Let's say they put it during their civil war and help the pro ottoman side. Nothing of value was loss, plus ottoman greeks where very loyal subjects, if anything make europe looks more like vulture and hyenas
The Greek revolution was hardly ascertained to succeed: by 1826, in fact, it was all but suppressed by the Ottomans and their "Egyptian" (in reality Albanian) allies. The 1821 Revolutionaries began as more-less a shaky coalition of warlords united primarily by religion (as opposed to the hundreds of thousands of Greek-speaking Moslems in the Balkans) with shaky ties to the concept of a Hellenic identity (indeed, the idea of a "Greek" nation found its most fervent supporters in the Westernized mercantile class, whose influence existed beyond merely Greek-speaking lands; these people would have preferred the idea of being Roman).
The most immediate effects are that Mahmud II's programme for modernization will be boosted - without the conflict of Russia, Mahmud's fledgling modern army will not be destroyed in combat and will have greater time to develop. Additionally, the lack of a Russo-Ottoman war will prove to be a setback for Russian attempts at gaining more privileges in the Black Sea, and will prevent Russia from gaining suzerainty over the Danubian Principalities. Furthermore, Muhammad Ali's conflict with the Porte might be slightly setback; with a successful suppression of the Greek revolt, he will be awarded Crete and might not ask for Syria (IOTL this led to a war with the Sultan, which might be briefly forestalled).
It can fail as early as 1822-23. The Ottomans initially focused against Ali Pasha Tepelene, the governor of Epirus and most of Greece. His forces were keeping Morea and Central Greece under control. The Filiki Eteria and their allies saw the possibilities when Ali Pasha drew his units to face Mahmud II's forces. Making a perfect scenario. The Filiki Eteria already wanted a rebellion so the Ali Pasha's own rebellion was not a must, it was highly ideal. This means, if the Greeks still revolt, Mahmud II can let Ali Pasha deplete his forces against the Greeks with the Ottoman Forces sweeping up what's left. The Greeks are defeated and Ali Pasha is in no position to face Mahmud II's demands.
Depends on the circumstances. If the Greeks see a chance to go for independence, why not? But then again, it might evolve into greater regional autonomy. Any way, the Ottomans need to evolve into a federal system regulated by law where the Greek Christians aren't mistreated.
The Greeks north of Attica were loyal.....the aticans and Peloponnese not so much. The several rebellions in the 1500s the Maniot Revolts in the 1600s the early revolts in the 1700s and the infamous Orlov Revolt in the late 1700s show that the Greeks of Attica and Peloponnese weren't loyal at all. The continual aid they gave the Venetians too prove that easily.
What would a pod for avoiding Gregory's execution? How do you think the Patriarch surviving would influence the Revolutions?
As a reaction to how a nationalist movement which identified as "Hellene" failed so badly?
A simple POD is that the Mahmud decides to accede to the Sheyhulislam when he refuses to sanction the execution.
It would diminish support, I imagine - Gregory had excommunicated the rebels three times, while his survival would reduce anger felt by Christians throughout the OE.
Well, it'd obviously have to be a Neo-Roman Revolution (Byzantine was principally a foreign term), but I think there's major problems. The principal problem with a revolution that espoused "Roman" identity IMHO was that the situation "on the ground" (e.g. in Greece proper) was a lot different from the way it's been generally imagined. Keep in mind that there were several different factions in the revolt, including the educated class that promoted a Hellenic identity (these were people who were generally descendants of Byzantine nobles and held influence throughout Ottoman lands), a number of brigands and warlords in Greece proper who would have considered themselves Romans, as well as a substantial Arvanite contribution. Keep in mind that the second and third groups had warred savagely in the past; Kolokotronis in his memoirs even recounted how his father had stacked pyramids of Arvanite heads. As such, a revolution that promoted a Hellenic identity could reconcile the latter two groups against all of the "Turks" of Rumelia.
There was no precedent to executing a Patriarch for the rebellion of his subjects: the Ottomans didn't even depose the Patriarch during the revolts of 1567-1572, 1611, or even the Orlov Revolt that had happened a couple decades earlier - hell, the Empire was even more "stressed out" by the rebels, given that they were simultaneously losing to Russia in a concurrent war. Furthermore, all precedent had established the independence of the Rum millet, which is precisely why the Sheyhulislam had refused to sign the Sultan's fatwa and ultimately paid for his life with it.
Not really - it was more-or-less Mahmud II's own project, opposed by both reformist and conservative elements within the Ottoman government.
No, they were not. They would have little reason to do so - after all, Gregory had excommunicated the rebels three times...
You can see it as a 'punishment' or trying to break the morale or whatever.
He'd repeatedly excommunicated the rebels, advocated loyalty to the Ottoman Empire, and then got murdered by the Sultan.
Hungary was the main obstacle in terms of federalization. Otl wasn't really very desirable as the Empire had many structural issues that prevented it from really living up to its full-potential. Still the fact that it last so long fighting with an arm tied behind its back is an impressive feat. The Ottomans similarly had a lot of structural issues to deal with during the age of industrialization. The factors such as economic woes which led to the Balkan Revolutions would still be present after all. Simply crushing them won't solve the situation in the long term much like how Europe found out not too long after the Congress of Vienna.
I'm honestly puzzled as to what went on his head during that moment.
The Ottomans also are the premier Islamic power after all holding the title of Caliph. Thus the ultra-conservative and the traditionalist religious establishment would heavily lobby for the current Islamic nature of the monarchy to exist. True Federalism/tolerance is kind of an anachronism in this time period as there was still preferential treatment within Ottoman society/government towards Muslims. The Ottomans kept the jizya around until 1856 I think. Comparatively liberal nations like the UK for example still had a lot of stigma towards Catholics for example.
There were revolts in both Thrace and Macedonia. The one in Thrace was defeated in short order. The ones in Macedonia held out into early 1822, the destruction of Naousa which ended the revolution in Macedonia was in April 13th 1822.
My ancestors in the Agrafa mountains were most definitely living to the north of Attica and most definitely were anything but "loyal", there is a reason my village frex was burned 7 times in various revolts and uprisings, while the area remained outside effective Ottoman control into independence. Well the area being poor and choke full of heavily armed people helped that way... there is a reason Aetolians were troubling our neighbours back in ancient times or the Germans and Italians also failed to control it in WW2.
