Galery

1

Anastasia Balezdrova

On 25 March Greece celebrates the beginning of the armed struggle for independence from the Ottoman Empire. It began in 1821 and ended four years later with the signing of the Constantinople Peace Treaty that established the independent Kingdom of Greece.

Assistant Professor of Modern and Contemporary History at the University of Thessaloniki Iakovos Michailidis talks with GRReporter about the events, the historical context and the role that the Great Powers played in the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and about the establishment of nation states in the Balkans. He was also one of the historical consultants of the documentary series "1821" that presents the history of the Greek War of Independence, the key battles as well as the internal conflicts between the main players in it.

Mr. Michailidis, to what extent was the liberation of Greece the work of Greeks and their internal uprisings, and to what extent was it due to the help of the Great Powers? Which one outweighed the other?

I would say that both factors played a role in it. In order to answer this question correctly one must take into account the objective facts. The first is that there were uprisings in Greece throughout the period of the Ottoman rule. None of them, however, can be compared to the war of liberation in 1821, which was actually a political movement aimed at the formation of a modern, independent Greek state on the example of the already established Western European countries.

The ideological background of the Greek uprising was the work of the movement of European Renaissance. Its participants were the result of the activity of the Filiki Eteria after 1814. Therefore, the uprising in question was the best-organized revolt on the Greek territory and it had a very clear political orientation. However, the European countries were particularly negative. The sacred union was actually an alliance of the major powers at the time and it was opposed to any revolutionary movement. Therefore, it was negative towards the Greek revolution.

Only the internationalization of the Greek independence movement after the first two years of the revolution had practically forced the major powers led by Great Britain and subsequently by Russia to reconsider their originally negative position and to help create an independent Greek state. Therefore, this was the result of the inner desire of the Greeks which, at that time, was stronger and more organized than at any other time in the past, thus driving the major powers to change their initial reservations about it.

Why were the major powers negative towards the riots?

Since the late 18th and early 19th century, Europe was the scene of large-scale wars. I mean the Napoleonic Wars that Napoleon had started throughout Europe after the French Revolution. The democratic and radical ideas of Napoleon and the French revolutionaries were a threat to the established status quo, especially to the most authoritarian monarchies in Europe like the Habsburg Empire and Russia. Therefore, they opposed Napoleon. They feared that the spread of revolutionary ideas in any region of Europe could threaten their existence and this was the basis of their negative attitude towards any revolutionary or radical idea.

How would you explain the fact that Greece was liberated almost 60 years before Bulgaria?

The national emancipation of the Bulgarian people and nation was late in comparison with that in Greece, mainly due to the actions of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Istanbul and the specific conditions at the time of the Ottoman rule in the Balkans.

The national emancipation of the Bulgarian people and nation came late in comparison with that in Greece, mainly due to the actions of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Istanbul and the specific conditions at the time of the Ottoman rule in the Balkans. At that time, the population was divided according to religion. The Ottoman Empire categorized its citizens as Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. All Christians, hence Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs and others, were subject to the Ecumenical Patriarchate. However, it was the bearer of the Greek culture and spirit. The Bulgarians had to be separated from this influence and the process took time before its completion in the middle of the 19th century. The first step was the establishment of an autonomous Bulgarian Exarchate in 1870, followed by Bulgaria’s struggle for liberation during 1875 - 1878 and Bulgaria’s independence in 1908.

Who drove the struggles for Greece’s liberation? What was the role of the bourgeois class?

As happens during every revolution in a captive region, the Greek territories also had different governing centres. On the one hand, they involved the traditional powers that had led the Greek people throughout the Ottoman period. These were the so-called "notables" or "kodjabashis", i.e. members of wealthier families. Rebels, or people who often violated the laws and were against any kind of power, especially against the Ottoman rule, acted in parallel with them. The other group involved the Phanariotes - a specific group composed of well-educated Greeks who came from the Phanar (lantern - author’s note) neighbourhood in Istanbul. They had extensive managerial experience since many of them had worked also in the Ottoman administration. Finally, we should mention a very specific category of people who were typical of the Greek revolution in 1821 alone compared with the uprisings in the past. I am talking about those radicals who arrived from Western Europe, especially from France, but also from other countries, where there was a Greek Diaspora, bringing the revolutionary ideas of the French Renaissance and the French Revolution. They acted on a conspiratorial basis and fought for the creation of a Greek state or for a Balkan revolution.

What role did the Church play in the liberation struggles of Bulgaria and Greece?

There are a lot of myths related to the role of the Church in all the revolutions in the Balkans. First of all we need to know that the Orthodox religion, both in the case of Greece and Bulgaria, was the only real constant of peoples under Ottoman rule. It was the only refuge of Christians. It saved their national consciousness and language. When the Greek revolution broke out it was very logical for the patriarch in Istanbul to have reservations about it because, under the laws of the empire, he was responsible to the authorities for the actions of his congregation and he did not want to do anything that could change for the worse the attitude towards Christians.

However, the course of the revolution shows that many hierarchs, usually from the middle and lower rank, took an active part in it. The same applies to the struggles of Bulgarians. However, the presence of objections, doubts or misunderstanding was quite logical if we consider the spirit of the age. How difficult it was for people, who held a specific post, to support a revolution.

Why did the Western powers intervene in Greece and Russia in Bulgaria in your opinion?

Russia intervened not only in respect of Bulgaria but also of Greece. The Greek state was created precisely as a result of the conflict of interest between Russia and Great Britain. Both major powers had begun to bid in the race to win the newly formed Greek state onto their side.

I would like to say first that Russia intervened not only in respect of Bulgaria but also of Greece. The Greek state was created precisely because of the conflict of interest between Russia and Great Britain. Both major powers had begun to bid in the race to win the newly formed Greek state onto their side. It was not a coincidence that Greece had three official "foreign" parties, as we call them, namely English, French and Russian. The Russian one involved even military leader of the Greek revolution Theodoros Kolokotronis. He and the other participants in the party relied on Russia because it professed the same religion.

In the case of Bulgaria, we should take into account the effects of the movement of Pan-Slavism which, after 1850, played a very important role in all processes in Eastern Europe. Russia wanted to create a large Bulgaria to play the role of a bridge to the southern Balkans, looking for an outlet on the warm seas of the Mediterranean region. Thus, San Stefano Bulgaria or Great Bulgaria was established in 1878 with the Treaty of San Stefano and the support of Russia, which existed for a short period of time. Its boundaries changed because of the response on the part of Great Britain which, being the largest naval power at that time, wanted to cooperate with Greece because they had common interests in shipping.

In the case of Bulgaria, Great Britain had no similar interests but that does not mean that it did not pay due attention to the struggles for national liberation there that had actually struck the British society. Especially after the massacre in Batak and elsewhere, the responses, including that of the British Parliament, were particularly negative towards the Ottoman Empire.

After their liberation, both countries did not include territories that belonged to them in their opinion. How did the processes of consolidation develop in the years that followed?

None of the Balkan countries that were formed in the late 19th and the early 20th century had the boundaries that it thought it should have. After the creation of the states, all of them attempted to gradually include what they themselves called "captive national territories" and the Big Ideas were created. However, the Big Idea of each country was contrary to the Idea of the other country. The conflict was mostly concentrated on the geographical territory of Macedonia, which was still under Ottoman control, and in the region of Thrace to a lesser extent. This gave rise to the culmination of nationalism among the Balkan countries that, until then, had been mutually connected by religion. Since the late 19th century, they had been divided due to nationalism, which was the reason for problems in their relations, it created an atmosphere of hostility, animosity, doubts and stereotypes and a large number of military conflicts correspondingly, the most significant of them being the Balkan Wars (1912-1913) and World War I.
 
This turn of events may have been logical, since, at that time, the people of the Balkans were no longer connected by religion and nation states were created where national consciousness defined the nations rather than religion.

You said that the geographical area of Macedonia was the most disputed territory in the Balkans. Why was that?

At the time, geographical Macedonia was inhabited by Christians and Muslims but mostly by people who spoke Greek in the southern part of the area and Bulgarian in the north. So, the claims of Bulgaria were based on the linguistic criteria whereas those of Greece on the national identity. This conflict was actually a conflict of strategic interests, since Macedonia is a vast area with an outlet on the Aegean; the largest port in Thessaloniki and the port of Kavala are there too. All this gives the country to which they belong a greater strategic power.

I would like to recommend the book by eminent Bulgarian historian and diplomat Nikolai Todorov about the participation of Bulgarians in the Greek revolution of 1821. They were hundreds in numbers because, at that time, all of these people determined themselves according to their religion.

They were all Orthodox Christians who fought against their common Muslim oppressor. The creation of nation states in the Balkans was what happened. We cannot but mention Rigas Velestinlis’ idea of the creation of a Greek Empire as a successor to the Byzantine and Ottoman ones, where all nations would have equal rights, regardless of their religion and national identity, which had had a great impact on the people from other Balkan countries. Of course, in history we cannot talk about hypothetical scenarios. What I am saying is that this trend was very pronounced. His idea was very popular among many representatives of the various captive Balkan peoples at that time. Even the Filiki Eteria, which was established a little later in 1814, in the beginning tried to start a general uprising in the Balkans. Its members had contacts with the Serbs who had rebelled early in 1804. I would like to recommend the book by eminent Bulgarian historian and diplomat Nikolai Todorov about the participation of Bulgarians in the Greek revolution of 1821. They were hundreds in number because, at that time, all of these people determined themselves according to their religion. They were all Orthodox Christians who fought against their common Muslim oppressor. Therefore, the trend was there but, after the death of Rigas Velestinlis, no inspired person appeared to trigger it in political terms and unite the Balkan peoples. Therefore, the nations turned to the opposite direction, namely to break up the Christian space of the Balkans.

A few years ago, there was a claim that the end of nation states was close. Now we see a trend of disintegration of larger countries in order to create smaller nation states. How would you comment on that?

The nation states were a modern and very progressive phenomenon at the time, because their creation was mainly linked to the preservation of liberal ideas and human rights. By that time, people did not have the rights they have today.

Therefore, we should not underestimate the power of nation states, which are a separate political organization among the people and, in my opinion, are strong even today. Of course, in this age they cannot function as they did in the 19th century. Two centuries later, there are some unions above the national ones, such as the European Union. However, just because its consolidation is based on the respect of the multiformity of the national member states, this process will evolve very slowly. Therefore, the time of nation states is not over. We are in a transitional stage, which still bears the feature of nation states. They are not something that we need to completely break away from nor do I consider this necessary. What is important in all cases and all states, in the Balkans and the world, is to observe fundamental human rights. When they are respected and every person can exercise his or her civil, political and social freedoms, the process can be completed. The organized state must protect its members when they need it. Otherwise, we will return to the forms of political organization of 200 years ago. This is dangerous and retrograde in a modern European society and a modern civilized world.