Two hundred years after the outbreak of the Greek Revolution, the Greek state is expected to celebrate, despite the difficult conditions prevailing due to the pandemic, in a festive and enthusiastic way its beginning, with many and varied events and actions of different content and scope. A celebration that, among other things, is an important opportunity to re-examine the multiple paths of research and thought surrounding the events of that period, but also the conditions that that period set for the establishment and the subsequent course of the newly established Greek state. After all, the outbreak of the Revolution and the years that followed were the period that formed the basis for the creation of a new state in the South of the Balkan peninsula, the Greek state.
Of course, one would expect an effort of this magnitude to include in its context an overall critical evaluation and a course of introspection in the context of a substantial reflection of the historiographical literature for all these years that have intervened in relation to this great event. This effort would mark, to the extent that such a thing would be done, an attempt to "bridge" between the approach followed by the scientific community to the events of 1821, and which in many of the issues it studies has ended up, with what we call " public' history and much more, with what is identified as 'school' history. Unfortunately at this level, the gap remains significant and so far unbridged.
The two hundred years was a good opportunity to be part of a wider reflection, as the purpose of History is not to make uniform narrative sets, with roundings, without corners and spikes. On the contrary, it is to demonstrate this complexity and the complexity of the phenomena, since societies constitute particularly complex phenomena and as such it is worth studying. Engaging with history matters when it opens up questions by fueling thought rather than providing ready-made solutions and answers.
Stathis Koutrouvidis, historian
How Monemvasia fell:An almost unbelievable but completely true story
The fall of Monemvasia during the first months of the Greek Revolution of 1821 does not occupy a dominant position in Greek historiography, such as the fall of Tripolitsa (a success that consolidated the Revolution in the Peloponnese) or the fall of Kalamata, which was the first strategically great victory of the rebels.
However, what happened in Monemvasia in the first months of 1821 is of special importance and deserves to be highlighted today, which marks 200 years since the start of the Greek Revolution. Apart from the fact that the Greek predominance of the castle state in the south-eastern tip of the Peloponnese was another success of the revolutionaries, it includes events of characteristic tragedy, incredible brutality, while at the same time their careful study often breaks the stereotypes with which generations and generations of Greeks grew up . The story (also in Monemvasia) comfortably overcomes the simplistic figures of "good Greeks" and "bad Turks" as it proves once again that situations are usually more complex and do not obey only "ethnocentric" approaches.
Monemvasia in 1821
Without a doubt, Monemvasia was a special case in the Peloponnese under the Ottoman administration. As the historical sources confirm, the Greeks of the small town were much less than the Turks (150 people in total, the Greeks, over 1000 Turkish families), however it was a fact that the Turks had fully embraced the customs and traditions (but also the way life) of the Greeks in a strange historical caprice.
The only difference that separated the two populations was the religious one, but even this did not stand in the way of a peaceful Greek-Turkish coexistence in an area characterized in any case by intense poverty and survival was the absolute priority. It is also characteristic and worth mentioning that many of the Turks of Monemvasia had Greek origins, that is, their roots came from Greeks who converted to Islam to "avoid the pressure of the first years of slavery" as D. Kokkinos characteristically writes in the monumental six-person his work "The Greek Revolution".
The almost harmonious relations between Greeks and Turks in Monemvasia did not prevent the outbreak of the Revolution in this region as well. Anyway, there were Greeks initiated into the Friendly Society who, as soon as the trigger was given, set the relevant process on track. Despite the fact that for a long time there was a strong rumor that an uprising of the ragiad Greeks was imminent, the agades of Monemvasia were not worried at all. After all, the rumor was attributed to the machinations of Ali Pasha, who at that time was fighting against the High Gate (many Turkish troops were busy fighting against Ali in the wider area of Ioannina).
However, when the news of the declaration of the revolution arrived first in Mani and then in Gythio, the Turks of Monemvasia realized the reality. They were immediately closed in the city's fortress (in today's castle state located on the great rock of Monemvasia) since they were already besieged by bodies of armed Maniatians to which, in the following days, new ones were added from other parts of the wider region. These (disorderly) bodies are led by commanders such as Pierros Maggioros Grigorakis who is also given the General Headquarters of the operation. In other words, it becomes clear that there is no central administration that will have the final responsibility and the burden falls on the warlords who of course have their own personal pursuits that also have to do with looting. Along with the Turks, Greek families were also locked up in the fortress.
The difficulties of the operation and the first Turkish exit
Attempting to storm a castle, such as the fortification of Monemvasia, was not at all an easy task for the besiegers apart from others, because they had no knowledge of how to fight the enemy in an organized manner. But beyond all that, the siege of Monemvasia was made difficult by its special morphology, which turned it into an impregnable, natural fortress. It had previously been strengthened by significant interventions on the part of the Venetians.
Also, inside the fortress the number of Turks reached 4,000 with enough munitions and food. Together with the Turks from Monemvasi, the Turks from the neighboring towns, Molaus, and from the villages of Pakia, Sykia, Finiki and 60 more families of Vardounian Turks who did not follow the rest of the Vardounians who had taken refuge in Tripolitsa and some Christian residents were imprisoned in the castle. that were left inside the fortification.
On March 28, they attempted an exit in order to multiply their munitions without success and were quickly forced to return with some significant losses. The besiegers decided to ask for help from the Speciotes in order not to face similar phenomena again. The Spetsians responded immediately and sent a squadron of eleven ships to make the line against the Turks even narrower.
The problems that the besieged began to face soon became apparent. The lack of food but especially the lack of water increased their problems. But supplying the besiegers too was not easy, and despite a temporary reinforcement from the Speciotes, it was not possible to continue without supplies. The shortage on both sides was mainly in wheat.
The supplies of the besieged lasted for two months, while there were no domestic animals, due to the morphology of the terrain. Food quickly ran out and water was running low. On May 18, about 150 stranded Turks attempted to escape by seizing a docked ship and managed to wrest the bridge from the attackers, but without achieving anything else.
A Greek revives the morale of the besieged Turks (and is severely punished)
The arrival of the Greek Panagiotis Mertsanis from Nafplion to the siege with signed letters that confirmed that Kehagiabeis had achieved significant successes, revived the hopes of the besieged, resulting in them planning new movements to disengage and counterattack.
After the arrival of Mertsanis, whose family had been shut up in the fortress, the besieged Turks attempted an exit with 172 fighters with the aim of creating confusion in the Greek camp and pinning them between two fires. The failure of this sortie led the Ottomans to expect the intervention of the remaining Turks which would never come as Kehayabei had meanwhile been defeated (which the besiegers were unaware of).
Mertsanis found himself in the lines of the Turks who tried to leave and was captured by the Maniates and the Speciotes who had rushed in pursuit of them. The punishment of the Nauflian Greek by his compatriots for his treacherous attitude, as it turned out, was exemplary cruel. Mertsanis was tied to the muzzle of a large cannon and with the explosion his limbs were scattered on the coast surrounding the fortress.
Hunger to the point of cannibalism in the fortress and the crude class division
In order to continue to maintain themselves in a rudimentary tolerable state, the besieged (Turks and a few Greeks) decided to feed themselves with millet which they distributed in equal portions. The Turkish aghas allowed the exiled Christians and Muslims to flee in order to reduce the population in the interior in order to be more self-sustaining. But along the way this was forbidden, so the situation kept getting worse.
The powerful Turks, seeing their forces dwindling, but mainly their hopes diminishing, decided to close themselves in the upper part of the castle, keeping all the food for them, forcing the majority of the population to feed on nothing but millet and unclean animals (donkeys , dogs, even mice!) Then the hungry began to consume even the roots of the prickly pears by frying them in oil.
Such was the hunger of the excluded that they began to cannibalize. Children (seven turkeys in total), who were found without their parents in the narrow streets of the castle town, were slaughtered and eaten by the prisoners since there was no other option for survival. Improper nutrition meanwhile caused endemic diseases that began to decimate the population.
Ypsilanti Intervention - Dissent in the ranks of the Greeks
On June 9, 1821, the Peloponnesian Senate sent an official letter to the besieged asking them to surrender to the Greek forces and leave without problems. The arrival of Dimitrios Ypsilantis created new conditions for the leadership of the Revolution in its first months. Ypsilantis was the person who inspired confidence in the besieged Turks, so that if they needed to proceed with any negotiation, in contrast to the prerogatives of the Peloponnesian senate or the chieftains who were outside the city walls whom the agades continued to consider "rogues". .
On the side of the blockaded, Ibrahim Bouloukbasis took it upon himself to discuss the surrender of the city, their flight with weapons and their safe passage to Nafplio. Ypsilantis appointed as negotiator the follower of the prince Alexander Kantakouzenos to continue the negotiations on his behalf. Among other things, Kantakouzenos, when he arrived at the site of the siege accompanied by about 1000 men, demanded from the besieged to pay the cost of the siege, a claim that was rejected. For his part, the Greek representative rejected a Turkish proposal according to which the city could be surrendered but not the fortress. It was a strategically imperative move as it was not possible for the city's fortress to remain in Turkish hands.
As paradoxical as it sounds, the Greek besiegers disagreed with the refusal of Kantakouzenos. The reason was purely practical. The Maniat chieftains, in order to convince the warriors to help in the operation of the marshland, had promised them rich booty. Eager for this, the besiegers proposed an immediate assault, but the cooler Cantacouzenos rejected the request and finally managed to impose his will on the crowds. The combatants, it should be emphasized, did not constitute a regular army in which the discipline of superiors is a basic condition of its operation. They were, on the contrary, disorganized groups of armed men who always had profit in mind.
The intra-Turkish conflict leads to a solution
Inside the fort the situation had become completely desperate. The options available to the besieged had dwindled. In negotiations, the Greeks clearly had the upper hand and had freedom of movement. Desperate Turks were now approaching the Greek lines accompanied by Greeks disguised as Muslims asking for mercy. In this way, most of the Greeks fled, while only six Greek families remained inside the fortress, but their role proved to be crucial afterwards. Meanwhile, the Turks who had not taken refuge with the agades in the upper fortress also lost the only source of water which fell, after a short battle, into Greek hands.
The agades, despite the fact that they had both food and water, realized that their position was just as difficult as that of the rest of the Turks (although still not marginal). They then attempted to use the remaining Greeks in the fortress as hostages. They were indeed invited to go up to the upper fortress, ostensibly to be given food. Then the common fate and action of the desperate Greeks and Turks worked as a lifesaver for the Greeks. Before ascending to the upper fortress, the six Greek families consulted the Turks. They, thinking wisely, prevented them either because there was a great emotional attachment between them or because they feared that with the Greek hostages, the wrath they would experience from the besiegers when the city fell would be too cruel.
The hungry crowds went on the counterattack and implemented a trick that ultimately proved to be a catalyst in the developments. Meanwhile, it was preceded by Kantakouzenos' renewed refusal to accept the Turkish proposals, characteristically telling the besieged Greeks, whose delegation visited him, that "he is very sorry that he cannot save them and that their names will be recorded by the grateful homeland in the line of those sacrificed for it".
It was then that the trick was put into effect in order to "break" the intransigence of the Turkish agades. The Turks of the lower fortress informed the agades that in the end Kantakuzinos accepted the surrender of only the city and not the fortress. However, they needed to sign the relevant treaty themselves. That is why they (the Turks of the lower fort) were asking for permission to enter the upper fort to show the relevant documents. The trick caught on. The guards of the agades opened the gates and then the multitudes of the Turks "from below" stormed the upper fortress demanding a common solution for all the besieged. This solution was finally imposed on her. The move by the Greeks to ask for the Turkish opinion and not to turn into a tool of the Turkish agadas proved, as emphasized above, to be a catalyst. The Greek-Turkish cooperation of those below forced the agades to capitulate!
Immediately Kantakouzenos sent conditions to the agades and to the rest of the population. According to them the Turks were free to go wherever they wanted as long as they left their weapons in the fortresses. They could also be transferred to Kythera which, like all the islands, was under English administration. But with a trick Kantakouzenos avoided this eventuality by writing to the English commander of the island that the Turkish population that would probably settle on the island suffered from infectious diseases. In the end most Turks took the (sea) way to the coasts of Asia Minor. Of the approximately 4000 at the beginning of the siege, 750 were left alive.
Στις 21 Ιουλίου 1821 υπογράφηκε η παράδοση της πόλης και οι Τούρκοι αγάδες παρέδωσαν τα κλεδιά των φρουρίων στις ελληνικές δυνάμεις. Από τις 23 Ιουλίου και μετά η πόλη βρίσκεται επισήμως σε ελληνικά χέρια είδηση που προκαλεί θύελλα ενθουσιασμού στους ελληνικούς πληθυσμούς της Πελοποννήσου και τρόμο στους Οθωμανούς πολιορκούμενους της Τριπολιτσάς (η οποία λίγο αργότερα θα έπεφτε επίσης στα χέρια των, υπό τον Θεόδωρο Κολοκοτρώνη, Ελλήνων).
Επιστημονική επιμέλεια:Στάθης Κουτρουβίδης
Follow News247.gr on Google News and be the first to know all the news
Read the News from Greece and the world, with the reliability and validity of News247.gr