1st Balkan War Expansion

Two question here regarding the 1st Balkan War:

1. How much more could each of the combatants gained in terms of territory?

2. How could the war expand to include more combatants on either side?
 
More detail about the TL you are working on? I think I may be interested greatly in it.

I just need an excuse for WW1 to start a few years earlier, and to be able to explain it in maybe a paragraph. The TL's focus is on East Asia.
 
The first thing that jumps out to me is the First Battle of Catalca. The Bulgarians had pushed the Ottoman army to its final defensive position outside of Constantinople, the Catalca Line, and outnumbered them both in men (176,00 to 140,00) and artillery pieces (462 to 316). However, the Ottoman army was able to defeat the Bulgarian attack with high casualties that forced Bulgaria to seek an armistice. If the Bulgarians had broken through there would have been nothing between them and Constantinople which they almost certainly would have captured. Russia was also warning Bulgaria that it would attack if Constantinople was occupied.

If the Bulgarians had broken through at Catalca and captured Constantinople you have the question of whether Russia would make good its promise to attack and what the response of the other great powers would be. In my opinion Britain and France would support Bulgaria because France had previously approached Britain about the possibility of a joint intervention to end the Balkan war and Britain had been encouraging Bulgaria to take Constantinople. There's also the issue of territorial gains after the war. I imagine that Bulgaria would get significantly more territory as a result of occupying the Ottoman capital.
 
But it strikes me as inconceivable that Bulgaria could hope to hold Constantinople indefinitely, when one considers how weak their any sort of claim to it was, and in any case, the destabilizing effect this would have on the balance of power in the Balkans.
 
The first thing that jumps out to me is the First Battle of Catalca. The Bulgarians had pushed the Ottoman army to its final defensive position outside of Constantinople, the Catalca Line, and outnumbered them both in men (176,00 to 140,00) and artillery pieces (462 to 316). However, the Ottoman army was able to defeat the Bulgarian attack with high casualties that forced Bulgaria to seek an armistice. If the Bulgarians had broken through there would have been nothing between them and Constantinople which they almost certainly would have captured. Russia was also warning Bulgaria that it would attack if Constantinople was occupied.

If the Bulgarians had broken through at Catalca
Even if the Bulgarians break through Catalca, which would be a monumental task given the state of the Bulgarian army, they would still have to capture the city, which is easier said than done.
 
Even if the Bulgarians break through Catalca, which would be a monumental task given the state of the Bulgarian army, they would still have to capture the city, which is easier said than done.

What was the state of the Bulgarian army at the time? Was it supply, command, or training issues? Or was it something completely different?
 
The Bulgarians would never be allowed to keep Constantinople.

This is, of course, assuming they could break through the meatgrinder of Eastern Thrace and Edirne and storm (not besiege, since they have no naval capabilities) the most important city in the Ottoman Empire, which I doubt they would.
 
The Bulgarians would never be allowed to keep Constantinople.

This is, of course, assuming they could break through the meatgrinder of Eastern Thrace and Edirne and storm (not besiege, since they have no naval capabilities) the most important city in the Ottoman Empire, which I doubt they would.

The Bulgarians don't necessarily have to take Constantinople to prompt Russian intervention and a corresponding British/French reaction. A victory at Catalca could allow them to threaten Constantinople, and if they're seen to be marching on Constantinople then a hasty and ill-informed reaction by the Russian government is entirely possible. The actual Bulgarian capacity to take and hold the city is less important than their ability to appear as if they are about to take it, which the Russians will probably intervene to prevent. Once the Russians are committed, they can't exactly back out once they figure out that the Bulgarians are more or less incapable of taking it quickly.
 
Two question here regarding the 1st Balkan War:

1. How much more could each of the combatants gained in terms of territory?
Well the first thing that comes off the top of my head was that the Second Balkans War kinda started since the league ran out of territory to partition, so there really wasnt anything left. Unless they wanted to march into Istanbul and Asia Minor they had simply ran out of territory to take at that point. Practically the entire Balkans west of Istanbul had been seceded already.

Only thing that comes to mind is Albania. That would also conveniently probably avoid the Second Balkan War, since Serbia and Bulgaria would be less inclined to have their falling out. But that would require the great powers to turn a blind eye to the conflict and allow the Balkan League to do as they wished.

And finally Cyprus was de jure part of the Ottoman Empire but de facto a British protectorate. You could maybe see a revolt there for union with Greece, but thats probably only likely to 1) epically fail and 2) really piss the British off and make London want to meddle in the Balkans even more.

As a rule of thumb you generally want Britain to not notice you.

Theoretically though, Britain could perhaps take the opportunity to say... 'formalize' the de facto state of affairs in Cyprus and get rid of any pretenses to Ottoman rule there. Might have some interesting consequences for Cyprus and Greece down the line.
 
What was the state of the Bulgarian army at the time? Was it supply, command, or training issues? Or was it something completely different?
A combination of factors, including, but not limited to: a cholera epidemic, exhaustion from the two previous battles and the long hard marching, terrible logistics (with Odrin in Ottoman hands, the only railroad was blocked, leaving the Bulgarian army to rely on ox drawn wagons over the bad roads, further worsened by the autumn rains). This is besides the fact that the Chataldja line was narrow and easily defensible and supported on its flanks by Ottoman naval artillery.
In addition, the military leadership was not at all enthusiastic about the attack on Constantinople, which was mostly a whim of the Bulgarian king.
 
The numerical advantage of the Bulgarian army did not mean a thing, considering they would be attacking a prepared defensive line across a narrowish peninsula. Taking into account the supply problems and the Russian displeasure with the idea of a Bulgarian Constantinople, it's quite obvious that the attack was madness.

The madness was to be repeated (and compounded) just one month after the end of the first Balkan war, when Bulgaria (displeased with the division of the spoils) refused the Russian proposal of arbitration in Macedonia, and attacked its former allies, setting itself up for a quick and decisive defeat.

Even if the provisions of the peace treaty that ended the 1st Balkan war were not completely satisfactory for Bulgaria (the Greeks occupied Saloniki, and the Serbians refused to honor the provisions of the agreement signed with Bulgaria in March 1913), Bulgaria had made quite considerable gains out of the war and they should have been satisfied. It would be interesting to see a TL where Bulgaria avoids both mistakes (attacking the Chatalja line and triggering the 2nd Balkan war) and keeps the Russian alliance of 1902. Given a few years, Bulgaria should be able to fortify the Turkish border, integrate the gains and set up as the foremost Balkan power.
IMHO, the continued existence of the Russian-sponsored Balkan league should be able to act as a brake on A-H's ambitions if/when a new Balkan crisis surfaces (and if there is not a new Serbian-created Balkan crisis, my bet is that A-H will engineer one).
A Russian-allied Bulgaria would also make more problems for the German penetration in the Ottoman empire (and the CUP regime would have to weather a worse defeat in the Balkans, without the fig-leafs of the victory on the Chatalja line and the subsequent territorial gains after the 2nd Balkan war).
Overall the butterflies might be quite massive. Don't know which POD might work best, though: a more sensible Bulgarian czar is quite obvious; the threat of a military coup if the order to take Constantinople is not rescinded might also work (is there a prominent general who might lead, maybe with Russian sponsorship? might the Bulgarian prime minister oppose the will of the czar?). With some (ASBish) luck it might end up with a constitutional monarchy in Bulgaria, but it's too much to hope for (Russia would certainly be quite unhappy with this outcome).


EDIT: the lands occupied by the Balkan League at the end of April 1913 can be seen here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Balkankrieg_Besetzte_Gebiete_1913.png
 
IMHO, the continued existence of the Russian-sponsored Balkan league should be able to act as a brake on A-H's ambitions if/when a new Balkan crisis surfaces (and if there is not a new Serbian-created Balkan crisis, my bet is that A-H will engineer one).
Hmmm, i think thats debatable. OTL after the Second Balkan War, the only members of the League who remained allied were Montenegro and Serbia (and brother Russia, but they dont really count). Bulgaria of course went crazy and attacked its own allies so they were kicked out. But when Serbia called for aid, both Greece and Romania (who was not a member of the League but fought in the Second Balkan War nonetheless) were inclined to contemplate joining the central powers rather than moving to the aid of their ally.

At best a cordial breakup between the League would result in Bulgarian neutrality in any Serb-AH conflict. With Bulgaria 'satisfied' and the Ottoman Empire defeated, they really have no reason for the League any more. They are unlikely to gain any land by fighting AH so thats a non starter. Serbia is a rival to Bulgaria and occupies rightfully Bulgarian lands (from their perspective), so they're unlikely to want to assist Serbia merely out of Slavic Orthodox brotherhood, or neighborly goodwill. Same with Greece (assuming Greece is allied with Serbia). The Ottomans are seen as a threat, but probably not one that would necessitate Greek or Serbian support to repel.

The best a continued League can offer to Bulgaria is Russian friendship/protection. But as the foremost power in the Balkans, Bulgaria would probably be interested in diversifying its foreign relations portfolio. Not to mention Russia was rather notorious in the way it treated nations under its protection.

Bulgaria is likely to move to pursue its own path after the end of the Balkan Wars. Though undoubtedly they would be in a much better position had they avoided the mess that was the Second Balkans War. But in the realm of international political affairs, i see little future for the Balkan League in such a timeline. Maybe if Serbia could be convinced to part with Macedonia in exchange for gains in Bosnia and Hungary.
 
Hmmm, i think thats debatable. OTL after the Second Balkan War, the only members of the League who remained allied were Montenegro and Serbia (and brother Russia, but they dont really count). Bulgaria of course went crazy and attacked its own allies so they were kicked out. But when Serbia called for aid, both Greece and Romania (who was not a member of the League but fought in the Second Balkan War nonetheless) were inclined to contemplate joining the central powers rather than moving to the aid of their ally.

At best a cordial breakup between the League would result in Bulgarian neutrality in any Serb-AH conflict. With Bulgaria 'satisfied' and the Ottoman Empire defeated, they really have no reason for the League any more. They are unlikely to gain any land by fighting AH so thats a non starter. Serbia is a rival to Bulgaria and occupies rightfully Bulgarian lands (from their perspective), so they're unlikely to want to assist Serbia merely out of Slavic Orthodox brotherhood, or neighborly goodwill. Same with Greece (assuming Greece is allied with Serbia). The Ottomans are seen as a threat, but probably not one that would necessitate Greek or Serbian support to repel.

The best a continued League can offer to Bulgaria is Russian friendship/protection. But as the foremost power in the Balkans, Bulgaria would probably be interested in diversifying its foreign relations portfolio. Not to mention Russia was rather notorious in the way it treated nations under its protection.

Bulgaria is likely to move to pursue its own path after the end of the Balkan Wars. Though undoubtedly they would be in a much better position had they avoided the mess that was the Second Balkans War. But in the realm of international political affairs, i see little future for the Balkan League in such a timeline. Maybe if Serbia could be convinced to part with Macedonia in exchange for gains in Bosnia and Hungary.

If Bulgaria accepts the Russian proposal to arbitrate the border with Serbia in Macedonia, there is no reason they will end up dissatisfied (other than for the Greek acquisition of Saloniki, but it was a Bulgarian misjudgement to believe that the Greeks would divide their attacks and in any case the Bulgaro-Greek alliance did not detail the partition of the conquered lands).

Whatever happens with Greece afterwards, the Bulgars come out of the war with substantial military successes and land grabs. There is no reason to denounce (or even to let lapse) the alliance with Serbia, although I do agree with you that they are unlikely to intervene to save serbia from an Austrian ultimatum. The alliance with Russia can also stay: Bulgaria is now strong enough (at least on paper) to play some independent game (the Germans are certain to go and sniff after them even more than they did OTL).

No one knows what would have happened in the Balkans (and in Europe and the Ottoman empire) if Bulgaria does not throws away most of the gains of the fist Balkan war: my point is that at least they would have a window of opportunity, and that anyway they could not come out worse than it happened IOTL.
 
Top