The king was both the symbolic and political pinnacle of class society in Greece. By killing him, Schinas was striking a blow both symbolic and concrete against that society. An act of social revolt, however isolated and dead-ended it may have been, and however mislead or even irrational you may consider it, of that I don't think there can be any real question.
No, the Black Hand were upstanding bourgeois nationalists, despite the fact that their name sounds like a Z-list punk band. If you want to look for social revolt in acts of regicide, you'd be better of looking at, for example, the assassination of Alexander II of Russia, President Carnot of France or Umberto I of Italy, to take probably the most famous examples. (I would tend to except the assassination of President McKinley of the United States, because it's generally acknowledged that Czolgosz was suffering from some sort of mental illness, and probably would not now be regarded as legally responsible for his actions.)
That seems tenuous.
)
and Epanastasis. Stasis generally means revolt, and the common term for it would be Exegersis. Exegersis literally means "to rise up; rising up".
It seems like a very reasonable thing to believe, actually: to think that the life or death of one person, regardless of talent or wit, could make the difference between prosperity and disaster for many more people. That this one person might be a monarch on one occasion instead of, say, a cobbler, or a private soldier, or a maid, as on others, doesn't necessarily say anything about monarchy: it's just the intersection between society and chaos.
Granted, granted. But it seems like balancing an entire political order on one individual does rather tempt fate. You don't have to be anarchist to think that bit of redundancy in the system might be a good idea.
Which is why the original Greek experiment ended when Capodistrias was murdered.
