That being said, I would argue that Greece's economic problems have to do with the political instability the country has dealt with over the past 200 years more than anything else.

They've fought three civil wars and seven foreign wars (The Greek War of Independence, the 1919-1922 Greco-Turkish War, and the Second World War were especially devastating for Greece). They've ousted four monarchs and more Prime Ministers than I can count. They've had two military dictatorships rule the country and they've created fourteen separate constitutions since 1822. Finally, they've had a terrible debt crisis since gaining its independence in 1832 that has forced them to declare bankruptcy on three/four separate occasions. So if anything, I would say Greece is doing relatively well all things considered and are actually on a bit of an upswing currently thanks to the resurgent tourist industry among other things.

Jesus, when you put it that way........ (and that's without pointing out the specific details of how much damage the Axis Occupation managed to do to Greece in the span of all of three years, by-the-by).

Although, I have to point out; the "upswing" will end up being but a temporary positive if Greece (as many expect it to) ends up requiring yet-another round of bailouts, which I'm not so sure most of the EU will be very receptive towards providing any more, which will make things even worse if they're ultimately pushed out of the Eurozone and forced to default once the government epically mishandled the transition back to the Drachma.

Now we are going into modern politics which I'm averse to do but in the hypothetical the government in 2003-2009 hadn't managed to mismanage the economy to the extent it did today we'd be talking about Greece having done quite well. But seen long term Greece still managed for quite long periods since independence to be growing faster than the European average, including rivaling Japan in growth rates in the generation post 1945, despite a very bad starting situation in 1830, catastrophic damage in ww2 and extensive economic loss in 1922.

The Third Greek Republic has had GDP-to-Debt Ratio issues since PASOK first came into power in 1981. The 2004 Olympic Games and all the cash that disappeared as a part of funding them just came along at the wrong moment - or, alternatively, the Global Financial Crisis did, I suppose, since that ultimately forced them to start being honest about the state of the Greek state's books.

Either way, the PASOK-New Democracy standing policy of "spend it and worry about it later" was always going to catch up with Greece at some point, regardless of 2008. Ponzi Schemes always run afoul ultimately by their very nature, and when it's a government running one, you can't exactly escape before people catch on to you - even if you do have the Eurocrats protecting you from prison because you're "their man" and you've brainwashed the entire nation into believing you shouldn't prosecute politicians (true story. In fact, it's one of the many gifts PASOK gave Greece when they set about re-engineering the nation top-to-bottom in order to better suit them between 1981-1989; an absolute allergy to prosecuting politicians, and an ingrained belief that politicians lying and exaggerating in their electoral promises is just "normal").



As for Greek influence throughout the Balkans and Asia Minor; The Greeks and the Serbians did actually have an agreement to split the Balkans between them in 1867 in which Serbia was to take everything up to the Iskar River (upon which the Bulgarian capital city of Sofia sits, yes) and Greece's northern border was to be the Balkan/Thracian Mountains (seriously), though the entire thing was really more of a pipe dream than anything and it seems even they themselves seem to have realised that, as they laid out "minimal goals" in the treaty, as well. Later on (1881-1907) there were also continuous efforts between Hellenophile Albanians and the Kingdom of Greece to form a Greco-Albanian Federation, but that also ultimately fell through.

On the subject of Albania, however, and also because people have brought up the Hellenophile Souliote Albanians: I'd like to point out that after the events of the Treaty of San Stefano in 1878, Greece was originally promised territorial concessions in the forms of both Epirus and Thessaly. However, Epirus ultimately ended up remaining in Ottoman hands because the initially-pro-Ottoman Albanian League of Prizren threatened a violent revolt in the town of Preveza in 1879 if the area were to be ceded to Greece. As a consequence, the Sultan used this as leverage to retain Epirus and Greece ended up receiving only Thessaly, in 1881 (Preveza was later annexed to Greece during the First Balkan War). So, while it's not the finest of examples, it should serve to give people a bit of a mental picture as to how things would've played out had Greece tried to go multi-ethnic and/or multi-religious, even with "just" Albania.

Also, I recommend people refresh themselves on "soft power", I believe it was brought up on page 54 (I finally found it). The short version being, the more money Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia have at their disposal, the more money they have to spend on their respective Churches and thus the more localised "support bases" they have in the Ottoman-controlled Balkans as they plan and prepare to eventually liberate those areas from Ottomans. Russia, for example, was supporting Bulgaria at this time before she switched over to supporting Serbia instead, so if Russia begins to see Greek influence as a threat to her plans for "Greater Bulgaria", she could very well end up attempting to counter the influence of the Church of Greece by furthering Russo-Bulgarian soft power in its place through local Church investments. After all, if the Constantinople Patriarchate took care to shut down Albanian and Italian schools in Epirus in order to further Greek influence at their expenses, what's to stop the Russians from enacting similar initiatives in Slavic Balkan strongholds?

So yeah, all-in-all, "greater Greek wealth and influence won’t change things for passionate nationalists even if it does help sway, say, the Bitola region to the Greeks" is basically the best summary of the situation following the collapse of the Byzantine Empire and 400+ years of Ottoman occupation, no matter how much one butterflies the events of the 19th Century.


Furthermore, in regards to the Megali Idea in Asia Minor; geography works against any occupying force here, because there's no natural frontier until you hit the Taurus Mountains-Euphrates River-Pontus Mountains trifecta, at which point you're occupying millions of Turks who hate every fibre of your being for a variety of reasons, not the least of which include the fact that you're an infidel who just deposed their beloved Sharia Law-supporting Sultan-Caliph in order to impose your ideas of a (by sheer necessity) secular "Aegean Race" which fly right in the face of their own ideologies (footnote: for more on this, see: Hellenoturkism - and no, that's not an endorsement, because I don't believe it's ever liable to happen). And of course, it's also worth keeping in mind that Ottoman attitudes towards the Greeks became insanely negative once they rebelled in 1821, with that particular situation only briefly changing (on the surface) after Ataturk rebuilt relations with Venizelos in the 1930s, until they once again went straight off a cliff after 1955 when Turkish ultra-nationalists incited a violent pogrom against the "Rum" Greeks of Constantinople.

In fact, on this note; the Anatolian geography thing was basically the problem with the Asia Minor Expedition from the get-go in OTL, as well. Ironically, the Pontus, while a distance away, was actually defensible (demographic issues aside), whereas the Smyrna Zone, on the other hand, was not, in large part due to the fact that the non-coastal areas were overwhelmingly dominated by Turks and would eventually have resulted in an endless guerilla-type insurgency against the Greek "occupiers." The same applies to trying to hold on to the Asian half of the Dardanelles; if you've a good enough navy and the Turks don't you can take the European half, but you'd never hold the Asian half without sheer, overwhelming military superiority, or some amazingly good man-made barriers. Of course, the Greeks had to try, but even if they did manage to pull off their insane assault on Ankara, losing Anatolia would always have just been a matter of when, not if.


Oh, and on the subject of self-identification, here's a funny story; Peter Charanis, born on the island of Lemnos in 1908 and later became a professor of Byzantine history at Rutgers University, recounts that when the island was taken from the Ottomans by Greece in 1912, Greek soldiers were sent to each village and stationed themselves in the public squares. Some of the island children ran to see what Greek soldiers looked like. ‘‘What are you looking at?’’ one of the soldiers asked. ‘‘At Hellenes,’’ the children replied. ‘‘Are you not Hellenes yourselves?’’ the soldier retorted. ‘‘No, we are Romans,’’ the children replied. (source see: bottom of page 42)

Lol.....

P.S. Sorry for the wall of text ^^

P.P.S. Since this is the first time I've actually left a message here, thanks for the Leopold, King of Greece idea that I shamelessly ripped from you, Earl Marshal :p Initially I just had Kapodistrias and Kolokotronis working together while Otto sat off in a corner either doing nothing or trying to learn from them, but then I came across this, which reminded me of Leopold's near-miss as King of Greece and it ultimately worked out great as it also allowed me to avoid Otto's unpopular wife.
 
Last edited:
P.P.S. Since this is the first time I've actually left a message here, thanks for the Leopold, King of Greece idea that I shamelessly ripped from you, Earl Marshal :p Initially I just had Kapodistrias and Kolokotronis working together while Otto sat off in a corner either doing nothing or trying to learn from them, but then I came across this, which reminded me of Leopold's near-miss as King of Greece and it ultimately worked out great as it also allowed me to avoid Otto's unpopular wife.

Speaking of his OTL wife, how is Amalie von Oldenburg doing right now? She is, alongside Alfred von Neipperg (OTL husband of Marie Friederike Charlotte von Württemberg), August Ludwig Viktor von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha (OTL husband of Marie Clémentine Léopoldine Caroline Clotilde d'Orléans) and Louise-Marie Thérèse Charlotte Isabelle d'Orléans (OTL second wife of Leopold), still not documented to have married yet. Gotta wonder how much them not marrying the spouses they had in OTL has altered their lives.
 
P.S. Sorry for the wall of text ^^

P.P.S. Since this is the first time I've actually left a message here, thanks for the Leopold, King of Greece idea that I shamelessly ripped from you, Earl Marshal :p Initially I just had Kapodistrias and Kolokotronis working together while Otto sat off in a corner either doing nothing or trying to learn from them, but then I came across this, which reminded me of Leopold's near-miss as King of Greece and it ultimately worked out great as it also allowed me to avoid Otto's unpopular wife.
That was a very informative wall of text so there's no need to apologize in my opinion.

As they say imitation is the best form of flattery, so I'm glad that this shoddy timeline helped inspire you to make your own.

Speaking of his OTL wife, how is Amalie von Oldenburg doing right now? She is, alongside Alfred von Neipperg (OTL husband of Marie Friederike Charlotte von Württemberg), August Ludwig Viktor von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha (OTL husband of Marie Clémentine Léopoldine Caroline Clotilde d'Orléans) and Louise-Marie Thérèse Charlotte Isabelle d'Orléans (OTL second wife of Leopold), still not documented to have married yet. Gotta wonder how much them not marrying the spouses they had in OTL has altered their lives.
I've been meaning to do a marriage update (mostly focusing on the Coburgs) for some time now, but I got distracted with other things.:oops: In short, Amalie is married to a neighboring German Prince (more on this at a later date), Alfred von Neipperg married his OTL first wife Countess Josefina Grisoni (who is still alive ITTL), and Princess Louise d'Orleans was married to her cousin Prince Leopold of the Two Sicilies (a similar arrangement was planned in OTL for her sister, Marie but fell through do to a debate over her dowry and inheritance).
 
Shoddy? Shoddy? This is probably the best timeline involving Greece in this period I've ever read- certainly the most detailed!
I concur with this.
I'd be careful about this marriage update, though. I once tried to research for one such update when I would update my own TL.
It went over 100 000 words.
 
Shoddy? Shoddy? This is probably the best timeline involving Greece in this period I've ever read- certainly the most detailed!
I concur with this.
I'd be careful about this marriage update, though. I once tried to research for one such update when I would update my own TL.
It went over 100 000 words.
Well I would say I am my own worst critic.;)

In all seriousness I'm very proud of the work I've put into this timeline, but there are some flaws in my opinion unfortunately. I'm not enamored with the maps I made earlier in the timeline and have been experimenting with making a better looking one recently. Some parts have discrepancies in names, dates, and events which I've had to edit later, while other updates meander aimlessly or veer too close to OTL (the second American update and Persian update come to mind). I'd also like to focus more on Greece in this timeline, but I'm at a bit of an impasse on what to do with them in between the major events, damn writer's block.:oops:

My current rough draft on marriages for Leopold's kids alone is upwards of 20,000 words already, and I was planning on including his nieces and nephews' marriages as well.:eek:
 
which parts of the tl are you hitting writer block on?
It usually comes and goes on most parts, but more often than not it rears its ugly head on the Greek updates. As this is primarily a Greek Timeline I feel as if I should be more detailed when discussing developments in Greece, which unfortunately results in the occasional Writer's Block. Its not that big of an issue fortunately, but it is still annoying when it happens.
 
It usually comes and goes on most parts, but more often than not it rears its ugly head on the Greek updates. As this is primarily a Greek Timeline I feel as if I should be more detailed when discussing developments in Greece, which unfortunately results in the occasional Writer's Block. Its not that big of an issue fortunately, but it is still annoying when it happens.
Can always ask for help like how do u guys think blob blob blob happens or blob blob will effect
 
As for Greek influence throughout the Balkans and Asia Minor; The Greeks and the Serbians did actually have an agreement to split the Balkans between them in 1867 in which Serbia was to take everything up to the Iskar River (upon which the Bulgarian capital city of Sofia sits, yes) and Greece's northern border was to be the Balkan/Thracian Mountains (seriously), though the entire thing was really more of a pipe dream than anything and it seems even they themselves seem to have realised that, as they laid out "minimal goals" in the treaty, as well. Later on (1881-1907) there were also continuous efforts between Hellenophile Albanians and the Kingdom of Greece to form a Greco-Albanian Federation, but that also ultimately fell through.

On the subject of Albania, however, and also because people have brought up the Hellenophile Souliote Albanians: I'd like to point out that after the events of the Treaty of San Stefano in 1878, Greece was originally promised territorial concessions in the forms of both Epirus and Thessaly. However, Epirus ultimately ended up remaining in Ottoman hands because the initially-pro-Ottoman Albanian League of Prizren threatened a violent revolt in the town of Preveza in 1879 if the area were to be ceded to Greece. As a consequence, the Sultan used this as leverage to retain Epirus and Greece ended up receiving only Thessaly, in 1881 (Preveza was later annexed to Greece during the First Balkan War). So, while it's not the finest of examples, it should serve to give people a bit of a mental picture as to how things would've played out had Greece tried to go multi-ethnic and/or multi-religious, even with "just" Albania.

The treaty of Vöslau, was signed at a time there was still something of up to a quarter million Greeks (probably less) in Eastern Rumelia in a population of about 800,000 (of which roughly another third was Muslim) with a much heavier presence in the urban centres like Plovdiv (Philippoupolis for the Greeks). So from the point of view of Greek nationalism their claim on the area was just as good or stronger than the Bulgarian one. Of course there was that little matter of geography...

As for a Greek-Albanian dual monarchy, I don't see how the Souliotes, language aside a Greek population, can be indicative of the stance of Albanians, that's about as practical as taking the attitudes of an Alsatian like Ferdinand Foch to determine the stance of 19th century Germans towards confederation with France. A dual-monarchy while a possibility would be getting increasingly unlikely as time progresses, by 1879 it was practically dead despite the negotiations of the previous few years. Probably the same will be happening TTL, although one can hope on friendlier relations at least. How much the 1881 border got determined by the sultan using the league of Prizren and how much by the Disraeli ministry doing its best to keep Ottoman losses to anyone but itself to an absolute minimum is a different question, after all before Gladstone coming to power it was questionable whether Greece would be actually getting any territory at all.

So yeah, all-in-all, "greater Greek wealth and influence won’t change things for passionate nationalists even if it does help sway, say, the Bitola region to the Greeks" is basically the best summary of the situation following the collapse of the Byzantine Empire and 400+ years of Ottoman occupation, no matter how much one butterflies the events of the 19th Century.

In the larger scheme of things most likely yes. Increased Greek influence TTL on the other hand does mean a stronger Greek position in what became Greek Macedonia and in the lets call contested zone to the north of it. But I wouldn't expect a border running much more that roughly the Monastir-Gevgeli-Strumica line.


In fact, on this note; the Anatolian geography thing was basically the problem with the Asia Minor Expedition from the get-go in OTL, as well. Ironically, the Pontus, while a distance away, was actually defensible (demographic issues aside), whereas the Smyrna Zone, on the other hand, was not, in large part due to the fact that the non-coastal areas were overwhelmingly dominated by Turks and would eventually have resulted in an endless guerilla-type insurgency against the Greek "occupiers." The same applies to trying to hold on to the Asian half of the Dardanelles; if you've a good enough navy and the Turks don't you can take the European half, but you'd never hold the Asian half without sheer, overwhelming military superiority, or some amazingly good man-made barriers. Of course, the Greeks had to try, but even if they did manage to pull off their insane assault on Ankara, losing Anatolia would always have just been a matter of when, not if.

There I have to disagree. This is the Toynbee line of course but one notes first that the borders of the treaty of Bucharest are still standing a century later and not likely to change any time soon, despite being far more geographically vulnerable, than an Ionian border would had been by comparison. Second that if you look at a map there ARE significant geographical obstacles that can form a defensible border for a Smyrna zone. To the south you have both the Meander/Menderes river and more significantly the Tmolus/Bozdag mountain range that runs to over 2 km in heigh. In the north you again have the Temnus (Demirci dag - Simav) mountain ranges. Which means that an invasion towards Smyrna has to mostly follow the Usak-Salihli-Smyrna route. This in turn isn't wide enough to be indefensible or for that matter to make fortifying it non economical for the defender. Not that accidental that the Sevres zone was following more or less the geography above.
 
greater Greek wealth and influence won’t change things for passionate nationalists even if it does help sway, say, the Bitola region to the Greeks
Greek influence may indeed extend quite a bit north of OTL, and in Macedonia there will be more "Grekomans", but ultimately, where the border ends up will have (just as IOTL) nothing to do with the sympathies or loyalties of the local population, and everything to do with how much land is captured by whom. Charilaos Trikoupis put it best: if the Bulgarians capture Macedonia, everyone up to Mt. Olympus will become a Bulgarian; if the Greeks take it, they will also make everyone a Greek. So if more money also means a stronger and better trained and equipped army (the Greek Army IOTL was a rabble until the 1900s and had serious deficiencies in trained staff officers until the 1920s), then good for Greece; however, with a POD that early, all bets are off, really.
 
Greek influence may indeed extend quite a bit north of OTL, and in Macedonia there will be more "Grekomans", but ultimately, where the border ends up will have (just as IOTL) nothing to do with the sympathies or loyalties of the local population, and everything to do with how much land is captured by whom. Charilaos Trikoupis put it best: if the Bulgarians capture Macedonia, everyone up to Mt. Olympus will become a Bulgarian; if the Greeks take it, they will also make everyone a Greek. So if more money also means a stronger and better trained and equipped army (the Greek Army IOTL was a rabble until the 1900s and had serious deficiencies in trained staff officers until the 1920s), then good for Greece; however, with a POD that early, all bets are off, really.
I got to believed that as greek look as greek more and more like a good potion greek nationalisms in the north will rise
 
wait so with this wave of revolution will this hit cyprus and finnaly cause them to revolt and join greece
Highly unlikely this will happen in cyprus,now the ionian islands are a different story.
And cyprus will not help greece very much at this time because it was piss poor and only got wealthy when it was annexed by the british and not to forget the distance between athens and cyprus is about the same as berlin to london and of course the turks in the island will not be so cooperative to say the least
 
Last edited:
On the subject of Albania, however, and also because people have brought up the Hellenophile Souliote Albanians: I'd like to point out that after the events of the Treaty of San Stefano in 1878, Greece was originally promised territorial concessions in the forms of both Epirus and Thessaly. However, Epirus ultimately ended up remaining in Ottoman hands because the initially-pro-Ottoman Albanian League of Prizren threatened a violent revolt in the town of Preveza in 1879 if the area were to be ceded to Greece. As a consequence, the Sultan used this as leverage to retain Epirus and Greece ended up receiving only Thessaly, in 1881 (Preveza was later annexed to Greece during the First Balkan War). So, while it's not the finest of examples, it should serve to give people a bit of a mental picture as to how things would've played out had Greece tried to go multi-ethnic and/or multi-religious, even with "just" Albania.

Also, I recommend people refresh themselves on "soft power", I believe it was brought up on page 54 (I finally found it). The short version being, the more money Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia have at their disposal, the more money they have to spend on their respective Churches and thus the more localised "support bases" they have in the Ottoman-controlled Balkans as they plan and prepare to eventually liberate those areas from Ottomans. Russia, for example, was supporting Bulgaria at this time before she switched over to supporting Serbia instead, so if Russia begins to see Greek influence as a threat to her plans for "Greater Bulgaria", she could very well end up attempting to counter the influence of the Church of Greece by furthering Russo-Bulgarian soft power in its place through local Church investments. After all, if the Constantinople Patriarchate took care to shut down Albanian and Italian schools in Epirus in order to further Greek influence at their expenses, what's to stop the Russians from enacting similar initiatives in Slavic Balkan strongholds?

So yeah, all-in-all, "greater Greek wealth and influence won’t change things for passionate nationalists even if it does help sway, say, the Bitola region to the Greeks" is basically the best summary of the situation following the collapse of the Byzantine Empire and 400+ years of Ottoman occupation, no matter how much one butterflies the events of the 19th Century.

Thanks for agreeing with me! :p

You really argue the point well in terms of how local nationalism could work out ITTL—and raise the possibility of a Russian intervention, something I hadn’t even considered but is definitely possible and would probably eliminate any advantage Greece has in soft power.

Greek influence may indeed extend quite a bit north of OTL, and in Macedonia there will be more "Grekomans", but ultimately, where the border ends up will have (just as IOTL) nothing to do with the sympathies or loyalties of the local population, and everything to do with how much land is captured by whom. Charilaos Trikoupis put it best: if the Bulgarians capture Macedonia, everyone up to Mt. Olympus will become a Bulgarian; if the Greeks take it, they will also make everyone a Greek. So if more money also means a stronger and better trained and equipped army (the Greek Army IOTL was a rabble until the 1900s and had serious deficiencies in trained staff officers until the 1920s), then good for Greece; however, with a POD that early, all bets are off, really.

And yes, fundamentally this is the most important issue. It doesn’t matter how many Greek-speaking churches are built in Strumica if the Bulgarian army puts up its flag there first and keeps it there to the end of the war. With that being said, though, soft power can sway local sympathies that can make a difference in, say, logistics.

The better Greek financial position ITTL probably allows for both greater hard and soft power—but the Russian threat that I hadn’t considered until now could negate that completely. If the Bulgarians truly feel outcompeted by Greece they can cling to the Russian mast all the way to Odrin!
 
And yes, fundamentally this is the most important issue. It doesn’t matter how many Greek-speaking churches are built in Strumica if the Bulgarian army puts up its flag there first and keeps it there to the end of the war. With that being said, though, soft power can sway local sympathies that can make a difference in, say, logistics.

The better Greek financial position ITTL probably allows for both greater hard and soft power—but the Russian threat that I hadn’t considered until now could negate that completely. If the Bulgarians truly feel outcompeted by Greece they can cling to the Russian mast all the way to Odrin!

The Greeks on the other hand had taken this into account. :p Already during the revolution Alexandros Maurokordatos was writing to Metternich of all people how any independent Greek state out of necessity would have to be a barrier to Russian expansion southwards no matter friendly sentiments. If the Russians end up backing the Bulgarians, which most likely they will, then Britain will be backing the Greeks in turn and so on...
 
The Greeks on the other hand had taken this into account. :p Already during the revolution Alexandros Maurokordatos was writing to Metternich of all people how any independent Greek state out of necessity would have to be a barrier to Russian expansion southwards no matter friendly sentiments. If the Russians end up backing the Bulgarians, which most likely they will, then Britain will be backing the Greeks in turn and so on...
we could even have greek play each them off each other or we could have a greek bismark arise?
 
we could even have greek play each them off each other or we could have a greek bismark arise?

The Greek Bismark was Venizelos, although unlike his German counterpart was a liberal. The way he played it was friendly to Russia, in 1915 he was willing to concede a Russian Constantinople although I suspect he counted on Britain and France reneging on it at the peace conference, but outright allied to Britain and France.
 
The Greeks on the other hand had taken this into account. :p Already during the revolution Alexandros Maurokordatos was writing to Metternich of all people how any independent Greek state out of necessity would have to be a barrier to Russian expansion southwards no matter friendly sentiments. If the Russians end up backing the Bulgarians, which most likely they will, then Britain will be backing the Greeks in turn and so on...
An Austro-Greco alliance might be something worthwhile to combat Russian influence in the Balkans.
The British could also be involved to contain the Russians.
 
An Austro-Greco alliance might be something worthwhile to combat Russian influence in the Balkans.
The British could also be involved to contain the Russians.

It might but Metternich had poisoned that well pretty thoroughly. Now if this time the revolutions of 1848 succeed and an Austrian republic arises from them... Of course you'll still have the issue of the Greeks likely being closer to a revolutionary Italy...
 
Top