Phanariots
Despite their cosmopolitanism and often-Western education, the Phanariots were aware of their Greek ancestry and culture; according to Nicholas Mavrocordatos' Philotheou Parerga, "We are a race completely Hellenic".
Many members of Phanariot families (who had acquired great wealth and influence during the 17th century) occupied high political and administrative posts in the Ottoman Empire.
[1] During the 17th century, the Ottomans began having problems in foreign relations and difficulty dictating terms to their neighbours; for the first time, the Porte needed to participate in diplomatic negotiations.
During the 16th century, the South Slavs—the most prominent in imperial affairs—converted to Islam to enjoy the full rights of Ottoman citizenship (especially in the Eyalet of Bosnia; Serbs tended to occupy high military positions.
Phanariot attention focused on occupying the most favorable offices the empire could offer non-Muslims and the principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, which were still relatively rich and—more importantly—autonomous (despite having to pay tribute as vassal states).
Many Greeks had found favorable conditions there for commercial activities, in comparison with the Ottoman Empire, and an opportunity for political power; they entered Wallachian and Moldavian boyar nobility by marriage.
Several hellenized Romanian noble families, such as the Callimachis (originally Călmașul), the Racovițăs and the Albanian Ghicas penetrated the Phanar nucleus to increase their chances of occupying the thrones and maintain their positions.
Most sources agree that 1711 was when the gradual erosion of traditional institutions reached its zenith, but characteristics ascribed to the Phanariot era had made themselves felt long before it.
Rulers since Dumitraşcu Cantacuzino in Moldavia and George Ducas (a prince of Greek origin) in Wallachia, both in 1673, were forced to surrender their family members as hostages in Constantinople.
The traditional elective system in the principalities, resulting in long periods of political disorder, was dominated by a small number of ambitious families who competed violently for the two thrones and monopolized land ownership.
[19] A change in policy was indicated by the fact that autonomous Wallachia and Moldavia had entered a period of skirmishes with the Ottomans, due to the insubordination of local princes associated with the rise of Imperial Russia's power under Peter the Great and the firm presence of the Habsburg Empire on the Carpathian border with the principalities.
This was followed by similar measures in Wallachia, prompted by Ștefan Cantacuzino's alliance with Habsburg commander Prince Eugene of Savoy in the closing stages of the Great Turkish War.
The debt was owed to several creditors, rather than to the Sultan; the central institutions of the Ottoman Empire generally seemed determined to maintain their rule over the principalities and not exploit them irrationally.
The Phanariot epoch was initially characterized by fiscal policies driven by Ottoman needs and the ambitions of some hospodars, who (mindful of their fragile status) sought to pay back their creditors and increase their wealth while in a position of power.
The mismanagement of many Phanariot rulers contrasts with the achievements and projects of others, such as Constantine Mavrocordatos (who abolished serfdom in Wallachia in 1746 and Moldavia in 1749) and Alexander Ypsilantis, who were inspired by Habsburg serf policy.
Contemporary documents indicate that, despite the change in leadership and boyar complaints, about 80 percent of those seated in the Divan (an institution roughly equivalent to the estates of the realm) were members of local families.
[20] This made endemic the social and economic issues of previous periods, since the inner circle of boyars blocked initiatives (such as Alexander Ypsilantis') and obtained, extended and preserved tax exemptions.
After the Treaty of Kuchuk-Kainarji (1774) allowed Russia to intervene on the side of Ottoman Eastern Orthodox subjects, most of the Porte's tools of political pressure became ineffective.
The Danubian principalities grew in strategic importance with the Napoleonic Wars and the decline of the Ottoman Empire, as European states became interested in halting Russian southward expansion (which included the 1812 annexation of Bessarabia).
The tendency unifies pro− and anti−modernisation attitudes; Phanariot Greeks are painted as reactionary elements (by Communist Romania) and agents of brutal, opportunistic change (as in Mihai Eminescu's Scrisoarea a III-a).
