Balkan Borders if the Ottomans win the First Balkan War

Had the First Balkan War ended in the Ottomans' favor, what would have been the established boundaries in the Balkans?

The Great Powers would not want the Ottomans expanding at Christian nations' expenses, but they also were clearly not the aggressor in the conflict.

Greece seems like a relatively easy solution: assertion of sovereignty over the Cretan State and Eastern Aegean. Maybe a reversion to the pre-1899 boundary could be possible, but that seems like a stretch.

For Bulgaria, I can imagine the Turks wanting to reclaim Eastern Rumelia, but I'm skeptical they'd be able to get away with that.

For Serbia, maybe the pre-1876 boundary? Or perhaps just minor border adjustments like Vranje.

Montenegro seems like the place the Turks would be able to get away with the most. Montenegro was the clear aggressor in the conflict. A reversion to pre-1876 borders seems likely. Perhaps they might even end up vassalized again (in exchange for much lighter treatment of the other Balkan Powers perhaps?).
 
The Great Powers would not want the Ottomans expanding at Christian nations' expenses, but they also were clearly not the aggressor in the conflict.

I'm less sure this would be as decisive a point by this point in history, given Bloody Abdul is out at a (nominally) represenative government is in control while the Powers are in some tight diplomatic manuvering space in their attempt to avoid general war. Certainly Austria dosen't want to see the explicently anti-Austrian Balkan League getting rewarded for oppritunistic land grabs based on ethinc claims,and their German ally will back then. Italy, meanwhile, just blew her war chest in Triopolitania/Libya (how did that conflict end up ITTL, by the way?). No, the bigger issue will probably be the Ottomans not wanting to take in rebellious,poor populations. The Aegean has to remain Turkish dominated for the sake of national security, and East Rumelia could see some adjustments in the mountains for a more geographically defendable barrier. Likely the bigger demand will be for arms limitations on the Balkan nations... A practice Austria will support wholeheartedly
 
I'm less sure this would be as decisive a point by this point in history, given Bloody Abdul is out at a (nominally) represenative government is in control while the Powers are in some tight diplomatic manuvering space in their attempt to avoid general war. Certainly Austria dosen't want to see the explicently anti-Austrian Balkan League getting rewarded for oppritunistic land grabs based on ethinc claims,and their German ally will back then. Italy, meanwhile, just blew her war chest in Triopolitania/Libya (how did that conflict end up ITTL, by the way?). No, the bigger issue will probably be the Ottomans not wanting to take in rebellious,poor populations. The Aegean has to remain Turkish dominated for the sake of national security, and East Rumelia could see some adjustments in the mountains for a more geographically defendable barrier. Likely the bigger demand will be for arms limitations on the Balkan nations... A practice Austria will support wholeheartedly


Maybe a border on the Maritsa River TTL? Although completely taking Eastern Rumelia puts the boundary on the Balkan Mountains. The Maritsa and Tundzha rivers both flow in the Aegean too.

Russia was closest with Serbia and skeptical of Bulgaria at this point right? Ottoman East Rumelia, dominance over Montenegro, affirmation of control over the Aegean islands, and restoration of direct authority over Crete could work. Serbia, Russia's little buddy, meanwhile gets a slap on the wrist.

The Serbs tried to push for a boundary on the Iskur River during the Serbo-Bulgarian War. I wonder if the Ottomans could encourage the Serbs to direct their expansionism towards Bulgaria. Maybe a Serbo-Turkish partition of Bulgaria down the line? Serbo-Turkish-Romanian too perhaps, if Romania were to grab Silistra.

Since we're talking about the Balkan War, I assumed the Italo-Turkish War more or less goes as OTL. The Italian victory partially caused the Balkan War after all. If there's a difference TTL, it'd likely be in the Italo-Turkish treaty of 1912, in which the Ottomans nominally regained the Dodecanese but the Italians "interpreted" the treaty in a way in which they ended up keeping formal control

I wonder if the Ottomans could perhaps trade suzerainty over Crete or Montenegro to the Italians for something. Montenegro for Libya would be interesting.
 
Maybe a border on the Maritsa River TTL? Although completely taking Eastern Rumelia puts the boundary on the Balkan Mountains. The Maritsa and Tundzha rivers both flow in the Aegean too.

That seems about right, though I'm not as well versed as to how commerically important traffic on the river was. I assume such a settlement would leave the Ottomans with nominal sovereignty over it and thus subject Bulgarian shipping to Ottoman Customs, and that Sofia would be banned from building a gunboat fleet. However, I do think a mountain border would be more suitable both for the security concerns of both sides and to insure the regional rivers remain open for transit and trade in such a infrastructurally poor region. There will be a desire to prevent the Balkan powerkeg from blowing up again, and having easily fortifiable borders would go a long way in disuading oppritunistic wars in the future

Russia was closest with Serbia and skeptical of Bulgaria at this point right? Ottoman East Rumelia, dominance over Montenegro, affirmation of control over the Aegean islands, and restoration of direct authority over Crete could work. Serbia, Russia's little buddy, meanwhile gets a slap on the wrist.


If we're talking about a Russian-dominated mediation, but any settlement in the Balkans is going to see heavy involvement on the part of the Habsburg Empire for whom Serbia is the mortal enemy. They, and presumably their German allies, will be pressuring Konstantinyye to impose terms that would cripple the Serbs in their ambitions on their ambitions north and westward, so I suppose alot depends on weather the Young Turks respond better to the Russian or German lobbying. Certainly, their diplomatic stock has gone up somewhat. The Aegean Islands are non-negotitable, though I'm less certain they'd push for the return of direct control of Crete. That ship had long since sailed, and I think they're more likely to use it as a bargaining chip for something else. As you suggested later, the evacuation of the Italians from the Dodecanese and Libya could be negotiated if the Italo-Turkish War peace talks are still going on, with the Cretian State transfered to Roman suzerainity as a consoltation prize, by a multi-national mediation body.

The Serbs tried to push for a boundary on the Iskur River during the Serbo-Bulgarian War. I wonder if the Ottomans could encourage the Serbs to direct their expansionism towards Bulgaria. Maybe a Serbo-Turkish partition of Bulgaria down the line? Serbo-Turkish-Romanian too perhaps, if Romania were to grab Silistra.

Full partition on Bulgaria would probably not be tolerated either by the Bulgarian people or the Great Powers, though I suppose in a worst, worst case scenario they could be forced back into tributary status to the Ottomans as per the terms of Berlin. With the lose of so much territory (Including Silestria) they'd be a weak rump state that really would need to be hooked into the Ottoman economy to have much of a chance, with possibly a population transfer deal swapping Muslims out from Crete into Eastern Rumelia and shipping the Bulgars there into Bulgaria Proper. Alot depends on which side of the great alliance system the Ottomans are leaning towards though...
 
The idea of an Italian Crete is a fun one. It'd certainly be a more beneficial island for Italy than Rhodes was, being larger (better for settlement) and closer to Italy.
 
The idea of an Italian Crete is a fun one. It'd certainly be a more beneficial island for Italy than Rhodes was, being larger (better for settlement) and closer to Italy.

Its also big enough that it would be considered allowable compensation by the Great Powers, at least for a "Member of the GP club by formality" in terms of real power. Granted, I can't see it being enough to fully satiate Italian colonial ambitions... maybe if all sides agree Greece needs to lose at least some territory as well to convince them not to try something like this again the Italians could ask for the Ionian Isles as well, which be VERY useful as a naval base for controlling the Aegean (Given the harbors on thier own side of the sea are garbage) and possibly as way to push Itlian influence-ambitions onto Greece rather than into Albania.
 
How significant to Italian nationalists would control of Crete be? Was it on their 'shopping list', so to speak, justified by Venetian rule over 'Candia' between 1205 and 1669?

Would it reduce the intensity of Italian irredentism, and thus conceivably alter Italy's foreign policy with regards to other targets for expansion, such as France (Tunisia, Nice and Corsica) Austria-Hungary (South Tyrol, Istria and Dalmatia) and Britain (Malta)?
 
How significant to Italian nationalists would control of Crete be? Was it on their 'shopping list', so to speak, justified by Venetian rule over 'Candia' between 1205 and 1669?

Would it reduce the intensity of Italian irredentism, and thus conceivably alter Italy's foreign policy with regards to other targets for expansion, such as France (Tunisia, Nice and Corsica) Austria-Hungary (South Tyrol, Istria and Dalmatia) and Britain (Malta)?

Fairly relevant, but it wouldn't change much, save for encouraging Greece to stay away from the Entente Camp.
 
Is there are reasonable scenario where the Turks can win the first Balkan War?

Is WW1 Butterflied away? (or would Serbia turn its attention to Bosnia just the same)

Would the Italians have a partisan war on their hands if Crete was acquired by Italy? (Crete has a reputation for that sort of thing)
 
Fairly relevant, but it wouldn't change much, save for encouraging Greece to stay away from the Entente Camp.

Well, that change alone could have strong impacts on Ottoman policy if Greece drifts distinctly towards Germany. With a Balkan Wars victory (especially considering the much larger non-Turkish population in the Empire) Enver and his Ethnonationalist, Right-Wing faction of the Young Turks aren't going to be in a position to assume neigh dictitorial power with more influence remaining in the hands of the more moderate Liberal Entente faction. If Greece is surely and cleaves away from Russia to be more distinctly aligned with the pro-German sentiments of King and Court, this could easily cause Konstantinyye during this critical moment of diplomatic flux to settle into alignment with Russia and France, which combined with Bulgaria being a cripple would drastically alter the fronts in a perspective World War. The Balkans would become a serious theature, and commerce could flow freely through the straits. Donbas coal for French factories alone would be a huge boon.
 
Had the First Balkan War ended in the Ottomans' favor, what would have been the established boundaries in the Balkans?

The Great Powers would not want the Ottomans expanding at Christian nations' expenses, but they also were clearly not the aggressor in the conflict.

Greece seems like a relatively easy solution: assertion of sovereignty over the Cretan State and Eastern Aegean. Maybe a reversion to the pre-1899 boundary could be possible, but that seems like a stretch.

For Bulgaria, I can imagine the Turks wanting to reclaim Eastern Rumelia, but I'm skeptical they'd be able to get away with that.

For Serbia, maybe the pre-1876 boundary? Or perhaps just minor border adjustments like Vranje.

Montenegro seems like the place the Turks would be able to get away with the most. Montenegro was the clear aggressor in the conflict. A reversion to pre-1876 borders seems likely. Perhaps they might even end up vassalized again (in exchange for much lighter treatment of the other Balkan Powers perhaps?).

The Ottomans gain only small border adjustments. Some forts and forrests, hills or mountains. Nothing too decent.
 
Is there are reasonable scenario where the Turks can win the first Balkan War?

Is WW1 Butterflied away? (or would Serbia turn its attention to Bosnia just the same)

Would the Italians have a partisan war on their hands if Crete was acquired by Italy? (Crete has a reputation for that sort of thing)

Change there strategy. The strategy in war was offered by a German Officers but the Commander did the opposite.

WWI would not be butterflied away but the casus belli might be different.
 
Some Europeans might actually side with the Ottomans here (unlike in the medieval Ottoman conquest of Italy thread) since religion was no longer the major diplomatic force that it was in medieval times.
 
Well, that change alone could have strong impacts on Ottoman policy if Greece drifts distinctly towards Germany. With a Balkan Wars victory (especially considering the much larger non-Turkish population in the Empire) Enver and his Ethnonationalist, Right-Wing faction of the Young Turks aren't going to be in a position to assume neigh dictitorial power with more influence remaining in the hands of the more moderate Liberal Entente faction. If Greece is surely and cleaves away from Russia to be more distinctly aligned with the pro-German sentiments of King and Court, this could easily cause Konstantinyye during this critical moment of diplomatic flux to settle into alignment with Russia and France, which combined with Bulgaria being a cripple would drastically alter the fronts in a perspective World War. The Balkans would become a serious theature, and commerce could flow freely through the straits. Donbas coal for French factories alone would be a huge boon.

If the Balkan Wars are not as disastrous as OTL there is no coup of 1913. Enver might not even be in power with Mahmud Şevket Pasha also being alive.
 
If the Balkan Wars are not as disastrous as OTL there is no coup of 1913. Enver might not even be in power with Mahmud Şevket Pasha also being alive.

Perhaps not, but given his internal power base in the party and likely prominent role in the victory as a high ranking military commander its virtually guaranteed he'd an influential figure, and those of his philosophical clique no doubt having a role in the government. Only one part of many though, unlike post-1913 IOTL, which was my point
 
Perhaps not, but given his internal power base in the party and likely prominent role in the victory as a high ranking military commander its virtually guaranteed he'd an influential figure, and those of his philosophical clique no doubt having a role in the government. Only one part of many though, unlike post-1913 IOTL, which was my point

Influental yes... but that's pretty much it. Avoiding the assassination of Mahmud Sevket Pasha keeps him from executing his ideals. The older Mahmud was... wiser to say at least. And would try to keep the State out of war.
 
Influental yes... but that's pretty much it. Avoiding the assassination of Mahmud Sevket Pasha keeps him from executing his ideals. The older Mahmud was... wiser to say at least. And would try to keep the State out of war.

Fully agreed he'd do his best and would be liable to succeed, at least initially. There might be events that run the risk of forcing the issue, but otherwise the OE can focus domestically
 
I am curious as to how this could happen. From what I know of the Frist Balkan War (admittedly not so much), the Balkan allies had a pretty big advantage over the Ottomans. Maybe the Ottomans accept some kind of Cypress type deal allowing Italy to control Libya while nominally retaining it in the empire, meaning they look weak to the Balkan allies but also have their most modern forces in Europe when the Balkan war starts, instead of on the Egyptian border?

I have a hard time seeing the Ottomans gaining much territorially. However, gaining war reparations could potentially be quite the financial boon.

An Ottoman victory in this war and an avoiding of the domination of Enver Pasha of Ottoman politics could have REALLY interesting impacts on WW1 though.

It's often forgotten now, but the Young Turks' constitutionalism was initially well received inside and outside the Empire, giving it more cred with liberals than many of the Balkan monarchies or Russian Tsarism. When alt-WW1 starts in this scenario, the Ottomans haven't been so deeply humiliated and so look like a more useful ally and will have more friends in France, Britain and the US.

Also, WW1 is one scenario where I can see the Ottomans being able to regain territory from "Christian" states. So even if the Ottomans don't regain anything at first, if they can survive WW1 and join at the right price, they're in a good position to regain territory.

fasquardon
 
Top