11th International Conference. September, 10 - November, 30, 2020. UK, S Yorkshire, Sheffield

«SCIENCE AND PRACTICE: A NEW LEVEL OF INTEGRATION IN THE MODERN WORLD»  Conference Proceedings

DOI: http://doi.org/10.15350/UK_6/11

Research Article

EXPLANATION OF ONE CONCEPTUAL SUBTEXT OF A “GREEK PROJECT”

Mamuka Natsvaladze1

1Doctorate, Sokhumi State University, DOI: http://doi.org/10.15350/UK_6/11.72

Abstract The plan for the redistribution of Europe, the Greek project, acquired its final shape in the 80-ies of the XVIII century envisaging the restoration of the puppet states, Greek Empire and the Kingdom of Dacia through neutralization of the Ottoman Empire. The project was designed at the Imperial Courts of Vienna and St. Petersburg considered the interests of Austria and Russia. Although the redistribution of Europe referred to the Ottoman Empire located in south of the , the project contained no information about Georgia and the Caucasus. Two issues are reviewed in the current article: whether it was planned to implement a contains no information regarding the Caucasus and Georgia. “Greek After Project” the bypassingresearch of the primary Caucasus sources and and Georgia, political and situation, if not, wh wey came the text to the of theconclusion project the factors of the Caucasus and Georgia due to its geostrategic location and the interests of thatOttoman the implementation Empire towards of Georgia. a “Greek Project” was actually impossible without taking into account The question for the second issue regarding Georgia is rather unambiguous, European authorities consider the Caucasus and Georgia as the places to be easily conquered– whydue to the their “Greek multinationa Project” containsl and multi-confessional no information reality. They could– not avoid and leave behind their imperial ambitions and therefore remembered neither factor of Georgia nor the Caucasus while composing the

Key words: Greek Project; Ottoman Empire; Kingdom of Kartli-Kakheti; Erekle“Greek II; Catherine Project”. II; Joseph II, ; The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.

Introduction Political processes related to the Ottoman Empire, starting in Europe in the 60s of the XVIII century, are conceptually gathered in the so-called In the Greek Project. This is the plan of the Russian Emperor Catherine II and the Austrian Emperor Joseph II for dividing Europe, which took final shape in 1782 [41, p281-291; 1, p143-157]. The main target of Russia and Austria is the Ottoman Empire, the most stable empire in the world, that should be divided between these two states according to the Greek Project [42, p1-4]. However, the referred division does not imply direct annexation of the areas [48, p35-37]. The Byzantine Empire shall be restored and headed by Constantine, grandson of Catherine (his name was selected on purpose at birth and raised in Greek) [8, p352-360], A buffer kingdom of Dacia should be created as well, uniting Moldova, Wallachia and Bessarabia [26, p5-11]. It is noteworthy that Georgia is not directly mentioned neither in the correspondence between Catherine II and Joseph II, nor in the official document compiled by the Russian Chancellor Bezborodko [43, p109-118], actually bringing the Grrek Project to our era. Purpose The purpose of the current article is to find out whether it was planned to implement a e Caucasus and Georgia, and if not, why the text of the project contains no information regarding the Caucasus and Georgia. “GreekResearch Project” methods bypassing th

164 11th International Conference. September, 10 - November, 30, 2020. UK, S Yorkshire, Sheffield

«SCIENCE AND PRACTICE: A NEW LEVEL OF INTEGRATION IN THE MODERN WORLD»  Conference Proceedings

DOI: http://doi.org/10.15350/UK_6/11

We rely on the methodological principles of objectivity, historicism, determinism, alternativeness, reconstruction, developed in the theoretical studies by the following scientists: Charles- Benjamin Bloch [4]; Peter Lambert and Phillipp Schofield [23]; Abrams Lynn [2]; Brundage AnthonyVictor [3]; Gregory Langlois, Ian, Charles Ell Paul Seignobos; [11]; Hughes-Warrington Robin George [13]; Collingwood Iggers George, [5]; Marc Wang Léopo Qiangld Edward [14]; Akira Iriye [15]; Kaldellis Anthony [16]; Koselleck Reinhart [17;18]; Lukacs John [24]; Munro Doug, Reid John [25]; Quigley Carroll [37]; Raaflaub Kurt [38]. Research result To the main question - the Caucasus and Georgia we have an unequivocally negative response. It is also significant thatwhether the Caucasus it was planned has always to implement remained a within“Greek thProject”e horizon bypassing of the empires claiming world domination– of all time due to its distinctive geostrategic location [44;45]. Geographical proximity of the Caucasus makes this factor particularly acute for the Ottoman Empire. Therefore, it is impossible for European states not to use the Caucasian factor as one of the trump cards within the global confrontation against the Ottomans. First of all, claims of the Ottoman Empire on western Georgia directly suggests the authors of the project that they should consider the Georgian political space as an inevitable ally in the fight against the empire stretched across three continents. Secondly, the seizure of Constantinople and the establishment of control over the Bosporus and Dardanelles Straits through the creation of a buffer state was possible only if the Russian Empire were directly adjacent to this geographical area, which could have been accomplished through the conquest of adherent Georgia [47, p471], or through forming a certain political community with the kingdoms existing there. Obviously, it should have been based on a benevolent relationships. Orthodoxy and common face are preconditions for the common life and culture of Russia and Georgia, so during the confrontation with a different cultural space the referred factor creates rather a fertile ground for cooperation. This is the case when both parties of the political process have a desire to adhere to the moral principles of common faith. However, Russian Imperial Court makes a principally different choice. The fact that common faith of and Russians is only an imperial mask within referred political games was well realized by Erekle II during the battles of Russian-Turkish war of 1768-1774, when St. Petersburg Imperial Court Planned the liquidation of the King of Kartli- Kahkheti by Totleben [6, p35-60], and later abolition of the Kingdom at the initiative of Captain Lvov. These facts are somehow difficult to explain in the light of the events of the 70s of the XVIII century the reason for planning the assassination of Erekle II or his dethrone by the Russian Empire is still vague, since the alliance with Erekle II the most influential political figure of Georgian kingdoms– and Caucasus [46, p10-18; 19] meant the successful implementation of the far-reaching plans envisaged by the alliance and the Greek project as well. Political logic only indicated that Russian-Georgian confrontation during the fight against the Ottomans would be unequivocally unprofitable and obstructive for the imperial court of St. Petersburg. However, Russia does not think like that and the reason should be probably sought in the reality within the European political backstage making it an ambitious empire of international rank [39, p95-105]. Participants of the international political game do not want to involve another influential player in these processes, this option means additional complaints and problems for them, therefore, quite an interesting political situation is developed -Erekle II, as a warring figure with the Ottomans, is exceptionally popular in Europe, however, his popularity is not reflected on the political status of Kartli-Kakheti in international games [46, p12-21]. Fragmented Caucasus in the situation of confessional diversity is acceptable to Europe and first of all to Prussia. The Emperor of the latter, in the capacity of the Gray Cardinal, manages political processes of the Old Continent adroitly. [12, p256-275; 7, p210-215; 40, p357-359] This way Friedrich saves the Kingdom of Prussia in addition to his own life. The treaties concluded with Russia 1762 [27, p407] and 1764 [28. p19] actually strengthened its political order financially as well Russia shall stay away from Europe. St. Petersburg shall confront to Constantinople. Further political processes of the whole Europe took place on this opposing vector. – This scenario was already played after the fall of Constantinople, when the Vatican realized that the Ottomans had a new target in the form of Europe and it was vital for them to

165 11th International Conference. September, 10 - November, 30, 2020. UK, S Yorkshire, Sheffield

«SCIENCE AND PRACTICE: A NEW LEVEL OF INTEGRATION IN THE MODERN WORLD»  Conference Proceedings

DOI: http://doi.org/10.15350/UK_6/11 shift the Ottoman aggression to another direction. [31, p9; 32, p9] Marriage of Sophia Palaeologus to Ivan III, used as a basis for the recognition of Russia as a successor of Constantinople, served this purpose [20, p26-102; 49, p5-22]. Through the attempt of King Frederick II of Prussia, Europe once again granted a special function to Russia, again to neutralize Ottoman resistance [9]. Russia was unable to resist temptation of imperial charm in those large- scale political processes. One of the strategies of the famous Roman imperial model - "Divide and Conquer" was precious for Russia as well. Greek Project plan unambiguously envisages the creation of a Christian community. This community transcends the orthodox framework and includes the whole of Christianity. Important detail - one of the initiators of this project is the Austrian Emperor Joseph II [43, p100- 101], who is also the Holy Roman Emperor of the German Nation. The old and new players of this Christian global area are clearly distinguished: Russia, Prussia, Austria, the Holy Roman Empire, Dacia, Byzantium ... Naturally, the list clearly lacks a unified Georgian state area, the preconditions for the reincarnation of the latter becomes irreversible with the work of Erekle II. Hence, the political contours of a united Caucasian house are also formed, that should not have been difficult for European states to realize if desired. The history of Christianity has unequivocally proved that the Georgian state and the Christian Church have guarded the faith for centuries, that has made quite a significant contribution to the struggle and saved Europe from islamization [33, p15]. The Didgori War was of greatest importance for Europe in this regard [29, p90-97; 36, p460-471; 21, p62-74; 30, p100- 105; 10, p103-107]. The struggle of the Georgian nation against the Mongols was one of the main factors that restrained the Mongol aggression. However, they began to study the Mongolian language at the Sorbonne University in Paris as soon as the Mongols appeared, on the grounds that they would definitely contact the Mongolians as aggressors in Europe [34, p15]. Taking into account the referred reality it is obvious that the interests of the Georgian states were in clear unison with the European interests [35, p15]. The above factors show that the Greek Project of Catherine II and Joseph II is a model of globalization of Christianity making it difficult to understand that Georgian statehood is superfluous for Russia. However, the Russian political moves are directed towards the fragmentation of the Caucasus and the independence of the Georgian kingdoms accordingly. Despite such subjective imperial sentiments, it is clear that the implementation of the Greek Project without Georgian Christian politics and space is impossible even due to its geographical position. Conclusions Considering the primary sources and international political factors, the study revealed that ignoring the topic of the Caucasu the attitude of European states developed in them as imperial countries towards the Caucasus and Georgia over the centuries. A strongs and state Georgia in the in Caucasus, the “Greek esp Project”ecially if adequately it includes reflecteda united Caucasus space, is unacceptable to them. The multinational and multi-confessional reality that exists in the Caucasus of that period creates the illusion that the Caucasus is an easily conquerable space for any empire. Consequently, for European monarchs, Erekle is acceptable not as a powerful ruler and a full participant in international processes, but as a person who fulfills the orders of great powers and inflicts local blows to the Ottoman Empire. Accordingly, while making grandiose plans, great powers Joseph II Emperor of Holy Roman and Austrian Empire and the Russian Empress Catherine II did not remember the Caucasus and Georgia.

References 1. Arneth 1869 - Joseph II und Katharina von Russland. Ihr Briefwechsel, hrsg. von Alfred, Ritter von Arneth, Wien,1869 s 446 2. Abrams Lynn 2010 Abrams Lynn. Oral History Theory, London: Routledge, 2010. 224 p. 3. Brundage 2017 Brundage Anthony. Going to the Sources: A Guide to Historical Research and Writing, 6th Edition. Wiley-Blackwell,– 2017. 168 p. 4. Bloch 1952 - Bloch– M., Librairie Armand Colin,

5. Collingwood 1993 CollingwoodApologie pour R. G., l'histoire The Idea ou of métier History. d'historien. Rev. ed., edited and with a new Paris,introduction 2 édition,1952, by J. van 112der Dussen,pages. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1993. 510 p. –

166 11th International Conference. September, 10 - November, 30, 2020. UK, S Yorkshire, Sheffield

«SCIENCE AND PRACTICE: A NEW LEVEL OF INTEGRATION IN THE MODERN WORLD»  Conference Proceedings

DOI: http://doi.org/10.15350/UK_6/11

6. De Grailly De Fois 1985 - De Grailly De Fois - About Georgia, translated from French, foreword,

7. Frederick the Great 2014 - Frederick the Great. Instructing His Generals on Martial Arts. Anti- Machiavelli.-notes and tables and bibliography by JumberOdisheli, “Metsniereba” (“Science”), , 1985, p. 109 8. Griffiths 2013 - Griffiths David the Great and М.:“Eksmo”Her World: articles2014. 512 of variousp. years. David Griffiths; pp 349-368. М. Did Ekaterina the Great Have the «Greek Project” Ekaterina 9. Golovastikov - Golovastikov K. How Russians WereМ. :“Novoe Getting Literaturnoe Ready for theObozrenie” Conquest 2013. of Constantinople, https://arzamas.academy/materials/85.Seen on 02.08.2020 10. Gogoladze 2014 - Gogoladze M. Geopolitical Role of Georgia in the Crusade. Historical- ethnological research, Ivane Javakhishvili Institute of History and Ethnology. Tbilisi 2014. t. XVI, p.101-110 11. Gregory Ian, Ell Paul 2008 Gregory Ian N., Ell Paul S. Historical GIS: Technologies, Methodologies, and Scholarship, Cambridge University Press, 2008. 240 p. 12. Henty 2012 - Henty, George Alfred.– With Frederick the Great. A Story of the Seven Years' War.

13. Hughes-Warrington 2007 Hughes-Warrington M. Fifty Key Thinkers on History, London: ÉditeurRoutledge, Charles 2007, Scribner, 480 p. 1910, l'Université de Californie 2012, 374 p; 14. Iggers, Wang 2013 Iggers– George G., Wang Q. Edward (authors), Mukherjee Supriya (contributor). A Global History of Modern Historiography, Routledge, 2013. 448 p. 15. Iriye 2012 Iriye A. Global– and Transnational History: The Past, Present, and Future, New York: Palgrave Pivot. 2012. 96 p. 16. Kaldellis Anthony– 2014 Kaldellis Anthony. A New Herodotos. Laonikos Chalkokondyles on the Ottoman Empire, the Fall of Byzantium, and the Emergence of the West, Dumbarton Oaks, 2014. 324 p. 17. Koselleck 2004 Koselleck– Reinhart. Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time, Columbia University Press, 2004. 336 p. 18. Koselleck 2002– Koselleck R. The Practice of Conceptual History: Timing History, Spacing Concepts, Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 2002, 384 p. 19. Kalandia 2017 -– King Erekle in the English and Irish Press, the information was collected, introduction and comments were provided by Giorgi Kalandia 2017 332 p 20. Kapterev 1914 - Kapterev, N.F. Nature of the Attitude of Russia toward the Orthodox East in the XVI and XVII centuries, 2ndedition 567 pp 26-102, 21. Kakabadze 1982 - Kakabadze S. Didgori War, Ganatleba, Tbilisi 1982. p 138 22. Langlois, Seignobos 1992–SergiyevPosad: - Charles- M.S. Elova’s book store, 1914. historiques. 23. Lambert, Schofield 2004 - LambertVictor P. and Langlois, Schofield Charles P. Making Seignobos, History: Introduction An introductio auxn études to the history and practicesEditions Kimé,of a discipline. Paris, 1992, Routledge, 284 p 2004 - 310 pages 24. Lukacs John 2000 53 p. 25. Munro Doug, Reid John 2017 Autobiographies Of Historians,– Acton:Lukacs ANU John. Press, Student’s 2017. Guide 330 p. to the Study of History, ISI Books, 2000. 26. Markova 1986 - Markova . P.– HowMunro the Doug, So- Reid John G. (eds.). Clio’s Lives: Biographies-s of And the XVIII century), Problems of Methodology and Source Studies of the External Politics of Russia. - 46 О Called “Greek Project” Originated. (The 80 27. Martens 1880 - Martens, F. Collection of Treaties and Conventions, Executed byМ., Russia 1986. pp with 5 Foreign States. Vol. 5: Treaties with Germany. 1656- 28. 56. Martens 1883 - Martens, F. Collection of Treaties and Conventions, Executed by Russia with Foreign States. Vol. 6, Treaties with Germany. 1762-1762. СПб.1880, 408 p 407 29. Meskhia 1986 - Meskhia. Sh, . Historical searches. In 3 volumes. volume 3, Shota Meskhia. Tbilisi,1986. p. 81-139 1808, СПб. 1883, 489 p 30. 58. Metreveli 2016 - Metreveli, R. Appointed in Seven Kingdoms: Essay from the history of Georgia of Rustaveli era. Roin Metreveli; Tbilisi, Artanuji, 2016. p 99-107 31. Natsvaladze 11.11.2017 - Natsvaladze M., How the French Vallois Came to Take the Rights of the er 11, 2017, pp.11 and 9; 32. 63. Natsvaladze 13.11.2017 - Natsvaladze M., Why Was the Theory of Moscow,Third Rome Third Rome in Their Hands, “Rezonansi”, Novemb 33. Natsvaladze 06.02.2017 - Natsvaladze M. How David the Builder saved the whole Christianity Unacceptable forRuriks, “Rezonansi”, November 13, 2017, pp.11წ. p 15 and 9. 34. Natsvaladze 08.05. 2017 - Natsvaladze M., The Mongols - A great puzzle for the thirteenth- withcentury the Western triumph Europe,of Didgori "Rezonansi" “Resonansi” May February 8, 2017 6, წ 2017. 16 p, p 15 35. Natsvaladze 09.06.2016 - Natsvaladze M. Why did all the ways to save the Georgians go through Rome, "Rezonansi" June 9, 2016 წ. p 15 36. Papaskiri 2016 - Papaskiri Z., The Impartial Chronicles of the Didgori Epopee, Shota Meskhia ia -475 37. Quigley Carroll 1979 Quigley Carroll. The evolution of civilizations. An introduction to historical“The Amazing analysis, Victory”, Publisher: Georg Liberty– Historical Fund Inc. Past ; 2ndand editionthe Present (August Day 1,“Meridiani”, 1979). 428 Tbilisi, pages 2016, p. 453 –

167 11th International Conference. September, 10 - November, 30, 2020. UK, S Yorkshire, Sheffield

«SCIENCE AND PRACTICE: A NEW LEVEL OF INTEGRATION IN THE MODERN WORLD»  Conference Proceedings

DOI: http://doi.org/10.15350/UK_6/11

38. Raaflaub Kurt 2010 Raaflaub Kurt A. (ed.) Thinking, Recording, and Writing History in the Ancient World, Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. 440 p. 39. Ragsdale 1988 - Ragsdale– H. Evaluating the traditions of Russian agression: Catherine II and the Greek Project, Slavonic and East Europeen Review. L., 1988. Vol. 66. N 1; pp. 91-117 40. Russkii Vestnik 1842 - 1842 356-360 pp 41. Russian Archive 1880 - LettersLetter exchangedof FrederickII between to the Ekaterin Empressa the Ekaterina, Great and “Russkii the German Vestn Emperorik” № 3. Joseph II, 1774- -335 pp 42. Russkaya Starina 1892 - Note on the Greek project made with the hand of the Empress Ekaterina, 1790 “Russian Archive” Vil. 1. М., 1880. 210 4. 43. Stegnii 2002 - documentsEditor N. K.Schilder, from the “Russkaya Archives ofStarina” the External 1892. Т. Politics 76. № 10 of. thepp 1– Russian Empire ( ) of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. Stegnii P. V. Returning to the «Greekp 100- Project”118 of Ekaterina the Great. New 44. Studies 1998 a - Studies on the History of Georgian Diplomacy I, TSU,АВПРИ Tbilisi, 1998; p. 549, 45. Studies 1998 “Lateb - Studies and Latest on the History”, History №of Georgian4. 2002 p Diplomacy II, TSU, Tbilisi, 1998; p. 549. 46. Shvelidze 2005 - Shvelidze D. European Notes and Information about Erekle the Second, 23 p 47. Tsagareli 1898 - Deeds and Other Historical Documents of the XVIII Century Related to Georgia. Underaccording the toediting “Sankt of peterburgskie . . Tsagareli. Vedomosti”, Vol. II. 1stedition: “Artanuji” Georgian publishing, texts Tbilisi, from 17682005. to 1801. Saint Petersburg 1898, 518 p 48. Zorin 2011А А - Zorin last third of the XVIII andthe first third of the XIX century. 416 p 49. Zhigarev 1896 - ZhigarevА. “Feeding S. A. Russian the Double Politics Eagle”. in the Russian Eastern literature Issue (Its and history state inideo thelogy XVI in XIXthe М.:“Novoe Literaturnoe Obozrenie”Legal Studies. 2001. — University Typography, 1896. 465 p – centuries, critical assessment and future goals): Sergey Zhigarev’s Historical and Т. I. – М.:

168