How Did The Greek Monarchs Change Throughout The 19th Century

Not only did the image of the ruler changed throughout the progressive 19th century, but parallel to these developments, the reform-seeking monarchs during the Tanzimat period adopted a civilizing agenda inspired by the Western empires, which to a certain extent were able to export their normative discourse and civilizing mission and implement semi-colonialism of the still sovereign empire, which although its completely different value-system, organisational and administrative structures, deemed as conservative, backwards and regressive, and long-term resistance to change, acknowledge that fundamentally transforming the core organizational structures was nonetheless essential for its survival. But before discussing the impact of the period

All this added to the gradual fragmentation of the system into smaller even more ethnically and nationally delineated millets throughout the centuries, thanks to its comprehensive effectiveness, made is fundamentally resistant to reform. In addition, the practice of signing capitulations with the other imperial powers, dating back to the period of marked military dominance of the Ottoman empire and started as a approach for encouraging trade and commercial exchange with the West, cut the even more sharply the ties between Christian and Jews subjects and the imperial centre. The outcome of these effective arrangements was the made apparent when the core acknowledged that the foundations were giving in, under the umbrella of a common Ottoman past and ideological basis, it tried to equalize the rights and obligations of all the subjects within the different millets, however, it was way too late and the functionality of the system and the aforementioned resulting outcomes, made this

Its marked religious diversity, united within its territory forced its rulers to be creative in the modes and approaches they selected to preserve its stability. Based on multiple preceding and contemporary experiences the rulers managed to find a working system of governance based on the central autocratic power exerted by the sultan, and the subordinate nature of everybody below the ruler. However, in terms of state and structural organization the system was rather heterogenous with more of a horizontal structure, rather than vertical dependencies. All these facts made a ubiquitous system which, albeit effective for a long period of time did not manage to exist the age of Modernity and Liberalism save and sound, but similarly to its congruent land empires counterparts, became victim of the nation-state based 20th century. The present paper focused on two of the most crucial imperial characteristics – the image of the sultan and the state administration organization  and their different responses to the challenges of modernity. On the one hand the image of the sultan, slowly but steadily, caved and was compelled to transform and become to a certain extent and within its own framework a modern ruler, but on the other, the established decentralized millet structure, which never became synonymous with the imperial centre, created a life of its own which