Eden to Armageddon: World War I in the Middle East

by Roger Ford

The definitive and epic account of World War I in the Middle East. The Great War in the Middle East began with an invasion of the Garden of Eden, and ended with a momentous victory on the site of the biblical Armageddon. For the first time, the complete story of this epic, bloody war is now presented in a single, definitive volume.

In this inspired new work of history, Roger Ford describes the conflict in its the war in Mesopotamia, which would end with the creation of the countries of Iran and Iraq; the desperate struggle in the Caucasus, where the Turks had long-standing territorial ambitions; the doomed attacks on the Gallipoli Peninsula that would lead to ignominious defeat; and the final act in Palestine, where the Ottoman Empire finally crumbled.

Ford ends with a detailed description of the messy aftermath of the war, and the new conflicts that arose in a reshaped Middle East that would play such a huge part in shaping world affairs for generations to come. 48 black-and-white illustrations

Genres: History, World War I, Middle East, Nonfiction, Military History, War

520 pages, Hardcover

First published July 16, 2009

Reviews

[Jerome Otte · Rating 3 out of 5]

A dense, plodding operational history of the Middle Eastern theater, mostly written in an unbearably dull prose.

Ford gives the reader a good overview of the war’s origins, the decline of the Ottomans, and the many Turkish military disasters under Enver Pasha’s leadership. The subsequent chapters each cover a different part of the Middle Eastern theaters.

Curiously, there are no citations, and some parts of the narrative are more enjoyable than others. The different sections of the narrative don’t feel very cohesive, and there are lots of run-on sentences. And there is no bibliography, although there are endnotes. Some more maps would have helped, and none of the maps show any troop movements. Also, Ford claims that the Hashemites were installed to prevent French invasions of Palestine and that Mosul was given to Iraq by the League of Nations (rather than a deal between the British and French)

Interesting enough but very dry.

[Michael O'Brien · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you are looking for a detailed history of WWI in the Middle East with details on the military units involved in its various campaigns, then this may be a good book to read. However, it is ponderous and dry ---- nothing like Barbara Tuchman's "The Guns of August".

Ford gives us details, but he provides little or no insight into the personalities or the backgrounds of this history's drivers ---- men such as Field Marshal Allenby, Gen. Sir Ian Hamilton, Russian Gen. Yudenich, Churchill, Kemal Ataturk, Gen. Limon von Sanders, and other notables. As a result, the players are just names, nothing more, and the reader can gain little insight from this book in understanding the underlying reasons for the decisions they made and the actions they took. Interestingly, Ford scarcely mentions any impacts of the Arab Revolt or Lawrence of Arabia's involvement in the Palestine campaign ---- so evidently, by such omission, Ford seems to feel that this, in the context of the overall history, these are secondary in importance.

Another flaw in this book is the maps. The book does have them, but about half the place names, Ford mentions are not even shown ---- so it is difficult for the reader to appreciate such matters as the topography or distances that the various units had to deal with during the fighting. If you are going to do a detailed military history, then it makes sense to have accompanying maps that can illustrate what exactly the history is describing.

All in all, the book was accurate, well documented, would withstand academic scrutiny. For someone researching the Middle Eastern theater of WWI, it is a good resource. On the other hand, for someone desiring a readable, intriguing description of its events, this is probably not the book you're looking for.

[Jimmy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very detailed and fairly good book about the theater. What prevented it from getting four stars was its coverage of the Ottoman side, which ranged from very well in Part II (the Caucus region) to almost non-existent in Part I (Mesopotamia). The maps also could have been better; while the regional maps at the start of each chapter were good for locating cities, maps for individual battles would have been helpful.

[Gregory · Rating 3 out of 5]

A military history with much less emphasis on politics. Organized by theaters, not chronological, which works. Lots of notes, but few citations and very brief bibliography. Still, if one wanted to know about this relatively little-known region of the First World War, this wouldn't be a bad place to start.

[Blake Walker · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Our fathers lost the First World War fight on the Tigres' shores..." Johnny Turk, 1918.

This has to be one of the most depressing books I've read in a long time...

Incompetent generals, idiotic advances into machine gun fire by battalion, and incessant artillery barrages filled the pages. This went on for hundreds of pages. Ugh. The British finally one because they were able to out general the Turks, who wasted hundreds of thousands of lives in fruitless offensives.

All in different locales. The only one where the Allies won were Palestine and Mesopotamia. That spend the end of the Ottoman Empire and the Twilight-Zone political reality of today's Middle East!

Note: It was hard to tell Allied from Central Power units apart because there was no differentiation in spelling or italics of words.

[AuburnAL · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really liked this book. I thought it presented a rather thorough chronicle of the events of World War I in the Middle East. I think its main drawback was that the narrative was handled chronologically by front instead of chronologically for the Middle East as a whole. I think doing this overall would have made the importance of actions in Persian and the Caucasus more comprehensible. I also thought it would have been useful to see a more indepth backstory for the region as a whole prior to the outbreak of war specifically as it relates to the British client states by secret treaties in Arabia as was laid out extensively in The Ottoman Gulf.

The section on the Gallipoli front drug on and on in my opinion. However, as Tuchman noted in The Guns of August it is difficult at times for a book about a war not to get bogged down in unit and officer names. In addition I am sure that people with a particular interest, if not an already extensive knowledge, of Gallipoli will find this section engrossing. I do think Ford pinned the blame for Gallipoli firmly on the Royal Navy which is something I have found lacking in previous sources. The flip side of this is that by showing Churchill being the main champion in the admiralty for forcing the straits at any cost it helps greatly lessen the blame he usually gets for the events at Gallipoli.

Overall despite its faults I found the book to be quite interesting. It expanded my knowledge of the subject greatly. As a result I have no problem giving it four stars despite its faults.

[J.M. Hushour · Rating 1 out of 5]

I'm hesitant about using the phrase "{blank) can eat the corn out of my shit", because a) some people might find this culinarily irresponsible as a meal suggestion (whoa, whoa, whoa! where IS the fiber, dude?!), and b) I'm not sure that I eat enough corn to make this a viable proposition. That said, I'd cut a bloody swathe across the American Midwest's "corn"-ucopia to fill up on the li'l yellow vittles as a preparatory stage for reading this asinine, eminently bad book. I'm not averse to "military history". Battles are fucking cool, especially anything involving early aviation and the issues arising with the lack of privation on early monoplanes (the term "shit bomb" emanates from an early solution). While I find the loss of life reprehensible (who will be left to grow the corn?), war can be wacky fun to read about. Not this book. Displaying neither the narrative gift or even a cursory understanding of the Middle East, "Roger Ford" blindly proffers inane detail after inane detail

[Dave · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Eden to Armageddon" offers an overview of the four "fronts" fought in the Middle East during the First World War: Mesopotamia, the Caucasus, Gallipoli, and Palestine-Syria. Ford does a decent job presenting the chronology of events in each theater, but unfortunately the writing here is very much meant for a military history reader, rather than a casual reader. Plus there are copious footnotes to be followed, which offer fine details but pretty much mean the reader has to keep flipping back and forth between the main text and the end of the book (I used two bookmarks to aid my reading). In his credit, Ford covers battles that are virtually forgotten today, such as the pointless bloodshed along the Russo-Turkish border and the Turks' early attempt at crossing the Suez Canal in 1915. In general, this book is a good addition to one's World War I library, but it is not light reading by any means.

[William · Rating 3 out of 5]

Any of the four sections of this book could have been expanded into a large book, so while this work does a decent job of explaining a number of oft-ignored theaters, the level of detail is exactly what one would expect from a single volume covering four theaters of war in around 500 pages.

[Steve · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting topic to me, but the third of the same general topic I have read and not particularly engaging.

[Lewis Noles · Rating 5 out of 5]

Full of interesting facts but not an easy read. World War I in the Middle East was a different war from Europe.