Many timelines in the forum suggest a revival or modern "Roman"/ "Byzantine" identity. Personally I find it ASB. By this point the Greek/Hellenic identiy is well established.
I don't think it's necessarily ASB, but you would have to either have an earlier POD or change certain aspects of the Greek War of Independence. One scenario I've seen on this forum before involved giving the Phanariotes a much more prominent role in the revolution which would give the revolution a much more religious, Constantinopolitan character.

Furthermore, there could be a much more heavy emphasis on the Byzantine era in a hypothethical greater Greece with Constantinople as it's capital. IOTL when Greece captured Thessaloniki there was a revival of interest in the medieval period, I can't imagine what impact a recaptured Constantinople would have on Greek culture in the long run. Creating a scenario where a Roman nationalism in the 19th Century is plausible is indeed a tough nut to crack though.
 
Last edited:
Issue with that is that Albanians are mostly Muslim, Bulgarians aren't really buddy buddy with the Greeks, and Syriacs and Melikites are too distant, you would need a hyper successful Greece for them to even be a consideration.

I was just trying to come up with a plausible-ish way to incorporate Bulgarians into a Greek nation because I was arguing before that they wouldn’t just stand for being Hellenized.

I honestly don’t think a 19th century PoD is early enough for this at all, though—you’d need to change the Bulgarian national awakening that began in the 18th century for that.
 
Yeah, that sounds like the most drastic version of OTL’s Megali Idea. A Roman nationalism would include all of that but also incorporate the Bulgarians and Albanians, I guess? Maybe Syrian Christians as well, but I don’t think that would go anywhere...

That is the very speech that coined the term megali idea as a matter of fact, back in 1844. And for the bit of irony when Kolletis gave the speech his reason was purely internal politics namely disagreement whether Greeks born outside the kingdom should be participating in the constitutional convention taking place at the time... and Kolletis being a Vlach born in a Pindus village had definately gotten born out of the 1832 border. For the record his side of the argument won hands down.
 
I don't think it's necessarily ASB, but you would have to either have an earlier POD or change certain aspects of the Greek War of Independence. One scenario I've seen on this forum before involved giving the Phanariotes a much more prominent role in the revolution which would give the revolution a much more religious, Constantinopolitan character.

Furthermore, there could be a much more heavy emphasis on the Byzantine era in a hypothethical greater Greece with Constantinople as it's capital. IOTL when Greece captured Thessaloniki there was a revival of interest in the medieval period, I can't imagine what impact a recaptured Constantinople would have on Greek culture in the long run. Creating a scenario where a Roman nationalism in the 19th Century is plausible is indeed a tough nut to crack though.

And one can just as easily note the increasingly open identification of the Byzantines themselves as Greek after the fourth crusade. A little difficult to get someone self-identifying as Roman in opposition to self-identifying as Greek as opposed to both being a single identity when not even the late Byzantines themselves did.
 
And one can just as easily note the increasingly open identification of the Byzantines themselves as Greek after the fourth crusade. A little difficult to get someone self-identifying as Roman in opposition to self-identifying as Greek as opposed to both being a single identity when not even the late Byzantines themselves did.
Byzantine Greeks calling themselves Greeks following 1204 were a tiny minority though. Most of them were elites or scholars that had a high affinity with classical texts, so less than 5% of the population probably. Up until the 1910's most Greeks called themselves Roman and had to be re-educated as Hellenes by the Kingdom of Greece once they joined the Greek state. So the framework and foundation for a Roman identity is certainly there, the challenge would be to create a series of events which would slow or weaken the Hellenic identity while strengthening the Roman one.
 
Byzantine Greeks calling themselves Greeks following 1204 were a tiny minority though. Most of them were elites or scholars that had a high affinity with classical texts, so less than 5% of the population probably. Up until the 1910's most Greeks called themselves Roman and had to be re-educated as Hellenes by the Kingdom of Greece once they joined the Greek state. So the framework and foundation for a Roman identity is certainly there, the challenge would be to create a series of events which would slow or weaken the Hellenic identity while strengthening the Roman one.

I’d argue that the stage is set for the Greek identity to erase the Roman one as soon as the international Philhellenes enter the picture, though.

You want a Roman-focused Greece? Have the Orlov revolt or some other Russian-sponsored invasion succeed. They’d be all to happy to puppet the “Romans” ;)
 
Byzantine Greeks calling themselves Greeks following 1204 were a tiny minority though. Most of them were elites or scholars that had a high affinity with classical texts, so less than 5% of the population probably. Up until the 1910's most Greeks called themselves Roman and had to be re-educated as Hellenes by the Kingdom of Greece once they joined the Greek state. So the framework and foundation for a Roman identity is certainly there, the challenge would be to create a series of events which would slow or weaken the Hellenic identity while strengthening the Roman one.

Only , the Greek national narrative was claiming both Byzantium and ancient Greece as its own and an organic whole. Or for that matter had no trouble in considering Byzantium as the much superior product of mixing Greek civilization with Christianity. Which of course was superior to the west of the time. So sure the same person might call himself Roman, Hellene or Graikos at the same time. And so what? He's always referring to the same identity.
 
Here we go again, i know this site rides the Byzantine/Roman bandwagon and hell i am aboard that train too, but claiming that some Greeks still today or a few decades past refer themselves as romans is absurd and laughable. A significant number of Greeks dont even know that the byzantine empire was the roman empire's successor/continuation for them it was just the medieval Greek Empire.

In addition saying that there is a possibility in this timeline for a revival of the 'Roman identity' is silly, wishful thinking and historically impossible as that name by the time of the revolution was on it's way out regardless with Hellenes quickly replacing it. I hope this Tl doesn't go this path, for it will become ASB or a victoria 2 timeline
 
The other issue people dont seem to be considering here is that Leopold is more likely a Philhellene, than Byzanaboo. Which will affect what emphasis is placed where

Only , the Greek national narrative was claiming both Byzantium and ancient Greece as its own and an organic whole. Or for that matter had no trouble in considering Byzantium as the much superior product of mixing Greek civilization with Christianity. Which of course was superior to the west of the time. So sure the same person might call himself Roman, Hellene or Graikos at the same time. And so what? He's always referring to the same identity.

Don't Greeks sometimes still do this, especially in songs or traditional phrases?

A significant number of Greeks dont even know that the byzantine empire was the roman empire's successor/continuation for them it was just the medieval Greek Empire.

That is a bad reflection of Greece's History education.

I hope this Tl doesn't go this path, for it will become ASB and or a victoria 2 timeline

fixed
 
The other issue people dont seem to be considering here is that Leopold is more likely a Philhellene, than Byzanaboo. Which will affect what emphasis is placed where



Don't Greeks sometimes still do this, especially in songs or traditional phrases?



That is a bad reflection of Greece's History education.



fixed

Most notable I can think of is Ritsos in Romiosini. It's in hardly widespread use nowadays but by the same token I don't think there is anyone would wouldn't understand it as synonymous to Greek if he read/heard it. As for Leopold you are likely right he'd most likely be more interested in ancient than medieval Greece but that is no different than OTL. On the other hand being more clever one can hope a few more Byzantine monuments in Athens survive contact with the enemy ehm the first generation of Greek archaeologists.
 
Most notable I can think of is Ritsos in Romiosini. It's in hardly widespread use nowadays but by the same token I don't think there is anyone would wouldn't understand it as synonymous to Greek if he read/heard it. As for Leopold you are likely right he'd most likely be more interested in ancient than medieval Greece but that is no different than OTL. On the other hand being more clever one can hope a few more Byzantine monuments in Athens survive contact with the enemy ehm the first generation of Greek archaeologists.

On that note, can we keep Schliemann away from Troy ITTL please?
 
On that note, can we keep Schliemann away from Troy ITTL please?
Don't worry I have something in store for Mr. Schliemann.:evilsmile:

Also for the record, I'm intentionally staying quiet on the Byzantine/Greek discussion for the time being while I research it further. I will say that while things can certainly change and probably will change, especially if a certain city comes into play, TTL's Greece will generally be the same as OTL's Greece with a little added Byzantine and Phanariot flavor and imagery.
 
Last edited:
Don't worry I have something in store for Mr. Schliemann.:evilsmile:

Also for the record, I'm intentionally staying quiet on the Byzantine/Greek discussion for the time being while I research it further. I will say that while things can certainly change and probably will change, especially if a certain city comes into play, TTL's Greece will generally be the same as OTL's Greece with a little added Byzantine and Phanariot flavor and imagery.
Is there something bad about Schliemann
 
Bloody hell, just as bad as Cecil Rhodes when he trashed great Zimbabwe
Pretty much. He also destroyed the Frankish Tower and other non Classical structures on the Acropolis in Athens despite the opposition of King George I, members of the Greek Government, and the Athenians themselves. So yes, he will meet with a fitting end before he can do any harm ITTL.
 
Pretty much. He also destroyed the Frankish Tower and other non Classical structures on the Acropolis in Athens despite the opposition of King George I, members of the Greek Government, and the Athenians themselves. So yes, he will meet with a fitting end before he can do any harm ITTL.
Maybe he's walking through Athens and an old statue of Athena falls and crushes him?
 
He visits Constantinople and while visiting the Hagia Sophia the Marble Emperor ascends from the depths and strangles him? :openedeyewink:
The centre of the Hagia Sophia cracks open and Constantine grabs him with one arm and lifts him to the sky like he's Illidan Stormrage, then snaps his neck, leaving him in the middle of the mosque.
 
Top