I have heard that some Greeks were still calling themselves Romans all the way up to the early twentieth century. Does anyone happen to know how common it was at this point?
Still very common during the War of Independence, especially among the rural population. Although it would during the War of Independence become very marginalized as "Roman" came to be associated with a pro-Ottoman or obedient Greek, as Roman was what the Turks called them. The obedient enslaved Greek answered to Roman and the patriotic, proud Greek answered only to Hellene it was said.

Although as said, at the time this didn't really go much further than the educated elite and the Greeks who remained Ottoman subjects would still largely call themselves Roman. One of my favorite quotes about this subject comes from the memoirs of Yannis Makriyannis who noted the following question one of his friends had posed:

"What say you, is the Roman State far away from coming? Are we to sleep with the Turks and awaken with the Romans?"
 
Well I do consider myself a bit of a Byzantophile.:biggrin:

As far as a I know there are some Christian communities in the Middle East, specifically the Greek ones that still call themselves Romans, or Romioi to this day, but regarding this specific time period I'm probably not the best person to ask.

"Romios" was the prevalent endonym until the mid-19th century, and in most Ottoman Greek communities it continued until well beyond that. It is only through the citizenship in the modern Greek state, and the introduction of a state-sponsored education system, that "Hellene" has become (again) the standard endonym used by the Greeks. Still, in some expressions, such as "to Romaiiko" ("the Roman state/affairs", a - usually disparagingly used - synonym for the Greek state apparatus), or "Romiosyni" ("Roman-ism/-ity", i.e. the community of all the Greeks), it persists to this day.

On the "Byzantine" issue, however, it is likely that precisely in order to highlight the "Greekness" of Byzantium, the nationalist-minded Greek scholars of the 19th century will (much as IOTL) actually prefer to use the term "Byzantine" as a way to distance it from its Latin roots. Traditional nationalist historiography was more interested in highlighting the Greek character of Byzantium, rather than its continuities with the Roman Empire.

One thing that probably will be different though, by avoiding Otto and his Classically-minded Bavarians coming, is that modern Greek culture (and education) will not be as warped by the obsession with Classical Greece as IOTL. Along with the continued influence of the practical-minded Kapodistrias, this may have knock-on benefits: IOTL, there was a tendency for the Greek education system to favour a classical philological education producing lawyers and philologists, whereas what it needed was engineers, doctors, and businessmen. To a degree, this may reduce the whole language quarrel to less extreme levels as well, and generally help Greece reconcile "popular" culture with the elite culture far earlier than was the case IOTL.

Still very common during the War of Independence, especially among the rural population. Although it would during the War of Independence become very marginalized as "Roman" came to be associated with a pro-Ottoman or obedient Greek, as Roman was what the Turks called them. The obedient enslaved Greek answered to Roman and the patriotic, proud Greek answered only to Hellene it was said.

Although as said, at the time this didn't really go much further than the educated elite and the Greeks who remained Ottoman subjects would still largely call themselves Roman. One of my favorite quotes about this subject comes from the memoirs of Yannis Makriyannis who noted the following question one of his friends had posed:

"What say you, is the Roman State far away from coming? Are we to sleep with the Turks and awaken with the Romans?"

Now, this isn't really an era I have studied as much as I'd like, but it seems to me like an emphasis on the Roman identity of much of the Greeks could have a significant effect as nationalism becomes more and more prominent.

Aside from providing pressure to expand further than modern Greece, the "Roman" identity is a bit more flexible and inclusive than most other national identities. I don't know how far Greece could even feasibly expand given the presence of the Great Powers who are by in large not going to like the idea of a state calling themselves Roman rising to power, but if the could expand, they might have an easier time integrating other populations because of this.

Of course this is jumping way ahead and might not be the direction Earl Marshal wants to go, but I couldn't help myself.
 
Good update. George will be happy that Leopold is out of his hair, at least...

Wonder who will become King of Belgium, and how the butterflies will start to affect the wider world...

Hell, Leopold is an improvement over OTL's king of Greece, Otto, already.

Looking forward to more, and Happy New Year, @Earl Marshal (BTW, this will be a Turtledove nominee)...
 
Aside from providing pressure to expand further than modern Greece, the "Roman" identity is a bit more flexible and inclusive than most other national identities. I don't know how far Greece could even feasibly expand given the presence of the Great Powers who are by in large not going to like the idea of a state calling themselves Roman rising to power, but if the could expand, they might have an easier time integrating other populations because of this.

Of course this is jumping way ahead and might not be the direction Earl Marshal wants to go, but I couldn't help myself.
The problem with theoretically creating a "Roman" state at the time rather than a Greek one is that it could potentially compromise the Greek state's relationship with every single great power and remove any support they could potentially get from them. Claiming the Roman title would give them a theoretical claim to a MASSIVE amount of land which the great powers had their own interests in. Britain wanted to maintain the balance of power in the region by keeping the Ottoman Empire strong and united, France wanted to protect the Catholics in the Middle East preferably with Ottoman supervision and the Russians wanted Constantinople for themselves. It's much easier to justify carving out a "lesser Greece" from the Ottoman Empire than a "Lesser Rhomania".

Not to mention that most intellectuals at the time were huge fanboys of antiquity and hated the Middle Ages. At best they would be confused by the Greek claim and at worst they would reject it on every level.
 
Good update. George will be happy that Leopold is out of his hair, at least...

Wonder who will become King of Belgium, and how the butterflies will start to affect the wider world...

Hell, Leopold is an improvement over OTL's king of Greece, Otto, already.

Looking forward to more, and Happy New Year, @Earl Marshal (BTW, this will be a Turtledove nominee)...
Happy New Year to you too and thank you very much, I'm honored at the consideration.

George IV was very supportive of Leopold becoming King of Greece in OTL, primarily because he couldn't stand him anymore and wanted him out of Britain by any means necessary.

The absence of Leopold in Belgium will have some interesting effects in the Low Countries to say the least. In regards to who takes his place as King of the Belgians, well let's just say Leopold wasn't the only canidate in OTL.

Among several other things, having Leopold become King of Greece instead of Otto avoids the regency from 1832 to 1835 which was an unmitigated disaster for Greece, it removes the need for the Bavarian garrison which was needlessly expensive, and it should avoid much of the conflict over the powers of the monarchy. While Leopold will be pushing to expand his powers as much as possible, his reign in Belgium showed that he was willing to work within the confines of a constitution.
 
The problem with theoretically creating a "Roman" state at the time rather than a Greek one is that it could potentially compromise the Greek state's relationship with every single great power and remove any support they could potentially get from them. Claiming the Roman title would give them a theoretical claim to a MASSIVE amount of land which the great powers had their own interests in. Britain wanted to maintain the balance of power in the region by keeping the Ottoman Empire strong and united, France wanted to protect the Catholics in the Middle East preferably with Ottoman supervision and the Russians wanted Constantinople for themselves. It's much easier to justify carving out a "lesser Greece" from the Ottoman Empire than a "Lesser Rhomania".

Not to mention that most intellectuals at the time were huge fanboys of antiquity and hated the Middle Ages. At best they would be confused by the Greek claim and at worst they would reject it on every level.

Wouldn’t ethnic nationalism focus on the romantic “Greek” identity as opposed to the medieval Roman one anyway? All of the Philhellenes from abroad who aided the rebellion have established the Ancient Greek identity as something to take pride in, and the Roman one is too risky at this point in time.

If I had to guess, a more Roman Greece would embrace both identities, focusing on both the ancient and Byzantine heritages. The latter would become a major irredentist focus, especially during wars against the Ottomans. In other words, I’d expect “Romanism” to become the rallying cry of the war hawks.
 
The absence of Leopold in Belgium will have some interesting effects in the Low Countries to say the least. In regards to who takes his place as King of the Belgians, well let's just say Leopold wasn't the only canidate in OTL.

I want the Duke of nemours as king of Belgium unfortunately it would be really unlikely :'(.

The problem is that the candidates are really controversial.
 
I want the Duke of nemours as king of Belgium unfortunately it would be really unlikely :'(.

The problem is that the candidates are really controversial.
He was actually offered the crown of Belgium in OTL, but he didn't accept due to pressure from the British, Austrians, Prussians, and Russians who didn't want to see France gain more influence in the region than they already did. Sadly for that reason he probably won't become King of Belgium ITTL either.
 
Wouldn’t ethnic nationalism focus on the romantic “Greek” identity as opposed to the medieval Roman one anyway? All of the Philhellenes from abroad who aided the rebellion have established the Ancient Greek identity as something to take pride in, and the Roman one is too risky at this point in time.

If I had to guess, a more Roman Greece would embrace both identities, focusing on both the ancient and Byzantine heritages. The latter would become a major irredentist focus, especially during wars against the Ottomans. In other words, I’d expect “Romanism” to become the rallying cry of the war hawks.

Simple enough, it was not considered a medieval Roman identity in opposition to a Greek identity. To quote Constantine Paparrigopoulos the father of modern Greek historiography it is just "the medieval empire of Hellenism" and that's about it. And at the popular level the same person would be using the terms Roman and Greek interchangeably without any effective distinction or finding something odd to it. Or have the likes of Theodore Kolokotronis claiming the klephts as the troops of the Greek emperor keeping on the fight against the invader from the mountains.

Were I to to be a cynic the only difference in a more "Byzantine" Greece will be amounting to taking more care of Byzantine structures in Athens early on.
 
Simple enough, it was not considered a medieval Roman identity in opposition to a Greek identity. To quote Constantine Paparrigopoulos the father of modern Greek historiography it is just "the medieval empire of Hellenism" and that's about it. And at the popular level the same person would be using the terms Roman and Greek interchangeably without any effective distinction or finding something odd to it. Or have the likes of Theodore Kolokotronis claiming the klephts as the troops of the Greek emperor keeping on the fight against the invader from the mountains.

Were I to to be a cynic the only difference in a more "Byzantine" Greece will be amounting to taking more care of Byzantine structures in Athens early on.

Yeah, that makes sense. Culturally speaking the Ancient Greeks were much more of a big deal than the Byzantines—except for the Orthodoxy of course, but then that just gets tangled up in the modern Greek identity instead.

That’s why I don’t think “Romanism” would be a very big deal...at first. More hullabaloo about Byzantine structures, more iconography in ceremonies, maybe more Koine in the linguistic revolution to come. This is just a newly born Greece now, trying to stabilize, survive, and establish its distinct identity from the Ottomans.

But in fifty or a hundred years’ time, when even OTL Greece was invading Asia Minor? More of a focus on the Byzantines means those outlandish claims to the Roman Empire mentioned upthread might actually get trotted around every once in a while by the war hawks. I mean, it wouldn’t be taken seriously at all, but I could totally see fringe politicians wanting a go at Southern Italy or Antioch.

In fact, this seems like a perfect setup for Greek Fascists ITTL (if that ideology comes into existence). Playacting at being a Roman Emperor, reviving grandiose Byzantine traditions, and of course laying claim to half the Mediterranean—it’s all right up some megalomaniac’s alley.
 
Yeah, that makes sense. Culturally speaking the Ancient Greeks were much more of a big deal than the Byzantines—except for the Orthodoxy of course, but then that just gets tangled up in the modern Greek identity instead.

That’s why I don’t think “Romanism” would be a very big deal...at first. More hullabaloo about Byzantine structures, more iconography in ceremonies, maybe more Koine in the linguistic revolution to come. This is just a newly born Greece now, trying to stabilize, survive, and establish its distinct identity from the Ottomans.

But in fifty or a hundred years’ time, when even OTL Greece was invading Asia Minor? More of a focus on the Byzantines means those outlandish claims to the Roman Empire mentioned upthread might actually get trotted around every once in a while by the war hawks. I mean, it wouldn’t be taken seriously at all, but I could totally see fringe politicians wanting a go at Southern Italy or Antioch.

In fact, this seems like a perfect setup for Greek Fascists ITTL (if that ideology comes into existence). Playacting at being a Roman Emperor, reviving grandiose Byzantine traditions, and of course laying claim to half the Mediterranean—it’s all right up some megalomaniac’s alley.

If you wanted to go into grandiose territorial claims you just point to Alexander, the successors kingdoms and the classical Greek colonization, not to the Byzantine empire. Claims all the way to India eastwards and Spain westwards. :p

That said Greek nationalism OTL was very much a product of 19th century liberalism much in the same fashion with its European counterparts like the Italian risorgimento, in close contact with them and for the most part theorized and pushed by liberals. It was no accident that you had regiments raised by Garibaldi and sons fighting on the Greek side in 1866, 1897 and 1912 nor that you had Greek volunteers fighting with the Redshirts on the reverse. This also made it relatively pragmatic in the territories it sought after aiming after territories that contained if not Greek majorities at a minimum significant Greek populations. I don't really see it evolving otherwise TTL, if anything Greek liberalism will be getting an additional boost from having Leopold instead of Otto at the head of the monarchy.
 
If you wanted to go into grandiose territorial claims you just point to Alexander, the successors kingdoms and the classical Greek colonization, not to the Byzantine empire. Claims all the way to India eastwards and Spain westwards. :p

Glorious Dawn (Greek Fascist Party TTL definitely not based on any OTL Greek Party) representative:

Massilia is rightful Greek territory! Provence will be reclaimed!

Alexandria on the Oxus’ oppressed Greek majority is crying for liberation! Baktria will be reclaimed!

Who’s with me!?

*crickets*

That said Greek nationalism OTL was very much a product of 19th century liberalism much in the same fashion with its European counterparts like the Italian risorgimento, in close contact with them and for the most part theorized and pushed by liberals. It was no accident that you had regiments raised by Garibaldi and sons fighting on the Greek side in 1866, 1897 and 1912 nor that you had Greek volunteers fighting with the Redshirts on the reverse. This also made it relatively pragmatic in the territories it sought after aiming after territories that contained if not Greek majorities at a minimum significant Greek populations. I don't really see it evolving otherwise TTL, if anything Greek liberalism will be getting an additional boost from having Leopold instead of Otto at the head of the monarchy.

That is perfectly reasonable, but it’s always possible political developments play out differently ITTL. For the Italy thing, for example, wasn’t Two Sicilies one of the more conservative Italian states? If the Risorgimento fell apart or never occurred, TS and Greece might not get along well at all...

Besides, that wouldn’t stop kooky fascists unless Italy was fascist too ;)
 
Like, I don't know, him becoming King of Belgium ? :p

Too French. Othon* of Belgium it is. Though I suppose a Bonapartist Belgium has the problem of "spreading" to France proper and otherthrowing the Royalist order that was sought after rather than worries over alliances too deep. I suppose Napoleon I of Belgium could work if he played his cards right in London and in discussions with St. Petersburg (I confess, I can never track the changing Russian capital) if he did this, if Napoleon II was able to persuade people he would only expand Belgium and not seek to restore himself to France and either meant it or managed to somehow persuade them he wouldn't do so in a heartbeat if political realities changed. Better to have Othon of Belgium then. ;)

* I've seen that Othon seems to be a name used by Latins and by Greeks, but I confess as to not knowing what Otto of Bavaria would be if as King of the Belgians, though perhaps we might see the Flemish get a fairer historical shake than the shafting they got in regards to their lack of participation in the system and the Romanisation of Brussels. So I guess Otto might remain Otto? Still, Otto for Belgium please!

EDIT: It's why I think Napoleon II would have had an easier time being suggested for King of Greece due to the distance and instability where the Great Powers might hope he gets killed or distracted or something.
 
Like, I don't know, him becoming King of Belgium ? :p
Too French. Othon* of Belgium it is. Though I suppose a Bonapartist Belgium has the problem of "spreading" to France proper and otherthrowing the Royalist order that was sought after rather than worries over alliances too deep. I suppose Napoleon I of Belgium could work if he played his cards right in London and in discussions with St. Petersburg (I confess, I can never track the changing Russian capital) if he did this, if Napoleon II was able to persuade people he would only expand Belgium and not seek to restore himself to France and either meant it or managed to somehow persuade them he wouldn't do so in a heartbeat if political realities changed. Better to have Othon of Belgium then. ;)

* I've seen that Othon seems to be a name used by Latins and by Greeks, but I confess as to not knowing what Otto of Bavaria would be if as King of the Belgians, though perhaps we might see the Flemish get a fairer historical shake than the shafting they got in regards to their lack of participation in the system and the Romanisation of Brussels. So I guess Otto might remain Otto? Still, Otto for Belgium please!

EDIT: It's why I think Napoleon II would have had an easier time being suggested for King of Greece due to the distance and instability where the Great Powers might hope he gets killed or distracted or something.
Unfortunately, Napoleon II becoming King of anything right now, even Greece and Belgium would require a massive change in the character of Metternich and Emperor Francis II, or they both need to die before 1830, or something allows him to escape from under their thumb, or ASBs. Another reason why I didn't consider Napoleon II for the Greek throne is because I'm also not entirely sure how Napoleon II would rule Greece, and because Greece is the main Point of View in this timeline I went with the easier and more acceptable, albeit less original choice of Leopold for Greece. Besides Leopold being in Greece means he can't be in Belgium which means I can destroy ...err... modify Belgium.;)

If I remember correctly there were three candidates presented for the Belgian throne in the 1830 National Congress of Belgium, the Duke of Nemours, the Duke of Leuchtenberg, and the Duke of Teschen. Of the three, Nemours won the most support but he was forced to decline the offer due to pressure from the other Great Powers. Otto may be in the running for the King of Belgium in 1830, but because of his young age at the time he is probably lower down the list. Otto if he becomes King of Belgium would probably remain Otto, or I guess he could change it to Odo or Odon to appease the French/Walloon element in Belgium.
 
Top