What do you think?
Rate this book
Turkey: A Short History
A virtuoso performance by historian Norman Stone, who has lived and worked in the country since 1997, this concise survey of Turkeys relations with its immediate neighbours and the wider world from the 11th century to the present day. Stone deftly conducts the reader through this story, from the arrival of the Seljuks in Anatolia in the eleventh century to the modern republic applying for EU membership in the twenty-first. It is an historical account of epic proportions, featuring rapacious leaders such as Genghis Khan and Tamerlane through the glories of Sultan Süleyman the Magnificent to Kemal Atatürk, the reforming genius and founder of modern Turkey. At its height, the Ottoman Empire was a superpower that brought Islam to the gates of Vienna. Stone examines the reasons for the empires long decline and shows how it gave birth to the modern Turkish republic, where east and west, religion and secularism, tradition and modernity still form vibrant elements of national identity. Norman Stone brilliantly draws out the larger themes of Turkeys history, resulting in a book that is a masterly exposition of the historians craft.
192 pages, Paperback
First published March 1, 2011
125 people are currently reading
910 people want to read
About the author
Norman Stone
55 books52 followersNorman Stone was a Scottish historian and author, who was a Professor in the Department of International Relations at Bilkent University, Ankara. He is a former Professor at the University of Oxford, Lecturer at the University of Cambridge, and adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 84 reviews
December 18, 2017
I read this to get a very basic, overall look at the Ottoman Empire up to the current state of the Turkish Republic. To that end, this book was great. However, it was hard to read, too much information, not enough time and space for critical analysis and deeper understanding on certain moments and periods on the history. This led to the book seeming incredibly one-sided on a number of periods particularly around the Armenian Genocide and the Balkan and Greek wars.
April 7, 2015
I'm going to be one of those annoying people and give 2,5 stars, something I've never resorted to. I really had to struggle through the first half of the book. At first I thought it was because I didn't know many names and a lot of the information was new for me (hence the reason I read this in the first place). After a while, some things started to annoy me. First here's the constant references to the ethomology of words. Normaly I find this facinating, but since I don't speak Turkish I could not see/hear the simularities in the words. Maybe they were bad examples, I can't tell, but I can say that for a 'short history' where every page counts because it must be hard to shorten such a rich history, there were too many. With that said, the author often offers small snippers of information that feel redundant. Like how the Russian Tsar apparently murdered his son and liked to eat Borscht, only to never mention that Tsar again.
I guess some were kind of funny, but most of them didn't do it for me. However the fall of the Ottoman empire and the road to modern Turkey was enjoyable to read and before I knew it I finished the book. It felt however that it lacked 2 chapters, since it's the history of Turkey, not just the Ottoman empire. The book left me wanting more, so that gives it its' half star extra. Glad to have read it, gave an introduction, however it could have been better.
Lastly, I wanted to touch on a more sensitive, but important point.
What greatly angered and saddend me is how the writer literally denied the Armenian Genocide. A disgrace!
I guess some were kind of funny, but most of them didn't do it for me. However the fall of the Ottoman empire and the road to modern Turkey was enjoyable to read and before I knew it I finished the book. It felt however that it lacked 2 chapters, since it's the history of Turkey, not just the Ottoman empire. The book left me wanting more, so that gives it its' half star extra. Glad to have read it, gave an introduction, however it could have been better.
Lastly, I wanted to touch on a more sensitive, but important point.
What greatly angered and saddend me is how the writer literally denied the Armenian Genocide. A disgrace!
November 21, 2018
Full of facts, figure-heads, and dates, and yet not at all a long-winded book. The gist, as I understood it, is that the Ottoman Empire, for all its faults (general economic inefficiency, bloated janissary class, weak sultans and power-hungry sultan-mothers, religious superstition, etc.) offered its citizens better quality of life and more tolerance than many nation-states surrounding it. For centuries, Armenians, Greeks and Kurds could be found along with Turks in the innermost circles of power in the Ottoman state, and there was relatively peaceful co-existence between these peoples.
Another way of putting this, is that when compared to other empires spanning a similar broad expanse of time before caving in such as the Romanov dynasty, the Ottoman Empire at least 'tried.' Indeed, as Norman Stone recounts, the 19th century saw various remarkably progressive sultans like Abdulmecit I and Abdulhamit and their grand-viziers try to push through important reforms and to set the Empire on the road to liberal democracy. There was the Tanzimaat-period, the launching of a parliament and constitution, thorough-going educational reforms with a program of Westernization or Europeanisation of the curriculum and teaching staff, and the abolition of religious attire and sharia law.
Of course, for various reasons, this proved insufficient when nationalist forces started gaining traction and when it became apparent to these that the Ottoman Empire was no longer a match, militarily speaking, for its (smaller) neighbours. It was then that the crows gathered to pick the Empire apart. Interestingly, what stopped this from happening, was not a Turkish last-minute resurgence but the fact that its enemies in World War 1—Russia and the Allied combined army based in Greece—decided for strategic reasons to stop or even withdraw (in the case of Russia), instead of marching on towards, respectively, Istanbul and Ankara and Anatolia. The resulting Treaty of Sevres was incredibly harsh, but when Mustafa Kemal Ataturk entered the stage to lead the Turks to victory, he could still draw on the resources of a large Turkish rump state consisting of Istanbul and Anatolia.
Another way of putting this, is that when compared to other empires spanning a similar broad expanse of time before caving in such as the Romanov dynasty, the Ottoman Empire at least 'tried.' Indeed, as Norman Stone recounts, the 19th century saw various remarkably progressive sultans like Abdulmecit I and Abdulhamit and their grand-viziers try to push through important reforms and to set the Empire on the road to liberal democracy. There was the Tanzimaat-period, the launching of a parliament and constitution, thorough-going educational reforms with a program of Westernization or Europeanisation of the curriculum and teaching staff, and the abolition of religious attire and sharia law.
Of course, for various reasons, this proved insufficient when nationalist forces started gaining traction and when it became apparent to these that the Ottoman Empire was no longer a match, militarily speaking, for its (smaller) neighbours. It was then that the crows gathered to pick the Empire apart. Interestingly, what stopped this from happening, was not a Turkish last-minute resurgence but the fact that its enemies in World War 1—Russia and the Allied combined army based in Greece—decided for strategic reasons to stop or even withdraw (in the case of Russia), instead of marching on towards, respectively, Istanbul and Ankara and Anatolia. The resulting Treaty of Sevres was incredibly harsh, but when Mustafa Kemal Ataturk entered the stage to lead the Turks to victory, he could still draw on the resources of a large Turkish rump state consisting of Istanbul and Anatolia.
December 3, 2013
He leído la versión española. Libro útil para entender a grandes rasgos la historia turca, de la cual desconoZco casi todo. Baja puntuación porque no es muy ameno, con alguna parte farragosa, las referencias históricas de los países que conozco (España) son muy desacertadas, el tema del genocidio armenio lo tarta en un solo párrafo y las conclusiones finales se están probando erróneas (Erdogan)
January 19, 2023
The book examines Turkey's history, from the 11th century to the application for EU membership. Although I preferred footnotes and a more detailed analysis, it's a good and fair general introduction. And I was impressed by the narration; the text has an almost artistic touch...
February 18, 2019
The scale of concision is absurd, but the delivery - twinkly-eyed old professor chuckling to himself - is as charming as anything I've ever come across.
December 21, 2022
Too much emphasis on political history, too little on social, economic and cultural history. Occassionally sloppy writing
November 25, 2024
The book is called ‘A Short History’ and short it is being only 177 pages in length. People who are put off by non-fictions often weighty offerings need not be afraid here. I bought it following our summer holiday to….Turkey, wanting to know a little more about the lush landscape and plentiful ruins I hadn’t expected to find in Britain’s current favourite holiday destination. The size made it a perfect one to stick in a suitcase although the text is quite small so don’t forget your reading glasses.
Whilst I appreciated the brevity, what the book really lacked was maps. (the book only contained one from 1683) It would have been really useful to have been able to study the forever changing borders as we travelled from the eighth century all the way to virtually present day.
Given the eighth century starting point I hadn’t expected to see so many mentions of climate change. I can’t help but think this was not at the forefront of Turks minds in the seventeenth century yet I was surprised to see it referenced several times. It felt jarring bringing in such a modern phrase (although countless would argue this is a century old problem).
I also thought it could have done with slightly more editing – there were often rambling sentences where you weren’t sure where you were supposed to be heading. For example the paragraph starting:
“If you turned on the radio, you heard only western classical music; football, Boy Scouts, were in evidence, though the Scouts were run by the ministry of education; a Turkish opera singer, Semiha Berksoy, became famous in Europe, and the Turks were very well established on the international scene. Ataturk died, vastly respected in 1938.”
Why are we talking about the radio only to shove a sentence in about someone dying who had nothing to do with said radio?
I don’t necessarily feel like I came away from the book more knowledgeable however it did illustrate what a complex and vast history Turkey and its people have. Lucky I bought two books about Turkey. The second one is of course a doorstop and I probably won’t have it read before my next summer holiday. Maybe it will inspire me however to make a return visit.
Whilst I appreciated the brevity, what the book really lacked was maps. (the book only contained one from 1683) It would have been really useful to have been able to study the forever changing borders as we travelled from the eighth century all the way to virtually present day.
Given the eighth century starting point I hadn’t expected to see so many mentions of climate change. I can’t help but think this was not at the forefront of Turks minds in the seventeenth century yet I was surprised to see it referenced several times. It felt jarring bringing in such a modern phrase (although countless would argue this is a century old problem).
I also thought it could have done with slightly more editing – there were often rambling sentences where you weren’t sure where you were supposed to be heading. For example the paragraph starting:
“If you turned on the radio, you heard only western classical music; football, Boy Scouts, were in evidence, though the Scouts were run by the ministry of education; a Turkish opera singer, Semiha Berksoy, became famous in Europe, and the Turks were very well established on the international scene. Ataturk died, vastly respected in 1938.”
Why are we talking about the radio only to shove a sentence in about someone dying who had nothing to do with said radio?
I don’t necessarily feel like I came away from the book more knowledgeable however it did illustrate what a complex and vast history Turkey and its people have. Lucky I bought two books about Turkey. The second one is of course a doorstop and I probably won’t have it read before my next summer holiday. Maybe it will inspire me however to make a return visit.
February 23, 2025
Confusing and kinda problematically written - basically just people killing each other for the whole book.
August 20, 2024
Notes
Selcuk, 'little flood' in Arabic, bring shamnaism from Siberia, druids and emblems of peregrine, hawk, tugrul and cagri, still used as first names. 1055, enter Baghdad and Tugrul Bey marries daughter of the Caliph in a ceremony under Turkish rites - the equivalent of marrying an African chief to a Hapsburg to the sound of tom-toms
Byzantium’s Greek Fire (combustible mixture that ignites ships) helped resist sieges, until Venetians treated leather with chemical, ransack Constantinople in 1204 (4th Crusade) - under Latin rule for next 200 years.
Nomadics, called Turcoman (recent migrants from Central Asia, not at home in towns).
Devsirme - lifting - conscripting young boys for education, convert to Islam, learn Turkish, nucleus of elite army - Yeni ceri (new troops) becomes Janissary - with own music, marching (2 steps forward, one back, head to side).
By mid 15th century, Byzantium shrinks to Constantinople. Emperor John VIII begs Pope for help, but must give up Orthodoxy and acknowledge Pope as head of church. His successor Constantine XI refuses to pay Turk tribute.
Like Japanese cousins, Turks had trouble pronouncing Latin - prokopi (Cappadocia) becomes Urgup. Sandraka to Zonguldak, Palaeokastron to Balikesir. Authentes (from megas authentes, the address for Byzantine rulers) becomes efendi, honorific in middle-east even today.
Constantinople becomes Konstantiniye (becomes Istanbul) rebuilt as successor of Rome - grand bazaar, caravansarays. Greeks, Jews, Armenians allowed to return. Genoese quarter (Galata) with many foreigners (Franks - Turkish word for syphilis is frengi).
Mehmet the Conquerer builds Topkapi (common gate), court balloons to 30,000 people, including holder of stirrup (rikabdar), chief taster (casnigirbasi), pages to stay awake as he sleeps (assassin watch), drawn from the court-page school that breeds grand viziers and governors, like Henry VI’s Eton.
Genoese bases in Crimea and deep-water port of Trabzon, valuable for Black-sea high road for Russian trade in furs and slaves (Turkish word for prostitute is orospu)
Shah Ismail rises with Shiism (red-heads, kizilbas, tall red turbans with 12 folds, for the 12 messiahs, mehdis, they acknowledge), sets up Safavid dynasty, strikes at Trabzon where Selim, son of Bayezit, gives up and takes refuge with son in Crimea, Suleyman.
On Ashura (10th day of Muharram, first month of calendar, Moses parts the Red Sea, Noah disembarks from the Ark, but mostly Shiites mourn death of Hussein Ali), kizilbas revolt, prompts deposing of Bayezit II by Selim who kills dozen brothers/nephews, takes name the Grim, or Tough (Yavuz - similar to Ivan the Terrible, grozny, ‘threatening’)
Selim drives off Mamluks, takes Damascus Aleppo Cairo Mecca Yemen, even Ethiopia, Baghdad, claiming title Caliph along with various trophies (hairs of Prophet’s beard; zulfikar the sword of Ali other relics in a kosk of Topkapi)
Centre of gravity moves from Mediterannean to Atlantic, Ottomans, Venetians, Spanish losers while Dutch, English winners (better ships, stock exchange, insurance, telescopes, agriculture, disease control). Hapsburgs to North and West. Russia as last great Central Asian Empire.
Suleiman’s synthesis of Rome for law and organization, Islam for inspiration, Central Asia for military.
Massive price-rise in late 1500s. Mediterranean population goes up 50%, grain imported from Baltic. Spanish hit silver mines of Potosi in S.America. From parity with Venetian standard coin, Ottoman akce drops by half. Janissaries revolt, paid off, then household cavalry revolts. Janissaries diluted, go up to 40,000.
Turkish households divided into area open to visitors, greeting area or selamlik, and private area called harem. Queen masterminds killing of her son’s half-brothers, head gardener applies a silken cord (soul does not go to heaven if blood is shed with rope). Ahmet I stops the process, kept half-brothers in a rat-infested corner of harem called the Cage.
Mothers of sultans, Sultan Valide, and their eunuchs (great white eunuch runs palace and page boys; great black eunuch, deprived of everything and plunged into hot sand, runs the harem) take over the Empire.
Ulema and its Sheikh-ul-Islam, which interprets sharia closes schools of math/astronomy that probe secrets best left to the Devil.
One disaster is better than a thousand pieces fo advice - 1768 war with Russia lost Black Sea (Crimea with Tatars who consider themselves descendents of Genghis and therefore allies), Northern Caucasus (Circassians allies. Russian fleet smashes Ottomans at port of Smyrna.
Selim III (1789-17807) begins westernization of Turkey, confronting the Eastern Question (what happens when Turkey goes?)
Classical Rome inspired 17th century France. German nationalist reaction to domination of French - N.Europe goes mad for Hellas. Powers support Greek Independence but know end of Ottoman would be problematic. Metternich of Austria - Greece is condemned to life.
Ancient Greece destroyed first by Celts, then by Slavs in 8th century, reHellenized by Byzantines.
1828 Tsar Nicholas I attacks Turkey, takes E.cost of Black Sea. Greek independence in 1832. Egypt-France alliance threatens Constantinople, so Russia defends Turks.
1853 Crimean War begins with France/Russia fighting for rights of Catholic/Orthodox monks over Jerusalem’s Holy Sepulchre and Holy Nativity. Russia invites Britain to divide up Turkey, the sick man of Europe, cutting out France. Attacks Sinop, and as bad feudal-illiberal-villain of Europe, gets war-declared by France+Britain who take Sevastopol to end the war.
Ottoman-Balkan dominos that set off WW1. France moves on Morocco, Germany supports Ottoman drawing Britain in. Italy takes Libya and Dodecanese, emboldening Balkan nationalists against Ottoman. Bulgaria reaches Constantinople. Greece takes Salonica. Montenegro takes N.Albania. Serbia takes Montenegro. Bulgaria takes Edirne, Ottomans retake and call in German military consultants who see potential Turkey as their Egypt.
Russia booming since 1908, armaments and railways makes her (if allied with France) a match for Germany. Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg: war now, before it is too late. Gavrilo Princip gives the excuse. Russia mobilizes to protect Balkan position. Germany declares war, enters Bosporus, allies with Turkey, bombs Russian black sea port of Odessa. Russia, Britain, France and Italy ally and decide how to split up Turkey.
Churchill calculates Turkey collapse, 12 battleships sent to Dardanelles and sunk. Landing at Gallipoli fails. Russia attacks from E.Anatolia with 4 Armenian brigades, take Erzurum, Trabzon then withdraw after Bolshevik Revolution.
Turkey cut off from Germany after ally Bulgaria falls, brokers armistice with Britain. Allied occupation of Constantinople. Armenia attacks Georgia, takes Erzurum and Trabzon, massacres unite the muslims and Kurds. Mustafa Kemal, general at Gallipoli, collects challengers to Sultan’s government at Ankara and allies with Bolsheviks. Armenia collapses in eastern front. France does a deal on Syrian border. Greeks beaten in battle of Sakarya river.
Ataturk waits. Attacks 1922, takes Izmir from Greeks, marches into Constantinople held by British. 1923 Lausanne treaty sets current Turkey borders. 500k Greek speaking Muslims and 1M Turkish speaking Greeks exchange places with much suffering. Ataturk proclaims republic on 29 Oct 1923.
Islam written off as a burden. Sultan, Calph of all Islam, deposed. In a single month, Turkish moves from Arab-Persian script to Latin. Ataturk: absurd for 7th century Bedouin to dictate smallest details of people’s personal lives.
Stalin demands back eastern provinces ceded in 1918, rights to garrison the Straits. US sends warships. Turkey joins Nato, gets Marshall Plan aid, sends contingent to Korean War.
Democratic Party emerges, courts religious vote, becomes corrupt, authoritarian, causes riot against Greeks of Istanbul who leave along with Armenians and Jews, impoverishing Turkey, ruining old European center of Beyoglu and Galata. Democrats overthrown by military coup in 1960, PM Adnan Menderes hanged. Stagnation. Second coup in 1980, army making a compact with clergy as antidote to Marxism and Maoist Kurdish separatists. Motherland party emerges, Turgut Ozal (World Bank) liberalizes economy, gets IMF, WTO help
Selcuk, 'little flood' in Arabic, bring shamnaism from Siberia, druids and emblems of peregrine, hawk, tugrul and cagri, still used as first names. 1055, enter Baghdad and Tugrul Bey marries daughter of the Caliph in a ceremony under Turkish rites - the equivalent of marrying an African chief to a Hapsburg to the sound of tom-toms
Byzantium’s Greek Fire (combustible mixture that ignites ships) helped resist sieges, until Venetians treated leather with chemical, ransack Constantinople in 1204 (4th Crusade) - under Latin rule for next 200 years.
Nomadics, called Turcoman (recent migrants from Central Asia, not at home in towns).
Devsirme - lifting - conscripting young boys for education, convert to Islam, learn Turkish, nucleus of elite army - Yeni ceri (new troops) becomes Janissary - with own music, marching (2 steps forward, one back, head to side).
By mid 15th century, Byzantium shrinks to Constantinople. Emperor John VIII begs Pope for help, but must give up Orthodoxy and acknowledge Pope as head of church. His successor Constantine XI refuses to pay Turk tribute.
Like Japanese cousins, Turks had trouble pronouncing Latin - prokopi (Cappadocia) becomes Urgup. Sandraka to Zonguldak, Palaeokastron to Balikesir. Authentes (from megas authentes, the address for Byzantine rulers) becomes efendi, honorific in middle-east even today.
Constantinople becomes Konstantiniye (becomes Istanbul) rebuilt as successor of Rome - grand bazaar, caravansarays. Greeks, Jews, Armenians allowed to return. Genoese quarter (Galata) with many foreigners (Franks - Turkish word for syphilis is frengi).
Mehmet the Conquerer builds Topkapi (common gate), court balloons to 30,000 people, including holder of stirrup (rikabdar), chief taster (casnigirbasi), pages to stay awake as he sleeps (assassin watch), drawn from the court-page school that breeds grand viziers and governors, like Henry VI’s Eton.
Genoese bases in Crimea and deep-water port of Trabzon, valuable for Black-sea high road for Russian trade in furs and slaves (Turkish word for prostitute is orospu)
Shah Ismail rises with Shiism (red-heads, kizilbas, tall red turbans with 12 folds, for the 12 messiahs, mehdis, they acknowledge), sets up Safavid dynasty, strikes at Trabzon where Selim, son of Bayezit, gives up and takes refuge with son in Crimea, Suleyman.
On Ashura (10th day of Muharram, first month of calendar, Moses parts the Red Sea, Noah disembarks from the Ark, but mostly Shiites mourn death of Hussein Ali), kizilbas revolt, prompts deposing of Bayezit II by Selim who kills dozen brothers/nephews, takes name the Grim, or Tough (Yavuz - similar to Ivan the Terrible, grozny, ‘threatening’)
Selim drives off Mamluks, takes Damascus Aleppo Cairo Mecca Yemen, even Ethiopia, Baghdad, claiming title Caliph along with various trophies (hairs of Prophet’s beard; zulfikar the sword of Ali other relics in a kosk of Topkapi)
Centre of gravity moves from Mediterannean to Atlantic, Ottomans, Venetians, Spanish losers while Dutch, English winners (better ships, stock exchange, insurance, telescopes, agriculture, disease control). Hapsburgs to North and West. Russia as last great Central Asian Empire.
Suleiman’s synthesis of Rome for law and organization, Islam for inspiration, Central Asia for military.
Massive price-rise in late 1500s. Mediterranean population goes up 50%, grain imported from Baltic. Spanish hit silver mines of Potosi in S.America. From parity with Venetian standard coin, Ottoman akce drops by half. Janissaries revolt, paid off, then household cavalry revolts. Janissaries diluted, go up to 40,000.
Turkish households divided into area open to visitors, greeting area or selamlik, and private area called harem. Queen masterminds killing of her son’s half-brothers, head gardener applies a silken cord (soul does not go to heaven if blood is shed with rope). Ahmet I stops the process, kept half-brothers in a rat-infested corner of harem called the Cage.
Mothers of sultans, Sultan Valide, and their eunuchs (great white eunuch runs palace and page boys; great black eunuch, deprived of everything and plunged into hot sand, runs the harem) take over the Empire.
Ulema and its Sheikh-ul-Islam, which interprets sharia closes schools of math/astronomy that probe secrets best left to the Devil.
One disaster is better than a thousand pieces fo advice - 1768 war with Russia lost Black Sea (Crimea with Tatars who consider themselves descendents of Genghis and therefore allies), Northern Caucasus (Circassians allies. Russian fleet smashes Ottomans at port of Smyrna.
Selim III (1789-17807) begins westernization of Turkey, confronting the Eastern Question (what happens when Turkey goes?)
Classical Rome inspired 17th century France. German nationalist reaction to domination of French - N.Europe goes mad for Hellas. Powers support Greek Independence but know end of Ottoman would be problematic. Metternich of Austria - Greece is condemned to life.
Ancient Greece destroyed first by Celts, then by Slavs in 8th century, reHellenized by Byzantines.
1828 Tsar Nicholas I attacks Turkey, takes E.cost of Black Sea. Greek independence in 1832. Egypt-France alliance threatens Constantinople, so Russia defends Turks.
1853 Crimean War begins with France/Russia fighting for rights of Catholic/Orthodox monks over Jerusalem’s Holy Sepulchre and Holy Nativity. Russia invites Britain to divide up Turkey, the sick man of Europe, cutting out France. Attacks Sinop, and as bad feudal-illiberal-villain of Europe, gets war-declared by France+Britain who take Sevastopol to end the war.
Ottoman-Balkan dominos that set off WW1. France moves on Morocco, Germany supports Ottoman drawing Britain in. Italy takes Libya and Dodecanese, emboldening Balkan nationalists against Ottoman. Bulgaria reaches Constantinople. Greece takes Salonica. Montenegro takes N.Albania. Serbia takes Montenegro. Bulgaria takes Edirne, Ottomans retake and call in German military consultants who see potential Turkey as their Egypt.
Russia booming since 1908, armaments and railways makes her (if allied with France) a match for Germany. Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg: war now, before it is too late. Gavrilo Princip gives the excuse. Russia mobilizes to protect Balkan position. Germany declares war, enters Bosporus, allies with Turkey, bombs Russian black sea port of Odessa. Russia, Britain, France and Italy ally and decide how to split up Turkey.
Churchill calculates Turkey collapse, 12 battleships sent to Dardanelles and sunk. Landing at Gallipoli fails. Russia attacks from E.Anatolia with 4 Armenian brigades, take Erzurum, Trabzon then withdraw after Bolshevik Revolution.
Turkey cut off from Germany after ally Bulgaria falls, brokers armistice with Britain. Allied occupation of Constantinople. Armenia attacks Georgia, takes Erzurum and Trabzon, massacres unite the muslims and Kurds. Mustafa Kemal, general at Gallipoli, collects challengers to Sultan’s government at Ankara and allies with Bolsheviks. Armenia collapses in eastern front. France does a deal on Syrian border. Greeks beaten in battle of Sakarya river.
Ataturk waits. Attacks 1922, takes Izmir from Greeks, marches into Constantinople held by British. 1923 Lausanne treaty sets current Turkey borders. 500k Greek speaking Muslims and 1M Turkish speaking Greeks exchange places with much suffering. Ataturk proclaims republic on 29 Oct 1923.
Islam written off as a burden. Sultan, Calph of all Islam, deposed. In a single month, Turkish moves from Arab-Persian script to Latin. Ataturk: absurd for 7th century Bedouin to dictate smallest details of people’s personal lives.
Stalin demands back eastern provinces ceded in 1918, rights to garrison the Straits. US sends warships. Turkey joins Nato, gets Marshall Plan aid, sends contingent to Korean War.
Democratic Party emerges, courts religious vote, becomes corrupt, authoritarian, causes riot against Greeks of Istanbul who leave along with Armenians and Jews, impoverishing Turkey, ruining old European center of Beyoglu and Galata. Democrats overthrown by military coup in 1960, PM Adnan Menderes hanged. Stagnation. Second coup in 1980, army making a compact with clergy as antidote to Marxism and Maoist Kurdish separatists. Motherland party emerges, Turgut Ozal (World Bank) liberalizes economy, gets IMF, WTO help
August 30, 2018
Painted a decent picture of the origins of the Ottoman Empire and its later demise. However, it certainly does not do this in a particularly entertaining way. It was a bit of a slog. What got me through it was the shortness of it (~190 pages), and the desire of building context for an impending trip to Istanbul (although wishing I would've found another resource 90 pages in, but, sunk cost. 🚢)
The Ottoman empire is one of the most successful in history spanning about 500 years. The modern Turks came as nomadic tribes from Central Asia. There is much evidence of this, one being that many of the languages spoken in that region such as Azerbaijan, Kazaksthan, Siberia, and Western China all speak a variant of Turkic. One of the most spectacular palaces in Istanbul has small rooms compared to other palaces and is essentially a marble nomadic camp if you squint. Most of European history I've been taught in school has been viewed through the Northern European lense. It was quite interesting to see it through the Ottoman. It rose after the Byzantine empire (one of the longest-lived empires in history, about 1000 years) when Constantinople (now Istanbul) fell to the Turks. When digging into the history of the Ottomans, the cultural connection between many modern Arab countries and the Balkans becomes quite clear.
There are many interesting facts scattered throughout the book, but the author certainly suffers from the curse of knowledge explaining it. The way it's written is extremely non-memorable, you really have to put the effort in to discern the facts and attempt to make them stick. If you didn't take your own notes and spent a lot of time with them or converted them into flash cards, I'd be impressed if you'd remember much. That's not the trait of a good book.
The Ottoman empire is one of the most successful in history spanning about 500 years. The modern Turks came as nomadic tribes from Central Asia. There is much evidence of this, one being that many of the languages spoken in that region such as Azerbaijan, Kazaksthan, Siberia, and Western China all speak a variant of Turkic. One of the most spectacular palaces in Istanbul has small rooms compared to other palaces and is essentially a marble nomadic camp if you squint. Most of European history I've been taught in school has been viewed through the Northern European lense. It was quite interesting to see it through the Ottoman. It rose after the Byzantine empire (one of the longest-lived empires in history, about 1000 years) when Constantinople (now Istanbul) fell to the Turks. When digging into the history of the Ottomans, the cultural connection between many modern Arab countries and the Balkans becomes quite clear.
There are many interesting facts scattered throughout the book, but the author certainly suffers from the curse of knowledge explaining it. The way it's written is extremely non-memorable, you really have to put the effort in to discern the facts and attempt to make them stick. If you didn't take your own notes and spent a lot of time with them or converted them into flash cards, I'd be impressed if you'd remember much. That's not the trait of a good book.
November 4, 2017
In a word: tedious.
Decided to step out of my comfort zone and read something less familiar and boy do I regret it. My aim was to take the book and become engrossed in the rich and diverse culture, passion and history of turkey and its people. Instead, I feel like i was beaten around the head with jargon, monotone facts, sweeping statements and complexity. Reader be ware...in no way is this 'a short history' of a great nation, although I have to say I admire the authors clear passion and dedication to the topic which really shines through at the turn of each page. Having said that, for me personally it was just too heavy, very analytical and just did not grab my attention like most other historical/political books do. The objective was to learn more and broaden my horizon but to be honest it just felt too foreign and drew no connection for me, instead i found myself racing through the lines just to finish the page and move swiftly on to the next one. The style is hyper-analytical and may suit someone looking for a more depth exploration of the topic having already read around the past of Turkey. Rookie move on my part I feel...wouldn’t recommend for someone like me who is just starting out with their introduction to that regions rich history.
Decided to step out of my comfort zone and read something less familiar and boy do I regret it. My aim was to take the book and become engrossed in the rich and diverse culture, passion and history of turkey and its people. Instead, I feel like i was beaten around the head with jargon, monotone facts, sweeping statements and complexity. Reader be ware...in no way is this 'a short history' of a great nation, although I have to say I admire the authors clear passion and dedication to the topic which really shines through at the turn of each page. Having said that, for me personally it was just too heavy, very analytical and just did not grab my attention like most other historical/political books do. The objective was to learn more and broaden my horizon but to be honest it just felt too foreign and drew no connection for me, instead i found myself racing through the lines just to finish the page and move swiftly on to the next one. The style is hyper-analytical and may suit someone looking for a more depth exploration of the topic having already read around the past of Turkey. Rookie move on my part I feel...wouldn’t recommend for someone like me who is just starting out with their introduction to that regions rich history.
September 17, 2022
Se trata de una condensada y objetiva historia del Imperio Otomano, y en menor medida, de la joven República de Turquía. Al estar tan resumida no te permite profundizar en aspectos que pueden ser más interesantes, como el asunto aleví o el genocidio armenio, pero lo indica con precisión y uno puede investigar por su cuenta consultando la bibliografía aportada. La recomiendo tanto para gente sin conocimientos previos como para alguien que desee tener un ideograma lineal y amanoso de lo sucedido en esta carismática región.
July 8, 2021
The book reads well for most of its run, offering a particular view of Turkish history that is identifiably secular and Istanbul-leaning. None of this is a problem. However, things really fall apart when Stone offers up a long discussion on how the Armenian genocide not only never happened (he argues that the Turks were simply moving them for their own good), but that the Armenians were the ones trying to commit war crimes and that the Turks were the real victims. It is simply repulsive to read. Moreover, it made me question the validity of everything that preceded it. I would definitely not recommend this book.
June 12, 2014
Pervasive copy editing oversights, obnoxious tangents, and sweeping and elementary analysis of extremely important events and periods. Also, the author denies the Armenian genocide and covers the event in a single page. One would expect a book to provide a bit more insight into the slaughter of 1.5 million of its subject's citizens.
February 15, 2020
If feels like Norman Stone dictated this book. It has a quality of speech, a casualness, but it still has verve. The author is not really thinking about what the reader understands and does not or how to explain things to the reader. Instead, Norman has a lot of Eurasia history in his head and he is bouncing off topics and dates as they come to him willynilly.
I am sure if I sat down with Norman I would find him pompous and pedantic.
That said, I finished the book and immediately went went to the first page and started reading it over again.
I had to read it over because I realized how I understood very little because I could not name or place on a globe, the countries that were communistic Eastern block countries when I was young. I had to find, Albania, Hungary, Bosnia, Romania, Yugoslavia, The Check Repbublic. I had to find the Balkans, the Caspian sea, the caucuses, the Red Sea...
The book really concerns the rise and decline of the Ottoman Empire. The arc of the book is clear: Origins, World Power, Zenith, Shadows, Changing Balance, The Long Defensive, Crash and the Turkey Republic. Istanbul was a sorry city, when Mehmet broached the Theodosian Walls.
Turkey was so little a country and so much a city with an Empire. I do not know if Rome is comparable or not. Islam, the religion of Mohammad is a conquering way of life. Coming out of the steppes, these warriors were horse and bowman.
Mohammad was born in 6??. in Medina on the Arabic Peninsula. Upon gathering a army, he conquered both the ancient and powerful Persian Empire and North Africa. His successor's army in what is now Morocco intermarried with the burbers and crossed over onto the Iberian Peninsula which at that time was controlled by the Visagoths. Islam was driven out of the Iberian Peninsula in ……...But as late as 1500, Cairo was a powerful Islamic city controlled by the Mameluke rulers. )
The Turks were expansionist they had to keep expanding to feed their Janissaries. They conquered Armenia, Syria They very much struggled with the M. Arabs which had a much sterner form of Islam. They spread up to Austria, Prague, Belgrade, Thrace, Greece ( but not Italy?) The Zenith was under Suleyman the 1 who reigned from 1520 to 1566. IT was a brilliant period. S. died in Hungary.
In the 1600, Northernn Europe, Holland had its Zenith and the world spirit moved form the Atlantic to European Atlantic. It is during this period that the modern meaning of Harem came into being. The wives/ mothers had power over succession and their sons. Money lost value. Islam became much more strict and conservative.
The Ottoman sultan was not paying attention as the world changed. He took a huge army to Vienna, and died in the battle there. I think this is the point when the Polish saved Europe. It lost Hungary. Russia battled for control of the Black Sea.And the more powerful countries such as Britain, Germany and Italy were constantly planning to take their countries and divide up Anatolia. Fraternization began with the discontent of the 1700 and continued into the 1800.s But until 1730, they back slid until they came to The Tulip years which were a glowing time. he 1800s were hard to understand because we have no internal accounts. Turkey was a mess. War with Catherine the Great happened in 1768.
.
World War 1 started in 1911, As Europe and Russia were a
also a mess so was Turkey and the atrocities were unbelievable.
Attaturk came a long and had a perfectly feel for what was modernization: pro equalization of woman, modern clothes, roman alphabet, and separation from the Islam.
ERagon was in many ways not Attaturks successor.
I am sure if I sat down with Norman I would find him pompous and pedantic.
That said, I finished the book and immediately went went to the first page and started reading it over again.
I had to read it over because I realized how I understood very little because I could not name or place on a globe, the countries that were communistic Eastern block countries when I was young. I had to find, Albania, Hungary, Bosnia, Romania, Yugoslavia, The Check Repbublic. I had to find the Balkans, the Caspian sea, the caucuses, the Red Sea...
The book really concerns the rise and decline of the Ottoman Empire. The arc of the book is clear: Origins, World Power, Zenith, Shadows, Changing Balance, The Long Defensive, Crash and the Turkey Republic. Istanbul was a sorry city, when Mehmet broached the Theodosian Walls.
Turkey was so little a country and so much a city with an Empire. I do not know if Rome is comparable or not. Islam, the religion of Mohammad is a conquering way of life. Coming out of the steppes, these warriors were horse and bowman.
Mohammad was born in 6??. in Medina on the Arabic Peninsula. Upon gathering a army, he conquered both the ancient and powerful Persian Empire and North Africa. His successor's army in what is now Morocco intermarried with the burbers and crossed over onto the Iberian Peninsula which at that time was controlled by the Visagoths. Islam was driven out of the Iberian Peninsula in ……...But as late as 1500, Cairo was a powerful Islamic city controlled by the Mameluke rulers. )
The Turks were expansionist they had to keep expanding to feed their Janissaries. They conquered Armenia, Syria They very much struggled with the M. Arabs which had a much sterner form of Islam. They spread up to Austria, Prague, Belgrade, Thrace, Greece ( but not Italy?) The Zenith was under Suleyman the 1 who reigned from 1520 to 1566. IT was a brilliant period. S. died in Hungary.
In the 1600, Northernn Europe, Holland had its Zenith and the world spirit moved form the Atlantic to European Atlantic. It is during this period that the modern meaning of Harem came into being. The wives/ mothers had power over succession and their sons. Money lost value. Islam became much more strict and conservative.
The Ottoman sultan was not paying attention as the world changed. He took a huge army to Vienna, and died in the battle there. I think this is the point when the Polish saved Europe. It lost Hungary. Russia battled for control of the Black Sea.And the more powerful countries such as Britain, Germany and Italy were constantly planning to take their countries and divide up Anatolia. Fraternization began with the discontent of the 1700 and continued into the 1800.s But until 1730, they back slid until they came to The Tulip years which were a glowing time. he 1800s were hard to understand because we have no internal accounts. Turkey was a mess. War with Catherine the Great happened in 1768.
.
World War 1 started in 1911, As Europe and Russia were a
also a mess so was Turkey and the atrocities were unbelievable.
Attaturk came a long and had a perfectly feel for what was modernization: pro equalization of woman, modern clothes, roman alphabet, and separation from the Islam.
ERagon was in many ways not Attaturks successor.
July 20, 2020
This book should have a warning label on the front stating "You must know this much about Turkey to enjoy the ride", accompanied by a drawing of a person with arms outstretched as far as possible.
I purchased this book because my wife suggested traveling to Turkey. I was not familiar with Turkey's history and wanted to get a better understanding of what locations would have historical significance and be worth visiting. This book did not fit my need at all.
You get thrown into the deep-end immediately, the first chapter is bounded loosely between 1000 and 1400. The author bounces back and forth in time as he shifts from one topic to another without any structure, seemingly guided by only his whimsy. At this point I was simply reading for enjoyment, the conversational equivalent of smiling and nodding as someone speaks to you. It gets better as you reach the mid 1700s. Before that, prepare to be lost if you are not familiar with the region pre-1700. To get my bearings I had to look up several names, places, and concepts online which was frustrating because I might as well have just read a Wikipedia article than buying this book.
The writing style is frantic, it feels like a child on a sugar high telling you about their day. I think this style might very effective and engaging if you are familiar enough with the subject matter. If not, you'll feel extremely disoriented and confused.
To summarize, if you are already well informed about Turkish history this book is for you. I think it will offer unique tidbits and insights you will appreciate. If you know nothing of Turkey's history, look into a different book. I regret choosing this as my starting point.
I purchased this book because my wife suggested traveling to Turkey. I was not familiar with Turkey's history and wanted to get a better understanding of what locations would have historical significance and be worth visiting. This book did not fit my need at all.
You get thrown into the deep-end immediately, the first chapter is bounded loosely between 1000 and 1400. The author bounces back and forth in time as he shifts from one topic to another without any structure, seemingly guided by only his whimsy. At this point I was simply reading for enjoyment, the conversational equivalent of smiling and nodding as someone speaks to you. It gets better as you reach the mid 1700s. Before that, prepare to be lost if you are not familiar with the region pre-1700. To get my bearings I had to look up several names, places, and concepts online which was frustrating because I might as well have just read a Wikipedia article than buying this book.
The writing style is frantic, it feels like a child on a sugar high telling you about their day. I think this style might very effective and engaging if you are familiar enough with the subject matter. If not, you'll feel extremely disoriented and confused.
To summarize, if you are already well informed about Turkish history this book is for you. I think it will offer unique tidbits and insights you will appreciate. If you know nothing of Turkey's history, look into a different book. I regret choosing this as my starting point.
June 11, 2023
Nu o sa ma pronunt cu privire la versiunea originala in engleza, dar pot sa spun ca editia in romana de la Litera nu este deloc citibila (m-am chinuit destul de mult si am trecut de jumatate, dar a venit momentul in care am decis ca nu mai pot sa continui).
Per total, cartea ar trebui sa se citeasca usor. Autorul incepe cronologic de la turcii selgiucizi si prezinta in fiecare capitol cele mai importante informatii despre o anumita epoca a imperiului otoman. Fiind deja putin familiarizat cu subiectul, pot spune ca am aflat totusi multe informatii noi la fiecare pas. Problema apare de la faptul ca autorul vrea sa introduca de multe ori informatia sub forma de "fun facts" si ajunge astfel sa devieze complet de la subiectul principal si sa asasineze total cronologia. Am avut de mai multe ori perioade de cateva pagini de citit cursiv cu gandul ca "acum va fi mai bine, a fost doar o scapare de moment" urmate de anecdote plasate foarte optimist in context si incununate cu recitiri partiale sau complete de paragrafe in speranta ca ordinea exista acolo, dar trebuie doar cautata mai mult.
Bucata care mi-a pus capac a fost "Oamenii tanzimat-ului considerau ca venise momentul lor. Daca-i provocau pe rusi poate faceau o greseala si chiar asa s-a intamplat". Asteptand sa vad greseala comisa de oamenii tanzimat-ului am constatat cu stupoare ca de fapt rusii erau aceia care facusera greseala. Acesta e doar unul din exemplele de propozitii si fraze ambigue care trebuie citite si recitite pana iti piere tot cheful sa intelegi ce se intampla de fapt in carte. Potentialul era foarte mare, dar executia (atat a lui Stone, cat si a traducerii) lasa mult de dorit.
Per total, cartea ar trebui sa se citeasca usor. Autorul incepe cronologic de la turcii selgiucizi si prezinta in fiecare capitol cele mai importante informatii despre o anumita epoca a imperiului otoman. Fiind deja putin familiarizat cu subiectul, pot spune ca am aflat totusi multe informatii noi la fiecare pas. Problema apare de la faptul ca autorul vrea sa introduca de multe ori informatia sub forma de "fun facts" si ajunge astfel sa devieze complet de la subiectul principal si sa asasineze total cronologia. Am avut de mai multe ori perioade de cateva pagini de citit cursiv cu gandul ca "acum va fi mai bine, a fost doar o scapare de moment" urmate de anecdote plasate foarte optimist in context si incununate cu recitiri partiale sau complete de paragrafe in speranta ca ordinea exista acolo, dar trebuie doar cautata mai mult.
Bucata care mi-a pus capac a fost "Oamenii tanzimat-ului considerau ca venise momentul lor. Daca-i provocau pe rusi poate faceau o greseala si chiar asa s-a intamplat". Asteptand sa vad greseala comisa de oamenii tanzimat-ului am constatat cu stupoare ca de fapt rusii erau aceia care facusera greseala. Acesta e doar unul din exemplele de propozitii si fraze ambigue care trebuie citite si recitite pana iti piere tot cheful sa intelegi ce se intampla de fapt in carte. Potentialul era foarte mare, dar executia (atat a lui Stone, cat si a traducerii) lasa mult de dorit.
May 31, 2019
This book was a big disappointment. I’ve enjoyed other books by Norman Stone and a short history of Turkey was exactly what I was looking to read as my interests have turned south from Hungary towards the medieval history of the Ottomans.
The book is only 180 pages and covers the whole history of the Ottomans / Turks from the founding of the Osmans through to modern day Erdogen. He includes some interesting perspectives such as the parallels between the heavyweight powers of the Ottomans and the Spanish in the medieval period and the echo of not-so-unreasonable 1950s German Christian Democrat policies in the seemingly sexist tax policies of Erdogan
But I found this book irritating and struggled to reach the end. Stone’s writing style is flippant - passing over some of the tedious detail that the average reader would find boring but failing to explain a lot. And he mangles his sentences awkwardly so that I often had to read them twice and even then I was left uncertain what he meant.
We need readable history books that are written by knowledgable historians that avoid the endless footnotes that most readers aren’t interested in. And it’s often helpful to just be told that “it gets a bit complicated here but the key thing to understand is...” but in this particular book I was often left feeling I needed more information and scratching my head trying to decipher Stone’s cryptic asides
The book is only 180 pages and covers the whole history of the Ottomans / Turks from the founding of the Osmans through to modern day Erdogen. He includes some interesting perspectives such as the parallels between the heavyweight powers of the Ottomans and the Spanish in the medieval period and the echo of not-so-unreasonable 1950s German Christian Democrat policies in the seemingly sexist tax policies of Erdogan
But I found this book irritating and struggled to reach the end. Stone’s writing style is flippant - passing over some of the tedious detail that the average reader would find boring but failing to explain a lot. And he mangles his sentences awkwardly so that I often had to read them twice and even then I was left uncertain what he meant.
We need readable history books that are written by knowledgable historians that avoid the endless footnotes that most readers aren’t interested in. And it’s often helpful to just be told that “it gets a bit complicated here but the key thing to understand is...” but in this particular book I was often left feeling I needed more information and scratching my head trying to decipher Stone’s cryptic asides
June 13, 2024
Very interesting, but dreadfully written
Very interesting little book, no doubt about that. Norman Stone was clearly an expert on Turkish history, and on many other aspects of Eurasian history as well. And he was probably also a very witty person. Unfortunately, when writing this book, he was more concerned about proving these points, page after page, phrase after phrase, than about conveying a brief history of Turkey to the reader. In a book of less than 200 pages, what can you say about such a complex subject? You'd have to filter out quite a lot of information and stick to the essential, so the reader is left with 10 basic ideas, let's say.
On the contrary, Stone tries to cram every little detail into the book. On top of that, to further increase the density, he also makes continuous references to Russian, English and German history. That would be fine if he had limited himself to the episodes actually related to Turkey. But no, again, it really seems that his main point is showing off his erudition and wit.
Also, he is -I'm sorry to say- a terrible writer. English is (in my opinion) a simple language, with a simple grammar, and it should be kept like that. Constructing sentences of 20, 30, 40 words, with several subordinates and parentheses: that's just not going to make for a very enjoyable reading.
So all in all, what could have been an excellent book stands just above average. A shame.
Very interesting little book, no doubt about that. Norman Stone was clearly an expert on Turkish history, and on many other aspects of Eurasian history as well. And he was probably also a very witty person. Unfortunately, when writing this book, he was more concerned about proving these points, page after page, phrase after phrase, than about conveying a brief history of Turkey to the reader. In a book of less than 200 pages, what can you say about such a complex subject? You'd have to filter out quite a lot of information and stick to the essential, so the reader is left with 10 basic ideas, let's say.
On the contrary, Stone tries to cram every little detail into the book. On top of that, to further increase the density, he also makes continuous references to Russian, English and German history. That would be fine if he had limited himself to the episodes actually related to Turkey. But no, again, it really seems that his main point is showing off his erudition and wit.
Also, he is -I'm sorry to say- a terrible writer. English is (in my opinion) a simple language, with a simple grammar, and it should be kept like that. Constructing sentences of 20, 30, 40 words, with several subordinates and parentheses: that's just not going to make for a very enjoyable reading.
So all in all, what could have been an excellent book stands just above average. A shame.
Read
June 26, 2022Interesting to read - after the Viking empire in Children of Ash and Elm - the other empires at the edge of the western medieval world. This work is short and comprehensive at the same time. Very interesting.
The contemporary introduction announces Ankara will be connected by fast train to Europe, by a tunnel under the Bosphorus (having spent 16 hours because of a missed transfer in Istanbul, this sounds attractive..). It also quotes: 'Islam, politics, economics: choose two' by Hasan Ali Karasar, a Turkish historian. If you are Turkish - the ancient native Turkish tradition, Persia, Byzantium, Islam and conscious westernization are all part of your heritage in one way or other.
Faits Divers: The centrepiece of the Ottoman Empire was the Topkapi Palace (with pavilions called kiosks). There are many words for fighting in Turkish. Napoleon famously said, scratch the Russian and you discover the Tatar (or Turk - Yusupof comes from Yusuf, Muravyev from Murat'; Ivan the Terrible descended from Genghis Khan'. New Troops, or 'Yeni Ceri' became Janissary in English - young boys taken from conquered territories and conscripted into military service from a very young age. Hungarians providing the brain power for much of Turkeys finest moments. The end of the 'sick man of Europe'. The conscious Westernization by Atatürk. Well wirtten and interesting.
The contemporary introduction announces Ankara will be connected by fast train to Europe, by a tunnel under the Bosphorus (having spent 16 hours because of a missed transfer in Istanbul, this sounds attractive..). It also quotes: 'Islam, politics, economics: choose two' by Hasan Ali Karasar, a Turkish historian. If you are Turkish - the ancient native Turkish tradition, Persia, Byzantium, Islam and conscious westernization are all part of your heritage in one way or other.
Faits Divers: The centrepiece of the Ottoman Empire was the Topkapi Palace (with pavilions called kiosks). There are many words for fighting in Turkish. Napoleon famously said, scratch the Russian and you discover the Tatar (or Turk - Yusupof comes from Yusuf, Muravyev from Murat'; Ivan the Terrible descended from Genghis Khan'. New Troops, or 'Yeni Ceri' became Janissary in English - young boys taken from conquered territories and conscripted into military service from a very young age. Hungarians providing the brain power for much of Turkeys finest moments. The end of the 'sick man of Europe'. The conscious Westernization by Atatürk. Well wirtten and interesting.
September 19, 2021
Negatives:
My biggest problem with the book is how it is marketed. It's marketed towards people who want introductory/basic knowledge about the country. Like a fun summary about the country but it's not that. Those people would probably get bored while reading and quit reading after a couple chapters. One of the reviews on the back cover of the book was strange. It said read this book if you want to understand why Turks find Ataturk so important. But the book barely mentioned anything about Ataturk. It's deceiving for marketing purposes that's how I see it. Some parts of the book would probably be boring for people who are not tooo interested in Turkish history so be aware.
Positive:
-The cover and the drawings in the book are nice
-I learned stuff about Turkish history
-Some parts were fun to read
-I like how the writer doesn't bring bullshit drama into certain things, he just writes the facts(gives his opinion too sometimes) and moves on.
In one part it described Turks as hairy savages. I think this may be misleading. Turkic people aren't that hairy. Many Turkish(I am referring to people from Turkey alone) people are hairy but Turkish people are genetically mixed. The Turkic people from central or east Asia aren't hairy.
My biggest problem with the book is how it is marketed. It's marketed towards people who want introductory/basic knowledge about the country. Like a fun summary about the country but it's not that. Those people would probably get bored while reading and quit reading after a couple chapters. One of the reviews on the back cover of the book was strange. It said read this book if you want to understand why Turks find Ataturk so important. But the book barely mentioned anything about Ataturk. It's deceiving for marketing purposes that's how I see it. Some parts of the book would probably be boring for people who are not tooo interested in Turkish history so be aware.
Positive:
-The cover and the drawings in the book are nice
-I learned stuff about Turkish history
-Some parts were fun to read
-I like how the writer doesn't bring bullshit drama into certain things, he just writes the facts(gives his opinion too sometimes) and moves on.
In one part it described Turks as hairy savages. I think this may be misleading. Turkic people aren't that hairy. Many Turkish(I am referring to people from Turkey alone) people are hairy but Turkish people are genetically mixed. The Turkic people from central or east Asia aren't hairy.
April 11, 2020
I think 3.5 is about right for this.
The good:
- Covers an incredible amount of history in less than 180 pages, mostly with a fair-minded objectivity
- Gives a great sense of the Ottoman project and a snapshot of international context in which things happen or decisions are made especially in, for example, the Tanzimat periods and the various regional wars happening in the 1910's before WW1 breaks out
The not-so-good:
- Imbalance in coverages between Ottoman centuries and the 100 or so years of Modern Turkey. The latter gets about 25-30 pages, and doesn't give the analysis of it which the pull quotes claim
- The analysis is pretty typical Economist-seque 'neoliberal miracle', with a seeming whitewash of the Özal period in reference to General Pinochet in Chile (generally regarded as authoritarian bulwark, who rose to prominence due to CIA spooked by fledgling Latin-American social democracy)
- A number of random curio tidbits thrown in there - e.g. Prince x married a woman from Edinburgh, ended up in Crimea and y generations later were linked to the Nazis by z - but not widely and consistently enough to have been part of an overall approach
The good:
- Covers an incredible amount of history in less than 180 pages, mostly with a fair-minded objectivity
- Gives a great sense of the Ottoman project and a snapshot of international context in which things happen or decisions are made especially in, for example, the Tanzimat periods and the various regional wars happening in the 1910's before WW1 breaks out
The not-so-good:
- Imbalance in coverages between Ottoman centuries and the 100 or so years of Modern Turkey. The latter gets about 25-30 pages, and doesn't give the analysis of it which the pull quotes claim
- The analysis is pretty typical Economist-seque 'neoliberal miracle', with a seeming whitewash of the Özal period in reference to General Pinochet in Chile (generally regarded as authoritarian bulwark, who rose to prominence due to CIA spooked by fledgling Latin-American social democracy)
- A number of random curio tidbits thrown in there - e.g. Prince x married a woman from Edinburgh, ended up in Crimea and y generations later were linked to the Nazis by z - but not widely and consistently enough to have been part of an overall approach
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 21, 2022
nu mi-a placut deloc tonul cartii si se simte ca autorul a fost angajat sa scrie aceasta scurta istorie a Turciei.
tonul cartii mi s-a parut prea prietenesc, prea eram la o sueta cu Norman si imi povestea cateva date din lunga istorie otomana (focusul a fost, desigur, pe otomani), iar acest ton imi displace pentru ca aici vorbim despre o carte de istorie, despre o non-fictiune.
in plus, desi aminteste in treacat despre sultanatul femeilor (nu foloseste aceasta sintagma), nu o numeste niciodata pe cea mai puternica femeie din Imperiul Otoman, pe cea care a avut putere absoluta aproape 20 de ani fiind regenta pentru doi dintre fii sai. nu ii pomeste niciodata numele lui Kossem, ci doar o mentioneaza in treacat drept mama lui Murat IV sau a lui Ibrahim. si nu, nu are legatura cu faptul ca e o carte scurta si au fost lasate multe amunte pe dinafara pentru ca la fel cum poate sa o mentioneze pe "intriganta" Safyie, alta figura marcanta din sultanatul femeilor, putea sa o mentioneze si pe Kossem.
tonul cartii mi s-a parut prea prietenesc, prea eram la o sueta cu Norman si imi povestea cateva date din lunga istorie otomana (focusul a fost, desigur, pe otomani), iar acest ton imi displace pentru ca aici vorbim despre o carte de istorie, despre o non-fictiune.
in plus, desi aminteste in treacat despre sultanatul femeilor (nu foloseste aceasta sintagma), nu o numeste niciodata pe cea mai puternica femeie din Imperiul Otoman, pe cea care a avut putere absoluta aproape 20 de ani fiind regenta pentru doi dintre fii sai. nu ii pomeste niciodata numele lui Kossem, ci doar o mentioneaza in treacat drept mama lui Murat IV sau a lui Ibrahim. si nu, nu are legatura cu faptul ca e o carte scurta si au fost lasate multe amunte pe dinafara pentru ca la fel cum poate sa o mentioneze pe "intriganta" Safyie, alta figura marcanta din sultanatul femeilor, putea sa o mentioneze si pe Kossem.
October 11, 2018
What I liked
Stone includes many passing comments to connect the events of the history of Anatolia to other events more familiar in pop culture. For instance, in describing a conflict over Cyprus between Venice and Turkey, he mentions that this is the same conflict featured in Shakespeare's play Othello.
What I did not like
Too short / too ambitious. In a book this brief, Stone should have chosen a much smaller scope. There's not enough detail here to make anything stick, unless you already know a lot about the Ottoman empire. Stone's tone is rather glib, glossing over most of the complexity in favor of smart-sounding punchlines.
Too much focus on military history. Stone seems to think that the most important aspects of Ottoman/Turkish history are how the shape of its borders changed as the result of military campaigns. On the contrary, there are many other interesting stories that he neglects.
Stone includes many passing comments to connect the events of the history of Anatolia to other events more familiar in pop culture. For instance, in describing a conflict over Cyprus between Venice and Turkey, he mentions that this is the same conflict featured in Shakespeare's play Othello.
What I did not like
Too short / too ambitious. In a book this brief, Stone should have chosen a much smaller scope. There's not enough detail here to make anything stick, unless you already know a lot about the Ottoman empire. Stone's tone is rather glib, glossing over most of the complexity in favor of smart-sounding punchlines.
Too much focus on military history. Stone seems to think that the most important aspects of Ottoman/Turkish history are how the shape of its borders changed as the result of military campaigns. On the contrary, there are many other interesting stories that he neglects.
June 17, 2022
Un libro interesante para tener una visión general de la historia del Imperio Otomano y el nacimiento de Turquía, con cierta profundidad de datos. El desarrollo de la República Turca a partir de su fundación apenas ocupa el epílogo, y llega solo hasta 2005, en la versión que yo he leído, por lo que todo lo ocurrido en la década de 2010, que ha supuesto un giro radical de la política de Erdogan, hacia posiciones autoritarias e islamizadoras, no está.
Como español, me interesa la comparación entre España y Turquía, aunque describe algunas características de la Historia de España en los últimos siglos con trazo grueso, lo que hace dudar sobre su rigor en otros aspectos. Muy interesante la contraposición Mediterráneo/Atlántico.
Es controvertida su mirada sobre el llamado genocidio armenio, el cual pone en duda y compara con la persecución de los turcos que hubieron de ir abandonando territorios otomanos que iban independizándose a lo largo del siglo XIX.
Como español, me interesa la comparación entre España y Turquía, aunque describe algunas características de la Historia de España en los últimos siglos con trazo grueso, lo que hace dudar sobre su rigor en otros aspectos. Muy interesante la contraposición Mediterráneo/Atlántico.
Es controvertida su mirada sobre el llamado genocidio armenio, el cual pone en duda y compara con la persecución de los turcos que hubieron de ir abandonando territorios otomanos que iban independizándose a lo largo del siglo XIX.
March 4, 2025
I couldn't finish this book. It is extremely poorly written. I'm no grammar snob, but whole paragraphs are very difficult to parse. For example:
True, they had been defeated by Tamerlane, but very soon he just went away, and the Ottoman forward march was resumed, in this case towards the east, and of course the lands of Persia, which at that period included Azerbaijan and Baghdad. In Mehmet the Conqueror’s time, this had meant a war, in the end successful, to take over some of the lands belonging to the Black Sheep tribal federation, roughly based in south-eastern Anatolia. It had absorbed much of the territory (to north and north-east) of a rival federation, the White Sheep, and had then spread out over a Persia already desperately weakened under Tamerlane, in a huge but superficial empire, as far as Afghanistan.
There's information here, but I spent so much time rereading sentences to try and figure out what was being said that it distracted from the content. Even a good grammar checker could make this into a better book.
Started reading other histories of Turkey and this book really suffers comparison. Avoid.
True, they had been defeated by Tamerlane, but very soon he just went away, and the Ottoman forward march was resumed, in this case towards the east, and of course the lands of Persia, which at that period included Azerbaijan and Baghdad. In Mehmet the Conqueror’s time, this had meant a war, in the end successful, to take over some of the lands belonging to the Black Sheep tribal federation, roughly based in south-eastern Anatolia. It had absorbed much of the territory (to north and north-east) of a rival federation, the White Sheep, and had then spread out over a Persia already desperately weakened under Tamerlane, in a huge but superficial empire, as far as Afghanistan.
There's information here, but I spent so much time rereading sentences to try and figure out what was being said that it distracted from the content. Even a good grammar checker could make this into a better book.
Started reading other histories of Turkey and this book really suffers comparison. Avoid.
December 27, 2018
This history presents an overview of Ottoman and Turkish history since the beginning. The author, although an Englishman, has lived in Turkey for over 20 years. He presents the Turkish perspective on many historical controversies well. However, I thought the book provided an excellent introductory history to an expansive topic in an accessible way. The author at the beginning identifies Turkish identity as consisting of Turkish tribal tradition, Islam, Byzantine tradition, and attempts at Westernization. However, he does not revisit this theme throughout the book, which I thought was a shame. Also, he compares Turkey/Ottoman Empire with Spain in a number of places, in terms of being two Mediterranean Empires that had strong religious underpinnings but declined dramatically after the Renaissance, but he doesn't develop this theme either.
July 31, 2022
Un autor care înghesuie toate faptele istorice pe care le cunoaște în prezentarea unei Turcii pe care se laudă că o cunoaște. Sare de la una la alta, ca un iepure alergat de o flintă, de la un eveniment istoric la altul, de la o epocă istorică la alta, ba chiar de la ce mănîncă țarul dintr-o anumită perioadă, la cîți cai avea vizirul din cu totul altă perioadă, uneori în același pragraf, fără noimă, fără nicio logică, doar să fie îngrămădite toate la un loc acolo și să vedem noi cît de multe știe el ca istoric. Dă senzația că e o carte scrisă de cineva bolnav grav, care o scrie în urma unui AVC, de teamă să nu aibă altă criză.
Groaznic! N-o recomand.
Groaznic! N-o recomand.
October 11, 2024
I really tried to make it through this book but it was such a struggle that I gave up 2/3 of the way through. I was attracted by the „short history“, looking for an easy introduction to the history of Turkey. So many other books are weighty tomes concentrating on a few short years whereas this book seemed to promise an easier introduction. Unfortunately the book is so information dense that it is extremely hard to follow. Each paragraph seems to cover a multitude of events covering many countries and people. Instead of wanting to be completely comprehensive in 150 pages the author would have done better to go deeper into the main historical events that shaped the country and region.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 84 reviews