Author: Gavin Duffy graduated from Strathclyde University with an MSc in Historical Studies and has had a general thirst for knowledge from a very young age. His main passion turned towards history which led him to his degree and also his work in museums such as the David Livingstone Birthplace. He has a wide range of interests both academic and non-academic and has a strong belief in exploring the fullness of life and the world.

In 1453, the forces of Sultan Mehmet II breached the walls of the city of Constantinople, ending a 55-day-long siege. The victory was cemented as one of the most significant battles in human history due to its multifaceted impact, won by a commander of only 21 years of age. The death of the Eastern Roman Empire, the transition from the medieval to the modern era, and the crowning of the Ottoman Empire as the chief power in the Eastern Mediterranean for centuries to come was achieved on that same day.

The Ottoman Empire’s rise was also matched by an equally impactful decline and decay. Starting with events in the early 19^th century through to the First World War and the birth of the Turkish Republic, the Ottoman Empire’s fall would also see a change in the command of power throughout the Empire’s vast geographic, political, cultural and economic sphere of influence. The swan song of the once great power which sat at the crossroads of three continents was to sound far and wide to create ripples which are still felt to this day.

Throughout the long 19^th century, a historiographical concept which roughly encompasses a time period spanning from the French Revolution to the First World War, the Ottoman Empire was facing threats from the force of Europe at its gates. These threats were numerous, the industrializing economies of Europe were thriving compared to the declining Ottoman manufactories, this was also aligned with the shift of economic and trade power away from the Mediterranean and towards the Atlantic world in the preceding centuries. The additional threat of the European social and political force of nationalism was threatening to loosen the bonds of the constituent ethnicities of the empire, and the imperial ambitions of Western European powers were threatening to impede the Ottoman Empire.

How the Empire reacted to this rise, and encroachment, of Europe is debated. Several perspectives exist as to the extent that the Ottoman Empire tried to become more European and catch up with Western social developments as opposed to some views that the Empire shifted to a more ‘Eastern’ model due to territorial acquisitions in the Middle East.

The Ottoman Empire at the turn of the 19^th century was reeling from two military defeats at the hands of Russia and Austria albeit with the latter being more pyrrhic for the Austrians. The 1798 invasion of Egypt by the French Empire in order to sever the British trade routes with India would also leave a deep psychological scar on the Ottoman establishment, as Europe was increasingly treading on their own territory, and the threat was beginning to cross across the frontiers of the Empire. These wars were soon to be followed by another succession of military conflicts, this time from within the Empire’s borders. The first nationalist challenge was to emerge in Serbia.

Serbia’s Revolts

The initial Serbian revolt took flight in 1804 against a rouge group of Ottoman janissaries known as the Dahije who had decided to execute the Pasha of the region and install an unsanctioned military dictatorship independent of the Ottoman government. They imposed harsh rule on the Serbs who had previously enjoyed a much more comparatively lenient treatment by the authorities. The incendiary action that kicked off what would become termed ‘The First Serbian Revolt’ was the decision to execute Serbian nobles in an attempt to solidify the rule of the Ottomans and send a message to the Serbian people whom they thought were likely to rise up against them.

The execution of the nobles was not taken lightly by the population and led to armies of up to 30,000 strong, composed of hajduk bandits and other irregulars being raised up and into a marauding legion swarming across the countryside to attack any Turkish property or people that met their path. The irregular nature of the forces found them hard to keep disciplined and motivated, which necessitated the revival of symbols and tales of battle from the medieval kingdom of Serbia, conjured back into animation from folklore and medieval manuscripts. This revival in nationalism was not coincidental and had its base in trends across Serbian communities spread over Europe.

These armies eventually turned their attention away from the rebellious Dahije and started to fight battles against the armies of the Ottoman authorities themselves who were sent into Serbia to quell the violence. This led to numerous decisive victories, a change from similar events in previous decades, and led to the Serbian forces eventually capturing the city of Belgrade and establishing a provisional government. This provisional government seemed extremely fragile, with potential allies anti-Ottoman allies such as France or Austria unwilling to support the Serbs, and Serbia’s long-term allies Russia similarly not willing to lend support due to their own treaties with the Ottomans and with a recent history of several wars in Europe and Asia that had depleted a lot of their military power and morale.

While Serbs in the Ottoman Empire existed largely as a peasantry relegated away from the Turkish-dominated urban centres, with generally minimal education due to their peripheral nature and the lack of support for scholarship by the Orthodox Church compared to their Western counterparts, the Serbian community of the Austro-Hungarian Empire had been key in the development of a national revival. The Serbs of Hungary possessed an intelligentsia which absorbed much from the respective Enlightenments of Europe, namely the Deutsche Sprachbund and the Francophone world. Serbian education, Serbian literature and Serbian theatre were being developed by this intelligentsia in Habsburg Hungary and beyond.

There existed a bond between the two communities of Serbs despite their differences and the two began to forge common ground. One eminent poet of the Serbian Revival was Dositej Obradovic whose poem Vostani Srbije was composed in honour of the rising and was dedicated to its leader Dorde Petrovic.

Petrovic in reciprocation made Obradovic the Head of Education in the new provisional government once he had captured the city of Belgrade from the Turkish authorities. This was a direct opportunity which allowed the Serbian Revival movement to relay the intellectual world that they inhabited to the comparatively uneducated populace of Ottoman Serbs. The Serbian Grand Academy, the forerunner to Belgrade University, was founded by this provisional government and laid the foundation of Serbia’s higher educational institutions.

The Provisional government would not last, with their eventual capitulation to Ottoman forces in 1813 and the abolition of all Serbian institutions including the academy. However, the taste of autonomy that the Serbs had set the course of history in one direction. Further insurrections became the norm with a minor rebellion in 1814 and a larger and more organised rebellion in 1815 which would be known as the Second Serbian Revolution, the one that would establish Serbia as a de facto autonomous nation.

The rebellion in Serbia would send shockwaves throughout the Orthodox Balkans with the beginnings of the formation of national consciousness in Bulgaria and particularly Greece. The Greek Revolution of 1821 would mark the apex revolution of the Balkans in this time period.

Background of the Greek War of Independence

The Greek population was spurred on by the revolution in Serbia which proved that a successful armed insurrection was possible and likely to succeed. The Greek community at the turn of the 19^th century was even more suited towards a revolution based upon their community’s even further reaching diaspora.

There existed a wealthy, well-connected and well-spread Greek merchant class all over the Ottoman Empire and all over Europe. Greek shipping and merchant clusters appeared all over Europe in major port cities such as London and Venice, culminating in a great deal of wealth which could be used to support the revolution and to make connections further afield. The geographic spread of this diaspora, and its literacy and connections to high society meant that the ideas of the Enlightenment in Western Europe could be more readily absorbed than amongst the Serbs. Greeks were able to enrol their children in Western universities and absorb ideas which would be disseminated amongst the centres of learning in Greek merchant hubs within the Ottoman Empire. Greek scholars and artists were also able to disseminate information via periodicals such as Hermes o Logios which was published by Greeks in Vienna and spread Greek nationalist ideas, as well as explicitly political societies such as the Friendly Society in Russia, a secret society modelled on the Freemasons which consisted of Greeks agitating for the independence of the country and would eventually start the revolution in 1821.

This diaspora was also removed geographically from the Ottoman Empire and the institutions and pillars of mainland Greece, such as the traditional conservative land-owning class, which was more attached to the established Ottoman order which secured their privileges. Institutions such as the Greek Orthodox Church were somewhat paradoxically opposed to revolution, due to the French Revolution-influenced ideas of some of the revolutionaries and a fear of similar secularism taking root in Greece, even though some may view Orthodoxy as a symbol of Greek identity and a bulwark against Turkish Islam.

The Greeks could also draw on a variety of support from non-Greek actors due to this vast diaspora. Russia’s foreign minister at the time was a Greek man Ioannis Kapodistrias, who watched the events unfolding in his homeland with great interest and used his position in Russia to bolster the link of shared Orthodox heritage that the Serbs had likewise drawn upon before.  Kapodistrias was a very well-educated man who had very well-developed ideas about a liberal order of power in Europe and about the role of education in shaping national identity which would see him become the foreign minister of the independent Hellenic state, almost as a parallel figure to Dositeij Obradovic but more politically attuned.

A key factor in drawing in foreign support was the Greeks’ ability to draw upon the Philhellenism of the European intelligentsia. Many educated Europeans had received an education focussing on Classics, that is the study of Ancient Greece and Rome, and had been regaled of tales of Greek antiquity which many in the European enlightenment held onto dearly. The Greek illuminaires were also discovering this past civilisation which they sought to draw influence from but also used to draw support to the Greek cause from figures from Western Europe. Lord Byron, Thomas Gordon, George Finlay and another thousand philhellenes would even travel to Greece to fight alongside the Greek armies, a testimony to how strongly the cause was felt in Europe.

On the Eve of the Revolution

The origin of the revolution begins with the aforementioned Friendly Society or Filiki Etaireia which consisted of prominent Greeks with some Philhellene involvement as well as members of other Balkan groups that the Greek nationalists had sought alliances with. The Friendly Society had built up an important network of prominent figures throughout the Ottoman Empire and was in an ideal position to launch a rebellion.

The exiled Greek prince Alexandros Ypsilantis, who had spent years as a cavalry officer in Russian Service, was elected as the leader of the Filiki Etaireia and seen as the best man to lead a revolt. The iron was ready to strike, the Ottoman Empire had dealt with internal strife in the Balkans for decades by this point. The Serbian and Wallachian revolts saw much disorder in the region, in addition to internal strife in the Ottoman command. A key figure in this role was the Ottoman Pasha of Ioannina, Tependeli Ali Pasha, who exercised an unauthorised level of autonomy over this Greek region, even going as far as to engage in foreign policy under the nose of the Sultan. Ali refused to appear at court in Constantinople when summoned to account for his actions which caused the Ottoman Sultan to exercise military force against him, leading to a small war between the Ottoman armies including a significant portion of Ottoman troops in Peloponnese and its governor Hurshid Pasha, and Ali’s forces that he had consolidated. Ali often lost key positions and soldiers due to Ottoman bribery but crushing him and keeping the region under control was of the utmost importance to the Sultan and thus created a perfect distraction for the Balkan revolutionaries.

Greek Military Action

Alexandros Ypsilantis started the revolt in the Balkans by taking advantage of troubles in Wallachia and allying his troops with the Romanian revolutionary Tudor Vladimirescu. Ypsilantis thought that his actions would culminate in a wider Balkan, or at least Orthodox Balkan revolution that would attract the support of Russia. Ypsilantis’ initial revolt would not prove successful, due to the lack of Russian support that he anticipated and the Romanian nationalists’ grievances against the Greek merchant classes who they were fighting against in addition to the Ottoman state.

Ypsilantis’ revolt sparked a series of regional revolts all over Greece, with almost simultaneous rebellions in Peloponnese, Roumeli and Crete. The revolution was fragmented and consisted of several regional revolts which made it harder to organise a military strategy but these rebellions initially held out against Ottoman military responses.

In spite of the ineffectiveness of the Ottomans to formulate a response due to logistical challenges and other distractions, such as Ali Pasa and the 1821-1823 war with Persia, the reaction in the capital was one of fury. Massacres against Greek civilians were carried out in Constantinople including the hanging of the Orthodox Patriarch Gregory V, in spite of his personal opposition to the revolution.

The massacres of civilians were common amongst Turks and Greeks alike, adding increased vitriol to the conflict. Pre-revolutionary tensions between the Greek and Jewish communities of the Ottoman Empire, a result of the two groups being over-represented in the mercantile ranks of the Empire along with Armenians, were also a factor, with revolutionaries slaughtering Jewish civilians. The massacres of Greeks in Constantinople and other areas with a Greek population that did not revolt such as the Massacre of Chios which saw up to 100,000 Greeks killed or enslaved spurred international sympathy for the Greek cause. The massacre was represented in artistic forms such as on canvas by Eugene Delacroix and in writing by Lord Byron and Victor Hugo.

Some setbacks occurred in the intermediate years of the war for the Greek rebels such as infighting between different revolutionary armies from Roumelia and Peloponnese respectively, a set of infighting which culminated been described as two minor civil wars in their own right. The Ottomans, being bogged down in other conflicts, including their disbanding of their army’s famous Janissary units, and unable to muster troops called for support from the semi-independent waliyah of Egypt, who sent a substantial fleet to fight the Greek insurgents. The wali of Egypt, Mehmet Ali, an Albanian by origin, had been key in the suppression of the rebellion in both Cyprus and Crete, the latter being a centuries-long hotspot of rebellion against the Ottoman Empire.

 Mehmet Ali was happy to assist the Ottomans in spite of many Egyptian merchants and advisors of his being pro-revolutionary Greeks due to promises made by the Ottoman government that Crete, Cyprus and Peloponnese would be transferred to Egypt, giving Mehmet a substantial hold over the Eastern Mediterranean. Mehemet sent out a fleet of 54 ships and over 14,000 infantry with French training. The Egyptian army was devastating to the rebels, capturing the city of Missolonghi in 1826 which was strategically key to the rebellion.

While British philhellenes had managed to send money in the form of loans, after petitioning by Greeks, a lot of this money was squandered, and the threat of the Egyptian fleet was imminent. The British, and other Great Powers of Europe, were reluctant to help due to the conservative nature of European politics at the time set by the influence of Austrian prince Klemens von Metternich, which stressed the preservation of order, in spite of the Greek leadership even willing to place their country under British protection. Western powers were eventually spurred into action by the threat of Russian intervention, and thus Russia extending a foothold in the Balkan Peninsula. Russia would become more involved in the conflict with the death of Tsar Alexander I and his succeeder Nicolas I being more open to assisting the Greek cause. This then led to Britain working diplomatically alongside Russia to secure control over the Balkans to curb their influence.

Nicolas’ willingness to intervene spurred the British, and other Western Great Powers along with Russia, into action. Britain and France agreed, alongside Russia, to sign the Treaty of London, which would force a peace deal if accepted by the Ottoman government. The Ottoman-Egyptian armies, however, had far superior force to the Greek rebels and thought that they could easily defeat the Greeks militarily.

This then led to British-French-Russian intervention at the exact moment when the Ottoman forces were inches from victory. The Alliance led to secure victories such as the naval battle of Navarino which turned the winds of the war against the Ottomans. This in turn caused the Russians to declare their own separate war on the Ottoman Empire and defeat them, resulting in the Treaty of Adrianople in 1829, a treaty which secured autonomy for both Serbia and Greece alongside handing over key ports to Russian control.

After this, the Ottoman Empire had suffered numerous setbacks which bit at the core of their security and led to an internal sense of decline. The Ottoman court felt a need to reform against the encroaching reach of Europe, but modernisation would necessitate Westernisation which drew protests from clerics and ex-janissaries. The Empire would have to tread a narrow path to maintain order in the coming decades.

Bibliography

Bideleux, R. and Jeffries, I. (2007). A History of Eastern Europe. Routledge.

Finkel, C. (2007). Osman’s Dream: the Story of the Ottoman Empire, 1300-1923. New York, New York: Basic Books.

Gallant, T.W. (2015). Edinburgh History of the Greeks, 1768 to 1913. Edinburgh University Press.

Kubik, D. (2021). Toward Modernity – the Ideological and Cultural Frames of the Serbian Revolution in the 19th Century. Studia Litteraria, 16(4), pp.293–303. doi:https://doi.org/10.4467/20843933st.21.020.14369.

Strainovic, J. (2021). Nationalisation of Serbs in the Austro-Hungarian Empire: The Role of Language for the Crystallisation of National Identity.

Trgovcevic, L. (2006). The Enlightenment and the beginnings of modern Serbian culture. Balcanica, (37), pp.103–110. doi:https://doi.org/10.2298/balc0637103t.

William St Clair (2008). That Greece might still be free. Cambridge: Open Book Publ.

---