Pride Goes Before a Fall: A Revolutionary Greece Timeline

[X Oristos]

Any Greek support for a Serb domination of land that is plainly Bulgarian, like North Macedonia, is going to be make Bulgarians and Greeks enemies over a territorry that is of no interest to the Greek National Cause.

Well, Bulgaria will clash with Greece over the rest of Macedonia. The biggest prize for both countries is the same: Salonica. In any case, just due to the geography and ethnic makeup of Macedonia (and Thrace as a secondary prize) Greece and Bulgaria are bound to clash. The only case where these nation-states won't clash is if you give Bulgaria a substantially different ethnogenesis. However, the POD is too late for such development.

That means that Greeks and Bulgarians will be enemies in any case. So Greece can either seek allies or isolate herself diplomatically.

Better to pull Bulgaria away from Russia, and direct Serbia Northwards

Other than the aforementioned diplomatic isolation of Greece there is another thing to consider in this case: There is no Austria-Hungary anymore. The main serbian targets northwards is the ottoman Bosnia. The now weak Triple Monarchy of Austria-Czechia-Croatia cannot hope to snatch the whole province. In the coming decades, a lot of the diplomatic capital of the Habsburgs will be spent in Germany and Italy. Moreover, the Croats enjoy quite a bit of autonomy in the new state. In OTL they were very loyal to the Double Monarchy and jumped into the Jugoslavia idea only after said state was collapsing. Moreover, in OTL they were included in the Lands of the Crown of St Stephen with all the drawbacks of magyarization and a much reduced voice in Budapest. Now their role in the multi-national state is much more important and they won't face a germanization.

As I see it, the Triple Monarchy is not a natural enemy as was the OTL Double Monarchy. Instead it is a potential partner. Both countries view Hungary as a rival: Burgenland and Slovakia will be targets of Austria and Czechia. Not to mention that a number of Hungarians might want to get Croatia back. Serbia wants to reunite with the Serbs in Banat.

What I see as the most plausible scenario, is Serbia and the Triple Monarchy carve up between them Ottoman Bosnia and become partners when it comes to their main regional rival: Hungary. However, if there will be no Bosnia Question, then a slice of Banat will have less value than what lies in the south: Kosovo and the Vardar valley.

To allow Serbia to have N. Macedonia is also to give credence to Pan-Slavism in the Balkans, something which is also against Greece's interests in the long run.

Actually it is the exact opposite: Panslavism is an ideology of a brotherhood and unity of slavic nations. If the two slavic nations of the Balkans are indeed friendly, then TTL's Panslavism will be orders of magnitude stronger than in OTL and a mortal danger for Greece.

In contrast, if the two slavic nations have clashing interests then by definition Panslavism is weakened.

Overall, a friendly relationship between Bulgaria and Serbia is the worst possible outcome for Greece.

A more powerful Greece will also have less of a need for a knit-tight alliance with Serbia like OTL.

A more powerful Greece will have to deal with an Ottoman Empire/Turkey that in any case will be more populous than Greece. At the same time, Greece will have to deal with a strong Bulgaria. The more powerful Greece becomes by encompassing Macedonia south of the Iron Gates and Thrace south of Rhodope, means that they control more and more of bulgarian targets. Thus, the bulgarian resentment grows. Therefore, a more powerful Greece needs Serbia as facing on her own the combination of Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria will be challenging.

Serbia will probably fall under the Russian Sphere of Influence too in the long run

Why ?

As I see it there is almost no chance that the Russians will need Serbia. In OTL there was Austria-Hungary as the regional rival. A rival that controlled Galicia with Ukrainians developing a national consciousness and that was a Great Power with clashing sphere of interests. The clashing spheres of influence do not exist in this TTL. Galicia is part of Russia as well.

In contrast, Hungary is diplomatically isolated with almost every neighbor wanting a part of them (Triple Monarchy, Serbia, Romania). Why I say almost? Russia is the one neighbor with no irredentist claims in Hungary. Instead, it is in russian interest for Transylvania to stay hungarian as a romanian Transylvania will fuel romanian nationalism and will make Romania too big a country to be a good, well-behaving satelite. Romanians might even get the notion of being a trully indepedent country. Russia would shudder at that.

So, Hungary - a potential serbian rival, not only lacks the means to pursuit a sphere of influence in the Balkans, but also is in need of russia help to keep their current territory intact.

Overall, there are precious few reasons for Serbia falling under the russian sphere of influence.

 

[Hastings]

Yeah, Bulgaria and Greece are inevitably going to clash. Bulgaria is going to want to expand into Macedonia (including South Macedonia) and Thrace. Their interests are going to clash even more than OTL. Bulgaria's border didn't end up much south of Eastern Rumelia because of defeat in the 2nd Balkan War and WWI. Any meaningful expansion by Bulgaria at the Ottoman's expense is going to result in it moving into areas that Greece has a reasonable claim to. East Thrace outside Istanbul for instance in 1910 was about 45% Greek and only 10% Bulgarian. Yet Bulgaria gained it after the 1st Balkan War before losing the 2nd. OTL Greece really wanted that area and the stronger version in ATL will even more so. As such, anything that weakens Bulgaria is good, like Serbia having North Macedonia. Even better that forces Serbia into a rivalry with Bulgaria, giving Greece a natural ally against Bulgaria.

 

[goumaister]

I wanted to aske here something. The population of TTL Greece by the 1900's how much do you see it? Can it surpass the Turkish one?

On my part I think if all goes well and Constantinople and Eastern Thrace are Greek by then we could see a population between 7-9 mill at the high end. If it remains closer to OTL WW1 borders, with a bit more of Albania and Macedonia, then maybe 6.5-7.5 mill? Just guessing here. Mainly based on the fact that OTL WW1 population was close to 6 mill but not there yet. Just adding the extra boost from industrialization and stability as well as a more wealthy populous.

To surpass the Turkish population is mainly based on if the Turks of the Balkans get absorbed by their local governments or not. Although I find it hard for the Balkan Nations to do such a thing and not to just expel the unwanted maybe they see them as extra tax and manpower to use against their rivals. Now if they stay maybe the Greeks gain parity with the Turks , in their nation-states, by 1920 if not that goes to the 1940's-50's. Now a united Yugoslavia is a contester here as is a united Romania so I want to know your predictions or thoughts here.

 

[emperor joe]

Well the greek population in the current territory in 1900 will be around 4 million people give or take

 

[Lascaris]

I wanted to aske here something. The population of TTL Greece by the 1900's how much do you see it? Can it surpass the Turkish one?

On the current borders? 3,735,695. Why I had taken my projections up to 1912.

 

[goumaister]

On the current borders? 3,735,695. Why I had taken my projections up to 1912.

Oh right! you had compiled an amazing spreadsheet with both economy and population! So I would extend this question to the 1900 borders of TTL Greece rather than the current ones as well as the comparison to the other Balkan populations.

 

[Quinkana]

I just want to ask about how Anatolia's borders be like ittl.

Before WWI the Greeks were the majority on the coast while the Armenians are in Eastern Anatolia. If the Turks want to control most of Anatolia those areas have to be cleansed of all Greeks, Kurds, Armenians and Christian Laz people before it can be Turkish.

With the Greeks being much more powerful ittl Greece should just execute the Megali plan and try to minimise Muslim control of Anatolia as much as possible by encouraging and arming the Armenians and Assyrians against their Muslim oppressors.

Greece gains everything from enacting the Megali plan and ensuring Adana is not in Turkic hands. The Megali plan would cripple Turkey and helping the Armenians in the Med would ensure the Turks have no industrial capacity and no sea ports to challenge Greece in any sea. Thing is, Greece would be even more likely to succeed than otl because of a much better king and much more stable politics while Turkey will suffer as political instability ensures they can't prevent the slow but inevitable destruction of their empire as what happened in otl. The major factor here is that Greece even with the amount of setbacks they had they were able to almost beat Turkey in 1920 and would have done so if chance events didn't occur. If Turkey is able to beat Greece its because Turkey got an abnormally good run after the 1850s and would be even more of a Turk wank than a Greek wank.

Armenian Cilicia and Assyria also would be states that could be carved out when the Turks are dead and dying, and both states would be relatively prosperous states that would have some sort of industrial capacity that the Greeks would gladly cultivate. There's no way when Greece is enacting its Megali plan in maybe before 1900 that they don't influence Armenian Cilicia by fermenting rebellion and sending supplies to Assyrian rebels near Lake Van.

Basically, I think that having the Greeks beat the Turks and make Turkey a failed state with the Armenians and Assyrians is more plausible in this tl because otl got close and otl was half a Greekscrew when Venizelos got fucked over when the Greco-Turkish war was still ongoing. I believe Greece would only have lost that war with utterly incompetent leadership and that's what happened otl. Seeing Turkey being like the rest of the Middle east and various Christian powers being much more powerful than otl while having to battle the Islamic powers would be fascinating and would propel the world to a direction very different from otl which would be something that I'd like to read. Also the fact that the Armenian and Assyrian genocides occurred and how it is treated in reality just makes me uncomfortable as heck.

 

[danybhoy]

I just want to ask about how Anatolia's borders be like ittl.

Before WWI the Greeks were the majority on the coast while the Armenians are in Eastern Anatolia. If the Turks want to control most of Anatolia those areas have to be cleansed of all Greeks, Kurds, Armenians and Christian Laz people before it can be Turkish.

With the Greeks being much more powerful ittl Greece should just execute the Megali plan and try to minimise Muslim control of Anatolia as much as possible by encouraging and arming the Armenians and Assyrians against their Muslim oppressors.
View attachment 715589
Greece gains everything from enacting the Megali plan and ensuring Adana is not in Turkic hands. The Megali plan would cripple Turkey and helping the Armenians in the Med would ensure the Turks have no industrial capacity and no sea ports to challenge Greece in any sea. Thing is, Greece would be even more likely to succeed than otl because of a much better king and much more stable politics while Turkey will suffer as political instability ensures they can't prevent the slow but inevitable destruction of their empire as what happened in otl. The major factor here is that Greece even with the amount of setbacks they had they were able to almost beat Turkey in 1920 and would have done so if chance events didn't occur. If Turkey is able to beat Greece its because Turkey got an abnormally good run after the 1850s and would be even more of a Turk wank than a Greek wank.

Armenian Cilicia and Assyria also would be states that could be carved out when the Turks are dead and dying, and both states would be relatively prosperous states that would have some sort of industrial capacity that the Greeks would gladly cultivate. There's no way when Greece is enacting its Megali plan in maybe before 1900 that they don't influence Armenian Cilicia by fermenting rebellion and sending supplies to Assyrian rebels near Lake Van.

Basically, I think that having the Greeks beat the Turks and make Turkey a failed state with the Armenians and Assyrians is more plausible in this tl because otl got close and otl was half a Greekscrew when Venizelos got fucked over when the Greco-Turkish war was still ongoing. I believe Greece would only have lost that war with utterly incompetent leadership and that's what happened otl. Seeing Turkey being like the rest of the Middle east and various Christian powers being much more powerful than otl while having to battle the Islamic powers would be fascinating and would propel the world to a direction very different from otl which would be something that I'd like to read. Also the fact that the Armenian and Assyrian genocides occurred and how it is treated in reality just makes me uncomfortable as heck.

There are not enough Armenians in Cilicia compared to muslims for it to be a viable state. Unless, Armenian genocide still happens and Armenians flee western Armenia into Cilicia while Muslims flee out or are expelled. Also that map somewhat exaggerates the Armenian majority areas especially after Hamidian massacres.

 

[Leonidas]

Another day, another "Greece Stronk, Turkey Delenda Est" post in the PGBF thread 😐

 

[Earl Marshal]

Hey everyone, I hope you're all doing well. As you can see, the rumors of my demise were vastly exaggerated. I'm still very much alive and I can happily inform you all that this timeline will be resuming in very short order.

I wanted to aske here something. The population of TTL Greece by the 1900's how much do you see it? Can it surpass the Turkish one?

On my part I think if all goes well and Constantinople and Eastern Thrace are Greek by then we could see a population between 7-9 mill at the high end. If it remains closer to OTL WW1 borders, with a bit more of Albania and Macedonia, then maybe 6.5-7.5 mill? Just guessing here. Mainly based on the fact that OTL WW1 population was close to 6 mill but not there yet. Just adding the extra boost from industrialization and stability as well as a more wealthy populous.

To surpass the Turkish population is mainly based on if the Turks of the Balkans get absorbed by their local governments or not. Although I find it hard for the Balkan Nations to do such a thing and not to just expel the unwanted maybe they see them as extra tax and manpower to use against their rivals. Now if they stay maybe the Greeks gain parity with the Turks , in their nation-states, by 1920 if not that goes to the 1940's-50's. Now a united Yugoslavia is a contester here as is a united Romania so I want to know your predictions or thoughts here.

Currently, the population of Greece stands around 2.2 million people as of 1860 ITTL and I believe @Lascaris' figure of 3.7 million is fair for the current borders in 1912 ITTL. If we use OTL's census data as a rough estimate, then the addition of Macedonia, Western Thrace and the North Aegean Islands should add about 1.5 million people to Greece. Then if we add Eastern Thrace and Constantinople to this, we get another million people added to the Kingdom of Greece's population, giving us a total of around 6.2 million people.

Of this sum, roughly 4.5 million would be Christians and about 1.7 million would be Muslims. Most of the Christian populace would be Greek, but a very large minority would be Bulgarians, especially in Macedonia and Thrace. Similarly, the Muslim population would be predominantly Turkish, but a small percentage would be Albanians, Pomaks, and Greek Muslims. While I'm not entirely sure, I would presume that most of the Turks would depart for the rump Ottoman Empire/Turkish state, whereas most of the Greek populations in Anatolia would eventually be forced to leave for Greece.

Going further, if we also add the island of Cyprus and the coastal regions of the Aydin and Bursa Vilayets - representing the furthest extent that Greece could reasonably expand ITTL - then we get another 3 million people added to the Greek state for a total of ~9 million people by the 1910's. However, many of these additions here would be Turks (roughly 2 million people) which would definitely upset the delicate demographic balance in the State being about 50-50 Christian/Muslim in such a case. As such, I don't believe the Greeks would expand too far from the coast and only venture further inland to secure strategically important positions. Now these Turkish populations could and probably will be offset by the arrival of Greeks and Armenians from the rest of Anatolia, but my guess is they will engage in a fair amount of ethnic cleansing and forced expulsions to more firmly secure their new territories in Asia Minor.

Overall, I could see the population of Greece being somewhere in the ballpark of 20-30 million by present day ITTL, owing to greater growth rates and less emigration thanks to a stronger economy, less political turmoil, and more territory to settle. Even still, I don't see them surpassing the Turkish population which could still be upwards of 40-50 million even with their smaller borders, just owing to their higher starting population and their greater growth rates.

I just want to ask about how Anatolia's borders be like ittl.

Before WWI the Greeks were the majority on the coast while the Armenians are in Eastern Anatolia. If the Turks want to control most of Anatolia those areas have to be cleansed of all Greeks, Kurds, Armenians and Christian Laz people before it can be Turkish.

With the Greeks being much more powerful ittl Greece should just execute the Megali plan and try to minimise Muslim control of Anatolia as much as possible by encouraging and arming the Armenians and Assyrians against their Muslim oppressors.
View attachment 715589
Greece gains everything from enacting the Megali plan and ensuring Adana is not in Turkic hands. The Megali plan would cripple Turkey and helping the Armenians in the Med would ensure the Turks have no industrial capacity and no sea ports to challenge Greece in any sea. Thing is, Greece would be even more likely to succeed than otl because of a much better king and much more stable politics while Turkey will suffer as political instability ensures they can't prevent the slow but inevitable destruction of their empire as what happened in otl. The major factor here is that Greece even with the amount of setbacks they had they were able to almost beat Turkey in 1920 and would have done so if chance events didn't occur. If Turkey is able to beat Greece its because Turkey got an abnormally good run after the 1850s and would be even more of a Turk wank than a Greek wank.

Armenian Cilicia and Assyria also would be states that could be carved out when the Turks are dead and dying, and both states would be relatively prosperous states that would have some sort of industrial capacity that the Greeks would gladly cultivate. There's no way when Greece is enacting its Megali plan in maybe before 1900 that they don't influence Armenian Cilicia by fermenting rebellion and sending supplies to Assyrian rebels near Lake Van.

Basically, I think that having the Greeks beat the Turks and make Turkey a failed state with the Armenians and Assyrians is more plausible in this tl because otl got close and otl was half a Greekscrew when Venizelos got fucked over when the Greco-Turkish war was still ongoing. I believe Greece would only have lost that war with utterly incompetent leadership and that's what happened otl. Seeing Turkey being like the rest of the Middle east and various Christian powers being much more powerful than otl while having to battle the Islamic powers would be fascinating and would propel the world to a direction very different from otl which would be something that I'd like to read. Also the fact that the Armenian and Assyrian genocides occurred and how it is treated in reality just makes me uncomfortable as heck.

As interesting as an independent Armenian Cilicia would be, that ship has long since sailed in my opinion and would likely require an earlier POD for it to be truly viable long term. Now that's not to say its impossible or that it won't be attempted ITTL, especially if Armenians flee into the region and Turks flee out as @danybhoy suggested. The region is quite defensible nestled between the Taurus and Nur mountains; its also quite prosperous economically and has some of the best farmland in Anatolia so I think an attempt could be made. However, I believe that it would be prone to civil unrest, making such a state unlikely to survive long term barring a lot of help.

An independent Assyria is more viable than Cilicia, but it will still require outside help to ensure its survival ITTL. Nevertheless, a stronger Armenia and an independent Assyria would definitely be beneficial to Greece as they would provide potential allies against a revanchist Turkish state. Moreover, a stronger Greece does make the likelihood of a larger Armenia and independent Assyria more likely as well as it would in effect mean a weaker Ottoman Empire/Turkish state.

Armenia is almost certainly going to be better off than OTL as much of the Armenian Highlands is now under Russian control after their recent war with the Ottomans. While these borders likely aren't permanent and hostilities between the two states are bound to happen in the future, this does bring several tens of thousands of Armenians under Russian "protection" for the time being.

In short, the Ottoman Empire/Turkish state will likely be weaker than OTL, but it definitely won't be a failed state.

Regarding Greco-Bulgarian Relations:
Sadly, I'm under the impression that hostilities between the Greeks and Bulgarians were inevitable over their competing claims to Thessaloniki, Macedonia, Thrace and Constantinople. Greece does have a stronger hand right now as they are independent and Bulgaria is not, but that didn't stop the Bulgarians from trying in OTL despite gaining their independence more than forty years after the Greeks.

Now, where things might diverge is the fact that Greece is much stronger economically, demographically, and territorially relative to OTL. This could change things in their favor here, as they are in a far better position to gain control over some if not all of the territory in question before the Bulgarians can even form a functioning state, effectively presenting the Bulgarians with a fait accompli. Either way, the next few years will be crucial to determining what the dynamic between them will be.

 

[Duke of Orlando]

There are not enough Armenians in Cilicia compared to muslims for it to be a viable state. Unless, Armenian genocide still happens and Armenians flee western Armenia into Cilicia while Muslims flee out or are expelled. Also that map somewhat exaggerates the Armenian majority areas especially after Hamidian massacres.

While the map certainly is very pro Christian, saying that an Armenian state would be unviable also seems a bit strong. The area is about to go through a large economic boom, is incredibly diverse with many minorities, and is very defensively placed. Especially if my concept for a British Cilicia comes to pass. Maybe they provide incentives for Christian minorities to move to the area, as the boom attracted a lot of Alawite OTL.

I’m not saying it’s a sure thing, or would be particularly stable early on. But I don’t think it’s unviable. Particularly if the British/Greeks/whoever prop it up.

And while writing that Earl Marshall said something similar.

 

[ThatRomanFanatic]

Another day, another "Greece Stronk, Turkey Delenda Est" post in the PGBF thread 😐

I’d prefer Greece just takes Constantinople and then after that everything cools off and everyone becomes good buddies

 

[cmakk1012]

I’d prefer Greece just takes Constantinople and then after that everything cools off and everyone becomes good buddies

OTL the ideological seismic shifts after the World Wars managed to encourage this (to some extent; obviously there are still some tensions between Greece and Turkey). ITTL there’ll need to be a similar rise of globalism or at least global diplomacy to discourage rampant nationalism tainting international relations in the region. I also hope that this can eventually occur ITTL!

 

[Quinkana]

So @Earl Marshal how much of Asia minor does Greece end up controlling? I ask that since as Greece controls more of Western Anatolia the less industrial capacity the Turks have since in otl Turkish industry is mostly around western Anatolia and Cilicia. Where would Turkey's industry be located ittl since their traditional industrial regions will be too exposed to Greece's armies and navy. In the Pontus? Then it's exposed to Russia which is also not great?

 

[Lascaris]

OTL the ideological seismic shifts after the World Wars managed to encourage this (to some extent; obviously there are still some tensions between Greece and Turkey). ITTL there’ll need to be a similar rise of globalism or at least global diplomacy to discourage rampant nationalism tainting international relations in the region. I also hope that this can eventually occur ITTL!

I'll note that the Balkans are usually accused about this but till oh 1945 the rest of Europe hardly differed at all.

 

[Aristomenes]

I know that we are all eager to see how will Greece develop and expand, but we are still at the end of the 1850's. Talking about what parts of Asia Minor will Greece control in the 20th century is like putting the cart before the horse! Many things could still go wrong for Greece and we may witness a completely different (and perhaps earlier) WWI.

 

[Sky Alkemade]

Let's not forget that in any major war between Greece and Turkey where Greece would win, they would not be the one to be in control of the peace. At the end of the day it will be the major powers who decide what happens to Turkey. It would not surprise me that Greece manages an early Victory against turkey and end up being forces to take minimum terms in the peace conference so that turkey maintains as a buffer state. Only war exhausted or distracted great powers can allow Greece to reach anything close to the megali idea

 

[Quinkana]

Let's not forget that in any major war between Greece and Turkey where Greece would win, they would not be the one to be in control of the peace. At the end of the day it will be the major powers who decide what happens to Turkey. It would not surprise me that Greece manages an early Victory against turkey and end up being forces to take minimum terms in the peace conference so that turkey maintains as a buffer state. Only war exhausted or distracted great powers can allow Greece to reach anything close to the Megali idea.

I do agree with you, and I think the Greeks know this just as well as the Turks. The Greeks would see alt WWI as a great opportunity to take Turkish land. I'd think at maximum Greece could take lands from Bithynia to Lycia in Anatolia since they're all coastal provinces that Greece would covet. I don't think Greece would be able to take more coast because it would be too exposed to everyone (Russia for example) and would be too much for the navy to protect against the Turks, and that Turkey would primarily be a land power. If Turkey loses these provinces though Turkey would be in a really rough spot. Turkey loses any control of the Aegean sea and the sea of Marmara, and would lose most of its industrial capacity. That's why I would say Turkey would be a 'failed' state.

Even if Greece takes Constantinople only in the third Russo-Turkish war in 1878, those regions would immediately be at risk of Greek attack because nothing would stop Greece from attacking them again in another war, crippling Turkey's industrial capacity so that the Greeks can come back and take the provinces. Basically in the alternate first Balkan wars if Greece already has Constantinople Turkey's industry is at incredible risk even if Greece doesn't take Western Anatolia, as Turkey's navy will not be able to protect it.

These are the losses of the Ottoman empire in the Russo-Turkic war in 1870, where Serbia, Montenegro, Romania and Bulgaria all got their independence. I think a more prosperous Greece ittl would most likely result in the Greeks around Thessaloniki (Eastern Macedonia?) and East Thrace revolt and have 'volunteers' secure the regions from the Ottomans, which should be largely successful. That would result in the Ottomans losing all of the Balkan region since the Ottomans will have no control over the mainland Balkans when East Thrace is in Greek hands. I think Britain will play a similar role in the Russo-Turkish war of 1877 in ittl as otl (which is being opportunistic) and annex Cyprus or have the Greeks politically rule Cyprus but have British naval bases on the island. Constantinople would still be in Turkic hands because the Russians don't want it in Greek (and in extension British) hands. I have no idea if Greece would be able to take Constantinople ittl.

I think after this the Ottomans would basically have no control over the Balkans because the Albanians won't be able to be connected to the Ottomans. Greece or Britain would most likely have an Albanian protectorate/puppet.

I also think Britain and Greece would be trying to cause other majority Christian areas to rebel (the Levant Christians/ Assyrians if Britain successfully convinces the Levant Christians that they are also Assyrian. Considering they do speak an Aramaic influenced language if the Brits do it well the Assyrians will have a coast) and the Armenians in Cilicia while Greece would continue trying for the Megali plan. That kinda leaves the Pamphylia and Paphlagonia regions as the coasts that are solidly Turkish since Greece can't exert their influence there. I'd also see the Pontic Greeks and Armenians in Eastern Anatolia being subject to expulsions and attempted genocide which will cause the western powers to dislike Turkey more.

Since Russia cannot hold Kars ittl my prediction is that Russia would create a small Armenian puppet state in Kars so they can de facto control it, which seems like the most obvious solution to Russia not being able to secure Kars. That would jumpstart Armenian nationalism and I think Britain would use this to form Armenian Cilicia.

Tldr: Greece is already more territorially close to Thessaloniki and East Thrace and it being more prosperous would result in both regions revolting in the 1877 Russo-Turkish war which would result in the Ottomans losing the Balkans. Greece would either strike northwards for a more defensive line which will be less important than going Eastwards for the Greek-rich Western Anatolia which is also the industrial heartlands of the Ottoman empire and Turkey. Turkey would be in a much weaker position due to this as revolts of Greeks in Western Anatolia after 1877 may occur (I'd think a provision that the powers would ensure Turkey follows is to not harm any Christians still living within the Empire) and Turkey's industries will be at risk due to its exposed position to the Greek navy which is already much better than otl. The Ottoman's position should be weaker than otl and continue to become poorer since they would become more discriminatory against the Christian minorities still in the empire which would decrease investment in the empire and would promote even more unrest from regions such as Armenia and Assyria. That's why I think there is a very good chance Turkey ends up much worse than otl due to this.

PS: would we see the Arevakhach be featured on the Armenian flag? It seems like quite the prominent symbol in Armenian culture and I find it weird that it is not on the Armenian flag. I'd see this being the symbol early rebels put on their flags and be put on the official national flag later. It's quite distinctive and would look great on a flag. Something like this:

Or even with the version with the six-pointed star.

 

[Flosgon78]

Hey everyone, I hope you're all doing well. As you can see, the rumors of my demise were vastly exaggerated. I'm still very much alive and I can happily inform you all that this timeline will be resuming in very short order.


Currently, the population of Greece stands around 2.2 million people as of 1860 ITTL and I believe @Lascaris' figure of 3.7 million is fair for the current borders in 1912 ITTL. If we use OTL's census data as a rough estimate, then the addition of Macedonia, Western Thrace and the North Aegean Islands should add about 1.5 million people to Greece. Then if we add Eastern Thrace and Constantinople to this, we get another million people added to the Kingdom of Greece's population, giving us a total of around 6.2 million people.

Of this sum, roughly 4.5 million would be Christians and about 1.7 million would be Muslims. Most of the Christian populace would be Greek, but a very large minority would be Bulgarians, especially in Macedonia and Thrace. Similarly, the Muslim population would be predominantly Turkish, but a small percentage would be Albanians, Pomaks, and Greek Muslims. While I'm not entirely sure, I would presume that most of the Turks would depart for the rump Ottoman Empire/Turkish state, whereas most of the Greek populations in Anatolia would eventually be forced to leave for Greece.

Going further, if we also add the island of Cyprus and the coastal regions of the Aydin and Bursa Vilayets - representing the furthest extent that Greece could reasonably expand ITTL - then we get another 3 million people added to the Greek state for a total of ~9 million people by the 1910's. However, many of these additions here would be Turks (roughly 2 million people) which would definitely upset the delicate demographic balance in the State being about 50-50 Christian/Muslim in such a case. As such, I don't believe the Greeks would expand too far from the coast and only venture further inland to secure strategically important positions. Now these Turkish populations could and probably will be offset by the arrival of Greeks and Armenians from the rest of Anatolia, but my guess is they will engage in a fair amount of ethnic cleansing and forced expulsions to more firmly secure their new territories in Asia Minor.

Overall, I could see the population of Greece being somewhere in the ballpark of 20-30 million by present day ITTL, owing to greater growth rates and less emigration thanks to a stronger economy, less political turmoil, and more territory to settle. Even still, I don't see them surpassing the Turkish population which could still be upwards of 40-50 million even with their smaller borders, just owing to their higher starting population and their greater growth rates.


As interesting as an independent Armenian Cilicia would be, that ship has long since sailed in my opinion and would likely require an earlier POD for it to be truly viable long term. Now that's not to say its impossible or that it won't be attempted ITTL, especially if Armenians flee into the region and Turks flee out as @danybhoy suggested. The region is quite defensible nestled between the Taurus and Nur mountains; its also quite prosperous economically and has some of the best farmland in Anatolia so I think an attempt could be made. However, I believe that it would be prone to civil unrest, making such a state unlikely to survive long term barring a lot of help.

An independent Assyria is more viable than Cilicia, but it will still require outside help to ensure its survival ITTL. Nevertheless, a stronger Armenia and an independent Assyria would definitely be beneficial to Greece as they would provide potential allies against a revanchist Turkish state. Moreover, a stronger Greece does make the likelihood of a larger Armenia and independent Assyria more likely as well as it would in effect mean a weaker Ottoman Empire/Turkish state.

Armenia is almost certainly going to be better off than OTL as much of the Armenian Highlands is now under Russian control after their recent war with the Ottomans. While these borders likely aren't permanent and hostilities between the two states are bound to happen in the future, this does bring several tens of thousands of Armenians under Russian "protection" for the time being.

In short, the Ottoman Empire/Turkish state will likely be weaker than OTL, but it definitely won't be a failed state.

Regarding Greco-Bulgarian Relations:
Sadly, I'm under the impression that hostilities between the Greeks and Bulgarians were inevitable over their competing claims to Thessaloniki, Macedonia, Thrace and Constantinople. Greece does have a stronger hand right now as they are independent and Bulgaria is not, but that didn't stop the Bulgarians from trying in OTL despite gaining their independence more than forty years after the Greeks.

Now, where things might diverge is the fact that Greece is much stronger economically, demographically, and territorially relative to OTL. This could change things in their favor here, as they are in a far better position to gain control over some if not all of the territory in question before the Bulgarians can even form a functioning state, effectively presenting the Bulgarians with a fait accompli. Either way, the next few years will be crucial to determining what the dynamic between them will be.

I am looking forward to read the next part !

 

[GoukaRyuu]

Greece gaining Crete

I thought they had already gotten Crete in this timeline.