Lord KinrossRezensionen

Ӕ

Ӕ

A massive effort, but well worth the read. Mustafa Kemal made a titanic effort to drag Turkey from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire into a modern European Nation state. While currently Turkey appears to be flagging in this effort, Kinross details the effort of the first of Turkey's two generations of efforts to gain this goal. Along with Shaka of the Zulu's this Turkish soldier was a man who truly tried to recast his country in the space of a single generation. It is a book filled with insights for those interested in the problems of the second and third worlds even now.½

Kinross' book, of course, is extremely well written and convincing. But reading through it all, you realize he has essentially composed an Ottoman apologia, aimed at elevating his hero, Atatürk, to the position of enlightened liberator of modern Turkey. So he may be to some. But in order to get there, Kinross had to conduct a sly campaign of turning Ottoman history itself into an unappreciated successor to Rome as a fountainhead of tolerance and statecraft, with this version of empire having its origins in Islam.

And so he then goes, applying his quite substantial skills as a biographer in sketching one imposing Sultan's life after another on the reader's mind. It's especially persuasive for the first ten Sultans. Thereafter, it quickly descends into tragedy and the weakening and dismemberment of the empire. Until, that is, Kinross gets to his villain, Abdul Hamid II. It is on Abdul Hamid, the Sultan of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, that the blame is placed--he is autocratic, despotic, devious, cruel, and manipulative. It is he who brought about the destruction of the empire. Never mind that the Sultan, through his constant strategy of playing off one great power against the other, managed to preserve the Ottoman dynasty from an even earlier grave.

Then, Kinross' craftiness becomes most apparent. It applies to his treatment of the Armenian genocide. Kinross spends several pages outlining the Armenian massacres of 1894-1896, giving full weight to the atrocities in his description. He also ascribes it all to the background maneuvering of Abdul Hamid. All very true, it is. But in emphasizing the massacres, it is as if Kinross is trying to indemnify himself against his rather lackluster exploration of the much more terrible, thorough, and systematic Armenian Genocide of 1914-1922/23. Why? Because the people responsible for the greater genocide were Kinross' heroes, the Young Turks directly, and, indirectly, Atatürk, a member of this revolutionary group who seized control of the government from the sultans and led the empire into a catastrophic alliance with Germany during World War I, which eventually saw the destruction of the empire as a result. Proof? Kinross writes only two sentences about the Genocide. Ah, but those Young Turks. They revitalized the administration, the bureaucracy, and they modernized Turkey. Yes, they made the trains run on time.

The dismissive analysis of the genocide, of course, is what most sticks out to modern readers. But if you go through the entire history Kinross has written, you will see a pattern of excusing or belittling Ottoman massacres, enslavement of other peoples, and terror. In its place, he erects a benevolent multiracial, universal empire, welcoming to all and seeking world betterment. But for a few bad apples.

Lord Kinross's style of relating history was excellent, albeit from very much a 'British Empire' point of view. Despite that perspective, the biography portrays a sympathetic sketch of a Young Turk rising through the military to lead his country. I recommend the book as eminently readable and astonishingly relevant in today's Near Eastern situation as Turkey teeters on the brink of regressing to an Ottoman-like empire, ruled without concern for its citizens' rights. Even though Istanbul is a sophisticated city straddling the Bosphorus, I had very little perception of how the rest of the country was operated. The author brings much of that aspect to life. This biography was my introduction to Kinross's writing and has certainly directed my attention to some of his other historical works.

Kinross portrays historical eras very engagingly (I liked his 'Rebirth of a Nation'). I suppose his views are reflective of a Euro-Brit-centric bias. Nonetheless, his telling of this history seems well-founded on good sources. A little too many military engagements told in too much depth for my taste. Then, I had to skim the last third of the book ~ a consequence of having borrowed from a public library with only one copy!½

The author refers to the Sultan's sex slave prison as a harem (finally closed in the early 20th century) and he glosses over the slaughter of millions of Armenians in the early 1900's. Otherwise a useful treatise for those interested in today's Middle East.

Published prior to Sept. 11, 2001 this volume isn't biased by the attack on the U.S.

Lovely illustrations and the history behind this church/mosque.

Turkey is a country that is neither here nor there. Geographically it belongs to both Europe and Asia. Historically it is an empire that straddles both Middle East and European history. Theologically it is Islamic but it is also a secular state. It is a democracy but is unlike most western democracies. Ethnically its people are more like the people of the central steppes of Russia than they are the Semitic peoples of the Middle East. Historically there is a large Christian population located within the Turkish borders, and the country was forced to make some great changes due to the great misfortune of being on the losing side in World War I. Even so Turkey has more often than not turned towards Europe and the other Western countries for inspiration and today is trying to gain a spot in the EU. Because Turkey is one of the great conundrums of Europe thought I needed to know more about the formation of modern Turkey and the man who founded it.

The book was published back in 1965 and for being so old it was a surprisingly good read. Kemal was a fascinating man who dragged his country into the modern age kicking and screaming. In the end he may have failed as he acted more and more like a potentate himself than he did a democratic leader. However, for the last 70 years Turkey has had one of the few semi democratic governments found in an Islamic country so he did not complete fail. This is a must read for anybody interested in the modern Middle East and how it got to be the way it is.½

This is a well written and researched history book - assertions that is it like fiction or reads like a soap opera (suggested by a couple of other reviewers) are simply wrong.

Kinross manages to squeeze about 500 years of history into ~600 pages and in my opinion succeeds in covering the most important content in sufficient depth for the general reader. I particularly enjoyed the coverage of Ottoman diplomacy conducted with European powers in the latter part of eighteenth century onwards.

On the negative side, I believe that there are too few pictures and certainly too few maps for a book of this length, and those that are included are not high quality. The paper itself is also low grade, which is a shame considering the content is otherwise really good.

I highly recommend getting a copy of this book, but it is perhaps worth exploring editions published by other companies - the Amazon marketplace appears to have several.

In early modern times--say 1300 to 1700--the Ottoman Empire ("Turks") was a dreaded neighbor for Europe. Most of the works available on the subject were from an extremely negative point of view. This book was probably the first that made a good Ottoman history accessible to the general reader. It was first published posthumously in 1977. John Balfour, Baron Kinross (d. 1976) was best known for his biography of Ataturk and is scholar of the Middle East. Coverage is for the Ottoman Empire from its beginning in 1300 to its end after WWI. The writing is accessible to the general reader, and at the time of its publication was the most accessible work on a somewhat esoteric subject.

1907 The Ottoman Centuries: The Rise and Fall of the Turkish Empire, by Lord Kinross (read 16 Feb 1985) This book on the Ottoman Empire covers the years from 1300 to 1922. It is footnoteless. It covers a lot of time. But it is pretty well-done and I found it consistently interesting, subject to the defects noted. The Armenian massacres were on a par with Hitler's treatment of the Jews, and depressing to read about. I saw Istanbul in 1953 and I am glad I did. In fact, as the years pass, I am increasingly happy I made my 1953 Mediterranean cruise and that I spent three years in Washington. All my life since, those events have been 'nourishing' to me.½

Though it is a survey history, and reads like a survey history, it did inspire me to learn more about the Ottomans, focusing on more specific topics that interested me most.

At times it reads like little more than a roll call of battles, but it is nonetheless an excellent introduction to topic. The discussions about Ottoman administration and the role of minorities in the government were particularly interesting.

A well written history of a key region in human history.½

Lord Kinross, the former Patrick Balfour, became a journalist on leaving Oxford. He published a series of travel books in the 1930's and 1950's as well as a biography of Kemal Ataturk. Following repeated visits, he came to enjoy a unique reputation for an Englishman in Turkey.

250 Photographs from the days of Victoria to Elizabeth II

I have noticed that this book needs a review. I would be happy to do so if you send the book.