A different origin for Modern Greece?

[SavoyTruffle]

In OTL modern Greece was founded by Greek intellectuals influenced by the French Revolution, and were abetted by Phil-Hellenic Western Europeans enamored by the legacy of classical Greece, including Lord Byron. This meant that instead of drawing its legitimacy from the Eastern Roman Empire (i.e. the last Greek independent polity), the then Kingdom of Greece drew it more from classical Greek polities, hence the capital of Athens.

So what other scenarios for Greek independence would be plausible, and what would their effects be culturally and politically?

 

[Byzantion]

In OTL modern Greece was founded by Greek intellectuals influenced by the French Revolution, and were abetted by Phil-Hellenic Western Europeans enamored by the legacy of classical Greece, including Lord Byron. This meant that instead of drawing its legitimacy from the Eastern Roman Empire (i.e. the last Greek independent polity), the then Kingdom of Greece drew it more from classical Greek polities, hence the capital of Athens.

So what other scenarios for Greek independence would be plausible, and what would their effects be culturally and politically?

I sometimes read on this forum that common pre independence Greeks referred themselves as " Romans". Another one could be a independent Maniot region. The Greek state in the 19th century had it's problems with lawlessness in former " Spartan" areas , were blood feuds and banditery were common.

 

[Monter]

Athens was meant to be a "temporary capital" for the reconquest of Constantinople, not because its importance from classical Greece.

 

[Halagaz]

Well, you could have some kind of neo-Byzantinist state established by Phanariotes or through their machinations.

The Phanariotes envisioned some kind of "enlightened" absolutist monarchy with shades of oligarchy, and a huge emphasis on Byzantine traditions and court culture. Their model of government and society was partially based on Imperial Russia: a strong, fairly centralized monarchy with an administrative nobility and strong bureaucracy.
They rejected most if not all influences of the French Revolution; modern nationalism included. Instead of Greek nationalism, they championed a neo-Byzantine proto-nationalism meant to unite all the Balkan nations into an identity based on Orthodox religion and imperial consciousness. Of course, they still envisioned the dominance of Greek culture and language, so the differences between this and "conventional" Greek nationalism are not that huge.
Phanariotes also respected the Byzantine traditions of charity, and personally funded various monastic orphanages and hospitals. OTOH, they were aristocrats first and foremost and emphatically not in favor of egalitarianism or social revolution, unlike the Serbian or Bulgarian (or OTL's Greek) revolutionary movements. Just because this state would pay a certain attention to charity doesn't mean it won't be highly stratified and classist/dominated by aristocracy.

Greece as established by the Phanariote revivalists would be fascinating. Not necessarily good - I'd say OTL's Greece has it beat by far - but fascinating.
Of course, any kind of Greece would acknowledge and play up classical heritage at least a little. It's just too good to pass up.

 

[Faeelin]

What about a Venetian reconquest of Crete in the late 17th century? Could that serve as the nucleus for a Greek state?

 

[Yanez de Gomera]

Well, you could have some kind of neo-Byzantinist state established by Phanariotes or through their machinations.

The Phanariotes envisioned some kind of "enlightened" absolutist monarchy with shades of oligarchy, and a huge emphasis on Byzantine traditions and court culture. Their model of government and society was partially based on Imperial Russia: a strong, fairly centralized monarchy with an administrative nobility and strong bureaucracy.
They rejected most if not all influences of the French Revolution; modern nationalism included. Instead of Greek nationalism, they championed a neo-Byzantine proto-nationalism meant to unite all the Balkan nations into an identity based on Orthodox religion and imperial consciousness. Of course, they still envisioned the dominance of Greek culture and language, so the differences between this and "conventional" Greek nationalism are not that huge.
Phanariotes also respected the Byzantine traditions of charity, and personally funded various monastic orphanages and hospitals. OTOH, they were aristocrats first and foremost and emphatically not in favor of egalitarianism or social revolution, unlike the Serbian or Bulgarian (or OTL's Greek) revolutionary movements. Just because this state would pay a certain attention to charity doesn't mean it won't be highly stratified and classist/dominated by aristocracy.

Greece as established by the Phanariote revivalists would be fascinating. Not necessarily good - I'd say OTL's Greece has it beat by far - but fascinating.
Of course, any kind of Greece would acknowledge and play up classical heritage at least a little. It's just too good to pass up.

Maybe if Russia supports them more wholeheartedly? On the other hand that would certainly cause backlash from the United Kingdom and Austria...

 

[Halagaz]

Maybe if Russia supports them more wholeheartedly? On the other hand that would certainly cause backlash from the United Kingdom and Austria...

Could be. Then again, this would probably need to happen some time before OTL's Greek revolution, so Austria might not be committed to propping up the Ottomans (and even Britain might not necessarily be).

 

[Jared]

Athens was meant to be a "temporary capital" for the reconquest of Constantinople, not because its importance from classical Greece.

It still is the temporary capital, just less temporary than originally planned.

 

[fluttersky]

Step 1: In the early 19th century, Russia takes over a bit more of the Caucasus than they did in OTL. They create a separate Kingdom of Georgia, Kingdom of Armenia, and Kingdom of Greece. These are in personal union with Russia, but have separate governments. Together, the union of these four kingdoms is known as the "Roman Empire", demonstrating both Russia's claim to be the Third Rome and the fact that many Greek people at this time consider themselves Romans. The term "Roman Empire" is not widely used in other countries.

Trebizond is named the "temporary capital" of the Kingdom of Greece, with the expectation that Constantinople will eventually be retaken.

Spoiler

Step 2: Russia and its puppet kingdoms of Greece and Armenia steadily take over more and more of Anatolia from the weakening Ottomans. Most Turks from the conquered parts of Anatolia migrate to the remaining Ottoman territories, particularly Turkey-in-Europe. Anatolia becomes fairly depopulated as a result, but this is offset by Russian colonists arriving to replace the expelled Turks.

Spoiler

Step 3: Eventually all of Anatolia is taken over by the Roman Empire/Kingdom of Greece, as are the Greek islands and Pelopennese. The Turkish population in Europe is far higher than in OTL as a result of this. The Ottoman Empire is overthrown by Turkish nationalists and a Turkish nation-state is established in Europe.

The Roman Empire/Kingdom of Greece tries to cross the Bosporus and take Constantinople from the Turks, but they are unable to do so. In the end the new Turkish Republic reaches a peace agreement with the Roman Empire, and a population transfer between the two countries is carried out.

Spoiler

Step 4: A communist revolution takes over Russia in a similar manner to in OTL. The four kingdoms of the Roman Empire (Russia, Georgia, Armenia, Greece) are officially merged into a single united Roman Empire. Large numbers of anti-communist Russians flee to the Roman Empire.

Spoiler

Current situation: The Roman Empire exists with much the same borders. Few people use the term "Greece" any more; indeed, the term "Hellenic" is sometimes considered an insult used to downplay the Roman identity. The Roman Empire strongly considers itself to be the direct continuation of the original Roman Empire. It's pretty socially conservative and theocratic.

The Turkish capital is Istanbul, on the western side of the Bosporus. The Roman capital is Constantinople, on the eastern side of the Bosporus. The two countries glare menacingly at each other.

The primary language of the Roman Empire is Greek, although there's a large Armenian minority in the east, and large Russian and Bulgarian minorities in central Anatolia (Russians mostly descended from 19th-century colonists as well as exiles from communism; Bulgarians as a result of the population transfer with Turkey). The Russians and Bulgarians have mostly assimilated into Roman culture by now, though, and speak the Greek language.

The Roman Emperors are directly descended from the Russian Tsars, but now speak the Greek language rather than the Russian language.

 

[ben0628]

Iv'e seen others on this forum discuss that Catherine the Great from Russia actually developed a plan to create a new Byzantine Empire.

 

[Monarch]

Iv'e seen others on this forum discuss that Catherine the Great from Russia actually developed a plan to create a new Byzantine Empire.

It was called the Greek Plan. It aimed to put her grandson Constantine on the throne of a revived Byzantium. She was able to secure Austria's support for the plan. But Austria's poor showing in the consequent war prevented the plan fro being enacted.

 

[Joshuapooleanox]

It was called the Greek Plan. It aimed to put her grandson Constantine on the throne of a revived Byzantium. She was able to secure Austria's support for the plan. But Austria's poor showing in the consequent war prevented the plan fro being enacted.

Well, what if that had succeeded?

 

[Skallagrim]

Keep in mind that Russia's goal was perhaps to create a Romanov-ruled Byzantine state at first, but the end goal was to directly annex it to Russia. "Back to Byzantium" was a famous saying. The Russian rulers considered their empire to be the third Rome, with its claim derived from Byzantium. All practicality be damned, Catherine's actual goal seems to have been to ultimately see Russia rule all the Balkans, including Greece, and preferably Anatolia, too (after the much-desired destruction of the Ottomans). This empire was then to be ruled from Constantinople. This was of course not very realistic. It was more something they considered to be their sacred destiny.

Anyway, the point is that the Russian plans may not be the best way to actually get an independent Greek state. Although given the near-impossibility of their actual plan, a Russia-backed ATL Greek revolution would be possible, and may ultimately result in a Greece that includes (and is governed from) Constantinople, and has a Romanov as its monarch. It's just that Catherine's scheme specifically is probably not the best basis for that exact outcome. Also, a Russia-backed Greece is going to face stiff opposition from Britain.

 

[Joshuapooleanox]

Keep in mind that Russia's goal was perhaps to create a Romanov-ruled Byzantine state at first, but the end goal was to directly annex it to Russia. "Back to Byzantium" was a famous saying. The Russian rulers considered their empire to be the third Rome, with its claim derived from Byzantium. All practicality be damned, Catherine's actual goal seems to have been to ultimately see Russia rule all the Balkans, including Greece, and preferably Anatolia, too (after the much-desired destruction of the Ottomans). This empire was then to be ruled from Constantinople. This was of course not very realistic. It was more something they considered to be their sacred destiny.

Anyway, the point is that the Russian plans may not be the best way to actually get an independent Greek state. Although given the near-impossibility of their actual plan, a Russia-backed ATL Greek revolution would be possible, and may ultimately result in a Greece that includes (and is governed from) Constantinople, and has a Romanov as its monarch. It's just that Catherine's scheme specifically is probably not the best basis for that exact outcome. Also, a Russia-backed Greece is going to face stiff opposition from Britain.

Well, a more centralised revolt using those phanariotes and boom a larger than OTL Greek state around 1830. This means they have more power to take more land later on say in a Balkan wars style event.

 

[Lascaris]

What about a Venetian reconquest of Crete in the late 17th century? Could that serve as the nucleus for a Greek state?

It is doable I suppose. Get the Greek revolt during the war or the Holy alliance somewhat more successful, kill of Gerakaris before he messes up things and the Venetians can credibly end with the borders of 1830 Greece and Crete. And even if the mainland in lost in 1715-18 they'll be holding supreme at sea so the Ionian island and Crete remain free (or not Ottoman anyway) from there to Crete and Corfu starting up a Greek revolution/invasion in the early 1800s it' not such a long distance. After all it nearly happened in 1806-7 with the Ionian islands.

 

[raharris1973]

But the Greeks need to get free from the Venetians, too, no?

 

[M79]

a. Thomas Paliologos negotiates with Mehmet II to retain the Despotate of Morea in exchange for official conversion to Islam and recognition of the Sultan as his liege lord. Mehmet agrees as he has other battles to fight, including Trebizond. As a gift for loyalty, Mehmet allows Thomas the whole of the Morea and some outlying islands. Only a handful of Greeks know that it is a ruse and chance to rebuild with a base of operations for dreams of eventual reconquest.

b. Andrew, son of Thomas, continues machinations to slowly expand influence centered and rebuild his petty kingdom. Athens becomes part of the Potentate though Mostra remains the capital. Under Bayezid, Andrew conquers most of the Venetian outposts in the region. These are allowed to stay under Morean rule as the Sultan likes the irony of Greeks fighting Venetians despite Ottoman overlords. Andrew continue to lay the economic and political foundations for later Greek rule. One of his last acts is to welcome Jewish, Christian, and Muslim refugees from Spain en masse and encourage their resettlement across Morea. By 1495 a printing press and galleon are existent in Morean lands.

c. Andrew's son Constantine begins the first key acts of work against the Ottomans using 'pirates' as training for naval forces. Morean ships are hit hard while Ottoman vessels are hit at least as hard. No one is safe from Sicily to Sidios as the 'pirate scum of the Aegean' burn towns and draw attention to the Despotate. Ironically their headquarters in Thera, a volcanic island, leads to the accidental discovery of ancient ruins years later. With the rise of Selim, Constantine quietly funds Shah Ismail and frames the governor of Lamia for the act. By 1520 the Despotate covers approximately three same territory as OTL Greece did at independence. Constantine reinvests in his homeland using the 'pirate' looting as teaching his son Thomas the tricks and dangers of his position. Thomas's wife is in fact an illegitimate Ottoman daughter, one who proves to be quite bright and motivated by her shunning from court life. She also quietly converts to Orthodox Christianity in her private life.

d. Thomas continued quiet support of the Sultan's enemies as the early 16th century continued. Rarely was more than intelligence was given although prominent families could find refuge for most of their family fortune. Maria, daughter of the last King of Hungary, was wed to Thomas's son Nikolas as a political move and to allow her family to relocate. By 1550 the stage was set for the liberation not only of Greece but also the Balkan and the restoration of Christian rule in the Balkans: Lepanto

 

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

snip

I highly doubt that the Bulgars and Serbs would take the moving of Turks lightly. And at most some Turks would intermingle with the Arabs or emigrate. Maybe we could see a huge diaspora of Turks in the US?

 

[M79]

e. Following up on Lepanto in 1571 the Holy League establishes bases along coastal Greece and imprisons the Paliologos lords thinking they are actually Muslim puppets of the Ottomans. Don Juan, upon learning the truth, is heard to say, "So the heresy is Orthodoxy instead of Mohommadeism? As though I care which sort of heresy is involved"? This ironically leads to Selim II thinking that the Paliologos family are, in fact, faithful Muslims despite persistent rumors to the contrary. Ottoman forces originally intended for the Safavids are instead sent to Greece where the Holy League is driven I to the sea over a four month period. Thomas's son Isaac become governor of Hungry while another son Ishmael is wed to Maria Komemnos, publicly known as Maria Beyzhan, of the former ruling dynasties of Trebizond and Georgia.

f. By 1600 the Paliologos family is firmly entrenched in all three provinces and the Ottoman sultan Mehmet III favors them strongly. Ultimately the court politics result in a series of quick succession just as the new century starts and Paliologos forces aid to prop up Osman II just before he can be strangled by Janisarries in 1622.

 

[Joshuapooleanox]

Personally, I really wanna see a proto-Byzantium under the Phanariotes. Maybe a centralised revolt would do much better than... whatever the chaos of the 1820s/1830s Greek revolt was.