Greece, The Hidden Centuries: Turkish Rule from the Fall of Constantinople to Greek Independence Paperback – September 4, 2012

The most important portion of this excellent historical account can be found at the end of this book in the Conclusion. There, George Syferis, the Nobel laureate, examined the various attitudes of contemporary Greece. Among the attitudes is Ellenokotita. Ellinokotita is a sort of ultra-nationalistic "Greece Uber Alles." Part and parcel of this mentality is the demonization of Turks, Turkey, and all things Turkish. It is a mentality infecting contemporary Greek society, which has still has not come to terms with the Turkish Occupation, and is reflected in some of the reviews of this book on this webpage. The distinctions made by Syferis should have been placed in the beginning of Brewer's book, because much more than a mere history, his book is an explanation of the origins of Ellinokotita.Following the fall of Byzantium, the Ottoman Empire conquered and occupied mainland Greece and Greek-held lands in Asia Minor until Greek Independence in 1823. This is a historic account of Greece in those centuries. This is called a "hidden" history because it fills a void into a topic infrequently the subject of detailed historical accounts. Western scholarship is more preoccupied with Ancient Greece, a time and civilization bearing little resemblance to the present. Brewer's book is unique in providing as near as possible a historically neutral account of those centuries. In many ways this account that had to be written by a non-Greek historian, as native accounts are infused with Ellinokotita and as a result are polemical, unreliable, and of low historical value.This book lifts the veil of much misinformation about the Turkish Occupation of Greece.One misconception is the myth that Turkish aggression is the source of all of Greece's woes. As the book clearly describes in its beginning, the Greeks can thank the Frankish and Italian soldiers of First Crusade for crippling the Byzantine kingdom. While initially working with the Crusaders to liberate Jerusalem, the Crusaders turned against the Byzantine emperor when he could not pay his agreed share for the campaign. The Crusaders went berserk, and Constantinople was ravaged. Its infrastructure was destroyed, and the military resources were depleted. Byzantium was irrevocably weakened and made an easy target for the marauding Turkish forces -- all thanks to Western Europe.Another misconception is the myth of a brutal Turkish oppression. The traditional account is that the Turkish Occupation was one of brutal oppression, hostility, and bloodshed. The historical record tells another story. By and large, the local population in Mainland Greece was given semi-autonomy. This was true not only in the Turkish occupation of Greece, but of all the other countries in the Ottoman Empire, Palestine, Egypt and the Middle East. From the Turkish perspective, as long as taxes or other tribute were paid, the local population was pretty much left alone. The Greek population was not forced to convert to Islam; the Turkish occupiers were not interested in converts or Turkish citizens -- they were interested in collecting taxes. Greeks were not conscripted into the Turkish army.Another misconception is the role of the Greek Orthodox Church. Brewer's book indicates that the Turks delegated the role of education to the Orthodox Church, and the Church has traditionally been considered the bulwark of Hellenism during the Occupation. While this may have been true, Brewer indicates the Church's execution of this duty was far below par. Rather than carrying on education in a competent manner, the church taught a regressive type of Greek language, a completely artificial form of Greek called Katharevousa, based on ancient and medieval Greek, which contrary to educating the populace, perpetuated existing class distinctions and failed to promote the general education of the populace.The clear motif in this history is that the invading Turks were not alone in their mistreatment of Greeks. The Greeks faced equal if not worse treatment from the French and Italians, so-called "friendly" Western powers. French and Italian occupiers of the mainland and the islands such as Chios and Crete imposed a Medieval type of feudalism on the Greek population which was somewhat worse than the Turkish.It seems that the truly harsh treatments from the Turks occurred following the ill-fated Orlov Revolt. This revolt was a mistake from the beginning. The Russian powers, in an effort to foment Greek disenchantment with the Turkish occupiers so that the Turks would leave and Russia could move in, promoted revolts throughout Greece with the help of the Kelpths, rugged, independent bands of mountain thieves, who controlled the mountainous areas of the mainland much like the warlords in Afghanistan. In the four centuries of occupation, the Turks never attempted to subjugate these peoples. The problem was that the Russians drastically miscalculated what would be involved to successfully carry out these revolts, and dramatically undermanned their share of the fighting power needed to carry out the mission, not dissimilar to many of the foreign adventures carried out by the United States.Anyway, after these revolts failed, the Turks aggressively acted to eradicate the Kelpths. Greek citizens voluntarily joined in these efforts, albeit on threats of violence from the Turks. The campaign against the Kelpths succeed (they re-emerged later), but dissatisfied Albanian troops, angered by the lack of military pay, reeked havoc on the Greek citizens in the mainland. Greek citizens also helped the Turks wipe out these Albanian rogue soldiers. Thousands of Greek citizens fled the country. The Turkish occupiers were never the same again. Their oppression of the Greek population intensified, stoking the fires of Greek Independence.Which returns us to the beginning of this review. A tacit issue in Brewer's books is how the contemporary Greek mentality towards the Turks in particular and to any foreign influence in general arose. This review gives just a glimpse of the trevails suffered by Greece over the centuries by outside powers. The most notable is the Turkish presence, but the maltreatment was equally meated out by the West.History is rarely a clear-cut story with the Good Guys on one side and the Bad Guys on the other. The story of the Turkish Occupation is a nuanced one. Brewer does an excellent job in portraying the nuances of that occupation. These nuances will not be found in Greek histories, or, for that matter, Turkish. Those histories -- and the contemporary attitudes which inform them -- demonize the Turks, idealize the Kelpths, and (for good reason) are highly suspicious of the West.This is the best type of history book imaginable: One that has the courage to give an account of a highly emotional topic based on existing documentary evidence and not emotion, not succumbing to traditional rivalries and prejudices.

The theme of the book seems to be that the Turkish rule of Greece for 350+ years did more good than harm. ... I'm not persuaded. The British author equates Turk domination with British imperialism. The denial of self-rule and imposition of a dictatorial power rendered Greece a backwater to the European Enlightenment; the effects of which reverberate even today. The Turks imposed punitive taxes on the populace, forcefully relocated entire villages to Albania and Anatolia, co-opted religious leaders, denied property ownership to Greeks, and denied them certain professions and occupations. They did same to Armenians and other 'minority' populations. The author's argument whitewashes the harsher aspects of Ottoman Rule. No wonder the Greeks and Turks don't like each other. This book made me mad.

The book is interresting, And mostly thoroughly annotated. It's major shortcomming is that of poor focus, IT wanders between economic And social history, and endless anecdotes. If the author cuts away the later and expands the former This Will be a very good book

Among other things I learned the author considers taking Greek children away from their parents to serve the Sultan for the rest of their lives as simple form of conscription. A bizarre Ottoman bias IMHO.

Good book but there are a couple of occassions where background from questionable sources is used. Although author makes it known, I could do without them.

The periods of Greek history omitted from the broad picture of a dynamic culture; but very important for anyone who desires to understand the links between Antiquity and Independence in 1821.

I was well aware of the critical comments regarding the author's pro-Ottoman stance before reading the book and, alas, I was not disappointed. The mantra of the benignity of Ottoman rule repeats itself subtly throughout the book. Some examples: the Greeks were heavily taxed but so were other people all over Europe and the colonies of European empires. Maybe a hypothetical comparison closer to home would help: how long would the English populace tolerate occupation and taxation by a foreign power, let say by France - for a mere 400 years - before rising up in arms? What Mr. Brewer overlooks is the monumental difference of being taxed by your own as opposed to by an enemy power. It seems that the author, as a British historian, has not learned his lesson: wasn't it "tyrannical taxation" that made the American colonists rise up in arms - against their own kin, no less? I don't think any historian today worth his ilk would say that the American Revolution was unjustified because, hey, you're gonna have to your taxes to somebody anyway. My personal conclusion is that it is exactly this attitude that made the British Empire lose its most valuable colonies.In the chapter "The Greek Peasants" the author gives the hypothetical options to those Greeks who might be unhappy with the Turkish tyranny: move to higher grounds where the Turks can't get you! Give up the fertile soil in the lowlands and impoverish yourself even more by tilling the rocky highlands that the Turks weren't interested in. Don't worry: the Turks will gladly claim the prime real estate you left behind.Even more ludicrous is the author's suggestion that the disgruntled Greek could become a brigand instead! Is that Social Studies 101 at Oxford University? Giving up your home, your family, your roots, your right to property and the pursuit of happiness by becoming an outlaw in the mountains of Greece?The author suggests that the Ottoman system of taxing only the non-muslims but exempting them from military service was overall a fair deal. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a tax accountant to understand that this had nothing to do with being fair and everything to do with maintaining an uninterrupted flow of revenue, especially in times of war - in other words: most of the time. Maybe they should have taxed their own people and exempt them whenever called up for military service instead of imposing a tyrannically exploitive system on the "Untermenschen" of the Ottoman Empire. But far be it for me to retrospectively make suggestions that might have extended the life of this despicable tyranny. The same can be argued with their supposed religious tolerance: since muslims were not taxed the Ottoman empire was more interested in having a steady Christian tax base rather than converting their subjects to Islam. Their real attitude toward the Orthodox Church is epitomized by the hanging of the patriarch Gregory V from the door post at the onset of the Greek War of Independence despite his collaborationist exhortations to obey the Grand Seigneur and letting him squirm all night because his feeble body weight was not sufficient to break his neck - on Easter Sunday.And, last but not least, the arguably most despicable custom of the Ottomans (impaling aside) - devshirme: the forcible removal of boys ages 8 to 10 from their families, a.k.a. kidnapping. Devshirme was considered a punitive measure for the boys' ancestors having resisted the Ottoman conquest, which sounds very similar to "Sippenhaftung" under the Nazis. Even many Sharia scholars considered devshirme to be illegal because under the Sharia the Turks had the fiduciary obligation to protect its non-muslim subjects (dhimmi-System). One scholar white-washes the whole issue by simply declaring that devshirme victims were not slaves. The author white-washes the issue by calling it "conscription".But let me finish on a positive note: it is the author's opinion that the Elgin Marbles should be returned to Greece.

A thorough history

Some truth thrown in and the following lies will be easier to believe. As a researcher myself it is so frustrating to see someone trying to dethrone an idea reportedly to be based only on anecdotal evidence, by another idea of his own with even less anecdotal evidence. The only merit literally in this book to read it is to get an idea of the absurdities that may be told for that historical period.

Full of detail, Brewer charts the history of Greece under Turkish rule and the complex reality of the war of independence. Well written chronicle of a neglected period of history.

As expected

As indicated in the sales blurb - a closely argued account of the Ottoman in what we now call Greece. Myth-busting? Probably. And readable, given the complexities of the topics.

Well researched and good academic read-Disappointment was that -maybe because of lack of evidence-there was relatively little about Greeks and Greek life and too much about Ventetians et al