(Part 2) Best turkey history books according to redditors

Can we stop spreading this misinformation please?

I keep hearing this and its flat out not true and I hate that it keeps getting brought up.

The vast majority of Arabs did not fight against the Ottomans, they fought for the Ottomans. Did you all really think the Ottoman Army consisted of only Turkish soldiers? 1/3 of the Ottoman military consisted of Arab officers and soldiers. Many of them fought against the British at Galipoli and in Iraq, Palestine, and the Arabian Peninsula. Unless you're talking about members of the Jordanian or Saudi Royal Family, or are affiliated with them, most Arabs did not fight against the Ottomans. Hell, even the Saudis didn't directly fight against the Ottomans until well towards the end of the war, since most of the anti-Ottoman fighting was done by the Hashemite family.

The majority of Arabs fought for the Ottomans, despite the fact that Enver Pasha (the guy responsible for the Armenian Genocide), arrested, tortured, and executed many innocent Arabs because of his own paranoia that they were somehow plotting to have him killed. In fact, we didn't learn until much later that there was no major movement to overthrow the Ottomans in favor of an Arab nationalist government. In fact, even after the Ottoman Empire was defeated, there were many Arabs who were working hard to expel the British and return back to the Ottoman Empire, but when the Mustafa Kemal declared a Turkish Republic in 1923, and all hopes of returning were lost, and that is when we started to see Arab Nationalism really start to take off as an anti-Imperialist movement.

I'm an Indian and let's not forget, that many Indian soldiers, Muslims included did fight against the Ottoman Empire. The explanation that was given to them by their British commanders were that they weren't fighting to overthrow the Caliphate, but to free it from those who have "taken the Sultan hostage" (i.e., the Three Pashas and The Young Turks).

If you want me to recommend one, let's start with this one.

A Peace to End All Peace by David Fromkin

The Arabs of the Ottoman Empire, 1516-1918 by Bruce Masters

More information:

The forgotten Arabs of Gallipoli | Al Jazeera

If you want to learn more about the history of the Ottoman Empire, its life, culture and the people that made up the Empire, then I suggest you subscribe to:

The Ottoman History Podcast

where they actually interview historians and experts in the field.

Source is based on the book Régis Darques, Salonique au XXe siècle, de la cité ottomane à la métropole grecque.

But it's French

Maybe a bit off topic, but this is a good book for anyone interested in understanding the whole political scene in Turkey

>>man will die Archive des osmanischen Reiches nicht (ein)sehen

>Finde ich zwar auch schade (und die Begründung bescheuert), aber muss man das denn? In den Archiven der deutsschen Armee findet man genug Beweise.

Ein türkischer Historiker namens Taner Akcam hat die Osmanischen Archive durchgeguckt und ein Buch verfasst.

https://www.amazon.de/Armenien-V%C3%B6lkermord-Istanbuler-t%C3%BCrkische-Nationalbewegung/dp/3930908999

Die türkischen Scheinargumente werden auch hier als Lüge entlarvt. Obwohl die türkischen Archive schon 2 mal bereinigt wurden gab es noch genug Dokumente um den Völkermord zu belegen.

The Siege of Szigetvar: In 1566 A 2300 strong Hungarian garrison effectively delayed an Ottoman Invasion force of up to 300,000 intent on attacking Vienna. Szigetvár was divided into three sections divided by water: the old town, the new town and the castle—each of which was linked to the next by bridges and to the land by causeways. When the Ottoman army approached, the Hungarians lowered red banners across the walls as if beginning festivities and greeted the army with a single cannon shot. Once the siege began, the Ottomans drained the waters as best they could, meaning their troops fought in the muck, an effective swamp that quickly led to disease ripping through the army. The siege lasted over a month, each island being defended fiercely during which disease ran through the Ottoman camps and Ottoman Emperor Suleiman the Magnificent died.

The Ottomans offered the Hungarian defender Count Nikola Zrinksi leadership of all of Croatia as an Ottoman vassal, which he ignored and continued to fight. After extensive bombardment and before the castle could be assaulted, Zrinski and some 600 survivors swung open the gates, fired a massive mortar loaded with shrapnel at the attackers, killing some 600. Following the shot the Hungarians charged into the fray. Zirinski, swinging his father's sword, shouted "Let us go out from this burning place into the open and stand up to our enemies. Who dies – he will be with God. Who dies not – his name will be honored. I will go first, and what I do, you do. And God is my witness – I will never leave you, my brothers and knights".

Zrinski was shot twice in the chest before being killed by an arrow to the head during the charge, which, however brave, could not hope to turn the Ottoman host away. However, before this final stand, Zrinski ordered a delayed fuse to be set in the castles powder magazine. After breaking the Hungarian assault the Ottoman Army entered the remains of Szigetvár and fell into his trap. The Ottoman Grand Vizier Ibrahim's life was saved by one of Zrinski's household who warned him of the trap when the Vizier and his troops searched for treasure and interrogated the survivors. While inquiring about treasure the prisoner replied that it had been long expended, but that 3,000 lbs of powder were under their feet to which a slow fuse had been attached. The Vizier and his mounted officers had just enough time to escape but 3,000 Turks perished in the explosion.

The siege cost enough lives, time and resources to effectively end the Ottoman drive West. It's a story I had never heard until reading about the 1683 siege of Vienna in which this battle was described in the prelude.

The book The Enemy At The Gate by Andrew Wheatcraft offers an incredible and thorough exploration of the conflict between the Ottoman and Hapsburg empires, between Islam and Christendom and East and West. It remains a painfully relevant history.

I really wouldn't know one book or 'work' (whether as a series of papers or a stand-alone product) that's providing a decent summary of all the Arab militaries at diverse wars they fought since 1918. Depending on the period, country/military in question, there are few that are outstanding, and a mass that's actually useless (at best: intentionally misguiding).

One belonging to the first group would be Asher's Egyptian Strategy for the Yom Kippur War.

Sure, it's next to unknown in the wider public. But, what's making it as interesting is not only that it's largely based on documentation captured when the IDF overrun the HQ of the Egyptian Third Field Army in October 1973, plus plenty of translations from diverse Arab military publications. Foremost, it's really a good, serious military study, and no nice-weather-report.

There are few other such works in Israel (by Prof Mustafa Khabba, just for example), but 'don't worry': most are entirely unlikely to ever be translated into English.

Two other recommended reads would be Provence's The Great Syrian Revolt and the Rise of Arab Nationalism and The Last Ottoman Generation and the Making of the Modern Middle East

The rest really depends on what exactly are you after.

Even though this recent work by Akcam is very interesting and might add weight to the current understanding of the subject, the title of the article and even the content might mislead the reader into thinking that intent is confirmed by this (or other similar) evidence and that without this or similar evidence intent cannot be established, and thus genocide cannot be proven. This is not true.

The intent part that is referred is found in the legal definition of genocide found in article II of the UN Convention for Punishment and Prevention of Genocide, which is important to understand that for all intents and purposes is a legal text.

Being a legal text it needs a legal interpretation and needs to be fulfilled in a legal context.

It is important to take into account that the very first time the legal concept of genocide as an international law has been put to practice, as in actual criminal trials, occurred very recently in the ex-Yugoslavia and Rwanda International Criminal Tribunals, ICTY and ICTR respectively.

As with anything in the legal world interpretation and thus case laws are what give meaning to a legal text and show how a legal text might be interpreted, applied and what is needed to fulfill its requirements.

In regards to the intent part of the legal text, which some believe is the pivotal point in the Armenian Genocide case, and which I disagree, there is already a significant set of case laws which enable a modern legal understanding of it and which the text I quote below from the USHMM seems to sum it up adequately:

> Article II:

>“In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy...”

>The definition of genocide requires that the perpetrator have a specific state of mind: the “intent to destroy” a group. The intent to destroy is distinct from a perpetrator’s particular motive for the crime, like counter-insurgency. In the absence of explicit evidence, intent can be inferred from facts and circumstances that take into account the general context of the crime, such as: preparation of other culpable acts systematically and exclusively directed against the same group; scale of atrocities committed; weapons employed; the extent of bodily injury; and/or the repetition of destructive and discriminatory acts.

>While legal decisions have not generally required proof of agreements or plans in order to convict on genocide, the criminal cases at the ICTY and ICTR have set a high standard for assessing the perpetrator’s state of mind: genocidal intent must be the only reasonable inference based on the facts and circumstances.

The highlighted parts are mine.

Looking into the case laws themselves is even more instructive. Here is the case law compilation from ICTR published in 2010 (intent is in pp 17-27):

https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/ictr0110webwcover.pdf

The important thing to understand is that no direct evidence is required to establish and fulfill intent. In fact it is understood that direct evidence is not and will not be easy to obtain and thus it is established in case law that indirect evidence and circumstantial evidence is enough to fulfill intent.

In the minds of legal experts, such as William Schabas, taking into account the recent case laws and the widely accepted available evidence the Armenian case is a clear case of genocide.

A very recent book I recommend which deals with all this (and much more) is An Inconvenient Genocide by Geoffrey Robertson.

http://www.amazon.com/Ottoman-Studies-Ilber-Ortayli/dp/9756857978

http://www.amazon.com/Discovering-Ottomans-Ilber-Ortayli/dp/1847740081

I have found these 2. Check Ilber Ortayli he has more books about Ottoman Empire.

Here are all the local Amazon links I could find:


amazon.co.uk

amazon.ca

amazon.com.au

amazon.in

amazon.com.mx

amazon.de

amazon.it

amazon.es

amazon.com.br

amazon.nl

amazon.co.jp

amazon.fr

Beep bloop. I'm a bot to convert Amazon ebook links to local Amazon sites.
I currently look here: amazon.com, amazon.co.uk, amazon.ca, amazon.com.au, amazon.in, amazon.com.mx, amazon.de, amazon.it, amazon.es, amazon.com.br, amazon.nl, amazon.co.jp, amazon.fr, if you would like your local version of Amazon adding please contact my creator.

A good one I read is A Peace to End All Peace by David Fromkin. It lays out in great detail how the insanity of the allies created the massive fuckup known today as the Middle East.

It's literally in their name. The Young Turks was the name the political movement resposible for the Armenian genocide. This Princeton University Press book is not about a youtube show.

I always wondered if people are historically unaware like that could I as a German become successfull with a youtube channel called "The SS" without people questioning it?

If you want to learn the truth about the Turkic history, read Ilber Ortayli, who is the most respected Turkic historian. You might learn something, so you would stop bullshitting!


https://www.amazon.com/T%C3%BCrklerin-Tarihi-Ilber-Ortayli/dp/6050819262/ref=sr_1_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496732792&sr=1-9&refinements=p_27%3AIlber+Ortayli

From what i have read it should be once piece.
But The book [Ottoman Turkish bows, manufacture and design](
https://smile.amazon.com/Ottoman-Turkish-bows-manufacture-design-ebook/dp/B013MCOYMW/ref=smi_www_rco2_go_smi_g1405964225?_encoding=UTF8&%2AVersion%2A=1&%2Aentries%2A=0&ie=UTF8) would be able to give you a better anwer. I'll try and look through it when I get home

Highly recommend this book when it's published. My professor of middle east studies wrote it. Some dry chapters but it explains everything pretty well

Read this

This guy is the ottoman version of Ibn Battuta and he had a dream in which Rasulullah appeared to him and told him to travel, so he did and he kept a meticulous record of it that is quite fun to read