The Greek Revolution, A Critical Dictionary, Paschalis M. Kitromilides, Constantinos Tsoukalas, March 25, 2021

the greek revolution 24
sons of Dacia,” he offered them his advice: the appropriate task that awaited
them was to transform this hospitable country into a liberal and constitutional
state (Oțetea 1945, 257). It would be ruled by a native (thus, not a Greek), with
an elected parliament, whose one or two chambers would represent all social
groups, and with a regular army. Taxation would be established by the legislative
power. The prince’s civil list would be the annual reward to the first citizen
of the state (Hurmuzaki 1967, Doc. 1821, 5:83–86). This document is illuminating
about the deficiencies of Romanian society, but no less revealing that an idealist
Western education was inadequate in facing the situation. When Tudor
quit the capital on May 15, a few hours before the entry of the Turkish vanguard,
he intended to return to his native Oltenia where his authority was undisputed.
The hangers-on of the Greek army, Macedonian detachments semidependent
of Ypsilantis, closed his path of escape. The captains were unlikely to miss this
occasion to take their revenge on Tudor for many conflicts in their common
past. Taking as pretext Tudor’s disloyalty to the Etaireia, they were certain that
Ypsilantis would approve of the killing of his rival, whose overlordship had humiliated
them. Though Tudor had proudly said that he was “with his sword in
his country,” he had become vulnerable in the middle of his combatants.
After his assassination on May 26, the full collapse of his army ensured that
any effective force that could oppose the Ottoman onslaught had dwindled. The
defeat at Dragatsani on June 6 marked the end of the Etairist adventure in Wallachia
(Map 1). Three of the men mainly responsible for Tudor’s murder, Georgios
Olympios, Savvas Phokianos, and Ioannis Pharmakis, eventually ended
their lives under the blows of the Turks.
The next year, the appointment of a Romanian prince by the sultan vindicated
at least one of Vladimirescu’s aims; this, for some contemporaries, seemed
a happy conclusion to such a bloody period.
Moldavia was in complete disorder after the authorities had taken refuge
abroad at the end of March. There is plenty of evidence about the misbehavior
of the Etairists who were put in positions of unrestricted power. One of the witnesses
rec ords that “Helleno- Greek committees” had existed since the previous
year in every residence of the district, “confusion and dissolution began
in August and continued till the outbreak of the revolution in January.” The
same chronicler adds: “The miseries of that time are unimaginable and indescribable;
the boyar houses were plundered, Etairists were running desperately
from one village to another to pick up arms and food collected by the peasants
for their army; the people who found a shelter in the woods and in the mountains
felt better protected from the terror of the volunteers” (Drăghici 2017, 215).
Such views were tempered by accounts of specific details: “That army did not
contain only Greeks— that would be a calumny against that nation— but also