Part 2 — Chapter III. (These four articles abrogated by the four articles following them, 118-122.) Article 118. The Federal Constitution may at any time be amended. (continued 72)

C. Sankey, The Spartan and Theban Supremacies, chapter 12.

ALSO IN: Xenophon, Hellenica, books 5-6.

E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 6, chapter 2.

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 80 (volume 10).

GREECE: B. C. 359-358. First proceedings of Philip of Macedonia. His acquisition of Amphipolis.

The famous Philip of Macedon succeeded to the Macedonian throne in 359 B. C., at the age of 23. In his youth he had been delivered to the Thebans as one of the hostages given upon the conclusion of a treaty of peace in 368. "His residence at Thebes gave him some tincture of Grecian philosophy and literature; but the most important lesson which he learned at that city was the art of war, with all the improved tactics introduced by Epaminondas. Philip … displayed at the beginning of his reign his extraordinary energy and abilities. After defeating the Illyrians he established a standing army, in which discipline was preserved by the severest punishments. He introduced the far-famed Macedonian phalanx, which was 16 men deep, armed with long projecting spears. Philip's views were first turned towards the eastern frontiers of his dominions, where his interests clashed with those of the Athenians. A few years before the Athenians had made various unavailing attempts to obtain possession of Amphipolis, once the jewel of their empire, but which they had never recovered since its capture by Brasidas in the eighth year of the Peloponnesian war."

W. Smith, Smaller History of Greece, chapter 19.

The importance of Amphipolis to the Athenians arose chiefly from its vicinity to "the vast forests which clothed the mountains that enclose the basin of the Strymon, and afforded an inexhaustible supply of ship-timber." For the same reason that the Athenians desired ardently to regain possession of Amphipolis their enemies were strong in the wish to keep it out of their hands. Moreover, as the Macedonian kingdom became well-knitted in the strong hands of the ambitious Philip, the city of "the Nine Ways" assumed importance to that rising power, and Philip resolved to possess it. It was at this point that his ambitions first came into conflict with Athens. But the Athenians were not aware of his aims until too late. He deceived them completely, in fact, by a bargain to give help in acquiring Amphipolis for them, and to receive help in gaining Pydna for himself. But when his preparations were complete, he suddenly laid siege to Amphipolis and made himself master of the city (B. C. 358), besides taking Pydna as well. At Athens, "Philip was henceforth viewed as an open enemy, and this was the beginning—though without any formal declaration—of a state of hostility between the two powers, which was called, from its origin, the Amphipolitan War."

C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 42 (volume 5).

GREECE: B. C. 357-336. Advancement of Philip of Macedonia to supremacy. The Sacred Wars and their consequences. The fatal field of Chæronea. Philip's preparations for the invasion of Asia. His assassination.

A war between the Thebans and their neighbors, the Phocians, which broke out in 357 or 356 B. C., assumed great importance in Greek history and was called the Sacred War,—as two earlier contests, in which Delphi was concerned, had been likewise named. It is sometimes called the Ten Years Sacred War. Thebes, controlling the shadowy Amphictyonic Council, had brought a charge of sacrilege against the Phocians and procured a decree imposing upon them a heavy fine. The Phocians resisted the decree with unexpected energy, and, by a bold and sudden movement, gained possession of Delphi, where they destroyed the records of the Amphictyonic judgment against them. Having the vast accumulation of the sacred treasures of the Delphic temple in their hands, they did not scruple to appropriate them, and were able to maintain a powerful army of mercenaries, gathered from every part of Greece, with which they ravaged the territories of Bœotia and Locris, and acquired control of the pass of Thermopylæ. {1597} In the midst of their successes they were called upon for help by the tyrant of Pheræ in Thessaly, then being attacked by Philip of Macedon (B. C. 353). The Phocians opposed Philip with such success, at first, that he retreated from Thessaly; but it was only to recruit and reanimate his army. Returning presently he overthrew the Phocian army, with great slaughter—Onomarchus, its leader, being slain—and made himself master of all Thessaly. Both Athens and Sparta were now alarmed by this rapid advance into Central Greece of the conquering arms of the ambitious Macedonian, and both sent forces to the help of the Phocians. The former was so energetic that an army of 5,000 Athenian foot-soldiers and 400 horse reached Thermopylæ (May 352 B. C.) before Philip had been able to push forward from Thessaly. When he did advance, proclaiming his purpose to rescue the Delphian temple from sacrilegious robbers, he was repulsed at the pass and drew back. It was the beginning of the struggle for Greek independence against Macedonian energy and ambition. A few months later Demosthenes delivered the first of his immortal orations, called afterwards Philippics, in which he strove to keep the already languishing energy of the Athenians alive, in unfaltering resistance to the designs of Philip. For six years there was a state of war between Philip and the Athenians with their allies, but the conquests of the former in Thrace and the Chalcidian peninsula were steadily pressed. At length (B. C. 346) Athens was treacherously persuaded into a treaty of peace with Philip (the Peace of Philocrates) which excluded the Phocians from its terms. No sooner had he thus isolated the latter than he marched quickly to Thermopylæ, secured possession of the pass and declared himself the supporter of Thebes. The Sacred War was ended, Delphi rescued, Phocis punished without mercy, and Greece was under the feet of a master. This being accomplished, the Peace of Philocrates was doubtfully maintained for about six years. Then quarrels broke out which led up to still another Sacred War, and which gave Philip another opportunity to trample on the liberties of Greece. Curiously, the provoking causes of this outbreak were an inheritance from that more ancient Sacred War which brought ruin upon the town of Cirrha and a lasting curse upon its soil. The Locrians of Amphissa, dwelling near to the accursed territory, had ventured in the course of years to encroach upon it with brick-kilns, and to make use of its harbor. At a meeting of the Amphictyonic Council, in the spring of B. C. 339, this violation of the Sacred Law was brought to notice, by way of retaliation for some offence which the deputies of Amphissa had given to those of Athens. Hostilities ensued between the citizens of Delphi, pushed on by the Amphictyons, on one side, and the Amphissians on the other. The influence of Philip in the Amphictyonic Council was controlling, and his partisans had no difficulty in summoning him to act for the federation in settling this portentous affair. He marched into Bœotia, took possession of the strong city of Elatea, and very soon made it manifest that he contemplated something more than mere dealing with the refractory trespassers of Amphissa. Athens watched his movements with terror, and even Thebes, his former ally, took alarm. Through the exertions of Demosthenes, Thebes and Athens, once more, but too late, gave up their ancient enmity and united their strength and resources in a firm league. Megara, Corinth and other states were joined to them and common cause was made with the Locrians of Amphissa. These movements consumed a winter, and war opened in the spring. Philip gained successes from the beginning. He took Amphissa by surprise and carried Naupactus by storm. But it was not until August—the first day of August, B. C. 338—that the two combatants came together in force. This occurred in the Bœotian valley of the Cephisus, near the town of Chæronea, which gave its name to the battle. The Sacred Band of Thebes and the hoplites of Athens, with their allies, fought obstinately and well; but they were no match for the veterans of the Macedonian phalanx and most of them perished on the field. It was the last struggle for Grecian independence. Henceforth, practically at least, Hellas was swallowed up in Macedonia. We can see very plainly that Philip's "conduct towards Athens after the victory, under the appearance of generosity, was extremely prudent. His object was, to separate the Thebans from the Athenians, and he at once advanced against the former. The Athenian prisoners he sent home, free and clothed, accompanied by Antipater; he ordered the dead bodies to be burned, and their ashes to be conveyed to Athens, while the Thebans had to purchase their dead from him. He then entered Thebes, which he seems to have taken without any resistance, placed a Macedonian garrison in the Cadmea, and, with the same policy which Sparta had followed at Athens after the Peloponnesian war, he established an oligarchy of 300 of his partizans, who were for the most part returned exiles, and who now, under the protection of the garrison in the Cadmea, ruled like tyrants, and raged in a fearful manner. … Philip accepted all the terms which were agreeable to the Athenians; no investigations were to be instituted against his enemies, and none of them was to be sent into exile. Athens was not only to remain a perfectly sovereign city, but retain Lemnos, Imbros, and Scyros, nay even Samos and Chersonnesus, though he might have taken the latter without any difficulty, and though the Athenians had most cleruchiae in Samos. Thus he bought over the Athenians through this peace, against which Demosthenes and others, who saw farther, could not venture to protest, because Philip offered more than they could give him in return. … The only thing which the Athenians conceded to Philip, was, that they concluded a symmachia with him, and conferred upon him the supreme command in the Persian war. For with great cunning Philip summoned an assembly of the Greeks whom he called his allies, to Corinth, to deliberate upon the war against Persia. The war of revenge against the Persians had already become a popular idea in Greece. … Philip now entered Peloponnesus with his whole army, and went to the diet at Corinth, where the Greek deputies received his orders. In Peloponnesus he acted as mediator, for he was invited as such by the Arcadians, Messenians, and Argives, to decide their disputes with Lacedaemon, and they demanded that he should restore to them their ancient territories. {1598} The Arcadians had formerly possessed many places on the Eurotas, and the Messenians were still very far from having recovered all their ancient territories. He accordingly fixed the boundaries, and greatly diminished the extent of Laconia. … The Spartans, on that occasion, behaved in a dignified manner; they were the only ones who refused to acknowledge Philip as generalissimo against Persia. … Even the ancients regarded the day of Chaeronea as the death-day of Greece; every principle of life was cut off; the Greeks, indeed, continued to exist, but in spirit, and politically, they were dead. … Philip was now at the height of his power. Byzantium, and the other allied cities, had submitted to the conqueror, when he sent his army against them, and he was already trying to establish himself in Asia. 'A detachment of troops, under Attalus, had been sent across, to keep open the road for the great expedition, and had encamped on mount Ida.' Philip was thus enabled to commence his passage across the Hellespont whenever he pleased. But the close of his career was already at hand." He was assassinated in August, B. C. 336, by a certain Pausanias, at the instigation, it is said, of Olympias, one of Philip's several wives—and the mother of his famous son Alexander—whom he had repudiated to please a younger bride. "Philip was unquestionably an uncommon and extraordinary man, and the opinion of several among the ancients, that by the foundation of the Macedonian state he did something far greater than Alexander by the application of the powers he inherited, is quite correct. … When we regard him as the creator of his state, by uniting the most different nations, Macedonians and Greeks; … when we reflect what a man he must have been, from whom proceeded the impulse to train such great generals, … to whom Alexander, it must be observed, did not add one, for all Alexander's generals proceeded from the school of Philip, and there is not one whom Alexander did not inherit from Philip;—when we perceive the skill with which he gained over nations and states, … we cannot but acknowledge that he was an extraordinary man."

B. G. Niebuhr, Lectures on Ancient History, lectures 69 and 66 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapters 43-46 (volumes 5-6).

T. Leland, History of the Life and Reign of Philip of Macedon, books 2-5.

GREECE: B. C. 351-348. The Olynthian War. Destruction of Olynthus by Philip of Macedonia.

After the overthrow of Spartan domination in Greece, Olynthus recovered its independence and regained, during the second quarter of the fourth century B. C., a considerable degree of prosperity and power. It was even helped in its rise by the cunning, dangerous hand of Philip of Macedon, who secured many and great advantages in his treacherous diplomacy by playing the mutual jealousies of Athens and Olynthus against one another. The Olynthian Confederacy, formed anew, just served its purpose as a counterpoise to the Athenian Confederacy, until Philip had no more need of that service. He was the friend and ally of the former until he had secured Amphipolis, Methone, and other necessary positions in Macedonia and Thrace. Then the mask began to slip and Olynthus (B. C. 351) got glimpses of the true character of her subtle neighbor. Too late, she made overtures to Athens, and Athens, too late, saw the vital importance of a league of friendship between the two Greek confederacies, against the half Hellenic, half barbaric Macedonian kingdom. Three of the great speeches of Demosthenes—the "Olynthiac orations"—were made upon this theme, and the orator succeeded for the first time in persuading his degenerated countrymen to act upon his clear view of the situation. Athens and Olynthus were joined in a defensive league and Athenian ships and men were sent to the Chalcidian peninsula,—too late. Partly by the force of his arms and partly by the power of his gold, buying traitors, Philip took Olynthus (B. C. 348) and all the thirty-two lesser towns that were federated with her. He took them and he destroyed them most brutally. "The haughty city of Olynthus vanished from the face of the earth, and together with it thirty-two towns inhabited by Greeks and flourishing as commercial communities. … The lot of those who saved life and liberty was happy in comparison with the fate of those who, like the majority of the Olynthians, fell into the hands of the conqueror and were sold into slavery, while their possessions were burnt to ashes or flung as booty to the mercenaries. … The mines continued to be worked for the royal treasury; with this exception the whole of Chalcidice became a desert"

E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 7, chapter 3 (volume 5).

ALSO IN: A. M. Curteis, Rise of the Macedonian Empire, chapters 4-5.

B. G. Niebuhr, Lectures on Ancient History, lectures 66-68 (volume 2).

GREECE: B. C. 340. Siege of Byzantium by Philip of Macedonia.

The enmity between Athens and Byzantium yielded in 340 B. C. to their common fear of Philip of Macedon, and the exertions of Demosthenes brought about an alliance of the two cities, in which Perinthus, the near neighbor of Byzantium, was also joined. Philip, in wrath, proceeded with a fleet and army against both cities, laying siege, first to Perinthus and afterwards to Byzantium, but without success in either case. He was compelled to withdraw, after wasting several months in the fruitless undertaking. It was one of the few failures of the able Macedonian.

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 90 (volume 11).

GREECE: B. C. 336-335. Northern campaign of Alexander of Macedonia. Revolt at Thebes. Destruction of the city.

"Alexander … took up and continued the political and military schemes which his father had begun. We first make acquaintance with him and his army during his campaign against the tribes on the northern frontier of Makedonia. This campaign he carried out with energy equal to that of Philip, and with more success (spring of 335 B. C.). The distinctive feature of the war was that the Makedonian phalanx, the organization and equipment of which were adapted from Grecian models, everywhere won and maintained the upper hand. … Even at this epoch Byzantium was rising into importance. That city had, owing to its hostility with Persia, deserted the side of the Greeks for that of the Makedonians. It was from Byzantium that Alexander summoned triremes to help him against the island in the Danube on which the king of the Triballi had taken refuge. … The great successes of Alexander induced all the neighboring nationalities to accept the proposals of friendship which he made to them. … In Greece false reports concerning the progress of events in the north had raised to fever heat the general ferment which naturally existed. {1599} Alexander relied upon the resolutions of the League of the Public Peace [formed by the Congress at Corinth], which had recognized his father and afterwards himself as its head. But he was now opposed by all those who were unable to forget their former condition, and who preferred the alliance with Persia which had left them independent, to the league with Makedonia which robbed them of their autonomy. … Thebes took the lead of the malcontents, and set about ridding herself of the garrison which Philip had placed in the Cadmeia. She thus became the centre of the whole Hellenic opposition. The enemies of Makedon, who had been exiled from every city, assembled in Thebes. … The same party was stirring in Lakedæmon, in Arcadia, in Ætolia, and, above all, at Athens. From Athens the Thebans were supplied, through the mediation of Demosthenes, and doubtless by means of Persian gold, with arms, of which they were likely to stand in need. … Alexander had no sooner settled with his enemies in the north than he turned to Hellas. So rapid was his movement that he found the pass of Thermopylæ still open, and, long before he was expected, appeared before the walls of Thebes." The fate of the city was decided by a battle in which the Makedonians were overwhelmingly victorious. "In the market-place, in the streets, in the very houses, there ensued a hideous massacre. … The victors were, however, not satisfied with the slaughter. Alexander summoned a meeting of his League, by which the complete destruction of Thebes was decreed, and this destruction was actually carried out (October, 335 B. C.). [At the same time Platæa, which Thebes had destroyed, was ordered to be rebuilt.] In Grecian history it was no unheard-of event that the members of the defeated nation should be sold into slavery, and so it happened on this occasion. The sale of the slaves supplied Alexander with a sum of money which was no inconsiderable addition to his military chest. But his main object was to strike terror, and this was spread through Greece by the ruthless destruction of the city of Œdipus, of Pindar, and of Epameinondas. … Deep and universal horror fell upon the Greeks. … The close connection that existed at this moment between Grecian and Persian affairs forbade him to lose a moment in turning his arms towards Asia. … A war between Alexander and Persia was inevitable, not only on account of the relation of the Greeks to Makedon, whose yoke they were very loth to bear, but on account of their relation to Persia, on whose support they leaned. … The career which Philip had begun, and in which Alexander was now proceeding, led of necessity to a struggle with the power that held sway in Asia Minor. Until that power were defeated, the Makedonian kingdom could not be regarded as firmly established."

L. von Ranke, Universal History: The Oldest Historical Group of Nations and the Greeks, chapter 10, part 2.

ALSO IN: Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander, book 1, chapters 1-10.

T. A. Dodge, Alexander, chapters 14-17.

GREECE: B. C. 334-323. Asiatic conquests of Alexander the Great.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330; and 330-323.

GREECE: B. C. 323-322. Attempt to break the Macedonian yoke. The Lamian War. Subjugation of Athens. Suppression of democracy. Expulsion of poor citizens. Death of Demosthenes.

On the death of Alexander the Great, B. C. 323, a party at Athens which still hoped for freedom in Greece set on foot a vigorous movement designed to break the Macedonian yoke. A league was formed in which many cities joined—a larger assemblage of Hellenic states, says Mr. Grote, than that which resisted Xerxes in 480 B. C. A powerful army of Greek citizens and mercenaries was formed and placed under the command of a capable Athenian, Leosthenes, who led it into Thessaly, to meet the Macedonian general Antipater, who now ruled Greece.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316.

The latter was defeated in a battle which ensued, and was driven into the fortified Thessalian town of Lamia, where he was besieged. Unfortunately, Leosthenes was killed during the progress of the siege, and a long interval occurred before a new commander could be agreed on. This gave Antipater time to obtain succor from Asia. A Macedonian army, under Leonnatus, crossed the Hellespont, and the besiegers of Lamia were forced to break up their camp in order to meet it. They did so with success; Leonnatus was slain and his army driven back. But meantime Antipater escaped from Lamia, joined the defeated troops and retreated into Macedonia. The war thus begun, and which took the name of the Lamian War, was continued, not unfavorably to the confederates, on the whole, until the following summer—August, 322 B. C.—when it was ended by a battle fought on the plain of Krannon, in Thessaly. Antipater, who had been joined by Kraterus, from Asia, was the victor, and Athens with all her allies submitted to the terms which he dictated. He established a Macedonian garrison in Munychia, and not only suppressed the democratic constitution of Athens, but ordered all the poorer citizens—all who possessed less than 2,000 drachmæ's worth of property, being 12,000 out of the 21,000 who then possessed the Athenian franchise—to be driven from the city; thus leaving a selected citizenship of 9,000 of the richer and more manageable men. The banished or deported 12,000 were scattered in Thrace, Illyria, Italy and even in northern Africa. The leaders of the anti-Macedonian rising were pursued with unrelenting animosity. Demosthenes, the great orator, who had been conspicuous among them, was dragged from a temple at Kalauria, to which he had fled, and took poison to escape the worse death which probably awaited him.

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 95 (volume 12).

GREECE: B. C. 323-301. Wars of the Diadochi or Successors of Alexander.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316; 315-310; and 310-301.

GREECE: B. C. 321-312. The contest for Athens and Peloponnesus, between Cassander and Polysperchon. Execution of Phocion. Restoration of Thebes.

"Antipater, after the termination of the Lamian war, passed over to Asia and took part in the affairs there.

See MACEDONIA: A. D. 323-316.

Being appointed guardian to the Kings, as the children and relatives of Alexander were called, he returned to Macedonia, leading them with him. … Antipater died (Olympiad 115, 3) shortly after his return to Macedonia. He directed that Polysperchon, his ancient mate in arms, should succeed him in his office, while to his son Cassander he left only the second place. But Cassander, an ambitious youth, looked upon his father's authority as his inheritance; and relying on the aid of the aristocratic party in the Grecian states, of Ptolemæus, who ruled in Egypt, and of Antigonus, the most powerful general in Asia, he resolved to dispute it with Polysperchon. {1600} Under pretext of going a-hunting, he escaped out of Macedonia, and passed over to Asia to concert matters with Antigonus. Polysperchon, seeing war inevitable, resolved to detach Greece, if possible, from Cassander. Knowing that the oligarchies established in the different states by Antipater would be likely to espouse the cause of his son, he issued a pompous edict, in the name of the Kings, restoring the democracies. … At Athens (Olympiad 115,4) [B. C. 317], Nicanor, who commanded in the Munychia, finding that the people were inclined toward Polysperchon, secretly collected troops, and seized the Piræeus. The people sent to him Phocion, Conon the son of Timotheüs, and Clearchus, men of distinction, and his friends; but to no purpose. A letter also came to him from Olympias, Alexander's mother, whom Polysperchon had recalled from Epeirus, and given the charge of her infant grandson, ordering him to surrender both the Munychia and the Piræeus; but to as little effect. Finally, Polysperchon's son Alexander entered Attica with an army, and encamped before the Piræeus. Phocion and other chiefs of the aristocracy went to Alexander, and advised him not to give these places up to the people, but to hold them himself till the contest with Cassander should be terminated. They feared, it is evident, for their own safety, and not without reason; for the people, ferocious with the recovery of power, soon after held an assembly, in which they deposed all the former magistrates, appointed the most furious democrats in their room, and passed sentences of death, banishment, and confiscation of goods on those who had governed under the oligarchy. Phocion and his friends fled to Alexander, who received them kindly, and sent them with letters in their favor to his father, who was now in Phocis. The Athenians also despatched an embassy, and, yielding to motives of interest, Polysperchon sent his suppliants prisoners to Athens, to stand a trial for their lives before the tribunal of an anarchic mob. … The prisoners were condemned and led off to prison, followed by the tears of their friends and the triumphant execrations of their mean-spirited enemies. They drank the fatal hemlock-juice, and their bodies were cast unburied beyond the confines of Attica. Four days after the death of Phocion, Cassander arrived at the Piræeus with 35 ships, carrying 4,000 men, given him by Antigonus. Polysperchon immediately entered Attica with 20,000 Macedonian foot and 4,000 of those of the allies, 1,000 horse, and 65 elephants, which he had brought from Asia, and encamped near the Piræeus. But as the siege was likely to be tedious, and sufficient provisions for so large an army could not be had, he left a force such as the country could support with his son Alexander, and passed with the remainder into Peloponnesus, to force the Megalopolitans to submit to the Kings; for they alone sided with Cassander, all the rest having obeyed the directions to put to death or banish his adherents. The whole serviceable population of Megalopolis, slaves included, amounted to 15,000 men; and under the directions of one Damis, who had served in Asia under Alexander, they prepared for a vigorous defence. Polysperchon sat down before the town, and his miners in a short time succeeded in throwing down three towers and a part of the wall. He attempted a storm, but was obliged to draw off his men, after an obstinate conflict. … The Athenians meantime saw themselves excluded from the sea, and from all their sources of profit and enjoyment, while little aid was to be expected from Polysperchon, who had been forced to raise the siege of Megalopolis, and whose fleet had just now been destroyed by Antigonus in the Hellespont. A citizen of some consideration ventured at length to propose in the assembly an arrangement with Cassander. The ordinary tumult at first was raised, but the sense of interest finally prevailed. Peace was procured, on the conditions of the Munychia remaining in Cassander's hands till the end of the present contest; political privileges being restricted to those possessed of ten minas and upwards of property, and a person appointed by Cassander being at the head of the government. The person selected for this office was Demetrius of Phaleron, a distinguished Athenian citizen; and under his mild and equitable rule the people were far happier than they could have been under a democracy, for which they had proved themselves no longer fit. Cassander then passed over into Peloponnesus, and laid siege to Tegea. While here, he heard that Olympias had put to death several of his friends in Macedonia; among the rest, Philip Aridæus and his wife Eurydice, members of the royal family. He at once (Olympiad 116, 1) [B. C. 316] set out for Macedonia; and, as the pass of Pylæ was occupied by the Ætolians, he embarked his troops in Locris, and landed them in Thessaly. He besieged Olympias in Pydna, forced her to surrender, and put her to death. Macedonia submitted to him, and he then set forth for Peloponnesus, where Polysperchon's son Alexander was at the head of an army. He forced a passage through Pylæ, and coming into Bœotia, announced his intention of restoring Thebes, which had now lain desolate for twenty years. The scattered Thebans were collected; the towns of Bœotia and other parts of Greece (Athens in particular), and even of Italy and Sicily, aided to raise the walls and to supply the wants of the returning exiles, and Thebes was once more numbered among the cities of Greece. As Alexander guarded the Isthmus, Cassander passed to Megara, where he embarked his troops and elephants, and crossed over to Epidaurus. He made Argos and Messene come over to his side, and then returned to Macedonia. In the conflict of interests which prevailed in this anarchic period, Antigonus was ere long among the enemies of Cassander. He sent one of his generals to Laconia, who, having obtained permission from the Spartans to recruit in Peloponnesus, raised 8,000 men. The command in Peloponnesus was given to Polysperchon, whose son Alexander was summoned over to Asia to accuse Cassander of treason before the assembly of the Macedonian soldiers. Cassander was proclaimed a public enemy unless he submitted to Antigonus; at the same time the Greeks were declared independent, Antigonus hoping thus to gain them over to his side. He then sent Alexander back with 500 talents; and when Ptolemæus of Egypt heard what Antigonus had done, he also hastened to declare the independence of the Greeks; for all the contending generals were anxious to stand well with the people of Greece, from which country, exclusive of other advantages, they drew their best soldiers. {1601} … Antigonus, to show the Greeks that he was in earnest in his promise to restore them to independence, sent one of his generals, named Telesphorus, with a fleet and army to Peloponnesus, who expelled Cassander's garrisons from most of the towns. The following year (Olympiad 117, 1) [B. C. 312] he sent an officer, named Ptolemæus, with another fleet and army to Greece. Ptolemæus landed in Bœotia, and being joined by 2,200 foot, and 1,300 horse of the Bœotians, he passed over to Eubœa; where having expelled the Macedonian garrison from Chalcis (the only town there which Cassander held), he left it without any foreign garrison, as a proof that Antigonus meant fairly. He then took Orôpus, and gave it to the Bœotians; he entered Attica, and the people forced Demetrius Phalereus to make a truce with him, and to send to Antigonus to treat of an alliance. Ptolemæus returned to Bœotia, expelled the garrison from the Cadmeia, and liberated Thebes."

T. Keightley, History of Greece, part 3, chapter 5.

ALSO IN: C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 58 (volume 7).

GREECE: B. C. 307-197. Demetrius and the Antigonids.

In the spring of the year 307 B. C. Athens was surprised by an expedition sent from Ephesus by Antigonus, under his adventurous son Demetrius, surnamed Poliorcetes.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301.

The city had then been for ten years subject to Cassander, the ruling chief in Macedonia for the time, and appears to have been mildly governed by Cassander's lieutenant, Demetrius the Phalerian. The coming of the other Demetrius offered nothing to the Athenians but a change of masters, but they welcomed him with extravagant demonstrations. Their degeneracy was shown in proceedings of Asiatic servility. They deified Demetrius and his father Antigonus, erected altars to them and appointed ministering priests. After some months spent at Athens in the enjoyment of these adulations, Demetrius returned to Asia, to take part in the war which Antigonus was waging with Ptolemy of Egypt and Lysimachus of Thrace, two of his former partners in the partition of the empire of Alexander. He was absent three years, and then returned, at the call of the Athenians, to save them from falling again into the hands of Cassander. He now made Athens his capital, as it were, for something more than a year, while he acquired control of Corinth, Argos, Sicyon, Chalcis in Eubœa and other important places, greatly reducing the dominion of the Macedonian, Cassander. His treatment at Athens, during this period, was marked by the same impious and disgraceful servility as before. He was called the guest of the goddess Athene and lodged in the Parthenon, which he polluted with intolerable debaucheries. But in the summer of 301 B. C. this clever adventurer was summoned again to Asia, to aid his father in the last great struggle, which decided the partition of the empire of Alexander between his self-constituted heirs. At the battle of Ipsus (see MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301), Antigonus perished and Demetrius was stripped of the kingdom he expected to inherit. He turned to Athens for consolation, and the fickle city refused to admit him within her walls. But after some period of wanderings and adventures the unconquerable prince got together a force with which he compelled the Athenians to receive him, on more definite terms of submission on their part and of mastery on his. Moreover, he established his rule in the greater part of Peloponnesus, and finally, on the death of Cassander (B. C. 297), he acquired the crown of Macedonia. Not satisfied with what fortune had thus given him, he attempted to recover the Asiatic kingdom of his father, and died, B. C. 283, a captive in the hands of the Syrian monarch, Seleucus. His Macedonian kingdom had meantime been seized by Pyrrhus of Epirus; but it was ultimately recovered by the eldest legitimate son of Demetrius, called Antigonus Gonatus. From that time, for a century, until the Romans came, not only Macedonia, but Greece at large, Athens included, was ruled or dominated by this king and his descendants, known as the Antigonid kings.

C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapters 59-60 (volumes 7-8).

GREECE: B. C. 297-280. Death of Cassander. Intrigues and murders of Ptolemy Keraunos and his strange acquisition of the Macedonian throne.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 297-280.

GREECE: B. C. 280-279. Invasion by the Gauls.

See GAULS: B. C. 280-279.

GREECE: B. C. 280-275. Campaigns of Pyrrhus in Italy and Sicily.

See ROME: B. C. 282-275.

GREECE: B. C. 3d Century. The Hellenistic world.

As the result of the conquests of Alexander and the wars of his successors, there were, in the third century before Christ, three great Hellenistic kingdoms, Macedonia, Egypt, Syria, which lasted, each under its own dynasty, till Rome swallowed them up. The first of these, which was the poorest, and the smallest, but historically the most important, included the ancestral possessions of Philip and Alexander— Macedonia, most of Thrace, 'Thessaly, the mountainous centre of the peninsula, as well as a protectorate more or less definite and absolute over Greece proper, the Cyclades, and certain tracts of Caria. … Next came Egypt, including Cyrene and Cyprus, and a general protectorate over the sea-coast cities of Asia Minor up to the Black Sea, together with claims often asserted with success on Syria, and on the coast lands of Southern Asia Minor. … Thirdly came what was now called Syria, on account of the policy of the house of Seleucus, who built there its capital, and determined to make the Greek or Hellenistic end of its vast dominions its political centre of gravity. The Kingdom of Syria owned the south and south-east of Asia Minor, Syria, and generally Palestine, Mesopotamia, and the mountain provinces adjoining it on the East, with vague claims further east when there was no king like Sandracottus to hold India and the Punjaub with a strong hand. There was still a large element of Hellenism in these remote parts. The kingdom of Bactria was ruled by a dynasty of kings with Greek names—Euthydemus is the chief—who coined in Greek style, and must therefore have regarded themselves as successors to Alexander. There are many exceptions and limitations to this general description, and many secondary and semi-independent kingdoms, which make the picture of Hellenism infinitely various and complicated. There was, in fact, a chain of independent kingdoms reaching from Media to Sparta, all of which asserted their complete freedom, and generally attained it by balancing the great powers one against the other. {1602} Here they are in their order. Atropatene was the kingdom in the northern and western parts of the province of Media, by Atropates, the satrap of Alexander, who claimed descent from the seven Persian chiefs who put Darius I. on the throne. Next came Armenia, hardly conquered by Alexander, and now established under a dynasty of its own. Then Cappadocia, the land in the heart of Asia Minor, where it narrows between Cilicia and Pontus, ruled by sovereigns also claiming royal Persian descent. … Fourthly, Pontus, under its equally Persian dynast Mithridates—a kingdom which makes a great figure in Eastern history under the later Roman Republic. There was moreover a dynast of Bithynia, set up and supported by the robber state of the Celtic Galatians, which had just been founded, and was a source of strength and of danger to all its neighbours. Then Pergamum, just being founded and strengthened by the first Attalid, Philetærus, an officer of Lysimachus, and presently to become one of the leading exponents of Hellenism. … Almost all these second-rate states (and with them the free Greek cities of Heracleia, Cyzicus, Byzantium, &c.) were fragments of the shuttered kingdom of Lysimachus. … We have taken no account of a very peculiar feature extending all through even the Greek kingdoms, especially that of the Selucids—the number of large Hellenistic cities founded as special centres of culture, or points of defence, and organized as such with a certain local independence. These cities, most of which we only know by name, were the real backbone of Hellenism in the world. Alexander had founded seventy of them, all called by his name. Many were upon great trade lines, like the Alexandria which still exists. Many were intended as garrison towns in the centre of remote provinces, like Candahar—a corruption of Iskanderieh, Iskendar being the Oriental form for Alexander. Some were mere outposts, where Macedonian soldiers were forced to settle, and guard the frontiers against the barbarians, like the Alexandria on the Iaxartes. … As regards Seleucus … we have a remarkable statement from Appian that he founded cities through the length and breadth of his kingdom, viz., sixteen Antiochs called after his father, five Laodiceas after his mother, nine Seleucias after himself, three Apameias and one Stratoniceia after his wives. … All through Syria and Upper Asia there are many towns bearing Greek and Macedonian names—Berea, Edessa, Perinthos, Aclæa, Pella, &c. The number of these, which have been enumerated in a special catalogue by Droysen, the learned historian of Hellenism, is enormous, and the first question which arises in our mind is this: where were Greek-speaking people found to fill them? It is indeed true that Greece proper about this time became depopulated, and that it never has recovered from this decay. … Yet … the whole population of Greece would never have sufficed for one tithe of the cities—the great cities—founded all over Asia by the Diadochi. We are therefore driven to the conclusion that but a small fraction, the soldiers and officials of the new cities, were Greeks—Macedonians, when founded by Alexander himself—generally broken down veterans, mutinous and discontented troops, and camp followers. To these were associated people from the surrounding country, it being Alexander's fixed idea to discountenance sporadic country life in villages and encourage town communities. The towns accordingly received considerable privileges. … The Greek language and political habits were thus the one bond of union among them, and the extraordinary colonizing genius of the Greek once more proved itself."

J. P. Mahaffy, The Story of Alexander's Empire, chapter 10.

See, also, HELLENIC GENIUS AND INFLUENCE.

GREECE: B. C. 280-146. The Achaian League. Its rise and fall. Destruction of Sparta. Supremacy of Rome.

The Achaian League, which bore a leading part in the affairs of Greece during the last half of the third and first half of the second century before Christ, was in some sense the revival of a more ancient confederacy among the cities of Achaia in Peloponnesus. The older League, however, was confined to twelve cities of Achaia and had little weight, apparently, in general Hellenic politics. The revived League grew beyond the territorial boundaries which were indicated by its name, and embraced the larger part of Peloponnesus. It began about 280 B. C. by the forming of a union between the two Achaian cities of Patrai and Dyme. One by one their neighbors joined them, until ten cities were confederated and acting as one. "The first years of the growth of the Achaian League are contemporary with the invasion of Macedonia and Greece by the Gauls and with the wars between Pyrrhos and Antigonos Gonatas.

See MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 277-244.

Pyrrhos, for a moment, expelled Antigonos from the Macedonian throne, which Antigonos recovered while' Pyrrhos was warring in Peloponnesos. By the time that Pyrrhos was dead, and Antigonos again firmly fixed in Macedonia, the League had grown up to maturity as far as regarded the cities of the old Achaia. … Thus far, then, circumstances had favoured the quiet and peaceful growth of the League." It had had the opportunity to grow firm enough and strong enough, on the small scale, to offer some lessons to its disunited and tyrannized neighbors and to exercise an attractive influence upon them. One of the nearest of these neighbors was Sikyon, which groaned under a tyranny that had been fastened upon it by Macedonian influence. Among the exiles from Sikyon was a remarkable young man named Aratos, or Aratus, to whom the successful working of the small Achaian League suggested some broader extension of the same political organism. In B. C. 251, Aratos succeeded in delivering his native city from its tyrant and in bringing about the annexation of Sikyon to the Achaian League. Eight years later, having meantime been elected to the chief office of the League, Aratos accomplished the expulsion of the Macedonians and their agents from Corinth, Megara, Troizen and Epidauros, and persuaded those four cities to unite themselves with the Achaians. During the next ten years he made similar progress in Arkadia, winning town after town to the federation, until the Arkadian federal capital, Megalopolis, was enrolled in the list of members, and gave to the League its greatest acquisition of energy and brain. In 229 B. C. the skill of Aratos and the prestige of the League, taking advantage of disturbances in Macedonia, effected the withdrawal of the Macedonian garrisons from Athens and the liberation of that city, which did not become confederated with its liberators, but entered into alliance with them. Argos was emancipated and annexed, B. C. 228, and "the League was now the greatest power of Greece. {1603} A Federation of equal cities, democratically governed, embraced the whole of old Achaia, the whole of the Argolic peninsula, the greater part of Arkadia, together with Phlious, Sikyon, Corinth, Megara, and the island of Aigina." The one rival of the Achaian League in Peloponnesus was Sparta, which looked with jealousy upon its growing power, and would not be confederated with it. The consequences of that jealous rivalry were fatal to the hopes for Greece which the Achaian union had seemed to revive. Unfortunately, rather than otherwise, the Lacedæmonian throne came to be occupied at this time by the last of the hero-kings of the Herakleid race—Kleomenes. When the inevitable collision of war between Sparta and the League occurred (B. C. 227-221), the personal figure of Kleomenes loomed so large in the conflict that it took the name of the Kleomenic War. Aratos was the worst of generals, Kleomenes one of the greatest, and the Achaians were steadily beaten in the field. Driven to sore straits at last, they abandoned the whole original purpose of their federation, by inviting the king of Macedonia to help them crush the independence of Sparta. To win his aid they gave up Corinth to him, and under his leadership they achieved the shameful victory of Sellasia (B. C. 221), where all that is worthy in Lacedæmonian history came to an end. The League was now scarcely more than a dependency of the Macedonian kingdom, and figured as such in the so-called Social War with the Ætolian League, B. C. 219-217. The wars of Rome with Macedonia which followed renewed its political importance considerably for a time. Becoming the ally of Rome, it was able to maintain a certain dignity and influence until the supremacy of the Roman arms had been securely proved, and then it sank to the helpless insignificance which all Roman alliances led to in the end. It was in that state when, on some complaint from Rome (B. C. 167), a thousand of the chief citizens of Achaia were sent as prisoners to Italy and detained there until less than 300 survived to return to their homes. Among them was the historian Polybios. A little later (B. C. 146) there was a wild revolt from the Roman yoke, in which Corinth took the lead. A few months of war ensued, ending in a decisive battle at Leukopetra. Then Corinth was sacked and destroyed by the Roman army and the Achaian League disappeared from history.

E. A. Freeman, History of Federal Government, chapters 5-9.

ALSO IN: C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapters 61-66 (volume 8).

Polybius, History.

GREECE: B. C. 214-146. The Roman conquest.

The series of wars in which the Romans made themselves masters of Greece were known in their annals as the Macedonian Wars. At the beginning, they were innocent of aggression. A young and ambitious but unprincipled king of Macedonia—Philip, who succeeded the able Antigonos Doson—had put himself in alliance with the Carthaginians and assailed the Romans in the midst of their desperate conflict with Hannibal. For the time they were unable to do more than trouble Philip so far as to prevent his bringing effective reinforcements to the enemy at their doors, and this they accomplished in part by a treaty with the Ætolians, which enlisted that unscrupulous league upon their side. The first Macedonian war, which began B. C. 214, was terminated by the Peace of Dyrrachium, B. C. 205. The Peace was of five years duration, and Philip employed it in reckless undertakings against Pergamus, against Rhodes, against Athens, everyone of which carried complaints to Rome, the rising arbiter of the Mediterranean world, whose hostility Philip lost no opportunity to provoke. On the Ides of March, B. C. 200, the Roman senate declared war. In the spring of B. C. 197 this second Macedonian War was ended at the battle of Cynoscephalæ—so called from the name of a range of hills known as the Dog-heads—where the Macedonian army was annihilated by the consul T. Quinctius Flamininus. At the next assembly of the Greeks for the Isthmian Games, a crier made proclamation in the arena that the Roman Senate and T. Quinctius the General, having conquered King Philip and the Macedonians, declared all the Greeks who had been subject to the king free and independent. Henceforth, whatever freedom and independence the states of Greece enjoyed were according to the will of Rome. An interval of twenty-five years, broken by the invasion of Antiochus and his defeat by the Romans at Thermopylæ (see SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187), was followed by a third Macedonian War. Philip was now dead and succeeded by his son Perseus, known to be hostile to Rome and accused of intrigues with her enemies. The Roman Senate forestalled his intentions by declaring war. The war which opened B. C. 171 was closed by the battle of Pydna, fought June 22, B. C. 168, where 20,000 Macedonians were slain and 11,000 taken prisoners, while the Romans lost scarcely 100 men. Perseus attempted flight, but was soon driven to give himself up and was sent to Rome. The Macedonian kingdom was then extinguished and its territory divided between four nominal republics, tributary to Rome. Twenty years after, there was an attempt made by a pretender to re-establish the Macedonian throne, and a fourth Macedonian War occurred; but it was soon finished (B. C. 146—see above, B. C. 280-146). The four republics then gave way, to form a Roman province of Macedonia and Epirus, while the remainder of Greece, in turn, became the Roman province of Achaia.

C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapters 64-66 (volume 8).

ALSO IN: H. G. Liddell, History of Rome, chapters 39, 43 and 45.

E. A. Freeman, History of Federal Government, chapters 8-9.

Polybius, General History.

GREECE: B. C. 191. War of Antiochus of Syria and the Romans.

See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.

GREECE: B. C. 146-A. D. 180. Under the Romans, to the reign of Marcus Aurelius. Sufferings in the Mithridatic war and revolt, and in the Roman civil wars. Treatment by the emperors. Munificence of Herodes Atticus.

"It was some time [after the Roman conquest] before the Greeks had great reason to regret their fortune. A combination of causes, which could hardly have entered into the calculations of any politician, enabled them to preserve their national institutions, and to exercise all their former social influence, even after the annihilation of their political existence. Their vanity was flattered by their admitted superiority in arts and literature, and by the respect paid to their usages and prejudices by the Romans. Their political subjection was at first not very burdensome; and a considerable portion of the nation was allowed to retain the appearance of independence. {1604} Athens and Sparta were honoured with the title of allies of Rome. [Athens retained this independent existence, partaking something of the position of Hamburg in the Germanic body, until the time of Caracalla, when its citizens were absorbed into the Roman empire.—Footnote.] The nationality of the Greeks was so interwoven with their municipal institutions, that the Romans found it impossible to abolish the local administration; and an imperfect attempt made at the time of the conquest of Achaia was soon abandoned. … The Roman senate was evidently not without great jealousy and some fear of the Greeks; and great prudence was displayed in adopting a number of measures by which they were gradually weakened, and cautiously broken to the yoke of their conquerors. … It was not until after the time of Augustus, when the conquest of every portion of the Greek nation had been completed, that the Romans began to view the Greeks in the contemptible light in which they are represented by the writers of the capital. Crete was not reduced into the form of a province until about eight years after the subjection of Achaia, and its conquest was not effected without difficulty, after a war of three years, by the presence of a consular army. The resistance it offered was so obstinate that it was almost depopulated ere the Romans could complete its conquest. … The Roman government … soon adopted measures tending to diminish the resources of the Greek states when received as allies of the republic. … If we could place implicit faith in the testimony of so firm and partial an adherent of the Romans as Polybius, we must believe that the Roman administration was at first characterised by a love of justice, and that the Roman magistrates were far less venal than the Greeks. … Less than a century of irresponsible power effected a wonderful change in the conduct of the Roman magistrates. Cicero declares that the senate made a traffic of justice to the provincials. … But as the government of Rome grew more oppressive, and the amount of the taxes levied on the provinces was more severely exacted, the increased power of the republic rendered any rebellion of the Greeks utterly hopeless. … For sixty years after the conquest of Achaia, the Greeks remained docile subjects of Rome. … The number of Roman usurers increased, and the exactions of Roman publicans in collecting the taxes became more oppressive, so that when the army of Mithridates invaded Greece, B. C. 86, while Rome appeared plunged in anarchy by the civil broils of the partisans of Marius and Sylla, the Greeks in office conceived the vain hope of recovering their independence. …

See MITHRIDATIC WARS; and ATHENS: B. C. 87-86.

Both parties, during the Mithridatic war, inflicted severe injuries on Greece. … Many of the losses were never repaired. The foundations of national prosperity were undermined, and it henceforward became impossible to save from the annual consumption of the inhabitants the sums necessary to replace the accumulated capital of ages, which this short war had annihilated."

G. Finlay, Greece under the Romans, chapter 1.

"Scarcely had the storm of Roman war passed by, when the Cilician pirates, finding the coasts of Greece peculiarly favorable for their marauding incursions, and tempted by the wealth accumulated in the cities and temples, commenced their depredations on so gigantic a scale that Rome felt obliged to put forth all her military forces for their suppression. The exploits of Pompey the Great, who was clothed with autocratic power to destroy this gigantic evil, fill the brightest chapter in the history of that celebrated but too unfortunate commander. …

See CILICIA, PIRATES OF.

The civil wars in which the great Republic expired had the fields of Greece for their theatre. Under the tramp of contending armies, her fertile plains were desolated, and Roman blood, in a cause not her own; again and again moistened her soil.

See ROME: B. C. 48, 44-42, and 31.

But at length the civil wars have come to an end, and the Empire introduces, for the first time in the melancholy history of man, a state of universal peace. Greece still maintains her pre-eminence in literature and art, and her schools are frequented by the sons of the Roman aristocracy. Her elder poets serve as models to the literary genius of the Augustan age. … The historians form themselves on Attic prototypes, and the philosophers of Rome divide themselves among the Grecian sects, while in Athens the Platonists, the Stoics, the Peripatetics, and the Epicureans still haunt the scenes with which the names of their masters were inseparably associated. … The establishment of the Empire made but little change in the administration of Greece. Augustus, indeed, showed no great solicitude, except to maintain the country in subjection by his military colonies,—especially those of Patræ and Nicopolis. He even deprived Athens of the privileges she had enjoyed under the Republic, and broke down the remaining power of Sparta, by declaring the independence of her subject towns. Some of his successors treated the country with favor, and endeavored, by a clement use of authority, to mitigate the sufferings of its decline. Even Nero, the amiable fiddler of Rome, was proud to display the extent of his musical abilities in their theatres. … The noble Trajan allowed the Greeks to retain their former local privileges, and did much to improve their condition by his wise and just administration. Hadrian was a passionate lover of Greek art and literature. Athens especially received the amplest benefits from his taste and wealth. He finished the temple of Olympian Zeus; established a public library; built a pantheon and a gymnasium; rebuilt the temple of Apollo at Megara; improved the old roads of Greece and made new ones. … Antoninus and Marcus Aurelius showed good will to Greece. The latter rebuilt the temple at Eleusis, and improved the Athenian schools, raising the salaries of the teachers, and in various ways contributing to make Athens, as it had been before, the most illustrious seat of learning in the world. It was in the reign of this Emperor, in the second century of our era, that one of the greatest benefactors of Athens and all Greece lived,—Herodes Atticus, distinguished alike for wealth, learning, and eloquence. Born at Marathon, … educated at Athens by the best teachers his father's wealth could procure, he became on going to Rome, in early life, the rhetorical teacher of Marcus Aurelius himself. Antoninus Pius bestowed on him the honor of the consulship; but he preferred the career of a teacher at Athens to the highest political dignities … , and he was followed thither by young men of the most eminent Roman families, from the Emperor's down. … {1605} At Athens, south of the Ilissus, he built the stadium … and the theatre of Regilla. … At Corinth he built a theatre; at Olympia, an aqueduct; at Delphi, a race-course; and at Thermopylæ, a hospital. Peloponnesus, Eubœa, Bœotia, and Epeirus experienced his bounty, and even Italy was not forgotten in the lavish distribution of his wealth. He died in A. D. 180."

C. C. Felton, Greece, Ancient and Modern, 4th course, lecture 3 (volume 2).

On the influence which Greek genius and culture exercised upon the Romans,

See HELLENIC GENIUS AND INFLUENCE.

ALSO IN: T. Mommsen, History of Rome: The Provinces, chapter 7 (volume 1).

J. P. Mahaffy, The Greek World under Roman Sway.

See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 197-A. D. 138.

GREECE: B. C. 48. Cæsar's campaign against Pompeius. Pharsalia.

See ROME: B. C. 48.

GREECE: A. D. 258-395. Gothic invasions.

See GOTHS.

GREECE: A. D. 330. Transference of the capital of the Roman Empire to Byzantium (Constantinople).

See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 330.

GREECE: A. D. 394-395. Final division of the Roman Empire between the sons of Theodosius. Definite organization of the Eastern Empire under Arcadius.

See ROME: A. D. 394-395.

GREECE: A. D. 425. Legal separation of the Eastern and Western Empires.

See Rome: A. D. 423-450.

GREECE: A. D. 446. Devastating invasion of the Huns.

See HUNS: A. D. 441-446.

GREECE: A. D. 527-567. The reign of Justinian at Constantinople. His recovery of Italy and Africa.

See ROME: A. D. 527-567, and 535-553.

GREECE: 7th Century. Slavonic occupation of the Peninsula.

See SLAVONIC PEOPLES: 6TH AND 7TH CENTURIES.

GREECE: A. D. 717-1205. The Byzantine Empire to its fall.

See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 717, to 1204-1205.

GREECE: A. D. 1205-1261. Overthrow of the Byzantine Empire by the Crusaders. The Latin Empire of Romania. The Greek Empire of Nicæa. The dukedoms of Athens and Naxos; The principality of Achaia.

See ROMANIA; GREEK EMPIRE OF NICÆA; ATHENS: A. D.1205; ACHAIA: A. D. 1205-1387; and NAXOS.

GREECE: A. D. 1261-1453. The restored Byzantine or Greek Empire.

See CONSTANTINOPLE; A. D. 1261-1453; and BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1261-1453.

GREECE: A. D. 1453-1479. The Turkish Conquest.

See TURKS: A. D. 1451-1481; CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1453, and 1453-1481; and ATHENS: A. D. 1456.

GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479. War of Turks and Venetians in the Peninsula. Siege of Corinth. Sack of Athens. Massacres at Negropont and Croia.

"The taking of Constantinople by the Turks, and the captivity of the Venetians settled in Pera, threatened [the power of Venice] … in the East; and she felt no repugnance to enter into a treaty with the enemies of her religion. After a year's negotiation, terms were concluded [1454] between the Sultan and Venice; by which her possessions were secured to her, and her trade guaranteed throughout the empire. In virtue of this treaty she continued to occupy Modon, Coron, Napoli di Romania, Argos, and other cities on the borders of the Peninsula, together with Eubœa (Negropont) and some of the smaller islands. But this good understanding was interrupted in 1463, when the Turks contrived an excuse for attacking the Venetian territory. Under pretence of resenting the asylum afforded to a Turkish refugee, the Pasha of the Morea besieged and captured Argos; and the Republic felt itself compelled immediately to resent the aggression. A re-inforcement was sent from Venice to Napoli, and Argos was quickly recaptured. Corinth was next besieged, and the project of fortifying the isthmus was once more renewed. … The labour of 30,000 workmen accomplished the work in 15 days; a stone wall of more than 12 feet high, defended by a ditch and flanked by 136 towers, was drawn across the isthmus. … But the approach of the Turks, whose numbers were probably exaggerated by report, threw the Venetians into distrust and consternation; and, unwilling to confide in the strength of their rampart, they abandoned the siege of Corinth, and retreated to Napoli, from which the infidels were repulsed with the loss of 5,000 men. The Peloponnesus was now exposed to the predatory retaliations of the Turks and Venetians; and the Christians appeared anxious to rival or surpass the Mahomedans in the refinement of their barbarous inflictions. … In the year 1465, Sigismondo Malatesta landed in the Morea with a re-inforcement of 1,000 men; and, without effecting the reduction of the citadel, captured and burned Misitra [near the ruins of ancient Sparta]. In the following year, Vittore Cappello, with the Venetian fleet, arrived in the straits of Euripus; and landing at Aulis marched into Attica. After making himself master of the Piræus, he laid siege to Athens; her walls were overthrown; her inhabitants plundered; and the Venetians retreated with the spoil to the opposite shores of Eubœa. The victorious career of Matthias Corvinus, King of Hungary, for a time diverted the Sultan from the war in the Morea; but … in the beginning of the year 1470 a fleet of 108 gallies, besides a number of smaller vessels, manned by a force 70,000 strong, issued from the harbour of Constantinople, and sailed for the straits of Euripus. … The army landed without molestation on the island, which they united to the mainland by a bridge of boats, and immediately proceeded to lay siege to the city of Negropont. … The hopes of the besieged were now centred in the Venetian fleet, which, under the command of Nicolo Canale, lay at anchor in the Saronic Gulf. But that admiral, whilst he awaited a re-inforcement, let slip the favourable opportunity of preventing the debarcation of the enemy, or of shutting up the Turks in the island by the destruction of their half-deserted fleet and bridge of boats. By an unaccountable inactivity, he suffered the city to be attacked, which, after a vigorous resistance of nearly a month, was carried by assault [July 12, 1470]; and all the inhabitants, who did not escape into the citadel, were put to the sword. At length that fortress was also taken; and the barbarous conqueror, who had promised to respect the head of the intrepid governor, deemed it no violation of his word to saw his victim in halves. After this decisive blow, which reduced the whole island, Mahomed led back his conquering army to Constantinople. … This success encouraged the Turks to attack the Venetians in their Italian territory; and the Pasha of Bosnia invaded Istria and Friuli, and carried fire and sword almost to the gates of Udine. {1606} In the following year [1474], however, the Turks were baffled in their attempt to reduce Scutari in Albania, which had been delivered by the gallant Scanderbeg to the guardian care of Venice. Some abortive negotiations for peace suspended hostilities until 1477, when the troops of Mahomed laid siege to Croia in Albania, which they reduced to the severest distress. But a new incursion into Friuli struck a panic into the inhabitants of Venice, who beheld, from the tops of their churches and towers, the raging flames which devoured the neighbouring villages." The Turks, however, withdrew into Albania, where the siege of Croia was terminated by its surrender and the massacre of its inhabitants, and the Sultan, in person, renewed the attack on Scutari. The stubborn garrison of that stronghold, however, resisted, with fearful slaughter, a continuous assault made upon their walls during two days and a night. Mahomed was forced to convert the siege into a blockade, and his troops reappeared in Friuli. "These repeated aggressions on her territories made Venice every day more anxious to conclude a peace with the Sultan," and a treaty was signed in April, 1479. "It was agreed that the islands of Negropont and Mitylene, with the cities of Croia and Scutari in Albania, and of Tenaro in the Morea, should be consigned to the Turk; whilst other conquests were to be reciprocally restored to their former owners. A tribute of 10,000 ducats was imposed upon Venice, and the inhabitants of Scutari [now reduced to 500 men and 150 women] were to be permitted to evacuate the city."

Sir R. Comyn, History of the Western Empire, chapter 31 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: Sir E. S. Creasy, History of the Ottoman Turks, chapter 5.

GREECE: A. D. 1645-1669. The war of Candia. Surrender of Crete to the Turks by the Venetians.

See TURKS: A. D. 1645-1669.

GREECE: A. D. 1684-1696. Conquests by the Venetians from the Turks.

See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

GREECE: A. D. 1699. Cession of part of the Morea to Venice by the Turks.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

GREECE: A. D. 1714-1718. The Venetians expelled again from the Morea by the Turks. Corfu defended.

See TURKS: A. D. 1714-1718.

GREECE: A. D. 1770-1772. Revolt against the Turkish rule. Russian encouragement and desertion.

See TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.

GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829. Overthrow of Turkish rule. Intervention of Russia, England and France. Battle of Navarino. Establishment of national independence.

"The Spanish revolution of 1820 [see SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827], which was speedily followed by the revolutions of Naples, Sicily, and Piedmont, caused a great excitement throughout Europe, and paved the way for the Greek revolution of 1821. Since the beginning of the century the Greeks had been preparing for the struggle; in fact, for more than fifty years there had been a general movement in the direction of independence. … There had been many insurrections against the Turkish authority, but they were generally suppressed without difficulty, though with the shedding of much Greek blood. Nearly every village in Greece suffered from pillage by the Turks, and the families were comparatively few that did not mourn a father, son, or brother, killed by the Turks or carried into slavery, or a daughter or sister transported to a Turkish harem. … Notwithstanding their subjugation, many of the Greeks were commercially prosperous, and a large part of the traffic of the East was in their hands. They conducted nearly all the coasting trade of the Levant, and a few years before the revolution they had 600 vessels mounting 6,000 guns (for defence against pirates) and manned by 18,000 seamen. … In laying their plans for independence the Greeks resorted to the formation of secret societies, and so well was the scheme conducted that everything was ripe for insurrection before the Turkish rulers had any suspicion of the state of affairs. A great association was formed which included Greeks everywhere, not only in Greece and its islands, but in Constantinople, Austria, Germany, England, and other countries, wherever a Greek could be found. Men of other nationalities were occasionally admitted, but only when their loyalty to the Greek cause was beyond question, and their official positions gave them a chance to aid in the work. Several distinguished Russians were members, among them Count Capo D'Istria, a Greek by birth, who held the office of private secretary to the Emperor Alexander I. of Russia. The society was known as the Hetaira, or Hetairist, and consisted of several degrees or grades. The highest contained only sixteen persons, whose names were not all known, and it was impossible for any member of the lower classes to ascertain them. … All the Hetairists looked hopefully towards Russia, partly in consequence of their community of religion, and partly because of the fellow-feeling of the two countries in cordially detesting the Turk. … The immediate cause of the revolution, or rather the excuse for it, was the death of the Hospodar of Wallachia, January 30, 1821, followed by the appointment of his successor. During the interregnum, which naturally left the government in a weakened condition, the Hetairists determined to strike their blow for liberty. A band of 150 Greeks and Arnauts, under the command of Theodore Vladimiruko, formerly a lieutenant-colonel in the Russian service, marched out of Bucharest and seized the small town of Czernitz, near Trajan's Bridge, on the Danube. There Theodore issued a proclamation, and such was the feeling of discontent among the people, that in a few days he had a force of 12,000 men under his command. Soon afterwards there was an insurrection in Jassy, the capital of Moldavia, headed by Prince Alexander Ipsilanti, an officer in the Russian service. He issued a proclamation in which the aid of Russia was distinctly promised, and as the news of this proclamation was carried to Greece, there was a general movement in favor of insurrection. The Russian minister assured the Porte that his government had nothing to do with the insurrection, and the Patriarch and Synod of Constantinople issued a proclamation emphatically denouncing the movement, but in spite of this assurance and proclamation the insurrection went on. Count Nesselrode declared officially that Ipsilanti's name would be stricken from the Russian army list, and that his act was one for which he alone was responsible. This announcement was the death-blow of the insurrection in Moldavia and Wallachia, as the forces of Theodore and Ipsilanti were suppressed, after some sharp fighting, by the hordes of Moslems that were brought against them. … Nearly the whole of Greece was in full insurrection in a few months, and with far better prospects than had the insurrection on the Danube. {1607} Turks and Greeks were embittered against each other; the war-cry of the Turk was, 'Death to the Christian!' while that of the Christian was, 'Death to the Turk!' The example was set by the Turks, and, to the eternal disgrace of the Turkish government, slaughter in cold blood was made official. It was by the order and authority of the Porte that Gregory, Patriarch of Constantinople, a revered prelate, eighty years of age, was seized on Easter Sunday, as he was descending from the altar where he had been celebrating divine service, and hanged at the gate of his archiepiscopal palace, amid the shouts and howls of a Moslem mob. After hanging three hours, the body was cut down and delivered to some Jews, who dragged it about the streets and threw it into the sea, whence it was recovered the same night by some Christian fishermen. Some weeks later it was taken to Odessa and buried with great ceremony. This act of murder was the more atrocious on the part of the Turks, since the Patriarch had denounced the insurrection in a public proclamation, and his life and character were most blameless and exemplary. It is safe to say that this barbarity had more to do with fanning the fires of revolt than any other act of the Turkish government. But it was by no means the only act of the kind of which the Turks were guilty. The Patriarch of Adrianople with eight of his ecclesiastics was beheaded, and so were the dragoman of the Porte and several other eminent residents of Constantinople, descended from Greek settlers of two or three centuries ago. Churches were everywhere broken open and plundered; Greek citizens of the highest rank were murdered, their property stolen, and their wives and daughters sold as slaves; on the 15th of June five archbishops and a great number of laymen were hanged in the streets, and 450 mechanics were sold and transported into slavery; at Salonica the battlements of the town were lined with Christian heads, from which the blood ran down and discolored the water in the ditch. In all the great towns of the empire there were similar atrocities; some were the work of mobs, which the authorities did not seek to restrain, but the greater part of them were ordered by the governors or other officials, and met the approval of the Porte. At Smyrna, the Christian population was massacred by thousands without regard to age or sex, and in the island of Cyprus a body of 10,000 troops sent by the Porte ravaged the island, executed the metropolitan, five bishops, and thirty-six other ecclesiastics, and converted the whole island into a scene of rapine, bloodshed, and robbery. Several thousand Christians were killed before the atrocities ceased, and hundreds of their wives and daughters were carried into Turkish harems. These and similar outrages plainly told the Greeks that no hope remained except in complete independence of the Turks, and from one end of Greece to the other the fires of insurrection were everywhere lighted. The islands, as well as the mainland, were in full revolt, and the fleet of coasting vessels, nearly all of them armed for resisting pirates, gave the Turks a great deal of trouble. … On the land, battle followed battle in different parts of the country, and the narration of the events of the insurrection would fill a bulky volume. … During the latter part of 1821, the advantages to the Greeks were sufficient to encourage them to proclaim their independence, which was done in January, 1822. In the same month the Turks besieged Corinth, and in the following April they besieged and captured Chios (Scio), ending the capture with the slaughter of 40,000 inhabitants, the most horrible massacre of modern times. In July, the Greeks were victorious at Thermopylæ; in the same month Corinth fell, with great slaughter of the defenders. In April, 1823, the Greeks held a national congress at Argos; the victories of Marco Bozzaris occurred in the following June, and in August he was killed in a night attack upon the Turkish camp; in August, too, Lord Byron landed at Athens to take part in the cause of Greece, which was attracting the attention of the whole civilized world. The first Greek loan was issued in England in February, 1824; Lord Byron died at Missolonghi in the following April; in August the Capitan Pasha was defeated at Samos with heavy loss; in October, the provisional government of Greece was set up; and the fighting became almost continuous in the mountain districts of Greece. In February, 1825, Ibrahim Pasha arrived with a powerful army from Egypt, which captured Navarino in May, and Tripolitza in June of the same year. In July, the provisional government invoked the aid of England; in the following April (1826), Ibrahim Pasha took Missolonghi after a long and heroic defence [for twelve months]; and nearly a year later Reschid Pasha captured Athens. Down to the beginning of 1826, the Greeks had felt seriously the deprivation of Russian sympathy and aid for which they had been led to look before the revolution. The death of Alexander I., and the accession of Nicholas in December, 1825, caused a change in the situation. The British government sent the Duke of Wellington to St. Petersburg ostensibly to congratulate Nicholas on his elevation to the throne, but really to secure concert of action in regard to Greece. On the 4th of April a protocol was signed by the Duke of Wellington, Prince Lieven, and Count Nesselrode, which may be considered the foundation of Greek independence. Out of this protocol grew the treaty of July 6, 1827, between England, Russia, and France, by which it was stipulated that those nations should mediate between the contending Greeks and Turks. They proposed to the Sultan that he should retain a nominal authority over the Greeks, but receive from them a fixed annual tribute. … The Sultan … refused to listen to the scheme of mediation, and immediately made preparations for a fresh campaign, and also for the defence of Turkey in case of an attack. Ships and reinforcements were sent from Constantinople, and the Egyptian fleet, consisting of two 84-gun ships, twelve frigates, and forty-one transports, was despatched from Alexandria with 5,000 troops, and reached Navarino towards the end of August, 1827. The allied powers had foreseen the possibility of the Porte's refusal of mediation, and taken measures accordingly; an English fleet under Admiral Sir Edward Codrington, and a French fleet under Admiral De Rigny, were in the Mediterranean, and were shortly afterwards joined by the Russian fleet under Admiral Heiden. … The allied admirals held a conference, and decided to notify Ibrahim Pasha that he must stop the barbarities of plundering and burning villages and slaughtering their inhabitants. {1608} But Ibrahim would not listen to their remonstrances, and to show his utter disregard for the powers, he commanded four of his ships to sail to the Gulf of Patras to occupy Missolonghi and relieve some Turkish forts, in effect to clear those waters of every Greek man-of-war which was stationed there. This he did easily, the allied squadrons being temporarily absent. Admiral Codrington pursued him and, without difficulty, drove him back to Navarino. … A general muster of all the ships was ordered by Admiral Codrington, Commander-in-Chief of the squadron. … The allied fleet mounted 1,324 guns, while the combined Turkish and Egyptian fleet mounted 2,240 guns. To this superiority in the number of guns on board must be added the batteries on shore, which were all in the hands of the Turks. But the Christians had a point in their favor in their superiority in ships of the line, of which they possessed ten, while the Turks had but three. … The allied fleet entered the Bay of Navarino about two o'clock on the afternoon of October 20, 1827. … In less than four hours from the beginning of the contest the Ottoman fleet had ceased to be. Every armed ship was burnt, sunk, or destroyed; the only remaining vessels belonging to the Turks and Egyptians were twenty-five of the smallest transports, which were spared by order of Admiral Codrington. It was estimated that the loss in men on the Turkish and Egyptian vessels was fully 7,000. On the side of the allies, no vessels were destroyed, but the Asia, Albion, and Genoa of the English fleet were so much injured, that Admiral Codrington sent them to Malta for repairs which would enable them to stand the voyage home to England. Seventy-five men were killed and 197 wounded on the British fleet, and the loss of the French was 43 killed and 117 wounded. The Russian loss was not reported. … It was feared that when the news of the event at Navarino reached Constantinople, the lives of all Europeans in that city, including the foreign ambassadors, would be in great danger, but happily there was no violence on the part of the Turks. The ambassadors pressed for an answer to their note of August 16th, and at length the Sultan replied: 'My positive, absolute, definitive, unchangeable, eternal answer is, that the Sublime Porte does not accept any proposition regarding the Greeks, and will persist in its own will regarding them even to the last day of judgment.' The Porte even demanded compensation for the destruction of the fleet, and satisfaction for the insult, and that the allies should abstain from all interference in the affairs of Greece. The reply of the ambassadors was to the effect that the treaty of July obliged them to defend Greece, and that the Turks had no claim whatever for reparation for the affair of Navarino. The ambassadors left Constantinople on the 8th December, and soon afterwards Count Capo D'Istria, who had been elected President of Greece, took his seat, and issued a proclamation, declaring that the Ottoman rule over the country was at an end after three centuries of oppression. Thus was the independence of Greece established. There was little fighting after the events of Navarino, and early in 1828 Admiral Codrington and Ibrahim Pasha held a convention and agreed upon measures for evacuating the land of the Hellenes. During the summer and autumn Patras, Navarino, and Modon were successively surrendered to the French, and the Morea was evacuated by the Turks. Missolonghi was surrendered to Greece early in 1829, and by the Treaty of Adrianople in September of the same year the Porte acknowledged the independence of Greece, which was henceforth to be one in the family of nations."

T. W. Knox, Decisive Battles since Waterloo, chapter 3.

ALSO IN: C. A. Fyffe, History of Modern Europe, volume 2, chapter 4.

S. G. Howe, Historical Sketch of the Greek Revolution.

T. Gordon, History of the Greek Revolution.

Lord Byron, Letters and Journals, 1823-4 (volume 2).

E. J. Trelawny, Records of Shelley, Byron, etc., chapters 19-20 (volume 2).

S. Walpole, History of England, chapters 9 and 11 (volume 2).

GREECE: A. D. 1822-1823. The Congress of Verona.

See VERONA, THE CONGRESS OF.

GREECE: A. D. 1830-1862. The independent kingdom constituted under Otho of Bavaria. Its unsatisfactoriness. Dethronement of King Otho. Election of Prince George of Denmark.

"On February 3d, 1830, a protocol was signed which constituted Greece an independent State; and on the 11th of the same month Prince Leopold of Belgium accepted the crown which was offered to him by the Powers: He, however, soon resigned the honour; giving for his main reason the hopelessness of establishing a Greek kingdom from which Krete, Epeiros, and Thessaly were to be excluded. The northern boundary, as drawn in 1830, stretched from the Gulf of Zeitoun to the mouth of the Aspropotamos, thus depriving Greece of the greater part of Akarnania and Aitolia. After the assassination [by the family of an insurgent chief] of Count Capodistna (who was the popularly elected President of Greece from April 14th, 1827, to October 9th, 1831), and after the Powers had selected Prince Otho of Bavaria for the position declined by Prince Leopold, an arrangement was concluded between England, France, Russia, and Turkey, whereby the boundary was drawn from the Gulf of Arta to the same termination in the Gulf of Zeitoun. But a few months later the district of Zeitoun, north of the Spercheios, was added to Greece; and the new kingdom paid to the Porte an indemnity of 40,000,000 piastres, or about £460,000. The Powers guaranteed a loan to Greece of 60,000,000 francs, out of which the payment of the indemnity was made; and thus, at last, in the autumn of 1832, the fatherland of the Greeks was redeemed. Under Otho of Bavaria the country was governed at first by a Council of Regency, consisting of Count Armansperg, Professor Maurer, and General Heideck. Maurer was removed in 1834, and Armansperg in 1837; and at the close of the latter year, after the trial of another Bavarian as president of the Council, a Greek was for the first time appointed to the principal post in the Ministry. The greatest benefit conferred upon the country by its German rulers was the reinforcement of the legal system, and the elevation of the authority of the law. But, on the other hand, an unfortunate attempt was made to centralize the whole administration of Greece, her ancient municipal rights and customs were overlooked, taxation was almost as indiscriminate and burdensome as under the Turks, whilst large sums of money were spent upon the army, and on other objects of an unremunerative or insufficiently remunerative character, so that the young State was laden with pecuniary liabilities before anything had been done to develope her resources. … {1609} No national assembly was convened, no anxiety was shown to conciliate the people, liberty of expression was curtailed, personal offence was given by the foreigners, and by Armansperg in particular; brigandage and piracy flourished, and Greece began to suffer all the evils which might have been expected to arise from the government of unsympathetic aliens. … In addition to the rapid and alarming increase of brigandage by land and piracy by sea, there were popular insurrections in Messenia, Maina, Akarnania, and elsewhere. One of the most capable Englishmen who have ever espoused the cause of the Greeks, General Gordon, was commissioned in 1835 to clear northern Greece of the marauders by whom it was overrun. He executed his mission in an admirable manner, sweeping the whole of Phokis, Aitolia, and Akarnania, and securing the cooperation of the Turkish Pasha at Larissa. Hundreds of brigands were put to flight,—but only to return again next year, and to enjoy as great immunity as ever. … In the absence of a strong and active organization of the national forces, brigandage in Greece was an ineradicable institution; and, as a matter of fact, it was not suppressed until the year 1870. Gradually the discontent of the people, and the feebleness and infatuation of the Government, were breeding a revolution. … The three Guaranteeing Powers urged on Otho and his advisers the necessity of granting a Constitution, which had been promised on the establishment of the kingdom; and moral support was thus given to two very strong parties, known by the titles of Philorthodox and Constitutional, whose leaders looked to Russia and England respectively. The King and the Government neglected symptoms which were conspicuous to all besides, and the revolution of 1843 found them practically unprepared and helpless. On the 15th of September, after a well-contrived demonstration of the troops, which was acquiesced in and virtually sanctioned by the representatives of the three Powers, King Otho gave way, and signed the decrees which had been submitted to him. The Bavarian Ministers were dismissed, Mavrokordatos was made Premier, a National Assembly was convoked, and a Constitution was granted. For the first time since the Roman conquest, Greece resumed the dignity of self-government. The Constitution of 1844 was by no means an adequate one. It did not fully restore the privileges of local self-rule, and it only partially modified the system of centralization, from which so many evils had sprung. But it was nevertheless a great advance towards popular liberty. … The difficulties which arose between Russia and Turkey in 1853, and which led up to the Crimean War, inspired the Greeks with a hope that their 'grand idea'—the inheritance of the dominion of Turkey in Europe, so far as the Greek-speaking provinces are concerned—might be on the eve of accomplishment. … The Russian army crossed the Pruth in July, 1853, and preparations were at once made by the Greeks to invade Turkey. … The temper of the whole country was such that England and France deemed it necessary to take urgent measures for preventing an alliance between Russia and Greece. In May, 1854, an Anglo-French force was landed at the Peiraios, where it remained until February, 1857. Pressure was thus brought to bear upon King Otho, who was not in a position to resist it. … The humiliation of the Greeks under the foreign occupation weakened the authority of the King and his Ministers, and the unhappy country was once more a prey to rapine and disorder. … From the year 1859 a new portent began to make itself apparent in Greece. As the insurrection of 1821 may be said to have derived some of its energy from the upheaval of France and Europe in the preceding decades, so the Greek revolution of 1862 was doubtless hastened, if not suggested, by the Italian regeneration of 1848-1861. … On February 13th, 1862, the garrison of Nauplia revolted; other outbreaks followed; and at last, in October, during an ill-advised absence of the Monarch from his capital, the garrison of Athens broke out into open insurrection. A Provisional Government was nominated; the deposition of King Otho was proclaimed; and when the royal couple hurried back to the city they were refused an entrance. The representatives of the Powers were appealed to in vain; and the unfortunate Bavarian, after wearing the crown for thirty years, sailed from the Peiraios never to return. The hopes of the Greeks at once centred in Prince Alfred of England for their future king. … But the agreement of the three Powers on the establishment of the kingdom expressly excluded from the throne all members of the reigning families of England, France, and Russia; and thus, although Prince Alfred was elected king with practical unanimity, the English Government would not sanction his acceptance of the crown. The choice eventually and happily fell upon Prince George of Denmark, the present King of the Hellenes; and neither Greece nor Europe has had reason to regret the selection. … From this time forward the history of modern Greece enters upon a brighter phase."

L. Sergeant, Greece, chapter 5.

ALSO IN: L. Sergeant, New Greece, part 2, chapter 8-10.

GREECE: A. D. 1846-1850. Rude enforcement of English claims. The Don Pacifico Affair.

"Greek independence had been established under the joint guardianship of Russia, France, and England. Constitutional government had been guaranteed. It had however been constantly delayed. Otho, the Bavarian Prince, who had been placed upon the throne, was absolute in his own tendencies, and supported by the absolute Powers; and France, eager to establish her own influence in the East, … had sided with the Absolutists, leaving England the sole supporter of constitutional rule. The Government and administration were deplorably bad. … Any demands raised by the English against the Government—and the bad administration afforded abundant opportunity for dispute—were certain to encounter the opposition of the King, supported by the advice of all the diplomatic body. Such questions had arisen. Ionians, claiming to be British subjects, had been maltreated, the boat's crew of a Queen's ship roughly handled, and in two cases the money claims of English subjects against the Government disregarded. They were trivial enough in themselves; a piece of land belonging to a Mr. Finlay [the historian of mediæval and modern Greece], a Scotchman, had been incorporated into the royal garden, and the price—no doubt somewhat exorbitant—which he set upon it refused. The house of Don Pacifico, a Jew, a native of Gibraltar, had been sacked by a mob, without due interference on the part of the police. He demanded compensation for ill-usage, for property destroyed, and for the loss of certain papers, the only proof as he declared of a somewhat doubtful claim against the Portuguese Government. {1610} Such claims in the ordinary course of things should have been made in the Greek Law Court. But Lord Palmerston, placing no trust in the justice to be there obtained, made them a direct national claim upon the Government. For several years, on various pretences, the settlement of the question had been postponed, and Palmerston had even warned Russia that he should some day have to put strong pressure upon the Greek Court to obtain the discharge of their debts. At length, at the close of 1849, his patience became exhausted. Admiral Parker, with the British fleet, was ordered to the Piræus. Mr. Wyse, the English Ambassador, embarked in it. The claims were again formally laid before the King, and upon their being declined the Piræus was blockaded, ships of the Greek navy captured and merchant vessels secured by way of material guarantee for payment. The French and the Russians were indignant at this unexpected act of vigour." The Russians threatened; the French offered mediation, which was accepted. The French negotiations at Athens had no success; but at London there was promise of a friendly settlement of the matter, when Mr. Wyse, the English Minister at the Greek Court, being left in ignorance of the situation, brought fresh pressure to bear upon King Otho and extorted payment of his claims. The French were enraged and withdrew their Minister from London. "For the time, this trumpery little affair caused the greatest excitement, and, being regarded as a typical instance of Lord Palmerston's management of the Foreign Office, it formed the ground of a very serious attack upon the Government."

J. F. Bright, History of England, period 4, pages 200-203.

ALSO IN: S. Walpole, History of England, from 1815, chapter 22 (volume 4).

J. McCarthy, History of Our Own Times, chapter 19 (volume 2).

See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1849-1850.

GREECE: A. D. 1862. Annexation of the Ionian Islands.

See IONIAN ISLANDS: A. D. 1815-1862.

GREECE: A. D. 1862-1881. The Cretan struggle and defeat. The Greek question in the Berlin Congress. Small cession of territory by Turkey.

"The annexation of the Heptannesos [the seven (Ionian) islands] was a great benefit to Hellas. It was not only a piece of good fortune for the present but an earnest of the future. … There still remained the delusion of the Integrity of the Turkish Empire; but the Christians of the East really cannot believe in the sincerity of all the Powers who proclaim and sustain this extraordinary figment, any more than they are able to fall a prey to the hallucination itself. The reunion of the Heptannesos with the rest of Hellas was therefore regarded as marking the beginning of another and better era—a sanction to the hopes of other re-unions in the future. The first of the Hellenes who endeavoured to gain for themselves the same good fortune which had fallen upon the Ionians were again the Cretans. They defied Turkey for three years, 1866-7-8. With the exception of certain fortresses, the whole island was free. Acts of heroism and sacrifice such as those which had rendered glorious the first War of Independence, again challenged the attention of the world. Volunteers from the West recalled the Philhellenic enthusiasm of old days. The Hellenes of the mainland did not leave their brethren alone in the hour of danger; they hastened to fight at their side, while they opened in their own homes a place of refuge for the women and children of the island. Nearly 60,000 fugitives found protection there. For a while there was room for believing that the deliverance of Crete was at last accomplished. Russia and France were favourably disposed. Unhappily the good-will of these two Powers could not overcome the opposition of England, strongly supported by Austria. Diplomacy fought for the enslavement of the Cretans with as much persistence and more success than those with which it had opposed the deliverance of Greece. Freedom has not yet come for Crete. The islanders obtained by their struggle nothing but a doubtful amelioration of their condition by means of a sort of charter which was extracted from the unwillingness of the Porte in 1868, under the name of the 'Organic Regulation.' This edict has never been honestly put in force. However, even if it had been carried out, it would not have been a settlement of the Cretan question. The Cretans have never concealed what they want, or ceased to proclaim their intention of demanding it until they obtain it. At the time of the Congress of Berlin they thought once more that they would succeed. They got nothing but another promise from the Porte 'to enforce scrupulously the Organic Regulation of 1868, with such modifications as might be judged equitable.' … The history of the Greek Question at the Congress of Berlin and the conferences which followed it, is not to be treated in detail here. The time is not come for knowing all that took place. … We do not know why Hellas herself remained so long with her sword undrawn during the Russo-Turkish War—what promises or what threats held her back from moving when the armies of Russia, checked before Plevna, would have welcomed a diversion in the West, and when the Hellenic people both within and without the Kingdom were chafing at the do-nothing attitude of the Government of Athens. Everyone in Greece felt that the moment was come. The measures taken by hordes of Bashi-Bazooks were hardly sufficient to repress the insurrection which was ready in all quarters, and which at length broke out in the mountains of Thessaly. … It was only at the last moment, when the war was on the point of being closed by the treaty which victorious Russia compelled Turkey to grant at San Stefano, that the Greek Government, under the Presidency of Koumoundouros, yielded tardily to the pressure of the nation, and allowed the army to cross the frontier. It was too late for the diversion to be of any use to Russia, and it could look for no support from any other Government in Europe. This fact was realized at Athens, but men felt, at the same time, that it was needful to remind the world at any price that there is a Greek Question connected with the Eastern Question. The step was taken, but it was taken with a hesitation which betrayed itself in act as well as in word. … Diplomacy saw the danger of the fresh conflagration which the armed intervention of Greece was capable of kindling. {1611} The utmost possible amount of pressure was therefore brought to bear upon the Government of Athens in order to induce it to retrace the step, and in the result an order was obtained to the Greek Commander-in-Chief to recross the frontier, upon the solemn assurance of the great Powers 'that the national aspirations and interests of the Greek populations should be the subject of the deliberations of the approaching Congress.' … On July 5, 1878, the Congress accepted the resolution proposed by the French plenipotentiary, 'inviting the Porte to come to an understanding with Greece for a rectification of the frontiers in Thessaly and Epiros, a rectification which may follow the valley of the Peneus upon the Eastern side, and that of the Thyamis (or Kalamas) upon the Western.' In other words, they assign to Hellas the whole of Thessaly and a large part of Epiros. Notwithstanding the abandonment of the island of Crete, this was some satisfaction for the wrongs which she had suffered at the delimitation of the Kingdom. … But the scheme suggested by the Congress and sanctioned by the Conference of Berlin on July 1, 1880, was not carried out. When Turkey found that she was not confronted by an Europe determined to be obeyed, she refused to submit. And then the Powers, whose main anxiety was peace at any price, instead of insisting upon her compliance, put upon Hellas all the pressure which they were able to exercise, to induce her to submit the question of the frontiers to a fresh arbitration. … Hellas had to yield, and on July 2, 1881, three years after the signing of the famous Protocol of Berlin, she signed the convention by which Turkey ceded to her the flat part of Thessaly and a small scrap of Epiros."