Why was Greece subjugated during the past 500 years?

Uff Da the optimist

Donor
Just curious and hoping some of you history buffs could scholar me on this.
I know Greece was conquered by the ottomans and stayed that way until the 19th century, but as a thought exercise, how could this have been avoided?

They have a mountainous northern border and had fended off invasions from the east and north before, why not this time?
 

Elfwine

Weakness.

Greece was divided, Greece was militarily feeble anyway, and the Ottomans were stronger.

Although given Greek independence dates from the 19th century, I'm not sure you can say five hundred years here.
 

Snake Featherston

Banned
Greece has been conquered before. The Romans did a fine job of rolling it over in an unbroken process the first time. The Ottomans made their conquest stick because Rhomania had already collapsed once, and it remained divided into at least three independent polities when all of them put together didn't have what it took to resist a gunpowder emirate. The Ottomans had the only professional army in all of Europe at the time, and they had the best artillery and gunpowder forces of that time. This is a major reason why they slapped around the Europeans until the Sieges of Vienna, when logistics ensured their limits of expansion were reached.

Greece's military feebleness reflected a number of other issues of the late-stage Greek society, and actually reflected a general European feebleness until the European armies adopted gunpowder and disciplined infantry, and even then the Ottoman decline was only a relative decline of stagnation based on a "if it works, don't fix what ain't broken" mentality.
 

TyranicusMaximus

In the space of a century and a half, northern Greece went from Byzantine, to Latin control, then to the Despotate of Epirus, then to Nicaea, then to Serbian, and finally Ottoman control. The rapid turnover destroyed Greek prosperity and cohesion.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Low population base combined with an extremely long border and coast line to defend combine with a tradition of city-states that made it hard to unify. The Ottomans at their peak had a well organized, powerful military. It was basically strength meets weakness.
 

Falecius

I would like to add, there was nothing like a Greek national feeling. Greeks essentially felt Romans, or, better said, Rhomaioi, and it was a Byzantine heritage. In a sense, the Ottomans were a Roman successor state, their capital was Constantinople and, well, the Greeks felt it was their metropolis, not Athens. Their loyalty was to the Orthodox church, not any fancy Greek political entity that, however, had not precisely existed after, well, Roman age. (the Byzantine Empire was not Greek; it was Greek-speaking Roman, but had universal, not national, aspirations, and saw itself as inherently multi-ethnic; quite as the Ottomans did in many regards). When modern nationalism took root, things changed, though of course it required Ottoman weakness to succeed.
 

Romanos

Falecius said:
I would like to add, there was nothing like a Greek national feeling. Greeks essentially felt Romans, or, better said, Rhomaioi, and it was a Byzantine heritage. In a sense, the Ottomans were a Roman successor state, their capital was Constantinople and, well, the Greeks felt it was their metropolis, not Athens. Their loyalty was to the Orthodox church, not any fancy Greek political entity that, however, had not precisely existed after, well, Roman age. (the Byzantine Empire was not Greek; it was Greek-speaking Roman, but had universal, not national, aspirations, and saw itself as inherently multi-ethnic; quite as the Ottomans did in many regards). When modern nationalism took root, things changed, though of course it required Ottoman weakness to succeed.
Click to expand...

That's very true; my grandparents are Greeks from Constantinople (they definetely left The City in 1999, thank you Turkish gov't & pogroms) and they did desbribe themselves as 'Rhomioi'. When I'd ask my grandmother if she meant 'Greek', she said 'yes', although the tone of her voice seems to hide a need to present some important clarifications.
 
Last edited:

eliphas8

Romanos said:
I thought there were at least some 2-3 more Greeks in this place. :p
Click to expand...

There are, Basilius Giorgios is definitely Greek and has taken it upon himself to describe the new election in extreme detail. I think there are a few others but I cant remember, I think there may have been one or two who where banned.
 

TyranicusMaximus

eliphas8 said:
There are, Basilius Giorgios is definitely Greek and has taken it upon himself to describe the new election in extreme detail. I think there are a few others but I cant remember, I think there may have been one or two who where banned.
Click to expand...

No, you're thinking of Don_Giorgio
 
Dragos Cel Mare

Dragos Cel Mare

Banned
eliphas8 said:
There are, Basilius Giorgios is definitely Greek and has taken it upon himself to describe the new election in extreme detail. I think there are a few others but I cant remember, I think there may have been one or two who where banned.
Click to expand...

Basileus is British. He turned the Rhomans into a Hellenized British Empire on the excuse that the latter was the best model he knew.
 

JJohnson

Banned
Romanos said:
That's very true; my grandparents are Greeks from Constantinople (they definetely left The City in 1999, thank you Turkish gov't & pogroms) and they did desbribe themselves as 'Rhomioi'. When I'd ask my grandmother if she meant 'Greek', she said 'yes', although the tone of her voice seems to hide a need to present some important clarifications.
Click to expand...

I like how you used Constantinople rather than Istanbul, too. I'm working on a timeline to restore Constantinople to Greece as its capital.
 

Romanos

JJohnson said:
I like how you used Constantinople rather than Istanbul, too. I'm working on a timeline to restore Constantinople to Greece as its capital.
Click to expand...

That must be a very difficult AHC.


On the topic, I would put a good POD as far back as Manuel I Komnenus, if you want a stable continued Byzantine Empire for at least up to mid 15th century; the acession of Andronikos I Komnenos MUST be avoided at all costs. That's because we might butterfly away the Messacre of the Latins and the Angeloi getting the throne, which will either avoid totally the Fourth Crusade or it will go so far in time (1500 at the latest) that not many Westerners are interested in Eastern expeditions.

If you choose to take this POD, you need a half-competent Emperor who can create a worthy fleet (thank you Italian Republics, now I want some serious taxes). The Levant Crusader states are going to fall no matter what, and the Byzantines shouldn't ally with them, lest they get some serious Muslim disturbances from the east. The Seljuks must and can be held at bay until 1243, at which point the Mongols will defeat them; although Byzantine diplomacy must ensure no Byzantine land is under danger (it's not mandatory however, as there'll be plenty of time to recover, if no major city like Nicaea, Trapezous or Smyrna is pillaged).

Hungary will start pressing to the south within the 15th century and unless you want serious trouble reaching the Aegean coast sooner or later, you've got to do sth.

I could go on and on about Muscovy becoming a potential ally within the 16th century (Royal marriages will probably be carried out, despite there is no Sophis Paleologue in this TL.) After that, you can do as you like.

If you want sth more compact and challenging, I suggest any POD no later than the death of Manuel Paleologue; after that, it's a matter of time before Constantinople falls; and once it does, you'll need at least three centuries to get back a Greek/Romanesque state of any shape, size or form.
 
Nassirisimo

Nassirisimo

JJohnson said:
I like how you used Constantinople rather than Istanbul, too. I'm working on a timeline to restore Constantinople to Greece as its capital.
Click to expand...
Restore? But it was only ever the capital of the Roman and Ottoman empires. ;)

Riain said:
I woudn`t have thought that would be too difficult looking at this map.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greekhistory.GIF

War is always a chancy business, perhaps the Greeks keep the gains of Severs and manage to capture the demilitarised zone later.
Click to expand...
As snake says, just because its on a map doesn't mean it isn't difficult. Greece couldn't hope to hold any territory in Asia in the long run as the population was heavily Turkish in pretty much every area in Western Anatolia (with the exception of Izmir itself).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top