Soldier of Macedon
09-22-2008, 06:08 AM
Humble beginnings lacking 'ethnic' validity
Due to the assistance rendered by the Slavic and Latin speaking people to the Austrian and Russian powers against the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans during the 17th and 18th centuries, the interests of Greek-speakers and their Turkish rulers grew closer as the former was able to coerce the latter into banning the Slavic and Latin speaking clergy from the churches, which had the benefit of consolidating the whole Roman (Christian) Millet firmly under the one head. This also resulted in a monopoly of the church by the Greek-speaking clergy, which originated mostly from Constantinople. Thus, from 1767 onwards great efforts were made by the Greek-speaking ‘upper classes’ to homogenize the various peoples within the respective millet, infiltrating elements of the church, education and the very culture of the native populations. An early example of these efforts is reflected in the Quadra Language Dictionary written by Daniel of Moschopolis in the late 18th century (or early 19th century), which consisted of a revealing poem in terms of the lengths Greek-speaking clergy and teachers were willing to go to for the sake of assimilating the native populace of the Balkans, after being emboldened by the complimentary actions of their Turkish friends:
Albanians, Vlachs, Bulgarians, speakers of other tongues, rejoice! And ready yourselves all to become Romans. Abandoning your barbaric tongues, speech and customs, so that to your descendants they may appear as myths……..
The national identities of the various Balkan peoples only began to re-assert themselves and take shape from the 19th century onwards, hence the terminology used by the writer is inaccurate when speaking of the modern Balkans nations, as it “reflects an eighteenth century linguistic consciousness to which it would be anachronistic to apply to late twentieth century conceptions” (V.A Friedman, 2000). The Macedonian and Serbian languages are not cited as both are lumped together under the Bulgarian (Slavic) group, although it is vital to note that the vernacular used for the Slavic group was recorded in Ohrid, Macedonia. It must be stressed that regardless of ethnic origins the ‘Roman’ name was used generally for all the members of the Roman (Christian) Millet, although the Greek-speaking Ottoman Christians also used this term in a more specific manner to self-described themselves and their language. The target audience of the dictionary were the peasant masses in the region who did not speak or identify with the Greek-speaking 'Romans', with the specific aim of convincing them that their language and history was ‘barbaric’, unworthy and secondary to the 'Roman', which ‘should’ be their preferred option. This was a process of homogenization via linguistic assimilation, and not one of “Hellenism”, for, in the same works there is a complete absence of any citation referring to a “Hellenic” (or Greek for that matter) language or identity.
Opportunism, luck and mixed ideals
The assimilation tactics of Greek-speakers stretched as far as Ottoman Serbia, where as late as 1810, during the prime years of their struggle for freedom against the Turks, the two elementary schools in the Belgrade Pashalik had the Greek tongue as their language of instruction. In 1814 the Philliki Eteria was founded in the Russian Empire by Greek-speaking merchants hundreds of kilometres away from what was to become the future Greek state. The aim of this new organisation was to make preparations for a general rising against Ottoman rule in the hope of establishing a renewed East Roman Empire by utilising the strength of the various Christian peoples in the region. The idea was not well received in most areas, for although it promoted the liberation of the Christian peasantry from Muslim domination, it also had the more narrow aims of employing Greek-speaking leaders and their language (who were in a minority compared to Slavic-speakers) as prime over the other local elements. Despite the fact that Karagoerge Petrovic, the future ruler of the modern Serbian state joined the ranks of Philliki Eteria, Serbian leaders in general rejected the proposal on the grounds that their movement of liberation had already been initiated, while others in the region had mixed feelings towards the same people who had manipulated them via the church and whom they regarded as being little better than the Turkish oppressors.
In the year 1820 Sultan Mahmut II made moves to re-assert Ottoman strength within his weakening empire, with the primary focus against the rebellious and semi-autonomous Ali Pasha, the Albanian Muslim who held sway over the westernmost European lands which were within the Ottoman confines. Despite Ali Pasha’s earlier disputes with his Albanian kinsmen of the Christian faith, their forces were partially allied in defiance of the Ottoman Sultan. As Ali Pasha repelled several Ottoman advances against his realm, the Christians of the region grew bolder, which in turned instilled confidence in the local population resulting in the occurrence of several spontaneous revolts while the Ottoman forces were pre-occupied with other disputes.
In late February 1821 the Danubian Principalities, long oppressed by the Greek-speaking Phanariots, saw the first signs of action by the Philliki Eteria under the leadership of Alexander Ypsilantis, who raised the banner of revolt when several fighters accompanied him into Moldavia from Russia. However, due to poor organisation and an almost complete lack of local support, it turned out to be a complete failure. Despite some initial successes, the Latin-speaking peasant majority in the region were not interested in providing support for the so-called 'movement', and internal conflicts arose between the supporters of the movement and the supporters of local leaders such as Tudor Vladimirescu, who had their own aims of liberation from the Turks which excluded the involvement of the would-be Greek-speaking bravados. The result of these inter-Christian clashes was the death of Vladimirescu and the withdrawal of local support for the Philliki Eteria.
With the events in Moldavia unfolding and the pre-occupation of the Ottomans with Ali Pasha and his forces in Epirus, sporadic actions occurred in March of the same year against the Muslims of the Peloponnese. The rebels consisted of local peasant bands inclusive of the various Christian peoples in the region, Greek-speakers and particularly the Albanians, who, faced with the choice of siding with their kin of the Muslim faith in the armies of Ali Pasha or the Ottomans, opted to support the Christian movement against the latter. While the Greek-speaking Archbishop Germanos is credited with raising the banner of revolt around the same time as the spontaneous actions took place, at the head of a loose confederation of rebel groups was the aging Theodore Kolokotronis, battle-hardened from his time as a volunteer fighter for the British against the French.
Weak foundations and a transformation from liberators to murderers
That which began as an expression of revolt against the tyrannic Ottoman overlords however, quickly turned into an act of brutal extermination against Muslim civilians. George Finlay would later write that the “Greeks violated every principle of private morality and national honour…………slaughter of women, and children was therefore declared to be a necessary measure of wise policy, and popular songs spoke of it……”. Popular song spoke of it - A disgrace now covered up in false romanticism and chants of "liberty"! The Ottomans for their part, retaliated with extreme measures of their own, hanging the Greek-speaking Patriarch Gregory of Constantinople in a most cruel and ruthless way, despite his denouncement of the uprising. It has been said that this event, probably more than any other in the initial stages, drew large sympathies from Western Europe for the cause of the Christians rebelling in the Ottoman Empire.
Come early June, Ypsilantis and his weak entourage suffered a crushing defeat in the village of Dragashani by Ottoman forces, forcing the Greek-speaking leader to flee in cowardice and disgrace. The so-called rebellion was left in tatters and died out shortly afterwards, along with the unrealistic notion of a reborn East Roman Empire. The rebellion in the Peloponnese differed however, for it began to receive support from foreigners who sympathised with the Christians under the Ottoman yoke, although they arrived with a different mindset to that of the Philliki Eteria and the ‘Roman’ dream. The ‘Philhellenes’, as they came to be known, came not to assist the re-birth of East Rome, but rather, for what they perceived as the liberation of ancient ‘Hellenic’ land. It is not surprising thus, that it would be outsiders and foreigners, inspired by the ‘enlightenment’ of the renaissance period, who would shape the new country and identity which would eventuate after the Ottomans were defeated. The ‘Hellenic’ name, not used as a self-designated common identifier of a people since antiquity, was now promoted in replacement of the traditional ‘Roman’ name, which had been in use for almost 2,000 years by the local populace.
‘Hellenism’, in all its foreign and artificially imported ‘glory’, was born.
Saved and created by circumstance, favour and foreigners
Early in the year 1822, circumstances changed as Ali Pasha was finally defeated by the Ottomans, which allowed their forces to concentrate on the rebellious Christians of the Peloponnese. Up until this point, the main casualties of this so-called war of ‘liberation’ were largely civilians, who far outweighed the number of casualties resulting from direct conflicts and battles. The barbarity displayed by both Christians and Ottomans sent shockwaves throughout the region, although European opinion and sympathy rested with the former. Despite further widespread support for the Christians with the death of the most celebrated ‘Philhellene’, Lord Byron, in the year 1824, the tide had turned significantly in favour of the Ottomans who had requested the assistance of the powerful Muhammed Ali of Egypt. This figure, who, like the now deceased Ali Pasha was also of Albanian origin, answered the call by sending a large force to the Peloponnese headed by his son, Ibrahim. Over the next few years Ottoman forces regained lost territory, exposing the clear weakness of the rebels in terms of military might, organisation and the disunity amongst the peasants and their ‘leadership’ on the ground. With a complete Ottoman victory imminent, Russia, Britain and France finally signed the London Agreement in July 1827, placing their differences aside to initiate an intervention on behalf of the Christians, who were all but defeated. The decisive battle took place during late October at Navarino, which saw the annihilation of the Ottoman navy by the European forces, giving life to a near-extinct rebellion, and thus ensuring its last minute success.
The first President of the newly liberated territory was John Capodistrias, who, after arriving ‘triumphantly’ into the harbour of the Italianate-styled new capital of Nafplio (Know also as Napolia di Romania at the time) in 1828, had to immediately make attempts at quelling two local warlords that were busy firing off cannons into each others bases.
The foreign powers from Europe, without whom there could be no victory, now took it upon themselves to begin the process of creating a new state carved out of Ottoman territory in the strategically important Mediterranean region. The London Conference, held in February 1830 and attended by Britain, France and Russia, was the first step. The borders of the new state were drawn up while a monarch was to be elected at a later date, however, throughout the whole proceedings there were no representatives from the Christian peoples in the newly liberated territories and the new state’s leaders were not consulted about the ensuing treaty. Therefore, the constitutional heart of what was to eventuate into the modern ‘Hellenic’ state was not native or ‘Hellenic’ by any means, it was a foreign construct, designed to primarily suit the strategic needs of the European powers which were responsible for its creation while at the same time fulfilling the aspirations of a part of the Christians under Ottoman rule. Despite the support of the ‘Philhellenes’, most returned to their own countries with utter disgust at the methodology and behaviour displayed by the Christian rebels who called themselves 'Romans', and were disappointed in the fact that what they found in the region were not the ‘Hellenes’ of antiquity in either looks or manner, but rather a barbarous people who were viewed little better than the Turks where it concerned the factors and defining characteristics of a people.
True to form of the newly created nation and its origins, in 1831 President Capodistrias was murdered on the door steps of Nafplio’s St Spiridon Church by the family members of the warlord Mavromihaili. This was apparently due to an established network of spies within the government which were used to ‘control’ the population, tactics not favoured by the likes of warlords such as Kolokotronis and Mavromihaili. Capodistrias had also espoused a more Romaic rather than Hellenic character for his state, looking east rather than west, in accordance with the thoughts and beliefs of the peasant masses, and it was they who mourned his death with great despair, while those struggling for power such as warlords and intellectuals were overjoyed by the disgraceful event. The new state had still yet to cleanse its hands, which were soaked with the blood of civilians and non-combatants.
Hypocrisy and Contradictions: Invented 'Hellenes' of the Orthodox faith inherit a Germanic Catholic Monarch
The new state was still terminally incoherent when the Great Powers agreed to create a monarch and appoint a sovereign king in the year 1833. After some deliberation, a 16 year old Bavarian German prince named Otto came to the throne, again, without the consultation of the inhabitants of the now, ‘Kingdom of Hellenes’. The young prince of this Christian Orthodox state was a devout Catholic who refused to convert to the same rite as his newly adopted flock, furthermore, he took as a bride not a local or even Orthodox woman but rather, one of the Protestant rite. Hence, the first royal couple of the new Orthodox ‘Kingdom of Hellenes’ were Catholic and Protestant. Adding to this complex and interesting amalgamation was the ministerial staff of the new ‘kingdom’ comprised of Germans who set about demolishing any last vestiges of power emanating from the newly established (or converted) ‘Hellenic’ Church. The most significant of these Germans, George Maurer, who promoted the severance of the new ‘Hellenic’ Church from the Patriarchate of Constantinople, even established a ‘Holy Synod’ of government appointees to administer the new ‘Hellenic’ Church, and was responsible for the closure of hundreds of Orthodox monasteries. There was little outcry from the peasantry, the many hardships faced under the heads of greedy Greek-speaking priests in previous years were still fresh in the memory of the people despite the ‘leadership’ rendered during the rebellion.
Adding to this rainbow of elements, the capital of the new state was moved to Athens, which at the time was surrounded by Albanians, and even referred to as an Albanian village.
With the state and church organs finally established, a new nation was in need of creation. Everything was baptised ‘Hellenic’, from state, to church, to culture, to language, as all other historical terminology was forcible buried, the 'Romans' of the Balkans, a heterogeneous group of various peoples bonded by their Christian Orthodox faith were now the new nation of ‘Hellenes’, wether they liked it or not.
Even during the rebellion itself, the idea and actual belief of “Hellenism” was barely in its infant stages, restricted almost solely among a handful of intellectuals who were mostly inspired by stories told to them by their supporters in Western Europe. The overwhelming participants of the rebellion viewed the event as a Christian liberation movement against the Muslim oppressors. Perpetuating the centuries-old East Roman tradition of Orthodox Christian values and culture, which viewed anything to do with a so-called “Hellenism” as nothing short of devil worshipping, it was then quite a bizarre contradiction that the Greek-speaking clergy of the Orthodox millet began to claim it was operating in the name of “Hellenism”! Such a turn of attitude also resulted in sharp reactions from Constantinople which firmly believed in the East Roman heritage, an anger which was further aggravated by the proclamation of a separate church within the new 'Kingdom of Hellenes', viewed as a deviation of Orthodox unity. Many of the people supported the uprising in the name of Christianity versus Islamic oppression, not because they had some feeling of being a “Hellene”, it was not until the 1850’s when the neo-state and neo-church finally reconciled with Constantinople. Although the Patriarch at Constantinople encouraged a homogenization of the Christians via language, it had absolutely nothing to do with ‘Hellenes’ or ‘Hellenic ideals’ initially, it was about Christian unity within the Empire on one side, and the retainment of control over the Christian subjects by the Patriarch and hence the Sultan on the other.
After the reconciliation between the new ‘Hellenic’ Church and Constantinople, the situation was taken advantage of as the new state and the Patriarch both supported the promotion of the ‘Roman’ language, subsequently termed “Hellenic”, and the spread of it among the Christians in the Ottoman Empire, thus resulting in an indiscriminate push of propaganda. This is the point where the Constantinople mother church turned its back on the other Orthodox Christians and became a mere tool for the new ‘Hellenic’ nationalists, plans for a rejuvenated multi-ethnic East Rome gave way for the fanciful ‘Megali Idea’. In so many ways it is incomprehensible how this modern ‘Hellenic’ nation can claim two totally opposing cultures as one in the same, as calls for Orthodox unity from the east died out, the west never stopped feeding the new nation of ‘Hellenes’ stories of their “glorious” past, regardless of how baseless they were.
Conclusively, one fact stands out above the rest, the only commonality among the 'Roman' peasantry of the 18th and 19th centuries in Morea was that they were Orthodox Christians, language and origins seperated them vastly, there was no notion of 'Hellenism' or an 'ethnic Hellene' prior to the brainchild of westerners resulting in a 'Hellenic' state.
Due to the assistance rendered by the Slavic and Latin speaking people to the Austrian and Russian powers against the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans during the 17th and 18th centuries, the interests of Greek-speakers and their Turkish rulers grew closer as the former was able to coerce the latter into banning the Slavic and Latin speaking clergy from the churches, which had the benefit of consolidating the whole Roman (Christian) Millet firmly under the one head. This also resulted in a monopoly of the church by the Greek-speaking clergy, which originated mostly from Constantinople. Thus, from 1767 onwards great efforts were made by the Greek-speaking ‘upper classes’ to homogenize the various peoples within the respective millet, infiltrating elements of the church, education and the very culture of the native populations. An early example of these efforts is reflected in the Quadra Language Dictionary written by Daniel of Moschopolis in the late 18th century (or early 19th century), which consisted of a revealing poem in terms of the lengths Greek-speaking clergy and teachers were willing to go to for the sake of assimilating the native populace of the Balkans, after being emboldened by the complimentary actions of their Turkish friends:
Albanians, Vlachs, Bulgarians, speakers of other tongues, rejoice! And ready yourselves all to become Romans. Abandoning your barbaric tongues, speech and customs, so that to your descendants they may appear as myths……..
The national identities of the various Balkan peoples only began to re-assert themselves and take shape from the 19th century onwards, hence the terminology used by the writer is inaccurate when speaking of the modern Balkans nations, as it “reflects an eighteenth century linguistic consciousness to which it would be anachronistic to apply to late twentieth century conceptions” (V.A Friedman, 2000). The Macedonian and Serbian languages are not cited as both are lumped together under the Bulgarian (Slavic) group, although it is vital to note that the vernacular used for the Slavic group was recorded in Ohrid, Macedonia. It must be stressed that regardless of ethnic origins the ‘Roman’ name was used generally for all the members of the Roman (Christian) Millet, although the Greek-speaking Ottoman Christians also used this term in a more specific manner to self-described themselves and their language. The target audience of the dictionary were the peasant masses in the region who did not speak or identify with the Greek-speaking 'Romans', with the specific aim of convincing them that their language and history was ‘barbaric’, unworthy and secondary to the 'Roman', which ‘should’ be their preferred option. This was a process of homogenization via linguistic assimilation, and not one of “Hellenism”, for, in the same works there is a complete absence of any citation referring to a “Hellenic” (or Greek for that matter) language or identity.
Opportunism, luck and mixed ideals
The assimilation tactics of Greek-speakers stretched as far as Ottoman Serbia, where as late as 1810, during the prime years of their struggle for freedom against the Turks, the two elementary schools in the Belgrade Pashalik had the Greek tongue as their language of instruction. In 1814 the Philliki Eteria was founded in the Russian Empire by Greek-speaking merchants hundreds of kilometres away from what was to become the future Greek state. The aim of this new organisation was to make preparations for a general rising against Ottoman rule in the hope of establishing a renewed East Roman Empire by utilising the strength of the various Christian peoples in the region. The idea was not well received in most areas, for although it promoted the liberation of the Christian peasantry from Muslim domination, it also had the more narrow aims of employing Greek-speaking leaders and their language (who were in a minority compared to Slavic-speakers) as prime over the other local elements. Despite the fact that Karagoerge Petrovic, the future ruler of the modern Serbian state joined the ranks of Philliki Eteria, Serbian leaders in general rejected the proposal on the grounds that their movement of liberation had already been initiated, while others in the region had mixed feelings towards the same people who had manipulated them via the church and whom they regarded as being little better than the Turkish oppressors.
In the year 1820 Sultan Mahmut II made moves to re-assert Ottoman strength within his weakening empire, with the primary focus against the rebellious and semi-autonomous Ali Pasha, the Albanian Muslim who held sway over the westernmost European lands which were within the Ottoman confines. Despite Ali Pasha’s earlier disputes with his Albanian kinsmen of the Christian faith, their forces were partially allied in defiance of the Ottoman Sultan. As Ali Pasha repelled several Ottoman advances against his realm, the Christians of the region grew bolder, which in turned instilled confidence in the local population resulting in the occurrence of several spontaneous revolts while the Ottoman forces were pre-occupied with other disputes.
In late February 1821 the Danubian Principalities, long oppressed by the Greek-speaking Phanariots, saw the first signs of action by the Philliki Eteria under the leadership of Alexander Ypsilantis, who raised the banner of revolt when several fighters accompanied him into Moldavia from Russia. However, due to poor organisation and an almost complete lack of local support, it turned out to be a complete failure. Despite some initial successes, the Latin-speaking peasant majority in the region were not interested in providing support for the so-called 'movement', and internal conflicts arose between the supporters of the movement and the supporters of local leaders such as Tudor Vladimirescu, who had their own aims of liberation from the Turks which excluded the involvement of the would-be Greek-speaking bravados. The result of these inter-Christian clashes was the death of Vladimirescu and the withdrawal of local support for the Philliki Eteria.
With the events in Moldavia unfolding and the pre-occupation of the Ottomans with Ali Pasha and his forces in Epirus, sporadic actions occurred in March of the same year against the Muslims of the Peloponnese. The rebels consisted of local peasant bands inclusive of the various Christian peoples in the region, Greek-speakers and particularly the Albanians, who, faced with the choice of siding with their kin of the Muslim faith in the armies of Ali Pasha or the Ottomans, opted to support the Christian movement against the latter. While the Greek-speaking Archbishop Germanos is credited with raising the banner of revolt around the same time as the spontaneous actions took place, at the head of a loose confederation of rebel groups was the aging Theodore Kolokotronis, battle-hardened from his time as a volunteer fighter for the British against the French.
Weak foundations and a transformation from liberators to murderers
That which began as an expression of revolt against the tyrannic Ottoman overlords however, quickly turned into an act of brutal extermination against Muslim civilians. George Finlay would later write that the “Greeks violated every principle of private morality and national honour…………slaughter of women, and children was therefore declared to be a necessary measure of wise policy, and popular songs spoke of it……”. Popular song spoke of it - A disgrace now covered up in false romanticism and chants of "liberty"! The Ottomans for their part, retaliated with extreme measures of their own, hanging the Greek-speaking Patriarch Gregory of Constantinople in a most cruel and ruthless way, despite his denouncement of the uprising. It has been said that this event, probably more than any other in the initial stages, drew large sympathies from Western Europe for the cause of the Christians rebelling in the Ottoman Empire.
Come early June, Ypsilantis and his weak entourage suffered a crushing defeat in the village of Dragashani by Ottoman forces, forcing the Greek-speaking leader to flee in cowardice and disgrace. The so-called rebellion was left in tatters and died out shortly afterwards, along with the unrealistic notion of a reborn East Roman Empire. The rebellion in the Peloponnese differed however, for it began to receive support from foreigners who sympathised with the Christians under the Ottoman yoke, although they arrived with a different mindset to that of the Philliki Eteria and the ‘Roman’ dream. The ‘Philhellenes’, as they came to be known, came not to assist the re-birth of East Rome, but rather, for what they perceived as the liberation of ancient ‘Hellenic’ land. It is not surprising thus, that it would be outsiders and foreigners, inspired by the ‘enlightenment’ of the renaissance period, who would shape the new country and identity which would eventuate after the Ottomans were defeated. The ‘Hellenic’ name, not used as a self-designated common identifier of a people since antiquity, was now promoted in replacement of the traditional ‘Roman’ name, which had been in use for almost 2,000 years by the local populace.
‘Hellenism’, in all its foreign and artificially imported ‘glory’, was born.
Saved and created by circumstance, favour and foreigners
Early in the year 1822, circumstances changed as Ali Pasha was finally defeated by the Ottomans, which allowed their forces to concentrate on the rebellious Christians of the Peloponnese. Up until this point, the main casualties of this so-called war of ‘liberation’ were largely civilians, who far outweighed the number of casualties resulting from direct conflicts and battles. The barbarity displayed by both Christians and Ottomans sent shockwaves throughout the region, although European opinion and sympathy rested with the former. Despite further widespread support for the Christians with the death of the most celebrated ‘Philhellene’, Lord Byron, in the year 1824, the tide had turned significantly in favour of the Ottomans who had requested the assistance of the powerful Muhammed Ali of Egypt. This figure, who, like the now deceased Ali Pasha was also of Albanian origin, answered the call by sending a large force to the Peloponnese headed by his son, Ibrahim. Over the next few years Ottoman forces regained lost territory, exposing the clear weakness of the rebels in terms of military might, organisation and the disunity amongst the peasants and their ‘leadership’ on the ground. With a complete Ottoman victory imminent, Russia, Britain and France finally signed the London Agreement in July 1827, placing their differences aside to initiate an intervention on behalf of the Christians, who were all but defeated. The decisive battle took place during late October at Navarino, which saw the annihilation of the Ottoman navy by the European forces, giving life to a near-extinct rebellion, and thus ensuring its last minute success.
The first President of the newly liberated territory was John Capodistrias, who, after arriving ‘triumphantly’ into the harbour of the Italianate-styled new capital of Nafplio (Know also as Napolia di Romania at the time) in 1828, had to immediately make attempts at quelling two local warlords that were busy firing off cannons into each others bases.
The foreign powers from Europe, without whom there could be no victory, now took it upon themselves to begin the process of creating a new state carved out of Ottoman territory in the strategically important Mediterranean region. The London Conference, held in February 1830 and attended by Britain, France and Russia, was the first step. The borders of the new state were drawn up while a monarch was to be elected at a later date, however, throughout the whole proceedings there were no representatives from the Christian peoples in the newly liberated territories and the new state’s leaders were not consulted about the ensuing treaty. Therefore, the constitutional heart of what was to eventuate into the modern ‘Hellenic’ state was not native or ‘Hellenic’ by any means, it was a foreign construct, designed to primarily suit the strategic needs of the European powers which were responsible for its creation while at the same time fulfilling the aspirations of a part of the Christians under Ottoman rule. Despite the support of the ‘Philhellenes’, most returned to their own countries with utter disgust at the methodology and behaviour displayed by the Christian rebels who called themselves 'Romans', and were disappointed in the fact that what they found in the region were not the ‘Hellenes’ of antiquity in either looks or manner, but rather a barbarous people who were viewed little better than the Turks where it concerned the factors and defining characteristics of a people.
True to form of the newly created nation and its origins, in 1831 President Capodistrias was murdered on the door steps of Nafplio’s St Spiridon Church by the family members of the warlord Mavromihaili. This was apparently due to an established network of spies within the government which were used to ‘control’ the population, tactics not favoured by the likes of warlords such as Kolokotronis and Mavromihaili. Capodistrias had also espoused a more Romaic rather than Hellenic character for his state, looking east rather than west, in accordance with the thoughts and beliefs of the peasant masses, and it was they who mourned his death with great despair, while those struggling for power such as warlords and intellectuals were overjoyed by the disgraceful event. The new state had still yet to cleanse its hands, which were soaked with the blood of civilians and non-combatants.
Hypocrisy and Contradictions: Invented 'Hellenes' of the Orthodox faith inherit a Germanic Catholic Monarch
The new state was still terminally incoherent when the Great Powers agreed to create a monarch and appoint a sovereign king in the year 1833. After some deliberation, a 16 year old Bavarian German prince named Otto came to the throne, again, without the consultation of the inhabitants of the now, ‘Kingdom of Hellenes’. The young prince of this Christian Orthodox state was a devout Catholic who refused to convert to the same rite as his newly adopted flock, furthermore, he took as a bride not a local or even Orthodox woman but rather, one of the Protestant rite. Hence, the first royal couple of the new Orthodox ‘Kingdom of Hellenes’ were Catholic and Protestant. Adding to this complex and interesting amalgamation was the ministerial staff of the new ‘kingdom’ comprised of Germans who set about demolishing any last vestiges of power emanating from the newly established (or converted) ‘Hellenic’ Church. The most significant of these Germans, George Maurer, who promoted the severance of the new ‘Hellenic’ Church from the Patriarchate of Constantinople, even established a ‘Holy Synod’ of government appointees to administer the new ‘Hellenic’ Church, and was responsible for the closure of hundreds of Orthodox monasteries. There was little outcry from the peasantry, the many hardships faced under the heads of greedy Greek-speaking priests in previous years were still fresh in the memory of the people despite the ‘leadership’ rendered during the rebellion.
Adding to this rainbow of elements, the capital of the new state was moved to Athens, which at the time was surrounded by Albanians, and even referred to as an Albanian village.
With the state and church organs finally established, a new nation was in need of creation. Everything was baptised ‘Hellenic’, from state, to church, to culture, to language, as all other historical terminology was forcible buried, the 'Romans' of the Balkans, a heterogeneous group of various peoples bonded by their Christian Orthodox faith were now the new nation of ‘Hellenes’, wether they liked it or not.
Even during the rebellion itself, the idea and actual belief of “Hellenism” was barely in its infant stages, restricted almost solely among a handful of intellectuals who were mostly inspired by stories told to them by their supporters in Western Europe. The overwhelming participants of the rebellion viewed the event as a Christian liberation movement against the Muslim oppressors. Perpetuating the centuries-old East Roman tradition of Orthodox Christian values and culture, which viewed anything to do with a so-called “Hellenism” as nothing short of devil worshipping, it was then quite a bizarre contradiction that the Greek-speaking clergy of the Orthodox millet began to claim it was operating in the name of “Hellenism”! Such a turn of attitude also resulted in sharp reactions from Constantinople which firmly believed in the East Roman heritage, an anger which was further aggravated by the proclamation of a separate church within the new 'Kingdom of Hellenes', viewed as a deviation of Orthodox unity. Many of the people supported the uprising in the name of Christianity versus Islamic oppression, not because they had some feeling of being a “Hellene”, it was not until the 1850’s when the neo-state and neo-church finally reconciled with Constantinople. Although the Patriarch at Constantinople encouraged a homogenization of the Christians via language, it had absolutely nothing to do with ‘Hellenes’ or ‘Hellenic ideals’ initially, it was about Christian unity within the Empire on one side, and the retainment of control over the Christian subjects by the Patriarch and hence the Sultan on the other.
After the reconciliation between the new ‘Hellenic’ Church and Constantinople, the situation was taken advantage of as the new state and the Patriarch both supported the promotion of the ‘Roman’ language, subsequently termed “Hellenic”, and the spread of it among the Christians in the Ottoman Empire, thus resulting in an indiscriminate push of propaganda. This is the point where the Constantinople mother church turned its back on the other Orthodox Christians and became a mere tool for the new ‘Hellenic’ nationalists, plans for a rejuvenated multi-ethnic East Rome gave way for the fanciful ‘Megali Idea’. In so many ways it is incomprehensible how this modern ‘Hellenic’ nation can claim two totally opposing cultures as one in the same, as calls for Orthodox unity from the east died out, the west never stopped feeding the new nation of ‘Hellenes’ stories of their “glorious” past, regardless of how baseless they were.
Conclusively, one fact stands out above the rest, the only commonality among the 'Roman' peasantry of the 18th and 19th centuries in Morea was that they were Orthodox Christians, language and origins seperated them vastly, there was no notion of 'Hellenism' or an 'ethnic Hellene' prior to the brainchild of westerners resulting in a 'Hellenic' state.