What do you think?
Rate this book
Shattering Empires: The Clash and Collapse of the Ottoman and Russian Empires 1908- 1918
The break-up of the Ottoman empire and the disintegration of the Russian empire were watershed events in modern history. The unravelling of these empires was both cause and consequence of World War I and resulted in the deaths of millions. It irrevocably changed the landscape of the Middle East and Eurasia and reverberates to this day in conflicts throughout the Caucasus and Middle East. Shattering Empires draws on extensive research in the Ottoman and Russian archives to tell the story of the rivalry and collapse of two great empires. Overturning accounts that portray their clash as one of conflicting nationalisms, this pioneering study argues that geopolitical competition and the emergence of a new global interstate order provide the key to understanding the course of history in the Ottoman-Russian borderlands in the twentieth century. It will appeal to those interested in Middle Eastern, Russian, and Eurasian history, international relations, ethnic conflict, and World War I.
340 pages, Hardcover
First published December 31, 2010
16 people are currently reading
424 people want to read
About the author
Michael A. Reynolds
4 books7 followersMichael A. Reynolds is a Director of Princeton University's Program in Russian, East European, and Eurasian Studies, and Associate Professor in Princeton's Department of Near Eastern Studies. His teaching and research ranges over the geography of the Middle East and Eurasia and covers the themes of empire, international relations, nationalism, geopolitics, ethnic conflict, and religion and culture.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
October 19, 2025
In his account of the early 20th century great-power entanglements in the Ottoman Middle East Mr. Reynolds rather than highlighting the Balkan Wars, Gallipoli, the Arab revolt, and “the twice-promised land,” (Palestine) he looks eastward to concentrate on the clash between the Russian and the Ottoman empires, their disputed border cut through a “belt of mixed population,” home to Christians and Muslims: Armenians, Azerbaijanis, Circassians, Georgians, Kurds, and others. In this region, Reynolds argues persuasively, both empires were guided more by raison d’état than by religious solidarity or nationalism. That fact led to wartime ironies (the Ottomans pushing the Transcaucasians to assert an independence about which the Transcaucasians were dubious) and turned multiple groups into the victims of tragic massacres (most of all the Armenians, but the Kurds and others as well). With a fine objectivity, Reynolds draws on both Ottoman and Russian sources and reveals how the actions and attitudes of the two declining empires shaped the post-imperial paths of Turkey and the Soviet Union.
A fine account looking at an often overlooked area of conflict but it is more of an academic book than a popular history. I would also recoomend looking at the following reviews:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5699/...
and
https://avim.org.tr/en/Analiz/BOOK-RE...
A fine account looking at an often overlooked area of conflict but it is more of an academic book than a popular history. I would also recoomend looking at the following reviews:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5699/...
and
https://avim.org.tr/en/Analiz/BOOK-RE...
December 6, 2017
I’ve picked up this book initially because I thought it was dealing with the parallel unraveling of the Russian and Ottoman empires. Though these empires were very different, there were a lot of similarities in their design, history and the governance. This is evident even now if you compare the modern Russia and Turkey. So I was interested in this comparative analysis. But the book has appeared to be much narrower in the scope. It focuses on the empires’ interaction within the Eastern Anatolia and Caucasus during the Great War of 1914-1918. Also one can tell that the author is more familiar with the Ottoman Empire as the material is presented from its perspective. Apart from stating the fact, not much attention is paid to the crumbling of the Russian Empire.
Nevertheless, the book is still very informative and I’ve taken a few important lessons from it.
Nationalism in the region “is best understood as a form of geopolitics not as a phenomenon that springs from some non political base”. In other words, the nationalism, which has initially weakened the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans and in the Eastern Anatolia did not have a strong local grassroots source in many cases. But instead, it was instigated by the rival states which either wanted to increase their influence within the region or go for the territories’ grab. The situation in the Balkans is more well known while the Bulgarians considered themselves to be Greeks based upon their orthodox religion during the Balkans Wars. Less well known is the situation with the Kurds in Eastern Anatolia. They shared the territory with the Armenians. The Kurds associated themselves with different tribes rather than the Kurdish nation. However, Russia was helping certain local chiefs to raise the revolts against the Ottoman administration (obviously the Armenians were attacked and robed in the process). Reynolds writes: “Ubeydullah (local chief) did not have a nation but he understood the utility of speaking as if he did.” At the same time Russia together with Britain and France required the Ottomans to protect the Armenians often under the threat of military actions. “Now Russia was eroding Ottoman sovereignty in Eastern Anatolia from within and simultaneously attacking that sovereignty from without by calling attention to Istanbul inability to govern the region.”
In summary, the nationalism never was a driving force for discontent in the region, instead the nationalism was played as a geopolitical card to help to destroy the rival state. And the irony of the situation, Reynolds underscores, that the most nationally conscious Armenians ended up with just a ramp of the state (which has become the Soviet Republic).
The book discusses the facts related the Ottoman Empire’s decision to participate in the World War I and the Armenian genocide in 1915 (though Reynolds never uses the word.) It was really insightful to have a balanced account of the situation. Of course, there is no any justification to what has been done. However, there were factors which made the situation more complicated than it is often presented. The Armenians were revolting at the city of Van which at least facilitated the Russian occupation and cut the important supply roots. The Ottoman administration also witnessed the destruction of 45 thousands muslims in Chorocki by the Russian cosacks just before that. Under the threat of their sovereignty and evidencing that it was possible to shift the borders to suite certain ethnicities elsewhere by other states, the Ottomans reasoned that it should be possible to shift ethnic population around to suite the certain geographic borders.
“I have the conviction that as long as a nation does the best for its own interests, and succeeds, the world admires it and thinks it is moral. I am ready to die for what i have done and I know that i shall die for it.” The words belong to Mehmed Taalat, the one of three Pashas of the Young Turks administration, directly responsible for the genocide. He indeed died in Berlin in 1921 from the Armenian bullet…
But it seems, this conviction has unfortunately outlived him; and it is rather alarmingly, but continuously used in the higher echelons of politics of nowadays (2016 is full of illustrations to this fact).
Nevertheless, the book is still very informative and I’ve taken a few important lessons from it.
Nationalism in the region “is best understood as a form of geopolitics not as a phenomenon that springs from some non political base”. In other words, the nationalism, which has initially weakened the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans and in the Eastern Anatolia did not have a strong local grassroots source in many cases. But instead, it was instigated by the rival states which either wanted to increase their influence within the region or go for the territories’ grab. The situation in the Balkans is more well known while the Bulgarians considered themselves to be Greeks based upon their orthodox religion during the Balkans Wars. Less well known is the situation with the Kurds in Eastern Anatolia. They shared the territory with the Armenians. The Kurds associated themselves with different tribes rather than the Kurdish nation. However, Russia was helping certain local chiefs to raise the revolts against the Ottoman administration (obviously the Armenians were attacked and robed in the process). Reynolds writes: “Ubeydullah (local chief) did not have a nation but he understood the utility of speaking as if he did.” At the same time Russia together with Britain and France required the Ottomans to protect the Armenians often under the threat of military actions. “Now Russia was eroding Ottoman sovereignty in Eastern Anatolia from within and simultaneously attacking that sovereignty from without by calling attention to Istanbul inability to govern the region.”
In summary, the nationalism never was a driving force for discontent in the region, instead the nationalism was played as a geopolitical card to help to destroy the rival state. And the irony of the situation, Reynolds underscores, that the most nationally conscious Armenians ended up with just a ramp of the state (which has become the Soviet Republic).
The book discusses the facts related the Ottoman Empire’s decision to participate in the World War I and the Armenian genocide in 1915 (though Reynolds never uses the word.) It was really insightful to have a balanced account of the situation. Of course, there is no any justification to what has been done. However, there were factors which made the situation more complicated than it is often presented. The Armenians were revolting at the city of Van which at least facilitated the Russian occupation and cut the important supply roots. The Ottoman administration also witnessed the destruction of 45 thousands muslims in Chorocki by the Russian cosacks just before that. Under the threat of their sovereignty and evidencing that it was possible to shift the borders to suite certain ethnicities elsewhere by other states, the Ottomans reasoned that it should be possible to shift ethnic population around to suite the certain geographic borders.
“I have the conviction that as long as a nation does the best for its own interests, and succeeds, the world admires it and thinks it is moral. I am ready to die for what i have done and I know that i shall die for it.” The words belong to Mehmed Taalat, the one of three Pashas of the Young Turks administration, directly responsible for the genocide. He indeed died in Berlin in 1921 from the Armenian bullet…
But it seems, this conviction has unfortunately outlived him; and it is rather alarmingly, but continuously used in the higher echelons of politics of nowadays (2016 is full of illustrations to this fact).
May 7, 2025
I normally don't award a rating of five stars to academic monographs, as I tend to reserve that high a rank for a book that is both excellent and worthy of general study, but this is one of those cases. The main point here is that Reynolds is making the argument that the conflict between Tsarist Russia and Ottoman Turkey was driven by international great power politics and a desperate hunt for political & military security, not the rise of the "national idea." The reality is that the concept of one land, one people, one nation is the enemy of multi-national empires. The irony here is that while the so-called Young Turks of the Unionist Party were seeking to preserve the empire in the face of organized efforts to dismantle it, Turkish nationalism came after the fact, as the inheritors of the Young Turk junta (men such as Mustafa Kemal) choose that path as the next best thing to preserving a Turkish-led empire once all the bets made in 1914 failed to pay off and all appeared to be lost.
Besides that this book also works very well as a deep history of the ethno-political strife still playing out in the region and of the great Armenian disaster of World War I; this is history that remains news. This is particularly since Reynolds has a real flair for explaining the machinations of the various participants in this particular "great game."
Originally written: March 25, 2019.
Besides that this book also works very well as a deep history of the ethno-political strife still playing out in the region and of the great Armenian disaster of World War I; this is history that remains news. This is particularly since Reynolds has a real flair for explaining the machinations of the various participants in this particular "great game."
Originally written: March 25, 2019.
December 15, 2013
An interesting scholarly history of the conflict between the Ottoman and Russian Empires during the First World War. In his work, Reynolds also provides good treatment of related subjects like nationalism, imperialism, and their connections to the conflict in Europe.
The Russian and Ottoman empires had been regional rivals for quite some time , and the outbreak of war in 1914 brought his rivalry to a head. The Ottoman performance in the war proved disastrous, save for Gallipoli, which seems to indicate that a better strategy for the Ottomans would be to guard their Turkish borders and avoid imperial adventurism. Instead, the Ottoman empire was destroyed by the war, which might have happened even if its leaders had stuck to a Turkey-first strategy.
By the end of the war, Turkey engaged in some more conflict with the Russians, now led by the Bolsheviks, to conquer the Caucasus. This theater was soon complicated by the entry of the Germans and the British, which resulted in a rather insane four-way war where the Turks, Germans, British and Soviets all fought each other.
A good account of how the confrontation of Turkey and Russia led to the collapse of both states, along with their respective empires.
The Russian and Ottoman empires had been regional rivals for quite some time , and the outbreak of war in 1914 brought his rivalry to a head. The Ottoman performance in the war proved disastrous, save for Gallipoli, which seems to indicate that a better strategy for the Ottomans would be to guard their Turkish borders and avoid imperial adventurism. Instead, the Ottoman empire was destroyed by the war, which might have happened even if its leaders had stuck to a Turkey-first strategy.
By the end of the war, Turkey engaged in some more conflict with the Russians, now led by the Bolsheviks, to conquer the Caucasus. This theater was soon complicated by the entry of the Germans and the British, which resulted in a rather insane four-way war where the Turks, Germans, British and Soviets all fought each other.
A good account of how the confrontation of Turkey and Russia led to the collapse of both states, along with their respective empires.
October 11, 2019
Why was this underwhelming? The title promised more than it intended to deliver. THAT, and his use of “security concerns” whenever he makes a clear point of imperial Russian or Ottoman ambition.... Why did it make me lose the excitement? The single cases that he used to support his big cases turned into an incoherent “and then this happened” storytelling. THAT, and he referred to the 31st March Incident as if it had actually happened on March 31, 1913. I couldn’t unsee that thereafter.
January 28, 2015
I learned a lot. I always thought the Armenians were the innocent victims of the worst atrocities, sidelined by history. Well, apparently they committed some of the worst massacres themselves.
November 26, 2017
Princeton'lı Tarihçi Reynolds'ın kitabı, Osmanlı ve Rus İmparatorluklarının 20.yy'ın başında, 'mutlak güvenliklerini sağlamak' amacıyla birbirini yıpratıp çökertmelerini ustalıkla ele almış. Bilhassa Kafkasya üzerinden gelişmeleri takip eden kitap, 'soykırım' tabirine prim vermediği için Ermenileri de kızdırmıştı basıldığında. Objektif, soğukkanlı ve gerçekçi perspektif sunan, bugüne de ciddi ışık tutan kıymetli bir kaynak...
June 11, 2012
An interesting study of the conflicts between and breakups of the Russian and Ottoman empires. Reynolds uses original Russian and Ottoman sources to shed new light on the geopolitics leading to the First World War, as well as on the war on the Caucasus front. The result is a highly readable and well-balanced account of the intricacies of Middle eastern policies, echoes of which are still heard today. Especially commendable is Reynolds' careful account of the mass murders of Armenians, Assyrians and Kurds, which Reynolds puts into context, explaining but not excusing.
In the end, Reynolds explains the events of 1908-1918 in the Caucasus not as a result of tottering empires, hopelessly out of toch with the nationalism of the age, but rather as a result of statesmen acting quite rationally under the circumstances, ever driven by the goal of state preservation. Thus his study gives valuable insights that hold true even for modern states. His final paragraph sums it up quite well:
"This study at the outset questioned the veracity of certain lessons of history, and in particular the lesson of the anachronism of empire in an age of nationalism. Yet it would endorse one lesson as old as Thucydides' history of the Peloponnesian War: The quest for absolute security is the road to ruin. Security can be no more absolute than the future can be knowable. Anxiety is the permanent human condition. The potential threat by its nature is omnipresent and impossible to vanquish. To chase it means to provoke reactions, setting off chains of events beyond one's control. Inevitably, some of those chains will lead to adverse consequences. The severity of those consequences will vary, and some will be negligible. Sooner or later, however, some will prove catastrophic."
In the end, Reynolds explains the events of 1908-1918 in the Caucasus not as a result of tottering empires, hopelessly out of toch with the nationalism of the age, but rather as a result of statesmen acting quite rationally under the circumstances, ever driven by the goal of state preservation. Thus his study gives valuable insights that hold true even for modern states. His final paragraph sums it up quite well:
"This study at the outset questioned the veracity of certain lessons of history, and in particular the lesson of the anachronism of empire in an age of nationalism. Yet it would endorse one lesson as old as Thucydides' history of the Peloponnesian War: The quest for absolute security is the road to ruin. Security can be no more absolute than the future can be knowable. Anxiety is the permanent human condition. The potential threat by its nature is omnipresent and impossible to vanquish. To chase it means to provoke reactions, setting off chains of events beyond one's control. Inevitably, some of those chains will lead to adverse consequences. The severity of those consequences will vary, and some will be negligible. Sooner or later, however, some will prove catastrophic."
March 11, 2013
This book presents a detailed history of relations between the Ottoman and Russian Empires in the years leading up to World War I, and during the war. This is the first book-length treatment that I've seen that discusses eastern Turkey and the Caucasus during World War I, and it puts much of the information that I've gathered about that region over the years into perspective.
The book is somewhat dry in places, but for the most part, the author presents a nuanced view of all of the participants, and emphasizes the complexity of their situation. In particular, he shows how each of the countries and ethnic groups had to decide how to react to events on the ground, and how former allies would become enemies and vice versa. Also, he tells the stories of the short-lived independent Caucasian republics during the waning years of the First World War.
My only complaint about this book was that it focused on such a short period of time, rather than also looking at the late 19th century (when Russia attacked the Ottoman Empire on behalf of the Bulgarians) and the 1920s (when newly independent Turkey fought a war against numerous foes). I thought that these events were a direct part of the story the author was telling, but that they were not emphasized very much in the book.
The book is somewhat dry in places, but for the most part, the author presents a nuanced view of all of the participants, and emphasizes the complexity of their situation. In particular, he shows how each of the countries and ethnic groups had to decide how to react to events on the ground, and how former allies would become enemies and vice versa. Also, he tells the stories of the short-lived independent Caucasian republics during the waning years of the First World War.
My only complaint about this book was that it focused on such a short period of time, rather than also looking at the late 19th century (when Russia attacked the Ottoman Empire on behalf of the Bulgarians) and the 1920s (when newly independent Turkey fought a war against numerous foes). I thought that these events were a direct part of the story the author was telling, but that they were not emphasized very much in the book.
January 25, 2014
Genocide. Why didn't Reynolds use the word?? Even Turks are beginning to acknowledge that ugly chapter in their history.
Otherwise the book describes, in painful detail, the events that led to and followed the collapse of the Russian and Ottoman empires.
The once ethnically and religiously diverse regions of Anatolia, South Eastern Europe and the Caucasus suffered their miserable fates due to rivalry between states which, among other things, cynically and selectively employed nationalism as a tool to pursue their economic and security interests.
These disasters, according to Reynolds, were the product of rational state actors - not irrational hatred or pursuit of dogma. Nation states were merely doing what it took to survive in the Hobbesian jungle of global politics.
Such a shame.
Who would have guessed, for example, that Baku, Azerbaijan's current capital, boasted a considerable Armenian population before WWI; or that around half the population in Yerevan, Armenia's existing capital, were Muslim.
These historical facts are mere side notes compared to what happened to the Armenians living in Anatolia, or the considerable Muslim populations living in South Eastern Europe and even the Greeks living in Anatolia....
Otherwise the book describes, in painful detail, the events that led to and followed the collapse of the Russian and Ottoman empires.
The once ethnically and religiously diverse regions of Anatolia, South Eastern Europe and the Caucasus suffered their miserable fates due to rivalry between states which, among other things, cynically and selectively employed nationalism as a tool to pursue their economic and security interests.
These disasters, according to Reynolds, were the product of rational state actors - not irrational hatred or pursuit of dogma. Nation states were merely doing what it took to survive in the Hobbesian jungle of global politics.
Such a shame.
Who would have guessed, for example, that Baku, Azerbaijan's current capital, boasted a considerable Armenian population before WWI; or that around half the population in Yerevan, Armenia's existing capital, were Muslim.
These historical facts are mere side notes compared to what happened to the Armenians living in Anatolia, or the considerable Muslim populations living in South Eastern Europe and even the Greeks living in Anatolia....
February 27, 2019
A very engaging read that gives astonishing insight particularly into the workings of the Ottoman government during the Great War. The breadth and depth of the source material used is astonishing: everything from Russian diplomatic cables to Ottoman military archives to Armenian revolutionaries' diaries gives great detail without the text ever losing tempo and becoming too granular. I sure did learn a lot.
November 28, 2023
4.5/5 rounding down for Goodreads.
Academic book focusing on the conflict between the Ottoman and Russian Empires before and during WWI. More focused on geopolitics, ethnicity and nationalism than on military history between the empires. The book is fairly short at 270 pages and I thought it was mostly well written, not using too much academic jargon after the intro
A lot of the book is about the role of ethnicity and national identity in the geopolitical competition between the Ottomans and Russians, with the main argument being that states used ethnic and national politics as covers for more normal empire vs empire politics. As nationalism became a more accepted way of seeing the world during the late 19th and early 20th centuries states used it more and more for their own ends, Russia threatening the Ottomans over oppressed Armenian minorities as an excuse for political power, the Ottomans smuggling weapons to pro-Ottoman Kurds living in Russian territory to destabilise the Russians. Ottoman and Russian leaders are presented as trying to act rationally in regards to geopolitics with a cover of national or ethnic ideology. This went so far as the brutal treatment of the Armenians (the author never outright calls it genocide) being at least partly motivated by the Ottoman leadership not wanting (from their point of view) a minority to be used a future excuse by foreign powers for intervention, in addition to short term scapegoating for mistakes the Ottomans made in the war. Another example is the Ottomans setting up buffer states in the Caucasus in 1918 but trying to make it look more legitimate by dressing it up as the various local groups declaring independence of their own accord and through local forces, rather than the Ottoman army doing all the work.
Overall I definitely enjoyed the book. You'd probably have to be at least a bit into WWI to enjoy it and know a bit about the war to get the most out of it.
Academic book focusing on the conflict between the Ottoman and Russian Empires before and during WWI. More focused on geopolitics, ethnicity and nationalism than on military history between the empires. The book is fairly short at 270 pages and I thought it was mostly well written, not using too much academic jargon after the intro
A lot of the book is about the role of ethnicity and national identity in the geopolitical competition between the Ottomans and Russians, with the main argument being that states used ethnic and national politics as covers for more normal empire vs empire politics. As nationalism became a more accepted way of seeing the world during the late 19th and early 20th centuries states used it more and more for their own ends, Russia threatening the Ottomans over oppressed Armenian minorities as an excuse for political power, the Ottomans smuggling weapons to pro-Ottoman Kurds living in Russian territory to destabilise the Russians. Ottoman and Russian leaders are presented as trying to act rationally in regards to geopolitics with a cover of national or ethnic ideology. This went so far as the brutal treatment of the Armenians (the author never outright calls it genocide) being at least partly motivated by the Ottoman leadership not wanting (from their point of view) a minority to be used a future excuse by foreign powers for intervention, in addition to short term scapegoating for mistakes the Ottomans made in the war. Another example is the Ottomans setting up buffer states in the Caucasus in 1918 but trying to make it look more legitimate by dressing it up as the various local groups declaring independence of their own accord and through local forces, rather than the Ottoman army doing all the work.
Overall I definitely enjoyed the book. You'd probably have to be at least a bit into WWI to enjoy it and know a bit about the war to get the most out of it.
February 22, 2024
In his book Shattering Empires: The Clash and Collapse of the Ottoman and Russian Empires, 1908-1918, Michael Reynolds provides a meticulously documented account of the final decade of the two rival imperial powers. Contrary to many texts that chalk these states’ collapses up to folly, idealism, weakness, and personality, Shattering Empires takes a starkly realist approach to analyzing the decision structure of the two empires during and immediately preceding the First World War. This approach de-exoticizes a less-studied theater of WWI and decenters seductive figures like Grigory Rasputin and T.E. Lawrence to frame the collapse of the Ottoman and Russian Empires as a rationally predictable outcome following a series of logical, if flawed, strategic decisions.
Reynolds’s focus on top-down realism leaves the reader with incomplete explanations for the shattering of these empires, however, putting him at risk of sounding like an apologist for the Armenian Genocide. Additionally, his book leans strongly towards a focus on Ottoman decisionmakers, sidelining the death of the Russian Empire as tangential to the Ottoman collapse. Finally, Shattering Empires concludes with a quick wrap-up of the Russian and Turkish civil wars and ushered in new regimes in Moscow and Ankara. There is little reckoning with the how or why of these new polities, though some consideration is made for how the Nationalist movement in Turkey benefitted from the Turkifying efforts of the Young Turk leadership in Anatolia, inheriting a land denuded of untrustworthy Armenians.
Overall, Reynolds compellingly provides a fresh perspective on the end of Europe’s easternmost empires during WWI. He cuts through the Orientalizing influence of classical historiography to show how Ottoman and Russian policymakers made the best of the bad hands dealt them by history, politics, and their own choices. While the thesis may feel incomplete or messy at times, Shattering Empires offers a new, important perspective on a well-trod topic.
Reynolds’s focus on top-down realism leaves the reader with incomplete explanations for the shattering of these empires, however, putting him at risk of sounding like an apologist for the Armenian Genocide. Additionally, his book leans strongly towards a focus on Ottoman decisionmakers, sidelining the death of the Russian Empire as tangential to the Ottoman collapse. Finally, Shattering Empires concludes with a quick wrap-up of the Russian and Turkish civil wars and ushered in new regimes in Moscow and Ankara. There is little reckoning with the how or why of these new polities, though some consideration is made for how the Nationalist movement in Turkey benefitted from the Turkifying efforts of the Young Turk leadership in Anatolia, inheriting a land denuded of untrustworthy Armenians.
Overall, Reynolds compellingly provides a fresh perspective on the end of Europe’s easternmost empires during WWI. He cuts through the Orientalizing influence of classical historiography to show how Ottoman and Russian policymakers made the best of the bad hands dealt them by history, politics, and their own choices. While the thesis may feel incomplete or messy at times, Shattering Empires offers a new, important perspective on a well-trod topic.
January 5, 2026
Harika bir kitap. Steril, dogmalardan, milliyetci söylemlerden uzak, son derece bilimsel, tarihe/belgeye dayalı bir anlatim. Donemin kompleks, degisen dengelerini son derece detayli bir sekilde anlatiyor. Ermeni soykirimina giden dinamikleri de cok iyi anlatiyor. Ayrica kitabin harika bir son sozu var. Donem sonrasina cok iyi bagliyor ve Ataturk’ten, Lenin’den, ve Stalin’den bahsediyor. Turkiye Cumhuriyeti’nin kurulusunu, Sovyetler Birligini, ve bugunu anlayabiliyoruz.
September 2, 2020
The book has a lot of great information and is clearly well researched, however it completely glosses over how both the Ottoman and Russian empires actually ended. Their actual dissolution happens off screen which I found to be a bit frustrating. The book heavily focuses on the struggle between the Armenians and the Kurds and there I think it truly shines. 3.5 stars
December 29, 2018
Well-researched good book. Some interesting detail even for the expert eye. Would recommend it for those who have an interest in the Ottoman and Russian Empires.
January 15, 2020
I read this about 7 years ago but somehow forgot to add it to my reviews here. Its the best English language source on this front I have yet come across.
October 4, 2022
A little too much detail for me, could have been a great 50 page article
March 1, 2013
Reynolds book tells the story of how the Ottoman and Russian empires viewed each other going into WWI, and how each side was driven not by anachronistic concerns with religion or empire but with maintaining the security of their borders, something he presents as a rational decision in light of the global world order as it emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Both the weakened Ottoman and the stronger Russian state had legitimate security concerns according to Reynolds, but considers that the Russians overestimated how much security could be guaranteed through military power. Both the Russian and Ottoman states were motivated by what he calls the "national idea," of an ethnically homogenous territorial state, but notes the irony that, because the Ottomans were so weak, they were driven to more desperate and diverse measures to insure the survival of their state, that in the end, the Kemalist republic set up in 1922 was essentially the work of the last Ottoman government. The Tsarist government, on the other hand, overplayed its hand, and died in the Russian civil war. He aptly references Thucydides about the futile nature of empires trying to attain more security than is possible in this world, a fitting epitaph the end of two great empires.
November 28, 2011
Clear writing on a topic that is very easy to get messy with. I'd love to hear what people think of his "angle"...if he has one, he certainly seemed to use more Turkish sources than Russian ones, but I think that's more of a symptom of Imperial Russian records being pretty much nonexistant.
It's a good read on how insane things got/can get in the Caucasus, and a good read on how unstable things generally are in Anatolia. That plus the fascinating revolutions going on make everything really, very, interesting.
The one takeaway that sticks with me is how endearingly amusing it is that everybody seems to be perpetually convinced that their treaty will be the one that will stand the test of time. That there will be no chance to redraw borders, to go back to war, or any of that. That this peace will always be the lasting peace. Yeah. Right.
It's a good read on how insane things got/can get in the Caucasus, and a good read on how unstable things generally are in Anatolia. That plus the fascinating revolutions going on make everything really, very, interesting.
The one takeaway that sticks with me is how endearingly amusing it is that everybody seems to be perpetually convinced that their treaty will be the one that will stand the test of time. That there will be no chance to redraw borders, to go back to war, or any of that. That this peace will always be the lasting peace. Yeah. Right.
February 16, 2013
Since there aren't very many reviews of this book here, I want to make it clear to prospective readers that my rather poor rating here has to do with my lack of interest in the subject matter. It is not a direct criticism of the book itself. The book is very well researched and full of great information for anyone who is interested in this subject. Unfortunately, I am not interested! My concentration is in 17th century cultural relations rather than 20th century politics, but I had to read this book for a class and I rated it according to my personal feelings while reading it. Then I felt great regret at the prospect of Michael Reynolds seeing this poor rating when he really did write a very fine book. So there is my disclaimer! If this book's subject matter is up your alley, then I highly recommend it!
December 8, 2012
The book is different in that it is not quite a history of the 1st World War conflict in this area, but a view that consists mainly of the merits and disadvantages of both ruling systems and how both co-existed and conflicted with each other. It covers the interferences that occurred from other sources, however it does so to show the impact it had on the relationship between Russia and Turkey regardless of the ruling regime in each. It covers the impact these regimes had on the local people and the opportunities that were missed or taken by all parties.
I found it refreshing from this point however this could be annoying to some.
I found it refreshing from this point however this could be annoying to some.
June 22, 2014
Reading this, as with other histories I've read recently, it is obvious that a history whose narrative is smooth like a novel is a simplified one. There was never a clear binary opposition politically, ethnically, religiously. Reynolds shows that the situation is too complex for simple binaries. He also demonstrates that nationalism didn't cause the breakup of the empires but rather the breakup of the empires, in a sense, caused nationalism. The idea of a "nation" spread from Europe to the various ethnic, geographical, etc. groups that had made up the empire, and gave them a justification for their political actions.
August 14, 2011
An interesting (and very detailed) take on the geopolitical factors in the ethnic politics of these empires. Reynolds doesn't accept the thesis that "nationalism" is an adequate explanation for imperial collapse.
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews