This needs mostly, a POD before 1204 AD.
What was Greece’s best chance to reclaim Constantinople?
- Thread starter Chungus Maximus
- Start date
A quick glance at this article suggests a new war during the negotiations for the Treaty of Lausanne: http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/1493/1/U111287.pdf. From pages 185 onwards, it talks about the Greeks threatening to break off the talks over disputes involving reparations and a border dispute and there was fears of a new war breaking out. What if the negotiations were broken off and the Greek army attacked? From what I can remember the main part of the Turkish army was in Anatolia and their fleet was under allied command or was scuttled. The Greek army could reached Constantinople with the Greek fleet blocking the straits and the Turkish army unable to cross, with the islands of Tenedos, Imbros and Eastern Thrace also coming under control. Whether Constantinople could be annexed by the Greeks if another matter as it depends on the allied powers, although it could be a fait accompli since the Turkish army can't cross.
There was a timelime on that premise it was called the guns of Lausanne but you will have to look it up in google because it's not in here
If the Greeks avoided or limited their entanglement in Anatolia, they might also avoid losing eastern Thrace. If that's the case, they may be in a position to slide into Istanbul once the allies grew tired of garrisoning the city. It would have likely led to (another) war with Ataturk, but the lines of communication would have been more favorable to the Greeks than was the case with Izmir. The Turks on the other hand would have had to cross the Bosporus. Not a huge obstacle by any means, but more difficult than squeezing the Greeks embedded in the area around Izmir. All in all it seems to me that while the Greeks might ultimately fail, they had better odds, maybe much better odds, to capture Istanbul than Izmir.
TBH, I think it's more likely that a cosmopolitain Greco-Armeno-Turkish state based around the Smyrna/Aidin region to emerge rather than Greece just taking it all. Greece for a lot of it's early modern history was both trying to play catch up and trying to figure out what it was going to be. Was Greece going to claim to be a descendant of the Roman Empire? Was Greece going to become a Monarchy? Republic? Something entirely different? Not to mention transitioning from "very loosely handled Ottoman colony" to "independent nation." IIRC around the time of WWI, Greece wasn't even really in a place to participate in the war at all, much less try to take land. Notice how I don't say retake land. This is because a lot of the areas Byzantophiles feel like Greece "should" take is going to be mostly assimilated into Turkish Islamic society at this point, and so Greece would either have to tolerate a massive Turkish presence in their lands right next to a very angry resurgent Turkey, or do Armenian Genocide level atrocities that will loose them support of both the Orthodox Church and the International Community in general.
I agree with most of what you have written but why would the orthodox church denounce Greece in that scenario? Seriously the turks have done some pretty nasty stuff to christians in the decades before WWI and than you have the Armenian genocide during the war. And depending what Greece does with the local turks - ejecting them from the territory though it would have been most likely a very inhuman and horrific process it wouldnt have differed that much from what was going on in other part of Europe at the time and however bad would have still been likely much less bloody than the armenian genocide.
Edit: also a disclaimer: I dont think that Greece should have gotten Istanbul/Constantinople afte WWI but I wouldnt really mind if they ended up with it either. Im also not proposing any "solution" to the possible problem of big number of turkish people ending up in Greece in this scenario - seeing the trends of the time I just write what I think would most likely have happened.
Skallagrim
Banned
As has been noted already, all these options are extremely long shots. I'd call World War I the most realistic, provided that it's an ATL version of the war, with a different outcome surrounding Anatolia. You might then see a scenario where the victorious powers are willing to back an enlarged Greece at the expense of a more harshly punished Turkey.
The more realistic option, however, is an ATL where Catherine the Great gets her wish regarding her Greek Plan a.k.a. "Back to Byzantium". The obvious POD would be Prince Potemkin (the plan's foremost advocate) not getting distracted with a bungled intervention in Persia. He later admitted that this delayed his anti-Ottoman ambitions, and had been a big mistake. If Potemkin realises this at the time, he'll focus on seeing the Greek Plan carried out. The Austro-Russian talks to plan a joint campaign will occur years earlier, as will the actual campaign. Since the campaign in OTL suffered from randomly terrible luck (disease wiped out substantial parts of the Austrian forces), one can realistically say that the ATL war might well go better for the Austro-Russian alliance. In OTL, Austria was also forced to redirect all its attention away when the French Revolution broke out. In the ATL, the campaign would be just about over when that happens.
All of these factors could easily conspire to create a situation where Russia creates a rather large Greek/Neo-Byzantine state, with Grand Duke Konstantin as its first monarch. Thus, you get Russia-backed Mega-Greece, and at a time when the oher powers are all otherwise occupied and can't prevent it. That's easily the most effective (and most-likely-to-succeed) way to get the job done.
The more realistic option, however, is an ATL where Catherine the Great gets her wish regarding her Greek Plan a.k.a. "Back to Byzantium". The obvious POD would be Prince Potemkin (the plan's foremost advocate) not getting distracted with a bungled intervention in Persia. He later admitted that this delayed his anti-Ottoman ambitions, and had been a big mistake. If Potemkin realises this at the time, he'll focus on seeing the Greek Plan carried out. The Austro-Russian talks to plan a joint campaign will occur years earlier, as will the actual campaign. Since the campaign in OTL suffered from randomly terrible luck (disease wiped out substantial parts of the Austrian forces), one can realistically say that the ATL war might well go better for the Austro-Russian alliance. In OTL, Austria was also forced to redirect all its attention away when the French Revolution broke out. In the ATL, the campaign would be just about over when that happens.
All of these factors could easily conspire to create a situation where Russia creates a rather large Greek/Neo-Byzantine state, with Grand Duke Konstantin as its first monarch. Thus, you get Russia-backed Mega-Greece, and at a time when the oher powers are all otherwise occupied and can't prevent it. That's easily the most effective (and most-likely-to-succeed) way to get the job done.
Honestly, I think to "reclaim" it you're likely going to have to think of it as Byzantion, but the best PoD is (IMO) to change the independence movement. Instead of focusing on Greek identity, focus on the Roman identity in contrast to that of the Ottoman Turks. My understanding is that you'd have wider appeal, and oddly enough, a lot of that appeal would be in Constantinople - it's last and greatest capital.
But that might not fit with the presumed precondition that an independent Hellas is Greek rather than Roman.
But that might not fit with the presumed precondition that an independent Hellas is Greek rather than Roman.
They couldn't - because it's Istanbul, not Constantinople, and that's nobody's business but the Turks'. So if you've got a date in Constantinople, she'll be waiting in Istanbul.
Last edited:
Skallagrim
Banned
Don't be absurd. It's obviously Byzantion. All those new-fangled names are irrelevant.
Koprulu Mustafa Pasha
Gone Fishin'
Again, the chance of Greece getting Istanbul is as likely as the Ottomans regaining Athens or Belgrade post-1830.
Don't be absurd. It's obviously Byzantion. All those new-fangled names are irrelevant.
Byzas was from Megara, which is Greek. Return Byzas' City to its Motherland! Ancestral Claims! Something!
ALSO
https://imperator.paradoxwikis.com/Byzantion
Skallagrim
Banned
I assure you, the very second Megara once again declares its independence as a free polis, we'll talk about its rightful historical claims. Until then... ohhhh, no dice, I'm afraid.
I assure you, the very second Megara once again declares its independence as a free polis, we'll talk about its rightful historical claims. Until then... ohhhh, no dice, I'm afraid.
I won't lie, I would pay to see a timeline where Greece is a Federation of Free Cities. I mean, I think I drafted the basis of one built around a Byzantine League in the wake of the Delian League, but alas.
Although that'd be a weird modern Greece - Athens being an Urban Democratic Republic federated with a Duo-monarchal or Stratocratic Sparta, and a Unitary Bloc Macedonia. Oh, the politics would be amazing
Deleted member 114175
Byzantium a Latin improvement on the originalDon't be absurd. It's obviously Byzantion. All those new-fangled names are irrelevant.
Koprulu Mustafa Pasha
Gone Fishin'
Don't be absurd. It's obviously Byzantion. All those new-fangled names are irrelevant.
I'd rather name it Shahanshahabad... don't know if I named it right
Skallagrim
Banned
I'd rather name it Shahanshahabad... don't know if I named it right
Ah, there's only one thing for it: the romans and the Persians will have to share the city.
I'm sure that'll cause no problems at all. Have fun and stay safe, lads!
(Muhahahahaha!)
Don't be absurd. It's obviously Byzantion. All those new-fangled names are irrelevant.
It's Lygos to me and always will be.