The fledgling Kingdom of Greece, in its formative years following independence from the Ottoman Empire, was not immune to internal strife and external pressures. One such incident, known as the “Musurian Affair,” highlighted the delicate balance of power and the challenges of establishing a stable political system.
The Spark of the Conflict
In January 1846, Greece was rocked by what became known as the “Musurian Affair.” The central figure in this event was Konstantinos Musuros, an Ottoman official of Greek descent who served as the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The incident began when Tsamis Karatasos, a former adjutant and then honorary aide-de-camp to King Otto, sought financial assistance from the Ottoman government for certain undisclosed matters. Karatasos, however, had a history of leading guerilla incursions into Ottoman territory, a fact that was brought to the attention of the Ottoman authorities. The Turkish ambassador, citing this past aggression, refused to grant Karatasos a passport, stating that he needed to consult with his government first.
The King’s Fury and the Diplomatic Fallout
Feeling insulted and indignant at what he saw as a slight, Karatasos, who had missed his ship to Constantinople because of the delay, returned to the palace and told the king about the incident. King Otto was enraged at what he saw as an affront to his authority. He argued that since Karatasos was his aide-de-camp, the man should have been granted a passport on the double. After all, the king himself would be responsible for the man’s conduct abroad.
Musuros, knowing the possible fallout from this diplomatic error, quickly repaired to the prime minister’s residence to explain what had happened. The prime minister, however, was not in, and Musuros had to send a written explanation through his secretary. Musuros and his crew probably figured that whatever they had just pulled needed to be top and bottom covered—whatever it was, it couldn’t just be left hanging or else it might blow back somewhere along the line.
A Public Reprimand and the Escalation of Tensions
The next day, a Sunday, the royal palace held a ball to which Musuros, his wife, and the senior staff of the Ottoman embassy were invited. When Musuros appeared, King Otto, still brimming with righteous indignation, stalked over and laid into the poor man in front of a crowd of surprised guests, proclaiming in angry tones that the King of Greece deserved more respect than what Musuros had been giving him. Then Otto turned and walked away, leaving for the Ottoman minister a memorable moment of humiliation.
This public rebuke deeply humiliated Musuros, who left the palace the same day with his wife and the Turkish officials. He then sent the next day a report to his government in Constantinople and issued simultaneously a communication to the Greek government. In response, Prime Minister Kolettis sent a communication to the Turkish government through the Greek ambassador in Constantinople, placing the blame for the incident squarely on Musuros.
The Sublime Porte, however, after the deadline for satisfaction had expired, called its ambassador back from Athens. It even went so far as to threaten to blockade Greek vessels in Turkish ports and to expel Greek subjects from Turkey.
Kolettis had a defiant intention behind relocating the capital from Athens to Spetses. This move had nothing to do with Musuros returning to Athens. It had everything to do with not expressing the customary condolences for the king’s death to the Sublime Porte. For a brief moment, it appeared as though Greece might be plunged into an unprepared war with Turkey.
The Resolution of the Crisis
In the midst of this tense standoff, Kolettis, who had been unwavering in his defense of the king’s honor, passed away. With the mediation of the Tsar of Russia, it was decided that Musuros would return to Athens and receive satisfaction for the insult he had suffered. Musuros duly returned to Athens in February 1848, and King Otto, in a gesture of reconciliation, invited him back to the palace and expressed his regret over the incident. Thus, Greco-Turkish relations were restored.
Musuros remained in Athens for a short time, during which an assassination attempt was made against him. He was later appointed as ambassador to several major European capitals.
The Volatile Political Landscape of Greece
After Kolettis’s death, leadership of the government fell to Kitsos Tzavelas, one of his party’s deputies and the then Minister of Military Affairs. This was an epoch of rambunctiousness and instability in the provincial towns and rural areas of Greece. Many parts of the Peloponnese and Central Greece saw mutinies, military uprisings, and popular disturbances of various sorts.
The most serious of these uprisings were those led by Th. Grivas in Acarnania and Kriezotos in Euboea. Robber bands roamed the countryside, often venturing into the outskirts of provincial towns. In many cases, it is difficult to distinguish between military coups, popular unrest, and acts of banditry.
For the most part, the military coups were led by former chieftains (kapetanaioi) who were now officers in charge of small military groups. Although their insurrections were really motivated by personal grievances or the interests of some political opponent of the government, they took care to wrap their actions in the mantle of democratic virtue by claiming that the real cause of the insurrections was the malfunctioning of the Constitution and the necessity of protecting the liberties of the Greek people.
Even the bandit gangs, when not roving the mountains and plundering the countryside, were often guided and protected by politicians, who justified their criminal activities by invoking the so-called “popular discontent” with the government’s and the king’s “unfree acts.”
All these military coups and minor insurrectionary movements were dealt with decisively. They were not of a revolutionary character, and they did not represent a broad segment of society. The government had a tougher time suppressing the unrest in the regions bordering Thessaly, from which Tsoliades and others were able to recruit enough men to keep the frontiers in a constant state of unrest. When the military managed to subdue them, the insurgents were often not defeated in the narrow sense: they had a way of taking refuge across the Turkish border and coming back at the first opportunity. Their activities would have made a good case for the employment of the insurgants in Turkish territory.
After a period of relative calm lasting about fifteen years, there began in Greek territory military movements, robberies, and disturbances. These disturbances began to occur concurrently with the implementation of the Constitution and the transfer of power to parliamentary governments. The old chieftains reestablished their ancient practices of rebellion and disobedience. Criminals, even the most bloodthirsty bandits, discovered strong political protectors among local politicians.
The laws that enjoyed the greater prestige of coming from the national representation were disobeyed with embarrassing frequency. The Constitution was not seen as a means of ensuring order and providing guarantees of individual and political rights, but as a tool for personal gain. Such gain might come with the right to serve “the government,” which meant righting recklessness; or it might come with the right to oppose “the government,” which often meant righting those who were, in effect, challenging the Constitution itself. When political leaders were in power, they were not at all averse to violating the spirit and sometimes the letter of the Constitution. And when they were in opposition, they were not at all ashamed to abet conspiracy, insurrection, and revolutionary violence, always in the name of upholding “the Constitution,” which, as they interpreted it, was in danger.
