Dissertation committee:
Κονόρτας Παρασκευάς, Αναπληρωτής Καθηγητής, Τμήμα Ιστορίας και Αρχαιολογίας, Ε.Κ.Π.Α.
Σειρηνίδου Βασιλική, Αναπληρώτρια Καθηγήτρια, Τμήμα Ιστορίας και Αρχαιολογίας, Ε.Κ.Π.Α.
Λαΐου Σοφία, Αναπληρώτρια Καθηγήτρια, Τμήμα Ιστορίας, Ιόνιο Πανεπιστήμιο.
Κοτζαγεώργης Φωκίων, Αναπληρωτής Καθηγητής, Τμήμα Ιστορίας και Αρχαιολογίας, Α.Π.Θ.
Κολοβός Ηλίας, Αναπληρωτής Καθηγητής, Τμήμα Ιστορίας και Αρχαιολογίας, Πανεπιστήμιο Κρήτης.
Καραμανωλάκης Ευάγγελος, Αναπληρωτής Καθηγητής, Τμήμα Ιστορίας και Αρχαιολογίας, Ε.Κ.Π.Α.
Πλουμίδης Σπυρίδων, Αναπληρωτής Καθηγητής, Τμήμα Ιστορίας και Αρχαιολογίας, Ε.Κ.Π.Α.
Summary:
The thesis presents the Greek Revolution as an event that also concerns the Ottomans and is a part of Ottoman history. It contributed to the evolution of the Empire and its adaptation to modernity. It aspires to fill the gap in the existing literature by studying the set of sources transcribed into the modern Turkish alphabet produced by Ottoman authors during most of the 19th century (up to 1884) and relating to the Greek Revolution. It deals with secondary sources, the narratives of the specific authors, - official chroniclers (Shanizade Effendi, Esad Effendi, Cevdet Pasha and Lutfi Effendi) and other historians (Vahit Pasha, Bahir Effendi, Mehmet Mansour Effendi and Melek Bey) and memoirists (Yusuf Effendi, Kamboudli Vasfi Effendi). The course of the Ottoman historiography during the 19th century is examined through the specific texts and some steps of progress are identified, but not radical intersections. The long tradition continues in many ways despite all the individual sections.
It examines - beyond what they wrote - and how we read their works today. It focuses mainly on the narrative of the official chroniclers, without overlooking the works of other writers of the period. The official chroniclers present a narrative intended to prove that the rebels have revolted against their rightful ruler and the war is a conflict between Christians and Muslims and the rebels must be dealt with according to the holy law of Islam. The sultan with few exceptions is presented as a devout Muslim, a powerful ruler, beneficent to all his subjects. While they perceive the sultan's loss of legitimacy among his non-Muslim subjects, they inadvertently withhold it from their readers. Their targets, their readership and the language they use are explored. It is examined in the description of the events what they record and what they omit. Criticisms of the official chronographs or supplementary works were written throughout the 19th century by a variety of authors with different aims. They all are members of Ottoman scholarship of the period with important functions other than writing history.
The causes of the Revolution according to the authors are presented in a more detailed presentation than the existing literature. The knowledge about the impending Revolution, the warning signs before its start, the role of Halet Effendi, Philhellenism, the attitude towards the European powers and the role of Ali Pasha in relation to the time of writing of each work and the personality of the author are examined. As a whole they agree on the role of the clergy, Τhe russian incitement and european support of the revolutionaries, while they disagree on the role of Ali Pasha. Sanizade Effendi and Lutfi Effendi are presented as underestimated and largely ignored chronologists who contributed significantly.
An attempt has also been made to study the evolution of some important terms and the introduction of modern ideas and their use. The novelties introduced through European influence are recorded and the use of the terms fatherland / vatan, devlet / state, freedom / serbetiyet and hürriyet, the influence of Ibn Khaldun's thought on the writers' thinking and the instrumentalization of religion to achieve the Sultan’s goals are analysed. Their view and knowledge of the democratic state and how this was expressed regarding the democratic processes in the revolted country are recorded.
The Revolution of 1821 is treated as a very important event by the authors despite the use of various terms to describe it "İhtilâl - 'isyân – fitne - fetret-tuğyân / stand, uprising, revolution" and this differentiation from other usual uprisings is expressed by various ways, such as using the adjective "big" or by devoting a large amount of space to their narrative and recording its causes. To suffocate her, all means are used, from brutal violence, to attraction - soothing / istimâlet. An attempt is made to link istimâlet with the later theory of Ottomanism.
An attempt was also made to study the pre-history of Turkish nationalism through the study of the terms millet, Rûm and Yunan, Albanian and Turk and they were also linked to actions of the Ottoman government, both within the Revolution and later, in order to give their real meaning and the effects of government decisions can be seen. The basic idea follows Hroch's classification and using a "final" language we could say that we are in a phase of ethnogenesis, but we have not yet reached the phase of mass national movement. The long prehistory of the phenomenon and the steps taken before the official appearance of Turkish nationalism are recorded through the specific texts. Through the theory of the 'Other', the actions of the Ottoman government are interpreted with an emphasis on the recruitment and expulsion of non-Turkish but Muslim populations from the capital. The evolution of the Ottoman language and the study of the history of the Turks that contributed to the development of the language of nationalism are also examined.
