Balkan Borders if the Ottomans win the First Balkan War

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

The Ottoman Strategy was so flawed that the Balkan States had the advantage to overrun and crush the pocket forces within a month. Then there is also Hasan Tahsin Pasha surrendering Saloniki without a fight.

The war would develop with losses in the beginning. But as soon as the Anatolian Forces are ready, the offensive on Bulgaria can start which kicks Bulgaria out of war.

Another disadvantage was the Greek Navy in the Aegean. If the Ottoman Navy caught the Averoff early on the Ottomabs would be somewhat in better position.
 
The Ottoman Strategy was so flawed that the Balkan States had the advantage to overrun and crush the pocket forces within a month. Then there is also Hasan Tahsin Pasha surrendering Saloniki without a fight.

So the salient question is: why was the Ottoman strategy so flawed?

Another disadvantage was the Greek Navy in the Aegean. If the Ottoman Navy caught the Averoff early on the Ottomabs would be somewhat in better position.

It would be very interesting to see what would happen in a scenario where the Ottomans had naval superiority.

fasquardon
 
So the salient question is: why was the Ottoman strategy so flawed?



It would be very interesting to see what would happen in a scenario where the Ottomans had naval superiority.

fasquardon

Citing the banned AHP, the all knower of Ottoman History...

"The Ottomans had the capability to win the First Balkan War - it was really their really stupid war plan that caused the disaster. In general, it was strategic defense with tactical offense, the opposite of what they should have done. They should have defended strong point in the Balkans until the full force of the Anatolian forces could be mobilized and assembled then they could have just swept through the Balkan armies. As it was, most of the Ottoman army never really got into the fight."

The Ottoman Balkans are largely undefendable in an agressive war as there is little natural defense for the Ottomans and even less Ottoman Soldiers in the region. If the strategic important parts are being defended until the Anatolian Forces are ready to join the battle then the War can be turned around. To achieve a faster movement, the Greek Navy has to be dealt with. And this is only possible in the early stages of war when the Averoff is out of ammunition.
 
Citing the banned AHP, the all knower of Ottoman History...

"The Ottomans had the capability to win the First Balkan War - it was really their really stupid war plan that caused the disaster. In general, it was strategic defense with tactical offense, the opposite of what they should have done. They should have defended strong point in the Balkans until the full force of the Anatolian forces could be mobilized and assembled then they could have just swept through the Balkan armies. As it was, most of the Ottoman army never really got into the fight."

The Ottoman Balkans are largely undefendable in an agressive war as there is little natural defense for the Ottomans and even less Ottoman Soldiers in the region. If the strategic important parts are being defended until the Anatolian Forces are ready to join the battle then the War can be turned around. To achieve a faster movement, the Greek Navy has to be dealt with. And this is only possible in the early stages of war when the Averoff is out of ammunition.

So the core of the professional army aren't needed in the Balkans? Good to know.

Interestingly, what do people think would happen to the alliance between the defeated Balkan states? Does it break under the strain of defeat? Or does the alliance remain, possibly resulting in a very bad experience for Austria-Hungary when an alt-WW1 breaks out and instead of just being humiliated by Serbia, they are super-humiliated by Serbia supported by Bulgaria, Romania and Greece?

fasquardon
 
So the core of the professional army aren't needed in the Balkans? Good to know.

Interestingly, what do people think would happen to the alliance between the defeated Balkan states? Does it break under the strain of defeat? Or does the alliance remain, possibly resulting in a very bad experience for Austria-Hungary when an alt-WW1 breaks out and instead of just being humiliated by Serbia, they are super-humiliated by Serbia supported by Bulgaria, Romania and Greece?

fasquardon

The alliance may remain minus Greece. But it depends on if Romania is willing to join Germany which makes Bulgarian participation expected.

But this also depends on if Serbia is willing to fight war with Austro-Hungarians. And how big the defeat was.
 
But this also depends on if Serbia is willing to fight war with Austro-Hungarians. And how big the defeat was.

Serbia didn't want to fight Austria-Hungary IOTL either.

What matters is Conrad von Hotzendorf and whether Franz Joseph and Franz Ferdinand control him. If the can't/don't for whatever reason, Austria-Hungary will force Serbia to fight.

fasquardon
 
The main point is: the Ottomans cant really win. Even if they completly defeat the Balkan alliance Russia will step in. The other European state might react in different way but Russia as the protector of the Balkan alliance will intervene. That practically prevent the Ottomans from making any gains.

So before we can debate the survival of the Balkan alliance we have to decide how the war would end with a looming Russian intervention and how would that further develope if it turned to another Russo-Ottoman war.

If we compare it to 1878 there are important lessons.
1. For an Ottoman war and to help the Balkan alliance (Romania wasnt a member) Russia has to go through Romania
2. Russian troops on the Balkans are easily threatened by an Austrian intervention
3. Russia would most likely try to make a deal with Austria before it sent troops to the Balkans
 
The main point is: the Ottomans cant really win. Even if they completly defeat the Balkan alliance Russia will step in. The other European state might react in different way but Russia as the protector of the Balkan alliance will intervene. That practically prevent the Ottomans from making any gains.

So before we can debate the survival of the Balkan alliance we have to decide how the war would end with a looming Russian intervention and how would that further develope if it turned to another Russo-Ottoman war.

If we compare it to 1878 there are important lessons.
1. For an Ottoman war and to help the Balkan alliance (Romania wasnt a member) Russia has to go through Romania
2. Russian troops on the Balkans are easily threatened by an Austrian intervention
3. Russia would most likely try to make a deal with Austria before it sent troops to the Balkans

Russia will NOT step in and were against the agressive war of the Balkan States.

Russian intervention is really unlikely unless the Ottoman Government is stupid enough to demand all of Bulgaria again. But the Ottomans know better.

No Russian intervention. Like, none.
 
Russia will NOT step in and were against the agressive war of the Balkan States.

Russian intervention is really unlikely unless the Ottoman Government is stupid enough to demand all of Bulgaria again. But the Ottomans know better.

No Russian intervention. Like, none.

Russia was the force behind the Balkan Alliance all along. What I can see the most of them accepting is a white peace and no more. If they dont interve they loose all hope to assert their influence on the Balkan and to pose as the protector of the Balkan slavs.

And in regards of Russian readiness to intervene on a war on behalf of Serbia, its not like WWI started like that just 1 year later. Oh, wait...
 
Russia was the force behind the Balkan Alliance all along. What I can see the most of them accepting is a white peace and no more. If they dont interve they loose all hope to assert their influence on the Balkan and to pose as the protector of the Balkan slavs.

And in regards of Russian readiness to intervene on a war on behalf of Serbia, its not like WWI started like that just 1 year later. Oh, wait...

They don't. The Balkan Alliance was to be an anti-Habsburg Alliance. There is no point in strengthening already difficult Bulgaria and Greece.

That is the point. The Ottomans won't gain anything decent other than small stragetic points nobody cares.

Russia supporting Serbia in 1914 is something different than Ottomans repelling the Balkan Alliance. It isn't that the Ottomans started the War. Austria-Hungary however did declare war on Serbia making it easier join or harder to ignore. The difference. I'm sorry but if you compare these two situations as the same and act smug afterwards then I can't take you seriously.

Russia failed to declare war against Austria-Hungary during the Bosnia Crisis. Shows you the difference doesn't it...
 
They don't. The Balkan Alliance was to be an anti-Habsburg Alliance. There is no point in strengthening already difficult Bulgaria and Greece.

That is the point. The Ottomans won't gain anything decent other than small stragetic points nobody cares.

Russia supporting Serbia in 1914 is something different than Ottomans repelling the Balkan Alliance. It isn't that the Ottomans started the War. Austria-Hungary however did declare war on Serbia making it easier join or harder to ignore. The difference. I'm sorry but if you compare these two situations as the same and act smug afterwards then I can't take you seriously.

Russia failed to declare war against Austria-Hungary during the Bosnia Crisis. Shows you the difference doesn't it...

Than lets agree we disagree. IMO Russia did not want the Balkan alliance to start the war against the Ottomans but it would be a huge blow to russian interests in the Balkans if they abandoned it. They styled themslves as the protectors of the slavs and christians of the Balkans. They rearmament program was going very well and they already mobilized (or better said did not release from service the soldiers who were do to go home while still calling up the new class) OTL to put pressure on Austria during the Balkan crisis to help secure serbian goals. Also the Balkan alliance made provisions for dividing the "loot" of the Balkan wars that included Russia - meaning that though Russia intended the Balkan alliance as an instrument of securing his position on the Balkan and use it against Austria they were well aware of the anti Ottoman goals of the alliance. Former Balkan crisis and wars make indicate that European powers and most of all Russia would not tolerate any ottoman gains on the Balkans. And the situation on the Ottoman lands was judged very bad- especially Macedonia was considered - and not without justification - a huge mess under Ottoman rule.

And if Russia was ready to go in to a world war a year later for her Balkan intersts - the same interests that were at stake here - than im convinced that they would have gone to war with the Ottomans if the latter didnt agree to no territorial gains.

The start of WWI is much closer in time to the Balkan wars than the bosnian crisis. Than Russia was still recuperating from the russo-japanese war and the revolutions. Here the balance of power have shifted heavily in their favour. France was also much more understanding for their Balkan activities by 1913.
 
Last edited:
Top