The Man Who Created the Middle East: A Story of Empire, Conflict and the Sykes-Picot Agreement

by Christopher Simon Sykes

At the age of only 36, Sir Mark Sykes was signatory to the Sykes-Picot agreement, one of the most reviled treaties of modern times. A century later, Christopher Sykes’ lively biography of his grandfather reassesses his life and work, and the political instability and violence in the Middle East attributed to it.

The Sykes–Picot agreement was drawn by the eponymous
British and French diplomats in 1916 to determine the divide
of the collapsing empire in the event of an allied victory in
World War I. Excluding Arab involvement, it negated their
earlier guarantee of independence made by the British –
and controversy has raged around it ever since.
But who was Mark Sykes?

A century on, Christopher Simon Sykes reveals new facets
of a misremembered diplomatic giant. Using previously
undisclosed family letters and cartoons by his grandfather,
he delivers a comprehensive and humbling account of the man behind one of the most impactful policies in the Middle East.

Genres: History, Biography, Nonfiction, Middle East, Politics

Audible Audio

First published November 3, 2016

Reviews

[Efil · Rating 1 out of 5]

Save your money and your time and do NOT buy this book or read it.

Although the author's aim is to portray his grandfather, Mark Sykes, as a "good man" who has been wrongly portrayed by history, he totally fails in this effort as I began reading the book by disliking Mark Sykes and finished the book by full on hating him.

I can't even go so far as to say that it is a good book/well written book, which other reviewers have written, because I wasn't impressed by the writing (there were also a number of editing errors) nor did I like the fact that the author so clearly portrays one narrative of his grandfather and of the events described in the book.

Let's start with the author's portrayal of Mark Sykes (who is such a TYPICAL wealthy British man of the late 1800s and early 1900s who is a cultural appropriator and who thinks that simply traveling frequently in a country or region is sufficient to make him an expert on the place and the people). The author really tries to glorify him and make him out to be on par with TE Lawrence (also a man with some issues but at least an intelligent one who I felt had a more sincere respect for the cultures and peoples with whom he interacted - Mark Sykes, on the other hand, "fetishized" the East and the Ottoman Empire and used it to make himself seem interesting and worldly - the best example would be his insufferable displays to his classmates following his travels where he would teach them how to "sit in the Ottoman style" and "smoke the hookah" - Oh, and gave himself the nickname the Terrible Turk with NO regard to the racist and negative connotations of that phrase - which I don't think the author fully understands because he is the one who keeps referring to Mark Sykes as such with an endearing attitude and it's fucking ridiculous) when he clearly is not. I think Sykes's lack of respect for everything around him is also clear in his cartoons: he depicts anyone of Middle Eastern or black descent in horrifyingly stereotyped manners, with hooked noses, large lips, dirty bare feet and the like. But does the author ever take even a SENTENCE to apologize for these characterizations, or show any remorse for his grandfather's narrow mindness and backwardness? Nope. All he ever says about them is that his granddaddy Mark Sykes was such a *talented artist* who drew so many cartoons. I find this a very poor reflection upon the author himself - even if he tries to explain Mark Sykes as a man of his time, what excuse does he have to offer for himself?

Mark Sykes's approach to Jews and the native blacks in Africa is also disturbing. He is openly anti-Semitic, but when this issue is first raised in the book (after yet another gratingly racist cartoon of a Jewish man) the author again does not even take a sentence to write anything remotely apologetic, but instead says something in the manner of "oh well he was a man of his time what do you expect." That excuse isn't good enough to excuse the history of slavery perpetuated by American leadership and Founding Fathers in the US, and it sure as hell ain't good enough for Mark Sykes. Again, a reflection of the author's character.

Another thing that the author did that drove me up a wall was his complete lack of attention to the spelling of Turkish cities and places. He would spell regions differently every time, and I cannot explain the insistence on calling a place Constantinople when the Turks were already referring to the place as Istanbul during the Ottoman Empire. Either this is poor research performed by the author, or another example of his complete lack of respect for the Middle East and his disinterest in accurately portraying them.

Getting back to Mark Sykes... wow he was one spoiled son of a bitch who really was the epitome of the British colonialist who saw the rest of the world as his playground to do with as he pleased. Frankly I find it hilarious that the author writes that the Ottoman Empire/the East was the region of the world Mark Sykes "understood the most." Oh honey. If that was what you knew the best, you must not have known anything at all. Nothing else but the sheer arrogance of the British colonialist white man can explain the "logic" behind the Sykes Picot Agreement, and the fact that Mark Sykes (who the author desperately tries to depict as a champion of the oppressed) thought he was well within his rights to carve up the Middle East as he saw fit based on his "expertise" from his many travels. And the fact that he thought it was totally fair to leave the Arabs completely out of the discussions and negotiations of the lands THEY INHABITED is so infuriating. To pretend to respect and honor a culture and a region and a people and then decide that they are too uncivilized to rule themselves and should be carved up as colonies is fucking disgusting. Plus, this particular author is just about the worst person I can think of to have written a book on a topic as complicated as the Middle East because he literally wrote the McMahon Letter - NOTORIOUS for being cited again and again in the ongoing Arab Israeli conflict as one of the main grievances for both sides - was "a masterpiece of diplomacy" ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Has this man not done an ounce of research beforehand? Or is this really how it's taught in England cuz in that case God protect us all since the British have CLEARLY not learned their lesson. Not to mention the author's condescending tone that "of course" the Arabs were left out of the negotiations because how could such people possibly understand the intricacies of nation building? *HEAVY SARCASM*

Coming to the end of this long review/rant, I now don't know who I dislike more... Mark Sykes or the author. It's a close one.

Ugh. This book was a fucking mess and it was pretty damn hard to get through it without wanting to chuck the damn thing at the wall.

[Kate Mitchell · Rating 4 out of 5]

Now I understand a little more of how we got the Middle East onto this mess.

[Carolinemawer · Rating 3 out of 5]

The story gets four stars from me - the writing / book three - and the man himself two. Though I'm not sure how much of the latter is jealousy - for Sykes' great home library, amazing mansion, splendid travels round the Ottoman empire, loyal wife on tap, excellent caricature sketches - or distaste. He was, after all, born with shedloads of unearned money which made the extravagant rebuild of his mansion no financial problem at all. Loyal servants actually pulled his carriage through the local village. Then there was the racism, the feeling of entitlement to a job as an MP even without personally campaigning for it. That's before we even start on challenging Syke's feelings of personal entitlement to draw secret lines across lands. Whilst totally ignoring large groups of people eg the Kurds get one or maybe it was two mentions in this book.
It's clear that Sykes could and did change his mind. His antisemitism, for example, changed into his being an active part - or maybe a pawn - in Zionism.
And the reader is encouraged to believe that, if only Sykes hadn't died, he'd have been an active part of a much better arrangement. Because of course he was entitled to arrange lands and - behind their back - peoples. Or course he was!
Maybe he'd have been feted by even more people - with his carriage dragged by loyal Middle Easters and Britishers through international capitals?
Or maybe not.

[Bruce Reiter · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an outstanding view of the life of Sir Mark Sykes who spent his life in travel and study of the Middle East under the Ottoman Empire and during World War 1. The first section of the book is about his early life and gives a good account of growing up wealthy in the upper class society of the British Empire. Sir Mark did fight in the Boer War, served as a Member of Parliament and spent his adult life advising the British government about policy and practice among the Arab tribes of the region. He worked with disparate groups throughout the Middle East and Europe to influence them and integrate them into a British policy that was promptly abandoned during the peace negotiations of WWI. He died of influenza, never having a chance to influence the peace process. The last chapter entitled The Legacy brings us to some of the modern day happenings in the area.

[Todd Denning · Rating 3 out of 5]

The writing style is interesting but I found the subject fairly none compelling…

[Kathleen · Rating 2 out of 5]

2.5 stars. My general theory of entertainment is that biographies (biopics, etc.) are not good. That’s because it’s hard to make a linear story out of a LIFE, and to keep the energy and story arc moving. Yes, we can all think of exceptions, but the exceptions prove the rule, imo. This biography...did not counter my general theory of entertainment. 😬

Sykes is a fascinating character and there’s a lot that’s of interest here, but it should have been aggressively edited. When I was 140 pages in and still at “Coming of Age,” I grew concerned. So, I’d only recommend it for serious scholars or fanatics of the WWI-era Middle East, and/or the early 20th century British aristocracy.

[Ray Aun · Rating 4 out of 5]

As another reviewer mentioned: "This is a good book about a bad man. " Mark Skyes is a privileged man with access to opportunities thanks in part to his background.

The book in itself is well written with rich details regarding his many journeys to the middle east. The tension and conflicts leading up to the signing of the Sykes-Picot is definitely worth a read.

[Margaret Bright · Rating 5 out of 5]

It started slowly and gradually became more and more engaging. What a remarkable man with so much energy, passion and intelligence to make a better world. Who could have imagined how ecents have unfolded in the middle east over a century and how they are away from his hopes and aspirations.

[Richard Hakes · Rating 4 out of 5]

There are some pretty terrible reviews of this book, I think it is the man who was terrible or more precisely the system that put him there. If you ever want to find justification of why the hereditary transfer of money and power should come to an end, read the book. I do not think he was a bad man and had some ability and confidence to travel (and money). He got his first official jobs in the Middle East because he had been on holiday there admitted there were not that many who had but his knowledge of the area must have been pretty limited to the small privileged world he travelled in even there!

After signing the Sykes-Picot agreement that was to shape the Middle East it came into question soon after. Apparently he forgot about the Jews.

"Up till now Mark's views on the Jews were the anti-Semitic opinions of a man of his time and class. He saw them as a secret society who were spread around the world, yet always in touch with one another, conspiring to control global events, both financially and politically. 'Sykes sees Jews in everything', his former professor at Cambridge, E. G. Browne, had said of him. But Mark was intrigued by what Captain Hall had said regarding their interest in Palestine and knowing of, but little about, Zionism he decided to ask Samuel to enlighten him on the subject. Before he left for Russia to meet up with Picot, Samuel gave him a copy of 'The Future of Palestine', a memo he had presented to the British Cabinet in January 1915. This suggested that the time was not yet ripe for an independent, autonomous Jewish State in Palestine, the reason being that 'If the attempt were made to place the 400,000 or 500,00 Mohammedans of Arab race under a Government which rested upon the support of 90,000 or 100,000 Jewish inhabitants, there can be no assurance that such a Government, even if established by the authority of the Powers, would be able to command obedience. The dream of a Jewish State, prosperous progressive, and the home of a brilliant civilisation, might vanish in a series of squalid conflicts with the Arab population. The solution he suggested which would be much the most welcome to the leaders and supporters of the Zionist movement throughout the world would be the annexation of the country to the British Empire."

Unfortunately it all carried on and now we have the world we have. Its terrible but it happened, we should know about it and maybe do more to stop the hereditary transfer of money and wealth. However I am not confident that any change is imminent, far too much is at stake for the ones who are to benefit.

[Æ · Rating 2 out of 5]

And with this book, I’ve now completed my globetrotting journey of European & US Imperialism of the last ~200 years. We conclude with the Middle East.

I was disappointed in this book because it was what it was: a biography. I wanted something more akin to my last book, “Gangsters of Capitalism” that talked more broadly about the historical contexts outside of the sphere of the subject matter (British & French colonialism and the dissolving Ottoman Empire during and after WW1).

The book ends at Sykes’ untimely death February 1919 from the pandemic of the time (then referred to as the Spanish Flu). Its brief epilogue then covers what the Allied Empires did to carve up the Ottoman Empire into the nation states we know today:

“A further cause for friction was the arbitrary and autocratic manner in which borders were delineated, with little regard for division along linguistic or religious lines, but entirely to suit the Allies’ political, strategic and commercial interests, the latter more and more influenced by the increasing demand for oil. The example of Iraq was typical, with Kurds to the north, Sunni Muslims in the centre and Shiite Muslims to the south.”

This was the real meat I wanted to get into. The author only covered this briefly at the end and did not explain how exactly the Sykes-Picot Agreement reflected the final post-war impositions onto the region. Though the author did talk a lot about Sykes’ interest in Zionism, foreshadowing the colonial apartheid state in occupied Palestine & Syria we all know and love today.

The author (the grandson of the subject) also claimed his grandfather ended up hating imperialism years after helping write one of the most important imperialist treaties in world history. He speculates that Sykes would have helped foster a more free and fair society had he not died beforehand. I am skeptical of this, and think he was trying to paint the man in a more endearing light.

I don’t know enough about this time in history, and I wish I had read a better book that covers it. I am open to recommendations. I do not recommend this book.

All I wanna know is: How influential were the ‘Sykes–Picot Agreement’ and the ‘Balfour Declaration’ to the ‘Supreme Council of the Peace Conference’ that met in San Remo in April 1920? How were they similar/different from each other? I don’t know. And the fact that I’ve learned enough from this book to be able to ask that question, but not answer it, shows why I’m frustrated.

[Tony at Sea · Rating 4 out of 5]

The story of British exceptionalism.

The opinion that everyone should bow to the Brits, often referred to as British exceptionalism or colonial mentality, is founded on historical, cultural, and political factors. It has its roots in the legacy of the British Empire, a vast colonial power that spanned the globe and exerted dominance over numerous territories. This historical dominance has led to a belief, held by some, that British culture, values, and institutions are superior to those of other nations.

This mindset can also be attributed to the influence of British colonialism, where the colonized nations were often subjected to cultural assimilation, economic exploitation, and governance by British authorities. Over time, these power dynamics reinforced a sense of British superiority among certain individuals and communities.

Furthermore, Britain's role as a global economic and political player, as well as its contributions to fields such as literature, science, and technology, have contributed to a perception of British exceptionalism.

[Tariq Al-Busaidi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Coming from the Middle-East, Sultanate of Oman, I came to a conclusion that the title was misleading. Middle-East is more than the countries mentioned in the book. The events that took place in the book is limited to part of the region. Having said that, there were some details in regards of the Ottoman’s, Turks and other powers that played out during that period. I was not expecting a chapter dedicated to Zionism, though after completing the book, it was important to be mentioned.
Lastly, the book had a lot of emphasis on family issues…which I thought is a bit too much.
I would rate it 4/5, as I was engaged in reading - would I still be engaged if I came from a region other than the Middle-East? Probably not.

[Daniela · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a good book about a bad man.

This book seems to have a lot of low star reviews which I think is probably more to do with who Mark Sykes was as opposed to the book itself. This is a really well written biography which gives you a really personal insight into the controversial actions of a guy with a pretty (deservedly) bad reputation.

I must also add I LOVED reading about his parents, particularly his mother, Jessica Sykes. If the author ever writes a more detailed book on Mark Sykes parents I am so keen to read it!

[Yury Badalian · Rating 3 out of 5]

The name of Mark Sykes is almost unknown in Russia, and it is surprising given his influence on Middle Eastern poloitics, as it appers in the book, is quite immense. It was really enjoyful (especially the last several chapters) to learn about the history of the region and how different events are connected from being more than a century apart.
But the author really did the little to make an extra context cover and research, thus the book looks more like an epistolary non-fiction than that what the title promises.

[Wasen · Rating 2 out of 5]

Slightly disappointed because since his life legacy is the Sykes-Picot agreement and you have to read 2/3 of the book to get to that point. The end1/3 of the book, gives a strong finish of the events leading to the Sykes-Picot agreement and analysis of historical events leading to the creation of the Middle East. However to be honest I should have read a book titled the creation of the Middle East, as this book is just about the man. So if you are like me and looking for a historical analysis of events and a little bit about Sykes this is not that book.

[Kristinn Valdimarsson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Þetta er vel skrifuð bók og fróðleg þ.e.a.s. ef lesandinn hefur áhuga á Mark Sykes og lífi hans. Því aðeins er fjallað um Sykek-Pkcot samninginn í lok bókarinnar og ennþá minna púðri er eytt í hvaða áhrif hann hafði í Miðausturlöndum. Það hefði verið gagnlegt ef höfundurinn hefði farið betur í það m.a. vegna þess að í raun lifði samningurinn ekki mjög lengi og í raun er ekki hægt að kenna honum um þau vandamál sem spruttu upp í þessum heimshluta eftir fyrri heimsstyrjöldina.

[Mary · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is great book describing a man within his time and culture.
Only the ignorant and poorly educated would fail to see this. I understand at times in this limited leftist extremist education setting many have gone through they will not be able to appreciate or even understand that the point of view is of the book's subject for any perspective that is different from their own limited one is an anathema. Read the book and expand your understanding of our world and its history.

[Metin Kaan · Rating 3 out of 5]

All in all a very entertaining biography, however sometimes its easy to see the writer can’t help but try to project Mark Sykes in a positive light. Overall, a good read to learn about one of the most controversial but lesser known figures of post WW1 era. Especially in days like this, where the aftermath of Sykes-Pycot can still be felt.

[Ahmed Abouzied · Rating 3 out of 5]

Gives an impression about different cultures before ww1.

[Jan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Worthwhile listen that provides a useful interpretation of this Victorian and his contribution to the history of the Middle East

[Jacqueline Watson · Rating 1 out of 5]

Utterly dire. Don’t do it to yourself. It’s a family memoir about a guy that they don’t even seem to have liked….

[Nour Weasley · Rating 4 out of 5]

أراك توزع من مال أمك

[AshleyS · Rating 4 out of 5]

Does a good job of attempting to rehabilitate the reputation of Mark Sykes (the author's grandfather, whom he never met). Argues that he was a well-meaning and well-informed with regard to the Arab peoples, and this is backed up by some of Mark's correspondence at the time. However, a naivety and elitism also shines through.

This is written very much as a biography, and occasionally fails to give enough context, in the areas where people will be most interested. The changes that Winston Churchill made to the Sykes-Pikot line are only given the most superficial mention. A little bit more scholarship would have been nice. His travels take up most of the middle of the book, then the actual Sykes-Picot agreement, which most people probably picked up the book to read about, only gets a chapter.

Overall, though, it's a lively portrait of a very energetic man who had an interesting life. The story of how his parents were fixed up, and their subsequent relationship is gripping also.

Probably 3.5 stars, but giving either higher or lower feels unfair.

[Rachel Steckbeck · Rating 5 out of 5]

It was a good book. There was a conflict of interest, the man writing being the grandson of the man he is writing about, which gave it a little less authenticity.

[Robert Steuckers]

Mark Sykes a signé les fameux accords Sykes-Picot qui ont plongé, depuis maintenant plus de cent ans, le Proche- et le Moyen-Orient dans le chaos le plus abominable. Son petit fils lui consacre une biographie et explique son sionisme. Position dont on se doutait, bien évidemment. Les points forts du livre sont le chapitre consacré aux vues de Lord Kitchener (qui décèdera pendant la première guerre mondiale) et celui consacré au sionisme propre à Mark Sykes: Christopher Sykes, son petit-fils, y explique quelles influences et quelles lubies ont fait germer ce sionisme particulier, non juif, d'un gentlemen anglais, très influent au Foreign Office. Mark Sykes rêvait de créer une union arabo-arméno-juive contre les Turcs ottomans, afin de briser les reins de cet empire, comme d'autres voulaient briser les reins des empires allemand et austro-hongrois. Position évidemment contraire à la politique britannique du 19ème siècle qui, elle, voulait faire de la Turquie ottomane une barrière et un verrou contre l'expansionnisme slave: d'où la Guerre de Crimée et le soutien aux Turcs lors de la guerre de 1877-78, où les Russes étaient venus en aide aux Roumains et aux Bulgares. En optant pour une politique contraire au début du 20ième siècle, Mark Sykes ne pouvait que faire exploser un chaos qui n'a pas fini de hanter nos diplomates...