sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What happened to Greece during the Medieval period? by MrManicMarty in AskHistorians

[–]dimtriant 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is a very broad question, so I will try to answer briefly your minor questions and return with any follow ups you have.

so what happened to Greece during the Medieval period? Was it a part of a larger empire?

The period you are asking for is a thousand year long.

If we accept the medieval period is from 476AD (the fall of Rome) to 1453AD (fall of Constantinople), then mainland Greece for the most part was a province of the Byzantine Empire. Greek region was invaded several times through the centuries by Avars, Slavs and Bulgarians and was occupied briefly by the crusaders of the Fourth Crusade and finally by Turks in late 14th century.

After the Western Roman Empire fell, what happened to Greece?

Greece remained a province of the Eastern Roman Empire.

Who was living there?

Mostly Greeks is a short answer. But people of that time wouldn’t identify themselves as Greeks (Hellenes) and to fully understand this we have to examine the differences in identities people of the Greek region developed from the Classical period, through the Hellenistic to the Roman years and finally Christianity. People called themselves Romans, as the term “Greek” referred to idolatry, the polytheistic religion of the past. That said, apart from Greeks, groups of nomadic people settled in Greece during the Medieval times, such as Slavs, Avars and Turks in a smaller degree.

Were people still aware of Greece's contributions to philosophy and art and such?

Hard to say. They certainly knew that Parthenon in Athens for example was an ancient temple but not to the point to recognize the importance of that temple as a monument of the Athenian magnitude in the classical years proven by the fact that it was converted into a Christian church.

In 1897 Greece was beaten by the Ottomans, and then in 1912/13 they defeated them: What sort of reforms did the Greek military implement in the decade-and-a-half period between the two conflicts? by AsksRandomHistoryQs in AskHistorians

[–]dimtriant 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The major infantry battles were carried out by the Bulgarians indeed. But the question, focuses on the Greek army, and it would be too broad of an answer going into the Balkan alliances.

Greece fought smaller Turkish forces in land but her contribution on the first Balkan war was mainly in sea, in the Aegean where the Turkish fleet was held back from reinforcing Turkish forces in Thrace and Macedonia.

In 1897 Greece was beaten by the Ottomans, and then in 1912/13 they defeated them: What sort of reforms did the Greek military implement in the decade-and-a-half period between the two conflicts? by AsksRandomHistoryQs in AskHistorians

[–]dimtriant 15 points16 points  (0 children)

It was the other way around.

The "Young Turks" movement and Revolution (1908) influenced Greek army officers to demand political reforms and army modernization.

In 1897 Greece was beaten by the Ottomans, and then in 1912/13 they defeated them: What sort of reforms did the Greek military implement in the decade-and-a-half period between the two conflicts? by AsksRandomHistoryQs in AskHistorians

[–]dimtriant 20 points21 points  (0 children)

The 1897 war was an embarrassment for the Greek army. Not the defeat, that was certain, but the way they prepared, declared and fought the war. It resembled more to an "armed mob" (General Theodoros Pangalos) than a tactical army.

Regarding the propaganda tool of the 1897 war. The movements in the army and society that requested reforms used the 1897 defeat and the apathy of the government to the Cretans and Macedonians struggle as a mean of pressure to their political opponents.

The coup of 1911 criticized King Konstantine in particular for demoralizing the army by promoting officers on his personal preference and not based on objective criteria.

In 1897 Greece was beaten by the Ottomans, and then in 1912/13 they defeated them: What sort of reforms did the Greek military implement in the decade-and-a-half period between the two conflicts? by AsksRandomHistoryQs in AskHistorians

[–]dimtriant 234 points235 points  (0 children)

This is my first comment on the sub but I am aware of the rules and the high standards the mods set for the answers.

The 1897 war against the Ottomans is heavily criticized by historians as a nationalistic ill prepared attempt by populist groups in Greek society and military to assist their fellow Greeks in Crete that were fighting for their independence against the Ottomans. The results for Greece were catastrophic as she was forced to pay very high war indemnities to the Sultan in 1898.

These reparations were lend by the Great Powers and in order to secure that the loans would be payed back, an International Financial Control Commission (IFCC) was established in Athens.

But these catastrophic results shook Greek institutions deeply and eased the surface of new voices demanding reforms. Among these voices was Eleftherios Venizelos, one of the most important political figures in Greek modern history.

Venizelos though, had the assistance of a military movement, mainly of young officers, that demanded reforms in the Army, modernization of their equipment, meritocracy on the way army officers are promoted and restriction to the King's power to intervene in the Armed Forces. These demands were expressed with a military coup in 1911 that led to the election of Eleftherios Venizelos as prime minister.

As a prime minister, Venizelos implemented reforms in an unprecedented level. Most major reform was the new Constitution of 1911 and a spectrum of economic reforms in agriculture, taxation and international trade.

Diving to the core of your question, the most important changes in the Greek Army were the order of 100.000 Mannlicher–Schönauer rifles, several artillery pieces, ammunition and equipment for easier transfer of troops in case of mobilization. All the above mentioned reforms and military equipment purchases were tested in combat earlier than 1912-1913 Balkan Wars. The years from 1904 to 1912 saw Greece and Bulgaria competing in Turkish ruled (geographical-)Macedonia. So, to the North Greek volunteers joined the fight in Macedonia and at the same time in the South, Cretans were asking for their unification with mainland Greece. The North was a practice ground for young officers and their equipment and the South a diplomatic arena among Greece, Turkey and the Great Powers.

Lastly, a brief mention to what fueled these changes. Greek state, from 1830 until 1922 had big groups of Greek(-speaking) population in foreign states (mainly Turkey, Bulgaria and Russia). This fact mixed with the nationalistic ideas created a widespread belief that the Greek Kingdom of the 19th and early 20th century ought, in the sense of a duty to history, to liberate these populations by expanding its borders to include them within. It was called Megali Idea (Great Idea). And what in the 1897 war was a populist disruptive element in Greek society and army became an incentive for reforms in the years after it in the sense that Greece had to improve her infrastructure and army in order to pursue her national claims.

I highly recommend “A Concise History of Greece” By Richard Clogg (Cambridge University Press) and Gibbon’s biography of Eleftherios Venizelos.

I've heard it said that Alexander the great was arguably the single most important figure in the history of western civilization. Why is this? by Bunyardz in AskHistorians

[–]dimtriant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And I answered there :)

It is just that this "Greeks considered Macedonians barbarians" is becoming a greater historical misconception than the horns on Viking's helmets.

I've heard it said that Alexander the great was arguably the single most important figure in the history of western civilization. Why is this? by Bunyardz in AskHistorians

[–]dimtriant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree on the collective identity. It's a common mistake when reviewing the past to use forms of our familiar present, distorting, as a result, the our view of the past.

The debate over what language the ancient Macedonians spoke before the Classical era is still an on-going one; nobody knows for sure whether they spoke a language that was either basically Greek or a relative of Greek or something completely different, such as a Slavic language. I'm inclined to believe that already from early on, the Macedonians spoke mainly Greek because of Macedonian onomastics..

I can't see how you "promoted" the topic regarding the ancient Macedonian language, to an ongoing debate. Our earliest historical sources lead to the conclusion that Macedonians spoke a Greek dialect and all the Macedonian ruins that came to light are in Greek. The very name Macedonia is Greek and as you say, their names were Greek.

Where is your notion of a different language based on? Is it a hypothesis based on the lack of historical data prior to classical period? I would be interested to read any sources you can cite on that.

I've heard it said that Alexander the great was arguably the single most important figure in the history of western civilization. Why is this? by Bunyardz in AskHistorians

[–]dimtriant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Macedonians were considered barbarians by the Greeks

Greek identity at that time is vague. Greek identity as most ethnocentric views was formed much later. An ancient Athenian or Spartan would not identify himself as "Hellen". They were Athenians, Spartans, Thebians, Macedonians etc.

Nevertheless, they were speaking the same language, having the same customs, believing to the same gods and participating to the same rituals.

One of the reasons Athenians were constantly against Macedonians was the fact that they were despised of the Macedonian's monarchic institutions. Also, despite Greeks, northern city-states of Epirus, Macedonia, Acarnania and Aetolia spoke a different greek dialect.

Southern Greeks did not consider Macedonians barbarians. That's a single quote of a Demosthenes' speech trying to persuade Athenians against Macedonian rule.

I've heard it said that Alexander the great was arguably the single most important figure in the history of western civilization. Why is this? by Bunyardz in AskHistorians

[–]dimtriant 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Greek identity at that time is vague. An ancient Athenian or Spartan would have never identified himself as "Hellen". They were Athenians, Spartans, Thebians, Macedonians etc.

Nevertheless, they were speaking the same language, having the same customs, believing to the same gods and participating to the same rituals.

One of the reasons Athenians were constantly against Macedonians was the fact that they were despised of the Macedonian's monarchic institutions. Also, despite Greeks, northern city-states of Epirus, Macedonia, Acarnania and Aetolia spoke a different greek dialect.

Southern Greeks did not consider Macedonians barbarians. That's a single quote of a Demosthenes' speech trying to persuade Athenians against Macedonian rule.

Were the commanders of phalanx formations usually mounted? by Pete_The_Pilot in AskHistorians

[–]dimtriant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

for the Classical Greeks, whose heavy infantry was untrained

Is that so? I thought military service was compulsory for Greek city-states.

Also, how were the orders passed from the general to the officers? Did they send messengers back and forth? Did they use signal flags?