Pride Goes Before a Fall: A Revolutionary Greece Timeline
- Thread starter Earl Marshal
- Start date
I kind of feel like if they focus on their Orthodox Christianity as an identity they might have a chance of uniting the Balkans like how the Iranians did it. In modern day Iran there were many different ethnicities and if they focused on the Persianess of their realm then the other minorities would be alienated. So they focused on Islam as a means to unify everyone. Or at least that's my understanding of it. So maybe the Greeks styling themselves as the liberated Rhomaioi can unify the Balkans under maybe a federated monarchy or state thus becoming a cosmopolitan state that mirrored the Byzantine Empire. This way a united Balkans can become a Great power or a secondary power with enough of a population and industry and resources with the Balkans to to be somewhat self-sufficient to industrialize.
Does this see feasbile: Greece uniting the Balkans under an Orthodox/Christian identity against the Ottomans?
Since it is a period of massive changes in Europe with massive uprisings (Poland, Hungary, Italy, Germany) I wonder what the reaction of the Greek populations outside of Greece (especially next to the free state like in Thessaly, Ipeiros, Ionian region around Smyrna, even Ionian islands) would be. Would they ask for their union with the kingdom? Start their own revolution? Considering the situation in OTL, with the better condition of the Greek kingdom in this timeline we should expect bigger pressure of the enslaved Greeks for union.
the problem is nationalism is coming and that over powers everything else and honestly religous diffrence while impoermant ethinic diffrence do trump that. Also in some way we saw this in the balakn war, and the second the ottmans were kicked out war began between them. Straight away. Any kind of federated states wouldn't work and constnaly be close to collapse and that not even talking about russia or other powers who do not want a strong power in the balkans.
jocay
Banned
Or Greece can put an even greater emphasis on Greek identity but one that isn't so tightly connected to Orthodox Christianity. That way they can attract Hellenophone Muslims still living under Ottoman rule who may otherwise be wary of coming under Greek rule. There's already precedent of accepting Catholics and Protestants who aren't even Greek into Greece.
Last edited:
It’s too late for this: Bulgarian ethnic nationalism started in the 1750s thanks to the beginnings of a Bulgarian intellectual class, and their ethnic identity was closely tied to rejecting Hellenism. Without the Bulgarians, any claims of pan-Orthodox identity fall flat.
Yes, this would definitely work—honestly should have been done, at the very least with the clearly Greek Muslims like the Vallahades. This would probably sway related groups that were peripherally Greek as well; Northern Epirus, for instance, might embrace Greek identity pretty easily.
Looking at the overall situation I think that Britain would probably start openly supporting the poles soon.
In the 19th century their main worry was Russia being too powerful. Right now they are are starting to become unstoppable in Eastern Europe. First of all they already proved they can kick the ottoman's teeth in back in 1828, and the difference has probably only grown since then. Next their main counterweight in the balkans, Austria, appears to be imploding(and exploding too), as they are too weak to handle their own internal problems, much less bring the entire country to bear against the Russian bear.
Now, the germans are too busy with their revolutions, the Danes, and the only German power, Prussia, has just fought a bloody war with France. They aren't about to tangle with Russia over the balkans. So from the British view, there is literally nothing stopping Russia from consuming all that land, which would be an unmitigated disaster. Thus I think they would support the poles, in order for them to draw the Russian attention, and keep them fighting over something they already had anyway, instead of expanding.
In relation to Greece, this could be a golden opportunity. Britain would desperately want states aligned to them in the balkans, especially ones stiff enough to not completely fall under much closer Russian sway. Thus they would probably invest heavily in Greece so that they become dependent on them, or at least closely bound, and so that Greece is strong enough so that they don't automatically look up to Russia for protection.
The only spanner I see in the works is the alt-Crimean war coming up, I think that arc will be critical for how things develop. I have a few predictions and ideas on how that could turn out, but we need to see more first. In any case I'm really excited to see where this goes.
In the 19th century their main worry was Russia being too powerful. Right now they are are starting to become unstoppable in Eastern Europe. First of all they already proved they can kick the ottoman's teeth in back in 1828, and the difference has probably only grown since then. Next their main counterweight in the balkans, Austria, appears to be imploding(and exploding too), as they are too weak to handle their own internal problems, much less bring the entire country to bear against the Russian bear.
Now, the germans are too busy with their revolutions, the Danes, and the only German power, Prussia, has just fought a bloody war with France. They aren't about to tangle with Russia over the balkans. So from the British view, there is literally nothing stopping Russia from consuming all that land, which would be an unmitigated disaster. Thus I think they would support the poles, in order for them to draw the Russian attention, and keep them fighting over something they already had anyway, instead of expanding.
In relation to Greece, this could be a golden opportunity. Britain would desperately want states aligned to them in the balkans, especially ones stiff enough to not completely fall under much closer Russian sway. Thus they would probably invest heavily in Greece so that they become dependent on them, or at least closely bound, and so that Greece is strong enough so that they don't automatically look up to Russia for protection.
The only spanner I see in the works is the alt-Crimean war coming up, I think that arc will be critical for how things develop. I have a few predictions and ideas on how that could turn out, but we need to see more first. In any case I'm really excited to see where this goes.
I doubt that Greece could attract Hellenophone Muslims, as religious identity was (and is) highly tied to the Turkish identity.
Also, an identity less tied to Orthodox Christianity could keep Greece from attracting Albanian Christians, which could result in a large swath of OTL Greece having an Albanian identity.
As I recall, the idea was for an Italian Confederation with the Pope serving as Head of State, but either one sounds great, frankly; anything to avoid the destructive delusional unitarianism of the House of Savoy.
Interesting. I've never heard of the American proposal before, but I did come across this (from here), though I haven't been able to find a secondary source to confirm the author's claims, unfortunately. Nevertheless, according to the author of that particular work, Venizelos apparently intended to propose the cession of some of the border territories back to Albania - no doubt in an attempt to solidify relations between the two states, without actually surrendering Northern Epirus in its entirety. I'm not sure why the plan never went through, I suspect his getting kicked out of office probably derailed the entire idea, but I couldn't say definitively either way.
As for this; it's been previously mentioned in the thread, but there were discussions in the late 1800s to for a Greco-Albanian Federation, the plans for which ultimately fell through. If that were to happen, however, I suspect Albania would be insisting on a border that has them retaining control over Preveza and Ioannina, rather than "just" Northern Epirus in one form or another. Either way, there'd always be other major hurdles to overcome, as well - case in point, the below;
The Orthodox Church is what saved Greece during the Ottoman Occupation, I doubt if they'd ever voluntarily separate themselves from it and openly embrace the converts, even if they did speak Greek. This was always an issue with Albania as well, and its relations to its neighbours; nobody saw them as "this really old native Balkan peoples", they saw them as "Muslims" (something of a practice that continues on to this very day, even though Albanians are largely secular, ironically), so they treated them accordingly, much to their own unfortunate detriment - though granted, the Albanian Muslims' pro-Ottoman tendencies didn't exactly help matters, either.
Regardless, for the sake of context, it's worth remembering that the Greeks couldn't even come together on language, and religion was even worse during this time period; I can hesitantly say Greeks would ""accept"" Catholics and Protestants (they never liked King Otto's wife for various reasons, including that she was Catholic and refused to convert, but there is a Greek island called Syros with a 90%+ Catholic population, a remnant from the Venetian Occupation, so there is """precedent""" upon which to go off of), but have you ever heard the story of the Greek Consort-Queen who wanted to translate the Bible from Koine Greek into Demotic Greek so the populace could actually understand it? Not only did people riot, demanding the Queen's excommunication, but the Prime Minister ended up getting thrown out of office, too.
It's also worth remembering, you're discussing a state that is in no way secular, has no interest or intentions to become secular any time soon, and has IOTL only just recently (literally weeks ago) begun the process of removing Jesus Christ from its Constitution, where he has been ever-present since the first Constitution was written in 1843 (and even so, I'm not sure if that change will even stick, but I'm trailing off into irrelevancy here).
Frankly, as much as there is to criticise Venizelos over, he definitely did one thing right, at least; he saved the lives of a lot of people by exchanging the Balkan Muslims for the Anatolian Christians in 1923, as that was basically the last chapter in the century-long purge of Greek and Turkish Muslims from the Balkans that started during the Revolutionary War (note: I'm purposefully excluding the Albanian and Slavic Muslims, here).
This, as well. Granted, I'm not overly familiar with the Macedonian Muslims, but as previously mentioned, the Albanian Muslims were overwhelmingly Turkophilic, whereas the Albanian Orthodox were overwhelmingly Hellenophilic in nature. This is actually why the Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus came to be in 1914, by-the-by; overwhelming local support, both from the Epirote Greeks and from the Orthodox Albanians in the region who preferred Orthodox Greece to the Muslim-dominated Albanian state - something that wasn't even particularly unprecedented, when one recalls that the Revolutionary Souliotes were also Orthodox.
Last edited:
Any sort of even vaguely nationalistic Greek leadership would reject giving up that much of Epirus, so I suspect a Greco-Albanian Federation is a non-starter.
Honestly, maybe it would just be better for Greece to dominate Albania as a sort of close ally/buffer state sort of thing? IOTL the Italians were the ones most invested in Albania but Greece has a greatly improved financial situation and currently good relations with the Albanian people ITTL so it may be possible.
The tendency to view Albanians as Muslims is because in the Balkans grudges and historical national memories never, ever die. Ask a Serb about the Field of Blackbirds...
But to be fair, Albanians only became largely secular thanks to Communism—before that, they were pretty Muslim with a few ancient pagan customs.
The fact that the Albanian Orthodox wanted to join Greece even in northern Epirus really rubs in that leaving that territory to Albania even in a Union is probably politically unacceptable in Greece. No, now I’m thinking the best solution is a Greek-dominated Albania politically, with a border giving most or all of Northern Epirus to Greece.
As for the Macedonian Muslims, they’re mostly Albanian ethnically—thy make up about a quarter of modern North Macedonia.
Agreed on the Greco-Albanian Federation. Regarding Greek dominion of Albania; probably, though they'd have to neutralise the Italians in order to do that. IOTL, aside from colonial ambitions, the greatest concern the Italians had was that someone (ANYONE) would seize Vlore-Sazan Island, which would give them the power to contest Italy's dominance of the the Otranto Straits, and potentially even seal the passage entirely. In fact, on that note, this was a major misstep in Greek Foreign Policy; they never extended any sort of hand to the Italians, not when the Bourbons controlled the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies and not when the House of Savoy unified Italy. As a consequence, there was no real trust between the two, and Italy had no reason to act in Greece's interest against the Austrians (which they were also distrusting of), resulting in Italy's shrieking in favour of Albania for decades on end, to Greece's ultimately continuous detriment.
I don't know whether this was a byproduct of Greek shortsightedness or just historic distrust due to the Sicilian Kings constantly trying to undermine the Byzantine Empire, but either way it was absolutely a bad call on their part - especially as Greece ended up holding sovereignty over Sazan Island as of 1864 (it was ceded to Greece as a part of the Ionian Islands). She never got anywhere near it until 1912 and I expect Italy would have never allowed such claims to stand had they ever actually acted upon them earlier, just as neither they nor the Austrians allowed them to stand in 1913 as they were both obsessed with the idea of Greece's Epirus expanding as far north as Vlore, but nevertheless, I suspect the Italians probably always had Greek Sazan in the back of their minds as a standing concern against their interests, unfortunately.
Regarding national memories, absolutely, but that's basically what I was saying; people undoubtedly still remembered how the Albanian Muslims had collaborated with the Ottomans to keep the Christians in line, and they'd have regarded them as such, which is an issue that their Turkophiliac tendencies wouldn't exactly have helped them with, whereas if they'd remained Christian (at least majority so), they'd have been regarded as more of a "yet another oppressed Christian Balkan people" instead of being wholly branded as "Collaborators of the Oppressor" (so-to-speak). I edited in a mention of the Albanian Souliotes at the end there, who were Orthodox Christians and fought valiantly alongside the Greeks during the Revolutionary War, for example. In fact, one of Greece's greatest Revolutionary Heroes is Markos Botsaris, a Souliotis who died in a charge against the Ottomans, whose motto was "Freedom, Religion, Fatherland."
As for Albanian Secularism; I'll readily admit I'm no expert, but I was under the impression Albania was founded on "Albanianism", even if the ideology only began to actually spread throughout the nation in the Interwar Period? In fact, I seem to recall reading that King Zog, even though he was Muslim, never promoted his religion, preferring to "unite the Albanians through Albanianism" or however the phrase goes. The "Founding Fathers" even went out of their way to select the Latin Alphabet as the basis for the national Albanian Alphabet, in order to phase out the Arabic Script used exclusively by the Albanian Muslims, instead.
Yes, though I was referring to the Muslims who found themselves in Greece after 1912, i.e. the "Aegean Macedonian" Muslims
Those were a combination of Greek-speaking Muslims (the Vallahades mentioned earlier by..... oh, you, heh), the Turkish Muslims, and the Slavic (Pomak) Muslims, though as I said, I don't know much else about them; I'm just assuming they were either generally or wholly pro-Ottoman, much like their Albanian counterparts.Addendum: On the matter of an Albanian State politically dominated by Greece; the problem here, as I see it, is that once Greece takes Northern Epirus, the power of the Albanian Orthodox Church is broken overnight, as their status immediately becomes relegated to that of a provincial backwater religion that nobody needs to pay attention to, with a following the size of [nobody cares]. That is to say, the day Greece takes Northern Epirus, the only remaining powers in Albania worth anything will be the Muslim and Catholic Ghegs in the north (historically politically dominant until the Communists), and the Muslim Tosks in the south (the vast majority of Albanian Communists were Tosks, if I recall my reading correctly).
At that point, Greek soft power and political influence throughout Albania becomes a pipe dream, unless someone can somehow significantly extend the Orthodox Church's influence in "Epirus Nova" / Tosk Albania up to the Shkumbin River, while at the same time refraining from annexing those areas into Greece, citing an excuse that nobody has ever come up with - so far, at least. Otherwise, the only alternative, in my opinion, would be to strike a deal with the Italians, who would place the Catholic Ghegs into power and keep them there, to the continued detriment of the Muslim Ghegs and Tosks. How such a happening would play out, however, I honestly have no idea - especially as breaking the Albanian Orthodox Church by default also decreases the Christian percentage of Albania's population, thus reinforcing Muslim dominance.
Last edited:
The Greeks did tend to think of themselves as Greeks first and foremost, but they also took great pride in their local identities as well. Groups like the Thessalians, Souliotes, Arvanites, Moreots, Maniots, and Cretans, among many others all had their own unique takes on Greek customs, Greek dress, Greek cuisine, Greek music, etc. that made them all different from one another, but were still generally identifiable as "Greek".
As much as I would like to make a unified Balkan Peninsula under a nominally Greek banner, I think the POD I have chosen for this timeline is a little too late for that, and by a little I mean a lot. There is unfortunately a lot of bad blood and a lot of competing interests between the various different groups in the Balkans that would make a formal union between them highly unlikely. Its also important to mention that this is the era of nationalism in Europe and the Balkans are no different. Bulgaria for instance has already had its First National Awakening in the late 1700's and is presently in the midst of its second National Awakening right now, which will more than likely deter them from supporting a Greek dominated Balkans. Then you have the Principality of Serbia which is effectively an independent country in all but name, and I highly doubt they would willingly cede their independence to Greece, likewise for Montenegro. That's not to say that the Greeks can't be more successful in the Balkans than they were in OTL, Macedonia was a relatively fluid region culturally speaking and Albania is also an option, but beyond that there aren't that many options.
Oh for sure, there is definitely a movement within the Ottoman Empire clamoring for union with the Kingdom of Greece, just as there is a movement in the Kingdom of Greece calling for the annexation of traditional Greek territories currently held by the Ottomans. In fact, that will be an important matter of discuss ITTL in the very near future.
Britain is definitely worried by Russian expansion into the Balkans and Eastern Europe and will seek to undermine them wherever and however they can. This may work to their benefit, or it may backfire spectacularly, we'll have to see. Once I finish with this section on the Austrian Empire, I'll do a quick update on Britain and show what they've been up to for all this time.
I must have had Germany on the brain when I was writing that reply since they're transitioning from a Confederacy to a Federation ITTL. Anyway, you are definitely right it was an Italian Confederation with the Pope as its head, not an Italian Federation as I had originally posted.
A much more recent concern, namely a notable current in Italian politics making noises over the former Venetian colonial empire being rightful Italian territory. Which meant Corfu and the Ionian islands, already part of Greece and Crete among others. To put it mildly this was not taken very well in Athens, or in Corfu and Crete for that matter. This didn't stop Greek volunteers showing up in the Italian war of independence or the Garibaldines showing up to fight for Greece in 1866, 1897 and 1912 but wasn't particularly conductive to any short of alliance beyond that proposed in 1861. Also note how the closest Greek-Italian contacts seem to concentrate amongst the more liberal/radical elements?
Now get the claims to Corfu and Crete out of the way one way or another... the liberal Italy that seems to be forming TTL may well be on much friendlier terms with Greece than the OTL one.
Since Italy and Greece are on opposite shores of the Adriatic and Ionian seas, geo-political rivalry was inevitable in OTL, since both countries were ruled by very conservative politicians hell-bent on irredentism; but a more democratic and wealthy Greece and a more democratic and wealthy Italy could very well be able to sort out their differences and become staunch allies - to the chagrin of Great Britain and Russia, due to both countries' interests in the Balkans and in the Ottoman lands.
even though Greece is more democratic there still is the problem of the nationalist party which would have problems with that and it is not guarantee at all that Italy will be a democratic state ultimately though they are natural geopolitical rivals and have different geopolictal difference in the end so an alliance make it extremely unlikely at best we can see cordial relations
Put simply, no. The last part on the Americas, Part 53: Tippecanoe and Earl Grey Too, I ended the part with Henry Clay winning the Presidency in the 1844 President Election, beating out James K. Polk. Suffice to say, the Mexican American War of OTL is definitely not happening ITTL. Whether there is an ATL Mexican American War in the future of this timeline I can't say for certain at this point in time.
Gian
Banned
Well at the very least, Texas would probably make for a useful buffer between them, and could also enable Mexico to hold California long enough to benefit from the gold rush there.
under the next expanisont president they will prob have war and as expansion keep going there will be more conflict with settlers and mexico will grow even more anger at this point war will be an invetable. Regrading the gold rush happen with a lot of luck and increased population size and at this point as more american settlers move in they will outnumber the mexican settlers exc causing more tension. However the mexican war outcome is up for debate, would they be a match a decade later against america? I wonder what will happen with the Mormons now
Last edited: