What would 19th C Russia's wet-dream scenario in the Balkans look like?


You'll have to ask the Russians. The proposal of the Conference of Constantinople wasn't much better for Serbia and that of San Stefano wasn't much better for Greece. In any case, Serbia would have more to gain from Austria than from Bulgaria and Greece would be untrustworthy under any borders. Also, the main purpose of taking the Straits was securing southern Russia from foreign economic pressures or military capabilities. The Russians can live without a fleet in the Med, not that they have to worry too much about that - the Aegean's nowhere near as efficient as a chokepoint as the Straits.
 
Bulgaria used to be close to half Muslim, and Muslims were a plurality in the entire region Greece gained in the Balkan Wars. The Muslims that survived in the Balkans largely did due to treaties: The Greeks were required to leave the West Thracian Muslims alone, and in the areas you're referring to in Serbia (Kosovo), almost the whole population was Muslim, so options were limited.

In 1877 the Ottoman Balkans were 43% Muslim, and that's not counting Istanbul, and is counting the Aegean Islands. It's nothing even close to that today.

When Serbia became autonomous, the Muslim population was entirely expelled, and the Ottomans were required by international treaty to not allow any Muslims to reside there (in their own territory!)

Here are the figures - Bulgaria is understated because there was a large number of refugees in the Dobruja from the Crimea and Caucasus that were not counted:

Percentage Muslim by province:

Edirne 43.1%
Tuna 43.8%
Sofya 26.4%
Selanik 39.0%
Manastır 25.8%
Kosova 47.0%
İşkodra 62.4%
Yanya 30.1%
Bosna 49.8%
Cezayir 11.1%
Girit 42.9%

Total 42.9%

That represents about 5M Muslims in 1877. There should be at least 5 times that number today due to population growth.
Could you give a source for these figures? The only census carried out before 1878 in the Ottoman Empire was completed only in the Danube (Tuna) province (this is according to the Turkish historian Kemal Karpat who is considered a specialist on the subject: http://books.google.com/books?id=08...#v=onepage&q=kemal karpat census tuna&f=false).
 
You'll have to ask the Russians. The proposal of the Conference of Constantinople wasn't much better for Serbia and that of San Stefano wasn't much better for Greece. In any case, Serbia would have more to gain from Austria than from Bulgaria and Greece would be untrustworthy under any borders. Also, the main purpose of taking the Straits was securing southern Russia from foreign economic pressures or military capabilities. The Russians can live without a fleet in the Med, not that they have to worry too much about that - the Aegean's nowhere near as efficient as a chokepoint as the Straits.

I think your model is broadly accurate, but I have two issues with it.

I'm not certain Russia would give Bulgaria an Adriatic coastline. Given that it's through Albania it doesn't really add value and would be decades before much of a land connection would exist to justify it. Since every other major power can project more naval power than Russia and it lacks Bulgarians or even Slavs, it would also be a tailor made spot for someone else to take away.

Salonika likewise would make more sense in Greek hands. The ethnic bit is a factor, and it isn't worth that much, but it would also serve as a guarantor of Greek friendship with Bulgaria since they couldn't defend it.
 
I'm not certain Russia would give Bulgaria an Adriatic coastline. Given that it's through Albania it doesn't really add value and would be decades before much of a land connection would exist to justify it. Since every other major power can project more naval power than Russia and it lacks Bulgarians or even Slavs, it would also be a tailor made spot for someone else to take away.

I don't think "don't give it to them 'cause they might lose it in the future" is the sort of argument that ever pops out. If they lose it, too bad, if they don't, all the better. And the Balkans are not the surface of the Moon; there must be some roads linking Durres to Macedonia, and building railroads doesn't take forever. A shaky connection to a body of water is worth more than no connection to that body - ask Bolivia.

Salonika likewise would make more sense in Greek hands. The ethnic bit is a factor, and it isn't worth that much, but it would also serve as a guarantor of Greek friendship with Bulgaria since they couldn't defend it.
The Greeks want a lot more than Salonica and there's simply no guarantee of Greek friendship. In any case, when you're that secure in the Balkans you simply don't need Greece.
 
Top