What do you think?
Rate this book
The Last Days of the Ottoman Empire, 1918-1922
The Ottoman Empire had been one of the major facts in European history since the Middle Ages. By 1914 it had been much reduced, but still remained after Russia the largest European state. Stretching from the Adriatic to the Indian Ocean, the Empire was both a great political entity and a religious one, with the Sultan ruling over the Holy Sites and, as Caliph, the successor to Mohammed. Yet the Empire's fateful decision to support Germany and Austria-Hungary in 1914, despite its successfully defending itself for much of the war, doomed it to disaster, breaking it up into a series of European colonies and what emerged as an independent Saudi Arabia. Ryan Gingeras's superb new book, published for the centenary of the last Sultan's departure into exile, explains how these epochal events came about and shows how much we still live in the shadow of decisions taken so long ago. Would all of the Empire fall to marauding Allied armies, or could something be saved? In such an ethnically and religiously entangled region, what would be the price paid to create a cohesive and independent new state? The story of the creation of modern Turkey is an extraordinary, bitter epic, brilliantly told.
339 pages, Hardcover
First published October 27, 2022
41 people are currently reading
1054 people want to read
About the author
Ryan Gingeras
11 books22 followersRyan Gingeras was raised in San Diego, California. After receiving his B.A. in History at the University of California, San Diego, he went on to complete his M.A. and Ph.D. at the University of Toronto. He is currently Associate Professor, Associate Chair for Instruction, and the Chair of the Doctoral Committee at the Naval Postgraduate School.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews
January 18, 2025
The first thing to be absolutely clear about is that this is not another edition of professor's Gingeras's earlier, and excellent book 'The Fall of the Sultanate' which is a full narrative history of the end of the Ottoman empire between the Balkan Wars of 1908 and the departure of the last sultan in 1922. This book is subtlety but significantly different. It looks at how the idea of the Ottoman empire and the sultan/caliph gradually came to change in meaning and importance and with defeat in WWI as the idea of being 'Ottoman' ceased to be a sustainable concept with the loss of the Arab lands of and a whole range of other threats of territorial loss forced people to try and decide and define what would be left, what sort government it would have, who would be its citizens, what it's territorial extent would be, etc.
This is a tremendously thought provoking and interesting book. Although I wouldn't boast of having read much directly on this subject, Prof. Gingeras along with Sean McMeekin's 'The Ottoman End Game' are probably the best works in English on this subject, I have read other books on the history of the middle east so had some knowledge of the period. If you come to the subject as an absolute blank slate then you may find yourself lost as the author mentions events, places and people without explanation. In a sense Gingeras provides all the details in his other book 'The Fall of the Sultanate'. This book really is telling the tale of how Turkey as a country and as an idea came into being. Because the surprising thing is that the Ottoman empire as concept and the figure of the sultan/caliph were surprisingly durable and although always lumped together with the disappearance of the Romanov, Habsburg and Hohenzollern dynasties the house of Osman remained for four years (six if you count it's aftermath as purely caliph until 1924 and it's abolishment and the exile of all male members of the Osman former ruling family) during which it was a functioning and relevant institution.
The history of the Ottoman empire between 1918-1922 is complex, confusing and horribly bloody. This book along with ones by Robert Gerwarth and Timothy Snyder about eastern Europe in the same period is an important reminder that WWI did not end in 1918 with the signing of the Versailles treaty between the allies and Germany. It had a long aftermath with the final treaty only signed in 1923 (curiously enough the Ottoman empire, always dismissed as the weakest one of the central powers, was the only one to tear up the peace treaty forced on them, the treaty of Sevres, and made the allies make a new treaty with them, the treaty of Lausanne) the allies attempted to remark the map of Europe and the middle east. Nowhere was their intervention more disastrous then in Asia Minor and Anatolia (roughly what is now Turkey) were new states were promised to the Armenians and Kurds and Greece, Italy and France tried to take vast swathes of territory for themselves.
The Armenians and Kurds were abandoned and Greece's military intervention ensured the expulsion of almost the entire Greek population from what became Turkey. It is an important story and one that those who intervened and meddled in countries they know little about should have studied. Instead, like the bloody history of eastern Europe after WWI it was forgotten. The mistakes and limitations of western imperial are thus learnt again and again only after much bloodshed.
This is a tremendously thought provoking and interesting book. Although I wouldn't boast of having read much directly on this subject, Prof. Gingeras along with Sean McMeekin's 'The Ottoman End Game' are probably the best works in English on this subject, I have read other books on the history of the middle east so had some knowledge of the period. If you come to the subject as an absolute blank slate then you may find yourself lost as the author mentions events, places and people without explanation. In a sense Gingeras provides all the details in his other book 'The Fall of the Sultanate'. This book really is telling the tale of how Turkey as a country and as an idea came into being. Because the surprising thing is that the Ottoman empire as concept and the figure of the sultan/caliph were surprisingly durable and although always lumped together with the disappearance of the Romanov, Habsburg and Hohenzollern dynasties the house of Osman remained for four years (six if you count it's aftermath as purely caliph until 1924 and it's abolishment and the exile of all male members of the Osman former ruling family) during which it was a functioning and relevant institution.
The history of the Ottoman empire between 1918-1922 is complex, confusing and horribly bloody. This book along with ones by Robert Gerwarth and Timothy Snyder about eastern Europe in the same period is an important reminder that WWI did not end in 1918 with the signing of the Versailles treaty between the allies and Germany. It had a long aftermath with the final treaty only signed in 1923 (curiously enough the Ottoman empire, always dismissed as the weakest one of the central powers, was the only one to tear up the peace treaty forced on them, the treaty of Sevres, and made the allies make a new treaty with them, the treaty of Lausanne) the allies attempted to remark the map of Europe and the middle east. Nowhere was their intervention more disastrous then in Asia Minor and Anatolia (roughly what is now Turkey) were new states were promised to the Armenians and Kurds and Greece, Italy and France tried to take vast swathes of territory for themselves.
The Armenians and Kurds were abandoned and Greece's military intervention ensured the expulsion of almost the entire Greek population from what became Turkey. It is an important story and one that those who intervened and meddled in countries they know little about should have studied. Instead, like the bloody history of eastern Europe after WWI it was forgotten. The mistakes and limitations of western imperial are thus learnt again and again only after much bloodshed.
August 5, 2024
3 seems harsh, so I’ll start by saying that I’d have given it a 3.5 if I could; but it definitely wasn’t a 4, and I think it’s worth setting my review off against the others which are (in my view) overly positive.
To start by outlining the issues: I found the framing and approach frustrating (and, at points, even irritating). The book’s conceit is that we follow the lives of two figures - the Armenian Kalusd Sürmenyan and the Crimean Hüseyin Fehmi - who will therefore stand as a framing device; via their stories, we are told, we will come to understand the last days of the Ottoman Empire from a bottom-up perspective. It is mystifying, then, why these characters are ignored for so much of the book. Once introduced, both are abandoned until we’re deep in - only for thirty years of Sürmenyan’s life to be sprinted through in a paragraph, before he is jettisoned entirely. The claim in the acknowledgements that Fehmi is a “critical figure whose memoirs are vital to the telling of this story” is therefore baffling; no song and dance is made about other characters who receive almost equal treatment (think İzzetin Çalışlar), and this sort of framing ends up being entirely incomprehensible. Indeed, this feeds into my main complaint: despite its pretences, the book really isn’t that novel. In a style that is quite characteristically American, much of the first chapter is devoted to telling us how groundbreaking this analysis will be: for the first time, this history will be written from the bottom up; minority voices will be privileged, and nationalist chimaeras debunked; the world will be made whole again. As a non-American, this rankled - and, when these bold claims weren’t borne out, my reading of the book was inevitably characterised by a strong sense of bathos.
The analysis isn’t based on an interrogation of previously under utilised sources, or by a pioneering quest of archival research; many of the sources used are readily available (my eyebrows raised when I saw a few paragraphs devoted to Karnig Panian - not because his excellent testimony should not be used, but because it is available right now on Amazon), and those that are not (the small oral testimony collections mentioned at the book’s beginning and end, but rarely throughout) are peripheral. All the book’s trumpeted commitment to social history amounts to is a formulaic passage appended to almost every argument (with such regularity as to become grating) which notes that assessing the ways in which ordinary people responded to events is very difficult. To be sure, that’s true; the sources for this period are patchy, and Gingeras’ scope is very wide. But where he does fall short is in promising something different. In reality, this is a standard political history. That is not obviated by the fact that it does more than simply record Atatürk’s achievements, by providing context or signposting to the diaries and accounts that we do have; indeed, it has been at least two decades now since we expected good political histories to do anything less. To the extent that no western historian has yet applied that approach to the late Ottoman Empire (which is a claim of which I’m in any case sceptical), I refuse to grant Gingeras a first mover advantage simply due to the fact that he has written the history of this period in the style of every other half-good historian.
Beyond these criticisms: there’s still much to like in the book. That doesn’t mean it’s perfect - the book takes an awfully long time getting to its point, with almost the first third devoted to pure context. To some extent that’s necessary, but it’s a fairly circuitous route; I was surprised to read as much as I did about the Hamidian era. It also reads as if put together in separate sections (for example, the same characters are introduced on several occasions), and misses obvious ways in which to draw parallels to the present (having grown irritated at the regularity with which British broadcasters would gratuitously point out that Boris Johnson is the great-grandson of Ali Kemal, I’ve discovered the only thing more annoying: failing to note that Ali Kemal is the great-grandfather of Boris Johnson). But, when it gets into its stride, this is a good political history of the end of the Ottoman era. Its thoroughness and breadth is to be liked, and in many ways it was illuminating. I’ve often wondered quite why the new Republic of Turkey strove so hard to deny the Armenian Genocide in circumstances where it otherwise represented a break with the Ottoman past, and Gingeras’ identification of the National Movement as in many ways a reconstitution and reconfiguration of CUP elements is a compelling answer. I was also struck to discover that a second wave of Armenian, Assyrian and Chaldean depopulation followed the wartime period - that refugees returned home only to be expelled again - and to find the lives of numerous fascinating characters (see Ahmet Anzavur, Damit Pasha and Çerkes Ethem) brought to life for an English-speaking audience likely unfamiliar with them. It’s also to Gingeras’ credit that he doesn’t shy away from describing the events as genocide - though it’s important not to make too much of this, because anything less would be ahistorical (and it’s far easier to do as an American than a Turk).
In summary: much of the book is a good and thorough political history of the end of the Ottoman Empire, but go in with your eyes open.
To start by outlining the issues: I found the framing and approach frustrating (and, at points, even irritating). The book’s conceit is that we follow the lives of two figures - the Armenian Kalusd Sürmenyan and the Crimean Hüseyin Fehmi - who will therefore stand as a framing device; via their stories, we are told, we will come to understand the last days of the Ottoman Empire from a bottom-up perspective. It is mystifying, then, why these characters are ignored for so much of the book. Once introduced, both are abandoned until we’re deep in - only for thirty years of Sürmenyan’s life to be sprinted through in a paragraph, before he is jettisoned entirely. The claim in the acknowledgements that Fehmi is a “critical figure whose memoirs are vital to the telling of this story” is therefore baffling; no song and dance is made about other characters who receive almost equal treatment (think İzzetin Çalışlar), and this sort of framing ends up being entirely incomprehensible. Indeed, this feeds into my main complaint: despite its pretences, the book really isn’t that novel. In a style that is quite characteristically American, much of the first chapter is devoted to telling us how groundbreaking this analysis will be: for the first time, this history will be written from the bottom up; minority voices will be privileged, and nationalist chimaeras debunked; the world will be made whole again. As a non-American, this rankled - and, when these bold claims weren’t borne out, my reading of the book was inevitably characterised by a strong sense of bathos.
The analysis isn’t based on an interrogation of previously under utilised sources, or by a pioneering quest of archival research; many of the sources used are readily available (my eyebrows raised when I saw a few paragraphs devoted to Karnig Panian - not because his excellent testimony should not be used, but because it is available right now on Amazon), and those that are not (the small oral testimony collections mentioned at the book’s beginning and end, but rarely throughout) are peripheral. All the book’s trumpeted commitment to social history amounts to is a formulaic passage appended to almost every argument (with such regularity as to become grating) which notes that assessing the ways in which ordinary people responded to events is very difficult. To be sure, that’s true; the sources for this period are patchy, and Gingeras’ scope is very wide. But where he does fall short is in promising something different. In reality, this is a standard political history. That is not obviated by the fact that it does more than simply record Atatürk’s achievements, by providing context or signposting to the diaries and accounts that we do have; indeed, it has been at least two decades now since we expected good political histories to do anything less. To the extent that no western historian has yet applied that approach to the late Ottoman Empire (which is a claim of which I’m in any case sceptical), I refuse to grant Gingeras a first mover advantage simply due to the fact that he has written the history of this period in the style of every other half-good historian.
Beyond these criticisms: there’s still much to like in the book. That doesn’t mean it’s perfect - the book takes an awfully long time getting to its point, with almost the first third devoted to pure context. To some extent that’s necessary, but it’s a fairly circuitous route; I was surprised to read as much as I did about the Hamidian era. It also reads as if put together in separate sections (for example, the same characters are introduced on several occasions), and misses obvious ways in which to draw parallels to the present (having grown irritated at the regularity with which British broadcasters would gratuitously point out that Boris Johnson is the great-grandson of Ali Kemal, I’ve discovered the only thing more annoying: failing to note that Ali Kemal is the great-grandfather of Boris Johnson). But, when it gets into its stride, this is a good political history of the end of the Ottoman era. Its thoroughness and breadth is to be liked, and in many ways it was illuminating. I’ve often wondered quite why the new Republic of Turkey strove so hard to deny the Armenian Genocide in circumstances where it otherwise represented a break with the Ottoman past, and Gingeras’ identification of the National Movement as in many ways a reconstitution and reconfiguration of CUP elements is a compelling answer. I was also struck to discover that a second wave of Armenian, Assyrian and Chaldean depopulation followed the wartime period - that refugees returned home only to be expelled again - and to find the lives of numerous fascinating characters (see Ahmet Anzavur, Damit Pasha and Çerkes Ethem) brought to life for an English-speaking audience likely unfamiliar with them. It’s also to Gingeras’ credit that he doesn’t shy away from describing the events as genocide - though it’s important not to make too much of this, because anything less would be ahistorical (and it’s far easier to do as an American than a Turk).
In summary: much of the book is a good and thorough political history of the end of the Ottoman Empire, but go in with your eyes open.
January 3, 2026
A nice, clearly written history of the end of the Ottoman Empire and the birth of modern Turkey. The book starts in the 1890s with the rise of the young Turks and the retreat of the Empire from the Balkans, covers the reforms and abuses of the CUP before the war, the internal politics during the war (the battles themselves are barely touched on), and then really focuses on the allied occupation, the peace negotiations, the rise of Ataturk and the Nationalists. All in a very readable 285 pages.
A grim but important read. There are few moral examplars here. The reaction of almost every party was to escalate.
As an American, brought up with idea that WWI unexpectedly broke out in 1914 and was tidily over in late 1918, I was struck that the Ottomans/Turks were pretty much continuously at war from 1912 (First Balkan War) until 1922 when Turkey defeated Greece at Izmir, and this followed on decades of other wars in the Balkans.
While not explicitly about either the Balkans or the Middle East, important background to both those areas which are still in the headlines more than a century later.
A grim but important read. There are few moral examplars here. The reaction of almost every party was to escalate.
As an American, brought up with idea that WWI unexpectedly broke out in 1914 and was tidily over in late 1918, I was struck that the Ottomans/Turks were pretty much continuously at war from 1912 (First Balkan War) until 1922 when Turkey defeated Greece at Izmir, and this followed on decades of other wars in the Balkans.
While not explicitly about either the Balkans or the Middle East, important background to both those areas which are still in the headlines more than a century later.
March 24, 2025
My third book covering the Ottoman Empire. The reason for this is that we have recently found out that my maternal grandfather was sent to Turkey towards the end of the war with the Greeks and the Allied Occupation.
I noted other review comments which wondered why two contrasting citizens were introduced in the initial chapter and then hardly mentioned at all, bit of a mystery.
But otherwise an interesting book. Our understanding of the end of World War 1 was an immediate return to peace and stability, but for large parts of Europe where the old Empires broke up, there was upheaval and civil wars. The eventual European victors, Britain and France managed to keep a grip on their empires despite American pressure. The book shows how brutal the upheaval was, with the multi racial Ottoman Empire breaking up and the breakdown of law and order allowing old scores between Muslims and Christians to be settled.
Well written and the last chapter gives a summary of the changes that have happened to Turkey since 1922.
I noted other review comments which wondered why two contrasting citizens were introduced in the initial chapter and then hardly mentioned at all, bit of a mystery.
But otherwise an interesting book. Our understanding of the end of World War 1 was an immediate return to peace and stability, but for large parts of Europe where the old Empires broke up, there was upheaval and civil wars. The eventual European victors, Britain and France managed to keep a grip on their empires despite American pressure. The book shows how brutal the upheaval was, with the multi racial Ottoman Empire breaking up and the breakdown of law and order allowing old scores between Muslims and Christians to be settled.
Well written and the last chapter gives a summary of the changes that have happened to Turkey since 1922.
October 4, 2024
Zeer interessant boek over de graduele val van het Ottomaanse Rijk in de periode 1918-1922 en daarmee ook de opkomst van Atatürk. Af en toe was het best heftig, Armeense genocide en ander sektarisch geweld, maar dit boek geeft mooi inzicht in hoe de Geallieerden na WOI ook het Midden-Oosten heeft verkloot.
October 4, 2023
4.5/5.0!
The Ottoman Empire had been in decline for some time and a series of events starting with WWI led to the collapse of the empire and the birth of the Turkish Republic. The collapse was not inevitable but accelerated by geopolitical pressures, nationalist movements across the empire, and ethno-religious movements supported by nationalist causes. One of the strengths of the empire had been its citizens in non-Turkic territories felt Ottoman despite varied ethnic and religious background. Consolidating Turkish power, while excluding others in the empire, created the conditions that made collapse inevitable under internal and external pressures. Without a strong and focused central administration, the periphery eroded and fragmented. The Treaty of Sevres partitioned the empire into Allied controlled lands. Ceding land to victors became a permanent conclusion to war with the Ottomans, and a cause Nationalists used to raise issue with the Young Turks (CUP) administration during the war. During the war the Ottoman government (Committee of Union and Progress - CUP) initiated the Armenian Genocide as a means to consolidate Turkic power, ethnic, and religious homogeneity within the empire. This was fueled by a fear that the Armenians, who were largely Christian, would work against Ottoman interests during WWI. Equality was not exactly a hallmark of Ottoman rule, but there was certainly tolerance for other ethnicity's and religions. The Armenian genocide (to put it mildly) was a turn away from a tolerance that helped keep a diverse empire together.
As the metropole became more Turkish and lands were divided among victors, ethno-national groups determined to gain independence from the Empire initiated revolts (e.g. Arab revolt). The Turkish War of Independence in 1919 sought to resist the occupation of Turkish territories by foreign powers and establish the Turkish state independent of the Ottoman Empire. Interestingly, prior to this the Nationalist movement sought to preserve some elements of the Ottoman empire and viewed themselves as supporting the Sultan. The conclusion of the Turkish War of Independence in 1923 concluded with the defeat of occupying powers and the establishment of the Turkish Republic. Soon after, the Turkey implemented legal and educational reforms.
There's a lot of nuance and detail in the book that make this period of Turkish and Ottoman history very accessible and connect 1918-1923 to today.
The Ottoman Empire had been in decline for some time and a series of events starting with WWI led to the collapse of the empire and the birth of the Turkish Republic. The collapse was not inevitable but accelerated by geopolitical pressures, nationalist movements across the empire, and ethno-religious movements supported by nationalist causes. One of the strengths of the empire had been its citizens in non-Turkic territories felt Ottoman despite varied ethnic and religious background. Consolidating Turkish power, while excluding others in the empire, created the conditions that made collapse inevitable under internal and external pressures. Without a strong and focused central administration, the periphery eroded and fragmented. The Treaty of Sevres partitioned the empire into Allied controlled lands. Ceding land to victors became a permanent conclusion to war with the Ottomans, and a cause Nationalists used to raise issue with the Young Turks (CUP) administration during the war. During the war the Ottoman government (Committee of Union and Progress - CUP) initiated the Armenian Genocide as a means to consolidate Turkic power, ethnic, and religious homogeneity within the empire. This was fueled by a fear that the Armenians, who were largely Christian, would work against Ottoman interests during WWI. Equality was not exactly a hallmark of Ottoman rule, but there was certainly tolerance for other ethnicity's and religions. The Armenian genocide (to put it mildly) was a turn away from a tolerance that helped keep a diverse empire together.
As the metropole became more Turkish and lands were divided among victors, ethno-national groups determined to gain independence from the Empire initiated revolts (e.g. Arab revolt). The Turkish War of Independence in 1919 sought to resist the occupation of Turkish territories by foreign powers and establish the Turkish state independent of the Ottoman Empire. Interestingly, prior to this the Nationalist movement sought to preserve some elements of the Ottoman empire and viewed themselves as supporting the Sultan. The conclusion of the Turkish War of Independence in 1923 concluded with the defeat of occupying powers and the establishment of the Turkish Republic. Soon after, the Turkey implemented legal and educational reforms.
There's a lot of nuance and detail in the book that make this period of Turkish and Ottoman history very accessible and connect 1918-1923 to today.
February 26, 2024
My 4/5 star review is less a reflection of the quality of the content of Gingeras's book and more so representative of my own difficulty being able to easily digest all the densely packed historical events occurring during the discussed time period, (roughly spanning between 1914-1922).
There was just a lot going on due to the territorial vastness of the Ottoman Empire, which stretched all the way from Southeast Europe to Western Asia and North Africa! Alliances and foes of each nation and all these different national identities emerging was a lot to keep up with.
The history begins in 1914, when Germany basically said if y'all don't join our forces and help with war effort, we're taking away your financial support!, coercing the empire into WW1.
It ended with a vote causing the demotion of the last Ottoman sultan, Mehmed VI, marking the empires collapse and the emergence of the Turkish Republic. Throughout the way later into the 20th century, there is also the emergence of other newfound nations that fought for sovereignty against Western occupying forces that took over once the Ottoman Empire lost the territories in war, such as Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, Armenia, various Balkan nations, Yemen, Palestine, along with countries like Saudi Arabia getting to add new territory to their lands...I'm 100% missing countries I just named ones that first came to mind).
The empire and its people genuinely didn't think WW1 would last very long! There were many examples highlighted of how and why the empire was already in a fragile financial state coming into the 20th century though, and how the events beginning with the start of WW1 escalated its collapse.
Mehmed VI signing the Treaty of Sevres (what ceded much of its territory to Western powers) caused people much discontent with his leadership. This discontent caused the rise of the Turkish National Movement and Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's rise to power.
Muslims around the globe were watching the empire with keen eyes and their sympathies in hand. It was shocking to me how the signing of the treaty caused an entire pan-Islamic movement. The Khilafat Movement was backlash against this treaty, and it didn't happen in the empire...it happened in British India!
It was very interesting to read about how the empires downfall caused it to desperately try to piece together ‘nationalistic’ ideals to bring its citizens working in harmony again while simultaneously enacting mass persecution against their minority groups and trying to shape this True definition of what it meant to be Ottoman. What the empires active political party during this time, the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), concluded was that to be Ottoman was to be- 1) Turkish, and 2) Muslim. These new forming ideas of "Ottoman identity" excluded Ottoman Christian citizens and a number of the empires ethnic groups, such as (but not limited to):
- Armenians
- Albanians
- Arabs
- Bulgarians
- Kurds
- Greeks
- Assyrian
- Levantine
Armenian christian's especially suffered the blight of suffering imposed by the empires forces. The book mentioned how the West often feigns sympathy for Armenian Christian's with the particular agenda to advance propaganda against Muslims and foster disdain towards them. And so there was this wariness to accept British and French reports on the Armenian genocide. However, the problem with this is it caused people to completely brush away Armenian and Greek survivor stories to all be fictitious as well.
(Türkiye to this day denies the Armenian genocide).
I love how the book told the personal accounts of both Kalusd Surmenyan and Huseyin Fehmi, both soldiers who fought for the empire in 1914 but later on took different paths and, in the end, held very different sentiments about the empire. Fehmi eventually went back to fight for his vattan and thought the Armenian deportations and mass hangings in Syria were a good thing. He bought into the empire's narrative that Armenian's were an enemy of the state.
Surmenyan was an Armenian man, and because of this he described feeling like a “lamb in wolfs clothing”. He was wearing an Ottoman officer uniform listening to all these soldiers and civilians bragging about killing Armenian people while his family was being relocated from their homes and living in terrible health. When he got approval to return them home, he suffered a court martial for it.
The comparison of their stories was the perfect way to explain how this polarization instigated by the empire directly played a part in its eventual downfall. The empires promotion of this narrative led to unnecessary paranoia of Armenian's and other minority groups and pitted citizens against each other based on ethnicity and loyalty.
As civilians like Surmenyan, torn between allegiance and conscience, faced persecution for questioning the government's actions, the seeds of internal discord were sown, ultimately contributing to the collapse of the empire.
There was just a lot going on due to the territorial vastness of the Ottoman Empire, which stretched all the way from Southeast Europe to Western Asia and North Africa! Alliances and foes of each nation and all these different national identities emerging was a lot to keep up with.
The history begins in 1914, when Germany basically said if y'all don't join our forces and help with war effort, we're taking away your financial support!, coercing the empire into WW1.
It ended with a vote causing the demotion of the last Ottoman sultan, Mehmed VI, marking the empires collapse and the emergence of the Turkish Republic. Throughout the way later into the 20th century, there is also the emergence of other newfound nations that fought for sovereignty against Western occupying forces that took over once the Ottoman Empire lost the territories in war, such as Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, Armenia, various Balkan nations, Yemen, Palestine, along with countries like Saudi Arabia getting to add new territory to their lands...I'm 100% missing countries I just named ones that first came to mind).
The empire and its people genuinely didn't think WW1 would last very long! There were many examples highlighted of how and why the empire was already in a fragile financial state coming into the 20th century though, and how the events beginning with the start of WW1 escalated its collapse.
Mehmed VI signing the Treaty of Sevres (what ceded much of its territory to Western powers) caused people much discontent with his leadership. This discontent caused the rise of the Turkish National Movement and Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's rise to power.
Muslims around the globe were watching the empire with keen eyes and their sympathies in hand. It was shocking to me how the signing of the treaty caused an entire pan-Islamic movement. The Khilafat Movement was backlash against this treaty, and it didn't happen in the empire...it happened in British India!
It was very interesting to read about how the empires downfall caused it to desperately try to piece together ‘nationalistic’ ideals to bring its citizens working in harmony again while simultaneously enacting mass persecution against their minority groups and trying to shape this True definition of what it meant to be Ottoman. What the empires active political party during this time, the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), concluded was that to be Ottoman was to be- 1) Turkish, and 2) Muslim. These new forming ideas of "Ottoman identity" excluded Ottoman Christian citizens and a number of the empires ethnic groups, such as (but not limited to):
- Armenians
- Albanians
- Arabs
- Bulgarians
- Kurds
- Greeks
- Assyrian
- Levantine
Armenian christian's especially suffered the blight of suffering imposed by the empires forces. The book mentioned how the West often feigns sympathy for Armenian Christian's with the particular agenda to advance propaganda against Muslims and foster disdain towards them. And so there was this wariness to accept British and French reports on the Armenian genocide. However, the problem with this is it caused people to completely brush away Armenian and Greek survivor stories to all be fictitious as well.
(Türkiye to this day denies the Armenian genocide).
I love how the book told the personal accounts of both Kalusd Surmenyan and Huseyin Fehmi, both soldiers who fought for the empire in 1914 but later on took different paths and, in the end, held very different sentiments about the empire. Fehmi eventually went back to fight for his vattan and thought the Armenian deportations and mass hangings in Syria were a good thing. He bought into the empire's narrative that Armenian's were an enemy of the state.
Surmenyan was an Armenian man, and because of this he described feeling like a “lamb in wolfs clothing”. He was wearing an Ottoman officer uniform listening to all these soldiers and civilians bragging about killing Armenian people while his family was being relocated from their homes and living in terrible health. When he got approval to return them home, he suffered a court martial for it.
The comparison of their stories was the perfect way to explain how this polarization instigated by the empire directly played a part in its eventual downfall. The empires promotion of this narrative led to unnecessary paranoia of Armenian's and other minority groups and pitted citizens against each other based on ethnicity and loyalty.
As civilians like Surmenyan, torn between allegiance and conscience, faced persecution for questioning the government's actions, the seeds of internal discord were sown, ultimately contributing to the collapse of the empire.
March 13, 2024
I spent 15 years in the Middle East. I am not an expert but consider myself informed. This is an excellent book that presents the last decade of the Empire very objectively. I read the Kindle Edition of this Book thru the Kindle Unlimited program.
The author presents a scholarly and meticulously researched book on the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. The book focuses on the period from about 1911 to 1922 and presents historical, social, and political context where necessary.
Western accounts of the history of the empire labeled the Ottomans, the “Sick Man" of Europe. Internal politics, tribalism, economic disparity, and racial differences had plagued the Empire before WW I, but was held in check by Ottoman economic, diplomatic, social, and economic power, and the diverse carrot and stick methods used to maintain order. The traditional historical view is that the Ottoman Empire was renowned for its religious, ethnic and linguistic pluralism. The pluralism may have existed - on paper and in reality -, but it was uneasy and tense, and there was a price that Non-Turks and Non-Muslims would pay for acceptance, toleration and stability.
The Empire had struggled with maintaining unity and control in the outer regions since before the war of Greek Independence in 1821. Mass rape, mass killings, forced conversions, earthquakes, starvation Balkan Wars, Armenian separatism, Russian conquest of the North Caucasus and militant nationalism all converge and channels a rage and hostility that culminates in forceable relocation, attempts to root out “disloyalty” and more genocide on a mass scale.
The last decade of the empire was chaotic at best, and intractably brutal and revolutionary at its worst. The convergence of tribalism, nationalism, religious fervor and opportunism by the different groups struggled with the questions of identity and what kind of nation they should and would be.
The author presents the reality of how really messy, tragic and complex the situation really was.
I highly suggest this book.
The author presents a scholarly and meticulously researched book on the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. The book focuses on the period from about 1911 to 1922 and presents historical, social, and political context where necessary.
Western accounts of the history of the empire labeled the Ottomans, the “Sick Man" of Europe. Internal politics, tribalism, economic disparity, and racial differences had plagued the Empire before WW I, but was held in check by Ottoman economic, diplomatic, social, and economic power, and the diverse carrot and stick methods used to maintain order. The traditional historical view is that the Ottoman Empire was renowned for its religious, ethnic and linguistic pluralism. The pluralism may have existed - on paper and in reality -, but it was uneasy and tense, and there was a price that Non-Turks and Non-Muslims would pay for acceptance, toleration and stability.
The Empire had struggled with maintaining unity and control in the outer regions since before the war of Greek Independence in 1821. Mass rape, mass killings, forced conversions, earthquakes, starvation Balkan Wars, Armenian separatism, Russian conquest of the North Caucasus and militant nationalism all converge and channels a rage and hostility that culminates in forceable relocation, attempts to root out “disloyalty” and more genocide on a mass scale.
The last decade of the empire was chaotic at best, and intractably brutal and revolutionary at its worst. The convergence of tribalism, nationalism, religious fervor and opportunism by the different groups struggled with the questions of identity and what kind of nation they should and would be.
The author presents the reality of how really messy, tragic and complex the situation really was.
I highly suggest this book.
November 1, 2025
Having been to Turkey over 10 times, I have always wanted to know more about the country, and Ataturk who appears in every street in IstanbuL. It was whilst reading a book on Armenian's, that I was finally pushed into buying this book.
The book is mixed. It did what I intended, I now do have a much better idea of how modern Turkey came to be, and why Ataturk is considered such a hero for Turks. Hpwever there was also much dissapointing in this book. I think what I found most dissapointing, is the lack of intimate details of characters and events that occurred.
I use Max Hastings book 'All hell broke loose' as an amazing example of a historical book which is really bought to life, with extracts from diaries and interviews of people suffering these events. Although this book does do that occasionally, I feel the human cost of events is really not bought home to the reader. (Especially Armenian genocide, atrocities by and against Greeks, the post war mass expulsion of million+ people which is given just a paragraph.)
My other criticism is that the book seems to 'jump' from year to year and region to region quite randomly sometimes. I would be reading about the Greek invasion of Izmir, and then suddenly the next chapter would be discussing the 1800's Arab provinces. For somebody who has done very little reading on this period, it was at times confusing.
Do not regret reading this book, but i also feel it could have been a lot more enjoyable. 3*
The book is mixed. It did what I intended, I now do have a much better idea of how modern Turkey came to be, and why Ataturk is considered such a hero for Turks. Hpwever there was also much dissapointing in this book. I think what I found most dissapointing, is the lack of intimate details of characters and events that occurred.
I use Max Hastings book 'All hell broke loose' as an amazing example of a historical book which is really bought to life, with extracts from diaries and interviews of people suffering these events. Although this book does do that occasionally, I feel the human cost of events is really not bought home to the reader. (Especially Armenian genocide, atrocities by and against Greeks, the post war mass expulsion of million+ people which is given just a paragraph.)
My other criticism is that the book seems to 'jump' from year to year and region to region quite randomly sometimes. I would be reading about the Greek invasion of Izmir, and then suddenly the next chapter would be discussing the 1800's Arab provinces. For somebody who has done very little reading on this period, it was at times confusing.
Do not regret reading this book, but i also feel it could have been a lot more enjoyable. 3*
December 23, 2023
Overall an excellent read and explained the many factions which played key roles in the transformation of the Ottoman Empire into modern-day Turkiye. The storyline is overly complicated with all the minute details - historians love their supporting facts. It's virtually impossible to keep track of all the names mentioned throughout. The author also tends to bounce around at times and even though it's only a 4 year span it makes it hard to understand the actual serial timeline. Still, it's possible to overcome the density of information being served to come to many conclusions on the formation of this region at the beginning of the 20th century. It explains the animosity with Greece, the mistrust of Western powers, the need for an alliance but at a distance with Russia. Gingeras skates carefully around the Armenian tragedy filling as many details as possible without necessarily condemning the actions. And perhaps most importantly the text reminds us that this all might have played out differently without the presence of Atatirk (Mustafa Kemal), the right leader at the right time. It's understandable why Turkiye worships his name.
June 24, 2024
El libro es una narración excesivamente detallada de los últimos años del Imperio Otomano. El autor es sin duda un erudito y gran conocedor de los episodios que sucedieron al final de la Primera Guerra Mundial y que involucraron a la actual Turquía y los países vecinos hasta entonces parte del Imperio, así como a las comunidades armenia, griega o kurda.
No obstante, el alto nivel de detalle representa una carga al lector que busca un relato más somero. Infinidad de nombres y protagonistas que hace difícil seguir la descripción de los hechos.
También se encuentra a faltar un relato de los acontecimientos que durante el siglo XIX iniciaron el desmembramiento del Imperio y que fueron el germen que desembocarían más adelante con la finalización de la guerra en 1918 en el colapso total y definitivo, consolidado a través de los tratados de Sevres y Lausana.
Los conflictos étnicos que el autor explica es una de las partes más conmovedoras del libro. Armenios, griegos, kurdos, los propios turcos, sufrieron infinidad de ataques indiscriminados y tuvieron que dejar sucesivamente sus hogares huyendo de los odios acumulados a lo largo de los siglos
No obstante, el alto nivel de detalle representa una carga al lector que busca un relato más somero. Infinidad de nombres y protagonistas que hace difícil seguir la descripción de los hechos.
También se encuentra a faltar un relato de los acontecimientos que durante el siglo XIX iniciaron el desmembramiento del Imperio y que fueron el germen que desembocarían más adelante con la finalización de la guerra en 1918 en el colapso total y definitivo, consolidado a través de los tratados de Sevres y Lausana.
Los conflictos étnicos que el autor explica es una de las partes más conmovedoras del libro. Armenios, griegos, kurdos, los propios turcos, sufrieron infinidad de ataques indiscriminados y tuvieron que dejar sucesivamente sus hogares huyendo de los odios acumulados a lo largo de los siglos
January 18, 2026
3/5
Mainly about the Ottoman Empire after the end of the First World War. There’s a lot of stuff on ethnicity (Turk, Arab, Armenian etc), atrocities, and changes in identity (people switching from an overarching Ottoman identity to more nationalist ones like Turk or Armenian). Apart from that its politics (there’s a lot of ‘person A joined Ataturk or Person B had a falling out with the Young Turks) and some details about the economic situation. The best chapter imo was the first one which is more about the Ottoman Empire before WWI.
The reason I’m only giving it 3/5 is that it is a very dry. WWI is my favourite historical topic and I enjoy reading history books and I still found it to be a slog . I’d only recommend it if it’s a topic you are specifically interested in and can cope with a dry read.
Mainly about the Ottoman Empire after the end of the First World War. There’s a lot of stuff on ethnicity (Turk, Arab, Armenian etc), atrocities, and changes in identity (people switching from an overarching Ottoman identity to more nationalist ones like Turk or Armenian). Apart from that its politics (there’s a lot of ‘person A joined Ataturk or Person B had a falling out with the Young Turks) and some details about the economic situation. The best chapter imo was the first one which is more about the Ottoman Empire before WWI.
The reason I’m only giving it 3/5 is that it is a very dry. WWI is my favourite historical topic and I enjoy reading history books and I still found it to be a slog . I’d only recommend it if it’s a topic you are specifically interested in and can cope with a dry read.
February 26, 2023
Ryan Gingeras is an American chronicler of Ottoman and Turkish history. His work is a stimulating book that traces, in rich but digestible detail, the downfall of the Ottoman empire after being a dominant force for more than six centuries. As its territory shrank, its internal politics were increasingly riddled with divisions and conspiracies as various groups struggled for power. The author meticulously charts the meltdown and chaos of this time, till the break-up of the empire in 1922. From its ashes rose Türkiye.
The book is a well-written account with new research which rewrites the story of the Ottoman Empire's last years.
The book is a well-written account with new research which rewrites the story of the Ottoman Empire's last years.
June 28, 2023
I was ambivalent between four and three stars! Not that I doubt the profound knowledge of the author! On the contrary previous comments elaborate successfully on that. The subject matter is however vast and complicated and to me it seemed like an amorphous mass. It simply lacked a structure so that the reader could follow the gradual change of ideas, concepts and institutions moving towards shaping “new turkey”. The author made it clear that he approached the matter from the “bottom”, it somehow didn’t work! Otherwise it is an impressive achievement and for me as a Greek it offered an insight on the other side!
November 9, 2025
While covering the wider context of the death throes of the Sultanate, 'The Last Days of the Ottoman Empire' focuses on the complex politics, cultural shifts and horrific conflict that took place in the region through the immediate post-war years, and that encapsulated the period around the world. It provides an interesting narrative that gives the reader a strong foundational understanding of both the formation of the modern Turkish state and the underlying reasons for tensions that simmer throughout former Ottoman lands and beyond to this day.
October 29, 2023
A multifaceted analysis of how the end of WWI led to the end of the Ottoman Empire, which makes the important point that there was nothing inevitable about the emergence of the Republic of Turkey. I especially appreciated learning more about elites and ordinary people from all over the Empire and its former components and the degrees to which they identified as Ottoman.
March 24, 2024
A truly great read, well researched and well presented. The author goes beyond the usual treatment of the fall of the Ottoman Empire and focuses on its last years, highlights the manifold nuances beyond the official stories or popular narratives, and investigates the impact on people's lives and perceptions at a moment of collapse a creation - which is far more than just a 'moment'.
April 26, 2024
Very interesting
The end of the Ottoman Empire is often bracketed with a downfall of the Russian and Austro-Hungarian empires. In truth, it was much more complicated, it took longer and ultimately of course, Turkey (Modern Turkey) emerged as one of the belated victors of the convulsions of 1914 to 1922. This is a fascinating and very interesting history of those years.
The end of the Ottoman Empire is often bracketed with a downfall of the Russian and Austro-Hungarian empires. In truth, it was much more complicated, it took longer and ultimately of course, Turkey (Modern Turkey) emerged as one of the belated victors of the convulsions of 1914 to 1922. This is a fascinating and very interesting history of those years.
July 30, 2024
Epic history describes the end of the Ottoman Empire and the painful birth of zmodern Turkey. A tragedy as ancient communities, both Turkish, Greek, and Armenian are displaced and faced untold atrocities. Yet the lingering hand of Lloyd George and Churchill, who saw the world in terms of classical education, has much to answer for in terms of the horrors that occurred after WW1 ended.
August 22, 2023
This book easily deserves a 3.5 rating. It's well-written, engaging, and packed with intresting information. Nevertheless, certain relevant facts of that time were omitted, and the author occasionally attempts to present a simplistic view. On the whole, it's still a enjoyable read.
May 10, 2023
Informative but just so
August 29, 2023
This is a well written book, with a thorough history of the end of the Ottoman Empire. I rate this 3.5 stars as it was too much detail for me, but I did learn a bit.
June 2, 2024
No es lo que buscaba...
July 18, 2024
A complex and rewarding read. Shone a light on a period of history of which I knew little, but in which is rooted much of the turmoil of recent years. I commend this book to you!
September 1, 2024
An excellent and in depth read on the end of one of histories most fascinating states.
January 24, 2024
El libro no solo presenta los aspectos políticos y militares de la caída del imperio, sino también los aspectos sociales y culturales, como la cuestión de las minorías, el genocidio armenio, el papel de las mujeres, la reforma educativa, la secularización y el nacionalismo...
RESEÑA COMPLETA: https://atrapadaenunashojasdepapel.bl...
RESEÑA COMPLETA: https://atrapadaenunashojasdepapel.bl...
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews