I personally see no reason for Egypt to step into the Ottoman's favor and aid their overlord, where they could just do a quid pro quo with the Russians for support when they declare their independence. Most likely when the Ottoblob is in their economic crisis post-Great Eurasian War when they gotta pay their debts and rebuild their military.

Also, wondering what kind of difference a more economically prosperous Greece post-GEW ITTL will have on the Eastern Mediterranean? Could the Greeks utilize their economic weight and Russian influence to gain Cyprus earlier (of course allowing Albion to keep their bases)?

Just wondering out loud and what other people think.
 
I'm actually kind of hoping Egypt does become independent because I can't actually think of a 19th century TL where Egypt actually breaks free of the Ottomans and becomes its full, de jure own thing
 
I personally see no reason for Egypt to step into the Ottoman's favor and aid their overlord, where they could just do a quid pro quo with the Russians for support when they declare their independence. Most likely when the Ottoblob is in their economic crisis post-Great Eurasian War when they gotta pay their debts and rebuild their military.

Also, wondering what kind of difference a more economically prosperous Greece post-GEW ITTL will have on the Eastern Mediterranean? Could the Greeks utilize their economic weight and Russian influence to gain Cyprus earlier (of course allowing Albion to keep their bases)?

Just wondering out loud and what other people think.

Britain has nothing on Cyprus at the moment. It still is an island under Ottoman control.
 
Serbia will probably increase its autonomy or it might gain its independence, I haven't decided which way I want to go with this just yet, but it will definitely fall under the Russian sphere of influence.
Panslavism is on the rise already. Russia will be increasingly turning towards the Bulgarians and Serbs at Greek cost. It is not that Greece and Russia will be getting outright hostile but still between Bulgaria and Greece Russia will tend to prefer the former usually. And this brings us to the interesting question of what happens to Bulgaria TTL. If the Russians advance south of the Danube an autonomous Bulgarian principality, bordered say at the Balkan mountains makes sense.

For Serbia and Montenegro I think both should become independent with their 1878 borders.
Whilst I don't know about the idea of independence, forcing the Sultan to not only hand over Belgrade, Smederevo, Šabac, Kladavo, Užice and Soko Grad to the Serbs would be a minimum requirement in ensuring the de facto autonomy of Serbia, and, according to a new source I had just discovered(!), there was a general hope among the Serbian population that Russia's success would result in Serbia gaining more land, as it had previously done indirectly in 1833.
Čedomir Antić said:
The outbreeak of the Russo-Turkish war in 1853 marked the beginning of great hopes for the majority of Serbian politicians... After the victories in the Russo-Turkish war in 1829 Serbia was granted autonomy by the peace treaty provisions, and later the long-promised territorial expansion. The general belief prevailed in Serbia that this war as well could not be ended any differently.

~ pp. 94-95, 'Neutrality as Independence: Great Britain, Serbia and the Crimean War'
Though I still stand by much of what I had said previously on Serbia and its neutrality during this conflict, I would highly recommend giving this book a looksie, because it delves into some fascinating geopolitical struggles.

However, a point to consider with Bulgaria and Serbia is that Russia cannot hope to turn to both because the two are destined to come into conflict over their overlapping geographical interests. Whilst Bulgaria may make more sense for Russia, Serbia may be of more interest when considering the Hungarians. If someone else were to swoop in, that's a potential ally lost. And as I've pointed to in the past, Serbia is effectively destined to ally with Greece (though TTL's Crimean War's end may cause some interesting developments, based on what I've said before, and based on the book I've linked).
 
So let's move on in the immediate post-war era. Just a few observations.

1. Egypt is a crisis that will happen sooner rather than later. Ibrahim's health wasn't the best so he's liable to be dying at any time during the events underway. Egypt here is in a much stronger position militarily and economically, they've kept the right to impose their own tariffs TTL which means both a better balance of payments and their nascent industry, mostly aimed at supporting the army and navy, continued. The French connection is still there as well. The new khedive has no reason TTL to return his Syrian possessions to the Ottomans or for that matter not to proclaim himself independent sultan of Egypt. The Ottomans then would have to deal with either a new war with Egypt at the worst possible time for them or accepting the faith accompli. Neither option is very good for them. Following that independent strong Egypt will be the obvious focal point for growing Arab nationalism which means further trouble with the Ottomans down the road.

2. Lebanon is trouble waiting to happen. In OTL the Druze massacres that led to French military intervention took place in 1860. TTL Lebanon still has its own not quite royal, ruling it but tensions will still be there and things are likely to come to a head along the coming Egyptian crisis. I can see a French backed independent Lebanon (or autonomy Serbia /Bulgaria style which amounts to the same long term ) or a French protectorate over it.

3. Cyprus already had one revolution TTL. The Ottomans are much weaker the Greeks much stronger. The resources expended in support of Cretan revolts OTL are hardly needed with Crete free. A large Cypriot revolution like the Cretan 1866-1869 one seems entirely plausible to me it could be sparked by the coming Egyptian crisis. Can it succeed? That is a different question, the Cretans in 1866 came pretty close and militarily did far better than should be expected on paper both on land and sea.

4. We are fast reaching the French ushering the era of ironclads with the construction of Gloire. That puts some interesting conundrums. In OTL Abdul Aziz went into an ironclad building spread that added quite a bit of additional strain to the Ottoman economy but at least created what was on paper one of the world's most powerful navies for a time. Then it rotted at port... literally. TTL the Egyptians are also in the ironclad building game, in OTL all the ships they start building were taken over by the Ottomans. The Ottomans are in a much worse economic position, the Greeks in a far better one. Even OTL by 1890 the Greek navy dominated the Aegean, its 3 Hydra class battleships were much superior to the Ottoman ships... when the latter could leave port. More or less Greek naval superiority went on to 1914 despite an Ottoman comeback in the decade before the 1st balkan war. Do we see the Greek navy pulling ahead even earlier TTL. I think it's likely.

5. To remain on navies I very much doubt the Russians are forced to disarm the Black Sea fleet TTL. So the Russians will be building up their Black Sea fleet without an interruption, particularly given its less than stellar performance. This will have effects on the next Russo-Turkish war if unlike 1878 the sea is not dominated by the Ottomans. Added minor issue will Britain still export ships to Russia after a worse war than OTL? In OTL they did which seen from our vintage point sounds crazy, it's like USA exporting warships to the Soviets in 1950...
 
Taking a step back and looking at the whole geo political situation, depending on how bad the peace is for the ottomans and how quickly Ibrahim dies afterwards, everyone who didn’t participate in this war might pounce on them in a moment of greater weakness. Presumably the British would still be tied up in India for the next few years and unlikely to want to get involved in another ottoman war from which they gain nothing. Egypt, Cyprus, potentially Serbia, potentially Greece, and various minority could all potentially take advantage of their weakness in that moment.
 
3. Cyprus already had one revolution TTL. The Ottomans are much weaker the Greeks much stronger. The resources expended in support of Cretan revolts OTL are hardly needed with Crete free. A large Cypriot revolution like the Cretan 1866-1869 one seems entirely plausible to me it could be sparked by the coming Egyptian crisis. Can it succeed? That is a different question, the Cretans in 1866 came pretty close and militarily did far better than should be expected on paper both on land and sea.
I am a bit sceptical about a Cyprus revolution succeeding in the next10-15 years. Indeed ITTL there would be greater support from Greece but the population in Cyprus does not have a war tradition behind it, like Cretans IOTL. Not to mention the proximity to Turkey. That is why there was no revolution in the island during the Greek war of independence (although the Turks slaughtered several prominent Cypriots, including the archbishop of Cyprus).
There will be another revolution ITTL but unless the Ottoman Empire is FUBAR I don't see it succeeding without major external help. A possible scenario is a an Egyptian-Ottoman war with the Egyptians destroying the Ottoman fleet, or a war between the Ottomans and the British/French. Greece will not go into war (unless forced) in the next 10-15 years, it will be preoccupied with a major effort to absorb and develop the territory it acquired.
 
Last edited:
That's about correct..i think with the inclusion of thessaly and Epirus all major greek revolutionary centers are liberated..i am not saying that the Cypriot,macedonians and Thracians did not participate in the various revolts but that the geographical and demographic situation is not favourable to the cause in these regions
 
That's about correct..i think with the inclusion of thessaly and Epirus all major greek revolutionary centers are liberated..i am not saying that the Cypriot,macedonians and Thracians did not participate in the various revolts but that the geographical and demographic situation is not favourable to the cause in these regions
At least geographically I disagree that Cyprus isn’t favorable to a revolt. Being an island gives it some distinct advantages when rebelling, particularly if their is a navy to help prevent ottomans from getting reinforcements
 
I am a bit sceptical about a Cyprus revolution succeeding in the next10-15 years. Indeed ITTL there would be greater support from Greece but the population in Cyprus does not have a war tradition behind it, like Cretans IOTL. Not to mention the proximity to Turkey. That is why there was no revolution in the island during the Greek war of independence (although the Turks slaughtered several prominent Cypriots, including the archbishop of Cyprus).
There will be another revolution ITTL but unless the Ottoman Empire is FUBAR I don't see it succeeding without major external help. A possible scenario is a an Egyptian-Ottoman war with the Egyptians destroying the Ottoman fleet, or a war between the Ottomans and the British/French. Greece will not go into war (unless forced) in the next 10-15 years, it will be preoccupied with a major effort to absorb and develop the territory it acquired.

Geography is of course an obvious issue but there are several mitigating factors TTL I would think. To see them one by one.

1. Cyprus is close to Turkey. So it is but how much of an advantage that actually gives the Ottomans? Cilicia is very backwards at the time with a very low population. No troops can be raised in useful numbers from it, to ship out from Mersin to Cyprus. Given the lack of railroads it will be easier to ship troops directly from Constantinople and Smyrna to Limasol and Famagusta. But this actually means Cyprus is further away than Crete in terms of shipping reinforcements. There is of course Ottoman Syria but here Egypt comes into play.

2. It is relatively more difficult for Greek ships to reach Cyprus than Crete given the longer distance. It is but this pre-supposes the Ottoman navy can actually properly blockade Cyprus. In OTL it failed to stop Greek blockade runners in 1866-69 under circumstances arguably much better for it than TTL. In OTL 1866 the Ottomans did not have to worry about a Russian Black sea fleet, Russia was not allowed one in the treaty of Paris, nor to be blunt the Greek navy, that amounted to a single first class ship the steam frigate Hellas, along the blockade runners of the Cretan navy, and a number of smaller or sail ships. Here the Ottomans have less money for ships, the Greeks have a much stronger navy that will be only growing and the Russians will be building up the Black sea fleet. In short the Ottomans will have fewer ships to begin with and will not be able to commit large squadrons away from Constantinople for long periods of time between twin threats from Russia and Greece. Of course that refers to the equivalent of the 1860-1878 period. Afterwards the Ottoman Navy collapsed on itself and is not a factor. In the 1896 Cretan revolt it was the Ottomans on the island that had to deal with the Greek navy not the reverse...

3. The Cypriots have no martial tradition unlike Crete. First lets put it in some perspective? What was the Cretan military tradition in 1821? The Cretans had led several revolts against the Venetians in the late middle ages, then had fought on the side of Venice till the fall of Crete in the 1660s. Afterwards there was a small revolt in 1692 IMS and the Daskalogiannis revolt which was fast suppressed in 1770. No klephts unlike mainland Greece and in 1821 there were just 1,200 guns in Christian hands in the island. And yet the Cretans revolted and fought for a decade. There was NO Cretan war tradition in 1821, it had died in the 150 years of occupation. The Cretans made one on the battlefield and it went on afterwards. The Greek Cypriots if anything are somewhat better off, they have relatively more freedoms and there are Cypriot veterans of the Greek revolution and the Greek army to provide some cadre, along with the volunteers from the mainland liable to pour in in case of a serious revolt.

4. In 3, I wrote that that in 1821 there was no Cretan military tradition to speak off. Well that is not quite true. There was a Cretan military tradition... but it was among the Muslim Cretans. These were militarized, since the conquest every one was technically a member of the janissaries, their population was not much smaller than the Christians in 1821 and they reacted to the revolution by raising up very large forces for their population size both in 1821 and the next revolts (which ironically helped along their demographic decline). The Turkish-Cypriot population is much smaller, per the first British census it is outnumbered by the Greeks 3 to 1 and is also much less militarised than it Cretan counterpart, thus the military support it will be able to provide to the garrison of the island will be relatively limited. A well organized Cypriot revolt, if it can achieve surprise, would stand good chances of taking of capturing at least some of the fortresses of the island by coup de main...
 
Geography is of course an obvious issue but there are several mitigating factors TTL I would think. To see them one by one.

1. Cyprus is close to Turkey. So it is but how much of an advantage that actually gives the Ottomans? Cilicia is very backwards at the time with a very low population. No troops can be raised in useful numbers from it, to ship out from Mersin to Cyprus. Given the lack of railroads it will be easier to ship troops directly from Constantinople and Smyrna to Limasol and Famagusta. But this actually means Cyprus is further away than Crete in terms of shipping reinforcements. There is of course Ottoman Syria but here Egypt comes into play.

2. It is relatively more difficult for Greek ships to reach Cyprus than Crete given the longer distance. It is but this pre-supposes the Ottoman navy can actually properly blockade Cyprus. In OTL it failed to stop Greek blockade runners in 1866-69 under circumstances arguably much better for it than TTL. In OTL 1866 the Ottomans did not have to worry about a Russian Black sea fleet, Russia was not allowed one in the treaty of Paris, nor to be blunt the Greek navy, that amounted to a single first class ship the steam frigate Hellas, along the blockade runners of the Cretan navy, and a number of smaller or sail ships. Here the Ottomans have less money for ships, the Greeks have a much stronger navy that will be only growing and the Russians will be building up the Black sea fleet. In short the Ottomans will have fewer ships to begin with and will not be able to commit large squadrons away from Constantinople for long periods of time between twin threats from Russia and Greece. Of course that refers to the equivalent of the 1860-1878 period. Afterwards the Ottoman Navy collapsed on itself and is not a factor. In the 1896 Cretan revolt it was the Ottomans on the island that had to deal with the Greek navy not the reverse...

3. The Cypriots have no martial tradition unlike Crete. First lets put it in some perspective? What was the Cretan military tradition in 1821? The Cretans had led several revolts against the Venetians in the late middle ages, then had fought on the side of Venice till the fall of Crete in the 1660s. Afterwards there was a small revolt in 1692 IMS and the Daskalogiannis revolt which was fast suppressed in 1770. No klephts unlike mainland Greece and in 1821 there were just 1,200 guns in Christian hands in the island. And yet the Cretans revolted and fought for a decade. There was NO Cretan war tradition in 1821, it had died in the 150 years of occupation. The Cretans made one on the battlefield and it went on afterwards. The Greek Cypriots if anything are somewhat better off, they have relatively more freedoms and there are Cypriot veterans of the Greek revolution and the Greek army to provide some cadre, along with the volunteers from the mainland liable to pour in in case of a serious revolt.

4. In 3, I wrote that that in 1821 there was no Cretan military tradition to speak off. Well that is not quite true. There was a Cretan military tradition... but it was among the Muslim Cretans. These were militarized, since the conquest every one was technically a member of the janissaries, their population was not much smaller than the Christians in 1821 and they reacted to the revolution by raising up very large forces for their population size both in 1821 and the next revolts (which ironically helped along their demographic decline). The Turkish-Cypriot population is much smaller, per the first British census it is outnumbered by the Greeks 3 to 1 and is also much less militarised than it Cretan counterpart, thus the military support it will be able to provide to the garrison of the island will be relatively limited. A well organized Cypriot revolt, if it can achieve surprise, would stand good chances of taking of capturing at least some of the fortresses of the island by coup de main...
You make many great points and I agree of all the major Greek lands left in ottoman hands I think that Cyprus is most likely the easiest one for the Greeks to reclaim.

Depending on how defanged the a Ottomans are following the peace I wonder if we might se something akin to a Greek filibuster for the island. We know the Russians have a Greek volunteer brigade, that there are elements of the government (And presumably the military) who wanted to go to war despite the fantastic treaty, and there’s lots of Greek merchants who might be willing to donate some coin for patriotism or preferential access to new markets. I’m not saying it would succeed without outside support but I could see some attempt being made to do it by a reckless officer.
 

formion

Banned
To add my two cents, I doubt the Egyptians will send next year their army to assist the Ottomans in Anatolia in order to get their control of the southern Levant recognized de jure. Egypt had a professional army and egyptian power was firmly connected to these regulars. Allowing volunteer civilians to enlist in the Ottoman Army is one thing, to give part of their greatest asset to their strategic rival is another. At this point, they can simply declare their sovereignty over Palestine, Damascus and Hejaz. The regular Egyptian Army provides the guarantee that the national goals can be met without spilling a drop of blood or paying a single coin.

I agree with the fellow commentators that logistics-wise, it is much more difficult for Ottomans to deal with a cypriot revolt. To add on @Lascaris comment, at this point in history (before the American Civil War) there is no significant cotton production in Cilicia, so even Mersin is very underdeveloped. Actually, the only somewhat developed ports in the region are the lebanese ones.

If we take into account the OTL ottoman history, we may end up with a pattern: the Empire is involved in a major war - in TTL much more heavily than in OTL. The muslim subjects are drafted and spill their blood in defence of the Empire. The christian subjects are the ones who pay for the war in gold and silver. As the tax burden increases and trade collapses, christian subjects grumble. In remote regions, especially when the army is absent due to the war, tax-avoiders take to the mountains. The theme is common from the OTL Balkans to Lebanon: bands of half-bandits, half-freedom fighters emerge. The greater the tax burden, the greater the support they get from their communities. These bands are getting into fights with gendarmes or other militia, gaining thus experience in guerilla warfare. So it is plausible for such bands to have already formed in the Troodos Mountains in Cyprus.

We know from OTL that Mount Lebanon is a disaster waiting to happen. When Lebanon errupts, armed band activity in Troodos may intensify. If a french squadron arrives in the eastern Mediterranean, then the ottoman garrisons are cut off. Then a mass revolt starts. Afterwards, all bets are off. I think Lascaris already mentioned that in such scenario it is very plausible to have Lebanon and Cyprus gaining cretan or bulgarian-style autonomy, considering that the Porte cannot easily project power as we have already established.
 
Well I stand corrected on the Egypt matter really. I agree with what you guys said but I always saw Egypt trying to win more autonomy not independence that is why I suggested that. I also think that there is no reason for Egypt to revolt while the British are allied with the Turks. Just the Royal navy would be enough to block Egyptian trade and starve the Economy. After the was though everything is up in the air and more likely a Ottoman-Egyptian war round 3 is absolutely imminent if the Porte insists on getting Syria and Hejaz back.

On the Cyprus revolt I have some doubts. I think that if OTL there were no major revolts there it would need more than just a gentle push from the Greek side to start a wildfire there. on the other hand although the Ottomans have done much more centralizing ITTL they have a way bigger war on their plate and they might lose it as well. I think the combination of an Egyptian revolt and a heavy Greek involvement , mainly though "volunteers" and material , I would see a free Cyprus or at least an autonomous one as formion said.

Is Russia as well impacted by this bigger war? i think they already have lost more men than OTL and they are blockaded for 2 years now ,from sea only though, so that must have an impact on them in the long-run. Could the British lose India in this war? I doubt it but is is a fun thought.
 
Will greece fund more greek schools in cyprus in tts?and if so we maybe see a revolt happen but in the next decade or more depending on the situation at hand...anycase more kalamarades(a greek layman's term meaning ink-man i.e a schoolar) in cyprus would only be beneficial
 
Will greece fund more greek schools in cyprus in tts?and if so we maybe see a revolt happen but in the next decade or more depending on the situation at hand...anycase more kalamarades(a greek layman's term meaning ink-man i.e a schoolar) in cyprus would only be beneficial

More kalamarades in Cyprus, in the other sense of the word, would be certainly beneficial... (hey back way when I was in OCS together with Cypriots for several months. I can claim understanding kypraiika by immersion :p )

Puns aside the Greek state spent quite a bit supporting Greek schools beyond her borders under worse economic conditions in OTL and we want more schools than Pankyprion don't we?
 
What kind of regime did Napoleon II imposed ? Something like Napoléon's one, the one of the hundred days, more parlemantarian ? @Earl Marshal
I don't have the specifics of TTL's Second Empire completely settled yet, but I'd say Napoleon II's regime is closer to the government his father attempted to establish in the 100 Days, rather than the OTL Second Empire Napoleon III created. As he died relatively young in OTL, I don't have much to base his political beliefs off of for this timeline unfortunately, but he did receive a good - if rather conservative - education while in Austria. ITTL, he escapes his "confinement" and gets a chance to travel and see the world, spending several years in Switzerland and the United Kingdom where he is free to develop his own politic beliefs. Overall, he is definitely a monarchist, but I tend to think of him more as a constitutional monarch rather than an absolute monarch.

I wonder if now Egypt would do a similar thing as in Greek War of Independence. They demand Syria, Hejaz and Damascus permanently plus more autonomy for exchange of their good quality troops especially now that the Ottomans need troops in the East desperately. That would change a lot on that front maybe even a counterattack. Still the Sepoy Rebellion would impact British involvement but I doubt they will withdraw their current troops from Silistra maybe they send less reinforcements on that front.

The impact of this war is gonna be huge for the Ottomans even if they somehow turn the tables ,which is unlikely. They have lost thousands of men and material and they are in deep debt as well so that doesn't help either. Dark times ahead for them indeed.

This war though is not like OTL Crimean war yet, although I see the parallels with the siege of Silistra, so maybe the lessons learned from OTL Crimean war won't be learned here which would impact later wars mainly in early trench warfare and more possibly the American Civil war which comes closer and closer.

Anyways great update it was worth the wait as every other update. I would suggest maybe to cut your updates in smaller bits and giving them a week at a time so we have the updates and you will have the time. But that is up to you.
The Ottoman Empire is definitely in for a rough time ahead of it, regardless of the outcome of this war. At the end of 1855, they are already taking millions of Pounds in loans from Britain, they've suffered tens of thousands of casualties they didn't take in OTL, and the fighting is predominantly on their territory. They've already agreed to hand over some provinces to Greece, although their loss is lightened due to their general restlessness and poorness, as well as increases in British loans to sooth any rustled feathers in Constantinople. Even if they were to miraculously win the war, they likely wouldn't gain much in terms of meaningful compensation as was largely the case in the OTL Crimean War. If they lose - which is far more likely - then they'll be in an even worse state as at a minimum, they'll lose their control over Wallachia and Moldavia, and they'll probably lose some territory in Eastern Anatolia as well. Anything beyond that is dependent on how well Russia does going forward.

This war will definitely have some lessons to give, particularly the force multipliers that are rifles and percussion shells. There will also be a lot of scrutiny given to poor medical practices and logistical systems implemented on both sides after the war, and for good reason. That being said, I expect the Russians to be less inclined to modernize and reform their military apparatus ITTL, owing to their greater success, while Britain will likely accelerate their OTL reforms in response to their poorer performances.

I realize that I've been trending towards longer updates recently, the last one in particular was the longest yet at 15 pages of text or 8,913 words. My intent was to give you all more to read, but it has been been slowing my release schedule down, unfortunately. So if you all would like, I can definitely break these parts up a bit, giving you all more frequent updates and me more time to focus on other aspects of the timeline.

Thing is the Allies are running out of reserves.

The British are much more heavily involved TTL. That means much more casualties as well. Cholera, typhus and dysentery kill up to 10 times more men than russian bullets and shells. I expect all the involved armies of the 1855 danubian campaign to have melted away by the 1855-1856 winter. The blood tax for Britain is catastrophic and they will have to decide if the last trained reserves would be sent either in the Balkans or India. India seems the natural choice. If they send army reinforcements in the Balkans and it will be a big if, I expect it to be in battalions and not in brigades/divisions.

The same goes for the Ottomans. The theoretical 150,000 nizam regulars of 1854 should have almost all be either dead or wounded/incapacitated. The same goes for the majority of the trained reservists. At least in contrast to the British, the Ottomans can send waves of semi-trained men to man the trenches, although at a nightmarish cost.

The russian army will have melted as well mostly from disease. At least the Russians can send another 200k in the Danube. They cannot arm with proper equipment and logistically support hundreds of thousands of men in the front in a single season. However, they can send every year a new 200k army in the Balkans for two more campaigning seasons.
In terms of battlefield casualties, the British are actually doing quite well after a year of fighting all things considered, but they've been devastated by disease like in OTL, with Cholera and Typhus killing many thousands. Of a prewar total of 150-160k men, around half has been sent to the Balkans, a quarter was in India, and the rest was scattered across the globe in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, etc. They do have more men to call upon, but if forced to choose between India and the Ottomans, the British would choose India every time. That being said, the situation in India isn't that dire just yet, so they still have some room to maneuver.

The Ottomans in contrast, are in a very bad way right now. For simplicity's sake I'll say that there were 150-160k Nizamis ITTL at the start of the War in the Spring of 1854, most of which were in the Balkans, although a couple thousand were in the Caucasus at that time and around 200,000 reservists rounding out their armies. By the end of 1855, the Nizamis in Eastern Anatolia have been effectively wiped out, dying either from battle wounds or disease, although many deserted or simply disappeared altogether. Similarly, the number of Nizamis in the Balkans have been more than halved by casualties and illness, forcing the Porte to call upon their reservists to fill their depleted ranks. These troops are more akin to garrison troops, irregulars, or militiamen rather than professional soldiers, so as the war continues and the Ottomans are forced to rely upon these troops more and more, their fighting proficiency will gradually decrease.

Unlike the Ottomans and the British, Russia can replace its lost soldiers with its reserves, but even these are not limitless and can probably continue to fight for another two years or so at its current pace, before their losses really begin impacting their ability to fight. More than likely though, the British and Ottomans will run out of men first so at this point its a war of attrition for them. Not all is going well for Russia, however, as their economy is being destroyed by the British blockade and their minorities are beginning to make some noise, hence the need to push the offensive. There is also their increasingly terrible supply problems as you mentioned, as shortages in weapons and ammunition make it very difficult to effectively wage war.

I personally see no reason for Egypt to step into the Ottoman's favor and aid their overlord, where they could just do a quid pro quo with the Russians for support when they declare their independence. Most likely when the Ottoblob is in their economic crisis post-Great Eurasian War when they gotta pay their debts and rebuild their military.

Also, wondering what kind of difference a more economically prosperous Greece post-GEW ITTL will have on the Eastern Mediterranean? Could the Greeks utilize their economic weight and Russian influence to gain Cyprus earlier (of course allowing Albion to keep their bases)?

Just wondering out loud and what other people think.
Cyprus is still a part of the Ottoman Empire at this time, both IOTL and ITTL. The UK wouldn't get a hold of it until the Treaty of Berlin in 1878 and even then, they ruled Cyprus on "behalf" of the Ottoman Government which still held de jure control over the island. They wouldn't control it outright until 1914 when the Ottomans joined World War I against Britain.

Regarding Greece's economy post Great Eurasian War, it will definitely be much stronger once it fully integrates Thessaly, Epirus, the Ionian Islands, and the Dodecanese Islands. The real gain here is Thessaly which has some of the best farmland in all of Greece and will effectively become the breadbasket of the Greek State. The Ionian and Dodecanese Islands also have decent agriculture industries, with Zakynthos being a sizeable producer of currants and Rhodes has a number of famous vineyards, they also have talented sailors and provide Greece with several good ports. Epirus in contrast is rather lackluster, but it does a solid herding industry and there is a small tobacco industry around Ioannina, most importantly, it provides Greece with a defensible Northern border and it gives control over the entire Eastern Ionian Sea.

I'm actually kind of hoping Egypt does become independent because I can't actually think of a 19th century TL where Egypt actually breaks free of the Ottomans and becomes its full, de jure own thing
Well I won't say if Egypt becomes independent as that might spoil my future plans, but it definitely won't become a British protectorate like in OTL.

Whilst I don't know about the idea of independence, forcing the Sultan to not only hand over Belgrade, Smederevo, Šabac, Kladavo, Užice and Soko Grad to the Serbs would be a minimum requirement in ensuring the de facto autonomy of Serbia, and, according to a new source I had just discovered(!), there was a general hope among the Serbian population that Russia's success would result in Serbia gaining more land, as it had previously done indirectly in 1833.

Though I still stand by much of what I had said previously on Serbia and its neutrality during this conflict, I would highly recommend giving this book a looksie, because it delves into some fascinating geopolitical struggles.

However, a point to consider with Bulgaria and Serbia is that Russia cannot hope to turn to both because the two are destined to come into conflict over their overlapping geographical interests. Whilst Bulgaria may make more sense for Russia, Serbia may be of more interest when considering the Hungarians. If someone else were to swoop in, that's a potential ally lost. And as I've pointed to in the past, Serbia is effectively destined to ally with Greece (though TTL's Crimean War's end may cause some interesting developments, based on what I've said before, and based on the book I've linked).
Very interesting Damian, I'll definitely check out that book when I get the chance. Overall, I haven't decided on the exact details of what the Balkans will look like after this war, but Serbia will definitely be gaining more autonomy regardless of the outcome. As the war continues, the Ottomans will essentially be forced to recall their troops from Serbia, thus necessitating an agreement of some sort to prevent their rebellion and entry into the on Russia's side. While I doubt Serbia would actually declare war, the Ottomans don't know this and more importantly, they're a little short on trust right now after their dealings with Greece and Britain. I definitely agree, though that Russia will be forced to pick and choose between Serbia and Bulgaria as their competing claims will make it impossible for both of them to peacefully coexist.

Will greece fund more greek schools in cyprus in tts?and if so we maybe see a revolt happen but in the next decade or more depending on the situation at hand...anycase more kalamarades(a greek layman's term meaning ink-man i.e a schoolar) in cyprus would only be beneficial
Greece will provide as much financial and material support that it can to Greek Schools both in Cyprus and the rest of the Ottoman Empire.

Do the Greeks ITTL consider themselves Hellenoi or Rhomaioi?
By in large, the Greek citizens of the Kingdom of Greece consider themselves to be Hellenes, while those Greeks under Ottoman administration (particularly those in Constantinople, Anatolia, and the Levant) generally consider themselves to be Rhomaioi. That said, I don't think its mutually exclusive as the modern Greeks consider the Rhomaioi to simply be their Medieval ancestors so there is definitely some leeway in regards to the terminology, especially if the Greek state ever recovers Constantinople and reasserts its connections to the Basileia Rhomaion.

Egypt:
The Khedivate of Egypt will be remaining neutral in the current conflict for reasons that will soon be revealed. Hint: It has something to do with Ibrahim Pasha. That said, individual Egyptians and Arabs under Egyptian control have been joining the fight against Russia, albeit somewhere in the range of a few thousand, rather than the 40,000 they provided in OTL. Some of these men are, or rather were Egyptian soldiers, but most are not, meaning they are not as disciplined, nor are they as proficient as the OTL Egyptian contribution to the Crimean War, but at this point the Porte is thankful for every warm body that it can get.

Cyprus:
Regarding the discussion a potential revolt on the island of Cyprus, there probably won't be one during this war as Greece has effectively announced to the world via its agreement with the Porte, that it won't support further Greek partisans in the Ottoman Empire in return the cessation of the Dodecanese Islands in late 1855 and the cessation of Thessaly and Epirus at the end of the War. There is also the matter of the Royal Navy's Mediterranean Squadron which is currently operating out of the Aegean right now and wouldn't look too kindly upon Greece if it attacked their ally during a time of war.

After the war though things are a little different as the Ottoman Empire is in for a tough time ahead of it as a result of the greater financial and military burden it has had to bare ITTL. Greece, in contrast is only getting stronger, with the inclusion of Epirus, Thessaly, the Ionian Islands and the Dodecanese Islands, boosting its population to 2.2 million and strengthening its economy by a great margin, enabling the Greek military to expand accordingly. The Greek navy is particularly important to the Greek state and will likely receive substantial investments in the years ahead, enabling it to go toe to toe with the Ottoman Navy despite their comparatively small size. Whether this would result in a Greek/Cypriot victory over the Ottomans I won't say, but it is interesting to consider right now.
 
@Earl Marshal great update! I am fine with the longer updates cause they are all self contained narratives and in other stoires where author break up storires reader come away with the wrong conclusion about it cause they haven't read rest of update.
 
Top