Pride Goes Before a Fall: A Revolutionary Greece Timeline
- Thread starter Earl Marshal
- Start date
I understand, russian would have a feeling like the italians after WWI
Pretty much, yeah. Plus giving the radicals in Russia even more ammunition to throw against the Czarist regime.
That seems unlikely. France, Prussia, Austria, and Hungary are barely involved and unlikely to be giving any concessions at the peace conference. This might attempt to lay out the fundamentals for the relationship between the Russians and the Ottomans, and the Russians and the British in Asia, but anything regarding relations between France and the German states is probably off the table and those will be the dominant issues for Europe soon. There might be an attempt to define the status of the Balkans long term, but I don't see that as having the potential to last since most of the people affected will not be involved in the decision making.
You're right, i agree with you on that point thank you for your answer
This was basically an excuse for me to limit Russia's gains and preserve the Ottomans as a viable threat to the Greeks. Otherwise, the Ottomans would basically be destroyed as a relevant power, while the Russians would be the preeminent land power in the world. The Russians are still the winners of this war, by a large margin; this just reduces what they can seize in the peace deal.
That said, I definitely agree that France and Napoleon II are the real winners of this war (with Greece coming in a close second place). They avoided the quagmire that is TTL's Great Eurasian War, all the while selling tens of thousands of rifles and cannons to the Ottomans and British, making them a nice bit of coin in the process. Moreover, as they weren't involved in this war, they were free to direct their resources elsewhere like North Africa, the Levant, and Southeast Asia to name a few (all of which I'll detail in the near future). Finally, they've strengthened their foreign relations with Austria (although this was greatly aided by Austria's collapse in 1848 and Russia's bad behavior in Galicia).
Generally speaking, Greece and France are quite friendly towards one another as their people share an affinity for liberty, philosophy, and the arts as well as a great respect and admiration for each other's history and culture. France is also one of Greece's largest trading partners, ranking in its top five alongside Britain, Russia, the Ottoman Empire, and the Italian Confederation. Greece probably ranks a bit lower for France in terms of trade, but there is a large interest in French goods in Greece, especially among Greece's high society. Similarly, the Greek Government has a high opinion of France as well, with it modeling many of its institutions, ministries, and laws on their French counterparts - immitation is the greatest form of flattery after all. Even among the Greek Premierships who favored closer diplomatic ties to Britain (Mavrokordatos) or Russia (Kapodistrias), France was still given great consideration and respect. Most importantly, France is one of the guarantors of Greece's independence, alongside Britain and Russia.It's going to be interesting to see how that develops. I forget exactly what French-Greece relations are like in this timeline, so far - but this is basically going to give Greece another major power to play against the British and the Russians. If France becomes the cornerstone of an anti-Russian alliance, they may actually be opposed to Greek interests in the future: it's a sure bet that the Ottomans would join such an alliance after the shallacking they just took, and Greece has always had strong political and cultural ties with Russia. However, as I stated, Greece's best bet is to staay moderately neutral and to just play the three major powers off one of another in order to see who gives them the best deal.
Also, I wonder how Napoleon is going to use his nation's position. He came to power following a revolution spurred on by discontent over a quagmire of a war, and though France was able to come out of that with some gains, he's still a Bonaparte and is going to want to do something to really cement his legitimacy both domestically and internationally. However, the Belgian fiasco was a major drain on France, both in lives and treasure, and I'm not sure that its recovered enough to make a big push. Here's hoping Nappy II is able to either avoid his cousin's OTL reputation for adventurism, or at least be more successful at all. (And for some reason, I'm now imagining Nappy trying to turn France into the preminent industrial and scientific power of the 19th century. "My Father fought for the glory of France upon the battlefield. But in this new century, Empires are won not at the edge of a sword alone, but by genius of a nation's spirit and mind!" or something to that effect)
With Britain bloodied and beaten after this war, France naturally emerges as the main alternative to Russia in Greece political circles. Moreover, France has a larger presence in the Eastern Mediterranean than Britain (especially after the recent sale of the Ionian Islands) with significant influence over the Khedivate of Egypt and the Emirate of Mount Lebanon. Although his reign has been largely peaceful thus far, Napoleon II certainly isn't afraid to engage in military/colonial adventurism like his father and cousin in OTL; he is a Bonaparte after all. France's benign neutrality in this war against Russia probably helps them in this area quite a bit, relative to OTL as the resources they would have exerted on Russia are freed up for use elsewhere. That said, I really like the idea of him becoming a great patron of the arts and sciences, as a way of juxtaposing him against his father ITTL.
This is almost spot on for what I had in mind. The only difference I have is that France does have a large presence in the Eastern Mediterranean already in the form of Egypt and Lebanon which are basically France's client states in all but name. They also have a strong relationship with Greece both politically and economically. So if anything, they may be more inclined to seek allies against Russia, who could potentially threaten their sphere of influence in the region.
With Greece annexing Thessaly and Epirus, they have essentially claimed all the territory in the Balkans that doesn't conflict with any of Russia's claims or that of their clients. As such, Russia will almost certainly oppose further Greek expansion in the Balkans, thus forcing Greece to look to another power that is more supportive of Greek claims on Macedonia, Thrace, and Constantinople.
He definitely knows of Charles Leon (it was hard not to be aware of him as he was quite vocal about his relation to Emperor Napoleon in OTL), and he is likely aware of Alexandre Colonna-Walewski relation to him as well. Eugen von Muhfeld and Helene Bonaparte are also likely relations given his father's well known dalliances and the dates of their births and location of their parents generally match. The others, I'm less sure of as there is very little to go off of for them and their connection to their supposed father is very tenuous.
For simplicities sake, I'll have it that NII acknowledges Charles Leon publicly and Alexandre privately as his paternal half-siblings and provide them with the titles and offices that their father gave to them during his reign. I don't think that he would legitimize them or place them in the line of succession, however as Napoleon III was quite hesitant to legitimize Charles Leon in OTL, although that could have been because Charles Leon was apparently difficult to work with and doing so would make Charles a stronger claimant to the throne than NIII. The Eaglet will likely avoid making any public comments about von Muhfeld, given his place in the Austrian court, although there will likely be some correspondence between them. Helene is a bit more difficult as there isn't much about her apart from her mother, Albine de Montholon's alleged romance with Napoleon while in exile on St. Helena, so I don't really have an idea for her yet. I'll probably just make a character up for her. The others will be alluded to and their connection to the French Emperor will be the stuff of rumors and gossip by his political adversaries.
I won't say what Alexander's plans will be once he becomes Tsar of Russia, but there will definitely be another war between Russia and the Ottomans sometime in the future.
The Ottomans will be doing a lot of soul searching and scapegoating in the near future as they try to figure out what went wrong and whose responsible for this mess. To be fair to the rest of Europe though, the Ottomans were technically the aggressor in this war as they invaded Wallachia, Moldavia, and the Russian Caucasus in May of 1854. They got pushed back almost immediately, but that's besides the point for most leaders in Europe.
That proverb is amazing and I absolutely love it!
Frankly, this entire debacle between Russia and Austria was an excuse for me to limit Russia's gains from the entire Balkans and all of Eastern Anatolia to a bit less. They definitely won the war, but they effectively lost the peace before the peace arrived because of their actions in Galicia.
This peace treaty will definitely be important (especially for all the states involved in the war), but I don't think it will be to the same degree as the Congress of Vienna.
Last edited:
Now this is profoundly interesting, and in a lot of potentially good and bad ways for Greece. On one hand, it means they are not going to end up anchoring themselves to a moribund titan of a country; on the other hand, they will be drifting from one of their closest (geographically) benefactors up to this point, and given their victory here there is no guarantee that Russia's modernization follows any path similar to OTL.
In tandem, this implies that Greco-French relations will naturally continue to warm due to their mutual interests (France in the Eastern Mediterranean and Eastern Christians, Greece obviously due to their massive quantity of irredenta out for grabs). It also implies something far more intriguing: France aligning with other Great Powers with an interest in containing Russia, which naturally includes... the United Kingdom, their most recent opponent and still a world power by all means. If we assume this trend, it might well lead to an Anglo-French detente far earlier than OTL over the issue of Russian power, which would obviously be a boon for Greece, friendly as its relations are with both nations. Where this could go sour is in Frankfurt - for what better ally against French aggression can Russia hope for but the (probably) rising power of Germany?
Moving into the less speculative future, the notion of "Russian claims or those of their clients" is a pretty solid backer of Russia being a patron of Bulgarian nationalism. This probably won't precipitate in the immediate future, but it does definitely remind me of the talks about national identity among Rumelian Christians earlier in the thread. What better way to oppose Greek claims in Thrace and Macedon than by funding Christian schools in those regions that teach their students a Bulgarian identity?
Last edited:
Welcome to OTL in other words... only Greece has a head start TTL by comparison thanks to greater size and economy.
I’m really happy you liked my little bit of creative writing with the proverb. Feel free to use it in the timeline or alter it and use it if you’d like EarlMarshal
I will also note that while almost everything left in the Balkans is claimed by Russia or one of her puppet states, Albania is still relatively unclaimed real estate. We’ve had the discussion about souther Albanian orthodox and bektashis being a potential source of expansion before in this thread so I won’t repeat it. Another possible idea is Greece could find an ally in Albania against the Russian backed puppets. But I wouldn’t be surprised if Russophile Greeks point at more of southern Albania and Cyprus as the main paths for expansion. Maybe even Cyrenaica. Although I think Russophile Greeks may be in danger of extinction depending on how pro Bulgaria Russia is.
That’s a game that Russia loses imo. The Greeks have been in the school funding business for far longer and are far more dedicated to it than Russia will be. There’s been Greek schools in that area since before the war for independence. It’s Greece’s best soft power tool to help encourage expansion and unrest in other areas. And if Russia pushes to hard for such a thing I’m sure there will be Austrian, British, and French donations and volunteers ready to counter that move . Honestly we could see that anyway as a great way to passively push back at further Russian expansion. We could even see them popping up in Traditionally Bulgarian held areas to try and push the cultural border further north.
German-Russian alliance more concrete this time? Well that will certainly help both sides. Russia forming alliance with France in my opinion has always been a big mistake. They lost more than their western counterpart whenever they sided with the French and British.
OTL Bismark had the right idea, form an alliance with Russia because they are a behemoth on the east, while France a natural enemy for centuries can be easily checked on the Rhine river. Besides even to today I see from Russia'sperspective that allying and befriending the Germans is much more beneficial than the French and British. The same can be said for the Germans as there is more economic and military benefit allying with the Russians.
Imagine waging war thousands of kilometers apart, it's a nightmare for logistics, you'd lose more men on attrition alone, truly Bismark was a godsend for the Germans at that time. But a shame that the next generation leaders of both side squandered that option. It was both a lose-lose situation for Germany and Russia.
OTL Bismark had the right idea, form an alliance with Russia because they are a behemoth on the east, while France a natural enemy for centuries can be easily checked on the Rhine river. Besides even to today I see from Russia'sperspective that allying and befriending the Germans is much more beneficial than the French and British. The same can be said for the Germans as there is more economic and military benefit allying with the Russians.
Imagine waging war thousands of kilometers apart, it's a nightmare for logistics, you'd lose more men on attrition alone, truly Bismark was a godsend for the Germans at that time. But a shame that the next generation leaders of both side squandered that option. It was both a lose-lose situation for Germany and Russia.
I think the German confederation should be pretty unstable at the moment. On one hand you have all the liberals that actually created it in the other the Prussian monarchy... I will be hardly surprised if there is another war, within Germany this time for its future. And if the Russians come in in support of the Prussians while the French come in support of the Liberals... here you've got your general war.
Thank you for your answer. I'm looking forward to see what the peace treaty will do
About Napoléon II, at this time Alexandre Walewski was already in France. He even at been a major politician during Napoléon III's reign, he had been minister of foreign affairs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandre_Colonna-Walewski. You could also use him as a proiminent character around l'Aiglon !
We are slowly arriving to a fascinating point of european history: the various ethnogeneses in ottoman Macedonia, the most ethnically diverse region of Turkey-in-Europe. Granted, it is a bloody and tragic chapter, but very interesting from a strictly academic point. I can think of various butterflies according to the story so far:
The greater difference compared to OTL: earlier significant "production" of teachers by the Athens University. Frankly, this production rate is perhaps more important than the production of steel and coal when it comes to balkan national aspirations. If we take into account the greater prosperity, I think Greece in 1854 is at least 30 or 40 years ahead to OTL when it comes to educated people, including teachers.
Moreover, this new Greece has many more educated people in the technical fields, as the greek industry is perhaps 50 years ahead compared to OTL (perhaps 55 or 60). We know that in OTL Balkans greek was the language of commerce. Perhaps now greek will be the language of industry, as entrepreneurs will seek to harness the wealth of Macedonia and Thrace. Mind you I don't talk about large scale factories: if in OTL the town's miller was Greek, now there can be a Greek who owns a steam-powered mill. Central Macedonia was an important producer of cotton, similar to Aleppo but lagging behind Smyrna and Cilicia. Greeks could develop textile factories in Naousa, decades earlier compared to OTL. As the years advance and railroad is introduced, the major towns will need a machinist and a machine shop, not just a miller and an iron-monger.
Epirus has become greek. Therefore, the energy and assets used in OTL to spread greek propaganda in Epirus can be utilized in firstly in Macedonia and secondarily in Thrace. The same has applied since 1830 regarding Crete. In OTL the cretan revolts absorbed a lot of assets from the Greek Kingdom, including fighters. Now they are not needed there while the warlike Cretans would look for a fight. Speaking of warlike culture, here is a famous cretan folk song of the revolutionary era:
"When will it be a starry night, when will February come?
To take my rifle, my beautiful cartiridge belt
To come down to Omalos, to the Mousouros path
To deprive mothers of their sons, wifes of their husbands,
To make babies cry without mothers,
When will it be a starry night?"
Thessaly has become greek almost 30 years ahead. That means 30 years ahead with closer economic, religious and educational links to Macedonia due to proximity.
The Bulgarians can enter the race for good, only after an Exarchate is established and that requires at least an autonomous Bulgaria.
Here is an interesting article on the educational race for Macedonia.
Basicaly, you say that the frontier could go really much to the north that in OTL ?
I doubt it. The ultimate border sought out by greek nationalists included Monastir, Gevgelija (in order to have the Demir Kapi Gorge as a border) and Strumica. In OTL Greeks didn't invest in influencing the Macedonia north of that line. The clashing interests north of it were basically bulgarian and serbian. The POD is at least a century too late to see for example a greek Kumanovo.
I presume that any "excess" assets would be invested in Thrace. The "Great Game" of building national identities was between the orthodox people of the OE. There was no reason to provide much energy and assets for Anatolia where there were no clashing orthodox christian interests, just Greek Orthodox, Muslims and Miaphysitic (and minority Protestant) Armenians. If we were talking in business terms, the subsidies would go to the macedonian and thracian hellenization industry, while the Anatolians would be left in a "free market" on their own.
Thank you for your answer. So basically, you think the thrace's investment is more worth it ?
The core policy was "investing" where there were clashing nationalisms trying to influence the christian population. With Epirus in greek hands that leaves only Thrace.