Some greeks and the church were very privileged by the ottoman rule.
Only scholars had such worries, the vast majority of the people were illiterate peasants who were preoccupied with daily struggles and religious stuff.
It is true. Things were complicated because there was not a concrete and collective identity. Because of that, many others had a say to what it should happen in (the not yet founded) country, like the British, the French, the Germans and the Russians who among others they wanted Ottoman Empire to end and take control of the region. That is why in the greek revolt there were separate forces, others supported by the Russians, others by the British etc.
Keep in mind that at that point about 350 years had passed since the fall of Constantinople. People can get complacent with the status quo in decades or even years, let alone hundreds of years. At that point life outside the ottoman empire was ancient history
Long answer short: yes
Greeks self-identified as Romans, meaning actually the formerly Greek and greekified citizens of Eastern Roman Empire. They kept revolting against Ottomans since shortly after the Fall of Constantinople.
The major concern when the independence war actually succeeded was whether the new entity would be named a Greek or a Roman State.
Several Greeks at the time also imagined of a united Balkan State, with Greek as an official language. So, I’d say more or less a new Roman State.
Edit: I, by no means, wrote this to present some “narrative”. There is plenty of bibliography on the perceived or actual identity of Eastern Roman Empire’s citizens throughout its history. For certain reasons Greeks stopped calling themselves Greeks and, also for certain reasons, Romans of the Eastern Roman Empire and, subsequently, of the Ottoman Empire, started calling themselves Greeks.
The ultimate goal of the revolution was to capture Constantinople and recreate the Byzantine empire (in a way). The big powers wouldn’t allow that. The majority of Greeks living in modern day Greece were in favour of the revolt (even the church unlike what some people believe). The patriarch in Constantinople denounced the revolt but that was done to ensure his safety (and that of the Greeks living in Asia Minor/rest of the ottoman empire).
I ‘ve heard that political scientist don’t consider the greek revolution a proper revolution because it lacked a plan for the future. The progress and the conclusion were a result of circumstances, alliances, resources and opportunities.
Some of the leaders actually strived for autonomy.
While this is not wrong I would like to add that a revolution and the establishment of a Greek state was there since 1453 and that is apparent if you take into consideration the 30 or so revolutions against the Ottoman empire, leading to 1821
It sounds consistent with bits and pieces that I’ve read and remember.
You must remember that we’re talking about the 1800s. In the Balkans. Under the Ottoman boot. There was hardly just one opinion. And there weren’t any good channels of communication either. Nor was there a central command.
11 comments
basically yes but its way more complicated
Some greeks and the church were very privileged by the ottoman rule.
Only scholars had such worries, the vast majority of the people were illiterate peasants who were preoccupied with daily struggles and religious stuff.
It is true. Things were complicated because there was not a concrete and collective identity. Because of that, many others had a say to what it should happen in (the not yet founded) country, like the British, the French, the Germans and the Russians who among others they wanted Ottoman Empire to end and take control of the region. That is why in the greek revolt there were separate forces, others supported by the Russians, others by the British etc.
Keep in mind that at that point about 350 years had passed since the fall of Constantinople. People can get complacent with the status quo in decades or even years, let alone hundreds of years. At that point life outside the ottoman empire was ancient history
Long answer short: yes
Greeks self-identified as Romans, meaning actually the formerly Greek and greekified citizens of Eastern Roman Empire. They kept revolting against Ottomans since shortly after the Fall of Constantinople.
The major concern when the independence war actually succeeded was whether the new entity would be named a Greek or a Roman State.
Several Greeks at the time also imagined of a united Balkan State, with Greek as an official language. So, I’d say more or less a new Roman State.
Edit: I, by no means, wrote this to present some “narrative”. There is plenty of bibliography on the perceived or actual identity of Eastern Roman Empire’s citizens throughout its history. For certain reasons Greeks stopped calling themselves Greeks and, also for certain reasons, Romans of the Eastern Roman Empire and, subsequently, of the Ottoman Empire, started calling themselves Greeks.
The ultimate goal of the revolution was to capture Constantinople and recreate the Byzantine empire (in a way). The big powers wouldn’t allow that. The majority of Greeks living in modern day Greece were in favour of the revolt (even the church unlike what some people believe). The patriarch in Constantinople denounced the revolt but that was done to ensure his safety (and that of the Greeks living in Asia Minor/rest of the ottoman empire).
I ‘ve heard that political scientist don’t consider the greek revolution a proper revolution because it lacked a plan for the future. The progress and the conclusion were a result of circumstances, alliances, resources and opportunities.
Some of the leaders actually strived for autonomy.
While this is not wrong I would like to add that a revolution and the establishment of a Greek state was there since 1453 and that is apparent if you take into consideration the 30 or so revolutions against the Ottoman empire, leading to 1821
It sounds consistent with bits and pieces that I’ve read and remember.
You must remember that we’re talking about the 1800s. In the Balkans. Under the Ottoman boot. There was hardly just one opinion. And there weren’t any good channels of communication either. Nor was there a central command.