Bumping this because it's a topic I might use for a TL.
More detail about the TL you are working on? I think I may be interested greatly in it.
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.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.
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.
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.Two question here regarding the 1st Balkan War:
1. How much more could each of the combatants gained in terms of territory?
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.What was the state of the Bulgarian army at the time? Was it supply, command, or training issues? Or was it something completely different?
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.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.