The Greek revolution that began in 1821, followed by the war of independence, was the second of the "national revolutions" in the Balkans, against the Ottoman Empire. It ended in 1830, with a partial satisfactory result for the Greeks, who from that moment on became a separate state, liberating themselves from the Ottoman domination.
It is necessary to insert the war in a larger context, begun in 1815 with the Congress of Vienna . The Congress, to which the principal European powers participated in order to redraw the European map and to restore the Ancient regime, after the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars, opened the age of the “Restoration” in Europe, that ended, according to the majority of studies, in 1830-31 with the Greek Revolution.
…show more content…
They were based on the millet system, where for identification, religion was the main criterion. Greek clergy, who controlled the Orthodox millet in the Ottoman system, had educational, religious, legal and administrative privileges, especially because Orthodox culture and education became identified with Greece. That is the reason why Greeks held administrative roles in the central administration itself, even if they were not Muslims. Wealthy or educated Greek people, therefore, already enjoyed substantial privileges in Ottoman Empire, which is why the revolution was not attractive for them since they had much to lose. However, at the same time that was only a little-privileged part of the population, made also by peasants, poor priests and …show more content…
Prince Metternich represented Austrian interests, being one of the founding fathers of the Vienna’s order, who saw in the Greek revolution a menace for the European peace and the balance of power. Mahmud II, sultan of the Ottoman Empire from 1808 to 1839, was afraid of the first breakaway from the Empire, due to the Greek uprising. He had to face diplomatic issues especially against Russia, represented by Alexandre I and soon after Nicolas I, who were both involved in the resistance. A simple independent war became in less than a decade a European affair and although it was not the Greeks’ aim, they deeply influenced the XIX century, its mentality and its international relations in politics. Therefore, this essay wants to ask the question:
“To what extent the Greek revolution can be considered a turning point in the XIX century?”
After having described the development of the situation, which from a little uprising brought to the foreign powers’ military intervention (I), it is necessary to analyse how this movement for the Greek independence represented a turning point in the XIX century. In order to do this, firstly the essay will focus on the cultural significance, with the rising of the philhellenic movement (II), and the following one on the diplomatic level, where the war represents a revolutionary change in the politics
The French Revolution, the American Civil War, the constant civil conflicts in certain parts of Africa in recent history and even today; these are all historical clashes of countrymen. They all also contain stories of immense atrocities. The violence, bloodshed, and ruthlessness that were seen throughout these events were appalling. They were made perhaps even more so by the fact that theses horrors were inflicted upon one another by countrymen, brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers. The civil war or stasis at Corcyra during the Peloponnesian War was no different. This paper will detail the events surrounding the conflict and attempt to give scope to it as a mirror into the rest of the conflict.
It is surprising indeed that Even today, tyrannies and dictatorships exist in the world when more than two and a half thousand years ago the ancient Athenians had developed a functional and direct form of democracy. What contributed to this remarkable achievement and how it changed the socio-political. scene in Athens is what will be considered in this paper. The paper will have three sections, each detailing the various stages. of political development from the kings of Attica to the time of Pericles when, in its golden age, Athens was at the height of its. imperial power.
Athens’ governmental shift in 501 BC was unprecedented and innovative, being the first notable implementation of democracy in an ancient world inundated in monarchy. This form of government, founded by Cleisthenes, has been instrumental in Western Civilization, especially since the modern age. Democracy gave Athens life, providing not only a well functioning governing system, but also enabling the city-state to grow and survive multiple Persian invasions. However, at the dawn of the Athenian empire and the rise of Pericles, democracy began to die, and Greeks lost their love of freedom when they sought power and glory through their military conquests. I argue that Athenian’s rejection of democracy can be seen through their mistreatment of other states and their lust for power and glory.
Of all the history of the Ancient Greece, there were two events that showed really well how disunity among the Greeks highly contributed to its downfall, which were the Peloponnesian War and Successors’ War. Interestingly, both wars occurred after a unity and followed by a unity that was carried out by “outsiders”. This may have actually shown that the Greeks had never learned from their past
The book written by Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, contains two controversial debates between distinguished speakers of Athens. The two corresponding sides produce convincing arguments which can be taken as if produced as an honest opinion or out of self-interest. The two debates must be analyzed separately in order to conclude which one and which side was speaking out of honest opinion or self-interest, as well as which speakers are similar to each other in their approach to the situation.
The book begins with the conclusion of the First World War, by exploring the idea that critical mistakes made then made a second war likely, yet not inevitable. Taylor points out that although Germany was defeated on the Western front, “Russia fell out of Europe and ceased to exist, for the time being, as a Great Power. The constellation of Europe was profoundly changed—and to Germany’s advantage.” (p.20-21) As a result of the war, Russia was severely weakened, which greatly upset the balance of power in Europe. Taylor claims that, “What gave France independence as a ...
Following Greek’s “Dark Age,” the Archaic Age (circa 800-500 B.C.E.) led to important political changes for the region, with the most important one being the development of the city-state called a polis (plural poleis). While there were a number of developments during the Archaic Age, perhaps the most valuable lessons that can be drawn from Greek civilization and from the formation and evolution of the Greek poleis.
Throughout the Ancient Greek world, there have been many wars and standoffs. However, there has been only one which changed the course of Greek history forever; the Peloponnesian War. Caused by the growing tension between Athens and Sparta, it came and left, leaving only destruction in its wake. The defeat of Athens in the Peloponnesian War caused the downfall of Greece, and the end of the Classical Age.
The causes of the Peloponnesian War proved to be too great between the tension-filled stubborn Greek city-states of Athens and Sparta. As Thucydides says in Karl Walling’s article, “Never had so many human beings been exiled, or so much human blood been shed” (4). The three phases of the war, which again, are the Archidamian war, the Sicilian Expedition and the Decelean war, show the events that followed the causes of the war, while also showing the forthcoming detrimental effects that eventually consumed both Athens and eventually Sparta effectively reshaping Greece.
The Peloponnesian War is the conflict between the pelopoponesians league led by Sparta and the Delian league, led by Athens. Much of our knowledge on the causes and events of the Peloponnesian War, depends on the Athenian Thucydides 460-400 BC, writer of the History of the Peloponessian War. He servd as an Athenian commander in Northern Greece during the early years of the war until the assembly exiled him as he lost an outpost to the enemy. During this exile, he was able to interview witnesses on both sides of the conflicted. Unlike Heredotus he concentrated on contemporary history and presented his account of the war in an annalistic framework that only occasionally diverts from chronological order. In his account, he discuses the precursors to the war, including the 30 years truce and revolutions, such as the stasis in Corcyra. When looking at wars, the primary focus is normally the fighting itself, such as what we see for World War II. However, it is important to look at the anatomy of war, meaning what effect the war has on the people who are experiencing it first hand, and the consquences that the conflict has on the rest of the world. Therefore in this essay I shall discuss, drawing directly from Thucydides, The History of the Peloponnesian War, how the civilians reacted to the war, their involvement and socio economic factors. Furthermore, the first section of my essay shall focus on the direct effect of war on the people, regarding the plague, and violence and hopelessness that was experienced. Then I shall go on to discuss more general effects of the war and how it affected the Greek world, discussing the social and economic losses that occurred such as the cost of the war in attica, the coup d’etat that occurred in gove...
Prince Metternich was a gifted politician and understood the ideas of patriotism and nationalism in the balance of power in Europe. We see an example of his understanding of these ideas in how he treated France in the post-Napoleonic era that the Congress of Vienna was about. If you look at how gracious he was ...
Herodotus. “Greece Saved from Persian Conquest.” Readings in Ancient History. Eds. Nels M. Bailkey and Richard Lim. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2002.
In September 1814 – June 1815, the leaders who vanquished Napoleon, European representatives, and those who believe they were in “high circles” gathered together to redraw territorial boundaries and fashion a lasting peace at the end of the Napoleonic wars after the downfall of Napoleon.
As perspectives and opinions in the realm of political science are fluid and bound to change, he receives a variety of replies, for the representatives body he sent happen to comprise a Realist, a Liberal and a Constructivist. The variances the philosophies and universal laws his representatives throw back at him intrigue General Cleomedes. He recognizes that within the power play of the world, and the role of Athens as a superpower within the world’s political arena, he must be thoroughly versed in every possible political perspective. Thus, he invites his representatives to share their own view of what transpired between the dialogue between the Melians and the Athenians.
Ed. John Merriman and Jay Winter. "1989." Europe Since 1914: Encyclopedia of the Age of War and Reconstruction. Vol. 4. Detroit: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2006. 1874-1880. World History in Context. Web. 11 Mar. 2014.