Perhaps a more succesful school system leads to a more expanded vernacularization of katharavousa......in the end, modern standard Greek would be more ''katharevoused"
 
Perhaps a more succesful school system leads to a more expanded vernacularization of katharavousa......in the end, modern standard Greek would be more ''katharevoused"
Unlikely, It failed despite, being highly widespread. I mean intellectuals rejected it as unnatural, and there are stories of Intellectuals as children accepting that the trees in their house have a different name to the general trees. Kartharvousa failed on every level, and merely produced Diglossia, I don't see how being better would change this, you are basically arguing to change human instincts.
 
I really hope this becomes an “Empire Strikes Back” Scenario. It’s time for the Ottomans to remind their little uppity lords who is master and who is servant...

Let them rest on their laurels for now while the Turks turn north and finish off the Bosnians and Albanians. Than look South and remind Muhammad why the Ottomans are the power in the Middle East. I mean the timeline is called “Pride goes before a fall” I dare say the Ottomans understand humility and deserve some good karma.
 
I really hope this becomes an “Empire Strikes Back” Scenario. It’s time for the Ottomans to remind their little uppity lords who is master and who is servant...

Let them rest on their laurels for now while the Turks turn north and finish off the Bosnians and Albanians. Than look South and remind Muhammad why the Ottomans are the power in the Middle East. I mean the timeline is called “Pride goes before a fall” I dare say the Ottomans understand humility and deserve some good karma.
Don't worry, the Ottomans may be down right now, but they are not out just yet.
 
Unlikely, It failed despite, being highly widespread. I mean intellectuals rejected it as unnatural, and there are stories of Intellectuals as children accepting that the trees in their house have a different name to the general trees. Kartharvousa failed on every level, and merely produced Diglossia, I don't see how being better would change this, you are basically arguing to change human instincts.

Didn't Arvanites and Aromanians became hellenized against their " human instincts"?

I meant that OTL the same intellectuals who were pushing for katharevousa didn't have enough, and saw it as a intermediate step to a further archaized vernacular. Perhaps a more comprehensive school system less obsessed with classicism and more oriented to technical subjects would lead to a more extended acceptation of the language taught at school.
 
Didn't Arvanites and Aromanians became hellenized against their " human instincts"?

I meant that OTL the same intellectuals who were pushing for katharevousa didn't have enough, and saw it as a intermediate step to a further archaized vernacular. Perhaps a more comprehensive school system less obsessed with classicism and more oriented to technical subjects would lead to a more extended acceptation of the language taught at school.

In this timeline Kartharevousa has been invented, this means that it cannot be changed, and its desire to be an intermediate step already exists. Secondly Kartharevousa is basically Demotic forced through French and made to look ancient, I mean it was criticised quite heavily by classicists later, because it was an invention that failed at its job. I mean really we are more likely to see Koine, if you want a semi-artificial Language revival.
 
Didn't Arvanites and Aromanians became hellenized against their " human instincts"?

IIRC this was a complex process. It was partly religious—the Arvanites being Orthodox prevented them from really identifying with other Albanians, for instance. It was also due to a protracted propaganda campaign of Hellenization that wasn’t really protested against, but that might’ve been because there weren’t any external nations to support their culture at the time; the Hellenization of the Slavic speakers of Macedonia was (and is) much more controversial.
 
In this timeline Kartharevousa has been invented, this means that it cannot be changed, and its desire to be an intermediate step already exists.

The desire exists, but do desires always become realities?

Secondly Kartharevousa is basically Demotic forced through French and made to look ancient, I mean it was criticised quite heavily by classicists later, because it was an invention that failed at its job. I mean really we are more likely to see Koine, if you want a semi-artificial Language revival.

Language shifts happen, and many of them took place during the 19th century, especialy during nation-building processes. They had nothing to do with how strange the language sounded to the common people, but how properly they were enforced/proposed to them. Katharevousa was doomed because it lacked a definitive standard during the formative years of the State, and because the elite who was interested in enforcing it was periodically challenged and toppled in the very turbulent political arena of OTL Greece.

A more stable Greek Kingdom, a more progressive-minded elite, and a more succesful empowerment through school would turn things very different TTL.
 
I think it would be a better idea to get rid of Katharevousa and just use Koiné Greek instead. It would probably be easier to teach, too.
 
IIRC this was a complex process. It was partly religious—the Arvanites being Orthodox prevented them from really identifying with other Albanians, for instance. It was also due to a protracted propaganda campaign of Hellenization that wasn’t really protested against, but that might’ve been because there weren’t any external nations to support their culture at the time; the Hellenization of the Slavic speakers of Macedonia was (and is) much more controversial.

There is that minor issue of both populations self-identifying as Greek well before the revolution. Unless someone wants to explain to me why Rigas wasn't Greek? Or about Spetses, Hydra and Souli?
 
There is that minor issue of both populations self-identifying as Greek well before the revolution. Unless someone wants to explain to me why Rigas wasn't Greek? Or about Spetses, Hydra and Souli?

No, I don’t disagree. Just because they spoke another language doesn’t make them not Greek necessarily. My point was more that if there had been, say, an independent Albania at the time that they might have “made a play” for the Arvanites.
 
Part 39: Three Glorious Days, Two Revolutions, and One Eaglet
Part 39: Three Glorious Days, Two Revolutions, and One Eaglet

500px-Lar7_cogniet_001z.jpg

The Three Glorious Days of the July Revolution

The souring of British-French relations can be traced to the events of the July Revolution of 1830 which resulted in the ousting of King Charles X of France. Prior to the Revolution, relations between Britain and France were at their highest in years, thanks in no small part to the strong personal relationship King Charles shared with the British Prime Minister George Canning. Canning had traveled in person to Tuileries in 1827 to meet with the King and his government as a prelude to the 1827 Treaty of London sanctioning the intervention of the Powers in the Greek War of Independence. Despite having radically different political views, Charles was a devoted Absolutist and Archconservative while Canning was more of a moderate Tory, they developed a close bond during his stay at the royal palace. Unfortunately, the rest of King Charles’s reign was marred with problems.

His intervention in Greece alongside the British and Russians had been extremely popular among the common people, but the failure to secure a French king for the Greek throne was a disappointment as it denied him the opportunity of expanding France’s influence in the new country. Egypt was proving itself to be another disappointment as well. While Muhammad Ali had eagerly purchased French weapons and ships, and recruited French officers to staff and train his army and navy, he had proven himself to be too willful and ambitious and was not interested in the slightest in serving as a puppet or vassal of France.

Charles’ most recent venture was the most controversial. Citing an attack against the French ambassador to Algiers and a return to piracy, King Charles X organized a punitive expedition against the Regency of Algiers. In truth, the endeavor was likely an attempt by Charles to improve his flagging support in France with a colonial enterprise abroad. As was to be expected, the campaign in Algiers was a complete success and the entire Mediterranean coast of Algiers was occupied by the Kingdom of France. Still, this venture did little to improve Charles standing at home which was quickly eroding by the Summer of 1830.

Charles had taken the throne in 1824 to great fanfare as well as great hopes for the future of France by the common man who hoped he would continue the policies of his brother King Louis XVIII. These feelings would not last long as King Charles rapidly attempted to claw back the powers of the crown that his brother had ceded to the Parliament. He also restored many of the rights and privileges that the church and nobility had enjoyed prior to the Revolution, offering indemnities for lost property or damages sustained and reestablishing the death penalty for profaning the Eucharist. King Charles also attempted to roll back the liberties of the press and reinstitute Primogeniture succession although both acts were voted down in Parliament each time they were brought up. The breaking point came in March 1830, however, when the King dissolved the Parliament following a vote of no confidence and scheduled elections to take place in two months. When the new parliament also resisted the King’s demands, he dissolved the Parliament once again and this time he suspended the constitution as well.

280px-Karel_X-Koning_der_Fransen.jpg

King Charles X of France

With the entire power of the government in fully his hands, King Charles enacted a series of ordinances that censored the press, reduced the powers of Chamber of Deputies and limited the number of deputies for future Chambers, he increased the powers awarded to him under the Constitution, and he stripped the middle class of their right to vote. Suffice to say this did not sit well with the people of France who had enjoyed exercising their liberties and greatly resented them being ripped away piece by piece. Protests broke out across Paris almost immediately after their enactment. The agitation was made worse by the declining French economy during the latter half of the 1820’s which saw many thousands become unemployed and impoverished. On the 26th of July, the Revolution began in earnest as thousands of journalists, businessmen, and merchants took to the streets to voice their disapproval of the King’s ordinances.

Generally, the people were peaceful, if a bit rowdy, and the soldiers of the Garde Royale were patiently withheld from using force to break up the congregation. As nightfall arrived, however, things began to change. Angry Parisians began throwing stones and roof tiles at the soldiers, who in turn began firing warning shots at first and then actual shots at the protesters. What began as a peaceful event quickly spiraled out of control for King Charles when 32 people were killed by soldiers while attempting to break up the protest. The mob quickly degenerated into a riot as people began to take up arms against their persecutors.

Despite the escalation of violence, hope remained for a peaceful solution as several members of the Parisian revolt presented a list of demands to the commander of the Garde Royale Marshal Auguste Marmont, the Duke of Ragusa that they wished to see enacted. Chief among them were the revocation of the King’s July Ordinances, and the removal of his ministers who were primarily blamed for the enactment of the ordinances and the poisoning of the King’s mind against the people. Hopes for a peaceful end to the conflict were dashed however when the King bluntly refused to fulfill their terms or even meet with the men who wrote them. If anything, Charles was making matters worse as he actively antagonized the mob, inciting them to further acts of violence and revolt. By the end of the second day, it was clear that the King had no intention of compromising and soon after, the riot became a Revolution.

By the beginning of the third day, the King’s supporters began to desert him en masse. Soldiers began siding with the revolutionaries and even some members of the aristocracy started to turn on King Charles when it was clear he was on the losing side. Only the Duke of Ragusa, and some members of the Garde Royale remained loyal to the King and even they lacked the willpower or manpower to save him.[1] By noon on the 28th, the Parisian mob had stormed into Tuileries Palace, killing or scattering the last of the Swiss guardsmen on duty, and capturing the King and his family as they attempted to flee. The Revolutionaries had won the day.

520px-Louvre_1830.jpg

The Parisian Mob Storms Tuileries

The constitution of France was reaffirmed and a provisional government was established in the place of the King’s fallen government. Charles unwilling to rule as a constitutional monarch abdicated his claim to the throne and that of his son the Dauphin, Prince Louis Antoine, Duc de Angouleme. Most likely, King Charles and Prince Louis Antoine had no choice in the matter as the Revolutionaries demanded no less than their complete ouster by the end of July. Still wishing to retain his family’s hold on the throne, Charles named his grandson Henri, Duc de Bordeaux as his rightful successor in the hopes the boy would be permitted to remain on the throne. Young Henri’s reign however would last little more than a week before he himself was removed from power by his distant cousin Louis-Philippe of Orleans who was named King of the French in his stead. So, it was that the House of Bourbon was ousted from the throne of France and forced into exile.

With nowhere else to go, Canning offered the former King of the French and his family temporary residency in Britain until a more permanent arrangement could be established and sent ships to retrieve them from Le Havre. Upon their arrival in London, Canning greeted them in person with open arms and offered him every hospitality he could afford, in what he hoped would be a temporary situation. For several days, Charles and his family wined and dined in London with members of the British high society before departing for the countryside and the comfort of Lulworth Castle. Still, Canning recognized the political ramifications his courteousness with the former king would have on French relations and remained coy on the possibility of a return to France for the Bourbons. As the days and weeks passed by, it became clear to Charles that he, nor his son Louis Antoine, nor his grandson Henri would never be king again.

Charles’ daughter in law, Princess Maria Caroline de Bourbon-Sicilie, the Duchess of Berry, however, was more persistent on her son’s behalf and used her father in law’s good relationship with the Prime Minister to her advantage. She repeatedly deigned upon Canning the legitimacy of her son Henri’s right to the throne of France and spent many days in and around 10 Downing Street meeting with the Prime Minister to demand his support and aid for her cause, much to his dismay. This exhausting routine would continue for day after day, week after week, until the Duchess surprisingly departed London for her home of Naples and then onto France in early 1832 where she raised a revolt in her son’s name. Predictably, her revolt was put down and the Duchess was captured by the French authorities. While imprisoned she would claim that Canning had given his support to the Duc de Bordeaux’ claim, and provided her with material and financial aid for her cause.

Canning, for his part vehemently denied giving the Duchess anything whatsoever and disavowed her claims as the vicious gossip and hearsay of a madwoman. Whether true or untrue, the Duchess’ revolt in the Vendee and her claims of British support did nothing to help British French relations. More damning than a woman’s failed rebellion and unverified claims of support from the Canningite government were the geopolitical ramifications of the revolution itself. The ousting of King Charles alarmed the government of Prime Minister George Canning who saw the eviction of a legitimate, if tyrannical, head of state from power as a troubling precursor to further revolutionary fervor that would spread across Europe. He was more accurate than he would have liked.

240px-La_Duchesse_de_Berry.jpg

The Duchess of Berry, Princess Maria Caroline de Bourbon-Sicilie

The ouster of Charles and the Bourbons set off a chain reaction of revolutionary fervor across the continent of Europe and even parts of the Americas. In addition to France, rebellions against the status quo erupted in Brazil, the Italian States, the Netherlands, Poland, and Switzerland. In Brazil, the Emperor Pedro I was forced to abdicate his throne and return to Portugal while his son Pedro II took the throne in his stead. Pedro routinely found himself in opposition to the plantation owners and landlords of Brazil, who frequently dominated the parliament. Their differences lay in large part to Pedro’s progressive views on slavery, an institution he vehemently opposed and wished to abolish. As he was an avid constitutionalist, he could not simply eradicate it himself and his attempts to win them over to his side with morality and Christian values were met with deaf ears and cold heart.

More damning to his reign in the eyes of the common people was his continued reliance on Portuguese ministers in his government over native Brazilians. This resulted in suspicions that he was planning to reunite Portugal and Brazil, a prospect which was greatly opposed by both states and their peoples. The frequent correspondence between Emperor Pedro and his daughter Queen Maria did little to alleviate these concerns of reunion. Both issues had resulted in Pedro becoming increasingly separated from his Brazilian subjects who seized upon the revolts in Europe to turn against him. When the army refused to support him, Pedro knew it was over for him in Brazil. With his support waning, and his daughter, Queen Maria of Portugal in need of his aid, Pedro abdicated the throne and departed for Lisbon in early April 1831 never to return to the land he loved.

In Poland, the “revolution” met with much less success following the surprising death of Grand Duke Konstantin Pavlovich, the Governor of Poland and older brother of Tsar Nicholas. Konstantin had led the Russian delegation to Greece to celebrate Leopold’s coronation as King and had spent some time in the country seeing the sights and touring the country before returning home in early September. While passing through Sevastopol and the Crimea on his return trip to Russia, however, he became stricken with a virulent strain of cholera and succumbed to his illness within days of contracting the disease.[2] What followed was jubilation and celebration rather than unrest and riots in the major cities of Poland. It was no secret that the people of the Kingdom of Poland detested the Grand Duke as he was for all intents and purposes a tyrant who strictly enforced the Russian rule over their country and so it was that when the news that he had died reached Poland, they were extremely grateful and overjoyed.

Tsar Nicholas however was not amused. News of Konstantin’s death had been tightly controlled by the State so that it arrived in St. Petersburg before it had reached Poland. As such, Russian soldiers were already moving to secure the Kingdom before the Poles could react. Many prominent agitators and radicals were immediately arrested and others simply disappeared never to be seen again. The Polish army was also disarmed and dissolved with its members integrated into the Russian army. While many people protested these moves as a break with the Kingdom’s constitution, and called for an uprising against the Russians, the death of the tyrant Konstantin Pavlovich and the incarceration of their leaders had removed much of the organization and impetus for a revolt at that time. Some Poles did in fact revolt against the Russian occupation, but they were generally few and far between and were quickly put down by the Russian Army and by early February the “Kingdom” was fully pacified.[3]

550px-Marcin_Zaleski%2C_Wzi%C4%99cie_Arsena%C5%82u.jpg

The Russian Army Occupies Warsaw

Of all the revolutions of 1830-1831, the Revolution in Switzerland, the Ustertag, was perhaps the most peaceful and the most successful of all. On the 22nd of November 10,000 “Revolutionaries” marched on the city of Zurich where they demanded the adoption of a new constitution granting the people of Switzerland greater say in their government through legislatures and mechanisms to amend the constitution. Additionally, they wished to distribute power and representation more evenly across the cantons rather than solely investing power in their capitals. Without much in the way of conflict or controversy, these reforms were passed by the Swiss assemblies and the revolution was ended quietly. While Switzerland had been the scene of an amiable solution, neighboring Italy would see the bloodiest and most destructive phase of the 1830-1831 revolutions.

Italy had long been a hotbed of revolutionary activity since the early days of the French Revolution 40 years before. The fires of revolution had swept across the peninsula disrupting hundreds of years of feudalism and absolutism uniting the many northern countries of Italy into a singular Kingdom of Italy. While Napoleon would eventually fall and the Kingdom of Italy would be dissolved into its previous entities, the ideals of a united Italy remained with the Italian people, many of whom formed a secret society bent on that ideal, the Carbonari. The Carbonari and their supporters would organize a revolt in Naples in 1820 and then another in Sardinia Piedmont in 1821, both attempts however, ended in failure. However, their aspirations remained and would linger on for several more years in secret. Encouraged by the success of the July Revolution in France and the promises of support by its new King, Louis-Philippe the Carbonari prepared one last uprising that was nine years in the making.

In Modena, the Carbonari found a willing partner in Duke Francis IV who held lofty ambitions of ruling a Kingdom of Italy centered in Modena. Carbonari flocked to Modena by the hundreds to join the Duke, chief among them being Ciro Menotti and the Piedmontese General Annibale Santorre di Rossi de Pomarolo, Count of Santarosa.[4] Santarosa had been a leading member of the failed 1821 Revolution in Piedmont before heading into exile at the end of the revolt. During his travels he journeyed to Greece where he aided the Greeks in their war for independence serving as a military advisor in the Ministry of War and briefly took part in the battle of Myloi in 1825 against Ibrahim and his Egyptians. Despite his talents, he was denied a high rank in the Greek Army due to his Italian heritage and his revolutionary past which had earned the ire of the Powers, and so upon the conclusion of the war, Santarosa along with his colleagues left Greece for lands unknown.


280px-Geminiano_Vincenzi_-_Ciro_Menotti_al_supplizio_-_litografia_-_1875-1899.jpg
210px-SantorrediSantarosa.jpg

Ciro Menotti, the Carbonari leader in Modena (Left) and Annibale Santorre di Rossi de Pomarolo, Count of Santarosa (Right)

Santarosa eventually turned up in the border region between France and the Kingdom of Sardinia following the July Revolution where he organized a band of revolutionaries and volunteers before crossing the mountains into Northern Italy. Having been promised aid against Austria from the new French King Louis-Philippe; Santarosa, Menotti, and their Carbonari compatriots threw all of Italy into a crucible of revolution in late November that burned through Modena, Parma, and the Papal Legations. Within a matter of days following the outbreak of the insurrection the cities of Bologna, Ferrara, Forli, Imola, Pesaro, Ravenna, and Urbino had all fallen to the Italian Revolutionaries. By far though, their greatest successes in came in Parma where the Austrian appointed Prime Minister Josef von Werklein and the Duchess of Parma, Maria Louise were captured by the Carbonari under Santarosa.[5]

The loss of Parma and the capture of Marie Louise was a shocking blow to the Austrian Emperor Francis II who immediately dispatched the army of Lombardy Venetia into the Duchy of Parma to destroy the rebels and rescue his daughter. Santarosa and the revolutionaries buoyed by their success moved to engage them in battle along the banks of the River Po to the North of Parma meeting them in battle on the 1st of January 1831. Using his experience in the Napoleonic wars and the war in Greece, Santarosa and the Carbonari laid in wait for the approaching Austrian force where upon he ambushed it as it forded the River Po. Despite being outnumbered nearly 2 to 1, the Italians, bolstered by foreign volunteers were dogged in their attack on the Austrians and managed to force them back. Unable to make definitive progress against Santarosa’s position, the Austrian force was ordered back to Mantua while they awaited further reinforcements from Austria.

The defeat on the River Po, while by no means a major loss for the Austrians, threatened to embolden the rebels and their supporters to further acts of revolt. The longer the insurrection continued unopposed, the more dissidents would flock to its cockade, and the more cities which would fall to the rebels. It was at this time that the Duke of Reichstadt, grandson to the Emperor, arrived in the Imperial court seeking an audience with the Emperor. While he was by no means close to his mother Marie Louise, her imprisonment at the hands of revolutionaries and dissidents demanded his attention and he requested permission to be sent to Italy with his men. Against the wishes of Metternich, Emperor Francis relented to his grandson Franz’s requests and dispatched his battalion to join the campaign in Italy.

Next Time: A Pyre for the Carbonari


Author's Note: I was a little more liberal with the use of butterflies in this part as seen in Poland and Italy/Austria. That being said, TTL's events of the July Revolution, the Ustertag, and the Abdication of Emperor Pedro of Brazil are all consistent with the events from OTL although that will quickly change, especially in France.

[1] There were loyalists to King Charles outside Paris and around the country that could have come to support him had he or Marshal Auguste Marmont called on them, but for whatever reason they both hesitated, allowing the revolutionaries to take control of the city.

[2] In OTL, Konstantin died from a cholera outbreak in 1831 while fighting the Polish rebels in the November Uprising. Here, he travels to Greece and succumbs to the disease several months earlier on his return trip. Konstantin was married to Leopold’s sister Juliane from 1796 to 1820 when their marriage was annulled so I believe it would be reasonable for him to attend Leopold's coronation, if for no other reason than to spread Russian influence in the country.

[3] Even without the November Uprising it is extremely likely that Tsar Nicholas would have begun to abolish the Kingdom of Poland.

[4] I made a note of this in passing in one of the comments, but the Count of Santarosa is still alive ITTL. In OTL he died in the battle of Sphakteria in Greece fighting against Ibrahim Pasha's soldiers in 1825. Due to some butterflies he wasn't present at that battle and was instead in Nafplion with the Greek government as a military advisor.

[5] Technically, Parma and Marie Louise were “captured” by the Italian revolutionaries in 1830/31 but she eventually managed to escape given the poor situation of the rebels.
 
Last edited:
Oh dear, is that Napoleon II heading to Italy and rescue his Mother? And is that political discord and weak government in France I see?

I suspect they're on a collision course with wackiness!
 
Top