What is your view of Ioannes Metaxas?

[christos200]

I have to disagree with you. Alexander the Great was Greek, but I do not want to argue about it. But I will argue about Venizelos. He is my favourite Greek historical person and I have studied him for many years.

He was not a megalomaniac. He took a bankraupted defeated Greece and almost recreated the Byzantine Empire. The split of the country was due to the fact that the King tried to impose an absolute monarchy and dismissed twice the elected Prime Minister of Greece. He also let teh Bulgarians to occupy Eastern Macedonia and forced an entire Greek Army to surrender to the Germans.

Venizelos did the right thing and overthrew him. In fact, I believe that Venizelos should have been voted as the greatest Greek, not Alexander.

 

[Kyriakos]

Personally my top 10 would have been:

Homer

Alexander

Cavafy

Eucleid

Aristotle

Plato

Aeschylus or Euripedes

Papadiamantis

Ioannes Ducas Vatatzes (Nicaean Emperor and later Saint)

Constantine XI Palaiologos (last Byzantine Emperor)

There are hundreds of notable Greeks in history. Way too many to make such lists of. My list would not have the order i specified here, although the two first names would be like that (first Homer, then Alexander)

 

[christos200]

What? Homer was more important that Venizelos? Are you kidding me? No Venizelos = No Macedonia, Crete, Epirus and the Agean for Greece.

 

[Kyriakos]

Venizelos was very important, but only for our current state.

Homer is massively important, not only for the entire Greek civilization, but also the Western civilization.

 

[christos200]

Ok, but how Ioannes Ducas Vatatzes is more important than Venizelos? Also, the Macedonian front played a crucial role in the defeat of the Central Powers in WWI. So he was not just important for Greece.

My list of the 10 Greatest Greeks is:

1) Eleftherios Venizelos
2) Alexander the Great
3) Plato
4) Aristotle
5) Pericles
6) Epaminondas
7) Constantine XI Palaiologos
8) Manuel I Komnenos
9) Constantine P. Cavafy
10) Theodoros Kolokotronis

 

[Kyriakos]

Your list is fine as well Like i said there are way too many important Greeks to just make one definitive list like that.

And i agree that without Eleutherios Venizelos Greece would be even smaller now, perhaps even half of what it now is. But Greece is not just the country that formed in 1830. It goes way further, as you yourself reflected on your list.

Ioannes Ducas Vatatzes was the Nicaean emperor who effectively prepared the liberation of Constantinople from the latins. He is widely seen as a very able emperor, with a large political and philanthopic body of work. I have seen it claimed that it is he who is in reality the one in the myth of "the marble king".

 

[Lord Baal]

Personally my top 10 would have been:

Homer

Alexander

Cavafy

Eucleid

Aristotle

Plato

Aeschylus or Euripedes

Papadiamantis

Ioannes Ducas Vatatzes (Nicaean Emperor and later Saint)

Constantine XI Palaiologos (last Byzantine Emperor)

There are hundreds of notable Greeks in history. Way too many to make such lists of. My list would not have the order i specified here, although the two first names would be like that (first Homer, then Alexander)

I'll accept Byzantines on this list on the grounds that they spoke Greek, though one could as easily refer to them as Italians. Aside from my previous objection to Alexander, Homer probably didn't exist.

What? Homer was more important that Venizelos? Are you kidding me? No Venizelos = No Macedonia, Crete, Epirus and the Agean for Greece.

No one is arguing that Venizelos wasn't important. The argument is over whether or not he is "great." I would argue otherwise.

Venizelos split the country, allied with Britain and got a few spoils after the war. Those spoils may well have gone Greece's way without Venizelos' efforts on behalf of the Allies, as it was the king who actually fought to retain them after the war. It's not like Smyrna was given to the Venizelists, after all. His splitting of the country - which he did after the king exercised his constitutional rights, which Venizelos, as an elected official was sworn to uphold - theoretically into republicans versus monarchists, but really into supporters of Venizelos versus those who didn't support him, was disastrous for the Greeks in the long-term.

 

[christos200]

Venizelos was a very able politician and diplomat. I am putting those guys in the list by judging their skills, not how much they did for the Western world. If I wanted a list of the most influential Greeks, I would have not added Venizelos.

 

[christos200]

Venizelos split the country, allied with Britain and got a few spoils after the war. Those spoils may well have gone Greece's way without Venizelos' efforts on behalf of the Allies, as it was the king who actually fought to retain them after the war. It's not like Smyrna was given to the Venizelists, after all. His splitting of the country - which he did after the king exercised his constitutional rights, which Venizelos, as an elected official was sworn to uphold - theoretically into republicans versus monarchists, but really into supporters of Venizelos versus those who didn't support him, was disastrous for the Greeks in the long-term.

No. It is not Venizelo's fault that the people were stupid and voted for Constantine to come back. Also do you think that he should have left Bulgaria annex Eastern Macedonia? Should he had sided with the losing side, costing Greece Epirus and maybe the Agean? Should he had chose to remain to power and become a puppet of the King, while he was elected on the platform that he would side with the Allies?

 

[Kyriakos]

I too largely think of Venizelos in a positive light (although i am not well-read on him). He did form a country of his own in the north of Greece, centered in Thessalonike, so as to invite the Allies to land there. However it is highly possible that if Greece had remained neutral in WW1, whatever the outcome, Greece would most probably have lost a large part of Macedonia it liberated in the Balkan wars anyway.

Surely Venizelos in the end caused a horrible schism, but probably there was nothing much to be done about it at that point. Also if he had not been voted out during the 1920-1922 war, maybe Greece would have kept something from Sevres.

 

[Lord Baal]

Venizelos was a very able politician and diplomat.

This is true. It is not in dispute.

No. It is not Venizelo's fault that the people were stupid and voted for Constantine to come back. Also do you think that he should have left Bulgaria annex Eastern Macedonia? Should he had sided with the losing side, costing Greece Epirus and maybe the Agean? Should he had chose to remain to power and become a puppet of the King, while he was elected on the platform that he would side with the Allies?

So the democratically-elected official should not govern according to the wishes of the people who voted for him? That's a strange argument. You are aware that Venizelos was so supportive of the British that he was willing to agree to giving Bulgaria Serbian territory in exchange for it joining the war on the Allied side, which would have led to further troubles between the Serbs and the Bulgarians as soon as WWI was over? Greek acquiescence to Bulgarian growth at Serbian expense would also have soured the Serb-Greek relationship, very valuable to Greece.

It is my understanding that the Greek populace was very pro-neutrality in 1915. Venizelos denounced as unconstitutional the king's actions in dissolving parliament, despite the fact that it most certainly was constitutional, then proceeded to support a mutiny and military coup in the northern half of the country to set up a rival government. In 1920 he attempted to have himself made head-of-state. The people he was supposedly serving clearly weren't interested, as Constantine's party won the elections handily.

Also, in 1914-15, the Central Powers were not the losing side. See Dachs' posts on this issue. The Macedonian front is also overblown in importance; the real issue was that the Hungarians split from the Austrians, and that seemed to be on the way regardless of the military situation in Macedonia.

 

[christos200]

Even thought we lost Minor Asia, we at least secured Epirus, Western Thrace and Macedonia. And that because Venizelos had the guts to fight the King.

 

[Lord Baal]

I too largely think of Venizelos in a positive light (although i am not well-read on him). He did form a country of his own in the north of Greece, centered in Thessalonike, so as to invite the Allies to land there. However it is highly possible that if Greece had remained neutral in WW1, whatever the outcome, Greece would most probably have lost a large part of Macedonia it liberated in the Balkan wars anyway.

Surely Venizelos in the end caused a horrible schism, but probably there was nothing much to be done about it at that point. Also if he had not been voted out during the 1920-1922 war, maybe Greece would have kept something from Sevres.

It's very unlikely that a neutral Greece would have lost territory. At worst, it wouldn't have gained any, but even that is possible, given its friendly relations with both Serbia and Britain. Greece was also already on the losing end of the war in Anatolia before Constantine returned. Venizelos might ave retained French support a little longer, but they were already looking for a reason to withdraw, and without Great Power assistance Greece simply didn't have what it took to defeat Turkey.

 

[christos200]

So the democratically-elected official should not govern according to the wishes of the people who voted for him? That's a strange argument. You are aware that Venizelos was so supportive of the British that he was willing to agree to giving Bulgaria Serbian territory in exchange for it joining the war on the Allied side, which would have led to further troubles between the Serbs and the Bulgarians as soon as WWI was over? Greek acquiescence to Bulgarian growth at Serbian expense would also have soured the Serb-Greek relationship, very valuable to Greece.

It is my understanding that the Greek populace was very pro-neutrality in 1915. Venizelos denounced as unconstitutional the king's actions in dissolving parliament, despite the fact that it most certainly was constitutional, then proceeded to support a mutiny and military coup in the northern half of the country to set up a rival government. In 1920 he attempted to have himself made head-of-state. The people he was supposedly serving clearly weren't interested, as Constantine's party won the elections handily.

Also, in 1914-15, the Central Powers were not the losing side. See Dachs' posts on this issue. The Macedonian front is also overblown in importance; the real issue was that the Hungarians split from the Austrians, and that seemed to be on the way regardless of the military situation in Macedonia.

I do not know where you get your information, but the Greeks supported joining the Allies. They voted twice Venizelos on this platform. The people supported him. The King was the one who really couped the state. Venizelos did the right think.

So, you believe that we Greeks should have lost Macedonia to the Serbs, Epirus to the Italian-Albanians and gain nothing because the King was an idiot? Venizelos thought no and he acted fast so he could save Greece from total collapse.

 

[Lord Baal]

Even thought we lost Minor Asia, we at least secured Epirus, Western Thrace and Macedonia. And that because Venizelos had the guts to fight the King.

If Venizelos had had his way, you'd have been allied with Bulgaria. That certainly wouldn't have netted you Western Thrace. You got Epirus and Macedonia from the Balkan Wars, not WWI.

 

[christos200]

It's very unlikely that a neutral Greece would have lost territory.

Believe me, but it would. I have studied a lot this and I can assure you that the allies would give Eastern Macedonia to Bulgaria to get them to their side and they were planning to give Thessalonica to Serbia.

 

[christos200]

If Venizelos had had his way, you'd have been allied with Bulgaria. That certainly wouldn't have netted you Western Thrace.

But it would have given us Minor Asia.

 

[Lord Baal]

I do not know where you get your information, but the Greeks supported joining the Allies. They voted twice Venizelos on this platform. The people supported him. The King was the one who really couped the state. Venizelos did the right think.

So, you believe that we Greeks should have lost Macedonia to the Serbs, Epirus to the Italian-Albanians and gain nothing because the King was an idiot? Venizelos thought no and he acted fast so he could save Greece from total collapse.

It's good to see you're thinking critically about this. Greece was not going to lose an ounce of territory if it remained neutral. At worst, it would have retained the same borders. It probably would have been granted Turkish territory anyway - though, of course, it wouldn't have been able to hold it. Also, Venizelos was elected in 1915 after promising to remain neutral. The king agreed to his later request to activate the treaty with Serbia against Bulgaria, but only if Greece itself was attacked. Venizelos refused to stand for re-election and set up a rival government after a military coup, which he may have fomented.

The King wanted to remain neutral. Considering the fact that Greece gained absolutely nothing except Western Thrace from the war and that Greece eventually entered the war at gunpoint, with the British threatening to shell Athens if he didn't abdicate and put Venizelos in charge, I'd say the king was standing up for Greek sovereignty far more than Venizelos was.

 

[Lord Baal]

Believe me, but it would. I have studied a lot this and I can assure you that the allies would give Eastern Macedonia to Bulgaria to get them to their side and they were planning to give Thessalonica to Serbia.

I have never come across any information of this sort. What possible claim could Serbia have had to Thessalonica? Bulgaria had a claim, but not Serbia. Also, the Allies offered Bulgaria Serbian territory, but not Greek territory. Do you have a source?

But it would have given us Minor Asia.

How? Greece lost that war, rather badly.

 

[christos200]

I have never come across any information of this sort. What possible claim could Serbia have had to Thessalonica? Bulgaria had a claim, but not Serbia. Also, the Allies offered Bulgaria Serbian territory, but not Greek territory. Do you have a source?

When Serbia fell to the Austrians, the Allies wanted to use Thessalonica as a temporary capital of Serbia. Of course, this would give claims to Thessalonica. The Serbians and later the Yugoslavians wanted to have an Agean Port. That's why Tito supported "Macedonian" nationalists.

How? Greece lost that war, rather badly.

Because the people would be unite? Because the French would not use the excuse of the Pro-Axis King to stop helping Greece?