Chapter VI: Part 6

Pyrrhos, for a moment, expelled Antigonos from the Macedonian
throne, which Antigonos recovered while' Pyrrhos was warring
in Peloponnesos. By the time that Pyrrhos was dead, and
Antigonos again firmly fixed in Macedonia, the League had
grown up to maturity as far as regarded the cities of the old
Achaia. … Thus far, then, circumstances had favoured the
quiet and peaceful growth of the League." It had had the
opportunity to grow firm enough and strong enough, on the
small scale, to offer some lessons to its disunited and
tyrannized neighbors and to exercise an attractive influence
upon them. One of the nearest of these neighbors was Sikyon,
which groaned under a tyranny that had been fastened upon it
by Macedonian influence. Among the exiles from Sikyon was a
remarkable young man named Aratos, or Aratus, to whom the
successful working of the small Achaian League suggested some
broader extension of the same political organism. In B. C.
251, Aratos succeeded in delivering his native city from its
tyrant and in bringing about the annexation of Sikyon to the
Achaian League. Eight years later, having meantime been
elected to the chief office of the League, Aratos accomplished
the expulsion of the Macedonians and their agents from
Corinth, Megara, Troizen and Epidauros, and persuaded those
four cities to unite themselves with the Achaians. During the
next ten years he made similar progress in Arkadia, winning
town after town to the federation, until the Arkadian federal
capital, Megalopolis, was enrolled in the list of members, and
gave to the League its greatest acquisition of energy and
brain. In 229 B. C. the skill of Aratos and the prestige of
the League, taking advantage of disturbances in Macedonia,
effected the withdrawal of the Macedonian garrisons from
Athens and the liberation of that city, which did not become
confederated with its liberators, but entered into alliance
with them. Argos was emancipated and annexed, B. C. 228, and
"the League was now the greatest power of Greece.
{1603}
A Federation of equal cities, democratically governed,
embraced the whole of old Achaia, the whole of the Argolic
peninsula, the greater part of Arkadia, together with Phlious,
Sikyon, Corinth, Megara, and the island of Aigina." The one
rival of the Achaian League in Peloponnesus was Sparta, which
looked with jealousy upon its growing power, and would not be
confederated with it. The consequences of that jealous rivalry
were fatal to the hopes for Greece which the Achaian union had
seemed to revive. Unfortunately, rather than otherwise, the
Lacedæmonian throne came to be occupied at this time by the
last of the hero-kings of the Herakleid race—Kleomenes. When
the inevitable collision of war between Sparta and the League
occurred (B. C. 227-221), the personal figure of Kleomenes
loomed so large in the conflict that it took the name of the
Kleomenic War. Aratos was the worst of generals, Kleomenes one
of the greatest, and the Achaians were steadily beaten in the
field. Driven to sore straits at last, they abandoned the
whole original purpose of their federation, by inviting the
king of Macedonia to help them crush the independence of
Sparta. To win his aid they gave up Corinth to him, and under
his leadership they achieved the shameful victory of Sellasia
(B. C. 221), where all that is worthy in Lacedæmonian history
came to an end. The League was now scarcely more than a
dependency of the Macedonian kingdom, and figured as such in
the so-called Social War with the Ætolian League, B. C.
219-217. The wars of Rome with Macedonia which followed
renewed its political importance considerably for a time.
Becoming the ally of Rome, it was able to maintain a certain
dignity and influence until the supremacy of the Roman arms
had been securely proved, and then it sank to the helpless
insignificance which all Roman alliances led to in the end. It
was in that state when, on some complaint from Rome (B. C.
167), a thousand of the chief citizens of Achaia were sent as
prisoners to Italy and detained there until less than 300
survived to return to their homes. Among them was the
historian Polybios. A little later (B. C. 146) there was a
wild revolt from the Roman yoke, in which Corinth took the
lead. A few months of war ensued, ending in a decisive battle
at Leukopetra. Then Corinth was sacked and destroyed by the
Roman army and the Achaian League disappeared from history.

_E. A. Freeman,
History of Federal Government,
chapters 5-9._

ALSO IN:
_C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapters 61-66 (volume 8)._

_Polybius,
History._

GREECE: B. C. 214-146.
The Roman conquest.

The series of wars in which the Romans made themselves masters
of Greece were known in their annals as the Macedonian Wars.
At the beginning, they were innocent of aggression. A young
and ambitious but unprincipled king of Macedonia—Philip, who
succeeded the able Antigonos Doson—had put himself in
alliance with the Carthaginians and assailed the Romans in the
midst of their desperate conflict with Hannibal. For the time
they were unable to do more than trouble Philip so far as to
prevent his bringing effective reinforcements to the enemy at
their doors, and this they accomplished in part by a treaty
with the Ætolians, which enlisted that unscrupulous league
upon their side. The first Macedonian war, which began B. C.
214, was terminated by the Peace of Dyrrachium, B. C. 205. The
Peace was of five years duration, and Philip employed it in
reckless undertakings against Pergamus, against Rhodes,
against Athens, everyone of which carried complaints to Rome,
the rising arbiter of the Mediterranean world, whose hostility
Philip lost no opportunity to provoke. On the Ides of March,
B. C. 200, the Roman senate declared war. In the spring of B.
C. 197 this second Macedonian War was ended at the battle of
Cynoscephalæ—so called from the name of a range of hills
known as the Dog-heads—where the Macedonian army was
annihilated by the consul T. Quinctius Flamininus. At the next
assembly of the Greeks for the Isthmian Games, a crier made
proclamation in the arena that the Roman Senate and T.
Quinctius the General, having conquered King Philip and the
Macedonians, declared all the Greeks who had been subject to
the king free and independent. Henceforth, whatever freedom
and independence the states of Greece enjoyed were according
to the will of Rome. An interval of twenty-five years, broken
by the invasion of Antiochus and his defeat by the Romans at
Thermopylæ (see SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187), was followed by a
third Macedonian War. Philip was now dead and succeeded by his
son Perseus, known to be hostile to Rome and accused of
intrigues with her enemies. The Roman Senate forestalled his
intentions by declaring war. The war which opened B. C. 171
was closed by the battle of Pydna, fought June 22, B. C. 168,
where 20,000 Macedonians were slain and 11,000 taken
prisoners, while the Romans lost scarcely 100 men. Perseus
attempted flight, but was soon driven to give himself up and
was sent to Rome. The Macedonian kingdom was then extinguished
and its territory divided between four nominal republics,
tributary to Rome. Twenty years after, there was an attempt
made by a pretender to re-establish the Macedonian throne, and
a fourth Macedonian War occurred; but it was soon finished (B.
C. 146—see above, B. C. 280-146). The four republics then
gave way, to form a Roman province of Macedonia and Epirus,
while the remainder of Greece, in turn, became the Roman
province of Achaia.

_C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapters 64-66 (volume 8)._

ALSO IN:
_H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
chapters 39, 43 and 45._

_E. A. Freeman,
History of Federal Government,
chapters 8-9._

_Polybius,
General History._

GREECE: B. C. 191.
War of Antiochus of Syria and the Romans.

See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.

GREECE: B. C. 146-A. D. 180.
Under the Romans, to the reign of Marcus Aurelius.
Sufferings in the Mithridatic war and revolt,
and in the Roman civil wars.
Treatment by the emperors.
Munificence of Herodes Atticus.

"It was some time [after the Roman conquest] before the Greeks
had great reason to regret their fortune. A combination of
causes, which could hardly have entered into the calculations
of any politician, enabled them to preserve their national
institutions, and to exercise all their former social
influence, even after the annihilation of their political
existence. Their vanity was flattered by their admitted
superiority in arts and literature, and by the respect paid to
their usages and prejudices by the Romans. Their political
subjection was at first not very burdensome; and a
considerable portion of the nation was allowed to retain the
appearance of independence.
{1604}
Athens and Sparta were honoured with the title of allies of
Rome. [Athens retained this independent existence, partaking
something of the position of Hamburg in the Germanic body,
until the time of Caracalla, when its citizens were absorbed
into the Roman empire.—Footnote.] The nationality of the
Greeks was so interwoven with their municipal institutions,
that the Romans found it impossible to abolish the local
administration; and an imperfect attempt made at the time of
the conquest of Achaia was soon abandoned. … The Roman
senate was evidently not without great jealousy and some fear
of the Greeks; and great prudence was displayed in adopting a
number of measures by which they were gradually weakened, and
cautiously broken to the yoke of their conquerors. … It was
not until after the time of Augustus, when the conquest of
every portion of the Greek nation had been completed, that the
Romans began to view the Greeks in the contemptible light in
which they are represented by the writers of the capital.
Crete was not reduced into the form of a province until about
eight years after the subjection of Achaia, and its conquest
was not effected without difficulty, after a war of three
years, by the presence of a consular army. The resistance it
offered was so obstinate that it was almost depopulated ere
the Romans could complete its conquest. … The Roman
government … soon adopted measures tending to diminish the
resources of the Greek states when received as allies of the
republic. … If we could place implicit faith in the
testimony of so firm and partial an adherent of the Romans as
Polybius, we must believe that the Roman administration was at
first characterised by a love of justice, and that the Roman
magistrates were far less venal than the Greeks. … Less than
a century of irresponsible power effected a wonderful change
in the conduct of the Roman magistrates. Cicero declares that
the senate made a traffic of justice to the provincials. …
But as the government of Rome grew more oppressive, and the
amount of the taxes levied on the provinces was more severely
exacted, the increased power of the republic rendered any
rebellion of the Greeks utterly hopeless. … For sixty years
after the conquest of Achaia, the Greeks remained docile
subjects of Rome. … The number of Roman usurers increased,
and the exactions of Roman publicans in collecting the taxes
became more oppressive, so that when the army of Mithridates
invaded Greece, B. C. 86, while Rome appeared plunged in
anarchy by the civil broils of the partisans of Marius and
Sylla, the Greeks in office conceived the vain hope of
recovering their independence. …

See MITHRIDATIC WARS;
and ATHENS: B. C. 87-86.

Both parties, during the Mithridatic war, inflicted severe
injuries on Greece. … Many of the losses were never
repaired. The foundations of national prosperity were
undermined, and it henceforward became impossible to save from
the annual consumption of the inhabitants the sums necessary
to replace the accumulated capital of ages, which this short
war had annihilated."

_G. Finlay,
Greece under the Romans,
chapter 1._

"Scarcely had the storm of Roman war passed by, when the
Cilician pirates, finding the coasts of Greece peculiarly
favorable for their marauding incursions, and tempted by the
wealth accumulated in the cities and temples, commenced their
depredations on so gigantic a scale that Rome felt obliged to
put forth all her military forces for their suppression. The
exploits of Pompey the Great, who was clothed with autocratic
power to destroy this gigantic evil, fill the brightest
chapter in the history of that celebrated but too unfortunate
commander. …

See CILICIA, PIRATES OF.

The civil wars in which the great Republic expired had the
fields of Greece for their theatre. Under the tramp of
contending armies, her fertile plains were desolated, and
Roman blood, in a cause not her own; again and again moistened
her soil.

See ROME: B. C. 48, 44-42, and 31.

But at length the civil wars have come to an end, and the
Empire introduces, for the first time in the melancholy
history of man, a state of universal peace. Greece still
maintains her pre-eminence in literature and art, and her
schools are frequented by the sons of the Roman aristocracy.
Her elder poets serve as models to the literary genius of the
Augustan age. … The historians form themselves on Attic
prototypes, and the philosophers of Rome divide themselves
among the Grecian sects, while in Athens the Platonists, the
Stoics, the Peripatetics, and the Epicureans still haunt the
scenes with which the names of their masters were inseparably
associated. … The establishment of the Empire made but
little change in the administration of Greece. Augustus,
indeed, showed no great solicitude, except to maintain the
country in subjection by his military colonies,—especially
those of Patræ and Nicopolis. He even deprived Athens of the
privileges she had enjoyed under the Republic, and broke down
the remaining power of Sparta, by declaring the independence
of her subject towns. Some of his successors treated the
country with favor, and endeavored, by a clement use of
authority, to mitigate the sufferings of its decline. Even
Nero, the amiable fiddler of Rome, was proud to display the
extent of his musical abilities in their theatres. … The
noble Trajan allowed the Greeks to retain their former local
privileges, and did much to improve their condition by his
wise and just administration. Hadrian was a passionate lover
of Greek art and literature. Athens especially received the
amplest benefits from his taste and wealth. He finished the
temple of Olympian Zeus; established a public library; built a
pantheon and a gymnasium; rebuilt the temple of Apollo at
Megara; improved the old roads of Greece and made new ones.
… Antoninus and Marcus Aurelius showed good will to Greece.
The latter rebuilt the temple at Eleusis, and improved the
Athenian schools, raising the salaries of the teachers, and in
various ways contributing to make Athens, as it had been
before, the most illustrious seat of learning in the world. It
was in the reign of this Emperor, in the second century of our
era, that one of the greatest benefactors of Athens and all
Greece lived,--Herodes Atticus, distinguished alike for
wealth, learning, and eloquence. Born at Marathon, …
educated at Athens by the best teachers his father's wealth
could procure, he became on going to Rome, in early life, the
rhetorical teacher of Marcus Aurelius himself. Antoninus Pius
bestowed on him the honor of the consulship; but he preferred
the career of a teacher at Athens to the highest political
dignities … , and he was followed thither by young men of
the most eminent Roman families, from the Emperor's down. …
{1605}
At Athens, south of the Ilissus, he built the stadium … and
the theatre of Regilla. … At Corinth he built a theatre; at
Olympia, an aqueduct; at Delphi, a race-course; and at
Thermopylæ, a hospital. Peloponnesus, Eubœa, Bœotia, and
Epeirus experienced his bounty, and even Italy was not
forgotten in the lavish distribution of his wealth. He died in
A. D. 180."

_C. C. Felton,
Greece, Ancient and Modern, 4th course,
lecture 3 (volume 2)._

On the influence which Greek genius and culture exercised upon
the Romans,

See HELLENIC GENIUS AND INFLUENCE.

ALSO IN:
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome: The Provinces,
chapter 7 (volume 1)._

_J. P. Mahaffy,
The Greek World under Roman Sway._

See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 197-A. D. 138.

GREECE: B. C. 48.
Cæsar's campaign against Pompeius.
Pharsalia.

See ROME: B. C. 48.

GREECE: A. D. 258-395.
Gothic invasions.

See GOTHS.

GREECE: A. D. 330.
Transference of the capital of the Roman Empire to Byzantium
(Constantinople).

See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 330.

GREECE: A. D. 394-395.
Final division of the Roman Empire between the sons of
Theodosius.
Definite organization of the Eastern Empire under Arcadius.

See ROME: A. D. 394-395.

GREECE: A. D. 425.
Legal separation of the Eastern and Western Empires.

See Rome: A. D. 423-450.

GREECE: A. D. 446.
Devastating invasion of the Huns.

See HUNS: A. D. 441-446.

GREECE: A. D. 527-567.
The reign of Justinian at Constantinople.
His recovery of Italy and Africa.

See ROME: A. D. 527-567, and 535-553.

GREECE: 7th Century.
Slavonic occupation of the Peninsula.

See SLAVONIC PEOPLES: 6TH AND 7TH CENTURIES.

GREECE: A. D. 717-1205.
The Byzantine Empire to its fall.

See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 717, to 1204-1205.

GREECE: A. D. 1205-1261.
Overthrow of the Byzantine Empire by the Crusaders.
The Latin Empire of Romania.
The Greek Empire of Nicæa.
The dukedoms of Athens and Naxos;
The principality of Achaia.

See ROMANIA; GREEK EMPIRE OF NICÆA;
ATHENS: A. D.1205;
ACHAIA: A. D. 1205-1387;
and NAXOS.

GREECE: A. D. 1261-1453.
The restored Byzantine or Greek Empire.

See CONSTANTINOPLE; A. D. 1261-1453;
and BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1261-1453.

GREECE: A. D. 1453-1479.
The Turkish Conquest.

See TURKS: A. D. 1451-1481;
CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1453, and 1453-1481;
and ATHENS: A. D. 1456.

GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479.
War of Turks and Venetians in the Peninsula.
Siege of Corinth.
Sack of Athens.
Massacres at Negropont and Croia.

"The taking of Constantinople by the Turks, and the captivity
of the Venetians settled in Pera, threatened [the power of
Venice] … in the East; and she felt no repugnance to enter
into a treaty with the enemies of her religion. After a year's
negotiation, terms were concluded [1454] between the Sultan
and Venice; by which her possessions were secured to her, and
her trade guaranteed throughout the empire. In virtue of this
treaty she continued to occupy Modon, Coron, Napoli di
Romania, Argos, and other cities on the borders of the
Peninsula, together with Eubœa (Negropont) and some of the
smaller islands. But this good understanding was interrupted
in 1463, when the Turks contrived an excuse for attacking the
Venetian territory. Under pretence of resenting the asylum
afforded to a Turkish refugee, the Pasha of the Morea besieged
and captured Argos; and the Republic felt itself compelled
immediately to resent the aggression. A re-inforcement was
sent from Venice to Napoli, and Argos was quickly recaptured.
Corinth was next besieged, and the project of fortifying the
isthmus was once more renewed. … The labour of 30,000
workmen accomplished the work in 15 days; a stone wall of more
than 12 feet high, defended by a ditch and flanked by 136
towers, was drawn across the isthmus. … But the approach
of the Turks, whose numbers were probably exaggerated by
report, threw the Venetians into distrust and consternation;
and, unwilling to confide in the strength of their rampart,
they abandoned the siege of Corinth, and retreated to Napoli,
from which the infidels were repulsed with the loss of 5,000
men. The Peloponnesus was now exposed to the predatory
retaliations of the Turks and Venetians; and the Christians
appeared anxious to rival or surpass the Mahomedans in the
refinement of their barbarous inflictions. … In the year
1465, Sigismondo Malatesta landed in the Morea with a
re-inforcement of 1,000 men; and, without effecting the
reduction of the citadel, captured and burned Misitra [near
the ruins of ancient Sparta]. In the following year, Vittore
Cappello, with the Venetian fleet, arrived in the straits of
Euripus; and landing at Aulis marched into Attica. After
making himself master of the Piræus, he laid siege to Athens;
her walls were overthrown; her inhabitants plundered; and the
Venetians retreated with the spoil to the opposite shores of
Eubœa. The victorious career of Matthias Corvinus, King of
Hungary, for a time diverted the Sultan from the war in the
Morea; but … in the beginning of the year 1470 a fleet of
108 gallies, besides a number of smaller vessels, manned by a
force 70,000 strong, issued from the harbour of
Constantinople, and sailed for the straits of Euripus. … The
army landed without molestation on the island, which they
united to the mainland by a bridge of boats, and immediately
proceeded to lay siege to the city of Negropont. … The hopes
of the besieged were now centred in the Venetian fleet, which,
under the command of Nicolo Canale, lay at anchor in the
Saronic Gulf. But that admiral, whilst he awaited a
re-inforcement, let slip the favourable opportunity of
preventing the debarcation of the enemy, or of shutting up the
Turks in the island by the destruction of their half-deserted
fleet and bridge of boats. By an unaccountable inactivity, he
suffered the city to be attacked, which, after a vigorous
resistance of nearly a month, was carried by assault [July 12,
1470]; and all the inhabitants, who did not escape into the
citadel, were put to the sword. At length that fortress was
also taken; and the barbarous conqueror, who had promised to
respect the head of the intrepid governor, deemed it no
violation of his word to saw his victim in halves. After this
decisive blow, which reduced the whole island, Mahomed led
back his conquering army to Constantinople. … This success
encouraged the Turks to attack the Venetians in their Italian
territory; and the Pasha of Bosnia invaded Istria and Friuli,
and carried fire and sword almost to the gates of Udine.
{1606}
In the following year [1474], however, the Turks were baffled
in their attempt to reduce Scutari in Albania, which had been
delivered by the gallant Scanderbeg to the guardian care of
Venice. Some abortive negotiations for peace suspended
hostilities until 1477, when the troops of Mahomed laid siege
to Croia in Albania, which they reduced to the severest
distress. But a new incursion into Friuli struck a panic into
the inhabitants of Venice, who beheld, from the tops of their
churches and towers, the raging flames which devoured the
neighbouring villages." The Turks, however, withdrew into
Albania, where the siege of Croia was terminated by its
surrender and the massacre of its inhabitants, and the Sultan,
in person, renewed the attack on Scutari. The stubborn
garrison of that stronghold, however, resisted, with fearful
slaughter, a continuous assault made upon their walls during
two days and a night. Mahomed was forced to convert the siege
into a blockade, and his troops reappeared in Friuli. "These
repeated aggressions on her territories made Venice every day
more anxious to conclude a peace with the Sultan," and a
treaty was signed in April, 1479. "It was agreed that the
islands of Negropont and Mitylene, with the cities of Croia
and Scutari in Albania, and of Tenaro in the Morea, should be
consigned to the Turk; whilst other conquests were to be
reciprocally restored to their former owners. A tribute of
10,000 ducats was imposed upon Venice, and the inhabitants of
Scutari [now reduced to 500 men and 150 women] were to be
permitted to evacuate the city."

_Sir R. Comyn,
History of the Western Empire,
chapter 31 (volume 2)._

ALSO IN:
_Sir E. S. Creasy,
History of the Ottoman Turks,
chapter 5._

GREECE: A. D. 1645-1669.
The war of Candia.
Surrender of Crete to the Turks by the Venetians.

See TURKS: A. D. 1645-1669.

GREECE: A. D. 1684-1696.
Conquests by the Venetians from the Turks.

See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

GREECE: A. D. 1699.
Cession of part of the Morea to Venice by the Turks.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

GREECE: A. D. 1714-1718.
The Venetians expelled again from the Morea by the Turks.
Corfu defended.

See TURKS: A. D. 1714-1718.

GREECE: A. D. 1770-1772.
Revolt against the Turkish rule.
Russian encouragement and desertion.

See TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.

GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.
Overthrow of Turkish rule.
Intervention of Russia, England and France.
Battle of Navarino.
Establishment of national independence.

"The Spanish revolution of 1820 [see SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827],
which was speedily followed by the revolutions of Naples,
Sicily, and Piedmont, caused a great excitement throughout
Europe, and paved the way for the Greek revolution of 1821.
Since the beginning of the century the Greeks had been
preparing for the struggle; in fact, for more than fifty years
there had been a general movement in the direction of
independence. … There had been many insurrections against
the Turkish authority, but they were generally suppressed
without difficulty, though with the shedding of much Greek
blood. Nearly every village in Greece suffered from pillage by
the Turks, and the families were comparatively few that did
not mourn a father, son, or brother, killed by the Turks or
carried into slavery, or a daughter or sister transported to a
Turkish harem. … Notwithstanding their subjugation, many of
the Greeks were commercially prosperous, and a large part of
the traffic of the East was in their hands. They conducted
nearly all the coasting trade of the Levant, and a few years
before the revolution they had 600 vessels mounting 6,000 guns
(for defence against pirates) and manned by 18,000 seamen. …
In laying their plans for independence the Greeks resorted to
the formation of secret societies, and so well was the scheme
conducted that everything was ripe for insurrection before the
Turkish rulers had any suspicion of the state of affairs. A
great association was formed which included Greeks everywhere,
not only in Greece and its islands, but in Constantinople,
Austria, Germany, England, and other countries, wherever a
Greek could be found. Men of other nationalities were
occasionally admitted, but only when their loyalty to the
Greek cause was beyond question, and their official positions
gave them a chance to aid in the work. Several distinguished
Russians were members, among them Count Capo D'Istria, a Greek
by birth, who held the office of private secretary to the
Emperor Alexander I. of Russia. The society was known as the
Hetaira, or Hetairist, and consisted of several degrees or
grades. The highest contained only sixteen persons, whose
names were not all known, and it was impossible for any member
of the lower classes to ascertain them. … All the Hetairists
looked hopefully towards Russia, partly in consequence of
their community of religion, and partly because of the
fellow-feeling of the two countries in cordially detesting the
Turk. … The immediate cause of the revolution, or rather the
excuse for it, was the death of the Hospodar of Wallachia,
January 30, 1821, followed by the appointment of his
successor. During the interregnum, which naturally left the
government in a weakened condition, the Hetairists determined
to strike their blow for liberty. A band of 150 Greeks and
Arnauts, under the command of Theodore Vladimiruko, formerly a
lieutenant-colonel in the Russian service, marched out of
Bucharest and seized the small town of Czernitz, near Trajan's
Bridge, on the Danube. There Theodore issued a proclamation,
and such was the feeling of discontent among the people, that
in a few days he had a force of 12,000 men under his command.
Soon afterwards there was an insurrection in Jassy, the
capital of Moldavia, headed by Prince Alexander Ipsilanti, an
officer in the Russian service. He issued a proclamation in
which the aid of Russia was distinctly promised, and as the
news of this proclamation was carried to Greece, there was a
general movement in favor of insurrection. The Russian
minister assured the Porte that his government had nothing to
do with the insurrection, and the Patriarch and Synod of
Constantinople issued a proclamation emphatically denouncing
the movement, but in spite of this assurance and proclamation
the insurrection went on. Count Nesselrode declared officially
that Ipsilanti's name would be stricken from the Russian army
list, and that his act was one for which he alone was
responsible. This announcement was the death-blow of the
insurrection in Moldavia and Wallachia, as the forces of
Theodore and Ipsilanti were suppressed, after some sharp
fighting, by the hordes of Moslems that were brought against
them. … Nearly the whole of Greece was in full insurrection
in a few months, and with far better prospects than had the
insurrection on the Danube.
{1607}
Turks and Greeks were embittered against each other; the
war-cry of the Turk was, 'Death to the Christian!' while that
of the Christian was, 'Death to the Turk!' The example was set
by the Turks, and, to the eternal disgrace of the Turkish
government, slaughter in cold blood was made official. It was
by the order and authority of the Porte that Gregory,
Patriarch of Constantinople, a revered prelate, eighty years
of age, was seized on Easter Sunday, as he was descending from
the altar where he had been celebrating divine service, and
hanged at the gate of his archiepiscopal palace, amid the
shouts and howls of a Moslem mob. After hanging three hours,
the body was cut down and delivered to some Jews, who dragged
it about the streets and threw it into the sea, whence it was
recovered the same night by some Christian fishermen. Some
weeks later it was taken to Odessa and buried with great
ceremony. This act of murder was the more atrocious on the
part of the Turks, since the Patriarch had denounced the
insurrection in a public proclamation, and his life and
character were most blameless and exemplary. It is safe to say
that this barbarity had more to do with fanning the fires of
revolt than any other act of the Turkish government. But it
was by no means the only act of the kind of which the Turks
were guilty. The Patriarch of Adrianople with eight of his
ecclesiastics was beheaded, and so were the dragoman of the
Porte and several other eminent residents of Constantinople,
descended from Greek settlers of two or three centuries ago.
Churches were everywhere broken open and plundered; Greek
citizens of the highest rank were murdered, their property
stolen, and their wives and daughters sold as slaves; on the
15th of June five archbishops and a great number of laymen
were hanged in the streets, and 450 mechanics were sold and
transported into slavery; at Salonica the battlements of the
town were lined with Christian heads, from which the blood ran
down and discolored the water in the ditch. In all the great
towns of the empire there were similar atrocities; some were
the work of mobs, which the authorities did not seek to
restrain, but the greater part of them were ordered by the
governors or other officials, and met the approval of the
Porte. At Smyrna, the Christian population was massacred by
thousands without regard to age or sex, and in the island of
Cyprus a body of 10,000 troops sent by the Porte ravaged the
island, executed the metropolitan, five bishops, and
thirty-six other ecclesiastics, and converted the whole island
into a scene of rapine, bloodshed, and robbery. Several
thousand Christians were killed before the atrocities ceased,
and hundreds of their wives and daughters were carried into
Turkish harems. These and similar outrages plainly told the
Greeks that no hope remained except in complete independence
of the Turks, and from one end of Greece to the other the
fires of insurrection were everywhere lighted. The islands, as
well as the mainland, were in full revolt, and the fleet of
coasting vessels, nearly all of them armed for resisting
pirates, gave the Turks a great deal of trouble. … On the
land, battle followed battle in different parts of the
country, and the narration of the events of the insurrection
would fill a bulky volume. … During the latter part of 1821,
the advantages to the Greeks were sufficient to encourage them
to proclaim their independence, which was done in January,
1822. In the same month the Turks besieged Corinth, and in the
following April they besieged and captured Chios (Scio),
ending the capture with the slaughter of 40,000 inhabitants,
the most horrible massacre of modern times. In July, the
Greeks were victorious at Thermopylæ; in the same month
Corinth fell, with great slaughter of the defenders. In April,
1823, the Greeks held a national congress at Argos; the
victories of Marco Bozzaris occurred in the following June,
and in August he was killed in a night attack upon the Turkish
camp; in August, too, Lord Byron landed at Athens to take part
in the cause of Greece, which was attracting the attention of
the whole civilized world. The first Greek loan was issued in
England in February, 1824; Lord Byron died at Missolonghi in
the following April; in August the Capitan Pasha was defeated
at Samos with heavy loss; in October, the provisional
government of Greece was set up; and the fighting became
almost continuous in the mountain districts of Greece. In
February, 1825, Ibrahim Pasha arrived with a powerful army
from Egypt, which captured Navarino in May, and Tripolitza in
June of the same year. In July, the provisional government
invoked the aid of England; in the following April (1826),
Ibrahim Pasha took Missolonghi after a long and heroic defence
[for twelve months]; and nearly a year later Reschid Pasha
captured Athens. Down to the beginning of 1826, the Greeks had
felt seriously the deprivation of Russian sympathy and aid for
which they had been led to look before the revolution. The
death of Alexander I., and the accession of Nicholas in
December, 1825, caused a change in the situation. The British
government sent the Duke of Wellington to St. Petersburg
ostensibly to congratulate Nicholas on his elevation to the
throne, but really to secure concert of action in regard to
Greece. On the 4th of April a protocol was signed by the Duke
of Wellington, Prince Lieven, and Count Nesselrode, which may
be considered the foundation of Greek independence. Out of
this protocol grew the treaty of July 6, 1827, between
England, Russia, and France, by which it was stipulated that
those nations should mediate between the contending Greeks and
Turks. They proposed to the Sultan that he should retain a
nominal authority over the Greeks, but receive from them a
fixed annual tribute. … The Sultan … refused to listen to
the scheme of mediation, and immediately made preparations for
a fresh campaign, and also for the defence of Turkey in case
of an attack. Ships and reinforcements were sent from
Constantinople, and the Egyptian fleet, consisting of two
84-gun ships, twelve frigates, and forty-one transports, was
despatched from Alexandria with 5,000 troops, and reached
Navarino towards the end of August, 1827. The allied powers
had foreseen the possibility of the Porte's refusal of
mediation, and taken measures accordingly; an English fleet
under Admiral Sir Edward Codrington, and a French fleet under
Admiral De Rigny, were in the Mediterranean, and were shortly
afterwards joined by the Russian fleet under Admiral Heiden.
… The allied admirals held a conference, and decided to
notify Ibrahim Pasha that he must stop the barbarities of
plundering and burning villages and slaughtering their
inhabitants.
{1608}
But Ibrahim would not listen to their remonstrances, and to
show his utter disregard for the powers, he commanded four of
his ships to sail to the Gulf of Patras to occupy Missolonghi
and relieve some Turkish forts, in effect to clear those
waters of every Greek man-of-war which was stationed there.
This he did easily, the allied squadrons being temporarily
absent. Admiral Codrington pursued him and, without
difficulty, drove him back to Navarino. … A general muster
of all the ships was ordered by Admiral Codrington,
Commander-in-Chief of the squadron. … The allied fleet
mounted 1,324 guns, while the combined Turkish and Egyptian
fleet mounted 2,240 guns. To this superiority in the number of
guns on board must be added the batteries on shore, which were
all in the hands of the Turks. But the Christians had a point
in their favor in their superiority in ships of the line, of
which they possessed ten, while the Turks had but three. …
The allied fleet entered the Bay of Navarino about two o'clock
on the afternoon of October 20, 1827. … In less than four
hours from the beginning of the contest the Ottoman fleet had
ceased to be. Every armed ship was burnt, sunk, or destroyed;
the only remaining vessels belonging to the Turks and
Egyptians were twenty-five of the smallest transports, which
were spared by order of Admiral Codrington. It was estimated
that the loss in men on the Turkish and Egyptian vessels was
fully 7,000. On the side of the allies, no vessels were
destroyed, but the Asia, Albion, and Genoa of the English
fleet were so much injured, that Admiral Codrington sent them
to Malta for repairs which would enable them to stand the
voyage home to England. Seventy-five men were killed and 197
wounded on the British fleet, and the loss of the French was
43 killed and 117 wounded. The Russian loss was not reported.
… It was feared that when the news of the event at Navarino
reached Constantinople, the lives of all Europeans in that
city, including the foreign ambassadors, would be in great
danger, but happily there was no violence on the part of the
Turks. The ambassadors pressed for an answer to their note of
August 16th, and at length the Sultan replied: 'My positive,
absolute, definitive, unchangeable, eternal answer is, that
the Sublime Porte does not accept any proposition regarding
the Greeks, and will persist in its own will regarding them
even to the last day of judgment.' The Porte even demanded
compensation for the destruction of the fleet, and
satisfaction for the insult, and that the allies should
abstain from all interference in the affairs of Greece. The
reply of the ambassadors was to the effect that the treaty of
July obliged them to defend Greece, and that the Turks had no
claim whatever for reparation for the affair of Navarino. The
ambassadors left Constantinople on the 8th December, and soon
afterwards Count Capo D'Istria, who had been elected President
of Greece, took his seat, and issued a proclamation, declaring
that the Ottoman rule over the country was at an end after
three centuries of oppression. Thus was the independence of
Greece established. There was little fighting after the events
of Navarino, and early in 1828 Admiral Codrington and Ibrahim
Pasha held a convention and agreed upon measures for
evacuating the land of the Hellenes. During the summer and
autumn Patras, Navarino, and Modon were successively
surrendered to the French, and the Morea was evacuated by the
Turks. Missolonghi was surrendered to Greece early in 1829,
and by the Treaty of Adrianople in September of the same year
the Porte acknowledged the independence of Greece, which was
henceforth to be one in the family of nations."

_T. W. Knox,
Decisive Battles since Waterloo,
chapter 3._

ALSO IN:
_C. A. Fyffe,
History of Modern Europe,
volume 2, chapter 4._

_S. G. Howe,
Historical Sketch of the Greek Revolution._

_T. Gordon,
History of the Greek Revolution._

_Lord Byron,
Letters and Journals, 1823-4 (volume 2)._

_E. J. Trelawny,
Records of Shelley, Byron, etc.,
chapters 19-20 (volume 2)._

_S. Walpole,
History of England,
chapters 9 and 11 (volume 2)._

GREECE: A. D. 1822-1823.
The Congress of Verona.

See VERONA, THE CONGRESS OF.

GREECE: A. D. 1830-1862.
The independent kingdom constituted under Otho of Bavaria.
Its unsatisfactoriness.
Dethronement of King Otho.
Election of Prince George of Denmark.

"On February 3d, 1830, a protocol was signed which constituted
Greece an independent State; and on the 11th of the same month
Prince Leopold of Belgium accepted the crown which was offered
to him by the Powers: He, however, soon resigned the honour;
giving for his main reason the hopelessness of establishing a
Greek kingdom from which Krete, Epeiros, and Thessaly were to
be excluded. The northern boundary, as drawn in 1830,
stretched from the Gulf of Zeitoun to the mouth of the
Aspropotamos, thus depriving Greece of the greater part of
Akarnania and Aitolia. After the assassination [by the family
of an insurgent chief] of Count Capodistna (who was the
popularly elected President of Greece from April 14th, 1827,
to October 9th, 1831), and after the Powers had selected
Prince Otho of Bavaria for the position declined by Prince
Leopold, an arrangement was concluded between England, France,
Russia, and Turkey, whereby the boundary was drawn from the
Gulf of Arta to the same termination in the Gulf of Zeitoun.
But a few months later the district of Zeitoun, north of the
Spercheios, was added to Greece; and the new kingdom paid to
the Porte an indemnity of 40,000,000 piastres, or about
£460,000. The Powers guaranteed a loan to Greece of 60,000,000
francs, out of which the payment of the indemnity was made;
and thus, at last, in the autumn of 1832, the fatherland of
the Greeks was redeemed. Under Otho of Bavaria the country was
governed at first by a Council of Regency, consisting of Count
Armansperg, Professor Maurer, and General Heideck. Maurer was
removed in 1834, and Armansperg in 1837; and at the close of
the latter year, after the trial of another Bavarian as
president of the Council, a Greek was for the first time
appointed to the principal post in the Ministry. The greatest
benefit conferred upon the country by its German rulers was
the reinforcement of the legal system, and the elevation of
the authority of the law. But, on the other hand, an
unfortunate attempt was made to centralize the whole
administration of Greece, her ancient municipal rights and
customs were overlooked, taxation was almost as indiscriminate
and burdensome as under the Turks, whilst large sums of money
were spent upon the army, and on other objects of an
unremunerative or insufficiently remunerative character, so
that the young State was laden with pecuniary liabilities
before anything had been done to develope her resources. …
{1609}
No national assembly was convened, no anxiety was shown to
conciliate the people, liberty of expression was curtailed,
personal offence was given by the foreigners, and by
Armansperg in particular; brigandage and piracy flourished,
and Greece began to suffer all the evils which might have been
expected to arise from the government of unsympathetic aliens.
… In addition to the rapid and alarming increase of
brigandage by land and piracy by sea, there were popular
insurrections in Messenia, Maina, Akarnania, and elsewhere.
One of the most capable Englishmen who have ever espoused the
cause of the Greeks, General Gordon, was commissioned in 1835
to clear northern Greece of the marauders by whom it was
overrun. He executed his mission in an admirable manner,
sweeping the whole of Phokis, Aitolia, and Akarnania, and
securing the cooperation of the Turkish Pasha at Larissa.
Hundreds of brigands were put to flight,—but only to return
again next year, and to enjoy as great immunity as ever. …
In the absence of a strong and active organization of the
national forces, brigandage in Greece was an ineradicable
institution; and, as a matter of fact, it was not suppressed
until the year 1870. Gradually the discontent of the people,
and the feebleness and infatuation of the Government, were
breeding a revolution. … The three Guaranteeing Powers urged
on Otho and his advisers the necessity of granting a
Constitution, which had been promised on the establishment of
the kingdom; and moral support was thus given to two very
strong parties, known by the titles of Philorthodox and
Constitutional, whose leaders looked to Russia and England
respectively. The King and the Government neglected symptoms
which were conspicuous to all besides, and the revolution of
1843 found them practically unprepared and helpless. On the
15th of September, after a well-contrived demonstration of the
troops, which was acquiesced in and virtually sanctioned by
the representatives of the three Powers, King Otho gave way,
and signed the decrees which had been submitted to him. The
Bavarian Ministers were dismissed, Mavrokordatos was made
Premier, a National Assembly was convoked, and a Constitution
was granted. For the first time since the Roman conquest,
Greece resumed the dignity of self-government. The
Constitution of 1844 was by no means an adequate one. It did
not fully restore the privileges of local self-rule, and it
only partially modified the system of centralization, from
which so many evils had sprung. But it was nevertheless a
great advance towards popular liberty. … The difficulties
which arose between Russia and Turkey in 1853, and which led
up to the Crimean War, inspired the Greeks with a hope that
their 'grand idea'—the inheritance of the dominion of Turkey
in Europe, so far as the Greek-speaking provinces are
concerned—might be on the eve of accomplishment. … The
Russian army crossed the Pruth in July, 1853, and preparations
were at once made by the Greeks to invade Turkey. … The
temper of the whole country was such that England and France
deemed it necessary to take urgent measures for preventing an
alliance between Russia and Greece. In May, 1854, an
Anglo-French force was landed at the Peiraios, where it
remained until February, 1857. Pressure was thus brought to
bear upon King Otho, who was not in a position to resist it.
… The humiliation of the Greeks under the foreign occupation
weakened the authority of the King and his Ministers, and the
unhappy country was once more a prey to rapine and disorder.
… From the year 1859 a new portent began to make itself
apparent in Greece. As the insurrection of 1821 may be said to
have derived some of its energy from the upheaval of France
and Europe in the preceding decades, so the Greek revolution
of 1862 was doubtless hastened, if not suggested, by the
Italian regeneration of 1848-1861. … On February 13th, 1862,
the garrison of Nauplia revolted; other outbreaks followed;
and at last, in October, during an ill-advised absence of the
Monarch from his capital, the garrison of Athens broke out
into open insurrection. A Provisional Government was
nominated; the deposition of King Otho was proclaimed; and
when the royal couple hurried back to the city they were
refused an entrance. The representatives of the Powers were
appealed to in vain; and the unfortunate Bavarian, after
wearing the crown for thirty years, sailed from the Peiraios
never to return. The hopes of the Greeks at once centred in
Prince Alfred of England for their future king. … But the
agreement of the three Powers on the establishment of the
kingdom expressly excluded from the throne all members of the
reigning families of England, France, and Russia; and thus,
although Prince Alfred was elected king with practical
unanimity, the English Government would not sanction his
acceptance of the crown. The choice eventually and happily
fell upon Prince George of Denmark, the present King of the
Hellenes; and neither Greece nor Europe has had reason to
regret the selection. … From this time forward the history
of modern Greece enters upon a brighter phase."

_L. Sergeant,
Greece,
chapter 5._

ALSO IN:
_L. Sergeant,
New Greece,
part 2, chapter 8-10._

GREECE: A. D. 1846-1850.
Rude enforcement of English claims.
The Don Pacifico Affair.

"Greek independence had been established under the joint
guardianship of Russia, France, and England. Constitutional
government had been guaranteed. It had however been constantly
delayed. Otho, the Bavarian Prince, who had been placed upon
the throne, was absolute in his own tendencies, and supported
by the absolute Powers; and France, eager to establish her own
influence in the East, … had sided with the Absolutists,
leaving England the sole supporter of constitutional rule. The
Government and administration were deplorably bad. … Any
demands raised by the English against the Government—and the
bad administration afforded abundant opportunity for
dispute—were certain to encounter the opposition of the King,
supported by the advice of all the diplomatic body. Such
questions had arisen. Ionians, claiming to be British
subjects, had been maltreated, the boat's crew of a Queen's
ship roughly handled, and in two cases the money claims of
English subjects against the Government disregarded. They were
trivial enough in themselves; a piece of land belonging to a
Mr. Finlay [the historian of mediæval and modern Greece], a
Scotchman, had been incorporated into the royal garden, and
the price—no doubt somewhat exorbitant—which he set upon it
refused. The house of Don Pacifico, a Jew, a native of
Gibraltar, had been sacked by a mob, without due interference
on the part of the police. He demanded compensation for
ill-usage, for property destroyed, and for the loss of certain
papers, the only proof as he declared of a somewhat doubtful
claim against the Portuguese Government.
{1610}
Such claims in the ordinary course of things should have been
made in the Greek Law Court. But Lord Palmerston, placing no
trust in the justice to be there obtained, made them a direct
national claim upon the Government. For several years, on
various pretences, the settlement of the question had been
postponed, and Palmerston had even warned Russia that he
should some day have to put strong pressure upon the Greek
Court to obtain the discharge of their debts. At length, at
the close of 1849, his patience became exhausted. Admiral
Parker, with the British fleet, was ordered to the Piræus. Mr.
Wyse, the English Ambassador, embarked in it. The claims were
again formally laid before the King, and upon their being
declined the Piræus was blockaded, ships of the Greek navy
captured and merchant vessels secured by way of material
guarantee for payment. The French and the Russians were
indignant at this unexpected act of vigour." The Russians
threatened; the French offered mediation, which was accepted.
The French negotiations at Athens had no success; but at
London there was promise of a friendly settlement of the
matter, when Mr. Wyse, the English Minister at the Greek
Court, being left in ignorance of the situation, brought fresh
pressure to bear upon King Otho and extorted payment of his
claims. The French were enraged and withdrew their Minister
from London. "For the time, this trumpery little affair caused
the greatest excitement, and, being regarded as a typical
instance of Lord Palmerston's management of the Foreign
Office, it formed the ground of a very serious attack upon the
Government."

_J. F. Bright,
History of England,
period 4, pages 200-203._

ALSO IN:
_S. Walpole,
History of England, from 1815,
chapter 22 (volume 4)._

_J. McCarthy,
History of Our Own Times,
chapter 19 (volume 2)._

See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1849-1850.

GREECE: A. D. 1862.
Annexation of the Ionian Islands.

See IONIAN ISLANDS: A. D. 1815-1862.

GREECE: A. D. 1862-1881.
The Cretan struggle and defeat.
The Greek question in the Berlin Congress.
Small cession of territory by Turkey.