Nationalism as a Claim to a State: The
Greek Revolution of 1821 and the Formation of Modern Greece John Milios Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://ebookmass.com/product/nationalism-as-a-claim-to-a-state-the-greek-revolution -of-1821-and-the-formation-of-modern-greece-john-milios/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant download maybe you interests ...
Islam and Nationalism in Modern Greece, 1821-1940
Stefanos Katsikas
https://ebookmass.com/product/islam-and-nationalism-in-moderngreece-1821-1940-stefanos-katsikas/
The Spear, the Scroll, and the Pebble: How the Greek City-State Developed as a Male Warrior-Citizen Collective Richard A. Billows
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-spear-the-scroll-and-thepebble-how-the-greek-city-state-developed-as-a-male-warriorcitizen-collective-richard-a-billows/
The Reception of John Chrysostom in Early Modern Europe: Translating and Reading a Greek Church Father from 1417 to 1624 Kennerley
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-reception-of-john-chrysostomin-early-modern-europe-translating-and-reading-a-greek-churchfather-from-1417-to-1624-kennerley/
The Russian Revolution as Ideal and Practice: Failures, Legacies, and the Future of Revolution 1st ed. Edition Thomas Telios
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-russian-revolution-as-idealand-practice-failures-legacies-and-the-future-of-revolution-1sted-edition-thomas-telios/
Historical Sociology of State Formation in the Horn of Africa: Genesis, Trajectories, Processes, Routes and Consequences Redie Bereketeab
https://ebookmass.com/product/historical-sociology-of-stateformation-in-the-horn-of-africa-genesis-trajectories-processesroutes-and-consequences-redie-bereketeab/
John 11–21: A Handbook on the Greek Text Novakovic
https://ebookmass.com/product/john-11-21-a-handbook-on-the-greektext-novakovic/
A Conspiratorial Life: Robert Welch, the John Birch Society, and the Revolution of American Conservatism Edward H. Miller
https://ebookmass.com/product/a-conspiratorial-life-robert-welchthe-john-birch-society-and-the-revolution-of-americanconservatism-edward-h-miller/
Poet of Revolution: The Making of John Milton Nicholas Mcdowell
https://ebookmass.com/product/poet-of-revolution-the-making-ofjohn-milton-nicholas-mcdowell/
A Companion to the Russian Revolution 1st Edition Edition Daniel Orlovsky
https://ebookmass.com/product/a-companion-to-the-russianrevolution-1st-edition-edition-daniel-orlovsky/
HistoricalMaterialism BookSeries EditorialBoard
LorenBalhorn(Berlin)
DavidBroder(Rome)
SebastianBudgen(Paris)
SteveEdwards(London)
JuanGrigera(London)
MarcelvanderLinden(Amsterdam)
PeterThomas(London)
GavinWalker(Montréal)
volume278
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
Names:Mēlios,Giannēs,author.
Title:Nationalismasaclaimtoastate:theGreekRevolutionof1821andthe formationofmodernGreece/byJohnMilios.
Othertitles:GreekRevolutionof1821andtheformationofmodernGreece
Description:Leiden;Boston:Brill,2023.|Series:Historicalmaterialismbook series,1570-1522;278|Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.| Summary:"Intheorisingonthecauses,preconditions,dynamicsandinternal conflictsoftheGreekRevolutionof1821,theanalysisofMiliostacklestheissue ofbourgeoisrevolutionsingeneral.Additionally,hisinvestigationofthe historicalemergenceandthelimitsoftheGreeknation,callsforththebroader theoreticalandhistoricalquestionoftheeconomic,political,andideological presuppositionsofnation-building.Thebookillustrateshownationalism bringsthemassestothepoliticalforefront,whichthecapitaliststatethen incorporatesintoitsapparatusesas'sovereignpeople'.Nationalismbeing enmeshedwithinthepoliticalelement,consiststhebasisuponwhich irredentismdevelops,recruitingpopulationsintotheexpansionist-imperialist strategiesoftherulingclasses"–Providedbypublisher.
Identifiers:lccn2022055715(print)|lccn2022055716(ebook)|isbn 9789004533516(hardback)|isbn9789004533523(ebook)
Subjects:lcsh:Greece–History–WarofIndependence,1821-1829.|Greece–Politics andgovernment–1821-|Nationalism–Greece–History–19thcentury.| Revolutions–Philosophy.|Historicalmaterialism.
Classification:lccdf805.m4552023(print)|lccdf805(ebook)|ddc 949.5/06–dc23/eng/20221230
lcrecordavailableathttps://lccn.loc.gov/2022055715
lcebookrecordavailableathttps://lccn.loc.gov/2022055716
TypefacefortheLatin,Greek,andCyrillicscripts:“Brill”.Seeanddownload:brill.com/brill‑typeface.
issn1570-1522
isbn978-90-04-53351-6(hardback)
isbn978-90-04-53352-3(e-book)
Copyright2023byJohnMilios.PublishedbyKoninklijkeBrillnv,Leiden,TheNetherlands. KoninklijkeBrillnvincorporatestheimprintsBrill,BrillNijhoff,BrillHotei,BrillSchöningh,BrillFink, Brillmentis,Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht,Böhlau,V&RunipressandWageningenAcademic. KoninklijkeBrillnvreservestherighttoprotectthispublicationagainstunauthorizeduse.Requestsfor re-useand/ortranslationsmustbeaddressedtoKoninklijkeBrillnvviabrill.comorcopyright.com.
Thisbookisprintedonacid-freepaperandproducedinasustainablemanner.
Contents Acknowledgements ix
Introduction 1 part1
TheNationandtheRevolution
1TheRevolutioninMoldaviaandWallachia:QuestionsontheBordersof theGreekNation 11
1TheDeclarationsofAlexandrosYpsilantis:HellasinSerbiaand Bulgaria11
2TheEvolutionandFailureoftheCampaigninMoldaviaand Wallachia15
3QuestionsforConsideration:Nation,StateandBordersofClaimed Territory20
2The‘Hellas’of1821:InitialThoughtsontheDisseminationofGreek NationalPoliticisation 23
1TheBoundariesof‘Hellas’,BeginningwithRigasPheraios(1797)to 182123
2VariousAssessmentsofthe‘Transnational’ElementoftheRevolutionin theNationalHistoriography28
3Language,Originsandthe‘PlansoftheFriends’32
3ApproachestotheNation:AGeneralTheoreticalAssessment 39
1TheTraditionalEthnocentricApproach39
2The‘Objective’Approach40
3The‘Subjective’Approach43
4ThePriorityofthePoliticalElement:TheNationasState-Instituted ‘PopularWill’49
5TheNationofCapital:FurtherPointsonaTheoryoftheNation52
4RomansandGreeksintheOttomanEmpire:FromPre-nationalSocial CohesiontoaGreekNation 57
1IntroductoryRemarksconcerningtheBirthoftheGreekNation57
2RemarksontheStructureoftheOttomanEmpire59
3Languageandthe‘UniversalistHermeneutics’ofNationalism65
4TheChronicleofGalaxidi,oraPre-national,‘Roman’HistoricalNarrative ofthePeriod981–170369
5TwoEventsNon-nationalinCharacter78
6TheOttomanEmpireandtheBirthoftheGreekNation83
part2
TheRevolutionandItsState
5TheFirstStateoftheRevolution:TheVictoriousPeriod(1821–1824) 99
1ConstitutionsandInstitutions:TheFormationofaBourgeoisState99
2Lords,PoliticiansandMilitaryCorps:ThePoliticalUpliftingofthe Masses104
3PoliticalTrendsandCivilWars112
4RegardingClassAntagonismswithintheRevolutionaryForces117
6TheEbboftheRevolution,theInterventionofthe‘GreatPowers’and theEndofConstitutionalRepublicanism(1825–1833) 123
1TheUnfavourableTurnintheWar123
2International-PoliticalRelationsandDiplomaticRecognitionofthe Greekstate124
3InternalConflicts,Dead-Ends,andtheEndofConstitutional Republicanism133
7TheFormationofaCapitalistStateandSocialFormation 152
1TheRevolutionandItsStateasaPointofNoReturnintheProcessof ConsolidatingCapitalistSocialRelations152
2CapitalasaRelationship:Manufacture,Shipping,TradeandFinancial Activities154
3AgriculturalProduction,RuralPropertyRelationsand‘National Lands’158
4RemnantsandResistanceofthe‘ancienrégime’164
part3
TheRevolutionasthe‘GrandIdea’andasthe‘Present’
8‘HellenisationoftheEast’:TheVisionandtheReality 171
1APartialReview:AGenuineBourgeoisRevolution171
2TheGrandIdeaoftheRevolution178
3GreekandtheGreek-SpeakingPopulationsoftheOttoman Empire182
4TheEconomicDimensionoftheGrandIdea187
5Contractionandthe‘Stability’oftheGrandIdeaFollowingthe DevelopmentofBalkanNationalisms192
6AftertheGrandIdea:‘ARupturewithinContinuity’197
91821‘inthePresent’:OntheIdeologicalUsesoftheRevolution 202
1Introduction:ontheIdeologicalUsesofHistory202
2TheTraditionofthe‘ContinuityofHellenism’andItsTransformations intheNineteenthCentury203
3TheIdeologyof‘NationalContinuity’asaDevaluationoftheRevolution andasaSelf-Contradiction207
4‘NationalContinuity’andRacism211
5HistoricalApproachesintheContextoftheLeft(1907–1946):From AttemptsatScientificAnalysisfortheDocumentationofaSocialist StrategytoIdeologicalUsesofHistory214
6DoesHistoryUniteaNation?225
References 231 Index 254
Acknowledgements AfirstversionofthisbookwaspublishedinGreekon15December2020under thetitle1821:TracingtheNation,theStateandtheGrandIdea(1821.Ihnilatontas toEthnos,toKratoskaitiMegaliIdea,AlexandreiaPublications).
IwouldliketothankMariosEmmanouilidisandDimitrisC.Sotiropoulos forreadingthechaptersofthebookwhiletheywerebeingwritten,andfor helpingmetoimprovetheirqualitywithwell-foundedcomments.Ialsothank PanagiotisSotirisforhissuggestionsregardingtheadaptationofthetextforan English-literateaudience.
Iowethankstotheparticipantsoftheseminar‘TheoryandHistoryofCapitalismandtheNationalPhenomenon:TheGreekCase’(October2018–March 2019),whosequestions,commentsandinterventionshelpedmetoshapethe argumentsdevelopedinthisbook.
Aspecialmentionis,ofcourse,owedtoBarbaraSantosfortranslatingthe greaterpartofthebook,forhervaluablesuggestionsandforhavingimproved theoverallstyleofthemanuscript.
AboutNationalismasaClaimtoaState WhoweretheGreekswhomtheRevolutionof1821soughttoliberateinto anational-constitutionalstate?Inthisfascinatingbook,distinguishedpoliticaleconomistJohnMiliosinvestigatestheprocessesofeconomic,social,and political-ideologicalunificationthroughwhich,fromthesecondhalfofthe eighteenthcentury,Greek-speakingandotherOrthodoxcapitalistspromoted abroadnationalpoliticisationoflargeOrthodoxChristianpopulationsinthe OttomanEmpireandturnedthemintoGreekfreedomfighters.Heshowshow therevolutionofthemassesdemandingrepresentativeinstitutionsledtothe formationofaconstitutionalbourgeoisstateandanationalcapitalistsocial formation(1821–27)beforetakingaBonapartistand,later,monarchistturn. Thisisthefirstbooktoconsidertheroleofcapitalism,nationalism,republicanism,racism,andimperialismintheformationofmodernGreece.
– VassiliosLambropoulos,C.P.CavafyProfessorEmeritus,UniversityofMichigan
NationalismasaClaimtoaStateprovidesagroundbreakingaccountofthe GreekRevolutionanditsaftermath.OpposingthemythofHelleniccontinuity, MiliosanalysestheGreeknationalistmovementintermsofcapitalistinterests within–andatoddswith–theOttomanEmpire.Heemphasisesthatearly proclamationsofHellenicindependencealsoincludedAlbanians,Serbs,and Bulgars;later,theGreekstatedefineditselfagainstthosegroupsandpursued territorialexpansion.Partofabroaderhistoricalmovement,theemergent Greekstaterevealshownationalistideologiesgettwistedthiswayandthat toavoidconfrontingtherealitiesofcapitalism.Carefullyresearchedandpersuasivelyargued,Milios’sstudytakesusdeepintotheGreekRevolutionand beyond,offeringcruciallessonsforthecontemporaryworld.
– RushRehm,Professor,TheaterandPerformanceStudies,andClassics,StanfordUniversityArtisticDirector,StanfordRepertoryTheater(srt)
JohnMiliosoffersusatimelyandimportantinterventioninthediscussions onthecharacterandroleofthe1821GreekRevolution,anecessaryantidote tothenationalistconsensuswhichseemstohaveprevailedinthebicentenary celebrationsofthatevent.Throughthelensofpoliticaleconomy,hecritically analysestheroleoftheemergingmiddleclassesintheformationofthenation stateofGreece.Atthesametime,heshowsthattheprotagonistsofthenational strugglehadimperial(Iwouldprefertocallthemcolonial)ambitionsfromthe verystart,ambitionsthatwereburntintheashesofSmyrnaacenturylater.The
booknotonlyhelpsusunderstandtheemergenceandthefatesofGreeceas anationalandpoliticalphenomenon,anditscontinuingroleasabufferstate inglobalgeopolitics,butitalsoconstitutesavaluablecontributiontothecontemporarydiscussionson(andstrugglestowards)ideological,economic,and politicaldecolonisation.
–YannisHamilakis,BrownUniversity,co-authorof Archaeology,Nation, andRace:ConfrontingthePast,DecolonizingtheFuture
Introduction MydecisiontoupdateabookwritteninGreekontheGreekRevolutionof 1821–therevolutionthatgaverisetothemodernGreekstate–forEnglishliteratereaders,abookthatcounterstheapproachesofvarious‘national’narrativesthatoverwhelmedthepublicsphereduringthebicentenaryof‘1821’,was basedonatwofoldlineofreasoning.First,theGreekRevolutionwasagenuinebourgeoisrevolution;intheorisingitscauses,preconditions,dynamicsand internalconflicts,theanalysishereinnecessarilytacklestheissueofbourgeois revolutionsingeneral.Second,English-languageMarxisthistoriographyhas practicallyignoredtheGreekRevolution–withtheexceptionofbrief,albeit somewhatintrusive,commentsintheworksofEricHobsbawm,andinsome sporadicreferencesinworksbyotherauthors.
TheGreekRevolutionwasplottedandinitiatedbytheFriendlySociety (PhilikiEtaireia),asecretsocietyfoundedinOdessa,intheRussianEmpire,on 14September1814bythreeGreekmerchants.Itwasdeclaredon24February 1821inthesemi-autonomousfromOttomanrule(the‘SublimePorte’)principalityofMoldavia,i.e.inpresent-dayRomania,bytheleaderoftheFriendly Society,AlexandrosYpsilantis.ItspreadalmostimmediatelyintotheneighbouringprincipalityofWallachia(alsoinpresent-dayRomania).
Theofficial‘national’(Greek)accountoftheRevolution,whichhasconsistentlypraisedthecontributionoftheFriendlySocietyinthepreparation anddeclarationoftheRevolution,bypasses,usuallywithabrieforepigrammaticreference,theeventsinMoldaviaandWallachiaduringtheperiodof February–September1821.Infact,evenbeforetheendoftheseconddecadeof itsexistence,theGreekstate,bydecreesignedon15March1838byKingOtto andtheMinisterforEcclesiasticalAffairsG.Glarakis,‘decided’anddeclared thattheRevolutionhadbeenproclaimedatthemonasteryofAghiaLavrain Kalavrytaon25March1821(thedayofthecelebrationofthe‘Annunciationof theVirginMary’bytheOrthodoxChurch).
ThelegendofAghiaLavra,whichtheGreekstatemaintainswithreverence tothisdaywithannualcelebrationsoftheRevolution,andthedownplayingof theRevolutioninthePrincipalities,areintendednotonlytosymbolicallylink ‘HellenismwithOrthodoxy’;theyfunctionmainlyasamechanismforcapturingtheRevolutionwithintheGreekstate,andtheyconcealaquestionthatlies beforeus:WhydidtheGreekRevolutionbegininRomania?
Thisquestionbecomesevenmorepronouncedifoneconsidersinsome detailtheeventsthattookplaceinthePrincipalities.Atypicalexample:inone ofthethreeproclamationsissuedinIaşi,thecapitalofMoldavia,byAlexan-
drosYpsilantison24February1821,entitled‘GreekMen,thosesojourningin MoldaviaandWallachia!’,weread:‘Morea,Epirus,Thessaly,Serbia,Bulgaria, theIslandsoftheArchipelago,inafewwordsthewholeofHellastookuparms, withaviewtoshakeofftheonerousyokeoftheBarbarians’.
SeveralGreekhistorians,notonlyleftists,butalsoproponentsofmainstream‘national’approaches,havechallengedthemythof‘AghiaLavra’.For example,intheearly1960sProfessorofMediaevalandModernHistoryatthe UniversityofAthensApostolosP.Daskalakiswrote:‘[O]n25Marchnoonewas atLavratodeclaretherevolution,which,afterall,hadbeendeclared’.1However, Daskalakis’sargumentationhadnoeffectonthe‘officialhistory’oftheRevolutionandcertainlydidnotdeter,forexample,IoannisN.Theodorakopoulos, alsoaProfessor(atthePanteionSchoolofSocialSciences)andmemberofthe AcademyofAthens,fromdeclaringthreeyearslater,on25March1965,atthe monasteryofAghiaLavra:‘Two“hails”expressthemeaningoftoday’sgreatday, “Hail,hailMary”and“Hail,OhailLiberty”’.2Andin2021,theofficialcelebrationofthebicentenaryoftheRevolutionbegan,asithaseveryyearsince1838, on25March.
Nevertheless,while‘AghiaLavra’andthe‘25thofMarch’maybematters ofdispute,contemporaryGreekhistoriographyalmostunanimouslyabstains fromanyattempttopenetratetheriddleofwhytheGreekRevolutionstarted inwhatistodayRomania.Itisworthmentioninghereacurrentexamplecharacteristicofthis.Inthefirstquarterof2021,amidsttheofficialcelebrations forthebicentenaryoftheGreekRevolution,acollectivevolumewaspublished byHarvardUniversityPressentitledTheGreekRevolution:ACriticalDictionary, editedbyProfessorsPaschalisKitromilidesandConstantinosTsoukalas.AforewordtothevolumewaswrittenbytheformerPresidentoftheHellenicRepublic ProkopiosPavlopoulosandthebookisdedicated‘Inhonorofthegenerations ofscholarswho,acrosstwohundredyears,havedevotedtheirintellectuallabor tothestudyoftheGreekRevolution’.Attheendofthebook,onpp.727–37,a chronologyofthemajoreventspertainingtotheGreekRevolutionisincluded, whichcoverstheperiod1814–34.Thechronologybeginswiththefoundingof theFriendlySocietyinOdessa(1814),continueswithvariouseventsupto26–29January1821,whenthePeloponnesianprimatesconvenedtodecideonhow tocommencetheRevolution,andthen‘jumps’to3March1821,whenhostilities beganinthemountainouseast-centralpartofthePeloponnese,intheareaof Kalavryta.TheproclamationoftherevolutioninMoldaviaiscuriouslyabsent.
1Daskalakis1961–62,p.28.
2Theodorakopoulos1972,p.43.‘Hail,OhailLiberty’isaverseofthe‘HymntoLiberty’,the Greeknationalanthem.
Onlythe‘[d]efeatoftheSacredBattalionunderAlexandrosYpsilantis’inWallachiaon7June1821ismentioned(p.729).
Thischasminthenationalnarrative(andinthelapseofmemory)isasymptomofanaporiavis-à-visthevagueboundariesofthe‘nation’atthetimeof theRevolution.Duringthefirstdecadesofthenineteenthcentury,theexponentsofGreekEnlightenment,whowereconcomitantlyforefathersofGreek nationalism,believedGreeknesstobeidentifiedwithOrthodoxy,asthenascentGreeknationwas,atthetime,thefirsttoemergeinthebroaderBalkan andAsiaMinorregion.
ThebeliefthatallChristiansintheOttomanEmpirewereGreeksbegan withtheGreekEnlightenment.Itcanbetracedintherevolutionarywritingsof theearlyGreekrevolutionaryRigasPheraios(1757–1798)andtherevolutionary pamphlet HellenicNomarchy (1806),andwasmaintainedwithminormodificationsuntilthemiddleofthenineteenthcentury.Itisalsotheideological groundforthe‘GrandIdea’,theexpansioniststrategyoftheGreekstateinthe firstcenturyofitsexistence.Aconstituentpartofthisbeliefwas,ofcourse,the convictionthatthe‘Greeknation’hadexistedsinceantiquity.
ThedominantnationalistnarrativeconcerningthecontinuityoftheGreek nationsinceantiquityinaparadoxicalwaynullifiesitself.Inotherwords,it denigratesandlargelyconcealsthepoliticalandinstitutionalrupturewith whichthe1821Revolutionwasconnected:thehistoricallyunprecedentedinstitutionalandstatechangesrelatedtothespreadofnationalismintheregions wheretheRevolutionhadestablisheditself,i.e.thenationalpoliticisationof themassesandtheirdemandforinstitutionsofrepresentation(andtherefore foranational-constitutionalbourgeoisstateof‘citizens’),whichformedahistoricallynewwayofintegratingthepopulationsintothestate,subsumingthem underthealreadyprevailingcapitalistrelationsofdominationandexploitation.
Thebasisforthebroadnationalpoliticisationofthemasses–thedevelopmentofnationalism–mainlyintheregionsofsouthernGreeceandthe islands,wastheprocessesofeconomic,ideologicalandpoliticalunification, fromthesecondhalfoftheeighteenthcentury,oftheChristianpopulations andregionslinkedtotherapiddevelopmentofcapitalistrelationsandtheir associatedcommercialnetworks.Theseprocesseseconomicallyandpoliticallyunifiedruralareaswithurbancentres(centresoflong-distancetradewith theinterioroftheOttomanEmpireandabroad).Ireferheretounprecedentedsocialdevelopmentsofenormousimportancewhichlieattheveryheart oftheRevolution.Theideasofrepublicanismandconstitutionalism,aswell asthenationalpoliticisationofthemasses,weredevelopedwithintheseprocessesasanaspectofthem.
Acorefacetofnationalismispolitical,affiliatedwiththedemandforanda claimtoastate.Nationalconsciousness,inotherwords,isnotprimarilyrelated tothemothertongue,traditionsandplaceoforiginofthenationallymobilisedpopulation,buttothedemandfor‘nationalfreedom’and‘illumination’; and,inthecaseathand,itwasrelatedtothedemandforanindependent constitutional-democraticstatewhichwassupposedlydestinedtoreconstitutetheheritageofancientGreeceinthenewera,asalltheofficialtextsofthe Revolutionproclaimed:
DescendantsofthewiseandphilanthropicnationoftheHellenes,contemporariesoftheat-presentenlightenedandbasedontheruleoflaw peoplesofEurope,andwitnessesofthegood,whichtheyenjoyunderthe unbreakableaegisofthelaws,itwasnolongerpossibleforustoendure thecruelscourgeoftheOttomanstatetothepointofcallousnessand gullibility,whichforaboutfourcenturieshasbeenoverourheads,and insteadofreason,acclaimedarbitrarywillaslaw,persecutedandordered everythingdespoticallyandautocratically.3
Thefirstobjectofmyinvestigationisthereforethehistoricalemergenceand thelimitsoftheGreeknation,anobjectthatcallsforththebroadertheoreticalandhistoricalquestionoftheeconomic,political,culturalandideological presuppositionsofnation-building.
The1821Revolutioncanbeassessedandinterpretedintermsofitscharacteranddynamicsfirstandforemostbytheinstitutionsitcreated,bythe regimeitimposedand,naturally,bytheofficialtextsthatestablishedtheguidingindicatorsofthatregime.Fromtheveryfirstmomentofitsdeclaration, theGreekRevolutionproclaimeditsradicalenlightenment-bourgeoischaracter.And,fromtheveryfirstmoment,itcomprisedcorrespondingbourgeoisrepresentativeinstitutions,thusestablishingaconstitutionalstate.
ThefirstGreekstatewas defacto establishedin1821–22,whenitformed itsfirstrepublicanapparatusesofadministrationandpower,andtheconstitutionalinstitutionsofrepresentationofthemassesrecognisedwithinit.In 1824and1825,theinternationalfinancialmarketsanticipatedtheviabilityof theGreekstateandconcludedwithitthefirstloanstomodernGreece.From 1826on,the‘GreatPowers’alsoanticipatedthefinalformationofaformofa Greekstateentityandintervened,accordingtotheirgeopoliticalinterestseach,
3 ResolutionofthefirstNationalAssemblyoftheHellenesinEpidaurus,onthefirstdayofJanuaryofyear1ofIndependence[15January1822],inMamoukas1839,Vol.ii,p.43.
toresolvethe‘Greekquestion’(in1826:the‘ProtocolofSt.Petersburg’;in1827: thenavalBattleofNavarinobetweenthe‘GreatPowers’–Britain,Franceand Russia–andtheOttomanforces;in1830:the‘LondonProtocol’).
Throughouttherevolutionarystruggle,thesocial,politicalandideological antagonismsbetweentheleadingpoliticalfactionswithintheGreekstate becameclear.Theserivalries,whichresultedintwocivilwars,aswellasthe formationofthefirstthreepoliticalpartiesthatshapedthecentralpoliticalsceneofthecountryformorethanthreedecades,aroseoutofcontroversiesoverspecificpoliticalandstateissues:theformoftheconstitution andthestate,itsfederalorcentralisedcharacter,theroleofpoliticiansand themilitary,thevotingsystemandthepoliticalroleofthemassesandthe armedforcesandtheirrepresentativeinstitutions,thepreservationordissolutionoflocalparliaments,theextentofpoliticalandindividualrights,etc. Theoutcomeoftheinternalconflicts,i.e.thepredominanceofconstitutionalismintheinternationalenvironmentofapredominantlyauthoritarianand absolutistEurope,illustratesthediffusionandhegemonyinthepopulation oftherevolutionaryregionsoftheradical-enlightenment(bourgeois)ideologies.
Infactualterms,itisofcourseperfectlycomprehensiblethat,ontheone hand,theGreekRevolutionsharedsimilaritieswiththecorrespondingrevolutionsofthetime(theAmerican,theFrench…);ontheotherhand,again speakingfactually,theGreekRevolutionevolveditsownparticularcharacteristics,suchastheinitialabsenceoftheinstitutionofaheadofstate.A bourgeoisrevolution,byitsverynature,sharescertainbasicprinciplesand strategicgoalswhereveriterupts–principlesandgoalsaroundwhichitsaleatorydynamicshavedeveloped.Attemptsbyjournalistsandhistoriansaliketo discredittherevolutionaryconstitutionsandinstitutionsofthefirstGreek state,andtodemonisethepartiesthatemergedfromtheinternalconflicts, allthewhilearguingthatalloftheaboveweremainlyanexpressioneither of‘anarchy’orofforeigninfluenceanddependency,essentiallyrevealafear ofanddisregardformassmovements:thefearofanypotentialforrevolution.
However,bourgeoispartiesdonotsplitordivideanation,despitethefact thatpartyrivalriesappear,onthesurface,tobethecausesofsocialantagonisms:whatisacausemayappearasaneffect,andviceversa.Bourgeoisparties uniteasocietydividedbyopposingclassinterests:theymediate,mitigateand incorporateclassantagonismsbetweentheexploitersandtheexploited,the governingandthegoverned,therulersandtheruledintotheparliamentary apparatus,i.e.withinthestateintheformof‘nationalinterest’.InGreece,this ‘nationalinterest’,the‘nationalstrategy’intowhichallpartiesultimatelycon-
verged,wasnothingbuttheexpansionofstateborders,the‘GrandIdea’asit waslaternamed,thepre-eminentlycommonimperialpoliticalgoaland‘desire ofthenation’anditsrepresentatives.
AftertheRevolution,themodernGreekstatebecameapointofreference forGreekcapitalistsandGreekcommunitiesthatcontinuedtoflourishinthe maincentresoftheOttomanEmpire,thusprovidinganeconomic‘argument’ fortheimperialvisionofthe‘GrandIdea’.Thesecapitalistenterprisesownedby Greeks,aswellastheGreekcommunitiessurroundingthem,continuedtorapidly‘grow’intheOttomanEmpire,namelyoutsidetheGreekstateandnational territory,alongsidethosewithinGreece;yetthoseabroadwereoverwhelmed bythe‘desire’tobecomepartofthenewstatewhich,inturn,conceivedthem aspartofa‘second’(wannabe)‘Greece’.
Myanalysissubstantiatesthepositionthatnoneoftheuprisingspriorto 1821inwhatlaterbecameGreekterritoryhadthecharacteristicsofanational revolution.Thismeansthatthe1821Revolutionwasaturningpointinthe historyoftheEuropeangeographicalarea.Nevertheless,accordingtoofficial nationalisthistoriography,theRevolutionof1821wasnothingbutthefinal, decisivemomentofacontinuousresistanceandanongoingrebellionofthe ‘Greeks’againstthe‘four-centuryTurkishnationalyoke’sincetheconquestof Constantinoplein1453.
Evenmore,twohundredyearsafteritsoutbreak,theGreekRevolutionof 1821continuestobeatemporallocusforideologicaldebatesandpoliticalinterventionsrelatedtothepresent.Inmostofthesediscussions,an‘ideologicaluse’ oftheRevolutionhasbeenreproducedasanarbitraryportraitoftheeventand itsprotagonists,withattimesevennon-existent‘facts’beingconstructedin anefforttodefendaparticularideologicalandpoliticalstanceinthepresent. SuchglorificationoftheRevolution,whichhasaccompaniedthehistoryofthe Greekcapitaliststatefromthefirstdecadesofitsexistenceuntiltoday,hasnot leftleftisthistoriansandintellectualsuntouched.
Thebookisdividedintothreeparts.
InPart1:TheNationandtheRevolution,thesubjectofinvestigationis theGreeknationanditsgeographicalandsocialboundaries.Itincludesfour chapters.
InChapter1,‘TheRevolutioninMoldaviaandWallachia:Questionsonthe BordersoftheGreekNation’,thefailureoftheRevolutionintheDanubianPrincipalitiesisexamined,andaseriesofquestionsasregardsthe‘meaning’and boundariesoftheGreeknationareposited.
Chapter2,‘The“Hellas”of1821:InitialThoughtsontheDisseminationof GreekNationalPoliticisation’,examinestheperceptionsofwhatconstituted ‘Greece’intheeraoftheGreekEnlightenment,fromthetextsoftheearly
revolutionaryRigasPheraiosattheendoftheeighteenthcentury,tothose writtenduringtheGreekRevolution.
InChapter3,‘ApproachestotheNation:AGeneralTheoreticalAssessment’, atheoreticalframeworkofunderstandingthenationispositedthroughacriticalanalysisofexistingtheoreticalapproaches.
InChapter4,‘RomansandGreeksintheOttomanEmpire:FromPre-NationalSocialCohesiontoaGreekNation’,theprocessesthatledapartofthe Christian‘Romans’(OrthodoxChristians)oftheOttomanEmpiretonational politicisationareanalysed,namelytheirtransformationintoGreeksembracing thedemandforanindependentnationstate.
Part2:TheRevolutionanditsStatehasasitsobjectofanalysisthebuilding oftherevolutionaryrepublican-constitutionalGreekstateduringtheperiod 1821–27anditsreplacementduringthesubsequentperiod(1828–43),initially bytheBonapartistdictatorshipofIoannisKapodistrias,andsubsequentlyby anabsolutemonarchy.Thispartincludesthreechapters.
Chapter5,‘TheFirstStateoftheRevolution:TheVictoriousPeriod(1821–1824)’,analysestheconstitutional-democraticinstitutions,thesocialandpoliticalconfrontationsandcivilwars,thepoliticalupliftingofthepopularmasses andtheclassrivalrieswithintheforcesoftheRevolutionduringitsfirst,victoriousperiod.
Chapter6,‘TheEbboftheRevolution,theInterventionofthe“GreatPowers” andtheEndofConstitutionalRepublicanism(1825–1833)’,examinestheunfavourabledevelopmentofthewarofindependenceafterthelandingofIbrahim Pasha’sarmyinthePeloponnesein1825,theinternationalconjunctureandthe defactorecognitionoftheGreekstatethroughtheforeignloansitconcluded in1824and1825withBritishbanks,aswellastheinterventionsoftheGreat Powers–developmentsthatledtotheendofconstitutionalrepublicanism immediatelyfollowingtheapproval,in1827,ofthemostradicallydemocratic constitutioninEurope,andtheformationofthefirstthreepartiesoftheGreek state.Thesepartiesneverthelessfunctionedasorganisersofdifferentforms ofresistancetoabsolutism,leading,ultimately,in1843–44,toaconstitutional monarchy.
Chapter7,‘TheFormationofaCapitalistStateandSocialFormation’,examinestheRevolutionanditsstateasapointofnoreturnintheprocessof consolidatingcapitalistsocialrelations.Themaincapitalistbranchesofthe GreekeconomyinthewakeoftheRevolution(manufacture,shipping,trade andfinancialactivities)arepresented,aswellastherelationsoftheindirect subsumptionofsmall-scalefamilyagricultureundercapital.Finally,reference ismadetotheremnantsandresistanceofthe‘ancienrégime’tothecapitalist Greeksocialformation.
Part3:TheRevolutionasthe‘GrandIdea’andasthe‘Present’referstothe legaciesoftheRevolution,butalsotoitsideologicalusesthroughoutthetwo centuriesofexistenceoftheGreekstate.
Chapter8,‘“HellenisationoftheEast”:TheVisionandtheReality’,examinestherelevanceoftheideologicalandpoliticalframeworkestablishedbythe Revolutionwiththe‘GrandIdea’,theexpansioniststrategyoftheGreekstate duringthefirstcenturyofitsexistence,astrategythatdrewsupportfromthe leadingpositionofGreekcapitalintheOttomanEmpireandwaspromulgated as‘nationalliberation’andthe‘civilisationoftheEast’.
Finally,Chapter9,‘1821“inthePresent”:OntheIdeologicalUsesofthe Revolution’,offersacritiqueofaseriesofinterpretationsregardingtheGreek nationandthecharacteroftheRevolutionthathavepersistentlydominated Greekandinternationalhistoriographyandpublicdiscourse.
Iconsiderthisbookacontinuationofmypreviousbook,entitledTheOriginsofCapitalismasaSocialSystem:ThePrevalenceofanAleatoryEncounter (LondonandNewYork:Routledge,2018and2019).
TheaforementionedbookexploresthefirsthistoricalperiodofthedominationofcapitalisminEuropewiththeformationinVenice,fromtheendof thefourteenthcentury,ofacapitalistsocialformationandacapitaliststate withoutnationalcharacteristics–a(colonialist)stateinwhich,despiteallthe processesofanearlyconstructionof‘patriotism’(obediencetothestateassociatedwiththeintegrationofsubjectswithinstateapparatuses,theideological inculcationof‘Venetianvalues’andtheinventionofan‘officialhistory’,religiousandstateceremonies,formsofeducation,etc.),wasnotanationstate: thestate’ssubjectswerenottransformedintocitizens,theconsciousnessof ‘belonging’ofthepopulationdidnotentailclaimsonthefutureofthestate anditsborders,aslatertookplace,aftertheFrenchRevolution,inmanyparts ofEuropewhenandwherenationalismprevailed.
Ifthatbook,asIwaswritingitthen,seemedlikea‘returntothefuture’, thepresentbookcomprisesaprobeintothepastofthepresent:itexamines oneofthemostcharacteristicexamplesoftheshapingofanationalcapitalist stateandanationalcapitalistsocialformationontheEuropeancontinent:the Revolutionwithinanon-nationalEmpire,whichestablishedoneofthefirst, strictosensu,nationalcapitaliststatesinEurope.
part1 TheNationandtheRevolution TheRevolutioninMoldaviaandWallachia: QuestionsontheBordersoftheGreekNation
1TheDeclarationsofAlexandrosYpsilantis:HellasinSerbiaand Bulgaria
TheGreekRevolutionof1821wasplottedandinitiatedbytheFriendlySociety (PhilikiEtaireia),asecretsocietyfoundedinOdessaon14September1814by threemerchants,NikolaosSkoufasfromArta,EmmanouilXanthosfromthe islandofPatmosandAnastasiosTsakalovfromIoannina.Thedeclaredaim oftheFriendlySocietywastooverthrowtheOttomanEmpireandestablish aGreekconstitutionalrepublicintheempire’sterritory(seebelow).
On21February1821,AlexandrosYpsilantis,memberandsubsequentleader oftheFriendlySociety(‘GeneralCommissioneroftheAuthority’),anduntil thenageneralintheRussianarmyandaide-de-campoftheTsar,1crossed theRiverPruthandenteredintoMoldavianterritory,whichformedasemiautonomousPrincipalityunderthedomainoftheOttomanEmpire.ThePrince ofMoldavia,MikhailSoutsos(alsoknownasMikhailVodas),wasamemberof theFriendlySociety.He‘burnedthesignsofprincedom’,2andleftatYpsilantis’s disposalhisguard,togetherwith285,000piastres.UponhisarrivalinIaşi,the capitalofMoldavia,Ypsilantisissuedon24February1821threeproclamations, allofwhichwereprintedatthelocalprinter’sshopofManouilVernardos.In thefirstofthese,entitled‘GreekMen,thosesojourninginMoldaviaandWallachia!’,weread:
Behold,aftersomanycenturiesofwoe,thephoenixofHellasisagain spreadingitswingsinsplendourandsummonsunderthisshadowher trueandobeisantprogeny!Beholdourfriend,MotherlandHellas,raisingtheflagofourforebearsintriumph!Morea,Epirus,Thessaly,Serbia, Bulgaria,theIslandsoftheArchipelago,inafewwordsthewholeofHellas tookuparms,withaviewtoshakeofftheonerousyokeoftheBarbarians, andsettinghersightsonthesolevictory-bearingweaponoftheOrthodox
1WhileservingasanofficerintheRussianarmyagainstNapoleon,Ypsilantislosthisrighthand intheBattleofLeipzigin1813(Evangelides1934,p.566). 2Evangelides1934,p.566.
Christians,thesacred,Isay,andlife-bearingCross,criesoutresoundingly undertheprotectionofagreatandmightyforce,Inhocsignovinces!Long liveliberty!3
Thesecondproclamation,entitled‘Fightforfaithandmotherland’,isaddressed toallHellenes,4whilethethird,entitled‘BrothersoftheSocietyofFriends’, summonsthemembersoftheSocietyintothestruggle.5
Adayearlier,on23February1821,Ypsilantishadissuedaproclamation,‘To theNationofMoldavia-Wallachia’,inwhichhepromulgatesthat‘allofGreece fromthisdayraisestheflagfromalltheplacesundertheyokeoftyranny’,and asserts:
WhereforeIavouchtoyouandassureyou…thatyouwillhaveeverycomfortandcertitudeandinnowayshallyoubeconfusedbymyactionsfor thereasonthattheauthorityandadministrationofthisPrincipalityshall stayasitalreadyis,andfaithfultothesesamelaws,shallconductitsaffairs …divineprovidencegracedyouwithaMaster,hewhothisdaygoverns, MikhailVoevodasSoutsos…afatherandbenefactoraliketoyou.6
3Ypsilantis1821a,emphasisadded.
4‘FightforFaithandMotherland!Thetimehascome,oHellenes…Letnationalphalanxes beformed,letpatrioticlegionsappearandyouwillseethoseoldgiantsofdespotismfall bythemselves,beforeourtriumphantbanners.AlltheshoresoftheIonianandAegeanseas willresoundtothesoundofourtrumpet…Thenationassembledwillelectitselders,and tothishighestparliamentallouractswillyield…TheMotherlandwillrewardherobedient andgenuinechildrenwiththeprizesofGloryandHonour.Thosewhodisobeyandturna deafeartothispresentappealwillbedeclaredbastardsandAsiaticgerms,theirnames,as traitors,anathematisedandcursedbylatergenerations…Letusthenonceagain…invite LibertytotheclassicallandofHellas!LetusdobattlebetweenMarathonandThermopylae! Letusfightonthetombsofourfathers,who,soastoleaveusfree,foughtanddiedthere! ThebloodoftheTyrantsisacceptabletotheshadesofEpameinondastheThebanandof ThrasyboulostheAthenian,whocrushedthethirtytyrants,totheshadesofHarmodiusand Aristogeiton,whodestroyedtheyokeofPeisistratus,tothatofTimoleon,whorestoredfreedomtoCorinthandSyracuse,certainlytothoseofMiltiadesandThemistocles,ofLeonidas andtheThreeHundred,whocutdowntheinnumerablearmiesofthebarbarousPersians, whosemostbarbarousandinhumandescendantswetoday,withverylittleeffort,areabout toannihilatecompletely.Toarmsthen,friends!TheMotherlandcallsus!’(Ypsilantis1821b, alsocitedinClogg1976,pp.201–3).
5‘…Soonwards,obrothers,eachofyoucontributethisonelasttimebyofferingaboveand beyondwhatiswithinyourpower,beitarmedmen,weapons,moneyornationalcostume’ (Ypsilantis1821a).
6CitedinPhoteinos1846,p.33.
On25February1821,Ypsilantisissuedaproclamationentitled‘TothesojourningHellenes’,essentiallyaddressinghimselftothemembersofthereigningOttomanapparatusesinMoldavia,since,asfarbackastheseventeenth century,butprimarilyafter1711,thegovernanceoftheOttomandominionin MoldaviaandWallachiahadbeenassumedbyPhanariotes7andotherGreekspeakingofficersandrepresentativesoftheSublimePorte,theOttomancentral government:
Yemyfriends,fellowcompatriots…forcedfromadverseconditionstobe reducedtoastatesoastobesetaswellbehindthechariotsofthelocal masters;contemptandhubrisheretoforeunheardofagainstthedwellersonHellenicland!Beholdthenabrightcourseopeningbeforeyou,the sacredstruggleinfavourofmotherlandandfaith.Rallytorinseoffthis hubrisunbid,etchedupontheflagofliberty.8
TheEcumenicalPatriarchofConstantinopleGregoriosvandthePatriarch ofJerusalemPolykarposalmostatonce(inthosefirstdaysofMarch1821) denouncedtheRevolutionwithanEncyclical.AccordingtotheEncyclical,the insurrectionists‘Ratherthanbeingloversoflibertytheyprovedtobeloathers ofliberty,andratherthanbeingloversofcountryandreligion,theyprovedto beloathersofcountry,religionandGod’.Atthesametime,OrthodoxChristiansarecalledupontodemonstrate‘allpossiblesubmissiontoandcompliance withthatall-powerfulandinvincibleReigndestinedbyProvidence’.9
IntheproclamationsoftheleaderoftheFriendlySocietyaclearattempt ismadetokindleemotionsofenthusiasmandoptimismintheaddresseesfor thecourseoftheRevolution,athingtobeexpectedinsucharevolutionary
7 Phanariotes(orPhanariots)wereGreek-speakinglaymen,mostlydescendantsoftheoldByzantinearistocracy,whoheldhighpoliticalpositionsintheOttomanadministration;they werecalledPhanariotesafterthedistrictofFenerwheretheylived.SeealsoChapter4.
8CitedinPhoteinos1846,p.34.AsLidiaCotovanunotes,‘[T]herulingclassofWallachia remaineddividedbetween,ontheonehand,theBoyarswhoweresupportedbyneighbouring Christianforcesinordertostrengthentheautonomyoftheland,andontheotherhand,those who“werecontent”withthedependencyoftheregionontheOttomancapital.Inacompetitiveatmosphereassuch,theideologicalcontentionthatthoseGreeksestablishedwithinthe principalitiesisamplified,astheyconstitutedtheorganisationalbodiesofOttomandomination…Tothisideological,metaphoricalrepresentationoftheGreeksaspipelinesofforeign domination,isaddedsocialdisaffection,whichstemsfromthedirectpersonalinteraction oflocalsubjectswiththeGreeklandowningclass,whethertheybeofficials,merchants,or clerics’(Cotovanu2018,pp.435–6).
9CitedinKremmydas2016,pp.65,70.
undertaking.Referencetotheheroicgreatnessoftheancient‘forebears’serves, amongstothers,thesameobjective.
Whatisproblematicaccordingtothe‘factsandfigures’oftheofficialhistoriographyoftoday(or‘nationalhistory’,notonlyGreek)istwofold:one,the viewregardingthebordersofGreece(inotherwords,oftheterritorywherethe Greeknationisconsideredtohavelived,andwheretheGreekstate,theretofore non-existent,wouldbecreated)as,e.g.SerbiaandBulgariaappearasregions thatbelongtoGreece(where‘nationalphalanxesshallbeformed’,and‘patrioticlegions’shallappear);10andtwo,thedyadoftermsthatareusedtodescribe boththenationandthedominionwhereitspeoplereside,inwhichtheindependentstateshallbecreated:Hellenes-Greeks,Hellas-Greece. 11
Ishallleavesuchissuesopenforthetimebeing,astheyconstituteanessentialquestionofinvestigationinthebookwithwhichwewillconcernourselves intheforthcomingchapters.Itisworthnoting,asahintofwhatistofollow, thattheperceptionthattheBulgariansandSerbswereapartoftheGreek nation,andthusthattheGreekstateshall(andmust)expandintotheareas thatthesepeopleinhabited,waspreponderantthroughoutthecourseofthe GreekRevolution,thatis,evenafterthefailureofthemovementinMoldavia andWallachia,theformationofthefirstGreekrevolutionarygovernmentand theconspicuousdisappearanceoftheFriendlySocietyfromtheforeground. IndicativeofthisisthearticulationofTheodorosNegris(editorinNovember of1821oftheProvisionsofLawthatgovernedtheAreiosPagos–thetemporary administrationof‘EasternMainlandHellas’)fromtheyear1824thatfollows:
WhileitisjustforChristianshavingbeenbornandresidinginthisfree landtoenjoytheRightsofthefreeHellenecitizen,itisequallyjustfor theirbrotherstoenjoythesame,whoseCountryisnotfree,asthispartof theNation,whichtodayisfreebydivinegrace,havingbeenliberatedbya shareddecisionoffreedom-lovingHellenesfromthevariousProvincesof Turkey.TheSerb,theBulgarian,theThracian,theEpirote,theThessalian, theAetolian,thePhokian,theLokrian,theBoeotian,theAthenian,the Euboean,thePeloponnesian,theRhodian,theCretan,theSamian,the Psarian,theLemnian,theKoan,theTenedian,theMytilenian,theChi-
10Tothecontrary,aswehaveseen,mostnotablyintheProclamationof23February1821, the‘NationofMoldavia-Wallachia’isclearlydistinguishedfromtheHellenes(Greeks).
11Characteristically,inalettersentbyA.YpsilantistoSocietyFriendDemetriosMakrison 21February1821,theformermandatesthefollowing:‘IntheGreekChurchthePriestsshall prayintheDivineLiturgy:“FortheerectionofTrophiesofVictoryofusthePiousagainst theTyrants”’(Philemon1834,p.305).
ote,theNaxian,theTinian,theAntiochian,theSyrian,theEphesian,the Vythinian,theCaesarean,theSmyrniote,andtheremainderofChristians underthebarbarianyokeoftheSultanforcenturies,depressed,groaning, theyagreed…tolivewithoneanotherinfreedom….12
Weshallseeinwhatfollowsthatthisperspective,withslightvariations,will remainpredominantwithintheconfinesoftheGreeknationalideologyupto themiddleofthenineteenthcentury.
2TheEvolutionandFailureoftheCampaigninMoldaviaand Wallachia
TheplansoftheFriendlySocietyweregrandiose.Asmostofthemembersof theSocietywereinthePeloponnese,13andManiwasunderasemi-autonomous system,Ypsilantisinitiallydrewupplanstoinitiatetherevolutionhimselffrom Mani,14andsimultaneouslyorimmediatelythereafterfortheinsurrectionto breakoutintheDanubianPrincipalitiesundertheleadershipofthewarlords GeorgakisOlympiosandTudor(Theodoros)Vladimirescu,bothofwhomhad takenpartintheRusso-Ottomanwarof1806–12underthecommandofthe RussiangeneralMikhailKutuzov,aswellasin,accordingtovarioussources,the RussiandelegationattheCongressofViennain1815.15Variouscircumstancesas wellasinternalclashesamongsttheleadershipoftheSocietyultimatelydrove YpsilantistoalterhisplanandtospearheadtheoutbreakoftheRevolution himselfinMoldaviaandWallachia.
ItwasassumedthattheRevolutionwouldsweepthroughouttheentireOttomanEmpireandleadtoitsdemise,withthecreationofthenewGreekstatein itsplace.
…[T]heinsurgentswouldmarchtowardsConstantinople,whereinitiates werealreadypresent,theobjectivebeingtheassassinationofthesultan,
12Negris1824,citedinStoikou2008,pp.109–10,andinpartinSkopetea1988,p.25.
13A.Ypsilantis,inamessagetothemembersoftheFriendlySocietyonthePeloponnese on8October1820,notes,interalia:‘Insuchcriticaltimesasthesepresentones,noother provinceofourMotherlandhasshownsuchzealtowardsthefelicitousoutcomeofthe sacredaimsofourGenus,asyourcountry-lovingspirits,oPeloponnesians!’(Philemon 1834,pp.281,293).Genus[Γένος]initiallymeantallOrthodoxChristiansoftheempire(a non-nationalornon-ethniccategorisation),andlatertheOrthodoxGreeks.
14Philemon1834,pp.272–3.
15OlympioshadalsodistinguishedhimselfintheSerbianuprisingof1804.
thesettingfiretothenavalbaseoftheGoldenHorn(Tarsanas),aswellas tothefleet,andthetorchingofByzantium.16
InthePrincipalities,AlexandrosYpsilantisbankedhishopesontheformation ofthetroopsnecessarytofulfiltheplansoftheSocietybyenlistingthelocal warlords.Thisassessmentoriginatedinadeficientunderstandingoftheprevailingconditionsthere,whichtoadegreewasrootedintheincompetenceof hiscollaboratorsandcounsellors.17
ThemajorityoftheInhabitantsofthetwoProvincesofMoldaviaandof Wallachia…wereunworthyofarms…Theso-calledPlayashes,Voundori, VoutikashesandPandours(orthemountaineers)18perceivedasthemost proficientandwell-trainedatsuchthings;theLordsnevertheless…nurturedanimositytowardstheHellenes,astheyhadbeenunderthelatter’s ruleformanyayear.OftheoccasionalHellenesporadicallyfoundinthis
16Evangelides1934,p.566;seealsoPhilemon1834,p.310,Philemon1859,pp.47ff.Philemon (1859)delineatestheplansputforthforapprovalbyAlexandrosYpsilantis.Inoneofthose plans,whichhadbeendrawnupbyFriendsmemberwarlordSavvasKaminarisPhokianos (seebelow),weread:‘FirstandforemostSerbiashalltakeaction,andtakecareof,ifpossible,andbynodeceitfulmeans,totakeoverthefort…WhentheSerbsrebel,theVosnaks shallwanttotakeuparmsandattackthem.ButtheswornErjekovalandStaravlatalChristiansofthesystemwillattacktheVoznaksfrombehind…ItisthenthattheTurkish neighboursshalldecidetorunagainsttheChristians;buttheattackingMontenegrinsthen hitfromtheside…ThepashaofSkodras,uponlearningofthisrebellion,willtakeuparms …Then,theMerititises,whoareLatin…whomwehavetobuyoutwithpiastresandfirmly affixthembyanoath,setthemagainsttheSkodrians…theHellenesoftheAegeansea withtheirfleetwillthenmove…againstConstantinople…’(Philemon1959,pp.77–9).
17‘Allthesame,thepeoplewhowereformingYpsilantis’sCouncildidnotpossess,itseems, therequisitepoliticalandmilitaryminds’(Philemon1834,p.296).
18ThomasGordondescribesasfollowsthedifferentgroupsbearingarmsinthePrincipalities:‘Formerly,thenativeforceoftheprincipalitieswasbynomeansdespicable,consisting ofPandours,ormilitia,headedbythenobility,andenjoyingconsiderableprivileges.Since theswayofthePhanariotesbegan,however,militaryservicewasabolished,theBoyards (ornobles)sunkintoslothandeffeminacy;andtheprinces,wantingmoneyandnot swords,trampledunderfootthefranchisesofthesoldiery,anddidalltheycouldtodepress thespiritsoftheirsubjects.Yettherewasstillasemblanceofprovincialmilitiaarranged underthefollowingdenominations:–First,thePandoursofLittleWallachia,(thedistrict betweentheDanubeandtheOlta),wherethatinstitution,thoughlanguishing,hadbeen sufferedtoexist;theywereestimatedat10,000.Secondly,the Playashes,ormountaineers,guardingthedefilestowardtheAustrianfrontier,andonthataccountexemptfrom tribute.Thirdly,thePotokeshes,whoarechargedtowatchoverthesecurityoftheroads. Fourthly,theVounatores,orhuntsmenoftheBoyards,whoseonlyoccupationistoprovide theirmasterswithgame’(Gordon1872,Vol.1,pp.94–5).
ProvincemostwerethosecalledtheArkatashes…thoseamongthemwho wouldbeabletobeararmswereafewEpirotes,Thessalians,Macedonians,Acharnians,Bulgarians,Serbs,amongstothers,allunderstoodtobe underthegeneralnameAlbanians.19Butjustastheirnumbersreached 4000…movingforward,wefindthatthesqualidandphlegmaticBulgaria, theonceillustriousMacedonia,becameimpoverishedofanywisdom, weresteepedintyranny,andworstofall,wereinnopositiontorecogniseeventhetruesignificanceofthewordLiberty.20
TheanalysiscitedabovebyPhilemon21apprisesusnotonlyofthesketchy andtenuousmilitarystrengthofYpsilantis’sundertaking,butalsoofanational politicisationofscantproportionofthepopulationsof‘Hellas’,inspiteofthe headyoptimismoftheFriends.
WiththedeclarationoftheRevolutionbyAlexandrosYpsilantis,thewarlordsVasileiosKaravias,GeorgiosArgyropoulosandGeorgiosArvanitakis seizedGalați,themostsignificantharbourofMoldavia,and‘proceededwith massacresoftheTurksandamongstthemwasthegarrisoncommanderToptzis agha’.22Whentheseeventsbecameknown,theSublimePortedispatchednumeroustroopstothePrincipalities,whichenteredMoldaviaon1May1821,to quashtheRevolution.
BytheendofApril,AlexandrosYpsilantis,bearingthetitleof‘Sovereign GeneralCommander’,declaredthathehadmanagedtoassembletroopsof 13,345men,whichhadbeendividedintofiveArmyCorps,andintotwoother corps,theSacredBattalion(400fighters)andtheTroopsofMoldavia(300 men).23EachArmyCorpswasdividedinto tagmatarchies (Commanding Units),Chiliarchies(battalionsof1,000men)andLochous(Companies).The FirstandSecondCorpswerecommandedbyNikolaosandGeorgiosYpsilantisrespectively,brothersofAlexandros,theThirdbyGeorgakisOlympios, theFourthbySavvasKaminarisPhokianos,24andtheFifthCorps,thegreatest innumberwith6,000men,byTudorVladimirescu.Asintelligenceofthe approachingOttomanarmyreachedthem,however,andduetorivalriesa-
19AccordingtoIliasPhoteinos,inthePrincipalities,‘ThoseBulgarians,Serbs,Hellenes and/ornativesfoundtobeclothedinthegarmentscustomarytotheOttomans(the osmanlitika)orinHelleniccostume,arecommonlyreferredtointhenativelocutionas Arnaout,namely,Albaniantothisday’(Photeinos1846,p.11).
20Philemon1834,pp.296–8;seealsoCotovanu2018,p.431andnote6. 21Philemon1834.
22Evangelides1934,p.566.
23StatisticsfromTodorov1982,andGordon1872,Vol.1,pp.141–2.
24Seealsonote16.
mongstthecommandersofthevariousmilitaryunits,thearmybeganto‘shed itsleaves’toaboutone-thirdofitsoriginalsize.25
OfthewarlordswhowereanintegralpartofAlexandrosYpsilantis’sactivity intheDanubianPrincipalities,mostinfluentialwasTudorVladimirescu,who hadinitiatedhisownactionevenbeforethearrivalofYpsilantisinMoldavia. On23January1821,headdressedaproclamation‘Toallthepeopleofthecityof BucharestandtherestofthestatesandvillagesoftheRomanianGenus’,calling uponthemtotakeuparmsagainstthelocallords:
…Ourrulers…howlongshallwesufferbeingbleddry?Howlongshallwe continuetodesiretobeenslaved?…Wellthereforemakehaste,brothers! Letuseradicateevilwithevil…[M]akehaste,then,everyone,tocome mostswiftly,maythosepossessingarmscomewitharms,maythoselackingsuchcomewithstaffsandclubs…thelandthathaswronglyand unjustlybeenpossessedbythosethievingMasters,thatis,thosewho desirednottobeinaccordwithourspirit,andwhodesirednottofollow ourcourseofaction,Iherebypromisethatthelandshallbereclaimedfor thebenefitofall.26
IncontrasttoYpsilantis,whohadgivenassurance‘totheNationofMoldaviaWallachia’that‘theauthorityandadministrationofthisPrincipalityshallstay asitalreadyis,andfaithfultothesesamelaws’(seeabove),Vladimirescuhad declaredaninsurgencyagainstthe‘malevolentMasters’,intowhichhemost likelyclassified‘theGreeklandowningclassaswell,whethertheybeofficials, merchants,orclerics’.27
Vladimirescu,assessingthattheOttomanarmyadvancingintothePrincipalitieswouldnotbeabletobeconfronted,askedYpsilantistoabandonWallachiasoastoavertbloodshedandslaughter,andpulledoutofBucharest withoutafight.Atthesametime,heappealedtotheSublimePorte,declaring hisfidelityand,contendingthathisactionsdidnotchallengeOttomansovereigntybuthadtodowiththelocallords,hepetitionedforcertainreforms pertainingtotheOttomansystemofdominance,inwhichhehimselfwould
25AccordingtoadecreeissuedbyAlexandrosYpsilantison26April1821,‘ThePrinceis obligedtoalterhisplanoforganizingthearmyindivisions,andtoceasemakingpromotions,onaccountofthejealousyandemulationofhisofficers’(Gordon1872,Vol.1, p.142).
26CitedinPhoteinos1846,pp.7–9,‘translatedfromtheVlachlanguage’. 27Cotovanu2018.
