Greece, the Hidden Centuries: Turkish Rule From the Fall of Constantinople to Greek Independence

by David Brewer

  By contrast, the Chians secured some remarkable privileges by two missions to the Sultan’s court, in 1567 and 1578. The Chians were exempt from forced labour, and there was to be no devshirme. Prisoners were to be properly treated. The usual religious freedom was assured, with an explicit ban on forcible conversion. The only personal taxation would be the poll tax, and there were to be no extraordinary taxes. Chíos was to have a permanent representative at the Sultan’s court. Perhaps the most valuable privilege was the right to elect their own governors, the dhimoyérontes, who collected all taxes, controlled public funds and administered justice. Their continuing powers were summed up by the French vice-consul in the early nineteenth century: ‘En un mot, l’opinion des Primats grecs [i.e. the dhimoyérontes] réglait en toute chose la volonté des autorités turques.’5 This lenient treatment may have been intended to ensure peace and productivity in the valuable mastic villages, which later became the personal property of the Sultan’s sister.

  An English visitor to Chíos a century after its fall to the Turks wrote that ‘the Inhabitants injoy greater privileges than any Greeks in the Grand Signior’s Dominions; and more liberty cannot be in any part than what they injoy.’6 The Chians thus emerged from their turbulent past to enjoy a more favoured position under Turkish rule than any other Aegean island or any other part of Greece.

  The fortunes of Náxos and its neighbours were determined by the Fourth Crusade. Those who took part in that crusade had agreed in general terms on how they would divide the territory won from the Byzantine Empire: a quarter to the new Latin Emperor of Byzantium and the remaining three quarters split equally between Venetian and non-Venetian crusaders. The specifics of who got what were supposed to be laid down in the agreement known as the Partitio Terrarum, but this document was far from complete and far from being fully observed.

  There may have been an understanding that the Cyclades would go to Venice, but only two of its islands were specifically allocated in the Partitio – Ándhros to Venice, Tínos to the Latin Emperor – and the rest, including two of the largest, Náxos and Páros, were effectively available to anyone. In the event Náxos was seized by the Venetian adventurer Marco Sanudo, nephew of the old blind Doge Enrico Dandolo who had led the Venetians in the Fourth Crusade. Sanudo recognised as his overlord not Venice but the Latin Emperor in Constantinople, who awarded him the title of Duke of Náxos, and by 1207 Sanudo had added to his duchy Páros and most of the islands to the south and west of Náxos. Other Cyclades islands were seized by other Venetian crusaders – Ándhros from Venice by Marino Dandolo, Tínos from the Latin Emperor by Andrea Ghisi – and Sanudo claimed to be overlord of these as well. Thus the Duchy of Náxos was established.

  Marco Sanudo and his successors as dukes of Náxos did all they could to be independent of Venice, but it was vital for Venice to maintain its influence in the Cyclades, especially against its commercial rival Genoa, with whom it fought four hot wars between the 1250s and the 1380s. If Venice needed the Aegean islands, the islanders too needed Venice, particularly against Turkish attacks in the area, which began with their brutal seizure of Lésvos in 1462. Venice became in effect the protecting power of the region. Rights of succession to island lordships, and disputes over other matters, were settled by the Venetian senate or in the Venetian courts.

  The Cyclades were important because of their position across the sea lanes that linked the Mediterranean with the ports of the northern Aegean – on the Greek coast Vólos and Thessalonika, and on the Turkish coast Chíos and Smyrna, and beyond them Constantinople. Any ship’s captain sailing from the west and rounding the Peloponnese had a choice of three more or less direct routes to the north (see map), all hazardous because of winds, currents and reefs.

  The most direct was the channel between Évia and Ándhros, known as the Doro. Though the channel is wide, about five miles across, the current flows south, and as the channel faces due north it was virtually impossible for a sailing ship to get through if the prevailing north wind was blowing. The next passage to the east, between Ándhros and Tínos, is only some 200 yards across at one point, and so named the Steno (‘narrow’). Its advantages are that the current is less strong, and it faces less directly into the north wind. The third channel, the Míkonos strait, between Tínos and Míkonos, was probably the easiest, but for a ship heading for a Greek port it involved the longest detour. To add to the dangers, pirates preyed on these ships, especially when they were forced to wait, sometimes for weeks, for favourable weather for the transit through one of the channels.

  The islanders were naturally seafarers, but with no ships of their own took service on foreign vessels. This has led to the enduring belief, for which there is some evidence, that during the long summer months of their menfolk’s absence the women of the islands took to prostitution, their clients being passing sailors or pirates. As one traveller delicately put it, the men left their women ‘to their own discretion and the civility of strangers’.7 Professional prostitutes were of course common in all ports, but it is suggested that these prostitutes were otherwise virtuous wives. There were several ways in which feelings of shame about the unsavoury aspects of this business could be displaced. Travellers made a joke of it: a visiting Dutch naval officer said that the girls of Kéa must be chaste because they wore 700 ells of cloth as undergarments. Some Greeks claimed that these unhappy women were driven to such straits only by the crushing poverty caused by their colonial oppressors. Or prostitution might even become a source of pride: in the 1960s the islanders of Amorgós would say that their strength and beauty were due to their descent from fearless pirates and comely courtesans.8

  The main activity of the Cyclades islanders was not at sea but on land as farmers. The system of exploiting the land was similar to that introduced by the crusaders and their successors in mainland Greece, which in turn derived from the Byzantines. The lord owned the estate, and the peasant who worked it paid to the lord dues proportional to the land’s produce, keeping the remainder for himself. Nearly all the peasants were free – there is little evidence of serfdom. However, the lord’s rule was virtually absolute, and appeal to distant Venice was the only redress against the lord’s exploitation, which over time became increasingly frequent.

  The farmers on the islands generally produced enough grain to support their small populations – up to about 5,000 inhabitants on the largest islands, a few hundred on the smaller ones. The grain was of the coarser kind, barley or millet. Most islands produced wine, and the vines grown on the fertile volcanic soil of Santoríni produced some of the best, which in time made Santoríni one of the richest islands in the Cyclades. Other products included olives (virtually everywhere), cotton, fruit and vegetables, honey and wax. Livestock was pastured in the hills during summer and on the fields in the plains once the harvest was over.

  Some islands specialised in one product, Páros in cotton for example, and Kéa in valonia, the husks of acorns valuable as an essential ingredient in tanning. More widespread was the culture of silk, particularly on Ándhros, Tínos and Kíthnos. On Ándhros silk culture dated back to 1100, the silk of Tínos was considered the best, and for Kíthnos silk became the principal export. When one product became dominant others inevitably declined, and in time the islands that specialised became dependent on imports for essentials, particularly grain. Historians argue about whether such monocultures were a good thing or not. It made basic economic sense to produce what commanded the highest price. Also when the monoculture was silk, production could be in the hands of the peasant, working independently with his family on his own plot rather than on the land of a rich proprietor. On the other hand, apart from the disadvantage of dependence on imports in an uncertain world, the producers were at the mercy of the merchants, who could control both the exports and the imports, and adjust the prices of each to their own profit.

  The Italian rulers of the islands were Roman Catholic and their subjects Greek Orthodox. For the Greeks the ultimate authority was the patriarch
in Constantinople, who was now subordinate to the Sultan and so, at least in theory, an agent of a power hostile to western Europe. But though some possessions of the Greek Church were taken over by Catholics there was no wholesale imposition of the Catholic system. In practice the Italian rulers would have found such a policy impractical, as there were not nearly enough Catholic clergy available and most of their congregations would have been minute. The policy would also have been impolitic since it would have provoked fierce Greek resistance.

  So the two churches developed a form of cohabitation, in which the Catholics gained some powers but the Greeks retained many. When the crusaders first occupied the Cyclades islands after 1204, Catholic bishops were appointed to the seven existing Byzantine bishoprics, replacing Greek bishops. For a time they had the support of a Latin Emperor in Constantinople, but when in 1261 the Byzantine rulers were restored to the capital the influence of the Catholic bishops rapidly declined. Thereafter most of the islands had very few Catholics, commonly about 5 per cent of the population, and only on two did a significant Catholic community develop: on Tínos by the seventeenth century they made up half the population, and on neighbouring Síros as much as 95 per cent. These two islands lie most directly on the trade routes, and the stronger influence of the west from contact with traders may explain their exceptional adherence to the Catholic Church.

  The modus vivendi between Catholic and Orthodox quickly developed. On Náxos there was a Greek bishop side by side with a Latin archbishop. But the more usual arrangement was for a Catholic bishop to have under him an Orthodox protópappas or head priest. This protópappas handled church administration, and though legal matters were in the hands of the Catholic bishop he had to follow Greek law. The protópappas also acted as representative of the Greek population. In some churches there was both a Catholic and an Orthodox altar. When Catholic clergy were not available, and sometimes even for preference, the Italians – including the aristocracy – would call on a Greek priest. Religious persecution, which was currently doing so much damage in western Europe, was here wholly absent.

  By around 1500 the Greeks of the Cyclades, under the original crusaders and their successors, had enjoyed reasonable stability for three centuries, but now the situation changed. Dynastic disputes arose on Náxos, Páros and Ándhros. As well as internal disruption, external threats were increasing. In the years between 1500 and 1521 the Turkish navy carried out raids on most of the islands in the central and western Cyclades – larger islands such as Náxos and Ándhros, smaller ones such as Mílos and Kéa. Often the islanders resisted fiercely, and the damage done was limited: a fortification destroyed, a few men captured. But after the Turks seized Rhodes from the Knights of St John in 1522, and for the first time had a naval base in the southern Aegean, the Turkish threat became increasingly clear.

  It became a reality with Barbarossa’s incursions in 1537 and 1538. Barbarossa, to the Turks Khair-ed-din, was a Turk from the island of Lésvos, born in 1466. As a pirate he established himself on the Barbary coast of north Africa, but entered Turkish service some time before 1520. Algiers was by now annexed to the Ottoman Empire and Barbarossa was appointed its governor, under whom it soon became a thriving city-state. In 1533 Suleyman the Magnificent appointed Barbarossa as kapitan pasha, that is supreme commander of the Turkish navy, with a seat alongside the grand vizier in the imperial council and a residence in the Galata quarter of Constantinople. This was the representative and wielder of Turkish power, with a fearsome reputation in his own right, who now descended on the islands of the Cyclades.

  Barbarossa left Constantinople in the summer of 1537 with a fleet of about 100 ships. His first target was Venetian Corfu, but he was repulsed. Sailing back round the Peloponnese he had more success at the island of Éyina (Aegina) near Athens, where reputedly all the male inhabitants were killed, to be replaced by Albanian immigrants; 6,000 women and children were taken away as slaves.

  When Barbarossa reached the Aegean his first target was Páros, which surrendered to him after a few days. The island was sacked, some of the inhabitants were killed, and the young girls forced to dance on the beach in ‘un ballo alla greca’ so that the Turks could make their selection for the Sultan’s harem. According to some sources one of these girls was Cecilia Venier, daughter of a previous ruler of Páros, who rose from the harem to become the Sultana Nur Banu, powerful queen-mother and the first to use the title officially. Genealogists note that thus a descendant of the first Duke of Náxos, Marco Sanudo, became one of the most influential figures in the Ottoman Empire.9

  Barbarossa now moved on to Náxos. Neither he nor the Duke of Náxos Giovanni IV wanted a battle, Barbarossa because it was now late in the campaigning season and the island was well defended, Giovanni IV because he had no strong loyalty to Venice. So the island offered surrender at once, which was accepted on condition that it recognised Ottoman sovereignty and paid an annual tribute. At the end of the year Barbarossa returned in triumph to Constantinople with booty, it was said, of 400,000 ducats, 1,000 boys and 1,500 girls.

  At the beginning of 1538 Barbarossa sailed again for the Cyclades, on the way attacking the Sporades islands of Skiáthos, Skópelos and Skíros and bringing them under Turkish rule. Ándhros submitted on the same terms as Náxos had in the previous year. Tínos initially surrendered to him, or possibly only some villages did so. But Tínos quickly repudiated this surrender and successfully resisted Barbarossa’s attacks, remaining a Venetian possession. Each year thereafter, on 1 May, a grand procession would make its way to the Venetian castle on the hilltop ten miles north of the main town, where the air would be rent with gunfire commemorating the island’s resistance and with cries of ‘Viva San Marco.’10

  By the end of 1538 all the Cyclades islands except Tínos were under some form of Turkish control, six of the smaller islands, including Míkonos, under direct Turkish rule, the rest paying tribute. The terms on which the islands became tribute-paying vassals of the Sultan were not onerous. Possession of the island remained with its ruler, and would pass to his heirs. There would be no devshirme. Islanders could trade with the Turks, and if necessary obtain provisions that the bey of neighbouring Évia would be ordered to supply. If an islander was captured by a Turkish ship he would be set free. The only obligations were that any refugee Turk should be handed over, and that the annual tribute should be paid punctually. For both Náxos and Ándhros, the two largest islands, the tribute amount was 6,000 ducats, about the same as for Chíos. The Sultan’s firman setting out these terms was benign in tone: ‘I wish absolutely that nobody should cause any trouble to the inhabitants of this island, nor take anything from them by force; that none of the islanders should be taken as janissaries; and that no Turk, whoever he is, should dare to offer them the least insult.’11

  The status of the main islands as tribute-paying vassals of the Sultan was only temporary, and by 1617 all were under direct Turkish rule with the head of the Turkish navy, the kapitan pasha, as their overlord. The kapitan pasha appointed as governor of the islands a bey, usually absentee, who in turn appointed to act for him a local representative, often Christian rather than Muslim. This direct Turkish rule brought a number of advantages. The islanders were specifically given the right to take complaints to Constantinople, whereas in the past they had to go to Venice, which was three times as distant. Turkish taxation was based on a detailed census rather than on than the previous, often arbitrary, basis. The Catholic Church was already in decline on most of the islands, and the last Duke of Náxos, Giovanni IV, complained about the riffraff of mendicant monks and Italian adventurers whom Rome sent out as bishops. The Catholics now declined still further; there were 26 Catholic clergy on Náxos in 1539, but by 1600 only nine. The Greek Orthodox community by contrast became stronger. The Orthodox churches took back their possessions, which had previously been taken by the Catholics. Many Catholics converted to Orthodoxy apparently without religious scruples; perhaps this step was taken because the Turks were less sus
picious of those who, as Orthodox, were subject to the Turks’ agent the patriarch than of those who, as Catholics, had allegiance to the Turks’ enemy the Pope. No mosques were built in the Cyclades. Though the islanders’ privileges were not quite as great as those for Chíos, Turkish rule was relatively benign.

  With the acquisition of Chíos and the Cyclades the Turkish navy became dominant in the eastern Mediterranean, facing only two threats. One was from piracy, and the other was from joint action by the fleets of Europe if such a combination could be put together. In 1570 the powers of Europe did agree on joint action, and Turkish naval dominance received a sharp reverse at the battle of Lepanto.

  6

  Pirates and Slaves

  From the sixteenth century onwards, the crews of any ship attacking another one or raiding a coast were designated as pirates. ‘Pirate’ was a beguiling term, with its whiff of romance when used by the perpetrators and an even stronger whiff of illegality when used by its victims. But distinctions need to be made between different types of sea raider.

  A pirate ship was, strictly speaking, one owned by private persons, usually forming an association, who provided the ship, the finance and the officers, and who after rewarding the crew kept the plunder for themselves. Privateers were different: they were privately owned but carried letters of marque, that is government authority to attack the ships of a named enemy state. Finally, a state’s official navy could in time of war legitimately attack any enemy ship.

  However, in practice these distinctions were very elastic. The term corsair, though strictly speaking synonymous with privateer, was used indiscriminately for both true pirates and for privateers. Letters of marque to legitimise a privateer could be acquired from two or even three different states. What counted as time of war, justifying state naval action, was also indeterminate, being stretched to cover unofficial hostilities or long-running antagonism, such as that between Spain and the African states bordering the Mediterranean.