The diary wrote March 30, 1822 when the still powerful Turkish fleet arrived in Chios, determined to start the massacre and looting. But why in Chios? It was a rich island, to which the Ottomans had granted significant privileges. And that is exactly why they demanded revenge, he points out Nikolas Pissishistorical and scientific collaborator at the Free University of Berlin.
“The massacre of Chios has an exemplary significance,” the Greek historian told Deutsche Welle. “It illustrates the way in which the Ottoman government perceived the Greek revolution, that is, mainly as an expression of ingratitude. It was considered that especially in the last period of the 18th century, the Orthodox Christians – and especially the Greeks among them, with the Phanariots and the ecclesiastical hierarchy of the Patriarchate – were the most privileged non-Muslim group of the Ottoman Empire, among others and with control. part of trade in the Eastern Mediterranean. The Sultan and the Ottoman authorities saw the revolution as an expression of ingratitude and as a result of the influence of Russia and Western Christian powers. Chios, precisely because it was an island with privileges, was considered an expression of this ingratitude that had to be punished in an exemplary way… “
Thousands of naughty fighters from the provinces of Asia Minor who were not interested in the strategic plans of the Ottoman Empire, except for the looting and expulsion of civilians, landed on Chios with the 50 ships of the Ottoman Admiral Kara Ali. Unfortunately, they achieved their goal.
“The island was looted and sold to a very large number of women and children in the following period as slaves, mainly in the slave market of Smyrna, but also throughout the eastern Mediterranean,” said Nikolas Pissis. “Until much later one finds stories of Chian captive slaves or former slaves being redeemed in the coming decades.”
From Tripoli to Chios
It was preceded by the massacre of thousands of Ottomans by the Greeks in the autumn of 1821 in Tripolitsa (Tripoli), the largest administrative center of the Peloponnese at that time. For a long time there were few or no references to the massacre in the Greek history textbooks. In today’s terms we would say that in both cases “war crimes” were committed. The Greek historian points out similarities and differences:
“It was a time when the way the war was understood and its rules began to change, with the result that events such as the Tripoli massacre and the Chios massacre were criticized by the European press as an expression of ‘Eastern barbarism’. For the first case, let’s say from philhellenes, who were disappointed by the behavior of the Greeks in Tripoli.
In the second case by the whole philhellenic movement that promoted the massacre of Chios to mobilize public opinion in Europe in favor of the cause of the Greeks. The two cases are comparable. One difference, perhaps, is that in the first case, the leaders of the besiegers, Kolokotronis and Ypsilantis, tried to prevent the slaughter, if for no other reason, in order to achieve the invincible surrender of the fortress. “On the contrary, in Chios it was a conscious policy.”
The shocking painting by the French painter Delacroix “Slaughter of Chios” became known to Europe of the Enlightenment and gave new life to the philhellenic movement at a critical juncture for the course of the Revolution. It was perhaps something similar to what we see in modern times: governments are reluctant to take part in an armed conflict in third countries until they are forced to reconsider their position under public pressure. “It is generally considered to be the first case where public opinion, a new force in European history, acquires a political character,” says Nikolas Pissis. “As a first example that public opinion influences political developments. And from this point of view, the massacre of Chios as the most symbolic event, together with Messolonghi later, provoked the enthusiasm and solidarity towards the struggling Greeks “.
The decisive element is the “endurance” of the Revolution
And here we come to a crucial question: Was the involvement of foreign forces the decisive element and the necessary condition for the success of the Revolution, as the naval battle of Navarino seemed to prove much later? The Greek historian does not co-sign this view and emphasizes that we should not magnify the influence of any pro-Greek movement. “The decisive element, the decisive parameter for the change of the attitude of the great powers was the endurance of the Greek Revolution”, he points out. If it had been suppressed in the first, second or third year, the philhellenic movement, no matter how much it had managed to develop, would not have influenced in any way this turn of the great powers. “Precisely because the Greek Revolution endured the first difficult years, it was then able, despite the military defeat, to win in the diplomatic-political field.”
Deutsche Welle-Giannis Papadimitriou
Follow Skai.gr on Google News
and be the first to know all the news
