Monarch Profile: Sultan Abdul Hamid II of Turkey

The reign of Sultan Abdul Hamid II can be seen as the ‘last gasp’ of the traditional Ottoman Empire as it had existed for centuries. He was the last Turkish monarch to hold absolute power over his empire and his reign saw the shift in the Turkish position internationally which was to ultimately lead to the Ottoman Empire being on the losing side in the First World War, which finally brought about its downfall. Abdul Hamid II was born on September 21, 1842 at the Topkapi Palace in Constantinople (Istanbul). His father was Sultan Abdulmecid I who had nineteen wives and forty-three children. In keeping with Ottoman tradition, most of these wives were Europeans; Chechen, Georgian, Bosnian, Circassian or Abkhazian. The mother of Abdul Hamid II was a green-eyed, blonde haired Circassian named Tirimujgan Kadinefendi, however, her early death left the future sultan in the care of his father’s wife, Valide Sultan Rahime Perestu, who would be the last ‘empress-mother’ of the Ottoman Empire when Abdul Hamid II came to the throne. Blonde-haired as well, with blue eyes, she was originally a Christian from the Russian city of Sochi, also a Circassian, who had been adopted by Abdulmecid’s childless aunt and converted to Sunni Islam.

In his youth, Abdul Hamid had many talents, being an accomplished carpenter, a skilled translator and greatly inclined toward music. He was likely the greatest fan of opera among the ranks of all the Ottoman sultans. He was also more well traveled than most others, growing up at a time when the Ottoman Empire was trying to gain stronger relations with the “Great Powers” of Europe and he accompanied his uncle, Sultan Abdulaziz, to Paris, London, Vienna and other European cities in 1867. However, that same year was to see his life changed forever. At the time, his brother Sultan Murad V was on the throne but he had proven problematic. A Freemason, a Francophile and an advocate of constitutional government and democracy, his reign lasted less than a hundred days before he was overthrown and on August 31, 1876 Abdul Hamid II became the 34th Sultan and Padishah Emperor of the Ottoman Empire, Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques and 26th Caliph of Islam. Perhaps because of his travels and his love of opera, as well as the experience with his brother, reactionary elements feared he might be inclined to foreign innovations and the sort of reforms they did not want. This would certainly not prove to be the case.

That being said, Sultan Abdul Hamid II was willing to work with the “Young Ottomans” toward some measure of constitutional government. He could see that some sort of changes were needed as the Ottoman Empire was being left far behind by the other powers in industry and technological advancement. It was also a precarious time for the empire since the sympathy of the Christian empires that manifested itself in Britain and France aiding the Turks against Russia in the Crimean War had evaporated after the brutal suppression of a number of Christian uprisings in the Balkans. The pacification of Bulgaria had been particularly heinous with 58 villages burned, 5 monasteries destroyed and 15,000 Bulgarian civilians massacred. Imperial Russia was moving to take retribution for this and, this time around, none of the other European powers would be offering any help. The British were concerned about Russian expansion, but the actions of the Turks had made any assistance to them impossible. Constitutional talk was put on hold as the Russian Czar declared war on the Ottoman Empire on April 24, 1877.

It took only until February of 1878 for the war to come to an end as the Russians inflicting a massive and devastating defeat on the Turks. Romania, Serbia and Montenegro were conceded their independence, Bulgaria was given autonomy, Bosnia a lesser degree of local control and part of Armenia was handed over to Russia. Heavy war reparations were also paid to the Russians and Sultan Abdul Hamid II, in the aftermath of this disaster, suspended the newborn constitution and dissolved parliament after its first meeting, ruling on his own for the next thirty years. To make matters worse, in order to counter Russian expansion, the British began moving in on Turkish-ruled territory themselves, taking control of Cyprus and effectively Egypt-Sudan after chaos caused by the removal of the ruling khedive. Albania, Greece, Montenegro and Bulgaria all had border disputes and in 1897 war broke out with Greece over Crete. The Turks were victorious but, due to international intervention, Crete was lost for the Ottoman Empire and restored to the Greeks. Immediately after this an Arab revolt broke out in Syria which again resulted in humiliating concessions for the Turkish authorities.

During the settling of affairs in the Balkans, an international conference assembled in Berlin demanded that Ottoman authorities grant greater rights to minorities within the empire. Sultan Abdul Hamid II agreed to this as a matter of necessity in the crisis of the time but was reluctant to follow through with the promises made. He saw, not unrealistically, that such changes could result in the unraveling of the Ottoman Empire entirely. This first proved true with the subject population of Armenian Christians. When they demanded the rights that had been promised to them, Sultan Abdul Hamid II tried to thwart them by playing off the two minority groups against each other; the Kurds and the Armenians. The Kurdish forces unleashed havoc on the Armenians and the Armenians responded by forming revolutionary organizations but, seeing through the Kurds, aimed at the Sultan who was supporting them. In the effort to suppress these revolutionary forces, some 300,000 Armenians were massacred and the outraged west dubbed Abdul Hamid II the “Bloody Sultan”. It also resulted in an Armenian assassination attempt on the Sultan, however, a delay caused the car bomb to explode before he arrived and so he survived though 30 bystanders were killed and 54 wounded.

By this time, the Turks had long burned their bridges with their former allies from the Crimean War and Russia was certainly no friendlier given what the Orthodox Christians within the Ottoman Empire had endured. The French and British were outraged by Turkish actions and the Sultan was outraged by the French seizure of Tunisia and the British occupation of Egypt-Sudan. This resulted in Sultan Abdul Hamid II moving closer to Imperial Germany who was also not on the best terms with Britain, France and Russia. The Sultan also responded to increased internal unrest and the increasing dissatisfaction of the various non-Turkish ethnicities as well as the growing demand for reform by many of the educated Turks with repressive measures. A surveillance state, police state and all the usual trappings were established and carried out their duties zealously. Spies were everywhere, confiscations were common and summary arrests were a daily occurrence. Because of this, Abdul Hamid II is often viewed as a paranoid and oppressive tyrant even today.

However, Sultan Abdul Hamid II was a more complicated figure than that. He could see as well as anyone that the Ottoman Empire had been left behind by the other major powers. They were more stable, more prosperous, more militarily powerful and more technologically advanced. He wanted to revive the fortunes of the Ottoman Empire and so he did encourage greater education and more industrialization. Yet, this also went hand in hand with strictly limiting what could be taught to Ottoman students, what they could study and what they could read. To keep the empire together, the Sultan resorted to harsh repressive measures, particularly against Christian populations such as the Bulgarians. Yet, a long period of economic mismanagement also meant that the Sultan had no choice but to basically hand control over Ottoman finances to (Christian) foreign powers. His decisions laid the foundation for the progress Turkey was to make in the years to come, particularly with the German-backed spread of the railroad network. However, his fear of dissent also caused him to stagnate the navy which would have dire consequences in the future war with Italy over the provinces now known as Libya.

Eventually, the paranoia of Abdul Hamid II began creating the very enemies he feared. More and more officials and army officers resented the way they were constantly being spied on, the growing isolation of the country and the continuing loss of territories that had been conquered and under Ottoman rule for centuries. In 1908, in what became known as the “Young Turk Revolution”, Turkish army forces in Greece began marching on Constantinople. With no loyal forces on hand to stop them, the Sultan began furiously back-peddling. He reinstated the Constitution of 1876, recalled parliament, ordered a stop to spying on his subjects, censorship and even released political prisoners. The “Young Turks”, a group of reform-minded, more secular, Turkish nationalists, were given power and formed a cabinet. The era of absolute monarchy was over and constitutional monarchy was to prevail from that time on. However, Sultan Abdul Hamid II had not been genuine in his sudden conversion to the progressive cause and the following year organized loyalist elements to stage a counter-coup in order to restore the absolute monarchy. Unfortunately for him, this failed and Sultan Abdul Hamid II was deposed by the Young Turks and replaced by Sultan Mehmed V, a figurehead who was never able to be much more than a prisoner in his own palace. Originally sent to Salonica in Greece, when the Greeks took back the region he returned to Constantinople but remained under house arrest until his death on February 10, 1918.

It is worth noting that the Ottoman Empire, which had stood for centuries over the crossroads of three continents, swiftly collapsed under the administration of the Young Turks. However, it was largely under Abdul Hamid II that the stage was set for that downfall. The suppression of the Slavic Christians alienated the Great Powers of Europe so that, ultimately, only Germany and Austria-Hungary remained as supporters (Bulgaria was on the same side but obviously was not inclined to be helpful) and internal suppression led to the rise of the Young Turks. The loss of territory naturally prompted a desire to see the Ottoman Empire restored to its former size but this led to an overreaching in World War I that brought about the defeat of the Ottoman Empire and its final dismemberment. Having lost the European provinces, during the war the Arabs finally rose up in revolt as well and the Ottoman Empire was doomed.

Trouble with Russia and Turkey

Most have probably seen the news, and even video, of the assassination of the Russian ambassador to Turkey yesterday. There were immediate fears that this could cause some serious trouble, though from the first I heard of it, I doubted that the Turks were about to feel the full fury of Russia. For one thing, the Turks shooting down a Russian fighter jet last year, despite a great deal of big talk from Moscow, resulted in little more than a minor bump in the road for Russo-Turkish relations. Turkish President Erogan has been given VIP treatment on a high-profile visit to Russia and the Russians quickly lifted trade and travel restrictions on Turkey after the incident. Erdogan expressed his regret about the incident but continued to assert that the Russian jet had violated Turkish airspace and has continued to refuse to recognize the Russian annexation of Crimea. The law pertaining to Crimea was passed by the Turkish government about a week before Russia resumed regular flights to Turkey.

After the assassination of the Russian ambassador, which the assassin claimed was in retaliation for Russian support for the Assad regime in Syria, which Turkey opposes, talk out of Turkey quickly went to allegations of a “false flag” operation by the United States, a clear effort to shift Russian anger toward a common enemy. Despite being a NATO member, the pro-Islamic fundamentalist Erdogan has had very strained relations with the United States, blaming America, for example, for the military coup attempt against him in July of this year. In short, my initial view, which could yet be proven wrong, was that if the Russians did not take serious action against Turkey over the shooting down of their jet, Turkish support of anti-Assad rebels and Islamic fundamentalist groups and opposition to Russia’s annexation of the Crimea, there is no reason to believe the Russian bear will now suddenly show its claws. To this observer it seems that the Turks have the stronger hand here and Russia desires good relations with Turkey more than the Turks desire good relations with Russia.

The history of Russo-Turkish relations is long and closely tied to the monarchist cause in both countries. For most of their histories, the Russian Empire and the Turkish Ottoman Empire have been implacable enemies. There have been no less than twelve wars between the Russian and Ottoman Empires with the Russians being successful more often than not. These were due to a number of circumstances such as the prevailing international politics of the day, the Russians taking up the cause of defender of the Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire and the Russian wish to end Turkish domination of the Black Sea. However, looking at the bigger picture, the animosity was mostly inevitable and due to geography. Russian emperors for centuries have wanted to have secure Russian access to the eastern Mediterranean and a few have dreamed of taking Constantinople and restoring it as the heart of Orthodox Christianity. The Russian Empire also fought to liberate the Slavic and Orthodox Christian subjects of the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans.

The Ottoman Empire, throughout this time, was mostly on the defensive and fought most of these wars to defend themselves against the Russians. Turkish domination of the crossroads of the world rose up at a time when the Russians were still dominated by the successor states of the Mongol Empire. The Turks were able to gain a strong position before the Russians first started to go on the attack under Czar Ivan the Terrible. The aim of the Turkish Sultans was thus to defend their massive empire and domination of the region. Just as the Russian Empire, in those days, championed the cause of Orthodox Christians under Ottoman rule, so too did the Turks make common cause with the Islamic peoples conquered by the Russians or threatened by Russian expansion. So, in those days, the situation was fairly clear-cut, it was the Orthodox Christian Russian Empire against the Islamic Ottoman Empire, there could be no reconciliation, one would have to win and the other would have to lose.

World War I, however, saw events overtake both empires. Neither the Russian Empire nor the Ottoman Empire would ultimately survive the conflict. As the Russian monarchy was destroyed and finally replaced by the Soviet Union, the Ottoman Sultan was overthrown and replaced by a secular Turkish republic. Turkish nationalism, rather than pan-Islamism became the fashion in Turkey while in Russia, once the defender of Orthodox Christianity, became militantly atheist and Soviet founding father Vladimir Lenin immediately reached out to the revolutionary regime in Turkey, renouncing traditional Russian claims and establishing friendly relations between the Turkish Republic and the USSR. This only changed as a result of World War II in which the Soviets believed the neutral Turks to be rather too friendly with Hitler’s Germany (though Stalin himself had been friendly enough before the summer of 1941). Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin revived some of the old Czarist Russian claims against Turkey and, in response, the Turks shifted over to the Western Allies for guarantees of protection.

This return to the traditional antagonism was never quite as intense as it had been under the monarchy, with the Soviets even secretly backing the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in the hope that this would result in a split in NATO between pro-Greek and pro-Turkish factions. However, it all ended with the fall of the Soviet Union which has seen Russia make many unprecedented changes in policy, supporting, protecting and even arming neighboring countries which have been traditional enemies of Russia and which have historical grievances against Russia. Turkey, on the other hand, has been, particularly under Erdogan, shifting away from secularism and more toward Islamic fundamentalism. Turkey has been adopting a more robust foreign policy, supporting other Islamic powers and even Islamic powers that had been enemies of the Turks in the Ottoman days. In 2006 the King of Saudi Arabia visited Turkey for the first time in forty years and Erdogan has voiced his support of the Saudi intervention in Yemen against Iranian-backed factions. Turkey has been returning to a more ambitious, Ottoman-style foreign policy whereas Russia has been reversing many of the foreign policy attitudes of the Romanovs, sticking to Soviet-era relationships except, bizarrely, for those which coincided with Czarist policies.

Some of this has been understandable, given the extent to which many western countries continue to view Russia in the same way they viewed the Soviet Union. Western non-governmental organizations in particular practically pillaged Russia in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union and NATO and the EU have been steadily encroaching on Russia’s western border. Imperial Russia was always careful to never take a blanket anti-western foreign policy, preferring to ally with certain western powers against others as benefited their interests, the primary aim of which was access to a warm water port. Any Russian emperor would have thought it pure insanity to shelter, support and strengthen countries such as China, Iran or Turkey, all of which are within striking distance of Russia and have historical grievances against Russia which, even if the Russians have forgotten these pages of history, these powers certainly have not.

Will anything come of this latest incident? It is possible but, again, I am not too alarmed. Russia has shown that they want no trouble with Turkey in spite of even very blatant hostile actions. The Turks can, likewise, try to shift the blame and the Russians seem anxious to accept such a course. Turkey has their opposition to Assad and their threat to release more “refugees” upon Europe to maintain at least the grudging support of the western powers while Russia has never taken retaliatory measures in the past and the displeasure they have shown before was always of limited duration. Turkey seems to be in a strong position, able to annoy both sides of the east-west divide but with neither side being willing to do anything about it. They can maintain their current policy in the Middle East and negotiations with Europe. The Arabs are on their side and the NATO countries will almost certainly not wish to irritate all of them and if Russia has taken no action up until now in spite of Turkish support for anti-Assad radicals, opposition to the annexation of Crimea, the shooting down of the Russian fighter jet, it seems doubtful that they will suddenly decide to draw the line with this assassination.

Many have commented that Turkey, under Erdogan, is taking on a more Ottoman style. Relations were good between Turkey and Egypt when Egypt was ruled by the Islamic Brotherhood but have since soured. However, Turkey and Saudi Arabia have been on the same side in most regional conflicts, the Turks have invested in Iraq, Erdogan being the first Turkish PM to visit the Kurdish-populated area of Iraq in 2011 (to open a Turkish built airport), going on to visit several Shiite holy places. Turkish relations with Iran have improved, as have those with the Gulf states and Pakistan. In Syria the Turkish government has partnered with the Saudis and Gulf states in backing Islamic rebels against the Assad regime. Erdogan has been expanding Turkish involvement and influence throughout the Middle East, throughout the former Ottoman Empire. He has so mimicked the Ottoman style that some have suggested he intends to make himself Sultan. Rather than laughing off such an absurd suggestion, Erdogan replied that he would prefer to have a more ceremonial position, like Queen Elizabeth II of the UK which is not exactly a denial.

Russia, on the other hand, has reversed most of the long-standing foreign policy positions of the old Russian Empire. Imperial Russian opposition to the Turks, Persians and Chinese has been replaced by generous trade, military and energy agreements with Turkey, Iran and China by the Russian Federation. No danger from any quarter other than Western Europe or North America seems to be recognized and yet when it comes to the NATO countries, Russia has steadfastly refused to take a hard line. Whether this is good or bad depends on whether one takes the side of Russia or the west. If you side with the west, it has been good, because Russia has refused to actually challenge the west. If you side with Russia, it has not been good because the west carries on whereas, I have not the slightest doubt, if Russia were to ever actually do as NATO does and say, “do this and it means war”, the west would want no part of that. The current leadership of the western world are the sort to threaten war but not the sort to actually commit to it, at least not a war in which the other side has the capacity to hit back.

The Ottoman Empire in World War I

There can be no doubt that Turkish intervention in the First World War was the worst decision ever made by the Ottoman Empire. An empire that had withstood storm and stress from within and without for more than 600 years was ruined beyond repair in less than four. Here was a country which had dominated the cross roads of the world, the most lucrative trade routes, which had ruled all of north Africa and much of southern Europe for centuries, brought down by choosing the losing side in the First World War. The Ottoman Empire did not collapse immediately as the war ended like Austria or Germany, nor did it come down during the war like Russia but although it may not get the attention of the German, Austrian and Russian Empires falling, it was really even more of an historic event. The Ottoman Empire had existed long before the first Hapsburg ever achieved imperial status, long before the Prussians ever had a country of their own and long before the Romanov dynasty came to power in Russia. At their height of power, the Ottoman Empire was the sole superpower of the western/near eastern world and yet all of that glory seemed to be but a faded memory to most of the world in 1914. Most did not give the Turks much time.

The Kaiser visits Constantinople

For years the Ottoman Empire had been in decline and for no small amount of time had been called, dismissively, the “Sick Man of Europe”. Their tenuous hold on Algeria and Tunisia was lost to France, Egypt and the Sudan became autonomous and later dominated by Britain, the provinces that are today Libya were taken by the Italians and Ottoman power was pushed almost completely out of Europe by the Balkan Wars. It seemed that the Ottoman Empire would have collapsed much, much sooner were it not for the intervention of other powers like Britain and France to prop it up and save it from being crushed by the Russians. It is almost amusing now to look back and consider that this was done because, in those days, the Great Powers feared the chaos and wars that might result in the Middle East if the order imposed by Turkish rule was lost. Imagine that. Because of this very long, downward spiral, many viewed the Ottoman Empire as a power unworthy of serious consideration, as a people not to be taken seriously. That was a mistake and one man who understood the potential that rested in the Ottoman Empire was the German Kaiser Wilhelm II. When few others cared to give the “Sublime Porte” the time of day, the Kaiser actively courted the Turks as a friend and ally.

Sultan Mehmed V

The Germans invested heavily in Turkey and were given a warm welcome by the new crop of ambitious officers who had come to power known as the “Young Turks”. These men, it should be mentioned, were not exactly devoted monarchists and the Ottoman Empire went into the war as perhaps the most nominal monarchy of all with the sovereign, Sultan Mehmed V, being little better than a prisoner in his own palace. In fact, for much of his life he had been a prisoner in his own palace but the “Young Turks” who seized power in 1908 put him on the throne a year later as a figurehead. The empire was dominated by three pashas, the most famous being Enver Pasha who was so enamored of Germany that he even took to wearing a Wilhelm-like moustache. For his part, Sultan Mehmed V was dubious about the new friendship with Germany and thought intervening in World War I to be a great mistake, like almost every other monarch at the time. Yet, there did seem to be some hope that the war could be a successful one for the Ottoman Empire, particularly since so many of their enemies had come to underestimate them. In fact, the Ottoman Empire had been rebounding with great advances in industry, trade and improving the infrastructure of the empire, illustrated by the much talked about “Berlin to Baghdad Railway”. When it came to war, the Turks would prove more formidable than almost any of the Allies expected.

Enver Pasha

For quite some time the military sciences had stagnated in Turkey but prior to World War I there was a massive campaign of revitalization. Armies were armed with the latest German weaponry, German officers came to advise in training and tactics and the average Turkish soldier proved to be a tough and tenacious warrior. It was a naval incident that ostensibly brought Turkey into the war but a secret alliance was quickly signed and Turkish ships attacked the Russian coast on the Black Sea. On November 1, 1914 the Russians declared war on the Ottoman Empire, followed by Britain and France a few days later. Other powers would later join in as the Turks had grander aspirations than almost any other of the Central Powers. Given the lofty heights from which their empire had fallen, this is not a great surprise. If the Central Powers had won the First World War, the Turks had quite a long “wish list” to be filled. They hoped to regain practically the whole of North Africa (central and southern Africa being left to the Germans) and toward that aim sent support to rebels in Libya, planned an invasion of Egypt, sent arms to Muslim dissidents and the Emperor of Ethiopia in the hopes of dominating the Horn of Africa, planned for great gains in southern Russia and to expand eastward to reclaim their central Asian homeland. If the war had gone differently, the world would have looked quite different indeed.

Reading out the declaration of jihad

The Turks also called upon religion to help them in their efforts to instigate rebellions in Allied colonies and not long after joining the war Sultan Mehmed V, as the Caliph of Islam, formally declared a jihad, a holy war, on the Allied nations, calling on all Muslims to rise up and fight. The Kaiser had hoped that rebellion would spread around the world and cause Britain to lose India, the crown jewel and capstone of the British Empire, and there certainly seemed to be no downside to such a tactic. Almost half of the Muslims in the world lived under the direct or indirect rule of one of the Allied nations with Britain, France, Italy and Russia all holding colonies or territories with large Muslim populations. Yet, though there were small scale attacks in Libya, Somalia and Egypt-Sudan, and an isolated mutiny of Muslim troops in Singapore (suppressed with help from Japan) the majority of Muslims felt no compulsion to rise up and fight because the Sultan of Turkey, Padishah Emperor, Caliph of Islam etc, etc had commanded them to do so. It was also somewhat disingenuous given that the triumvirate ruling the Ottoman Empire at this time were hardly the devoutly religious sort. Enver Pasha would, after the war, make common cause with the Soviets, Djemal Pasha supposedly proposed making peace with the Allies if he could be left in control of what was left of Turkey and Talaat Pasha had taught at a Jewish school and had an affair with a Jewish girl as a young man. The “Young Turks” had always been known as being more inclined toward secularism than religious fervor. Still, they would take up the flag of Islam when it seemed useful but a pan-Islamic movement was not an easy fit with Turkish nationalism. It probably also didn’t help that this call came with Turkey allied with three Christian powers.

Turkish troops in the Caucasus

Focus on more modern, western ideas had brought advances to the Ottoman Empire. However, despite the rapid progress that had been made, the Ottoman Empire still had many disadvantages going into the war. Their commanders were often not up to the task of fighting a modern war, their system of logistics was quite weak and the farther one traveled from Anatolia, the harder it was to support armies and the less reliable was the loyalty of the locals. It is easy to conclude that the new leadership were a bit overconfident in their ability to succeed in conquering such vast swathes of territory. As it happened, their first major action in the war proved to be a resounding failure. This was an offensive against Russia, long planned and hoped for, to ultimately gain control of the Baku oil fields. On December 22, 1914 this invasion was launched under the leadership of Enver Pasha himself but it quickly turned into a disaster. Despite all their planning, the Turks lack of experience was shown in their failure to prepare for the harsh winter conditions of the Caucasian mountains and the Russian Imperial forces resisted fiercely. In a bitter four day battle at the start of January, 1915, at Sarikamish the Turks were totally defeated and almost entirely wiped out by the Russians. 95,000 Turks had invaded Russian territory but only 18,000 survived the ordeal. Fighting continued but there would never be another major Turkish offensives against Russia.

Baron Kressenstein

Only a short time later, the Turks launched an attack towards Egypt aimed at seizing control of the Suez Canal from the British and instigating a major uprising by the local population against them. Djemal Pasha, another member of the triumvirate, was in overall command of the southern theatre but it was a Bavarian colonel, Friedrich Freiherr Kress von Kressenstein who effectively led the attack. He made careful preparations for crossing the desert and the canal but, though it was a masterful advance, the British learned that it was coming and were fully prepared to meet the Turks when they arrived. With relatively little difficulty, the British were able to force the Turks to retreat back across the desert after two days of fighting. All in all, the war was off to a disastrous start for the Ottoman Empire but things were about to turn around. In fact, these early Turkish defeats may have caused the British in particular to further underestimate them. This is unfortunate given that initial operations in wartime are rarely resounding successes and are seldom an indication of what the enemy is truly made of. Yet, the British, particularly Winston Churchill, became convinced that Turkey was the weak link in the Central Powers chain and the key to an easy victory in the war.

Gen. Limon von Sanders

The British planned an attack on the Dardanelles, ultimately to capture the capitol of Constantinople. This would knock Turkey out of the war and open up a naval route to keep Russia well supplied and in the war. After naval power alone proved insufficient, the Allies launched an invasion at the Gallipoli peninsula in April of 1915. However, being so close to the nerve-center of the whole Ottoman Empire meant that not only did the Turks fight with greater tenacity than on any other front but also that they were closer to their sources of supply. It also happened that the troops defending the peninsula, the Turkish Fifth Army, were the best in the empire and under the command of the talented German general Otto Limon von Sanders. The result was a disaster for the Allies that was much worse than the statistics alone suggest. In the end, losses were about the same for both sides but the Allies had been hoping for a quick and easy victory and what they got was a bloody stalemate, ending in a retreat with absolutely nothing gained. The Turks fought with incredible tenacity and earned the grudging respect of their enemies. The success was a huge morale boost for the Ottoman Empire and proved that they could win battles against the Allies. The British and ANZAC troops lost over 200,000 men, the French nearly 50,000 before finally retreating from Turkish soil. It was also this battle which saw the rise to prominence of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk who would later become the first President of Turkey.

Baron von der Goltz

Elsewhere in 1915, British overconfidence also ended in disaster at the hands of Turkish forces. A small excursion from the Persian Gulf to secure the local oilfields was expanded into a major operation because Turkish resistance was initially so weak. A British army (consisting largely of Indian troops) advanced up the Tigris River under Major General Charles Townshend with the ultimate goal of seizing Baghdad. However, his advance was stopped by a Turkish army under the veteran German Field Marshal Colmar Freiherr von der Goltz. The British fell back to Kut-al-Amara where they were besieged. More Turkish reinforcements were rushed in and British attempts to relieve the starving garrison all failed. Finally, on April 29, 1916 Townshend surrendered, marking another major victory for the Ottoman Empire. It was the largest mass surrender of British forces up to that time, surpassing the defeat at Yorktown in the American War for Independence and would remain the largest British surrender until the fall of Singapore to Japan in World War II.

A Turkish line in the sand

However, in the summer of 1916 another Turkish advance on the Suez Canal by Baron Kressenstein again ended in failure. The Turks were better prepared but so were the British and such a major campaign across so much desert proved an insurmountable obstacle for Turkish logistics. It was the last such offensive and the initiative switched to the Allies (primarily the British though token forces of French and Italian troops also participated) as General Sir Archibald Murray advanced to the border of Palestine. However, Baron von Kressenstein and his Turkish forces redeemed themselves by stopping Murray cold at the First Battle of Gaza in March of 1917. The next month the British tried again but were again defeated by the Turks in their strong defensive positions, backed up by effective artillery. Allied losses were heavy compared to their enemies and Murray was sacked and replaced by General Sir Edmund Allenby who came with considerable reinforcements. 1917 was to be a gloomy year for the Ottoman Empire. Previously, the British made an alliance with the Arabs who rose in revolt against their Turkish rulers and this played a major part in the Allied victory. Turkish logistics were always a weakness and the Arab revolt exploited this by constant raids that left Turkish forces ill-supplied and which forced the dispersal of troops to defend railways and supply lines. Even with assistance from Germany and Austria-Hungary, it was simply too much for the Turks to face the Allies at their front and the Arab harassment on their flank and rear.

Staff of the 6th Army in Iraq

Gaza was taken, Jerusalem was taken and soon the British were advancing in Iraq again where Baghdad was taken. With the Battle of Megiddo the Turkish army began to come apart. Limon von Sanders had been in command there but the victor of Gallipoli could perform no miracle against the Allied forces that so outnumbered his own. This was also partly due to Russian action in the Caucasus where it was feared that an offensive was in the making which forced the Turks to weaken their southern front to defend the north. In 1918 the Ottoman forces did win some victories against Armenian separatists and actually succeeded in capturing Baku from the British who had rushed in to secure the area but it was too late to do any good. Resistance in the south had disintegrated and on October 1, 1918 the Arabs occupied Damascus and Aleppo fell later in the month while in Iraq the Turkish Tigris Army was forced to surrender. On October 30, 1918 the Ottoman Empire signed an armistice with the Allies, one month after Bulgaria had done the same. Allied troops arrived later to occupy Constantinople and most of the Ottoman Empire was partitioned between the French and British. The Turks had fought to the bitter end and while their opening offensives had ended in defeat, they proved capable of determined resistance, throwing back every Allied attack on their territory. Ultimately, however, the superior Allied numbers and the number of fronts that had to be defended proved impossible to overcome. The Arab Revolt was the final straw and there was simply no way for the Turkish forces to prevail.

Ottoman regimental flag on Gallipoli

Nonetheless, the Turkish forces had played a pivotal part in the Central Powers war effort. They had forced the Allies to extend themselves greatly, diverted forces that could have been used elsewhere and had proven themselves more than a match for their enemies with victories at Gallipoli, Kut and Gaza. None of the troops involved in these operations, who encountered the fierce Turkish resistance, would have ever thought of the Ottoman Empire as the “Sick Man of Europe”. For a “Sick Man” he had put up one hell of a fight and inflicted on the British what will probably always remain the second-largest defeat in British military history. They had succumbed to overwhelming numerical and material superiority and by being forced to fight irregular rebels as well as the enemy at the front but they had proven themselves a match for their enemies and that they could accomplish great feats of arms. This gave the Turks a pride that carried on and saw them succeed in subsequent conflicts almost as soon as the First World War was over.

Favorite Royal Images: Turkish-Indian Princess

Princess Niloufer Farhat Begum Sahiba

a relative (on her mother's side) of the Ottoman Imperial Family, she was the first wife of 

Prince Moazzam Jah, younger son of the last Nizam of Hyderabad in India

The Hapsburg and Ottoman Empires: Friends at the End

Throughout the history of Europe and the Middle East, two names which stand out are the Ottoman Empire and the “Hapsburg Empire” (Holy Roman Empire, Austrian Empire, Austria-Hungary in their turn). In many ways, the titanic struggle between these two forces determined the fate of Europe even as we know it today. There was a time when the Ottoman Empire was the superpower that sprawled across three continents, stretching from the borders of Persia, across the Middle East, North Africa and up into southern Europe. The Christian powers trembled at the advance of the Ottoman Turkish armies as they absorbed Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania, much of Hungary and into Austria itself. It often seemed that the only thing stopping the Turkish conquest of Europe was the armies of the Hapsburg emperors. In 1529, when the Ottoman Turks were at their peak of expansion in Europe, it was the armies of the Hapsburg Emperor Charles V that stopped them at Vienna. When they tried a naval attack on Italy it was another Hapsburg, Don John of Austria, who led the Christian fleet to victory at Lepanto and when the Ottoman Turks were about to crush the Knights of Malta it was the Spanish forces of the Hapsburg King Philip II who arrived to save the day. Yet, in the conflict that was to determine their ultimate fate, the Hapsburg and Ottoman Empires fought side by side.

Politics can make for strange bedfellows but it was certainly a monumental twist on history to see troops of the Hapsburg Emperor fighting to defend the Ottoman Empire in Turkey itself and across the Middle East. The ancestors of the Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary had gained much of their military tradition fighting to defend themselves and Europe from the Ottoman Turks, yet, although it is little known today, in World War I they were fighting to defend the Ottoman Empire from the British and French (for the most part). Of course, this was not the only such reverse. After all, previously, France and Britain had fought to defend Ottoman Turkey from the Russian Empire only to have France, Britain and Russia allied against the Ottomans in World War I. And, in the past, France and Britain had both had much friendlier relations with the Ottoman Empire in the days when the Hapsburg Emperor was fighting Turkish armies in the Balkans. However, after the loss of their last, major territories in Europe, the Ottoman Empire had been eclipsed as a rival to Austria-Hungary by other powers such as Russia and Serbia while the Ottoman and German Empires had grown increasingly friendly. When World War I came, the Ottoman Empire soon joined the side of the Central Powers in the hope of reclaiming lost territories in Africa, the Caucasus and perhaps even expanding eastward toward the Turkish ancestral homeland in central Asia.

While fighting was almost always raging on the periphery of the Ottoman Empire, with the British in Egypt and Iraq and the Russians to the north, it was the Allied assault on Gallipoli that most threatened the heart of the Turkish realm. As Allied troops stormed ashore and began digging in, Turkish war leader Enver Pasha called on Germany and Austria-Hungary for help. The only problem was that with the Kingdom of Serbia still offering determined resistance in the Balkans, the route to Turkey was cut off. That all changed, however, in the autumn of 1915 when German and Austro-Hungarian troops under German Field Marshal August von Mackensen defeated the Serbian army and cleared a path for direct assistance to the Turks. Most of the help that arrived came from Germany but Austria-Hungary sent aid as well in both combat and support units. In December of 1915 two artillery units were sent down the Danube River to arrive at the front in Gallipoli. These were the howitzer battery No.36 posted at Sogan lidere across from Sedd-ul bar and mortar battery No.9 which was posted around Anafarta, lobbing shells at the hard-pressed Australian and New Zealand troops dug in there. The howitzer battery 36 was later sent to the coast at Smyrna where it sank the British monitor M30. Half of the mortar battery was reassigned to coastal defense as well but at Mt Carmel near Haifa in Palestine with the remaining guns switched out and renamed the field artillery battery No.20. This unit went on to serve at the second and third battles of Gaza and the two battles in the Jordan valley.

In 1916 Austria-Hungary sent a mountain howitzer division to aid in the Turkish campaign to rest control of the Suez Canal from Great Britain (for the second time). The effort was not a success but the Austro-Hungarian troops offered fierce resistance and proved their worth at the battle of Romani. When the Turkish line collapsed, they held firm, inadvertently serving as a rearguard and putting up such a fight that they were able to hold off the enemy long enough to escape without the loss of a single gun. During their time in the Middle East, this unit went through a number of name changes as their weapons were upgraded. In 1917 they were renamed the Imperial and Royal Mountain Howitzer Division in Turkey and later the Imperial and Royal Field Howitzer Battalion in Turkey. They fought with great skill and determination in the three battles of Gaza (in which they destroyed several British tanks), the two battles of the Jordan valley and covered the Turkish withdrawal toward Aleppo. Austria-Hungary also supplied the Turks with a great deal of support personnel such as military instructors (mostly in artillery), ski instructors for the troops fighting the Russians in the Caucasus, motor transport units and medical units such as a field hospital in Jerusalem and two mobile field hospitals (think of them as the grandfathers of the MASH units many are familiar with). These units saw action as well such as when one field hospital was wiped out in an Australian air raid. These forces from Austria-Hungary served up until the very end of the war for the Ottoman Empire, withdrawing as Turkish forces retreated until they were posted near Constantinople by the time Turkey asked for an armistice.

Austro-Hungarian troops assembled in Palestine, 1916

Emperor Charles I of Austria-Hungary with Turkish officers

Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman officers in Turkey

Austro-Hungarian troops marching into Jerusalem, 1916

The Caliph of Islam in Turkey

It was on March 3, 1924 that the last Muslim caliphate was officially abolished and Abdul Mejid II, the last Caliph of Islam (and heir to the last Ottoman Sultan, his cousin) was removed from his position and expelled from Turkey by the first republican and then secular government of modern Turkey. Looking back, perhaps because of all that has happened in the world of the Middle East since, it seems slightly strange that the two positions did not disappear at the same time or that it was the position of Padishah Sultan that was abolished first. To be denied the title of Sultan while still retaining the title of Caliph seems rather like telling someone, ‘we do not trust you to be the ruler of our country but we still believe you are the representative of God on earth”. Does not quite make sense to me. For Turks who hold fast to their faith and the system of traditional authority embodied by the Sultan and Caliph this can only be a sad anniversary. Yet, outsiders should consider the occasion as well. The fall of the caliphate has not yielded much benefit for anyone; Turkish or not, Muslim or not.

Whether things would be a great deal better if there was still a Caliph in Turkey no one can say, but it could only be an improvement. Look beyond the Turkish borders for a moment and consider the worldwide problem today with terrorism. There are people of the worst sort, who are both murderers and cowards, carrying out terrible and despicable deeds all in the name of Islam. They butcher helpless innocents and call themselves “holy warriors”. And no one should make any mistake about what is in the hearts of these criminals, after all, the terrorists who carried out the 9-11 attacks in America spent their last night on earth at a strip club. The faithful these are certainly not. Yet, they have fooled many people into thinking that they are and by making such a claim they have blackened the name of Islam, perhaps worse than at any other point in history. I say that because, even in the days of the Crusades, a Christian like King Richard I could look at a Muslim like Sultan Saladin and consider him a brave and worthy adversary. Even in those days of open religious warfare Christians could respect the gallantry of their Muslim foes who would send their doctors to care for the Christian King.

There were terrible things that happened of course, but things were more organized and certainly it would be helpful if there were a Caliph of Islam who could speak with authority in denouncing the atrocities of the terrorists who kill the defenseless and claim to be religious men. However, as beneficial as that could be, there is also the very real possibility that such a Caliph would be ignored. Would Arab and other Muslims react positively to a Turkish Caliph of Islam? The question must be asked, I think, because the Ottoman Empire, led by the Sultan and Caliph, was brought down in part by Arab and other Muslims rising in rebellion against the Turkish Sultan and joining with the Allies (primarily the French and British) in bringing down and eventually breaking up the Ottoman Empire; the last caliphate. When, in the midst of World War I, the Sultan formally pronounced a jihad against the Allied powers, he was, for the most part, ignored by the rest of the Muslim world.

There is also the question as to whether or not our increasingly anti-traditional world would even tolerate such a figure. Turkey, for some reason which completely escapes my comprehension, seems desperate to join the European Union and the E.U. has certainly not shown itself to be favorably inclined toward organized religion. Would they allow Turkey into the E.U. if the Caliph was restored? Personally, I think that would be all the more reason to do it but I’m not Turkish and most seem to want to join the European Union. However, although the amount of wider good a restored Caliph might do is debatable, one certain thing is that the people of Turkey would have a better form of moral guidance and by going that extra step to restoring the monarchy there would be greater consistency and a form of government more in keeping with Turkish traditions and hearkening back to the days when Turkey was a great nation, a major world power and not reduced to the status of appealing for favors from the EU government in Brussels. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, having the Sultan and Caliph back would do none harm and possibly be of great benefit in countries far distant as a voice of legitimate authority.

Consort Profile: Nurbanu Sultan, Valide Sultan of Turkey

The girl who would become one of the most prominent women in the Ottoman Empire was born Cecelia Venier-Baffo, probably sometime in 1525, on the island of Paros, today a part of Greece but at the time a client state of the Republic of Venice. Some sources refer to her as Olivia, others as Rachel but it seems she was the natural daughter of a local noble named Nicolo Venier and a woman named Violante Baffo. As such she was the niece of His Serenity Sebastiano Venier, Doge of Venice. It was he who, prior to his election, commanded the Venetian fleet at the historic battle of Lepanto. Little is known about the earliest years of Cecelia Venier-Baffo but when she was only twelve years old events took place which changed her life forever. In 1537 the island of Paros was conquered by the Ottoman Turks and Cecelia, along with many others, was captured along with other Christians for the slave markets. But she was a pretty little girl and must have caught the eye of someone important as she ended up being taken to the palace and placed in the harem of Prince Selim II in Constantinople. She was converted to Islam and given the name “Afife Nur-Banu”. Other stories exist about her origins but this is probably the most common.

Prince Selim II was greatly taken with the young girl and soon decided that she would be the one to bear his children, a fact which would give her greater status than all the other concubines. In time she bore him four children; three daughters and one son and heir; Prince Murad. Nurbanu became the “first lady” of the princely harem and was promoted to leadership of the imperial harem when the Prince ascended the throne as Selim II, “Grand Sultan, Commander of the Faithful and Successor of the Prophet of the Lord of the Universe” in 1566. This made his son, Prince Murad III, heir to the throne and as such added to the prestige of Nurbanu Sultan as mother of a future sultan. Of course, Selim II took numerous other concubines but Nurbanu Sultan always remained his favorite for both her beauty and her brains. Although it was far from normal at the time, Selim II would often ask Nurbanu for her advice on various subjects because of his respect for her good judgment. She was a devoted wife and a very loyal mother as later events would prove. The Ottoman Empire was far from being very stable at the top and clashes over the imperial throne were common. It was also not uncommon for the loser to have his entire family massacred along with him to prevent any future challenge. Nurbanu Sultan was determined, however, that when the time came for her son to succeed his father, nothing would interfere with that.

Prince Murad had been sent to serve as Governor of Manisa on the Aegean coast and was there when Sultan Selim II passed away in 1574. This would have been the prefect opportunity for someone to seize power with the Sultan dead and his son away from the capital. Nurbanu realized this as much, if not more, than anyone and took quick action. Security and privacy in the harem were the most strict anywhere and no one knew when Selim II had actually died. Nurbanu told no one and hid the dead body of her husband in an icebox and sent to Manisa for her son to come to Constantinople immediately. All the while no one was the wiser that Sultan Selim II had actually departed this life. It was not made known publicly until twelve days later when Murad arrived and Nurbanu delivered up the body of her late husband. Her son became Sultan Murad III and Nurbanu became Valide Sultan (effectively “Queen Mother”), the highest position a woman could hold in the Ottoman Empire. She became a formidable figure with far-reaching influence during this time, so much so that it is regarded by some historians as the beginning of the so-called “Sultanate of Women”. According to some sources (Italian mostly, from Venetian accounts) Nurbanu Sultan effectively ran the government alongside the Grand Vizier Sokollu Mehmet Pasha. Because women of the imperial household, no matter how lofty, were quite restricted in their movements, she depended on her long-time friend Esther Handali, a jeweler, to bring messages back and forth for her. The two became so close rumors began to surface about the nature of their relationship.

Venetian accounts are the most prolific in describing Nurbanu Sultan as a woman who never forgot her Venetian origins. For the nine years she served as regent of the Ottoman Empire, her foreign policies were reputedly so partial toward the Republic of Venice that their primary competitor, the Republic of Genoa, came to view Nurbanu Sultan as an enemy of their state. She corresponded with Catherine de’ Medici, Queen of France, and was always on the lookout for potential allies against the Hapsburg empire centered on Austria and Hungary that was the primary threat to the Ottoman Turks and the primary block to further European expansion. Nurbanu Sultan was also known for her charitable giving and her patronage of building projects, especially the construction of a magnificent building complex that included a mosque, madrassah and bath among other things. She was a beloved and respected figure when she died in her palace in Constantinople on December 7, 1583, presumably of natural causes though some (probably Venetian accounts) speculate that she was poisoned by a Genoese assassin.

Unfortunately, the Ottoman Empire did not fare so well after her loss as the reign of Sultan Murad III was generally one of decline, though certainly not resoundingly disastrous. Considering his mother’s correspondence with the Queen of France, one of the things Sultan Murad III is remembered for was his own correspondence with Queen Elizabeth I of England, arguing that the Protestants and Muslims had much in common and should unite against the Catholic powers, something the Queen very seriously considered during the war with Hapsburg Spain. In any event, both sides benefited from the sale of English tin and lead to the Ottoman Turks to update and expand their military arsenal.

Colonialism and the Middle East

Today with all the problems in North Africa and the Middle East, the actual conflicts between governments and between the people and their own governments are often matched by an equally contentious fight over where to place the blame for all of this. We are, after all, living in the age of irresponsibility, where it is certainly never, ever “my” fault. It is always easier, of course, to blame someone else. Blame another country, blame another religion, blame another race, blame another party or political system. This, of course, absolves one of the very painful and difficult duty of critical reflection and self-improvement; of taking it upon yourself to solve your own problems. Why try to fix things when all of your problems are the fault of another? In many cases, though, this can lead to downright comical twists and turns and downright acrobatic contortions of logic. In the United States, for example, many of the same people who cheered on the Bush administration in spreading the gift of democracy to the people of Iraq have lately been condemning the present occupant of the White House for supporting popular rebellions against dictators in the name of democracy when that democratic process leads to anti-American regimes.

Similarly, many of those who cited the existence of the terrorist prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba under George W. Bush as being at fault for making people hate the USA are now quiet as church mice after President Obama failed to make good on his oft-repeated promise to close the facility. The blame now must reside elsewhere I suppose. Likewise, it is almost funny to see the leadership of the European Union congratulate the people of North Africa on achieving democracy when they are so adamantly opposed to submitting themselves to the democratic will of their own peoples. However, the Muslim community, and particularly the Arab Muslim community, are no less adept at these blame games than the western and (hardly even nominally these days) Christian countries. I find it particularly strange to see so many disgruntled Arab Muslims shouting abuse at the west and calling for Islamic unity and the creation of a new Islamic caliphate considering that, during World War I, it was Arab Muslims who fought alongside the Christian Allied powers in bringing about the destruction of the last, legitimate Caliph of Islam who was the Turkish Sultan of the Ottoman Empire.

My favorite, though, is when they blame the problems in the failed republics of North Africa and the Middle East on western colonialism. Though “western” is really casting too wide a net as the only European countries that colonized North Africa and the Middle East were Great Britain, France and (very briefly) Italy. Spain had a tiny foothold but it never came to much. However, if you just blamed everything on the British, French and Italians you inadvertently let America off the hook based on the silly technicality that the United States has never had a colony or mandate in the region, so it is better to just say “western” colonialism just so everyone from America to Norway will be warned. Though, with Gaddafi gone, at least Switzerland will be able to sleep a little easier at night from now on. This is also a smart move because most people in the world think colonialism to be an inherently evil thing and even most people in Europe, even most people in the countries which had the largest colonial empires in the world (Britain and France) consider colonialism a terrible and shameful thing.

Just to be clear, for anyone new to this game, I am not among those who think it so. I do not pretend it was all good, but I think it was more positive than not and, while I speak only for myself in this, I find it a little absurd that anyone in the Americas in particular would decry colonialism considering that none of the countries and most of the people of the Americas today would not exist without it. That being my mentality, I am particularly sensitive to colonialism being the modern whipping boy for every problem in the contemporary Third World, to say nothing of the Middle East and North Africa. Of course, everything that is today is based to some degree on all that has been but when it comes to colonialism I think the negative aspects are being exaggerated. I think this is particularly true considering North Africa and the Middle East which were under European colonial rule for a period of time that amounts to a mere speck on the world history timeline when compared to the length of time the region was under the colonial rule of the non-Christian, non-western and non-European Turkish Ottoman Empire.

Consider this: Algeria was a colony of the Ottoman Empire for 300 years and was only a French colony for 132 years and during much of that time French rule was quite limited. Tunisia was an Ottoman colony for more than 131 years and was a French protectorate for only 75 years. The territories that are now Libya were colonies of the Ottoman Empire for 360 years then were an Italian colony for less than 32 years. Egypt was under Ottoman sovereignty for 365 years while the British held control over Egypt for only 40 years. Palestine was under Ottoman rule for 401 years and a British mandate for 26 years. Syria was ruled by the Ottomans for 402 years and was a French mandate (along with Lebanon) for a mere 21 years. Iraq was part of the Ottoman Empire for 387 years and was then a British mandate for a mere 12 years. That is pretty much the whole of North Africa and the Middle East (the “Middle East” being defined in my education as the area from Egypt to Iran) other than Iran which had never, officially, been under the rule of a European power though it did have a British sphere of influence in the south and a Russian sphere of influence in the north (though not every Russian would consider Russia a “European” country by any means). So, how is it that “western colonialism” is held to blame for nearly every problem in the modern Middle East and North Africa when in most cases European rule lasted less than fifty years rather than the colonialism of the Turks who ruled the region for centuries?

Now, it should be obvious but I will point it out just to be on the safe side, this does not mean I think the Middle East and North Africa should instead blame modern Turkey for their current problems instead of “the west” (which Turkey is trying to join, but that’s another story). As mentioned, if anything, the Turks would have more reason to blame their problems on the Arabs for turning on their Muslim brethren in the First World War to fight alongside Britain, France and Italy in bringing down the Ottoman Empire. Even after the Turkish Sultan, the Caliph of Islam, called upon all Muslims to unite in a jihad against the Allied powers, Muslims from the Empire of India to the Arabian peninsula and French Algeria disregarded this call and did their part to bring down the Islamic Ottoman Empire -along with her own allies which were Orthodox Bulgaria, Roman Catholic Austria-Hungary and the Protestant and Catholic Empire of Germany. The Arabs have no room to blame the Turks for their present situation and the western powers should not attempt it either. Today the western world complains endlessly about the conflicts and civil wars and unrest in the Middle East, conveniently forgetting that before their predecessors brought down the Ottoman Empire, this was a fairly pacific region and when there were troubles it was the Turks who had to deal with it, not the French, British or Americans. As with any empire, critics can point to examples in the Ottoman Empire that were not so nice but then there was no Assad regime in Syria, no Saddam Hussein in Iraq and no Gaddafi in Libya under either the Turks or the Italians.

Everyone, from individuals to entire nations, rise or fall and live or die based on the choices they make. Blaming colonialism for modern problems is pointless and provably false. The Korean peninsula was, for a time, under the colonial rule of Japan and the Japanese did not always treat the Koreans with absolute loving kindness, however, South Korea still managed to become an extremely successful and prosperous country. North Korea, obviously, did not but, as South Korea proves, the Japanese cannot be held to blame for that. North Korea is a failed state because it adopted an astoundingly stupid political and economic system. North Africa and the Middle East are no different. Where they have problems, it is the result of choices they have made. For the Middle East and North Africa the choices made include cutting colonial ties, pursuing bad policies and, in the cases of Libya, Egypt and Iraq, overthrowing existing monarchies in favor of militaristic republics. Sometimes it only takes one mistake to derail things if that mistake is big enough and as long as you play the blame game that one big mistake will never be corrected.

The Ottoman Empire is a good example again. Their big mistake was getting involved in World War I. If it makes the Turks feel any better, that was a common mistake at the time as it was a mistake for everyone who got involved in the Great War who had a choice in the matter (I say for the benefit of the Belgians) even if they were on the winning side. Everyone says that the Ottoman Empire was in decline and doomed to inevitable collapse. True, compared to periods in the past, Ottoman Turkey was in decline but, again, that was based on choices and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire was not inevitable. This is something people seem to like to say to avoid having to think about real problems and their consequences. They said the same thing about Austria-Hungary; that it was doomed to collapse and there was nothing anyone could do about it, war or no war. As we have talked about before, that was nonsense. Had it not been for the war, it is entirely possible Austria-Hungary would have gone on and might still be with us today. Similarly, the Ottoman Empire was in pretty bad shape but they were making changes, they were developing, updating, making some poor decisions but some wise ones as well. The Ottoman government had control of its own territory, maintained law and order, was in the process of developing a modern infrastructure and when war came managed to threaten the Suez Canal, force the biggest surrender of British forces since the siege of Yorktown in America, had troops in southern Russia and drove the Allies off of Gallipoli. They didn’t win, but that is a respectable list of accomplishments for an empire in decline, supposedly on the doorstep of “inevitable” collapse.

The last Sultan

If the Ottoman Empire had stayed out of World War I, and better yet if the other major powers had as well, with the discovery of vast Arabian oil reserves in 1938 they may well have made one of the biggest recoveries in history and there would have been none of the subsequent regional conflicts that have bedeviled the world from then to the present day. However, what was done is done. How about the countries as they exist today? A simple look around would be much more beneficial than playing the blame game. Which countries have been the most poor and oppressive -and thus unstable? Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Tunisia all have one thing in common: republicanism. Which have been the most stable in the region? Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE and Oman. What do they all have in common? Monarchy! I know, you were going to say oil but that’s not entirely true (though you cannot deny it certainly helps). The Sultanate of Oman has very limited oil reserves and the Kingdom of Jordan has practically none at all while even with considerable oil wealth, republican dictatorships like Libya and Iraq still managed to make the lives of their people miserable. So, there are good examples to follow, there are successful models to draw upon. All that needs to happen is for people to stop blaming colonialism, stop blaming foreign countries, stop blaming movies or cartoons no one has even seen and take responsibility for your own recovery. Step one in that recovery should be the restoration of the one form of government that had, across North Africa and the Middle East, proven to provide the most stability and genuine progress while still respecting time-honored traditions -monarchy.

MM Video: Sultan Mehmed V

Monarch Profile: Sultan Selim III

Selim III was born in Constantinople on December 24, 1761 to Sultan Mustafa III and his Genoese consort (who had been captured by the Ottomans) Mihrisah. As he grew up he was known for his zeal and openness to innovation and reform. It was hoped that when he came to the throne of the Ottoman Empire he would usher in a new era of modernization and revitalization. In the tumultuous year of 1789 he succeeded his uncle Abdulhamid I as Sultan and Padishah of the Ottoman Empire, “shadow of God on earth”, Caliph of the Faithful and Servant of the Cities of Mecca, Medina, etc. He had more experience with foreigners than others in the Osman dynasty and was fully convinced of the need for reform but he was also unwilling to abandon what his predecessors had handed down to him and he continued the wars which had been raging against Austria and Russia since 1788 in the Balkans.

Despite Europe becoming focused on the outbreak of the French Revolution, the backward state of the Turkish military establishment meant that Selim III was obliged to make peace, surrendering the Crimea to Russia but regaining Belgrade from the Austrians at the conference table. During the respite he tried to institute the long hoped for reforms, such as in bureaucratic salaries to discourage corruption, extending education and hiring European instructors to train a new military corps in the latest tactics. However, Selim III was never able to concentrate fully on these efforts as conflict was almost constant. The French, under Napoleon Bonaparte, invaded Egypt, inflicting a number of humiliating defeats on the empire. To make matters worse, the oppression of Pasvan Oglu, Governor of Vidin, caused the Serbs to rise up in revolt under the leadership of “Black George” Petrovich. Massive Ottoman forces finally crushed the rebellion but the reinstatement of the former governor showed that the lesson had not been learned.

Adrianople also erupted in rebellion in 1804 and there was also growing trouble from a new religious movement founded by Abdul Wahhab which preached a more strict application of Islamic law, rejected all luxury, innovation, and the adoration of saints or even the Prophet Mohammed rather than God. This was the start of the Wahhabi movement many today are only too familiar with. Their rebellion began in Nejd and denounced the lavish lifestyle of the Sultans, what they perceived as a lack of faithfulness among the people and the introduction of European ideas into the empire. It is interesting to note that while atheist revolutionaries were making trouble in France and throughout Europe, in the Ottoman Empire it was religious fundamentalists who were doing the same but advocating a totally opposite direction. Many also opposed the reforms of the Selim III, having established themselves through the old way of doing business. In 1806 disputes over Wallachia, Moldavia and Bessarabia caused the Sultan to renew the war with Russia. Also, having patched things up with the French, the British and Russians began to worry about a renewed Franco-Turkish alliance and in 1807 the British sent a naval force to raid Constantinople, which the Turks managed to repel.

However, even while war with Russia was raging, as was far from uncommon sadly, there was a rebellion of the Janissaries, the household guard of the Sultan. For some time the Janissaries had lifted up sultans and torn them down as served their own interests and when Selim III began establishing his own corps of soldiers trained and led by Europeans who would be most loyal to him, the Janissaries saw this as a threat and rose up. Other elements opposed to the reform efforts of Selim III joined in and the rebellion soon spread. Despite his efforts to placate the Janissaries and back away from his previous modernization efforts, Selim III was deposed by the Janissaries and replaced with his nephew, Sultan Mustafa IV. Forces loyal to the deposed sultan tried to come to his aid but were too late as by the time they arrived Selim III had been murdered by the chief Black eunuch of the seraglio on July 28, 1808. Mustafa IV was deposed and later killed and Selim’s brother became sultan and worked to carry out his brother’s vision for the future.