The Modern Middle East: A History

by James L. Gelvin

Newly revised and updated for the second decade of the twenty-first century, the third edition of The Modern Middle A History explores how the forces associated with global modernity have shaped the social, economic, cultural, and political life in the region over the course of the past
500 years. Beginning with the first glimmerings of the current international state and economic systems in the sixteenth century, this book examines the impact of imperial and imperialist legacies, the great nineteenth-century transformation, cultural continuities and upheavals, international
diplomacy, economic booms and busts, the emergence of authoritarian regimes, and the current challenges to those regimes on everyday life in an area of vital concern to us all.

Engagingly written, drawing from the author's own research and other studies, and stocked with maps and photographs, original documents, and an abundance of supplementary materials, The Modern Middle A History , Third Edition, will provide both novices and specialists with fresh insights into
the events that have shaped history and the debates about them that have absorbed historians.

Genres: History, Middle East, Nonfiction, Politics, School, World History, Read For School

400 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2004

About the author

James L. Gelvin is an American scholar of Middle Eastern history. He has been a faculty member in the department of history at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) since 1995 and has written extensively on the history of the modern Middle East, with particular emphasis on nationalism and the social and cultural history of the modern Middle East.

Reviews

[Allison Wise · Rating 3 out of 5]

Okay, I may have skimmed more than fully read this book, but it's good! It's dense and sometimes Gelvin likes to jump around, and it can get confusing for maintaining a chronological timeline, but overall I enjoyed the content in this book!

[Valerie Cotnoir · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this as one of two textbooks for my Middle Eastern History class for school. I appreciated the short and concise style (compared to Bunton 😂), although it is a little more liberally biased. However, as Gelvin had less quams about letting his bias show, a bit of sarcasm and passive aggressive comments slipped as well, and I enjoyed those immensely. 🤣 Overall, I think Gelvin did an excellent job giving an overview of Middle Eastern relations and tensions and attempting to give many historians' perspectives to level out his own. I learned a LOT that I didn't know before!

[Ferda Nihat Koksoy · Rating 5 out of 5]

OrtaDoğu ilişkileri genelde FÜTÛHAT ve ULÛFE alışkanlığı üzerinden yürütülmüştür. ULÛFE ortadan KALKACAK olursa, vatandaş-devlet bağlantısı da bir anda KOPABİLİR.

Buralardaki YÖNETİM PAZARLIĞI, Batı'daki gibi DEVLET ile VATANDAŞIN KARŞILIKLI hak ve yükümlülüğün MÜZAKERESİ şeklinde değil, İTAAT KARŞILIĞINDA MENFAAT şeklinde olagelmiştir.

OrtaDoğu'da OTORİTERLİĞİN YAYGIN olmasının nedenleri olarak, UZUN SÜREDİR DNA'lara yerleşmiş toplumsal muhafazakâr yapılar, ASKERİN belirleyici gücü, BÜYÜK GÜÇLERİN otoriter yönetimlerle işbirliği yapması ve TOPRAKLARIN çok BÜYÜK kısmını çok küçük azınlıklara/AŞİRET reislerine bırakması, DEVLET GÜDÜMLÜ KALKINMA modeli, PETROL ZENGİNİ devlet yapısının rakipsiz siyasi güç olması sayılabilir.

OSMANLI Beyliği'nin tam BİZANS SINIRINDA olması, yağma imkânlarının çok geniş olmasına yol açmış, bu üstünlük, savaşçı gaziler, tüccar ve zanaatkârlar, alimler ve Bizans'ın toprak bağımlısı serfleri için CAZİBE merkezi olmasını ve DEVLETLEŞMESİNİ sağlamıştır.

Devletleştikten sonra tüm TOPRAKLARIN sahibi Osmanlı HANEDANI olmuş, toprağı kullanıp vergi-asker yükümlülüklerini yerine getiren halk, bu toprağı SATAMAZ ve DEVREDEMEZ hale getirilmiştir (Safeviler'de de aynı). Bu durum batıdaki KRALI DENGELEYEN YEREL ve BÖLGESEL GÜÇLERİN gelişmesini engellemiştir.

Osmanlı'nın Balkan hıristiyan DEVŞİRME yöntemi, İRAN Safevilerinde Gürcü/Ermeni/Çerkes devşirmeleri (Gılman) olarak gerçekleşmiştir.

19.yy.'da Victoria çağı meta ve sermaye dolaşımı sistemi Ortadoğu'yu fazlasıyla etkilemiş, afyon savaşlarının hemen sonrasında OSMANLI İmparatorluğu Çin ve Hindistan ile birlikte en büyük üç AFYON ÜRETİCİSİNDEN biri haline gelmiştir (sömürgeleşmenin hızlanması).

BATININ güç dengesini ele geçirmesiyle Osmanlı ve İran SAVUNMAYA YÖNELİK, DEVLET MÜDAHİLLİĞİNDE KALKINMACILIĞA geçmiş (ordu reformu, devlet tekelli üretim, gümrük korumacılığı, hukuk ve eğitim reformları, ihracata yönelik tarım) ve ORDU/DEVLET temelli AYDIN sınıfın gelişmesinin önü açılmıştır.
Bu yapılanmanın maliyeti1873 kriziyle birleşince İFLASA ve hazinenin Avrupalı alacaklıların eline geçmesine (Düyun-u Umumiye) yol açmıştır.

1839 GÜLHANE FERMANI ile dinlere EŞİT statü verilmesini, hıristiyanların bedel karşılığında ASKERE gitmemesi, Habsburgların 200.000 katoliğe, Rusların 120.000 ortodoksa AYRICALIK BERATI vermesi, müslümanların bu ayrıcalıklara TEPKİ duyması, BALKAN ve ARAP milliyetçiliğinin hızlanması, yani İÇ GERGİNLİKLER izledi.

JÖN TÜRKLER, 1908'de iktidara geldiklerinde, SEKÜLER felsefe ve son bilimsel teorilerden konuşsalar da büyük ölçüde II. ABDÜLHAMİD'in MERKEZİLEŞME ve KALKINMA politikalarını devam ettirdiler. Abdülhamid'in politika ekseni ise, 1870'lerin Balkan milliyetçiliği ve Rus yayılmacılığı hareketlerine karşı, HALİFE kimliğini öne çıkararak, DİN-DEVLET işlerini iç içe geçirmeye, DİNE bağlılıkla DEVLETE bağlılığı BİRLEŞTİRMEYE çalışmak (din kitaplarının devlet eline alınması, DİNİ PROPAGANDANIN artırılması, DİN ADAMLARININ devletin önemli MEVKİLERİNE getirilmesi, dini VAKIFLARA önemli desteklerin verilmesi) ve HIRİSTİYAN nüfusu AZALTIRKEN MÜSLÜMAN nüfusu ARTIRMAK şeklinde olmuştur.

ORTA-DOĞU HARİTALARI, İngiliz (ve Fransız) diplomatlarınca MASA BAŞINDA çizilmesiyle oluşturulmuş ve MANDA ile BÖL-YÖNET şeklinde yönetilmiştir.
KÖRFEZ'de 6 KRALLIK olmasının nedeni, İngiltere'nin hepsine ayrı ayrı garantörlük vermiş olmasıdır (bunları daha sonra ABD devralmıştır).

M. KEMAL ve ŞAH RIZA, Fransız tipi laikliği benimsemiş, ailevi ataerkilliğin yerine DEVLET KONTROLLÜ KAMUSAL ATAERKİLLİĞİ koymaya çalışmış, yeni devletin rolünü artırmaya, iktidar alanını genişletmeye, VATANDAŞLARI BİRBİRLERİNE ve DEVLETE BAĞLAYACAK TEK RESMİ İDEOLOJİYİ yaymaya çalıştılar.
Her ikisi de MİLLİYETÇİ, azınlıklardan azade, DEVLET destekli ve merkezli, yerel üretim/tüketime dayalı politikalar izledi.

İSRAİL'in kuruluşu: 1882'de T. HERZL' in SİYONİST, Filistin'de kurulacak, medeniyetin kalesi olacak ve Asya barbarlığına karşı koyacak bir SINIR KARAKOLU hayali; 1882-1903 arasında ROTHSCHILD finansmanıyla 1.göç (POGROM ve fakirlikten kaçan Rusya ve Romanya yahudileri); 1904-1923 Rusya'dan 2.göç; 1917 Britanya'nın BALFOUR Deklerasyonu ile Filistin'e MANDA getirilmesi ve YAHUDİ GÖÇÜNÜN KOLAYLAŞTIRILMASI; 1936'da topraksız ve aç bırakılan Filistin'in isyanının TOPLU KATLİAM ve tutuklamalar ile bastırılması; 1924-1939 Avrupa'daki POGRAMLARDAN kaçan yahudilerin göçü; 1948 İSRAİL DEVLETİ'nin kurulması; 1950'de devletin tüm dünya yahudilerine vatandaşlık vermesiyle nüfusun İKİYE katlanması; 1967 (6 gün sürdü) ve 1973 savaşlarında Arapların yenilmesi ve Filistinlilerin kendi topraklarında SÜRGÜN olarak yaşamalarının başlaması.

Önce BRİTANYA, sonra ABD'nin bölgedeki en büyük HEDEFLERİ, SSCB'nin ÇEVRELENMESİ, PETROL egemenliği, İSRAİL'i korumak, DOĞU ile bağlantıların korunması, GÜÇ dengesini elinde tutmak (OTOKRASİ ve DARBE destekleri), NEOLİBERAL dayatmalardır.

Orta-doğu tarihi, BÜYÜKELÇİLERİN SUBAYLARA işaret verdiği; MI6/CIA AJANLARININ isteklerini daha iyi anlamaları için ÇANTALAR DOLUSU PARALAR dağıttıkları YEREL POLİTİKACI ve ASKERİN öyküleriyle doludur.

USA ve UK, OrtaDoğu'da BERBAT REJİMLERİ DESTEKLEMİŞ, ülkeleri için önemli işler yapanların ÖNÜNÜ KESMİŞ, ÇOK ZARARLAR VEREN ekonomik politikaları dayatmış, bölge HALKLARININ YAŞADIĞI DEHŞETLERDE pay sahibi olmuşlardır.

Bugün bölgede, ULUS DEVLET yapılarına karşı, büyük güçlertarafından DİN ve MEZHEPÇİLİK siyasetleri ARAÇ olarak kullanılmaktadır.

[charlotte (moerreads) · Rating 4 out of 5]

THE MODERN MIDDLE EAST⁣
⁣
some background: I've recommended this book to more than a handful of you because it blew my mind wide open when I read it as a freshman in college. That being said, freshman-in-college me was naive + just starting to unlearn the American exceptionalism of my K-12 upbringing, so I decided to give it a reread in August and see if it held up to my current standards.⁣
⁣
TLDR: it's not as perfect as I remember, and should by no means be the only book you read on the region (for the love of god, please seek out ones written by people who actually live there), but still stands as an okay primer to introduce you to a variety of topics. ⁣
⁣
Some things that I noticed far more this time around and also what I urge you to keep in mind while reading this or any book that covers a large swath of history:⁣
⁣
Who are we NOT hearing from?⁣
Who is not a part of the narrative?⁣
What are the reactions and outcomes of the decisions that are described?⁣
⁣
The answers to these three questions are where most of my frustrations with this book came from. I frequently felt like it was up to the reader to discern for themselves and read between the lines on the impact of decisions made by colonizers. Intentions were often clear (even though the term 'racist' could've been mentioned FAR more often, and less euphemistically), but impact was seen as something more open for interpretation.⁣
⁣
The big pro of this book, however, is its inclusion of primary source documents in an accessible way, bringing together often old, obscure voices I wouldn't even know existed otherwise. I would've preferred more of an emphasis here on voices FROM the region, as there is on occasion more focus on Europeans who traveled there instead, but there is a mix of both. ⁣
⁣
A 'fun' fact: the term 'fundamentalism' (used today almost exclusively to refer to Muslims) actually came from America! And Christianity! Google the Niagara Falls Bible Conference and the Princeton School of Theology (or DM me) if this interests you. And stop using Western terms to describe things that aren't Western.⁣

[Douglas Grion Filho · Rating 3 out of 5]

Meh. It was fine. Considering that I read this in conjunction with really good history books about the modern middle east (sowing crisis wink wink), this one really fell flat. Very vague and overarching with not a lot of focus put into any particular section apart from some weird ones. Also too lenient on the US for my personal taste, but thats just me. I did appreciate the documents section at the end of each major part where the author put a bunch of primary sources, but they were very handpicked, which of course would happen but it still stings when you can clearly tell they were cherry-picked.

[Quang Anh · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you have a fundamental knowledge on the ME and want to learn more about the factors that shaped the regional conflicts, this book is for you. However, it seems like the book lacks proper analysis on the European colonizers and their power.

[poema · Rating 3 out of 5]

i mean yeah not a novel

[Rebecca Graf · Rating 4 out of 5]

Studying the Middle East is not always easy. Depending on the book you read, the bias can be very strong. For those that really want to know the truth and see how the Middle East grew and developed historically, one needs a book that can show the good, the bad, and the downright ugly. James L. Gelvin’s The Modern Middle East is one book history lovers need to read.

This book does not spend an exorbitant time on ancient history, but it does give it over twenty pages of discussion. From there, the book dives into the modern world of the Middle East. When the author states modern, he is not talking just the twenty-first century. He begins his detailed analysis in the 1800s as so many events during that period lay the ground work for the issues and triumphs of this century.

The print of this book is very small. Though there are over three hundred pages of reading, the amount of information is much more than a standard book of that size. If you have trouble reading small print, this book could prove to be a problem for you.

There are several things that make this book such a great resource aside from the numerous pages of reading. The author has included pictures and maps which helps those that are visual learners. Mr. Gelvin also includes biographical sketches, a timeline, excerpts from various documents, as well as a glossary. The glossary can come in handy when you are not familiar with Middle Eastern terms or titles. The timeline is great for keeping the events in order and as a reference.

What are the disadvantages to this book?
- Does not cover ancient history, but it is a book on the modern Middle East.
- Extremely small print
- Read can be a little dry. This is an academic book and not a summer beach reading book.

What are the advantages of this book?
- Great resource for the study of problems today in the Middle East
- Timeline
- Glossary
- Biographical sketches
- Document excerpts
- Visual aids

If you are interested in studying the Middle East, you really need to check out this book. It gives a wonderful account of how the Middle East was developed and a better understanding of it today. The link to purchase the book is provided for you below.

Note: This book was provided to be as part of a Middle East history class.

[Thaís Alberti · Rating 4 out of 5]

This doesn't read like a textbook, it's a like a lecture from your cool professor that makes witty remarks such as "he took power at the ripe old age of 12".
This book is for you in 2 situations: either 1) you know nothing about the Middle East and want to get a grip on the major chain of events and movements that led to today's scenario (in this case he provides further reading, because he doesn't focus on events, but movements, so it leaves you with questions rather than answers). 2) you already know a lot about the events, but want to get a broader perspective on cause and consequence, similarities and tendencies of the events.
It's a pretty good book, not light reading, but considering the subject, it keeps you interested.
Also, for an American writer/perspective, he actually is down to earth and calls American on most of their bullshit behaviour in the ME (obviously not all of it), but be prepared to read some American POV.

[Kara · Rating 5 out of 5]

A clear and concise history of the middle east region that reads smoothly like a novel. I appreciate Gelvin's ability to write without a strong bias. He takes time to look at both viewpoints on issues of conflict. A book that I would recommend to any wanting an overview of the history of the Middle East and why it is the way it is today.

[Daniel · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not necessarily great history, a lot of unproven theories thrown around, but a decent introduction to the formation of the region in the past few hundred years.

[Zygmunt]

Integration and peripheralization? I read Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism too.

[Josephine Espelage · Rating 1 out of 5]

Horrible. Not chronological and thus hard to follow for those unfamiliar with the historical events covered.

[Marios Antoniou · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent review of the impact of European imperial powers on the Middle East. Scholarly language, well-referenced but easily readable by non-specialists

[Andrea Wright · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great school text

[Christy Bartel · Rating 5 out of 5]

In school, they always tell you not to be biased or, at least, not to let your bias show. Gelvin ignored that advice in the SASSIEST way possible and I LOVED IT. Here are only a FEW of the sarcastic quotes from this book:

“There is the story of how one (apparently feisty) Chinese scholar chided a Mongol leader: 'An empire can be conquered on horseback, but it cannot be governed on horseback.' (We have no record as to how the Mongol leader took this criticism.)”

“When King Philip II of Spain found himself overwhelmed by creditors, he simply called together church leaders who told him what he wanted to hear: because usury (the charging of interest) was a sin, he was under no obligation to pay back his creditors. The king, finding within himself a wellspring of piety of which he had previously been unaware, obeyed.”

“Even if we do not wish to take economists at their word (a good idea, in light of their repeated failings)…”

“If the Qajars did suffer from such internal and external challenges, then how were they able to rule for so long? The answer, according to many historians, was that they never quite ruled at all.”

“It is probable that most Islamic modernists honestly believed that Islam and Western ideas were reconcilable. Others, however, were more cynical or realistic (depending on your point of view).”

“Residents of seaport cities such as Istanbul, Alexandria, and Beirut rubbed shoulders with Italian expatriates who brought to the Middle East Italy’s single largest export during the nineteenth century: anarchism.”

“During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the Persian economy fell victim to a double whammy.”

“The fact that it lasted so long was more a consequence of the insignificance of the territory it controlled (no oil yet) than to the vitality of the dynasty. The third time, however, was the charm.”

“Mustafa Kemal, for example, had Turkey adopt the Western calendar in place of the Islamic one (Reza Shah replaced the Islamic calendar in Iran with the old Zoroastrian one), and he “Latinized” the Turkish alphabet, arguing that the new alphabet would be easier to read than the Ottoman script, which used Arabic letters. (As close to a billion and a half people do quite well using Chinese characters, the argument rings hollow.)”

“Turkish democracy works until it doesn’t.”

“Although the repressive policies of his son and heir were instrumental in sparking the Iranian Revolution of 1978–1979, when it came to brutality Reza Shah was no piker.”

“But as the nineteenth-century French philosopher Ernest Renan once put it, “Getting history wrong is part of being a nation.””

“First, a warning: the ratio of experts on nationalism to theories about the origins and nature of nationalism hovers around 1:1. So here is mine.”

“The economic, social, and cultural integration of a region does not necessarily mean that a nationalist movement will emerge there, of course. If that were the case, a California nationalism would have emerged years ago.”

“Ironically, the leading American economist at the Bretton Woods Conference—which produced the structures that would stabilize and expand the international capitalist system for close to three decades—was Harry Dexter White, a Treasury official and the Soviet Union’s highest ranking spy ever to penetrate the American government.”

“All twenty of the remaining countries in the Middle East and North Africa fit into the category “authoritarian regimes.” The lowest ranked was Saudi Arabia, which came in at #160 on a scale in which the lowest ranking overall was 167. (If Saudi Arabia ever adopts a national motto, one possibility might be “Thank you, Central African Republic,” which was one step further down on the list.)”

“Nevertheless, poor economic performance and the lack of an alternative economic model (North Korea or Cuba, anyone?) forced the hands of political leaders throughout the region.”

“OPEC ministers meet regularly to decide how much oil each producer should pump. The meetings are commonly contentious, a perennial clash between “price hawks” and “price doves.” Saudi Arabia is in the latter category (one of the reasons why American statesmen refer to a kingdom in which women need the permission of their male “guardians” to travel, get an education, or undergo medical treatment as “moderate”).”

“Despite attempts at price-fixing, the complaint by Western politicians and consumers that a greedy cartel is holding the West hostage is a little like Claude Rains in Casablanca discovering there is gambling going on in Humphrey Bogart’s nightclub.”

“Novelist F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote of two of his wealthy characters, “They were careless people…they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that held them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.” What goes for fictional characters also seems to go for countries with too much money in their hands.”

[Alessandra · Rating 2 out of 5]

Non mi è piaciuto particolarmente. L'ho trovato superficiale, disordinato e dispersivo. L'autore accenna vari argomenti senza approfondirne nessuno, a volte si perde in elenchi accompagnati da spiegazioni vaghe e risicate che rendono la lettura pesante perché sembra che si dica tutto ma non si dica niente. Io odio gli elenchi. E odio leggere in continuazione "tale fatto è accaduto per x motivi. Sono i seguenti". Oltretutto il titolo è fuorviante: non è un libro storico ma un libro teorico. Non c'è una narrazione cronologica dei fatti, ma solo un ammasso di salti temporali che tralasciano eventi, ne introducono altri senza inserirli in un contesto chiaro, a volte ci si sofferma troppo su informazioni superflue o comunque non collocabili in una visione d'insieme perché sono scollegate le une alle altre. Non è assolutamente un libro che consiglierei come primo approccio all'argomento, difatti mi ha lasciato ben poco sulle parti di cui ero digiuna e non ha aggiunto nulla a ciò che già sapevo. È un libro abbastanza confusionario, non è nemmeno introduttivo, secondo me è adatto solo per un ripasso superficiale e senza pretese

[Andrea · Rating 1 out of 5]

Il libro è abbastanza scorrevole, ma nel complesso l'ho trovato inaffidabile. Molte parti sono trattate in maniera superficiale. Ci sono affermazioni che non trovano riscontro in altri libri, e che avrebbero avuto bisogno di una spiegazione. Posso accettare che si abbia un pregiudizio anti israeliano, ma non che si scriva che nella guerra del Libano del 1982 Hezbollah abbia costretto Israele a ritirarsi, o che questa guerra abbia avuto effetti disastrosi per gli USA.
Oppure definire gli israeliani "abili" a presentarsi agli Stati Uniti come l'unica democrazia con valori simili a quelli americani nella regione, come se non fosse vero.
Ci sono altre decine di opinioni poste come fatti e senza spiegazione anche su altri argomenti.
Per me è un libro da evitare.

[Matt · Rating 3 out of 5]

Well, when you've got a theory, it makes sense to try to make everything fit into it just right. Gelvin employs world systems theory to explain why the middle east has struggled to scrounge even a drop of democracy, while avoiding the topic of Islam itself entirely. I wouldn't say that he's wrong, but he's cast an entire civilization in a political environment that is wholly deterministic. "Sultan A did this, it didn't work because it was inspired by the western ideals." "King B did this, it didn't work because western powers didn't want it to work." At least thats how I interpreted this book. Decent, not perfect.

[Ben · Rating 2 out of 5]

I thought this was a more helpful than harmful survey, though the theory-laden parts are clumsy (e.g. 'defensive developmentalism', 'hybrid democracies' all very silly. and poor Gramsci gets trotted out too). I did not like how the book transformed into U.S. policy wonk-mode near the end, but I suppose this is how liberal academia thinks. Unfortunately, this meant a wild dance of a motley assortment of states which I could not keep track of and probably have forgotten now, compared to the cogent foci of the commentary on the Ottomans. Maybe that's just an inevitable weakness of having to do so much in one book. Also, Gelvin has a very punchable author voice.

[Danny · Rating 4 out of 5]

There are multitudes of survey texts telling the story of the Modern Middle East, but Gelvin's history stands apart. Rather than provide a chronological retelling of history as can be found in Cleveland's or Goldshcmidt and Davidson's books, Gelvin provides a thematic approach to understanding the region. Gelvin's approach provides clearer explanations to the conflicts and trends in the region while also giving digestible insights into the scholarly debates that swirl around the academic study of the region. Plenty of primary sources as well. Excellent introductory text on the Middle East.

[Furkan Öncü · Rating 4 out of 5]

Daha öncesinde Ortadoğu Tarihi ile ilgili bir kitap okumamıştım ve bu kitap bana genel bir tablo çizmemi sağladı. Dili gayet sade ve herkesin anlayabileceği şekilde. Ortadoğu coğrafyasının neden geri kaldığını ve dünya ekonomisine entegre olamadığını hem ekonomik hem de sosyal açıdan ele alarak ortaya koyuyor. "Arap Baharı" olarak adlandırılan halk hareketlerinde konuyu ülke ülke farklı bakış açılarıyla ele alması oldukça başarılıydı.

[Simone Mauro · Rating 5 out of 5]

Comodo e piacevole da leggere.
Credo che nel complesso il testo tratti piuttosto bene la storia del medio oriente dall'800 fino a (quasi) oggi. Ovviamente in 450 pagine non ci si può aspettare un livello di dettaglio massimo per ogni evento che ha sconvolto l'area negli ultimi 200 anni, ma del resto credo che solo dei libri specialistici, e non più generali come questo, riescano a soddisfare un simile scopo.
Per quanto mi riguarda ha soddisfatto a pieno le mie aspettative!

[bella · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read this for my History of the Middle East class and it was very insightful. Easy to read and follow along. The author does a nice job of explaining concepts so you can understand them. One can follow along with the history of the Middle East and really understand how past events have influenced the present day.

[Ayesha Tahir · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really interesting. Great book that gives an unbiased ENOUGH account of middle eastern history in a very 101 sense. Chapter 14 also discussed the Palestinian crisis very well from an outside perspective. He’s obviously less biased than me, but the foundation of my knowledge about the situation (and ultimately my bias) comes from this particular chapter. 🇵🇸

[Morgan Baliviera · Rating 4 out of 5]

Una piacevole ed interessante lettura per introdursi allo studio della realtà mediorientale: a partire dall’età moderna (1500 circa), l’autore fa una disamina dello sviluppo economico, sociale, politico e religioso dell’area, prendendo ad esempio specialmente Egitto, Turchia ed Iran. Consigliato a chi volesse comprendere un mondo a noi così vicino, ma così poco conosciuto.

[Cem Yüksel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Uzun süreli imparatorlukların doğuşu, ticari devrim ve Protestan reformu ile 16. Yüzyılda şekillenmeye başlayan bugünki Ortadoğu'yu anlamak için iyi bir giriş kitabı. Bugüne kadar süren değişimin girift sebeplerini açıklarken , ister istemez Çin Afyon savaşlarından, neo liberalizme yığınla başlıktan da bahsediyor. Kronolojik seyirden ziyade kavramlar üzerinden gitmesi, konuya uzak olanlar için izleme güçlüğüne neden olabilir. İyi bir ek okuma kaynağı da sunuyor.

[Christopher · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have to say this was one of the best books on the history of the Middle East. Gelvin does an excellent job of explaining how the Modern Middle East came into existence. A must read for Middle East History buffs.

[Y Kanan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book, Gelvin manages to compress the modern history of the middle east in 400 pages in which he gives you a great fundamental understanding of how the region has been shaped in the past 500 years. The book is also enjoyable and easy to read because of the great writing style that Gelvin has.

[venus · Rating 3 out of 5]

i read this for class so im not going to lie i did sort of feel like i was being waterboarded whenever i was reading this. good information, but frequently overwhelming due to the sheer scope of what was covered