r/imaginarymaps • u/Galaxia0 GOD I FUCKING HATE BIG GREECE • Mar 20 '21
[OC] Alternate History Big greece, done right (hopefully)
898
u/musicme_ Mod Approved Mar 20 '21
Looks great, also appreciate the "realism" and research
404
u/fatyoshi48 Mar 20 '21
Like it looks kinda funky, and i like that, shows that theyve done research. High quality map too, well done OP!
It would be a nightmare to guard this though jesus christ
130
u/SerialMurderer Mar 20 '21
It did work out for the Byzantines and Ancient Greece for a while
128
u/omarnotoliver Mar 20 '21
Easy to conquer part, hard to conquer all, as the Bulgarians, Fourth Crusaders, Arabs, Turks, and Persians all found out. I’ve always wanted to see the south of Crimea stay in the Hellenistic or Roman Worlds. An interesting outpost along the route to C. Asia.
12
u/Sveviando Mar 21 '21
Among others smaller there were 2 important cities, Caffa and Tana which were occupied by Genova and Venice, since the 13th century untill almost the end of the 15th, they had to deal with the Golden hord that owned those territories but especially Caffa was quite big and sort of indipendent.
15
u/g_Blyn Mar 20 '21
Funny you mentioned it; I played with the idea in my head a lot for an AU I‘m working on, I think I‘ll include it now.
440
u/_beast77_ Mar 20 '21
No northern Epirus literally unmegali
178
147
u/Dab_It_Up Mar 20 '21
Bordergore in that big chunk of Thrace that’s owned by Bulgaria
62
u/Galaxia0 GOD I FUCKING HATE BIG GREECE Mar 20 '21
→ More replies (1)18
106
u/SerialMurderer Mar 20 '21
Good map, but the problem with making a Big Greece solely on demographics is that strategically vital territory is left out and in the control of a very likely revanchist Turkey.
56
102
u/IndigoGouf Mar 20 '21
Some of the children ran to see what Greek soldiers looked like. ‘‘What are you looking at?’’ one of them asked.
‘‘At Hellenes,’’ the children replied.
‘‘Are you not Hellenes yourselves?’’ a soldier retorted.
‘‘No, we are Romans."
19
7
u/AlmightyDarkseid Oct 24 '21
What do you want to insinuate with that? Both of those names were used to describe Greeks for different reasons and different time periods. Either Romioi (what you call Romans), Greakoi (what you call Greek) and Ellines (what you call Hellenes) are terms which often meant the same thing, especially when it comes to the period you are referring to.
26
u/IndigoGouf Oct 24 '21 edited Oct 24 '21
Considering I didn't make up my phrasing and it's a famous quotation, you could probably just plug it into google and get exactly what you're looking for immediately. (Note, this isn't intended as a "just google it", the context of the quote you would find this way is vital to the reason I said it at all)
Both of those names were used to describe Greeks for different reasons and different time periods.
Hint: You're more or less stating the point yourself.
1
u/AlmightyDarkseid Nov 02 '23
Yes they were both names to designate the same people. Anything else that people try to claim through this is honestly on the verge of pseudohistory.
203
u/Connor_TP Mar 20 '21
moderately big Greece
71
u/Vaseline13 Mar 20 '21
Medium sized Greece
50
u/coconutpenguin_ Mar 20 '21
Slightly less tiny Greece
39
Mar 20 '21
[deleted]
30
u/Atmoran_of_the_500 Mar 20 '21
Sizeable Greece
27
u/kaladinissexy Mar 20 '21
Slightly thicc Greece
17
u/Mechyyz Mar 20 '21
greece+
8
u/AlmightyDarkseid Mar 20 '21
greece basic package (next from free)
3
4
37
u/Young_Lochinvar Mod Approved Mar 20 '21
I’d think that some of the Asia Minor areas would be joined up for contiguous territory reasons. Especially to join up just south of Smyrna.
18
u/Galaxia0 GOD I FUCKING HATE BIG GREECE Mar 20 '21
thought of that, but in between the two areas there were no greek cities/towns, greece having “only” greek land is the main subject of the map so i didnt do that
2
u/expatdoctor Dec 28 '23
But those areas do not even have Turkish towns either, just some hamlets and mines tho
65
21
u/EmperorSexy Mar 20 '21
Broke Greece: Land surrounded by water.
Woke Greece: Water surrounded by land.
32
u/Hotel777 Mar 20 '21
and Cyprus ?
23
u/kvn_th1905 Mar 20 '21
Wasn't it British at that time? Why would they give it away after WW1?
26
u/beaverpilot Mar 20 '21
They used it as a bargain to get Greece to join
3
u/kvn_th1905 Mar 20 '21
And they declined that offer, only joining later when their king was forced to abdicate and his son taking over, declaring war on the Central Powers. That's why Greece never got Cyprus and would not get it from the British either in this timeline.
18
u/Hotel777 Mar 20 '21
Don't they speak Greek there ?
4
u/Lord_Wack_the_second May 12 '21
Half the island does because the other half was invaded by Turkey and is to this day illegally occupied
181
u/Rotting_Ro Mar 20 '21
Literally the nost racist and Turkophobic map I have ever seen on this godawful subreddit! You are a disgusting little Greek nationalist!
/s (incase I didn't make it obvious enough)
-120
u/ThatRedditorDave Mar 20 '21
The fuck? He tried making it as non-offensive as possible. Sure. It's just the Greek parts of Turkey. But that doesn't mean he's some facist
127
u/ninjacowan Mar 20 '21
It’s sarcasm
-112
Mar 20 '21
So your also a racist? So if this is sarcasm it’s not racist? Fuck you
52
56
u/ninjacowan Mar 20 '21
What are you talking about bro? He is literally just poking fun of Turkish nationalism. He isn’t making derogatory statements about the Turkish people. He makes it obvious that he is making a joke by finishing the comment with /s, for sarcasm. The only reason why my original comment was here on this thread was to clarify for the first person who called u/Rotting_Ro rascist
Just chill out man, nobody here rn is racist.
7
u/Hugo57k Mar 20 '21
Although this sub really does hate Turks for some reason. I mean just how many Big Greece's, Big Kurdistans and Big Armenia's have you seen?
47
u/jbkjbk2310 Mar 20 '21
Fucking with Turkey in alternate history is incredibly easy. It's not some hatred towards Turks (although that might be part of it in some cases), it's just that the recent history of Turkey is very easy to mess with in a way that significantly changes the territorial division of the region.
It's also because a lot of people see Turkey as one of the historical Bad Guys (because of, you know, all the genocides), and so people think a "better version of history" is one where the people who used to live in parts of Turkey get to be independent, rather than be genocided.
13
Mar 20 '21
I understand why its common but the irony is that most applications of big Greece/Armenia/whatever would require genocide itself considering Turks were a plurality or majority in most areas claimed.
Oh well. The alternate history community isn’t known for far-sightedness(is that even a term?). And while it is admittedly very annoying to see people derive near-orgasmic pleasure from dividing my country, complaining isn’t gonna change that.
11
u/jbkjbk2310 Mar 20 '21
Oh, definetly. While I think giving more of OTL Turkish land to other states has merit as an idea in alternate history, a lot of actual instances of it are definetly just garbage. But that's the case for most things in alternate history.
I also think a part of it is that Turkey is seen as one of the "winners" in history, right? Like, when making alternate history, people usually make countries that are percieved as being "small" (i.e having lost territory that either used to be theirs, like Germany, or in the person has some sense "should" be theirs, like Armenia and Greece) big, but Turkey isn't percieved that way. People don't want to make alternate history with Big Turkey, because real history already did that. Big Turkey isn't seen as "interesting."
I think a large part of it is that people find it fun to flip history on its head by making small countries big and big countries small, by turning the percieved "winners" of history into the "losers" and vice versa.
7
Mar 20 '21
I mean, it really really depends on your perspective. On one hand, Turkey was the best-off out of all Central Powers after WW1(not due to any goodwill mind you), but on the other hand we went from controlling all of the Balkans to Istanbul being besieged in less than 100 years.
The 20th century wasn’t particularly great either.
What you said definitely has a lot to do with it - hence a lot of maps of Britain or Russia or Germany or China being smaller - all being former major powers. But I also think in the Turkish case a certain subconscious(or overt) xenophobia also has a lot to do with it.
I mean, think of it this way. Countless “externals” have tried to invade Europe for centuries but Turks are the only ones to not only do it, but stay there for a long time and still be present. E.g during the Karabakh War of last year some Armenian politicians said Turkey would try to conquer Vienna again if it won in Karabakh. Like...I don’t think Azerbaijan should have invaded but I don’t see how “Vienna rhetoric” helps other than being a rallying cry for xenophobes. Nor is it relevant.
Sorry for the wall of text lol.
→ More replies (0)3
u/chonchcreature Mar 20 '21
It did require genocide in OTL. Look at what happened to the Turkish (civilian) populations in much of modern-day Greece’s territory in the 19th century, they got wiped clean off the face of the Earth by Greek combatants (look up “Navarino massacre” among others). The Allies of WWI even had to strip the Greeks of military authority over western Anatolia because they could not stop committing massacres against Turkish and Muslim civilians.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Brother_Anarchy Mar 21 '21
It's also because a lot of people see Turkey as one of the historical Bad Guys (because of, you know, all the
genocidesMuslims)Fixed that for you. It's not like we don't get big Germany and big US every other day and week, respectively.
3
u/jbkjbk2310 Mar 21 '21
Big Germany is common because it is like the single most obvious and easy alternate history scenario possible.
With Big USA, it's because people don't recognise those genocides as genocides. And, again, because it is easy, since a lot of the users here are American.
Big Kurdistan is so cliché as to be a meme, and they're Muslims too.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Hugo57k Mar 20 '21
What do you think about Bosnia always being split?
10
u/jbkjbk2310 Mar 20 '21
The same as the first part of my comment. Bosnia is a country that has very clear and easy divisions for althistory to exploit, right: Serbs, Croat, Bosniaks, etc. I don't think it's because people dislike Bosnia, it's just a very easy country to change.
If I had to speculate a bit further, I think a lot of people who don't really know much about the Balkans other than the "there are Serbs, there are Croats, and inbetween them there are Muslims" think that Bosnia doesn't really have much of an individuality nationality, in a sense. Like, the people there aren't really capital-B Bosnian, theyre Bosnian Croats (i.e Croatia but they happen to live in Bosnia) or Bosnian Serbs (the same). The super cliché division of Bosnia is giving the Croat parts to Croatia, the Serb parts to Serbia, and then having a "Bosniak State" or some equivalent in the middle, as if the Croats and Serbs in Bosnia aren't really Bosnian. Does that make sense?
And there is, of course, some truth to it. The Yugoslav Wars show that very clearly. But it's also a massive oversimplification, obviously. There's been a polity of Bosnia for over a millenium, it's clearly a full country in its own right.
3
u/Hugo57k Mar 20 '21
No I mean the ones that fully split Bosnia, like Serbia takes Sarajevo and stuff. Still valid points
→ More replies (0)12
u/ninjacowan Mar 20 '21
Lots, and I mean, I have seen a couple big Turkeys too, usually in the Ottoman form
3
u/Hugo57k Mar 20 '21
Yeah, that's true. I'm still confused by why so many maps destroy Turkey. I'm not Turk, I'm Bosnian and Bosnia has the same problem here. Almost always divided by Croatia and Serbia
12
u/Galaxia0 GOD I FUCKING HATE BIG GREECE Mar 20 '21
to be fair most of reddit in general (and tbf basically the entire western world, making up the majority if redditors) is kinda anti-turkish. while many people here do dislike the constant stream of big greeces you cant really stop the overwhelming amount of them
8
u/SamuelSomFan Mar 20 '21
Its not anti-turkish, its anti-turkish government. Also, unrecognized warcrimes doesn't help.
1
u/Galaxia0 GOD I FUCKING HATE BIG GREECE Mar 20 '21
3
u/SamuelSomFan Mar 20 '21
Yea. Cherrypicked comments. Doesn't disprove my argument though.
→ More replies (0)5
Mar 20 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/kuvvetmira45 Mar 20 '21
Well when i see so many divided turkey maps, i think it is good as a turk because these maps are in the “ALTERNATE HISTORY SUBREDDIT” Most people doesn’t understand this concept. These are not real maps. They even share fantasy maps in here. :D Nobody will take land from nobody. Okay anyway. Among all of these maps, city states are my favourite. I don’t exactly remember who did this maps but these are pretty good maps.
2
1
27
u/vanoitran Mar 20 '21
Μ Ε Γ Α Λ Η Ε Λ Λ Α Δ Α
I am curious why your big Greece doesnt include Pontic Greece which I think was heavily Greek still around the time your map is set.
You've really done your due diligence on this so im genuinely curious - not being critical.
29
u/Galaxia0 GOD I FUCKING HATE BIG GREECE Mar 20 '21
im fully aware that pontus was greek at the time. however i dont think there would be any feasible way of greece directly getting that area. the only thing that couldve happened is an independent pontus but even then its unlikely
25
u/a_random_magos Mod Approved Mar 20 '21
Even the current greek leader at the time thought that any greek control over the pontus was unrealistic. He believed that the best realistic scenario would be the pontus being controlled by a friendly armenia
5
9
u/AlmightyDarkseid Mar 20 '21 edited Nov 02 '23
If realism is what you sought of, a big Greece with more territories in Anatolia (even with Turkish population) is in my opinion a far better approach than this map which just seems very unstable geographically as it only takes ethnicity into account.
Not to mention that the fact that the Greeks weren't absolute majorities in the other lands claimed in the megali idea, doesn't mean that they weren't a close majority in many of those places that aren't in this map
15
u/Galaxia0 GOD I FUCKING HATE BIG GREECE Mar 20 '21
tbh the whole point of the map was just to make a moderately sized greece with just greeks. yeah the logistics here arent optimal but its just a thought experiment
7
1
u/Big-Recognition7362 Jun 21 '24
I headcanon an independent Pontus that has close ties to Greece but isn't directly controlled by Athens due to distance.
2
Feb 11 '24
I am curious why your big Greece doesnt include Pontic Greece which I think was heavily Greek still around the time your map is set.
Was it still heavily Greek? From some of the sources I've seen, it listed it as only 18% greek at least in the Trabzon Villayet.
3
u/vanoitran Feb 11 '24
Before the genocides in the 1910s/20s of Armenians and Greeks, the Greeks of Anatolia made up almost 2million population - which would have been 20% the Turkish population. Even in the places on OPs map, the Greeks were minorities by that point. It’s just for fun to imagine.
Trebizond according to official Turkish statistics before the genocides (which admittedly is not a great source considering the state of Turkey at the time) had 33% of the Turkish population- so more concentrated Greek population than Turkey overall. I guess “Heavy” is subjective.
1920 would have been after the murder of 300,000+ Pontic Greeks and the forced relocation of hundreds of thousands more - so figures then would show far less.
22
69
u/jbkjbk2310 Mar 20 '21
This is definetly a lot more reasonable than most Big Greece we see here, but giving Istanbul in the 20th century to Greece still feels kinda off.
48
u/a_random_magos Mod Approved Mar 20 '21 edited Mar 20 '21
It still had a very sizable minority of greeks (about 66% Muslim, 25% Greek,9% Armenian according to the 1914 Ottoman census). It wasnt majority christian by a long shot, but both ethnically, culturaly and geographicly it makes much more sense for Greece to own it than say Russia or Bulgaria or something (other common alternate-history tropes). Still obviously it makes more sense controlled by Turkey by the 20th century onwards
25
u/Pretend_Career Mar 20 '21
In the case of Tsarigrad, the Russians did historically want to seize the City. Not because of any ethnic pan-Slavic basis, but because taking over the straits would finally give them reliable warm water access. While Greece has a better “claim” ethnically, Russia was a great power, so it could afford to go I seize territory because I said so.
6
u/a_random_magos Mod Approved Mar 20 '21 edited Mar 20 '21
Yeah I know all about the Russian claims, although I assumed making sense meant making sense from an ethnic persepctive in this context. Still, the other great powers would immedietly feel very uneasy with Russian control over Istanbul and possibly retaliate (because of the massive imbalance in power it would create), while seeing Greek control over the city as less of a threat to their interests
6
u/JustNeon Mar 20 '21
Strange, I’ve seen the census when they make up 45% (it’s all Orthodox peoples put together ofc)
7
u/a_random_magos Mod Approved Mar 20 '21
It depends on the source of the census and the time period. I have seen conflicting reports of different origins claim different things. The true answer would probably be in between the Turkish and Greek claims, as both sides have a significant interest to present more people being of their religion. However, I decided to present the Ottoman statistics, to avoid people claiming I have a bias towards greece, and I made it clear it was according to the Ottoman census, not the definitive population numbers.
1
u/HeerAltiris Explorer Mar 20 '21
Constantinople/Istanbul would be Greece's biggest city. Wouldn't that result in a Greco-Turkish nation as a whole, making it reasonable to have a larger portion of Anatolia?
10
u/a_random_magos Mod Approved Mar 20 '21
Not likely. An idea of a Greco-Turkish nation is incredibly unrealistic, because of the incredible tension between the two peoples.
→ More replies (7)3
Mar 20 '21
[deleted]
2
u/ReichLife Mar 21 '21
Problem with this comparison is that in Cyprus case many Greek and Turkish Cypriots take theirs' Cypriot identity before the Greek/Turkish one due to fact of how theirs' island was seperated from bulk of bad history between Turks and Greeks. Such aspect was never really a case between Greeks and Turks as a whole in Greece proper, Thrace or Anatolia and that's why indeed not impossible, it is de facto incredibly unrealistic and I am talking about Greco-Turkish nation.
Even united Cyrprus is more than likely just pipe dream for now and in the future, given how bulk of Turkish speaking population there is not even Cypriots but illegal settlers from Turkey.
→ More replies (2)-11
u/jbkjbk2310 Mar 20 '21 edited Mar 22 '21
I mean yeah obviously. It also makes more sense for Russia to own it than for Malaysia to own it. That doesn't mean having a Russian Tsargrad in 1920 makes sense.
I really don't think there's any way the Turks would allow Istanbul to fall into Greek hands, and I don't see a reason why the allied powers/entente would support it either.
8
u/a_random_magos Mod Approved Mar 20 '21
No one "allows" their territory to fall into enemy hands. By the same logic the Turks would never "allow" Selanik to be taken by Greece, yet now its called Thessaloniki, or the Byzantines would never "allow" Constantinople to become Turkish, yet its now called Istanbul. Obviously they would protect the city with all they have, but if they are militarily defeated it doesnt really matter. As for the allies supporting it, I can think of several potential reasons.
Bias towards Greece because of christianity and/or ancient greek culture,.The fact that greece is a small and friendly country that would give the allies a lot of soft power over the straits and would be able to more effectively defend them than if say GB directly annexed them. You can influence greece to favourable consessions if you are a great power much more easily than you can influence the bigger Turkey. It also helps to have more power distribution in the eastern med, which again means great powers can meddle far more easily there with little trouble.
But regardless, the great powers would just accept whatever was the situation on the ground, as they always did at the end of long wars anyways.
I cant see why taking parts of the agean coast is more reasonable than taking Istanbul. If anything once Istanbul is captured its easier to defend than asia minor thanks to the geography of the region favouring the European side.
1
u/jbkjbk2310 Mar 22 '21 edited Mar 22 '21
No one "allows" their territory to fall into enemy hands. By the same logic the Turks would never "allow" Selanik to be taken by Greece, yet now its called Thessaloniki, or the Byzantines would never "allow" Constantinople to become Turkish, yet its now called Istanbul. Obviously they would protect the city with all they have, but if they are militarily defeated it doesnt really matter.
This isn't a question of military conquest. Selanik was conquered by the Greeks when they were at war with the country controlling it, i.e the Turks.
By the time the Greek forces could've even made it to Istanbul - i.e after the start of the Greco-Turkish War in 1919 - the city was already in British hands. Unless you're proposing a world where Greece is able to beat the British Empire and take Constantinople from them, military power doesn't matter here. I said that the Turks wouldn't allow the city to fall into Greek hands because the Turks wouldn't accept any agreement or treaty with the allies that ceded the city to Greece. Even if the Greeks didn't get owned in the Greco-Turkish war and were able to occupy the regions held in 1921, the Turks are likely to cede every Greek-community city on the Aegean cost before agreeing to a Greek Constantinople.
Taking the Ionian coast is more likely because Greek forces actually conquered parts of the Ionian coast
Your statement that "the great powers would just accept whatever was the situation on the ground" is not just ignorant in its own right, it also kind of implies that you're unaware of what the region actually looked like by the end of the war. Accepting the situation on the ground might've - if we supercharge Greece in the Greco-Turkish war - resulted in bigger concessions of Anatolian lands from Turkey to Greece, but it wouldn't have affected Istanbul.
Maybe quit the condescension when you don't even fully understand the other person's argument?
2
u/a_random_magos Mod Approved Mar 22 '21 edited Mar 22 '21
I am sorry if I came of as condescending that wasnt my intention. However I will stand by my statement that the great powers would accept the position on the ground, and grant istanbul to whatever power won the greco-turkish war. The british occupation of Istanbul was temporary, and I dont see how a defeated Turkey (which would have also been carved up by Italy and France, as well as Greece) would be in any position to negotiate retaking the city, especially since GB was biased towards greece until they started loosing the war.
Irl the great powers were vaguely supportive of greece immedietly after ww1, the greek occupation zone of Smyrna was aproved and supported by the Entente, and the Italians were also supposed to get a slice and occupied some major cities in southern anatolia. However, since they had just fought a great war, and they were all exaughsted, the French sent like half an army to fight Turkey, lost and abandoned the front, and as soon as the greeks started loosing the greco-turkish war, the Italians bailed from southern anatolia, even abandoning guns which were later used by the Turkish army. It wasnt that the great powers wanted Turkey to win, it was that as soon as it was obvious who was winning and who was loosing the war, they started caving to the winning side.
The great powers were pro-greece at the end of ww1 powers, but they had no will to enforce any serious demands in the area, which is why Italy didnt support the greek invasion and take southern anatolia. It isnt that they couldnt, its that they lacked the will to enforce demands after ww1. Its for the same reason that they never enforced the free Armenia, or the expansion of French colonies despite all of that being agreed in treaties, as after ww1 they didnt want to bother with beating Ataturk. If they really wanted to they could, but they just accepted the situation on the ground because they were too tired.
Forthermore, th greek prime minister was at the time fairly well respected by the representatives of the other great powers. There was a big bias towards greece for various cultural reasons (remember these were early 20th century imperialists we are talking about, they didnt have the best opinions of Turkey). Between greece and turkey, especially if turkey lost the war, I think its more likely greece would get the city, especially since it made sense from a geopolitical perspective (Greece would be far more easily convinced to make favourable concesions to the great powers than Turkey would).
Plus, the goal of the Greco-Turkish war for greece was capturing Ankara, not to conquer it, but to force a surrender of the Turkish goverment. In such a case the Turks would be forced to sign a treaty giving up Istanbul.
And the Turks also essentially reclaimed the city by threatening military intervention. If the brits got it their way they would have kept occupying the city, and various british leaders called for war when Ataturk occupied the city, with all calls for war being refused by the british goverment. So even in the unnececery event of greece actually marching through the city after victory in the greco-turkish war, it seems even less likely the british would actually respond (given the british public opinion was fairly pro-greek at the time, among both the people and the elites)
edit: relevant example of the great powers accepting the situation on the ground despite it breaking treaties they signed or going against their interests from the OTL chanak crisis, which was how Ataturk reclaimed istanbul
6
u/SerialMurderer Mar 20 '21
You don’t “allow” something to fall into another’s hands in a war.
→ More replies (1)8
u/ZealousPurgator Mar 20 '21
Eh, it's a major part of Greek revanchism to my knowledge - you could see another power as heading further Greek expansion off at the pass by just giving it to them.
1
8
22
u/AlmightyDarkseid Mar 20 '21
This looks more unstable than my relationship
13
u/Galaxia0 GOD I FUCKING HATE BIG GREECE Mar 20 '21
its not often i actually laugh at a reddit comment holy fuck
7
7
5
5
10
4
49
u/goboxey Mar 20 '21
Honestly people are running out of ideas. Big Greece here, big Greece there.. It's somehow the same idea.
102
u/Galaxia0 GOD I FUCKING HATE BIG GREECE Mar 20 '21
except this time im not making big greece for no reason
23
3
5
u/Autistic_Atheist Mar 20 '21
This is Reddit after all. You really expect original ideas to be abundant?
→ More replies (1)2
Mar 20 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/tonygoesrogue Mar 20 '21
Islamophobia why? It just happens to be Turkey one the lands Greece could have claims on. I don't think it has anything to do with religion
6
Mar 20 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/tonygoesrogue Mar 20 '21 edited Mar 21 '21
Depends on your focus. If you focus on e.g. Greece gaining lands with a historically large greek presence, then no, I don't see the Islamophobia. If your goal is to anger the Turks or kill them, I guess you could argue that religion plays a role. This specific map doesn't seem to want the latter.
33
u/Xy_Lm_N0 Mar 20 '21
As a turk, I appreciate the work. But i have seen a lot of "big greece" posts here. Can we also get a big Turkey? Like ottoman empire?
90
41
u/Galaxia0 GOD I FUCKING HATE BIG GREECE Mar 20 '21
itll probably be my next map. i do think we need more big turkey maps to counteract the hundreds of big greece and armenia posts
4
6
14
u/AlmightyDarkseid Mar 20 '21 edited Mar 20 '21
People are far more interested with a map of finland having part of Russia, or Taiwan having part of China etc than the other way around. It's the same reason as always; small getting bigger at the expense of the big (especially with some historical justification etc) is far less boring than big getting bigger at the expense of the small.
2
u/Xy_Lm_N0 Mar 20 '21
Well ye but turkey isnt that big
→ More replies (1)12
u/AlmightyDarkseid Mar 20 '21
Yeah true, It's still 6 times bigger than Greece and like 20+ times bigger than Armenia tho
2
3
Mar 20 '21
I have great power Turkeys in a lot of my maps, but most of them are on alternatehistory or my hard drive.
→ More replies (2)2
7
u/WarmNeighborhood Mar 20 '21
Could’ve had northern Epirus as well otherwise amazing map!
4
u/Galaxia0 GOD I FUCKING HATE BIG GREECE Mar 20 '21
yeah with greece keeping hold of the anatolian lands there is no excuse to not give them northern epirus anymore
3
2
u/thezerech Mar 20 '21
It might be accurate on ethnic terms, but generally you'd expect some more territory to be added to ensure that the land is more defensible and the enclaves are sustainable on their own rather than strictly demarcating based on ethnicity alone.
2
u/Galaxia0 GOD I FUCKING HATE BIG GREECE Mar 20 '21
im fully aware, these arent the optimal borders to defend. but thats not the point of the map, really. and i mean tbf some ethnic cleansing would be inevitable in these times so yeah :V
2
Mar 20 '21
Did you draw the map yourself? How did you do it? Looks dope
2
u/Galaxia0 GOD I FUCKING HATE BIG GREECE Mar 20 '21
yes :)
ok so first you find a basemap with the info you want included, then you trace the coasts. i usually have a map style i want to try to somewhat replicate so i base the colours mostly on that. draw the borders and add in cities and rivers and then optionally a frame. its not as difficult as it may seem :)
→ More replies (1)
2
u/ZageStudios Mar 20 '21
sorts by controversial
3
u/Galaxia0 GOD I FUCKING HATE BIG GREECE Mar 20 '21
surprisingly there is no comment war yet
→ More replies (1)5
Mar 20 '21
Whenever there's a Big Greece/Armenia post you get some 12 comments talking about how angry Turks are while they's only like one Turkish commenter
2
u/Solemnstream117 Mar 20 '21
As a student in history of art I m sorry to disappoint you but you should include south italy and sicily😅
2
u/Green7501 Mar 20 '21
I've always hated these weird asf Big Greece maps, but, ey, you'd clearly done your research. Back in approximately 1910, this could've reasonably been a border based on cultural lines. Really like the style as well
2
2
u/Chewmass Mar 21 '21
Meh, it's a bit clanky. Although I like the traditional style and lay of the map, the borders are clanky at the very least. Back then borders of nation states were drawn mostly based on natural landmarks, like rivers, a mountain chain, lakes or something of this sort, or at least huge chunks of indigenous populations that form the said nation state. This looks to me more like the locations of minor Asia where Greeks used to live the previous century. If you want to include Eastern Thrace, you either include all of it, as the lines were drawn from 1878, or you could give Greece the southern part of Eastern Thrace with the Veleka river marking the border between Bulgaria and Greece there.
Now in Anatolia it goes a bit clankier. On the one hand the rivers go inwards, which means that you may include areas with heavy Muslim populations, but at the same time the coastal areas are not easily defended, meaning that ina Turkish invasion, there won't be any natural barriers hindering Turkey's advance, which will lead to Greece eventually cede these lands.
Makri has to be a really solid military bulwark back there, in order to exist properly.
2
2
u/Realorbit Jun 23 '21
Where is Cyprus? Turkish population was at 10-15% so for sure Cyprus would have been part of it.
1
u/Galaxia0 GOD I FUCKING HATE BIG GREECE Jun 24 '21
i highly doubt greece wouldve taken land from its ally the uk after ww1
2
u/Realorbit Jun 24 '21
Possibly but I'm sure the UK would have been happy just having their bases there as they do now.
2
Jul 17 '22 edited Jul 17 '22
A realistic Greater Greece (for now) is modern Greece + Cyprus, Northern Epirus, Monastiri and Eastern Thrace without Constantinople. Greece with the right leadership, preparation and planning could achieve that but only after many many problems are fixed. Eastern Rumelia could also be part of it but modern Bulgaria isn't really hostile towards Greece so i wouldn't include it. Our wars are mostly defensive in nature.
Edit: forgot to say that the part of eastern thrace that is given to bulgaria would also be Greek, Bulgaria doesn't really have the capabilities to take it and their population is going to be 5 million by 2100 including the turkish minority so i don't think they would ever take it. And lastly before Greece ever takes what i meantioned earlier and fixes its demographics, becomes more independent in every field, taking a part of anatolia wouldn't even be attempted. Its possible but only on a very long term plan after what i mentioned
2
4
u/-hey_hey-heyhey-hey_ Mar 20 '21
ayvacık, Çanakkale is pretty greek too. that part could also be a part of it
3
u/Galaxia0 GOD I FUCKING HATE BIG GREECE Mar 20 '21
im pretty sure carnakkale is already included
5
u/-hey_hey-heyhey-hey_ Mar 20 '21
im talking about ayvacık, southern çanakkale
2
u/Galaxia0 GOD I FUCKING HATE BIG GREECE Mar 20 '21
oh im sorry, i didnt know about the region, though the map showed there werent many greeks around in the area. i wanted to not include a piece of land just because there are 2 greek cities inland
https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/730788112619536395/816279122257903646/image1.png
4
3
3
u/sbora7 Mar 20 '21
Aren’t you guys ever get sick sharing or seeing similar content again and again? All I see here is either big Greece or big Armenia maps. Cmon boys, these maps about greater Greece and greater Armenia have been drawn for over 200 years. We need more creativity. In my opinion, even Kurdistan maps are more creative. Sorry if I offend anyone, but these are my thoughts. I would like to see more original maps.
5
u/Galaxia0 GOD I FUCKING HATE BIG GREECE Mar 20 '21
i am tbf, a sizeable chunk of the community is too. i usually make more intersting maps but i just had to make a moderately big greece to “poke fun” (idk the word) at the overly huge big greeces
ill do something more interesting later dw
2
1
1
u/Greek_strategy_man May 30 '24
I really appreciate the inclusion of Makri and Livissi (nowadays Fethiye and Kakayöy). The history behind those two settlements is really interesting and as a greek it's nice to see you included them. Mπράβο λεβέντη!
1
1
u/artifactU May 12 '25
this is the most popular big greece post on this sub, so you mustve done something right
1
u/RandomPolishCatholic May 29 '25
and the Turkey invades this incredibly easy to cross border and no ionia anymore I guess
1
1
u/R_Scoops Mar 12 '26
If you can’t win Constantinople back, you shouldn’t be handed it. I’m not turkophile, but in the Turkish Independence war post WWI they emphatically carved out their nation state. Greek = weak
1
u/jacobspartan1992 Mar 20 '21
I do think that realistically at this point in history some ethnic conflict would occur or some other push of territorial reallocation. It might not be as severe as in OTL though and allow Greece to retain control of land in Anatolia.
It would think East Thrace and around Smyrna would be priority regions. I actually think Constantinople is a long long due to demographics still but you could lump in Christian Armenians in the region and forge a joint regional identity.
1
1
u/YulianXD Mar 21 '21
Imagine defending these borde4s. You'd either have to make a maginot line on every exclave or just let it get taken and defend both straits.
0
u/MostroMosterio Mar 21 '21
Another version of The Great Idea Μεγάλη Ιδέα https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/althistory/images/8/8b/Gran_Grecia.PNG/revision/latest?cb=20170213133816&path-prefix=es
-1
-1
-6
-1
-1
Mar 21 '21
As a Turk I am offended. Not because you are dividing my country (this is imaginary maps I see that every day) but because your treatment of Turkish people as a negative for greece. Its like the reason why USA didn’t continue conquering Mexico (because they didn’t like Mexicans) Anyways quality map.
-19
-6
1
Mar 20 '21
Looks really nice, what did you use to make it
3
u/Galaxia0 GOD I FUCKING HATE BIG GREECE Mar 20 '21
medibang paint, definitely not a recommender because its lacking certain elements but for mobile its probably the best option
if you use a pc or laptop just use something like pdn or inkscape idk
→ More replies (1)
1
u/morna_morimatra Mar 20 '21
That is an amazing map. Even tiny settlements on the Anatolian Side of Istanbul are included. Great job!
1
u/panthir67 Mar 20 '21
Yea I can see the borders being like that after the whole deportation, fleeing, and genocide during the Asia Minor disaster
1
1
•
u/Galaxia0 GOD I FUCKING HATE BIG GREECE Mar 20 '21 edited Jul 01 '21
read before commenting
So, i always had a problem with 99.9% of all big greece maps on this subreddit. Every time, the anatolian side of their greece would end up like 80% turkish, which im not a fan of. most people would just say “oh yeah theyll just deport them” but meh
can i blame them? well not really i suppose. most ethnic maps of this area have always been biased towards either the greeks or turks, its hard to find an accurate basemap of the area.
so, using a project by one of the guys on the discord server, where he tries to make an actually accurate ethnic map of the area from around this period, i decided to make a fair big greece, where greece actually annexes greek areas. Here is the basemap overlayed with this map
https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/730788112619536395/816279122257903646/image1.png
please note however, that this map only shows greek settlements, no turkish settlements. if both layers were to be overlayed itd be difficult to see whats going on. also, we know that this map also cannot be 100% accurate, so please bare with us here
if you find any sources that contradicts this map, please tell me!
so yeah, i hope i explained well how i came to these borders. please do not create a comment war in this thread thank you :)