[RD] Ask a Greek about Greek history

christos200

Never tell me the odds
Joined
Jan 9, 2011
Messages
12,075
Location
EU, Greece, Athens
As the thread's title says, I am Greek. I study History and Archaeology in Uni (and hopefully I will major in Byzantine History). I will answer questions people have about Greek history. The periods in Greek history are Ancient (Archaic, Classical, Hellenistic), Byzantine and Modern. The period I have studied the most is the Byzantine one and I have extensive bibliography on that subject. However, I have also studied both Ancient and Modern Greek history. So, I will take questions for all periods of Greek history.

I would like to note that this is a serious thread, so I would like to ask that people refrain from trolling or flaming questions. Thanks in advance for reading this and I hope that I can be of help and can answer your questions.

Spoiler Note :
I have taken permission from Mod before opening this thread.
 
Modern Greek history: how many traitors did Greece had collaborating with the german occupation during World War II?

We get to hear lots about the french resistance and the french collaborateurs, but not much about what happened in Greece.
 
How long has tax evasion been a national sport in Greece?

Through what magic spell did the Roman Empire become Greek?

Seriously Greece, why so many military juntas?
 
So, I will take questions for all periods of Greek history.
I don't have a quetion so much as a general request:

Tell us about Ottoman Greece.
You know, just because i (an presumably others) know very little about it.
Like, things such as how Greek culture changed in appropriating some things Ottoman while actively rejecting others.
Feel free to pick whatever you deem interesting, surprising, amusing, whatever. :)
 
Is there a ancient Greece-Roman dialectic affecting our material and social world today in which the Greece side is excellence (quality) for its own sake, and the Roman side is expansion (quantity) for its own sake and this explains everything :scared::yumyum::smoke:
 
Modern Greek history: how many traitors did Greece had collaborating with the german occupation during World War II?

General George Tsolakoglou, commander of the western Macedonian army, negotiated an armistice with the Germans and collaborated with them. At this point there was no way to resist the Germans any more, so some historians have given him the benefit of doubt regarding his intentions, as he may have acted to save the remaining Greek army from destruction. He was appointed Prime Minister by the Germans in 30 April 1941. Most of his cabinet was made up of high ranking military officials. In 15 November 1942, he was replaced by Logothetopoulos, a medical doctor. In 7 April 1943, the last collaborationist government was formed by Ioannis Rallis. It should be noted that at this point the defeat of the Germans was becoming evident and Ioannis Rallis and others later claimed to have collaborated with the Germans then in order to prevent a communist takeover of Greece by the communist dominated resistance. Ioannis Rallis also equipped 'Security Battalions' to fight against the communists.

How long has tax evasion been a national sport in Greece?

Through what magic spell did the Roman Empire become Greek?

Seriously Greece, why so many military juntas?

1) Some historians have claimed that tax avoidance was a way of Greeks to resist Ottoman authorities. There is doubt as to the truth and extend of this statement, however, as the Patriarch and the local elites were responsible for tax collection and had reason to please the Sultan.

2) The Eastern part of the Roman Empire was influenced by Greek culture due to the Hellenistic Kingdoms. The most important cities in the East had Greek speaking elites and the Romans saw no reason to attempt to 'Latinize' the East and preferred the cooperation of Greek elites. Greek was the dominant language in the East and the New Testament was written in Greek. The only Latin speaking institutions in the East were the Governors. Also, to quote from the book "Greece - A Short History of a Long Story" by Carol G. Thomas:

Destroyed for its role against Rome in 146 bce, Corinth was re-founded in 44 bce as a Roman colony populated largely by Roman freedmen whose language was naturally Latin. Over time its Roman character was increasingly Hellenized. By the early second century ce its language was officially Greek.

So, when Diocletian and later Constantine divided the Empire into East and West, the Eastern portion of the Empire came under the influence of Hellenism. Already during Justinian's time important laws were written in Greek and even before his reign the language of the Imperial Palace and the people was Greek. By 641, with the loss of the Eastern provinces, the change of administrative language to Greek only, the adoption of the Hellenistic title ΄Βασιλεύς' (Vasileus, King) and the concentration of the Empire in Greek speaking Anatolia, the Eastern Roman Empire had become Hellenized and was in many ways a 'Greek' Empire. It has to be noted however that the 'Byzantines' considered themselves to be Romans and legally speaking, their Empire was the continuation of the Roman state.

3) From 1844 to 1909, Greece had only three coups and neither of them led to a military junta. From 1864 to 1909, Greece had a pretty stable parliamentary democracy and enjoyed a stability that other countries in this era lacked. So no, Greece did not have many military juntas. The instability of the first half of the 20th century was due to the civil war during WWI between Venizelists (liberals) and Monarchists, which eventually resulted to the Metaxas dictatorship. The other dictatorship (1967 - 1974) was the result of the hostility of the army to the center-left. I do not believe that two dictatorships constitute what people think as 'many military juntas'.

I don't have a quetion so much as a general request:

Tell us about Ottoman Greece.
You know, just because i (an presumably others) know very little about it.
Like, things such as how Greek culture changed in appropriating some things Ottoman while actively rejecting others.
Feel free to pick whatever you deem interesting, surprising, amusing, whatever. :)

Ottoman occupation of Greece lasted from the 1400's to 1821 (and up to 1912 for some parts of Greece). During this time the political leader of the Greeks (and also religious leader and responsible for tax collection too) was the Patriarch of Constantinople. He was subject to the Sultan's approval, however, and when Patriarchs displeased the Sultan, they could be executed. The diplomatic service of the Ottoman Empire had offices filled by Phanariots, educated and affluent Greeks living in Constantinople, descended from Byzantine nobles mostly, and who had knowledge of foreign languages which many Ottomans lacked. Phanariots also served as as Princes in the Danubian Principalities between 1711 and 1760's. In that position, they promoted Greek culture and learning but were unpopular among the native peasants.

The majority of Greeks, however, was not as privileged. Overtaxation and corruption reigned and many lived in poverty. Bandits (Klefts) also posed a problem and Ottomans hired some of those bandits (Armatoloi) to serve as local 'police' of sorts against the bandits. There was not clear division, however, between those two groups and bandits could go from outlaws to Ottoman collaborators to outlaws again. Villages in this era were largely self-governed as the Ottomans cared chiefly for taxation. Village Elders and local priests ruled those villages and formed sort of an elite. Most of Greece was rural at that time and there were few true cities. To give an example, Attica had a population of 300,000 during the age of Pericles but during Ottoman times it had a population of about 35,000 people.

It should be noted, however, that during the second half of the 18th century Greek merchants became affluent, especially during the French Revolutionary Wars by breaking through blockades and supplying the combatants. There was also a 'Greek Enlightenment' during which Greek scholars living in the West translated Western texts and transmitted the ideas of enlightenment and of the French Revolution to Greece.
 
How did Greece end up with a German Monarch ? What was Greece like under a German monarchy ?
Bulgaria or Turkey are the true decedents of the Byzentine empire ?
Basil greatest emperor or great emperor ?

Why did Greece attempt to take back asian minor ? I know that the western powers had disarmed Turkish army and occupied parts but Greece was warned time and time again Not to over extend itself
Then it didnt pay debt again and well the economy collapsed like a house of cards. I though it could make more sense to try and take back Constantinople in the Balkans throw the Turkey off the mainland of Europe
 
How did Greece end up with a German Monarch ? What was Greece like under a German monarchy ?
Bulgaria or Turkey are the true decedents of the Byzentine empire ?
Basil greatest emperor or great emperor ?

Why did Greece attempt to take back asian minor ? I know that the western powers had disarmed Turkish army and occupied parts but Greece was warned time and time again Not to over extend itself
Then it didnt pay debt again and well the economy collapsed like a house of cards. I though it could make more sense to try and take back Constantinople in the Balkans throw the Turkey off the mainland of Europe

1) After the Governor Ioannis Kapodistrias was assassinated by his political enemies, the Great Powers (Great Britain, Russia and France) appointed Otto of Bavaria as King of Greece in the summer of 1832. Aside from the political anarchy following the assassination of the Governor, the other reason for the appointment of a German monarch was that the Great Powers of Europe were monarchist at the time and suspicious of democracies after the French Revolution and the Napoleonic War, so they would not tolerate a democratic Greek state. The constant civil wars and political anarchy also meant that the Greeks greeted warmly the new monarch and placed many hopes unto him.

Otto came to Greece with 3,500 Bavarian soldiers to restore order and a loan of 60 million francs. He soon moved the capital to Athens. During the first years of his rule, Bavarian ministers ruled as viceroys. Despite infrastructure project and the restoration of order, the presence of foreign troops, the exclusion of local elites from power and the absolutism of Otto meant that he soon became unpopular. Thus in 1843 there was a coup that forced him to grant constitution.

2) I would say that neither Bulgaria nor Turkey are successors of the Byzantine Empire. If there are 'true heirs' to Byzantine civilization, I would say that it would be the Greeks, who for many years called themselves Romioi or Romans. They share the same language, culture, etch and Greeks were the major 'ethnic' group of the Byzantine Empire, the ones who were the Greek speaking 'Romans'.

3) Basil II was a great Emperor but I am not sure if he is the greatest. He indeed expanded the Empire by conquering Bulgaria and expanding in Armenia but modern historians argue that his measures against the military aristocracy which protected Anatolia, his neglect for the East and focus on the Balkans played a role in the subsequent decline of the Empire. On the other hand, it would be unfair to put all the blame on Basil II and he deserves to be considered a great Emperor due to his military victories and staunch defense of the Empire. So, yes, Basil II was a great Emperor, one of the greatest of Byzantium, but not the greatest.

4) That argument has been made by others too but in my opinion a Greek occupation of Constantinople was not feasible. The Great Powers would not accept Greek control of the straits of Bosporus, so Venizelos (the Greek Prime Minister at that time) could only hope for Western Asia Minor at the moment. His decision to claim that area was due to reasons both political (Greeks wanted that area), economic (controlling both sides of the Aegean would bring benefits) and I would argue that there were also national reasons; there was a large Greek minority in the region and Western Asia Minor had since Ancient times been a cradle of Greek civilization.

The reason the Greeks lost the war was not so much because they overextended themselves, although that indeed played a role, but because in 1920 the Greeks voted the conservatives who brought back Constantine I as King of Greece. Constantine had been pro-German during WWI and had fought a civil war against the pro-Entente Venizelos. He was overthrown by the Entente in 1917. So, his return was not welcomed warmly by Great Britain, France and Italy. France and Italy abandoned Greece and undermined its war effort while Great Britain remained supportive but could not do much. So the Greeks were mostly defeated due to internal infighting and electing the wrong guys.
 
Thanks

What was Greece like before it entered the EZ ?
Was all the wealth concentrated in its capitol with the rest of the country like a poor and relatively backwards third world country ?
How did the Greeks manage to dominate the shipping market ? I figured US, UK were the big ship builders of that time. Japan was relative late but created the worlds first super tankers managed to get into the market with technical innovations
Were the Greeks aways so corrupt or was this a result of the Turkish occupation ? it seems ingrainned into its culture now I see similar politics by Turkey and well Turkey is equally corrupt

Did Greece ever try to reforest itself ? During the Hellanic times it was recorded that forest surrounded Athens and then well they chopped it all down, resulting in soil erosion by the time ancient greeks realised this it was too late.

Hopilate or Roman Legionnaire ?
Greek Heavy Hopilate was more then a match for the Legionaire, but Greece lost to the Romans. What do you think could have been done for Greeks tactically to have won ?
 
So, yes, Basil II was a great Emperor, one of the greatest of Byzantium, but not the greatest.

If not the Bulgar-Slayer, then who? Justinian the Great?
 
Hoplites were long obsolete by the time of the legions.

No the Hopiltes were the perfect type of heavy infrantry force to smash the Legions.
With heavy shields, close formation the long spears gave the Hopilites the exact weapons to beat the romans, the longer reach, meant at nearly every front on engagement in a stand up fight the legionairs were at a major disadvantage and often suffered at the hands of the phalanx. Its only due to the inflexable formation that the legions exploited which lost the greeks battle. Had the greeks made legion style formations of 100 units and operated in a similar flexable fashion, as well as making better use of Greek technology such as belly bows, Greeks could have smashed the legions.

But then bows were womenish weapon boo HOO stupid spartans
 
"They were perfect, if only everything was different including them"
 
Its only due to the inflexable formation that the legions exploited...

So the Romans cheated?

Two points:
  • The very definition of obsolete is being inflexible in the face of change.
  • Tactics trump equipment everytime.
The hoplites were state of the art in the mid-5th Century BC. Their heyday was ended, not by the Romans, but by Thebes loosening the formation and lightening the equipment - including replacing the hoplon shield with a pelte (i.e., hoplites became peltasts.) With these reforms, Thebes' lighter, looser formations defeated Sparta's old school hoplites.

Rome didn't become a factor outside Italy until the Punic Wars in mid-3rd Century BC, two centuries later. By then, not only had the hoplite been largely supplanted by the peltast, both had been supplanted by the Macedonian phalangist - close formation troops like the hoplite, but with lighter armor and longer spears (pikes, really,) arrayed in deeper formations. It was these troops, not hoplites, who made Alexander the Great. When Rome finally turned east during their wars against Philip V, the legions flexibility did indeed allow them to exploit the phalanx's rigidity - thus making the phalanx obsolete.
 
I thought the spartans lost because Thebes had massed their left wing 50 deep and attacked in oblique line formation
 
let's say the overextension in Anatolia issue is a reality . That he saw that coming also helped Metaxas to the top . And let's also say Athens would have not succeeded no matter what . Stealing Izmir from the Italians is a thing you could never get away with , France falling out with the British is a thing Athens could not influence . And Britain was bankrupt in the end . Venizelos , or no Venizelos , nothing would have changed in the end .
 
Top Bottom