Did you know that Greece, the very cradle of Western Philosophy, was once under Muslim rule?
For a good 400+ years?
All the way until 1821?
But that’s not the most remarkable thing about the Greek War of Independence.
It’s this:
War needs two things: Man and money.
While the first came to Greece from a military trinity of Russia, France, and Britain, the latter came from…
Jews.
Many Jewish bankers had grown enormously rich and faced visible discrimination under the Ottomans in various cities.
There were some that rose to positions of significant influence even in the Ottoman court, but the lay Jew often faced restrictions that his Muslim counterpart didn’t, such as taxes (haraç and cizye), clothing, slave ownership, and even riding horses.
Haraç and cizye were not exactly exclusive to Jews—Muslims paid zakat, others paid haraç, Muslims paid jizya, others paid cizye.
The discrimination lay in rates of these taxes. Non-Muslims paid significantly more than Muslims.
This was deeply resented.
Ironically, these Jews were descendants of the very ones who had sought refuge in the Ottoman realm 4 centuries earlier. They were fleeing European antisemitism in the wake of the Black Death.
But now things were different. The safe haven had, over time, become the persecutor.
So the financial participation in Greece’s efforts made perfect political sense.
Long story short, Greece won this round.
But an independent nation isn’t the only thing this war birthed. It also birthed the first seeds of Jewish nationalism.
Zionism.
Interestingly, instead of democracy, the newly liberated nation chose monarchy.
And instead of ethnic Greek, the new monarchy picked a German!
Prince Otto Friedrich Ludwig of Bavaria became the first King of Greece on May 27, 1832.
After Otto, the throne went to a different dynasty, the House of Glücksburg. Also German.
And this monarchy remained in place until as recently as 1973. With a brief 11-year interruption between 1924 and 1935.
Now hear something remarkable about it…
The House of Glücksburg itself is a branch of the House of Oldenburg. And members of this one dynasty at one point ruled:
Greece,
Russia,
Germany,
Norway,
Denmark, and
Britain
Simultaneously.
In and around 1914.
In other words, WWI, was in essence a family feud. With the Ottomans thrown in for added drama.
The Mountbatten you’re familiar with, originally came from the Battenberg dynasty, itself a collateral branch of Glücksburg.
The name was changed from Battenberg to Mountbatten by British members of the family to make it sound less German and more Anglican during WWI.
A member of this dynasty would later marry Princess Elizabeth and become Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.
Now coming back to the Greek War of Independence, this was almost a “Holy War” to liberate rich Christian lands of Europe from Islamic shackles.
To recap,
The Ottomans on one side, and Europe on the other.
Among the European powers was Russia.
The dynasty ruling Russia at the time was Romanov. And both Glücksburg and Romanov find a common origin in the House of Oldenburg.
And here’s the interesting bit, the same parent dynasty in Denmark had joined forces with the Ottomans against…
The Holy Roman Empire.
A good question to ask at this point would thus be, how much of a “religious” conflict is really about religion? And at what point does holy become political? Is “holy” really a thing in the first place?
History doesn’t offer answers.
It isn’t obligated to.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
When Rome fell, Europe entered its Dark Ages.
We all know that.
When the Guptas fell, India exited its Golden Era.
We all know that.
Both happened within 9 years of one anther.
Few know that.
Both hit by one common factor—the Huns.
Even fewer know that.
Now, sure, one could argue that the Guptas hung on through the late 6th century, but it’s during Skandagupta that they peaked out. He died in 467. What remained after was a pale shadow of their glorious past struggling for survival. The Golden Age ended with Skandagupta.
As for Rome, sure there were the Vandals, the Goths, and many others that helped its demise, but it’s ultimately the Huns that pushed them in that direction, especially after Attila.
I mean the man dies in 453, and the Vandals sack Rome in 455!
Why this proclivity for deceit, @Orchids_School? Couple of days ago, you had a similar drama at your Nerul branch too, albeit for a different reason. When threatened with police action, you announced a sudden day off for “urgent maintenance.” Actually lemme elaborate, it’s fun…
Your principal literally threatened a parent with a “we know many local goons” over dues. Parent refusing to pay up because school yet to provide textbooks, the very thing the due amount is toward. This is almost the end of academic year, mind you.
And no, the parent didn’t “just wake up.” She just decided to do something radical now, after being ignored all these months. Your principal does acknowledge the lapse. Her solution? Pay up now, we’ll “adjust” it in the next year’s fees.
1. No serious scholarship of today considers Ancient Greece as the inventor of democracy, the notion has already been discarded. So yes Vedic India IS among the world’s oldest democratic systems.
Because it’s likely some cities in the Indus Civilization practiced it too. Rakhigarhi is being thought of as an example.
One other example comes from a distant Byblos (today Jbail in Lebanon) and has been provenanced variously between 1000 and 1100 BC.
This story, found on a papyrus scroll, speaks of a Phoenician prince named Zakar-Baʿal who, when called upon to resolve a dispute, defers his verdict for the following day when he summons a mw-ʿdwt for its counsel. This is important.
Thank you for responding Aabhas. Let me start off with a genuine appreciation for your deep-dives. And I’m most curious about your Mughal-Timurid dichotomy, but maybe you can educate me on that at your convenience. For now, the subject at hand: Badaoni.
As promised, I read the Muntakhab page that you sent me as reference for Bostom’s claim. Gotta agree, the two central ideas do check out—blood-soaked beard and the reward.
But there’s a context, one that demonstrably affects interpretation. Allow me to expand.
Haven’t read the whole book yet, but did go through the preceding dozen or so pages to ensure I understand the background well.
The context here is that of a war. Badaoni is requesting to be drafted into the emperor’s army for an upcoming campaign.
Just stumbled upon this most interesting two-year-old piece by Aabhas Maldahiyar in The Print. Brilliant work, very edifying, packed with shocking revelations.
Of all, one bit stood out in particular and I decided to explore. Lemme share what I found. theprint.in/opinion/yogi-a…
This is the bit in question. Now, Akbar was no saint, that much is far from contested. At least in learned, unmotivated circles. But Islamist zealot? Found it immensely unpalatable. So had to explore.
Must say the author made it quite an adventure by skimping on the reference.
But Google does what Google does and the source finally appeared. It’s a 2005 work by American Jewish professor of medicine, Andrew Bostom. It’s titled “The Legacy of Jihad” and is foreworded by an anonymous critic of Islam who goes by the pseudonym Ibn Warraq.
Once upon a time, there were two epicenters of Islamic power on Earth (3, but let’s stick to 2 now), the Ottomans in the Middle East and the Mughals in India.
Neither subservient to the other and neither willing to recognize the Caliphate of the other as authoritative of Islam.
This state of affairs remained in place for a good two-odd centuries before things took an abrupt turn toward the end of the 17th century.
Two events—the world continues to feel their repercussions to this day.
One of these just turned 323 years today.
Toward the end of 1600s, the Ottomans went to war with Europe. We don’t call this a crusade but that’s exactly what it looked like —the Caliphate on one side and the entire Christian Europe on the other led by the Holy Roman Empire itself.