Χώρος & Επανάσταση: Διοικητικά διαμερίσματα, δικαιοδοσίες & γεωγραφίες υπό διαπραγμάτευση στο νέο ελληνικό κράτος (1821–1833) - Space & Revolution: Administrative Districts, Jurisdictions, and Geographies under Negotiation in the New Greek State (1821–1833) (in modern greek)

The purpose of the cartographic representations presented here is to examine, on their basis, certain visible and less visible changes in the administrative geography of the Greek revolutionary state, at times taking into account lived boundaries and various other factors. As has been noted, “we will not understand the geographical dimensions of revolutionary change unless we study the decisive socio-political processes.”¹ In 1821, these processes were diverse and manifested in multiple variations that cannot always be reduced to a single general model. Here, in broad terms and within the framework of presenting the cartographic results, it has been shown through a range of cases that the relationship between the Greek Revolution and space was not static. The interplay and tension between taxation, administration, and the conduct of war, as well as political initiatives aimed at organizing the territory during the period 1821–1833, produced new spatial relations. Inherited administrative divisions formed the basis upon which, already from an early stage, attempts were made to introduce adjustments: through the creation of districts and prefectures, the reorganization of provinces, or the emergence of claims for the establishment of spatially continuous administrative units. The resistances, rivalries, and negotiations surrounding jurisdictions reveal the dynamics of a space under constant renegotiation. The outcome of these processes was the gradual formation of a new type of administrative map. The establishment of provinces, which progressively assumed responsibility for managing jurisdictional issues, together with the introduction of districts and prefectures (1828–1833) more closely aligned with central authority, reinforced the homogenization of territoriality and pushed administrative organization toward a more centralized model—a process that was slow, uneven, and often contradictory. Within this framework, local power and control over material resources and arms—although often considered in historiography as obstacles to the formation of a strong central state—functioned in practice as drivers of departure from the Ottoman tradition of overlapping jurisdictions. The assertion that “each province must possess its entirety” articulated a new imaginary of administrative space, oriented toward unity rather than fragmentation; a microcosm of the logic of territoriality that underpinned the project of nation-state formation.