In order to solve this problem, the Greeks adopted a very "traditional" approach.
Zamberrios, an old nobleman from the Ionian Islands, put forward a new point of view: He believed that Greek civilization has three elements, namely classical Greek elements, Christian elements and Roman elements. These three are indispensable, and together they formed Greek civilization.
People from the Central Plains are probably familiar with this theory. Because this is actually the idea of "connecting the three unifications to form one unification". Just as Confucius said, the Zhou Dynasty combined with the Xia and Shang Dynasties, Greece also combined elements of the previous dynasties such as Rome and the Church, forming a new culture that not only inherited the past but also innovated.
Faced with the rejection of medieval Eastern Rome by people at the time, Zamberrios believed that, whether he likes it or not, we must recognize this era, the Byzantine civilization that linked later Greece and classical Greece, and those indispensable elements in it. "Oriental Characteristics". Because they are also part of Greek culture.
This theory filled a gaping hole in Greek nationalism. Of course, there are still many people who insist on the purity of Greek culture and hate the backward and foreign "orientalness".
However, another historian, Paparigopoulos, later refined this idea. He believes that history is inherently evolving continuously, and it is unreasonable to forcibly segment it into segments and create differences. Of course, the Greek state is also continuously evolving and developing. It is very normal for language, religion, etc. to change. He placed more emphasis on the continuity of language and the continuity of the Greek nation.
He proposed that the ancient Greek city-states had actually fallen behind and found it difficult to form a unified country. The arrival of Alexander transformed Greece. Coupled with the subsequent introduction of Christianity and the relocation of the capital by Constantine, a total of three such major transformations occurred. Each transformation has adapted to the new historical environment and historical mission, completing the rescue of the past. External factors such as Christianity and Rome were therefore inseparable from Greece. The two sides supported each other's development and promoted the progress of civilization.
These three changes were called the "three rebirths" of Greece. Not only is it not backward and degenerate, it is also constantly inclusive and a sign of sustainable development. It is also a feature that distinguishes Greek civilization from other civilizations.
It's a pity that these Greek historians may not have had much contact with the history of Seris, otherwise they wouldn't have been in trouble for so long...
This theory is certainly not very complete. Apart from anything else, in Guo Kang's time, there were many issues that questioned the legitimacy of the Yuan and Qing Dynasties that were entangled in public opinion. If you throw them out casually, the Greeks would probably not be able to stand it.
Of course, fortunately, there is no other place in the world that is so strict. The theory of the Greeks was sufficient for them at least.
Unfortunately, although this theory provides some persuasiveness, its practical impact is very limited.
The biggest reason is still that Greeks must rely on Europeans.
For this reason, they didn’t even want their own names: when choosing their own names, the Greek writers at that time even preferred to use the Latin “Gracia” instead of the Greek “Greece” as their self-proclaimed name. The former was originally the Romans' specific reference to southern Italy and Magna Graecia. It is used to refer to the entire Greece, which is actually a misunderstanding.
Their explanation for this is that the Greeks themselves used this word to refer to Greece, and it appeared not too late, with Aristotle starting to use it. As to whether it was really Aristotle who said it, or whether it was "Aristotle said it" as Guo Kang often used, Aristotle himself may not even know...
This matter is even more contradictory - in order to rectify the origins, draw a clear line with the "Roman Tartars" and return to pure Greek culture, these Greeks do not even recognize Eastern Rome, and have caused such a big trouble. . As a result, when it came time to choose a name, it fell back to the language of the Romans.
This obviously has nothing to do with whether Rome is advanced or backward. The whole logic is confusing. Even if Aristotle comes by himself, he must be careful to avoid suspicion.
Of course, the reason for the chaos is not complicated: it is just the master's wish.
Why did the Greeks have to separate themselves from Rome? Because Europeans will never accept the emergence of Rome. Guo Kang himself knew this very well.
And why do Greeks use Roman words when naming names? Isn't it because Europeans are accustomed to Latin and its derivatives, which are more convenient to use and are conducive to international perspective.
On the one hand, this is because the small country is destined to be miserable, and on the other hand, it is because the performance of the Greeks themselves is indeed not very good.
From the beginning, this "country" could not achieve internal unity: it was a loose alliance composed of a large number of bandits called "Crafts" and some traditional nobles. The bandits disobeyed everyone's orders - the advantage was that they hated the Ottomans who dictated to them, but the disadvantage was that they also hated the Greek regime that gave them orders;
Although the old nobles have strong family backgrounds, and some families have even been senators of the Eastern Roman, Ottoman and Greek dynasties, their combat effectiveness is indeed not very good.
What's even more troublesome is that these people may not be as loyal to Greece as the bandits - most of them are upper-class Greek aristocrats "Fanars" who served the Sultan during the Ottoman era.
Some families were originally local leaders in Bulgaria and Wallachia, but because they helped the tyrants, they were hated by the locals more than the Ottomans, so they had to flee; some betrayed the Sultan and defected to Russia, and then betrayed the Tsar and fled to Greece, leaving people unaware. Do they really love their country or are they just speculating again?
The characteristics of these people were summarized by Saint Philotai, the patron saint of Athens. This aristocratic woman who was martyred to protect women taken away by the Ottomans commented on her compatriots that "there is no distinction between good and evil, no faith, no determination, shamelessness and boldness, and resentment is rising every day... always ready Take advantage of other people's misfortunes." Judging from the subsequent development, her evaluation is quite accurate.
These people did set up a committee early to formulate an interim constitution, but this organization failed at all to bridge the contradictions among them. The only consensus they have is probably to ask for money and support from foreign countries. George Finlay, a British historian who went to Greece to participate in the War of Independence, bluntly recorded that the main job of these people was to try to deceive Europeans into giving money, but they made little effort to organize the Greeks themselves.
This effort is not fruitless. A number of Western Europeans actually went to Greece to support the war effort, and even more people were willing to raise funds for various purposes.
In London, the philosopher Bentham and others organized the "London Greek Association" in an attempt to build their own ideal society with the help of Greek independence. The association attracted many generous nobles. In 1825, the highest investment was 2 million pounds in Greece - and the British Army's military expenditure that year was only 6.8 million.
Byron was more realistic than Bentham and found this idea somewhat unrealistic. But the actual situation in Greece shocked even this poet who believed deeply in skepticism and suffered from severe depression. Relying on the operation of discharging mentally ill people, the old nobles successfully squandered all these funds on endless internal strife and party disputes. They failed to achieve any results and could only borrow more money from more stringent creditors. Fill holes.
So these theoretical issues are actually very embarrassing. It's still like this after hundreds of years, which made Guo Kang very suspicious. Is it useful for the Greeks to study this thing...
(End of chapter)
