TO RSTEFOV@GMAIL - Part 01

TO RSTEFOV@GMAIL

THE WHOLE WORLD KNOWS THE TRUTH, BUT WHO EVER HATES THE GREEKS TRIES TO STEAL HISTORY OR DENIE THE TRUTH OR TRIES TO OFFEND THEM ALL ARE JUST PLAIN IGNORANT FOOLS. THE TRUTH SHALL BE REVEALED, IT CANNOT HIDE FOR LONG NO MATTER HOW ONE TRIES TO CHANGE THINGS AROUND.

WE HAVE THE PROOF ALL OVER THE WORLD. ENVIOUS PEOPLE WILL TRY TO SHUT PEOPLE'S MOUTHS, BUT THE ROCKS TALK LOUDER IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF THIS, THEN YOUR PROVING YOU ARE A BARBARIAN WHO CANNOT READ!!!!! SO IF YOUR PEOPLE CANNOT READ AND UNDERSTAND BETWEEN THE LINES THEY PROVE THEY ARE JUST BABBARIANS WITHOUT US GREEKS ARGUING WITH THEM!!!!!

THEY ARE SO JEALOUS, THEY HAVE TO MAKE UP THESE TYPE OF ARTICLES. THEY ARE THE LOWEST OF THE LOW THAT IS WHY THEY ENVY US. THEY KNOW THEY ARE INFERIOR

Well, where do I begin?

To some degree we are all drones and believe what we are taught or told by the authorities. Why else did we all believe at one point in time that the earth was flat? Yes it is true; the entire world at one point in time knew for a fact that the earth was flat! It knew the truth about the earth being flat just like the entire world today knows the truth about the Greeks being the descendants of the ancient Greeks! It was okay to make such claims when there was no evidence to show different. But what about after it had been discovered that the earth was not flat? How should people have reacted? Should they have continued to believe the earth was flat in spite of the evidence showing that it wasn’t?

Similarly, when no one opposed the “Greek claim” that “Macedonians do not exist” it was believed to be true! More recently however it was proven that “Macedonians do exist”, I am a living example of that. No only do they exist all over the world but Macedonians today have their own country! So what is “the truth” in this case? Do Macedonians exist, as the evidence points out, or do they NOT exist as Greeks like to claim? How about examining the Greek claim that the “Modern Greeks are the descendents of the ancient Greeks”. What evidence have the Modern Greeks presented to prove this claim? More importantly, what evidence have the Greeks neglected in an attempt to prove this claim? When one examines all “the facts” it is easy to find the truth. It is a far fetched claim to insist that “the Modern Greeks are the descendents of the ancient Greeks” when evidence points to “the Modern Greeks being the descendents of the 19th century Albanians, Vlachs and of the 20th century Macedonians”. There is far more evidence that points to the modern Greeks being the descendents of the Albanians, Vlachs and Macedonians than there is that points to the Modern Greeks being the descendants of the ancient Greeks of 2,600 years ago. I am not saying this because I hate the Greeks and because I am jealous of them. I am saying this because evidence points in that direction! But again there are many, many clueless Greeks out there who insist that “this is all wrong” and only the enemies of the Greeks would make such absurd claims and that there is some sort of “information” out there that when it comes out will prove that things are different! Unfortunately, for the clueless Greeks, there is no “such”, “more” or “other” information out there that will justify the lies perpetrated by Greek authorities over the last 200 years. If anything does come out it will be more lies to cover up previous lies or to “disclaim” newly uncovered information. A good example of this is Greece’s stand on the Macedonian question claiming that “Macedonians do not exist”. When the Republic of Macedonia was about to emerge, all of a sudden all sorts of Macedonians were living in Greece! Even the imported Christian Turkish colonists settled in Greek occupied Macedonia in the 1920’s overnight became “Macedonians” and on top of that, they claimed to be the “descendents of the ancient Macedonians from 2,300 years ago! All this by magic no less! And after decades of saying that “Macedonians do not exist”, what reason did the Greeks have to “invent” these “new” Macedonians of the Greek kind? I will leave this one for you to figure out! If these clueless Greeks care to open their eyes they will find the truth, not in any books or in my articles but on the very land they today

call Greece. Examine the people from generations back, before Greece became a country for the first time in 1829, and see what language they spoke, what customs and traditions they followed, etc. Look at the geographical names of the land, the villages, towns, cities, lakes, rivers, regions and see what they were called before Greece changed them. If all these people were Greeks, descendants from the ancient Greeks and all these lands were Greek then what reason did the Greek authorities have to change them? What about the people living in Greece who today speak “Arvanitika”, “Vlahika” and “Makethonika”, are they also descendents of the ancient Greeks? How did they come about to speak those languages if all Greeks of all generations were Greek since 2,600 ago? Are those languages dialects of the ancient Greeks? I know some people will argue that language has little to do with descent but then again how did those languages appear in a region where they don’t belong, in a region, which according to Modern Greeks, has always been Greek, where the Greek language has always been spoken? If Modern Greeks are the descendents of the ancient Greeks then they must have always been Greeks and spoke the Greek language without interruption. Aside from that it is well known that throughout history, since Philip II’s time, the entire Balkans existed borderless until the 1800’s and were invaded and occupied by at least the Ancient Macedonians, the Romans, the Byzantines and the Ottomans for no less 2,300 years. What happened to the “purity” of the Greek race during that time? What about the number of times over the years that Greece, particularly the Peloponnesus, the heart of Greece, was settled by Slavs, Albanians, Vlachs, Latins and so on? What happened to these people? Were they “Hellenized”? And if they were, how does that make them “the descendents of the ancient Greeks”? And then we have the 20th century 1,000,000 Christian Turkish colonists who were brought to Greece from Asia Minor and the Caucasus, where they Greeks too, descendents from the ancient Greeks? I think there is a huge gap, the size of the Grand Canyon, between what the “truth” is and what the Greeks claim “the truth” to be. This is particularly true in the “Greek thinking” between their claim that “Macedonians do not exist” and their claim that they themselves are “the descendants from the ancient Greeks”. Instead of thinking that there is some sort of conspiracy on my part and on the part of people like myself, why not examine the evidence for yourselves and reach your own conclusion about what is “truth” and what is “myth”! If you really think that you are the “superior” people you claim to be, surely then you should be able to separate fact from

fiction and discover the truth for yourselves! And please don’t forget to tell me what it is!

Essay 3 - Where did modern Greeks come from?

In essay 1 of this book we established that prior to and during the creation of the Greek state in the early 1800’s the majority of the population living on Greek lands was predominantly of Albanian, Vlach and Slav origin, which leads to the question “Where from and when did these Albanians, Vlachs and Slavs come to Greece and what happened to the indigenous population living on those lands?” Modern Greeks claim that they are the descendents of the so-called Ancient Greeks. Is this fact or fiction? We will begin the investigation with the “Popular Science Monthly” edited by J. McKeen Cattell, published in 1915. The Popular Science Monthly on page 41 reads: “Once Greece led the world in intellectual pursuits, in art, in poetry, in philosophy. A large and vital part of European culture is rooted directly in the language and thought of Athens. The most beautiful edifice in the world was the Peace Palace of the Parthenon, erected by Pericles, to celebrate the end of Greece’s suicidal wars. This endured 2,187 years to be wrecked at last (1687) in Turkish hands by the Christian bombs of the Venetian Republic. But the glory of Greece had passed away long before the fall of the Parthenon. Its cause was the one cause of all such downfalls – the extinction of strong men by war. At the best, the civilization of Greece was built on slavery, one freeman to ten slaves. And when the freemen were destroyed, the slaves an original Mediterranean stock, overspread the territory of Hellas along with the Bulgarians, Albanians and Vlachs, barbarians crowding down from the north.” So, what is the writer of the Popular Science Monthly from 1915 trying to tell us here? For one he or she is telling us that at the best of times; that would mean during the classics, Greece was predominantly populated by slaves and when the City States fell to the Romans the so-called ancient Greeks were numbering one freeman to ten slaves. So even before the turn of the new millennium the classical Greeks had vanished and were replaced by the slaves they once employed. Furthermore, the author is telling us that the glory of the so-called Ancient Greeks had passed away, died long before the Venetians occupied Greece in 1687. So where is the cultural and ancestral connection between the ancients and the moderns? Does it really exist? Again looking at page 42 of the “Popular Science Monthly” we read: “It is maintained that the Modern Greeks are in the main the descendants of the population that inhabited Greece in the earlier of Byzantine rule. Owing to the operations of various causes, historical, social and economic, that population was composed of many heterogeneous elements and represented in very limited degree the race

which repulsed the Persians and built the Parthenon. The internecine conflicts in the Greek community, wars with foreign powers, and the deadly struggles of factions in the various cities had to a large extent obliterated the old race of free citizens by the beginning of the Roman period. The extermination of the Plateans by the Spartans and of the Melians by the Athenians during the Peloponnesian wars, the proscription of the Athenian citizens after the war, the massacre of the Corcyrean oligarchs by the democratic party, the slaughter of the Thebans by Alexander and of the Corinthians by Mummius are among the more familiar instances of the catastrophe which overtook the civil element in the Greek cities. The void can only have been filled from the ranks of the metics and resident aliens and of the descendants of the far more numerous slave population. In the classic period four-fifths of the population of Attica were slaves; of the remainder half were metics. In AD 100 only three thousand arm-bearing men were in Greece. (James Bourchier)” James Bourchier here reaffirms the fact that the so-called Ancient Greeks disappeared a long time ago and the void was filled by the numerous slaves they employed which at the time consisted of 80% of the total population. Looking further down on page 42 of the “Popular Science Monthly” we read: “The constant little struggles of the Greeks among themselves made no great showing as to numbers compared to other wars, but they wiped out the most valuable people, the best blood the most promising heredity on earth. This cost the world more than the killing of millions of barbarians. In two centuries there were born under the shadow of the Parthenon more men of genius than the Roman Empire had in its whole existence. Yet this empire included all the civilized world, even Greece herself. (La Pouge)” La Pouge here confirms what many others believed; the so-called Ancient Greeks were wiped out a long time ago. At the bottom of page 42 of the “Popular Science Monthly” we read: “The downfall of Greece, like that of Rome, has been ascribed by Schultz to the crossing of the Greeks by the barbaric races which flocked into Hellas from every side. These resident aliens, or metics, steadily increased in numbers as the free Greeks disappeared. Selected slaves or helots were then made free in order to furnish fighting men, and again as these fell their places were taken by immigrants.” Here again Schultz validates the fact that the so-called Ancient Greeks disappeared a long time ago and were replaced by aliens, slaves and immigrants. But who were these immigrants and where did they come from?

To get some answers to these questions we will examine the book “Customs and Lore of Modern Greece” by Rennell Rodd published in 1892. Rennell Rodd on page 17 writes: “Those who adopted the creed of their conquerors, in order to escape from these indignities, as did a large portion of the inhabitants of Euboea, and subsequently of Crete lost their national character, and, becoming Mussulman, practically ceased to be Greek; indeed, from the time of the Ottoman conquest the question of nationality is largely merged in the opposition of creeds. Sultan Mohammed II appears to have foreseen a safeguard against future insurrection in draining the resources of the country, and literally exhausting its population; and he re-peopled the vanquished Constantinople by transferring to the city the wealthiest inhabitants of the lands he subsequently reduced. Slavery awaited the Venetian subjects of Modon and Nauplia when they fell into his hands in 1463, and a similar fate befell a number of the natives of Euboea in 1470. The Ionian were called upon to yield their quota to the re-population of Constantinople, and a number of slaves were drawn from Rhodes in 1480. In the last year of the 15th century and the opening of the 16th, when the Morea was again the battle-field of Turk and Venetian, the occupants of the plains of Argos and of portions of Attica were practically exterminated, and Albanian colonists began to re-occupy the ruined lands. In the following century the Ottoman admiral, Barbarrosa, carried off the female inhabitants of Aegina into slavery, and massacred the males, leaving the island entirely depopulated until it was re-colonized by Albanians. He reduced the majority of the Aegean islands to subjection, expelled the Italian nobles and said to have carried off 30,000 Greeks into slavery.” So what is Rennell Rodd telling us about the Modern Greeks and their true origins? Well, for one, he confirms what others are saying, that is, the original Greeks that inhabited the Greek islands and the mainland of Greece proper vanished a long time ago. Some converted to Islam and the rest were taken into slavery. He is also telling us that the vacant lands left behind were settled and colonized by Albanians. It is interesting to note here that most of the Greek nobility was taken to Constantinople and no doubt Islamized to maintain loyalty. If that were the case and we have no reason to doubt it, then the question that begs to be asked is “Who is more Greek, the descendants of the Modern Turks of Constantinople or the Modern Greeks of Greece proper?” It makes one wonder! According to Rennell Rodd however, one thing is certain and that is that there is very little that connects the Modern Greeks with the Ancient so-called Greeks and plenty of evidence that connects the Modern Greeks with the Albanians!

Let us see what else Rennell Rodd has to say. On pages 18 and 19 of his book “Customs and Lore of Modern Greece” published in 1892, Rennell Rodd goes on to say: “Meanwhile, the deserted lands were gradually occupied by Christian Albanians moving south before the wave of Turkish advance. Their earlier immigrants are lost in the silence of time, but the first recorded mention of their appearance in Peloponnesus occurs in the middle of the 14th century, when Manuel Kantacuzen brought Albanian mercenaries to Mistra, and later established colonies in the peninsula. Again, at the close of the 14th century in the reign of [Byzantine Emperor] John Paleologus, some 10,000 of them crossed the Isthmus, and in later days of the despots of the Morea they are found serving as mercenaries in their armies. The immigration continued through the 15th century, after the final reduction of Albania by the Turks. They occupied the greater part of Boetia, Attica and Megaris, portion of the Corinthian territory, of Argolis and Achaia, as well as small districts of in Phocis, Elis, and Archadia...” Here again we find evidence of Albanians occupying deserted Greek lands as early as the 14th century. Even the Byzantine Emperors had a hand in re-colonizing Greece with Albanians. Then later during the Ottoman invasion of Albania we have even more Albanians invading and occupying Greek territories. In view of what we have read so far, we can see a clear pattern developing which indicates without a doubt that as the so-called Ancient Greeks disappeared from Greek lands, they were replaced by predominantly Albanian immigrants who no doubt are the ancestors of today’s modern Greeks. I use the reference “so-called Ancient Greeks” because as we earlier learned from “Popular Science Monthly” edited by J. McKeen Cattell, published in 1915, the Greek population that survived the Roman invasions and occupation were predominantly the Slaves of the Ancient Greeks. So when we make reference to the so-called Ancient Greeks in the 14th century AD, we are talking about the descendents of the Slaves who served the Ancient Greeks. So you see the so-called Greek lineage was already watered down even before the Slav, Vlach and Albanian migrations into Greek lands. Speaking of Vlachs and Slavs, let us see what T. J. Winnifrith has to say? On page 119 in his book “The Vlachs The History of a Balkan People”, T. J. Winnifrith writes: “In the area where Vlachs as opposed to Romanians now live there is no shortage of reference to Vlachs after the breakdown of Byzantine authority. Choniates describing the Bulgarian revolt mentions a Vlach Chrysos setting up an independent principality in near Strumitsa and calls Thessaly ‘Great Vlachia’.

[Byzantine Emperor] Andronicus I in an edict 1184 refers confusingly to Bulgars, Cumans and Vlachs in the Meglen with the Vlachs receiving preferential treatment. In 1221 the Bishop of Naupaktos, John Apokaukos, refers to the injuries suffered by Simeon Sgouropolos and his daughter at the hands of Avriolines Constantinos, a colonist of the Romans, whom people today call the Vlachs. This piece of evidence would seem to indicate a Vlach presence in Aetolia, especially as Constantinos with his Latin sounding first name (a corruption of Aurelian) had plenty of his race to support him. This evidence is sighted in an article by P. Nasturel which is a useful summary of Medieval Vlach history from the Romanian point of view. It is interesting that we have a definite indication that the Vlachs were seen as the descendants of the Romans, although it is just possible that Vlachs on the sea coast of Greece might be Dalmatian-speakers. Nasturel rather weakens his case by mentioning the people who call themselves Romans, cited by Constantine Porphyrogenitus, who are certainly Dalmatians and by drawing attention to the reference in about 1165 by the priest of Dioclea to Morlachs, black Latins, who used to call themselves Romans. This may be a reference to Dalmatians, although the etymology of Morlachs, from Mavrovlachoi shows a greater contact with Greece than most Dalmatians would have had, and we must not forget the fondness of Modern Vlachs for black clothes.” On pages 120 and 121 in his book “The Vlachs The History of a Balkan People”, T. J. Winnifrith also writes: “As in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries when there was much Albanian activity at a time the Ottoman Empire was losing its authority, so in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries the breakdown of Byzantine authority lead to movements by both Vlachs and Albanians into Greece. These movements parallel earlier waves of invasions by Slavs on the breakdown of East Roman authority in the seventh century and by Dorians or north-western Greeks in the twelfth century B.C. after the collapse of the Mycenaean civilization. The details of all four movements of populations are obscure. There was bound to be much intermingling between races. Some Byzantine verses at the end of the fourteenth century describe Momicila a Bulgaralbanotovlachos, and slightly later we hear of one Boncoes a Serbalbanitovulgarovlachos. Modern polyglot Vlachs had polyglot ancestors. Throughout the fourteenth century Vlachs are hard to distinguish from Albanians. The first mention of the Albanian language is not until 1285. According to John Kantakouzenos some people who lived in no town but inaccessible places in the mountains of Thessaly submitted in 1334 to the [Byzantine] Emperor Andronicus III. They were Albanians with no King, called after their tribal chiefs, Malakasaii, Bouii and

Masaritae. But these were probably Vlachs; there were in Pouqueville’s time Vlachs in the Pindus who called themselves Bovi, and there is still a village called Malakasi. Elsewhere we hear of the Albanian leader Peter Leosas, leading Malakasii of his own race, and this would seem to suggest two kinds of Malakasii. The name may derive from the coastal plain of Malekastir, a word of Latin origin, in central Albania. The theory that the Bouii came from the nearby highland pasture of the Bevaei is more conjectural. Together with the Albanians the Vlachs penetrated to central and Southern Greece. We hear of Vlachs in Attica, Kephallenia and Crete, although in these instances and in the place names with Vlach elements which can be found as far south as the Peloponnesus there maybe confusions between Vlachs or shepherds and Albanians.” Even though there is much too much detail for my purpose, I decided to include T. J. Winnifrith’s above two quotes for those who maybe interested in further pursuing this study. T. J. Winnifrith does however answer the question “Where from and when did these Albanians, Vlachs and Slavs come to Greece?” to a comfortable degree to reach another conclusion and that is not only are the Modern Greeks not the descendents of the Ancient Greeks but their origins can be traced in the Albanian and Vlach immigrants who were not even from Greece proper. So how does that make them the descendants of the Ancient Greeks? It does not! After reading T. J. Winnifrith’s quotes above I am beginning to understand why Greeks throughout the Ottoman period right up to the time when Greece was created, correctly referred to themselves as “Romaoi” (Romans). Being partially the descendents of the Vlachs who in turn are most likely descendents of the Romans or other ethnic groups working for the Romans who acquired the Roman language (Latin) and culture, naturally made them feel like Romans, thus their identity “Romaoi”. This understood, then why did the Modern Greeks opt for being called “Greeks” and “Hellenes” and tied themselves to the Ancient Greek Heritage when they are not Greeks at all? A subject for my next essay!

Essay 4 - Why Greece and not Arvanitovlachia?

“This unique nation-state [Greece] would represent the ultimate achievement of the Hellenic ideal and, as such, would lead all Europe to the highest levels of culture yet known.” (Michael Herzfeld)

In previous essays of this book we established that prior to and during the creation of the Greek state in the early 1800’s the majority of the population living on Greek lands was predominantly immigrant, mostly of Albanian, Vlach and Slav origins, which had settled in Greece to fill the void created by the disappearance of the so-called ancient Greeks. This leads us to the question “Why was this region not called ‘Arvanitovlachia’ which would have correctly represented the land’s demography? Why Greece, a Latin name, and not Arvanitovlachia an appropriate name to represent the two distinct ethnic identities which lived on those lands at that time?” Although a difficult question to answer, in view of the Modern Greeks who have for the last 200 years tried to bury all evidence of their true past, the best response would be to say that ‘the people living in Greece at the time of their independence were not given a choice to self identify’. When Greece was first created in the early 1800’s the population was neither asked nor involved in any kind of self-identification. Unlike the Macedonian people who in 1991 participated in a free referendum which enabled them to self identify and gain independence, the people of Greece were not given that choice! In essence the decision to call the newly created state “Greece” solely rested with foreigners and academics who, instead of calling the new state by its true representative demographic, opted for calling it “Greece” so that they could connect it with a world and culture that had died more than 2,000 years before. In this essay we are going to discover the reasons why Greece was named Greece and not Arvanitovlachia or some other name that would have appropriately connected the land with the current people. We so readily use the word “Ancient Greece” and “Ancient Greeks” to refer to a place and a people in the classical period (about 600 BC to 300 BC) without realizing that the terms “Greece” and “Greeks” are of Latin origin which probably came into use sometime after the 1st century BC and were popularized during the 19th century. The reason I mention this is because today Greece, without any justification, objects to the Macedonian peoples’ use of the name Macedonia to refer to their country on the grounds that the name “Macedonia”, for historic reasons, belongs to the Greeks. To which Greeks does the name “Macedonia” belong? Is it to the so-called

Ancient Greeks whose very name is not only of non-Greek origin but given to those people by the Latins after they disappeared from the face of this earth? Or does the name “Macedonia” belongs to the Arvanitovlachs, the immigrants who over the centuries came to live on those lands? Or does the name “Macedonia” belong to the modern imposters who go by the name of “Greeks”? Why Greece and not Arvanitovlachia? To find the answers to this questions we will first look at segments of William St. Clair’s book, “That Greece Might Still Be Free” which appeared in my series of articles called “William St. Clair on 19th century Greece and the Modern Greeks”, at; http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/82531 and http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/82785) According to St. Clair “To be Greek was to be a drunkard, a lecher, and, especially, a cheat.” But later by the seventeenth century, as more information was uncovered about a people who once lived on those lands, a new picture began to emerge. In time Europeans, without ever having been to Greece, came to believe that the Ancient and Modern Greeks were one and the same. As more information came out, especially after Lord Byron visited Greece in 1809 and 1810, and, on his return, published the first two cantos of Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage, the legend of a place called “Ancient Greece” and a people called “Ancient Greeks” began to grow and spread like wildfire. Besides experiencing Greece for himself, Byron had also read and drew on the many travel books in the works of dozens of earlier writers in prose and in verse which helped him compose some of his best work described as best-sellers. At least twelve editions of his poem were printed between 1812 and 1821 and it was translated into several European languages. Byron’s work prompted more travelers to visit “Greece” but very few were equipped to make more than superficial observations. That, however, did not stop them from making generalizations and expanding the myth surrounding these so-called “Greeks”. As the idea of a “Greece” and “Greeks” grew it was romanticized by more and more writers. Many without ever having visited “Greece” shamelessly drew on the work of others and raised this mythical “Greece” into legendary status. By 1770 the legend became so real that the few writers who questioned it were dismissed as cranks. Again according to St. Clair, “With the advent of Byron, literary philhellenism became a widespread European movement. Hosts of imitators copied his rhetorical verses, and travelers who visited Greece

after the appearance of Childe Harold in 1812 were even more enthusiastic than their predecessors. By the time of the Greek Revolution in 1821 the educated public in Europe had been deeply immersed in three attractive ideas; 1. That Ancient Greece had been a paradise inhabited by supermen; 2. That the Modern Greeks were the true descendants of the Ancient Greeks; and 3. That a war against the Turks could somehow ‘regenerate’ the Modern Greeks and restore the former glories.” So even before the so-called “Modern Greeks” had a chance to discover who they truly were and to decide what to call themselves and their little country, the outside world had made that decision for them. They were going to be called “Greeks”, the embodiment of the “Ancient Greeks” and their little country was going to be called “Greece”. Not everyone however believed in these ideas but in Western Europe where philhellenism flourished the deed was done. But as St. Clair tells us, “The responsibility for turning philhellenism into a political programme belongs to the Greeks themselves. The impetus came from the Greeks overseas.” By late eighteenth century colonies of people who came from the region that later became known as “Greece” and settled in Europe had become largely integrated into Western European culture. It was these people who naturally embraced the literary tradition of philhellenism and later built on it. As Michael Herzfeld in his book “Ours Once More: Folklore, Ideology, and the making of Modern Greece” on pages 4 and 5 tells us: “By the nineteenth century, Classical scholars had come to pride themselves on a remarkable degree of academic perfectionism, but their views were clearly as much a matter of intellectual fashion as ever. A frankly critical American observer of nineteenth-century European scholarship decried not only the English scholars' ‘limp Grecism,’ as evidenced in the excessively ‘scented, wholesale sweetness of the modern aesthetic school in England,’ but also the Germans' use of Greek' ‘as a stalking-horse for Teutonic psychology’ and their grave concern with minutiae. Scholars of the two nations resembled each other, he thought, ‘in but a single trait–the conviction that they understand Greece’ (Chapman 1915: 12-13). Nor was this acid commentator entirely free of any such conviction about himself, to judge from the tone of these remarks. And so, presumably, it will go on. New truths will yield to still newer truths about the same basic idea, the vision of Classical Greece–the source, in a commonly held view, of the very practice of historical writing itself.

Such changes in perception are of interest here for two reasons. First, they show that through all the divergent interpretations there runs a common theme: the idea of Hellas as the cultural exemplar of Europe. And, second, these same contrasts mark the progressive enhancement of that exemplar's authority, not its dissolution (as we might expect) in the bickering of the ages. Whatever Greece is or was, the idea of Greece–like any symbol–could carry a wide range of possible meanings, and so it survived triumphantly. Similarly, the concept of European culture, so stable at the level of mere generality, has undergone many transformations through the centuries. ‘Europe,’ like ‘Hellas,’ was a generalized ideal, a symbol of cultural superiority which could and did survive innumerable changes in the moral and political order. It was to this European ideal, moreover, that Hellas was considered ancestral. Such is the malleable material of which ideologies are made.” What the Europeans saw in Greece they saw in themselves and as David Holden puts it “philhellenism is a love affair with a dream which envisions ‘Greece’ and the ‘Greeks’ not as an actual place or real people but as a symbol of some imagined perfection.” Whatever Greece is or was, the idea of Greece–like any symbol–could carry a wide range of possible meanings, ‘Europe,’ like ‘Hellas,’ was a generalized ideal, a symbol of cultural superiority. Europe needed a genuine noble European past, a source for its enlightenment and it found it in a mythical Greece, a Greece of its own creation. On page 5 of his book Michael Herzfeld goes on to say: “It is as an ideological phenomenon that we shall treat the twin concepts of Hellas and Europe here. They provided the motivating rationale for one of the most explosive political adventures of the nineteenth century, an adventure which claimed thousands of lives and brought many more under the control of a nation-state that had never before existed as a sovereign entity. This adventure was the Greek struggle for independence of 1821 to 1833. Its eventual success was by no means certain in the early stages. The Great Powers were reluctant to commit themselves to the Greek cause until, forced by public opinion at home, by the Greeks' own successes, and by the fear of each other's intentions, they began to take a more active part in bringing the Greek State into existence. That the Greeks did eventually prevail, despite the enormous Turkish armies with which they had to contend as well as their destructive internal squabbles, is some measure of the evocative power of the name of Hellas among their European supporters. To be a European was, in ideological terms, to be a Hellene. Yet the Hellas which European intellectuals wished to reconstitute on Greek soil was very different from the Greek culture which they

actually encountered there, despite all the western-educated Greek intellectuals' efforts to bridge the gap.” If I interpret Herzfeld correctly, not only did Europeans invent and mold the concept of a “Greece” and “Hellenism” but by their instigation of the so-called “Greek Struggle for Independence”, with assistance from the Great Powers, they created a country where one never existed before! Yes you read it right! The Europeans instigated the so-called “Greek Struggle for Independence” in order to bring back the mythical “Ancient Greeks”! Further, they helped create a country based on a myth and shaped the character of its population on a culture that had died more than 2,000 years ago. And all this at the expense of the real, living and vibrant cultures that lived and coexisted on those lands for centuries. This reminds me of what the Greeks did in Macedonia nine decades later when they invaded, occupied, annexed Macedonia, destroyed its living and vibrant culture and turned the Macedonian people into mythical Greeks! Why Greece and not Arvanitovlachia? Because the Europeans, aliens to the so-called Greek lands, took it upon themselves to reshape the new country and its people into something artificial to suit their own desires. Which begs the question “Why did the Europeans need a Greece and how did the birth of Greece shape Europe?” a subject for my next essay. Why give “Greece” a Latin name? The obvious answer is because the “concept” of a Greece was invented by the Modern Latins even before the “country” Greece came into existence. Since the Latins invented Greece it was appropriate that they give it a Latin name?

Essay 5 - Why did the Europeans need a Greece?

In the first four essays of this book we established that the people living in the southern region of today’s Greece in the early 19th century were predominantly Albanian, Vlach and Slav immigrants who had settled there over the centuries to replace the population void created by the disappearance of the so-called “Ancient Greeks”. Given the fact that this new population was predominantly not Greek, 18th century authorities decided to label it Greek anyway in an effort to connect it with a culture that once existed on those lands a long time ago. In this essay I will explain why there was such a need to create a Greece and how it benefited Europe. It is not my intention here to delve into the various details or the rational involved in creating a Greece so I will present the reader with only a general overview to show why 18th and 19th century Europeans needed a Greece and how they proceeded in creating one. The reader must keep in mind that when 18th and 19th century authorities were contemplating the creation of Modern Greece and writing its history there were several overriding criteria that needed to be addressed. These were:

1. The belief that God created the world and that the world was no more than 5,000 years old. 2. The human race had descended from Noah’s Ark which was believed to have landed in the Caucasus after the great flood. 3. History began at the point when the world was created by God. No history was acceptable before that. 4. The history of a nation had to be based more or less on a “national myth” designed to support the “nation”, its people and particularly its rulers. 5. The writing of a nation’s history was usually sponsored by those in authority who during the 18th century were predominantly monarchs.

So, as one can see, the history of a nation or of the world for that matter had to be written to fit the above criteria as well as to suit the desires and approvals of its sponsors. In order to understand why Europeans chose “Ancient Greece” after which to model their own culture, we need to examine Europe’s late 18th and early 19th century political, cultural and economic situation. The first and foremost reason for Europeans choosing “Ancient Greece” as their model to build on is because Ancient Greece was part of Europe. It was important for Europeans to show that the most “enlightened” civilization in the world originated in Europe.

Europeans at the time were involved in all sorts of ventures including the occupation and colonization of various regions of Africa, Asia, Australia and America. They were also involved in enslaving people from Africa and Asia in order to obtain free labour for building their cities and transportation routes, operating their farms, serving as domestics, etc. All these “doings” had to be justified as “moral” and appropriate not only to the world but also to the European masses which supported the political systems and those in power. One way to justify them was to show examples of other civilizations doing exactly that; that it was okay to take other peoples’ lands and enslave them for the benefit of this new European civilization. In order to convince the world, particularly their own people, the Europeans needed a practicing example which they found in the “Ancient Greeks”. Europeans also needed precedence to show that they were not the first to condone imperialism and slavery and at the same time maintain the image that they were civilized. It was one thing to say that a “Greek” civilization existed 2,500 years ago in a savage world full of Barbarians however it would have been more convincing if such a civilization existed today, in that part of the world. As mentioned in a previous essay, certain Europeans, later referred to as Philhellenes, convinced that such a civilization could be re-created, decided to instigate an uprising against the Ottoman Empire. Believing that if the Greeks of today could be freed from the Ottoman yoke they would be politically and culturally capable of quickly progressing to the level of the so-called “Civilized Ancient Greeks” of some 2,500 years ago. Be it by chance or by design, once the Western European Public found out about the merits of this so-called “Ancient Greek Civilization” it began to look up to it and accept it not only as a source of enlightenment but as a guiding light for Europe’s future. As it happened, the first step in re-creating this old civilization was to popularize it abroad among intellectuals and academics, especially in Britain and France. With the publication of the Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage and Lord Byron’s work, the British and French audience was quick to catch on and became very open to the idea of “bringing back the Ancient Greeks”. Once popularized, a movement started forming giving the “idea of re-creating Ancient Greece” life and impetus and later moral, financial and military support. The movement caught on much easier and faster in Western European countries than it did inside the Ottoman Occupied

Greek Regions but with persistence from the Great Powers and British gold, Hellenism was reborn. Once the European public was in support of such a venture, it was time to convince the people living on the lands where once the so-called “Ancient Greeks” lived and bring them along. Unfortunately, convincing the “locals” became a harder task than convincing the European public but in the long run persistence paid off and today we have “pure Greeks”, “descendants of the Ancient Greeks.” The primary reasons why Europe wanted a Greece can be summarized as follows; 1. Europeans needed to justify the use of slavery as a moral deed for the greater good of a superior and moral Modern European civilization. Because of its intellectual capacity, the so-called “Ancient Greek Civilization” was considered both superior and moral which not only condoned slavery but practiced it. As I have shown in previous essays of this book, more than half of Ancient Athens was populated by slaves who served the ruling elite. 2. Europeans needed precedence to justify their acts of colonization and imperial land grabs and found it in the so-called Ancient Greeks, particularly in the imperial ventures of Ancient Athens. 3. Besides 1 and 2 above, Europeans needed a “model” on which to build their own civilization and to show that European “knowledge” and “culture” were genuinely European and not imported from any of the “other” lands from which slaves were imported. They found this “model” in Ancient Greece and took from it what they deemed appropriate and discarded the rest. In other words, late 18th and early 19th century Europeans found in Ancient Greece a civilized people with a superior culture and intellect which at the same time practiced slavery, fought for booty and colonized other peoples’ lands; a behaviour worthy of emulation. What is most interesting, little known and needs emphasis is the fact that the so-called “Greek Uprising of 1821” was not at all a “Greek Uprising” but an uprising instigated by non-Greek Europeans outside of Greece. Also, another little known fact is that this uprising was mostly financed by Great Britain and fought with the help of Western European volunteers. The aim of this venture was not just to free the people from the Ottoman yoke but to turn them into something they were not. And thus the curse of Hellenism was born. Hellenism may have been viewed as “something wonderful” by outsiders who yearned to see the “Ancient Greek Civilization” re-born but it was a nightmare for the people directly involved who were asked to give up their true identities for something alien, foreign and long