the nationality. What was the situation in Thrace with the “schism”? IIRC the region was actually majority Muslim at this point.

As for Albania, I don’t think they won’t come into existence or be included in another nation, but what about the Albanians in OTL Macedonia?

Don’t worry, I’m not disagreeing with anything you say, just curious.
 
That’s actually really interesting, I suppose I didn’t know as much as I thought about the autocephaly. I do remember reading about the schooling and conflicts over it, though. So Bulgarian and Greek identities were already diverging along religious lines, which was really the case throughout the Balkans—religion makes the nationality. What was the situation in Thrace with the “schism”? IIRC the region was actually majority Muslim at this point.

As for Albania, I don’t think they won’t come into existence or be included in another nation, but what about the Albanians in OTL Macedonia?

Don’t worry, I’m not disagreeing with anything you say, just curious.

Oh I don't usually worry about disagreement. Never disagreeing becomes boring. On the other hand the flamewars back in usenet and at a times even here, with every nationalist 20 year old that wanted to educate the world, often enough never having even seen the mother country are nye kulturny as our Russian friends would say. Just a bother with no gain. :)

But anyway. As far as the vilayet of Adrianople, roughly corresponding to modern Greek and Turkish Thrace (northern parts became Bulgarian), went the grand majority if the Christian population was Greek (If memory serves 363,000 to 110,000 before the 1st Balkan war) and the difference was pretty clear cut in language as well not just religious affiliation. Going further north to Eastern Rumelia there was still a significant Greek population with high concentrations in Plovdiv/Philippoupolis and the coastal towns like Anchialos/Pomorie, Burgas (Pyrgos for the Greeks) and Mesembria/Nesebar but undoubtedly the greater majority of the Christian population was Bulgarian.

As for the Muslim populations for the bit of historical irony what became Greek Thrace was majority Muslim while what became Turkish Thrace majority Greek although they ended in reverse order in 1923. The parts that went to Bulgaria had rather high concentrations of Muslims, as can be seen to the present day, since the Neully border left Bulgaria with the northern part of the Ottoman sanjak of Gumulcine that was mostly Muslim (Pomak in particular IMS)
 
A really well-done timeline, subscribed. I must say, despite some minor objections, this is indeed the most realistic timeline I have seen of how the Greek War of Independence could have gone better for the Greeks, without verging into ASB territory.

A couple of points, anticipating the future: on Macedonia and Thrace, while the Bulgarian national consciousness had begun its awakening, in 1830 it is still way too early. Most of the populace in the area saw themselves as "Christian" or "Turk" (Muslim), national labels were not assumed until the last decades of the 19th century, and then through the active endeavours of the respective nation-states, who sent teachers and propagandists to proselytize them. IMS, as late as 1880 or so, Charilaos Trikoupis summed the situation up to the effect that whoever captures Macedonia militarily, will also determine its ethnic affiliation; if the Bulgarians, he had no doubt they would be able to make everyone a Bulgarian up to Mount Olympus, if the Greeks, then everyone would become a Greek. A better-organized and wealthier Greek state will definitely do even better than OTL in this regard.

On the Muslims in Greece, I think that unlike the mainland, where the Muslims left or were forced to leave, in Crete things will be different. The local Muslims were overwhelmingly native converts, spoke Greek, and, Cretans being Cretans,* very reluctant to leave. Even after five Christian uprisings in the 19th century, and over 20 years of de fact Christian rule, many remained on the island as late as 1923, and would never have left if not for the forcible population exchange. That might actually be an argument in favour of seeing Crete as a special case and not uniting it with Greece outright; if not, then Greece will have to deal with a substantial Muslim population in one of its most important provinces early on. Given the aspirations of the Greek elite IOTL to be a "model kingdom in the East", I don't think it likely that they will be persecuted. Luckily for the Greeks, the Muslim Cretans were mostly concentrated in the cities, so a kind of reverse Cretan Issue, with Muslim guerrillas demanding rights, is out of the cards. However, how successful their incorporation into the Greek state is will be a determining factor for the Greek state's ability to incorporate (or not) other Muslim populations in the future, in Macedonia, Thrace, and Asia Minor. It will probably be political issue of some importance in the new state, given the role of the Christian identity in the revolution, Orthodoxy's enshrining in the constitution, and the debates about Greek identity and citizenship, that characterized the period (IOTL, the 1827 constitution defined as Greek citizens prima facie those who resided in Greece and believed in Christ).

* there is a well-known joke in Greece that sums up the Cretans' attitude towards their island: "- Dad, what is localism? -Localism, my son, is thinking that your village is more beautiful than our Crete."
 
Top