Your opinion on th Asia Minor campaign of Greek armed forces - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Inter-war period (1919-1938), Russian civil war (1917–1921) and other non World War topics (1914-1945).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#13232935
I kept looking and searching about what caused the Greek armed forces to lose in Asia Minor and i have come to many causes, such as the turn of the Major Powers'' ''likeness'' from Greece to Turkey and the change of stance of the USSR towards Turkey and their aid in arms and money.I ask for your opinion about that, do you know anything else that caused the later disaster and the murders and the displacement of the many thousands of Greeks that used to live in the coast of Asia Minor for more than 2.500 years.
User avatar
By Goldberk
#13237451
The m,ain causes seem to be, that the turks at the start of the war were fighting on three fronts, a fact that changed towards the end, the allies withdrew support, perhaps mostly due to the return of king constantine, who also purged the millitary of experienced officers.
By Panagiotis-Hector
#13237514
Yes you are right.I have see some military records of the time and some ''worthy'' generals made some terrible mistakes since 1920(the year that P.M. Eleutherios Benizelos lost in the elections and the king came back).I don't know where the king found those generals, but their mistakes where childish!Maybe they where the only ones who where loyal to him.
User avatar
By Goldberk
#13237518
I think your right, he chose officers who were monarchists not competant.
User avatar
By Anothroskon
#13237627
The whole thing was organized by Greeks. Am I the only one to spot this obvious flaw?
By Panagiotis-Hector
#13242388
Exactly, when the king took over...he messed it up.Strategically i believe that he was as bad as his generals.
User avatar
By Doomhammer
#13242997
Exactly, when the king took over...he messed it up.

That's an over simplication.

Here are a few points I'd like to make:

1. The Nationalist forces, despite being overwhelmed, adopted a different approach. Simply, the Turks, who had historically always been unfamiliar/incompetent at retreats, finally learned how conduct a proper defensive war. The Turks also adopted a clever defense in depth doctrine: "There is no defense of a line, but there is the defense of the superficies”, as Ataturk told his soldiers. The Greek army never managed to encircle the Nationalists.

2. By 1921, the Greek army was exhausted and low on morale. The Greek army had reached its culminating point (especially after being halted at Inonu by Ismet Pasha).

3. Constantine was unpopular with the Allies, who then cut off military aid to Greece after he came to power.

4. By 1921, the Nationalists managed to quell internal rebellions (Ethem the Circassian), bested the Armenians, pacified the French and Italians, and reached agreements regarding its Eastern borders (Kars and Moscow agreements). Add to that arms and gold from Central Asia and the Soviet Union, and the fact that many of the troops in the East were freed up, the Turkish position became stronger.

5. [Continuing on point 2) It was only with some pause and fresh reinforcements that the Greeks, depite exhaustion and extended supply-lines, were able to press on. The Greeks were on the verge of victory in late 1921...

6. ... Depite Soviet ammunition, supplies were still short on the Turkish side and the Greeks still had the advantage in numbers but they choose the defensive strategy of occupying strategic points in Central Anatolia, rather than taking the risky choice of pursuing the Turks all the way to Ankara. I suppose this could be do to the poor judgement of the generals or to the fatigue of the soldiers. However, the Greeks were not the only ones to have poor generals ...

7. The Nationalists had a change in leadership. Ataturk and Fevzi Cakmak took over the army from the heavily criticized, Ismet Pasha... and they went on to repel the Greeks at Sakarya (which is why they are the only two generals in the Republic's history to earn the title of "Field Marshall").

8. Once again the Greeks reached their culminating point and the Turks opted for a risky counter-attack (summer 1922). This time the Turks had the advantage in artillery and cavalry, even though the Greeks had more infantry and possessed strategic heights. The Turkish army was divided in two, with the cavalry ordered to circle round the back of the Greeks and wreack havoc on Greek communications and bases. The Turks managed to win after one week of fighting.


In short, the Turks cleverly secured their other flanks and mobilized all their resources to combat Greece, whereas Greece lost the favor of the Allies. The Turks also had better generals and a better plan - the Greeks charged ahead when they shouldn't have and stopped when they should have went forward.

And this is military 101:
- The defender will eventually even the scales because their supply-lines shorten with every retreat. Visa-versa is true for the attacker.
- Every victory demoralizes the attackers because the soldiers get fed up with fighting.
- Turks make the finest soldiers in the world if lead properly.
8)
Last edited by Doomhammer on 21 Nov 2009 21:58, edited 1 time in total.
By Panagiotis-Hector
#13243027
I agree with everything you say, i was just pointing out the fact that the king was certainly not the savior as some royalist newspapers of the time where presenting.They said that the return of the king was the best thing for the moment, and that he was the only one to save the day and complete the campaign, by capturing Ancyra.

Doomhammer wrote:Turks make the finest soldiers in the world if lead properly.


How did you even came up with that?If you're refer to their ''golden age'' of expansion and the 2 sieges of Vienna, it happened due to the total collapse of the Byzantine Empire and the ''open road'' ahead of them to expand to much.And if you're refer to the eastern and southern expansion of the Ottoman Empire this also happened due to the total collapse of the Halifats and the Mongol Kingdoms of Samarkand and modern Iran-Irak territory.They expanded so much just because they didn't had anyone strong enough to face!This can be verified by their defeat at the naval battle of Nafpaktos and the 2 fails of the sieges of Vienna.At the time the Christian kingdoms of Western Europe weren't as strong as they were a few years later,around 18th century.Plus the Ottoman Empire by the time of the sieges was the strongest power in Europe,so how could just the Austrians defeat the greatest power of Europe of the time? Unless the Empire wasn't as powerful as the rest of the world believed...?Maybe their power was just lying in the appearance of great power due to the quick conquer of the Balkans(a territory completely defendless at the time).
Also during the revolutionary times of 19th century in the Balkans, the Ottoman Empire collapsed in almost 100 years and reduced to just Minor Asia,and perhaps the Sultans of the time might be useless and politically untalented,the generals where very good at their job, but still the Greeks,the Serbians,The Bulgarians,the Albanians,the Mameluks, and all the others gained their independence.In which point of that do you understand that the Turks are the finest soldiers of the world if lead properly?They even needed 350.000 soldiers plus the greatest cannons of the time to take Constantinople and the city's defenses were really poor and the soldiers were just almost 20.000!

Anothroskon wrote:The whole thing was organized by Greeks. Am I the only one to spot this obvious flaw?


Could you please explain what you're talking about?What do you mean by that?
Last edited by Siberian Fox on 25 Nov 2009 11:43, edited 2 times in total. Reason: Back-to-back posts merged. Please use the edit button if you find that you have more to add before another reply is made.
User avatar
By Doomhammer
#13243393
How did you even came up with that?

Well, I said it joking but it is based on a quote by a British general whose name I cannot recall at this point. I'll get back to you on that.

How did you even came up with that?If you're refer to their ''golden age'' of expansion and the 2 sieges of Vienna, it happened due to the total collapse of the Byzantine Empire and the ''open road'' ahead of them to expand to much.And if you're refer to the eastern and southern expansion of the Ottoman Empire this also happened due to the total collapse of the Halifats and the Mongol Kingdoms of Samarkand and modern Iran-Irak territory.They expanded so much just because they didn't had anyone strong enough to face

I disagree. The Hungarians, despite being poor, maintained a professional army that was one of the best in Europe during the 15th and 16th centuries. The Mameluks were similarly very powerful as were the Persians. The Ottomans made short work of them. The Empire did not have particularly weak but it did begin using fire-arms before most others did (only the Hungarians matched the Ottomans in this respect). The Janissary corps, though small, were among the few professional units in Europe in those times and they would, for example, reform their lines after cavalry charges - they did not rout.

t the time the Christian kingdoms of Western Europe weren't as strong as they were a few years later,around 18th century

Europe progressed a lot in the course of the 17th century. The 30 Years War was suprisingly beneficial for Europe in that the ideas of the nation state and secularism took hold and enormous strides were made in weapons (lighter mobile artillery, better firearms), military doctrine (people like King Gustav Adolphus II made great contributions) and military engineering (better fort designs - Vauban is worth mentioning as he designed many fortresses in France and his methods were copied elsewhere ).

This can be verified by their defeat at the naval battle of Nafpaktos

The defeat wasn't particularly devastating as most seem to think. The Ottoman navy was rebuilt in months and Cyprus was annexed the very same year. The Ottoman fleet suffered most from lack of good leadership but that was before Lepanto. The Siege of Malta was far more devastating in that respect.

.Plus the Ottoman Empire by the time of the sieges was the strongest power in Europe,so how could just the Austrians defeat the greatest power of Europe of the time? Unless the Empire wasn't as powerful as the rest of the world believed...?Maybe their power was just lying in the appearance of great power due to the quick conquer of the Balkans(a territory completely defendless at the time).

The Austrians were not alone and were nearly defeated.

The main problem was that mobilization was a bitch for the Ottomans. It took forever to assemble an army and march it to Vienna (which was 3 months by foot) and this gave the defenders good time to prepare. A massive Ottoman-Tatar army cleared everything in their path and laid siege to Vienna in 1683. The Siege was rather unpleasant as the fortifications were rather good and modern (modern as in they had firepower available in all directions, which is why the Turks relied on tunneling rather than using cannons). The Turks initally outnumbered the defenders but the Tatars later left when it became apparant that they would not be allowed to loot Vienna.

Months later...

A combined Geman-Polish army led by Jan Sobieski came to the rescue of the Viennese just as the walls had been breached. Exhausted, and poorly commanded, the Ottomans were routed by the fresh Alliance troops, particularly the Polish cavalry. The defeat was particularly devastating because, as I said before, Turks don't know how to retreat in an orderly fashion (Turks are usually on the attack... that must be why. lol) and so thousands were pursued by the Polish cavalry. The battered remains of the army eventually made it to Belgrade though. In the end, the Christian coalition (Austria- German states - Poland - Venice) beat the Ottomans and, in 1699, the Ottomans concluded a peace treaty on equal terms (prior to that, the Ottomans did not consider Christians as their equals and the terms of peace was dictated by Ottoman plenipotentiaries).
Also during the revolutionary times of 19th century in the Balkans, the Ottoman Empire collapsed in almost 100 years and reduced to just Minor Asia,and perhaps the Sultans of the time might be useless and politically untalented,the generals where very good at their job, but still the Greeks,the Serbians,The Bulgarians,the Albanians,the Mameluks, and all the others gained their independence.

The Ottoman Empire faced internal revolt but also fought a zillion wars against Russia in that century. Not suprisingly, the Empire lost so much land.
They even needed 350.000 soldiers plus the greatest cannons of the time to take Constantinople and the city's defenses were really poor and the soldiers were just almost 20.000!

350,000? An army of 350,000 in the 15th century? Dude... seriously.

From Wikipedia
Odds

The army defending Constantinople was small; it totalled about 7,000 men, 2,000 of whom were foreigners.[20] When the siege began the population of the city amounted, including the refugees from the surrounding area, to about 50,000 people.[21] The city had about 20 km of walls (Theodosian Walls: 5.5 km; sea walls along the Golden Horn: 7 km; sea walls along the Sea of Marmara: 7.5 km), probably the strongest set of fortified walls in existence at the time. The walls had recently been repaired (under John VIII) and were in fairly good shape, giving the defenders sufficient reason to believe that they could hold out until help from the West arrived.[22] In addition, the defenders were relatively well-equipped fleet of 26 ships: 5 from Genoa, 5 from Venice, 3 from Venetian Crete, 1 from Ancona, 1 from Aragon, 1 from France, and about 10 Byzantine.[4] The Ottomans, on the other hand, had a larger force. Recent estimates span between 80,000 soldiers, including mounted troops and 5/6,000–10,000 Janissaries.[23][2] Also, the Serbian lord Durad Brankovic supplied an additional 1,500 Serbian cavalry as part of his obligation to the Ottoman sultan even though, just a few months prior, he had supplied the money for the reconstruction of the walls of Constantinople. Contemporary witnesses of the siege, who tend to exaggerate the military power of the Sultan, provide higher numbers[2] (Nicolo Barbaro: 160,000;[24] the Florentine merchant Jacopo Tedaldi[25] and the Great Logothete George Sphrantzes:[26] 200,000; the Cardinal Isidore of Kiev[27] and the Archbishop of Mytilene Leonardo di Chio:[28] 300,000).[29] Mehmed also built a fleet to besiege the city from the sea (partially manned by Greek sailors from Gallipoli[23]). Contemporary estimates of the strength of the Ottoman fleet span between about 100 ships (Tedaldi[25]), 145 (Barbaro[24]), 160 (Ubertino Pusculo[30]), 200–250 (Isidore of Kiev,[27] Leonardo di Chio[31]) to 430 (Sphrantzes[26]). A more realistic modern estimate puts the total at 6 large galleys, 10 ordinary galleys, 15 smaller galleys, 75 large rowing boats, and 20 horse-transports.[32]

According to Nicolle (2000), the idea that Constantinople was inevitably doomed is wrong, and the overall situation was not as one-sided as a simple glance at a map might suggest.[33]


greatest cannons

Orban's cannon had several drawbacks, however: it took three hours to reload; the cannon balls were in very short supply; and the cannon is said to have collapsed under its own recoil after six weeks (this fact however is disputed,[2] being only reported in the letter of Archbishop Leonardo di Chio[28] and the later and often unreliable Russian chronicle of Nestor Iskander).[36] Having previously established a large foundry approximately 150 miles away, Mehmed now had to undergo the painstaking process of transporting his massive pieces of artillery. Orban's giant cannon was said to have been accompanied by a crew of 60 oxen and over 400 men.[34]


Could you please explain what you're talking about?What do you mean by that?


Haha. He means Greeks are disorganized.

@ Anothroskon:

Do you Greeks also have that cultural phenomenon whereby you always approach your countrymen's deeds with suspicion (i.e. generally being very critical of successes and failures alike)? We totally have that in Turkey. :lol:
Last edited by Doomhammer on 21 Nov 2009 22:02, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By noemon
#13243471
Doomhammer wrote:the Greeks charged ahead when they shouldn't have and stopped when they should have went forward.


Good analysis overall, and fine summary with this sentence.
By Panagiotis-Hector
#13244026
Doomhammer wrote:Well, I said it joking but it is based on a quote by a British general whose name I cannot recall at this point. I'll get back to you on that.


lol! ok sorry i thought you were serious. :p

Doomhammer wrote:The Empire did not have particularly weak but it did begin using fire-arms before most others did (only the Hungarians matched the Ottomans in this respect).


Well that was probably due to their relations with eastern kingdoms(who had relations with China,who used firearms since 13th century)through the trade routes of spices,silk,bla bla...

Doomhammer wrote:The Hungarians, despite being poor, maintained a professional army that was one of the best in Europe during the 15th and 16th centuries.


Sure,but their kingdom was almost brand new,still enough disorganized,and the army might be professional,but was mostly cavalry(such as most if not all of the eastern European states) and some battlefield assassins(men who were hiding in the grass and surprise the enemy).The infantry was really poor,mostly some militias(sure they could do enough :p )and the archers were mostly consisted of thieves and brigands(who could trust them?they'd run away even in the sight of the enemy's troops).So...they might had professional army,their army might be great for the European standards of the time{since most of the western European states had mostly infantry(just a few of the troops had pikes or spears and no infantry can survive against cavalry without pikes or spears!)}, but an army which is consisted of mostly cavalry...well it's not a good army.

Doomhammer wrote:350,000? An army of 350,000 in the 15th century? Dude... seriously.


What's wrong about that?I have read that the Sultan had,when the siege was at it's high, nearly 350.000 troops.Sorry but i can't remember which book was that.

Doomhammer wrote:The Mameluks were similarly very powerful as were the Persians.


Seriously?!The Mameluks are nomads and people scattered can't last for long,and the Persians....well there were no Persians.There were the Mongol kingdoms that Tamerlane created.The people were Persians,but the rulers and most of the troops where Mongolians.It doesn't matter if they were powerful,because they didn't had a state(Mameluks) and they were totally disorganized(the Persians in the Mongolian kingdom! :p )

Doomhammer wrote:Orban's cannon had several drawbacks, however: it took three hours to reload; the cannon balls were in very short supply; and the cannon is said to have collapsed under its own recoil after six weeks (this fact however is disputed,


Well...isn't that what was mostly happening then?The artillery was not that much improved and maybe the sultan pushed it to hard,plus(i don't mean to offend anyone) the Turks are mostly worried about building speed and quantity than quality(though not sure about that for modern Turkey).

Doomhammer wrote:Do you Greeks also have that cultural phenomenon whereby you always approach your countrymen's deeds with suspicion (i.e. generally being very critical of successes and failures alike)? We totally have that in Turkey.


Yes we do :D
Well it's not weird,are peoples have shared sooooo much over the years!We have some Turkish words in our unofficial language and i bet you do too.Plus we have the same habit(such as corruption, poor political judgment :p )

Doomhammer wrote:probably the strongest set of fortified walls in existence at the time


Yes,but the Byzantines never used firepower even in the walls and when the attacker has and the defender doesn't the attacker will just wait 'till he make many breaches in the walls before the assault.In the bombardment against the walls many soldiers die.Plus if you don't have firepower and the enemy has and he bombards you you get completely demoralized.Even if the walls were made out of reinforced steel,the Sultan would keep bombard the city 'till they make a breach.Inevitability.........
Last edited by Siberian Fox on 25 Nov 2009 11:43, edited 2 times in total. Reason: Back-to-back posts merged. Please use the edit button if you find that you have more to add before another reply is made.
User avatar
By Doomhammer
#13244148
Sure,but their kingdom was almost brand new,still enough disorganized,and the army might be professional,but was mostly cavalry(such as most if not all of the eastern European states)

Cavalry was immensely more useful in those ages - and yeah... if infantry was required in a battle, the cavalry could always dismount. The Hungarian army had a large contingent of mercanaries and had rather impressive artillery.

but an army which is consisted of mostly cavalry...well it's not a good army.

Knights can dismount. You can have as many infantry as you have cavalry. ;)

ome battlefield assassins(men who were hiding in the grass and surprise the enemy)

Haha. This isn't Medieval Total War. ;) The whole "battlefield assasin" thing is actually a Serbian invention. It was inspired by the Serbian knight (whose namee I cannot recal) who pretended to surrender to Sultan Murat I and then murdered him. A small unit of assasins was created soon after but they were obviously useless. In fact, I don't know where the makers of Total War came up with Hungarians having battlefield assasins. It's stupid and ahistorical.

The infantry was really poor,mostly some militias(sure they could do enough :p )and the archers were mostly consisted of thieves and brigands(who could trust them?they'd run away even in the sight of the enemy's troops)

That was pretty much the norm everywhere else at the time. You had your elite infantry and knights, and artiller, but the bulk of most medieval armies were consisted of peasants and irregulars - cannonfodder, if you will. The Ottoman army was the same. The Jannisaries, Sipahi and several other specialized units (Lagimcilar/tunnelers, and artillery crews) formed the core of the army but that was still a tiny part. Most of the army was made up of irregulars, skirmishers and whatever troops sent by the Empire's allies.

The Mameluks are nomads and people scattered can't last for long

Not nomads. It's true that their structure was a tribal one but they were able to forge a working system that produced excellent soldiers (they beat the French... which isn't so impressive as they were French, but they also got rid of most of the Crusaders in the Holy Land). The Mameluks were former slaves and they formed a powerful military elite (and an equally powerful army to match) and then went on a conquest of the Middle East. They were formiddble warriors and were the holders of the Calpihate. The only reason the Turks (Ottoman... the Mameluks were also Turks) vanquished them is because they had no firearms and the then Turkish Sultan, Selim the Grim, was a total badass. ;)

The artillery was not that much improved and maybe the sultan pushed it to hard,plus(i don't mean to offend anyone)the Turks are mostly worried about building speed and quantity than quality(though not sure about that for modern Turkey).

- The bombards were built by the Hungarian Urban (as it says in the link).
- The design was obviously new... at least with regards to proportions.
- Building speed or lack of attention to quality could not have had anything to do with it. The bombard was cumbersome and its size made it difficult to supply suitable cannonballs.
Turks are mostly worried about building speed and quantity than quality(though not sure about that for modern Turkey)

Yes. We are Zergs and we Zerg-rush our enemies. lol But there is a general lack of attention to quality here. At least when it comes to infrastructure. The military is generally competent and vigilant though.

We have some Turkish words in our unofficial language and i bet you do too.Plus we have the same habit(such as corruption, poor political judgment

One of my long standing assertions is that all Mediterranean peoples (Greeks, Turks, Italians, Frogs, Spaniards, Portguesemen, Magreb-ians) are alike in that they are lazy, corrupt, cunning; but amiable and hospitable too. The only differences them are language.
By Panagiotis-Hector
#13244258
Doomhammer wrote:Haha. This isn't Medieval Total War. ;) The whole "battlefield assasin" thing is actually a Serbian invention. It was inspired by the Serbian knight (whose namee I cannot recal) who pretended to surrender to Sultan Murat I and then murdered him. A small unit of assasins was created soon after but they were obviously useless. In fact, I don't know where the makers of Total War came up with Hungarians having battlefield assasins. It's stupid and ahistorical.


Well,sorry about that,actually it was a little trap.I wanted to see if you know this game.I know what they were. :p :D

Doomhammer wrote:but they also got rid of most of the Crusaders in the Holy Land)


The Mameluks alone did nothing...Saladin gathered all the Arabs together and the Mameluks did most of the job, but if it wasn't for Saladin and the rest of the Arabs,plus the fact that the only protectors of the Holy Lands where just the Hospitaller and the Templar knights(though really tough and formidable) around 14th century and the later trials the French king put them through, made the job kind a easy.(kind a...not just easy :D )

Doomhammer wrote:Selim the Grim, was a total badass. ;)


What do you mean by that?I haven't read too much about him.Please inform me :)
You mean he was gangsta? :p (joking)

Doomhammer wrote:- The bombards were built by the Hungarian Urban (as it says in the link).
- The design was obviously new... at least with regards to proportions.
- Building speed or lack of attention to quality could not have had anything to do with it. The bombard was cumbersome and its size made it difficult to supply suitable cannonballs.


- The bombards were built by the Hungarian Urban (as it says in the link).
About that,they might be built by Hungarians, but if the employer(the Sultan) tells you(the Hungarian builder)to build them fast because he wants to besiege some city...you do them fast and besides why would you care about building something good for an enemy?

- The design was obviously new... at least with regards to proportions.
Nothing to say about that,you're right.They were mostly testing them at that time,trying to find out the best way to build them.

- Building speed or lack of attention to quality could not have had anything to do with it. The bombard was cumbersome and its size made it difficult to supply suitable cannonballs.
About that,i was talking about the fact that it collapsed on it's own recoil.Probably it collapsed due to lack in quality.There are many reasons why it collapsed.

Doomhammer wrote:One of my long standing assertions is that all Mediterranean peoples (Greeks, Turks, Italians, Frogs, Spaniards, Portguesemen, Magreb-ians) are alike in that they are lazy, corrupt, cunning; but amiable and hospitable too. The only differences them are language.


Ok maybe not just language there are more thing that make these people different.Amiable maybe not, but certainly cunning. :D
Maybe we are all corrupted because of the too much sun.If you take a look in all the states with as much sun as we have they are almost if not all of them are a little poor in infrastructure and production.I think that the sun makes you really lazy.I read a study which says that the production rate in the rest of Greece is almost the half of just Athens'(in Athens we are really productive and not lazy,wierd?sure...but what can i say???we are wierd :p ).
Last edited by Siberian Fox on 25 Nov 2009 11:42, edited 3 times in total. Reason: Back-to-back posts merged. Please use the edit button if you find that you have more to add before another reply is made.
By Aekos
#13244508
The Greek forces fucked up the Asia Minor campaign pretty badly. They allowed barbarians to massacre and drive out Hellenes from the area and burn down great cities like Smyrna. Granted, they had a multi-front war beforehand and were rather spent, but the total loss of Greek land in Asia Minor was unacceptable.
User avatar
By Doomhammer
#13244619
By the way, Panagiotis-Hector, you might wanna stop double-posting (well quadruple in your case) because the Forumcrats don't look too kindly on such things.
What do you mean by that?I haven't read too much about him.Please inform me

Fratricide, executions of viziers etc. and conquest of much of the Middle East...


Maybe we are all corrupted because of the too much sun.

Life is easy in temperate climates. You don't have to work as hard. You become lethargic.

Granted, they had a multi-front war beforehand

Who had a multi-front war?
By Aekos
#13244653
Who had a multi-front war?


I'm talking about all those Balkan Wars beforehand that hampered the Greek army.
User avatar
By Doomhammer
#13245056
I'm talking about all those Balkan Wars beforehand that hampered the Greek army.

Those poor Greeks. They were tired from fighting the vicious Bulgarians six years earlier.

------
They [the Greeks] also fought a multi-front war against Britain, France and Russia in four different fronts during the Great War and they were also at war with France, Italy and Armenia, and faced internal rebellions during their invasion of Anatolia.

Oh wait.. they didn't.
------

Pardon my sarcasm but I'm trying to make a point. The Greeks could have won in Anatolia, but make no mistake about it: the Greek army could not have been in any worse shape than the remnants of the Ottoman army. Greece (thankfully) failed to capitalize on a huge advantage.

Who needs a wall? We have all those land mines ju[…]

Puffer Fish, as a senior (and olde) member of this[…]

1 The great settlement withdrawal that Israelis […]

As someone that pays very close attention to Amer[…]