Ah, but many of us never thought as the country as "Macedonia" in our heads, but instead as FYROM.
Pride Goes Before a Fall: A Revolutionary Greece Timeline
- Thread starter Earl Marshal
- Start date
Well Fyrom has Macedonia in its name although hidden. Skopje(Skopia) was how I knew it really. This is not the point here really.
I was reading through ‘Of Lost Monkeys and Broken Vehicles’ they were talking about the exsistence of the Assyrian state. I personally think its not really feasible for the Assyrians to get their own state in that tl, but in this timeline things are very different. The Armenian and Assyrian genocides haven’t occurred yet, and I think they’ll get Greek assistance since they’re fellow Christians to the Greeks. Turkey ittl is highly likely to lose Eastern and Western Anatolia, and only retain central Anatolia.
Well the Greeks can't support Assyria that much due to lack of ports on their part. The Russians or Armenians could help on that matter. On the other hand I see Egypt supporting Kurdistan to counter the Russians, as they are allied with France, and who knows what the Iranians would do? Ally with Egypt against the Christians or support Assyrians as there are Kurds inside their border? Well if Iran gets south Iraq then maybe they would like a weak buffer between them and the Russians.
I don't think Earl would go full on Turkscrew on this one. More than likely they get a good ruler/vizier and they bounce back to provide a compelling enemy against Greece, but that is up to the author to see who that goes. On my part I would kind of agree with you and Turkey will on some point retract hard, as per OTL Sevres, but sooner than later they could bounce back if their neighbors get complacent.
I think they'll try supporting all Christians in the middle East, so I'd think it'd be the Greeks supporting both the Lebenonese and shipping weapons into the interior for the Assyrians.
I think a greekwank will be a turkscrew because Greece will try to decrease Turkey's power by encouraging sessesionist movements. They will be helping the British in terms of the Arabs and I'd not be surprised if the Kurds are the ones who get genocided unlike otl. I'd expect ittl Lebanon to switch back to Aramaic (Lebanese Arabic has a lot of Aramaic roots, and I'd expect the Greeks to patronise the ideology that Lebenonese and Assyrians are one and the same). I think seeing a weaker Turkey is more compelling as the differences would be much more significant.
PS: Greece couldn't enact the Megali plan because in the Greco Turkish war the general staff was switched halfway through the war, which meant incompetent people would rise to positions where they could do damage. Ittl unless something similar happens Greece should win the Greco Turkish war and gain Western Anatolia. Greece would be much more western looking while Turkey would be reacting to Greece's and the other great power's movements, which means Greece would always outpace Turkey unless a really great leader came by.
The fact that Greece will always have a better navy and be allied to Britain by the time the Greco Turkish war occurs means that Turkey's economy will be crippled when the war starts. Most of the Turkic industry is in Western Anatolia, and that's what Greece is aiming for, so their industrial heartlands is at risk. Also Greece would blockade the ports of Western Anatolia after defeating the relatively weak Turkic navy with at least the British indirectly or actively helping the Greek navy. This will always mean that if Greece doesn't have incompetent politians or isn't having political problems halfway through the war Turkey will be in a very tough position. Greece with all its faults otl almost won and lost due to political events. I don't think Turkey would stand a chance ittl.
PPS: what will happen with the Armenians in Cilicia? I hope they don't get genocided and instead forms their own nation that is connected to Assyria.
Last edited:
Cillician Armenians will probably have to flee to Western Armenia, if ottomans see them as traitors unless a Sevres like event happens which ends with Cillicia in the hands of a great power...I very much doubt great powers will allow Russia to reach Cillicia
P.s. you mean western Anatolia right?
Yeah... That's why I hope this tl would be better for the Christian subjects of the ottoman empire by letting them split off.
I’ve said before and I stand by it that Armenian Cilicia best chance is as a British Puppet/territory. If there is something like The Congress of Berlin ITTL (which I find likely) I can’t imagine that the Greeks sit out the conflict that leads to it. And if it does, Cyprus is certainly part of it price. So if the British want an area in the eastern med they control directly their options are getting extremely limited. Egypt is backed by France so England can’t target them for such a bastion. Greece has Cyprus. So if they’re extorting the ottomans for their assistance again Armenian Cilicia is probably their best target. Relatively defensible with the mountains and a friendly ethnic group as the locals. It’s not as good an option as Cyprus but it has potential.
Very defensible to be honest. If Britain cannot have an island (Cyprus) then a plain shielded by the Taurus is the next best thing. Moreover, Cilicia is great for cotton cultivation to feed the Lancashire mills.
Defensible from......who? Wasn't the presence of British forces (supposedly an ally) on Ottoman soil justified as a deterrent against Russia?
Why the Russians and these evil Egyptians who want to take over Anatolia obviously!
.......that is precisely why the British presence would not need any natural barrier to defend itself against the Porte. What's more, supposedly his presence there would have as a mission to fight alongside the Ottomans.Why the Russians and these evil Egyptians who want to take over Anatolia obviously!
Yes but we need the mountains for when the Russian armies come marching there! Really!
True but it’s not like an Island in the Mediterranean is much of an actual deterrent either. In this case they actually have a land presence to assist the ottomans in the East and it provides a buffer with Egypt which the ottomans might really appreciate soon depending on what happens in Syria. Plus the Brits are realistic enough to recognize that todays friend can be tomorrow’s enemy. Fortress Armenia is easy defend and a good deterrent to multiple parties in the area
I think in the long-term Greek foreign policy in the Balkans should be a rapid annexation of Western, Central and Eastern Macedonia and all of Thrace but it's northernmost parts. A Greece that wishes to be prosperous is a Greece that doesn't spend decades having petty feuds with it's European, Orthodox neighbours over land. The faster Greece assumes it's supremacy as the strongest Balkan power and normalizes relations with it's neighbours is the best Greece could go for. Thus allowing Bulgaria to have North Macedonia and allowing Montenegro and Serbia to unite and attempt to direct Serbian Nationalism northwards, that's the best Greece could ask for.
Not to mention that increasing Balkan trade, prosperity, friendship could prove very useful when Greece eventually expands to Anatolia. Serb and Bulgarian immigrants, for example, could help to fill many gaps if Greece takes more of Anatolia than just the Ionian coast.
Not to mention that increasing Balkan trade, prosperity, friendship could prove very useful when Greece eventually expands to Anatolia. Serb and Bulgarian immigrants, for example, could help to fill many gaps if Greece takes more of Anatolia than just the Ionian coast.
It would be militarily advisable for Greece to have a direct land connection to Serbia, unless Bulgaria is friendly for real...
I would like to also add that geopolitically it would be prudent not to have a single power controlling the upper valleys of Vardar, Strymon, Nestos and Evros rivers. All four of them are invasion routes from the north. In any case, the last three of them will be controlled by Bulgaria. So, to have the upper Vardar/Axios valley to be controlled by a third power (Serbia in this case) provides a bit more safety.
In any case, it is important for Greece to now allow the rest of the Balkans to be dominated by a single country that can become a Regional Power. The main thing however is what will become of Romania: part of the Russian Empire or a russian satelite after the Alt-Crimean War. If it will be a russian client, then it is in greek interests to have a clash between Bulgaria and Romania over Dobruja. A Bulgaria that enjoys friendly relations with Romania while being under the protection of Russia would be a mortal danger.
Under these circumstances, an alliance with Serbia will be very prudent.
Last edited:
Any Greek support for a Serb domination of land that is plainly Bulgarian, like North Macedonia, is going to be make Bulgarians and Greeks enemies over a territorry that is of no interest to the Greek National Cause. Better to pull Bulgaria away from Russia, and direct Serbia Northwards, and either steer them towards a path of being enemies or being friendly with one another. To allow Serbia to have N. Macedonia is also to give credence to Pan-Slavism in the Balkans, something which is also against Greece's interests in the long run. A more powerful Greece will also have less of a need for a knit-tight alliance with Serbia like OTL.
Serbia will probably fall under the Russian Sphere of Influence too in the long run - it's better to not have three of Russias puppets on one's doorstep. Avoiding a Balkan War where a much more powerful Greece is going to the center of attention (Like Bulgaria, OTL) is the best Greece could hope for, and the best solution to avoid this much more powerful Russia to dominate the Balkans.