As we know, the leaders of the greek independence movement embraced ancient greek history, seeing modern greek history as an extension of ancient greek history, and thus basing the newly founded greek state on ancient Greece rather than the medieval Roman Empire.Among both intellectuals as well as the population as a whole of Greece, were anyone against this? Were anyone campaigning against this "change of style" for Greece, and were instead in favour of more identification ith their medieval past? Basically, Romioi vs Hellene
NB—I'm not a historian of the Greek Revolution or anything, but I did take a class on Greek attitudes towards the past recently, so this is more me regurgitating that material than anything else.
Short answer: yes! However, these sentiments were largely expressed as antecedents to the revolution, or as an alternative to the revolution presented by a reactionary church. There was less of a drive to memorialize the Byzantine past among the revolutionaries themselves, though IIRC some aspects of medieval Greece were commemorated and/or preserved until the Bavarian philhellenists wiped them out with the coming of King Otto. (even here, though, the Bavarians ironically incorporated Byzantine elements into a number of new buildings as part of the Rundbogenstil favored at the time)
I should note that the church's opposition was more of Orthodoxy against Neo-Hellenism, rather than Byzantinism, though the two were of course strongly linked. And it was certainly not a revolutionary ideology—the proponents of the Orthodox identity tended to remain in favor of Ottoman rule. As Patriarch Anthemos noted in his Didaskalia Patriki in 1798:
[God] raised out of nothing this powerful empire of the Ottomans, in the place of our Roman [Byzantine] Empire which had begun, in a certain way, to cause to deviate from the beliefs of the Orthodox faith, and He raised up the empire of the Ottomans higher than any other kingdom so as to show without doubt that it came about by divine will, and not by the power of man, and to assure all the faithful that in this way He deigned to bring about a great mystery, namely salvation to his chosen people.
An encyclical manifested by Patriarch Grigorios 21 years later went further, and explicitly condemned one of the more flagrant acts of Neo-Hellenism: the adoption of classical rather than Christian first names. The letter reads:
And the innovation introduced, as we have heard, of giving ancient Greek names to the baptised infants of the faithful, taken as a despising of the Christian practice of naming, is altogether inappropriate and unsuitable. Therefore it is necessary that Your Reverences give strong commands to the priests of your parishes, and spiritual admonitions to your blessed parishioners, to abandon forthwith this abuse [ ... ] and parents and godparents in future are to name at the time of the holy and secret rebirth with the traditional Christian names, to which pious parents are accustomed, the [names] known in Church, and of the glorious saints that are celebrated by it, so as to be overseers and guardians of the baptised infants [ ... ]
But it's no surprise that the Church, which largely resisted the revolution, would espouse pro-Byzantine, Christian ideals. At the same time, there was a movement earlier in the revolution for a French-style revolutionary state modeled more on the Byzantine Empire than Hellenic Greece. Rigas Velestinlis's constitution defines a republic coterminous with an "Empire" (so while the form of government would be republican, the geography would hearken back to the Byzantines) and a "sovereign people" consisting of Greeks, Turks, Albanians, and all other inhabitants of the empire. Velestinlis's proposed flag, moreover, contained a red bar symbolizing the imperial purple.
Finally, it's also worth noting that popular culture in the leadup to the revolution favored a Byzantine model. The Oracles of Leo the Wise, a set of prophecies apocryphally attributed to the Byzantine Emperor Leo VI (r. 886-912), were used to portend a Russian invasion of the Ottoman Empire and capture of Constantinople. The late-eighteenth-century historian Athanasios Komninos Ypsilantis wrote following the failure of the Russians to secure Greek independence in 1774, "after so many and splendid victories of the Muscovites against the Ottomans and if, at such an opportunity, the Romans [Greeks] were not liberated, then it will be very difficult for the resurrection of the Greek Empire to take place, for a prophecy in respect of this by some other seer does not survive."
[All sources quoted above may be found in Richard Clogg's The Movement for Greek Independence, 1770-1821: A Collection of Documents (1976).]