As the Greeks made guerilla war with ottomans in the 1921; the Europeans were watching with interest how the outcome would fit with their plans. The Greeks were making war in ancient stiles but when the Europeans had asked why do not they take up arms and meet them on battlefield they had said thus:

as

Most of the libertianists had hoped for a second Thermopylae, so they said that

for a heroius victory.

Actually, i think that Greeks just simply hadn't got the power to win the fight then as they themselves said aswell

I think that greeks were intelligent, of course as a Army they have no chance.

... if we life, we may fight another day....

well said.

What are these quotes? It was maily guerilla war but it later involved piched battles and sea-battles.

That piece you showed us resembles also the current situation, only do the Greeks actually still think they stand a chance.

May piece last

The Greeks were vastly outnumbered numerically and most of their soldiers were klephts, criminal outlaws who had taken up arms against the professional Turkish army. To have engaged the Turks on an open field would have been utterly stupid. Using the terrain, ambushes and surprises, the Greeks achieved some impressive victories until the arrival of the Egyptians.

One English observer whose name escapes me recorded of the Greek fighters a number of virtues, including frugality, toughness and resolve. After quoting these qualities he then said "the Greeks, for all that, are not brave. But neither would anyone else be in their position". What he basically meant was that their situation required unconventional military tactics, rather than lining up on an open field and letting the balance of numbers defeat them.

They did, in 1827 a joint, English, French and Russian fleet destroyed the Egyptian/Ottoman one at the sea-battle of Navarino. That sealed the course of the war as the Egyptian had now no means of re-supplying their army. reason for the intervention was their will to interfere in Eastern Mediterranean affairs as well as pressure from the public opinion in their countries which was in favor of the Greek cause, especially after the massacres of the Ottoman army at Chios, Psara and Casos islands.

Many thousand Europeans fought (and many died) in the Greek rebel forces as volunteers, sometimes forming individual brigades. They were called "Philellenes" and a simple search for the word in google will provide you tones of information. Most prominent amongst them was Lord Byron (his poetry here: http://readytogoebooks.com/Byron.html - http://readytogoebooks.com/Byron.html ) . He eventually died of illness in Messolonghi, where his heart was buried.

The most interesting wars of independence of history are the Greek and Turkish ones in my opinion. No other nations had to fight each other both as invaders and natives to get their own independences. First the Greeks had to fight Turks in their lands, then Turks against Greeks in Turkish lands.

Byron was the man of his times, a romantic in the Age of Romanticism. He died without ever having fired a shot in battle though.

Also of note is that Russia was throughout the war either actually fighting the Turks of threatening the Turkish border with troops, tying up huge numbers of Turkish troops who would otherwise have probably crushed the rebellion quite easily.

Partially true. Remember that the Tzar allowed Ottomans to occupy the bordering the Danube countries, after Ipsilantes failed uprising attempt.

The main reason that the Greek revolution was able to live it's first days, was that the ottomans were tied up fighting Ali Pasha of Ioannina, who wanted to create his own state, rather than the Russians.

At that time there was the restoration period in Europe. The empires restored their power and there was a high conservative pressure on the liberal intellectuals. They (the liberal intellectuals) couldn't act in their own countries freely and they idealised the Greek fight against the Ottomans in a romantic way...

Or peace or plenty, corn or oil or wines;

No land of Canan, full of milk and honey,

Nor ( save in paper shekels ) ready money:

But let us not to own the truth refuse,

Was ever Christian land so rich in Jews?

Those parted with their teeth to good King John,

And now, ye kings !  they kindly draw your own;

All states, all things, all sovereigns they control,'

And waft a loan "from Indus to the pole."

The banker, broker, baron, brethen, speed

To aid these bankrupt tyrants in their need.
-----------------------

I agree with you entirely. There was mismanagement at both ends. The British were greedy for an return on their investment, the Greeks were totally impoverished and were now suddenly given a huge amount of money (looking at any modern African nation it doesn't take a genius to realize that people who have no experience with large amounts of cash tend to squander it). In the end it caused bad blood which was a shame, but the British partially made amends with their intervention at Navarino. The French have something to answer for also, allowing their naval officers to offer advice to the Egyptians and Turks which resulted in shattering devastation for the Greek side.

First picture:Marcos Botsaris death

Second picture:Battle of Maniaki

Third picture:Battle of Dervenakia

Originally posted by Phallanx Well I think all 'allies' have to answer to questions. The French as you mention for giving advice to the Ottomans as seen in Navarino with the Admiral Lieu....(something), the British for dispatching E.Cordington (after PM G.Canning's death) for destroying the Ottoman fleet in Navarino, which interestingly enough, they obviously didn't want But most of all, those that sold out their country, what we call the 'kotzampasides' (those used by the Ottomans to run the districts). As seen in the names of, Tsolakoglou of Agrafa, the : Nikolaioi, Kapanitsas, Krebbatas, Adrachtas of Mani,  the priests: Simeon Trapezountios, Ieremiah, Pachoumios Patestos, Leontios of Larissa, Dionysos of Chios, the: Deligiannis of Ileia, Gortunis and Olympia, the : Liontaioi, the : Sontuxos.......and unfortunately many more that actually were against the  revolution.....

I know more about the international politics and warfare as seen from the Greek side, but did many Greeks play an active role in trying to sabotage the revolution? How decisive was their involvement?

The picture doesn't fit in with what I read about Botsaris' death. Apparently he was leading his men up to an enemy position and was slowly poking his head over an enemy parapet to see what they were doing when an enemy soldier shot him point-blank in the face.

The tradition of the church as a secular authority for the Greek people was established, nevertheless, by Mehmed II "El Fatih" himself. Mehmed the Conqueror (of Constantinople) for those not familiar with his Ottoman title.

When he appointed Georgios Scholarios as first post-Byzantine Patriarch, he absolutely knew what he was doing. Scholarios, known as a Patriarch with the name of Gennadios, was instrumental in making the business of achieving unity of the Greek Orthodox with the RomeoCatholic church a total chimera, through his vehement opposition (and his great influence over the lower clergy and simple townsfolk).

Consequently, he was "awarded" by gratious Mehmed, who knew that the only way Constantinople could be saved, was through western intervention (and a really heavy one, as well, the Ottomans were extremely strong at that point). And the only way to achieve such intervention was the "Enosis", the submission (essentialy) of the GO church to RC.

If we speak in modern - nationalistic, partly - terms, what Gennadios did to jumpstart his career can viewed as High Treason, Lese Majesty. Maybe he - and people as Lucas Notaras, who said "better the Turks than Enosis - was more insightful than the emperor, though, and the best way to have the Greek people survive was to adopt to a conqueror that was not going to absorb them if they kept their faith intact (and that's precisely what happened, Orthodoxy has played - despite the treacherous attitude of many Despots - a pivotal role in keeping the Greek "ethnos" intact during 400 years of foreign rule).  Maybe the Greeks would've been eventually "absorbed" by the Westeners, had they chosen to adopt to their religion. We'll never know, I guess...