Historical Misconceptions 1: Late Medieval European Armor

I see a lot of misconceptions about history out there. Some of them are small and some more important and well known, but everyone (myself included) falls prey to them from time to time. I started really thinking about this after reading through the book I've been assigned to use for a survey-level college history course I'm teaching in the fall. Multiple times throughout the book, especially when discussing non-European history or military history in general it makes claims which are simple repeats of misconceptions which history students the world over have been taught for one reason or another. I thought it might be fun to do posts on these misconceptions!

Artists depiction of an English knight in full combat gear

Today I'm going to be talking about a few misconceptions about armor, particularly in Europe in the late middle ages and renaissance. Much of this applies to earlier periods and other geographic regions, but for simplicity's sake I am going to stick to plate-type armors. I am not going to do an in-depth study of this kind of armor, as numerous books are available on the subject. Instead, I am just going to briefly discusses a few misconceptions about it. If you like this format, or have any constructive criticism, let me know!

16th Century Maximilian Armor. You can see from this
image that the wearer was relatively thin, and the armor fitted
closely to his body.

1. It was heavy 
This is pretty much entirely false. Weight depended upon the height of the wearer, level of decoration, and level of protection afforded, but in general combat armor weighed between 40 and 60 pounds, including helmet, with another few pounds added for weapons. At first glance this may seem like a lot, but remember that it was worn with weight evenly distributed across the body. Individual pieces were were held in place with small  loops called arming points worn on the under padding and clothing of the wearer. This meant that each pieces was carried on a different part of the body, instead of all of the weight being on the wearer's back or shoulders as you might expect. Also keep in mind that this total weight isn't bad; modern American infantryman are expected to carry around 80 pounds of gear each, and sometimes much more. Firemen, hikers, and even some long-suffering college students all routinely carry as much weight or more than a medieval knight in a full suit of plate armor. When I backpack overnight, I am usually carrying a 40 pound pack, plus at least several more pounds of clothing including my boots.

Modern servicemen are expected to be able to carry around 80 pounds of gear while on the march in all weathers.

2. It limited mobility
I see this a lot, and the misconception ranges from knights being unable to get up after being knocked down to men in armor having to be lifted onto horses with cranes. In movies and tv armored men are often seen widely slashing with weapons and unable to keep up with more lightly armored opponents. This is a big plot point in both the Game of Thrones television series and the book series which it is based on, where smaller, lightly armored opponents outmaneuver plate-armored knights who are quickly exhausted by their armor.

Plate rerebrace (upper arm armor) being attached to an arming point.

Think about this for a second; a man going into combat might be expected to fight mounted or on foot, may expect to be knocked down, might have to retreat (on foot or mounted) quickly, and more. Would any person willingly put themselves in any of these situations wearing a bulky suit that keeps them from moving easily?. Full suits of plate were usually made custom for the wearer, and could be tailored (with time) for the wearer just like clothing. Due to their mountings to arming points, each piece of armor moved like the body part of the wearer underneath. Late period plate armor acted like a second skin. It allowed a full range of movement, and wasn't particularly tiring to wear, especially considering that most of the men wearing it had been trained at least since their early teens to wear it on a daily basis. See the video below to see the range of movement available to a plate armored fighter.

3. Armor disappeared because it could be easily pierced by gunfire

This is mostly false. It is true that as firearms became more advanced they could pierce armor more and more easily, reducing its effectiveness. That said, it wasn't until the 19th century that guns were created that were both accurate and powerful enough to pierce armor plate reliably. Medieval and Renaissance firearms had a comparatively lower piercing capability, and medium to long range shots and even close range glancing hits could be deflected by the best suits of plate. Cavalry in the British army continued to wear steel breastplates until after the Napoleonic period, and some French and German units actually took their armor with them to battle in 1914. Ballistic steel plates were reintroduced towards the end of the First World War, and the armor worn by American and other NATO forces overseas are essentially breastplates made with modern materials.

Reenactors dressed as French cuirassiers as they would have appeared in 1815

What really led to the demise of plate was a combination of economy, social changes, and changes to army organization. Full plate suits were expensive, and required to wearer to have a large income to purchase and maintain. As the knightly and lower noble classes declined, the ability to buy expensive armor became rarer. Alongside this, armies were becoming larger and more professional. For the cost of hiring or equipping a plate-armored heavy cavalryman who took years to train effectively, commanders could train many pike or musket men relatively cheaply in just a few weeks. Had firearms totally wiped out armor, cavaliers in the English Civil War (1642 - 1651) wouldn't have worn it, as musket-equipped infantry made up the bulk of the armies fighting one another even at this relatively early date.

Armor pieces worn during the English Civil War

And that's it for today! If you liked this short article and want to see more like it, please let me know!

A Quick Review of Dunkirk

Hello all! I apologize for the lack of updates lately and, unfortunately, there will be even fewer in the coming months. In addition to my normal day job and writing, I've also accepted a university lecturer position so my hands are pretty well tied for the moment!

I saw Christopher Nolan's new film, Dunkirk, on Friday night, and I enjoyed it so much that I felt that I should put my feelings into words. a fair warning to those of you who haven't seen it; there will be a few minor spoilers below, but I am going to try to keep any major plot points from slipping in. That said, beware if you haven't seen it yet!

Just in case you're impatient, I'll get straight to the point by saying I loved the film. It might (I say might because so far I've only seen it once) might be in my top five war films of all time. I am putting it up there with classics like Zulu and The Longest Day. What really sets this movie apart, especially apart from my other all-time greatest war films, is that it does not rely on action to create the drama. Instead the film managed to be dramatic simply through the character's emotions, which is even more impressive when you consider the fact that there are only a few hundred lines of dialogue in the entire 2-hour film.

Nearly everything portrayed in the film happened during the actual Operation Dynamo, the evacuation of Allied forces at Dunkirk. Most of the lines spoken in the movie are either paraphrased or taken word-for-word from actual quotes from participants in the operation. Most of the major plot points also come directly from real life, and the main characters all seem to be composites of multiple real-life people involved in one way or another with the 1940 evacuation.

BEF soldiers qeueing up to evacuate. Many are wearing gas capes.

I won't mince words; I cried during this film, and it got me to tear up, either with sadness or pride, more than once. Most war films fall into one of two tropes; being overly dark and gritty to criticize war, or overly glorious and patriotic. Dunkirk manages to avoid both, and all of the feelings a viewer experiences are similar to those of the real people being caricatured on-screen. The movie is stressful, sad, patriotic, glorious, heroic, and more besides. There are heroic characters, cowards, and, mostly, just a lot of frightened young men handling stress that none of us can imagine in their own way.

 One of my favorite things about the film is that the Germans are never really seen in the film. Their aircraft are viewed, and we hear their gunfire, and at the end a blurry squad of soldiers is seen in the background, but otherwise the Germans remain, for the most part, an unseen but constantly felt threat. This achieves two goals: the movie becomes about the characters and their feelings, not an us vs. them plot, and it helps us feel the constant background stress and fear that our characters (and the men at Dunkirk) are experiencing. When are the Germans coming? What can we do to get away?

Harry Styles

The acting is fantastic throughout. Harry Styles, famous mostly among teenage girls as a member of the boyband One Direction, did a great job in his debut. This is even more impressive when you consider that, as noted above, he has very little dialogue and had to convey emotions solely through physical acting. Kenneth Branagh plays a Royal Navy Commander based on several characters, particularly Commander James Campbell Clouston, a Canadian who acted as the pier-master during the evacuation and was killed while being evacuated near the end of the operation. His character (and those he interacts with) serve as our sort of narrators, and the plans for the evacuation are explained to the audience mostly through their dialogue.

Cillian Murphy plays a BEF soldier suffering from PTSD, and he did a great job. He managed to be sympathetic and realistic, and didn't ham it up in a way I've seen many other actors portray the condition. Mark Rylance plays a civilian piloting once of the civilian "little ships" which took part in the evacuation, and as always he was great. The real standout was Tom Hardy, who portrays an RAF Spitfire pilot. He looked, acted, and spoke exactly the way that real RAF aviators did, and I applaud his casting.

Tom Hardy as RAF Pilot Farrier

In terms of historical accuracy and realism, the movie did a superb job. As noted above, many of the incidents that actually took place are shown in the film, although being experienced by just our main cast instead of the diverse group of people in reality. The inaccuracies are mostly done for plot reasons. At the very beginning of the film we find one of our main characters under fire from Germans in the town of Dunkirk itself. He escapes, and makes it to a perimeter being manned by a French Army unit. In reality the Germans didn't have ground forces enter Dunkirk proper until the final day of the evacuation. They were held off by BEF and French forces in a wide perimeter around Dunkirk until the rearguards began their own evacuation. This was done to increase the drama, and helps to remind the audience of the men (mainly French) who heroically stayed behind to protect the evacuations, so I am ok with it. There are similar changes in terms of timeline and other details, but again, all of these are for dramatic or clarity reasons and even the most nitpicky historian should be ok with them.

The real Dunkirk Perimeter on May 26, 1940. This perimeter held more or less intact until June 2-3, when the final rearguard units began to disengage.

Artist depiction of the "melee" fought over Dunkirk on May 27, 1940,
between 48 RAF Spitfires and a large Luftwaffe formation.

The main inaccuracy is the way in which the RAF is portrayed. Many people, mostly because of eye witnesses on the beaches who saw few friendly planes, think that the RAF had little role in Dynamo, but this wasn't the case. Most of the RAF aircraft that took part in the operation were operating deep into France and Belgium, covering still-retreating units and trying to stop Luftwaffe aircraft from making it the the beaches and boats in the first place. There were aircraft working over the ocean, but they were few in number. Mostly they flew high above, attempting to intercept dive-bombers before they could begin attack runs or fighting bomber escorts. Some RAF aircraft were operating at the very low altitudes portrayed in the film, but again, this was rare. While not necessary an inaccuracy per se, I note it because many viewers may be under the false impression that the RAF routinely operated in a manner similar to the one shown in the film.

My biggest criticism is that the films starts as the evacuations are going on. I understand why this is done, but for those not familiar with the history behind the evacuations I feel it takes some of their impact away. By the time evacuations started many of the British units escaping had been fighting for a week straight while withdrawing from the Germans. They were dirty, exhausted, and out of supplies, and knowing this would have heightened the drama for viewers. There's a brief written explanation of what is going on at the start of the film, but being shown some of the retreat may have been good.

The props and such are mostly very accurate. The troops mostly looked too prim and clean; as noted above, the BEF and French forces had been in a fighting retreat for a week. Most of them were exhausted, out of supplies, and wearing tattered dirty uniforms. Many of the characters are a bit too clean to be really accurate. Related to this, I'd like to take just a second to talk about hair. At least since Band of Brothers, I've noticed a trend of actors wearing haircut that is way too long to be accurate. They're usually in 1940s style, but not at military regulation length. Of course many soldiers grew their hair out, particularly in combat, but it's still common enough in film to be worth noting. I bring it up here because a soldier ( 2nd Lieutenant William Lawson, Royal Artillery) at Dunkirk actually did have to get a haircut after receiving a chewing out by his father, a brigadier general for having hair longer than regulation!

I should also note that, similar to the criticism about uniforms above, the beach in the film is far cleaner than how it actually looked during the evacuations, at least by the end of the operation. The British abandoned most of their gear and baggage on the beach, and several survivors noted how cluttered it looked in the final hours of the operation. You see vestiges of this in the move (like thousands of rifles piled against a wall in one scene), and I guess Nolan didn't want to or couldn't litter up the beach too badly (Dunkirk was filmed on-location in Dunkirk, France). I simply note it here for completions sake!

Some of the prop inaccuracies are understandable. The German fighter planes in the film, which are supposed to be Messerschmitt Bf 109s, are portrayed by a Spanish Hispano Buchon. This aircraft was a Spanish copy of the Bf 109, but had some notable differences. I am ok with this; flying 109s are kind of rare, and the Buchon has been used regularly as a Bf 109 stand in in many films and TV shows because it's "close enough" to the casual viewer.

Comparison of the Hispano Buchon (Above) and Bf 109 (Below). Note the radically different nose shapes. 

The British destroyers in the film (6 British and 3 French were sunk during the actual evacuations and dozens took part) are clearly newer vessels that have been dolled up to look like older ships. I wasn't sure what they were, but after looking it up it turns out that the Destroyers in the film were portrayed by a late 1950's French destroyer, Maillé-Brézé, or by retired Dutch vessels. Again, I am ok with this, as there aren't any surviving 1930's British destroyers of the type common at Dunkirk. There are the usual occasional anachronisms and minor errors (I am not positive, but I think a few of the background buildings in the town of Dunkirk are post-war structures), but nobody is perfect and none of them are bad enough to be detracting, even for the serious historian.

The French vessel used as an H-Class Destroyer in the film.

One of the coolest things to note about props in this film is that several of the little ships seen in the movie are antiques, and actually took part in the real evacuations in 1940. This wasn't necessary, but it was a great little detail for Nolan to add and was a good way for these little vessels and their crews to get some of the recognition they deserve. 

Sundowner, a yacht used during the Dunkirk Evacuations. While not used for the film, the boat featured in the film, Moonstone, seems to have been inspired by this boat. Famously, Sundowner was owned and operated by the former Second Mate on the titanic, who made a trip to save stranded soldiers during Operation Dynamo. 

I urge anyone reading this to see the film. It's an important story, and one that many people especially in the United States aren't aware of. It's also one of my new favorite historical films, and that itself should be recommendation enough for anyone who knows me! If you'd like to learn more about the 1940 Battle of France or Operation Dynamo, I have a couple of reading recommendations below. That's it for today!


 Further Reading
The Miracle of Dunkirk: The True Story of Operation Dynamo By Walter Lord. This is the go-to book on Dynamo, and it was the book I re-read to brush up on the operation before I went to see the film. Written in the 1980's, Lord spoke to numerous survivors (British, French, German, Belgian, and civilian) of the evacuations and it's written in a style similar to other great Second World War works like The Longest Day. So many of the incidents and quotes in this book are used in the film that I am positive it was Nolan's primary reference during filming. 

Air Battle for Dunkirk: 26 May - 3 June 1940, by Norman Franks. First published in 1983, this work is getting ready to be reprinted for the first time in 20 years. It's an in-depth look at RAF operations during Dynamo, and is important because of the common myth that the Royal Air Force weren't very involved in Dynamo. 

To Lose a Battle: France 1940, by Alistair Horne. There are a number of works on the fall of France in 1940, but I chose this one mostly because I really enjoy Horne's writing style. 

Why It's Important: The First World War

I am a couple of days late because of some things going on in my personal life, but I have been working on this post for a bit now. I was really hoping to get it up on April 6, the 100th anniversary of America's entry into the First World War. Many people, especially the media, seem to love big anniversaries, and I was shocked by the lack of coverage I saw in American media about this commemoration. Many of the major media and news sites didn't mention it, and many of those that did carried only a short story or focused on the events going on down at the National WWI Museum in Kansas City (a museum i love, by the way!). However, it received decent press overseas in Europe, where the war is much better remembered. In America, many people simply consider the war as WWII's smaller brother, but it was extremely important. Here's just a few reasons why.

Delegates to the Paris Peace Conference at Versailles, 1919

It Drew the Map of the World We Have Today

Ever wonder why nations like Iraq or Jordan have long, straight borders passing through the middle of deserts? Confused about the complex borders in the Balkans? Curious as to where and why extremely culturally, religiously, and ethnically complex populations in African were just lumped into seemingly arbitrary nations together? It all comes back to World War I. The collapse of the Ottoman Empire led Europe to split the Middle East among themselves, leading to the borders we have today; men were literally just drawing lines on maps to make things even without regard to conditions on the ground. Which leads us into another point...

Original plans to partition the Middle East, 1916

It Helped Many Modern Nations Find Their Identity

After the war was over, some nations found an identity as a result of borders being redrawn. But many of them found themselves defined DURING the war. Nations like Australia, New Zealand, and Canada first started to see themselves as fully independent nations while fighting together in the war, instead of simply as members of a greater British Empire. Ethnic groups in the Balkans banded together to defend themselves, or were forced to fight in units together as part of the Austro-Hungarian Army, giving them a shared sense of identity. Unfortunately in many cases, this had an unforeseen at the time consequence...

Australian Propaganda Poster from the War

It Caused WWII

World War II is the big one, both in terms of numbers and terms of attention. But it may have never happened without WWI. The brutal treatment of the defeated powers led some, like extreme right-win nationalists in Germany, to hunger for revenge. The nationalism which had been stoked before and during WWI was harnessed by many dictators and thinkers in nations like Italy, Japan, Romania, and Hungary. And more directly...

Most of WWII's Leaders Came to Prominence During WWI

Winston Churchill became famous and then nearly lost his career as a politician while serving as First Lord of the Admiralty during the war. Hitler, as most of you first know, became a minor war hero, was gassed in combat, and was heavily influenced by his war experiences. Mussolini served with distinction, and his participation on the Italian Front helped in his rapid transition from his belief in socialism to being a major leader and thinker in fascism and nationalism. Albert Lebrun and Franklin D. Roosevelt both fulfilled important political roles in their countries during WWI. Finally, nearly every general or admiral famous in WWII gained their first major combat experience in WWII; Rommel, Eisenhower, MacArthur, Patton, Montgomery, De Gaulle, Zhukov, Tito, and more all served in the First World War, where their experiences had a major effect on their tactics and strategies during the later war. Which meant...

Adolf Hitler in Imperial German Uniform

WWI Was Perhaps the Greatest Single Influence on Modern Military Tactics

Modern military tactics and strategy for conventional war were first created and tested on the battlefields of the First World War. The use of small, independent infantry units to secure objectives using speed and surprise grew out of German storm trooper tactics invented to capture trenches. The importance of air power, bombing, and reconnaissance all first saw major use in the WWI. Tanks used as engines to create a break in an enemy line which could then be exploited by infantry. The heavy reliance on artillery as weapons to indirectly support an attack. The formation of dedicated machine gun sections to support infantry. A reliance on hand grenades and similar weapons to act as area of denial weapons to force enemies out of cover. The creation of large dedicated field hospitals close to battle areas to quickly treat the wounded. The need to win a quick, decisive victory before an enemy can fortify himself. All of these tactics were created, refined, or at least found new importance during the war. Of course, none of this would been possible without...

August 1914, French cavalry in armor ride out of Paris

Early 1919, French Tanks in Victory Parade in Paris

WWI Was a Major Influence on Technology

Before WWI, most flight was achieved by multi-winged airplanes made of wood and canvas, by the end of the war there were monoplanes made of metal or otherwise armored. Seaplane carriers found their first major use in the war, paving the way for the development of aircraft carriers. At the start of the war French Cavalry units left Paris wearing armor and uniforms their ancestors had worn under Napoleon, but returned to the city in 1918 riding in tanks. Cars, trucks, and tractors became rapidly improved to contend with extreme war conditions, and the war saw the first major use of motorized ambulances similar to the ones we would recognize today. Nearly every field of technology or science was advanced in some way because of the war. 

It Gave People a Voice

Many social movements, especially in America, had their origins in or became more popular because of the war. When African Americans arrived in Europe, particularly France, they were stunned at the great treatment they received from the locals who had for more enlightened ideas on race, at least compared to Americans of the time. As repression against blacks increased in the south, many sought an escape which they simply lacked the economic means to carry out, but the war changed that. As factories and mines in the north pumped out higher and higher volumes of goods over the course of the war (early on to fill gaps left by the converting of European production to war material, then to sell materials to resource-strapped warring nations, and finally to support the American effort itself) they required more employees. This problem was exacerbated as men began to leave factories to go fight. This created huge numbers of unskilled but relatively well-paying jobs, giving the economic chance for African Americans to escape the south, which they did to the number of 5 million people during the first "great migration". Women going to work for the first time or acting as the heads of a household or community leaders began to question more and more their lack of rights, and the war is frequently seen as having been the final blow against those opposing women's suffrage. 

It Shook The International Stage and Broke the Great Powers

Before WWI, the great powers of the world were the same as those at the end of the Napoleonic Wars one hundred years earlier; France, Germany, Britain, Russia, and Austria-Hungary. The war changed that; by the end France had suffered massively in terms of a loss of men of all classes, England began experiencing its first major imperial problems they were forced to weaken their presence in colonies while simultaneously exploiting them more, and Germany, Russia, and Austria-Hungary would all have their governments broken or cease to exist at war's end. Britain and France remained powers, but rapidly declining ones, and this opened the door for...

It Created New Great Powers We Still Have Today

Before the war, the United States had been an economically powerful nation, but one with little major influence abroad. With the notable exception of the Teddy Roosevelt presidency (when Teddy for instance helped mediate negotiations during the Russo-Japanese War) America had mostly been an insular, isolationist country considered by many in Europe to still be something of a backwater. Japan, despite its successes against Russia in the previously mentioned war, was still seen as a regional power in Asia but no more. The war created the great powers and super powers we all know today. Japan created her empire and laid the groundwork for the successful modern country she is today. The Soviet Union was created and modernized Russia from a large but backwards nation into a new super power. And America became a de facto world leader, capable of almost single-handedly ending a war which had dragged on for years. From then on, every nation had to factor in the American response when engaging in diplomacy and acts of aggression, even in the old world. 

It Created Modern International Diplomacy

Woodrow Wilson's creation of the League of Nations after the war directly set the groundwork for modern international relations. Without WWI or America's intervention in it, there would be no UN, no treaties banning the use of poison gas in combat, and probably far fewer international treaties. (Some, like the Geneva Conventions were created before the war, but they became far, far more numerous and popular after the war's conclusion in an effort to prevent another major world war). This, of course, wasn't a good thing in every respect...

It Laid the Ground for the Cold War and Modern system of Super Powers. 

With no WWI, and without Germany sending Lenin to Moscow secretly near the end of the war, there would have been no Soviet Union, making a cold war between east and west, communism and capitalism, much less likely. The creation of the Soviet state helped to polarize the world between three ideologies; western democracy championed by France, England, and the US, Fascism championed by Germany, Italy, Spain, and others, and Communism championed by the Soviets and revolutionary groups around the world. WWII broke the fascists, but the last two paved the way for our current system, with America (democracy) and the EU (democracy), contending against the Russians (former Communists) and Chinese (communists) for power on the world stage. Currently the balance of power is maintained, but for how long nobody knows. 

Honestly at this point I could go on and on; the creation of politically-influential veterans movements in the United States and the creation of the VA, massive loss of life triggering major population and demographic changes, the influences in the arts, and a nearly infinite list of things came from WWI. But I think I have made my point; World War One was extremely important, and you should learn more about it if you can. It'll help give you some perspective on the current situation the world finds itself in, and give you respect for how important single events, even very large ones can be. 

That's it for today, see you next time!

An Update and Trip Highlights!

Firstly, I'd like to apologize for the lack of updates recently. I've had a lot going on personally recently and haven't been able to devote enough time to writing. Also, as you probably already figured out by the title of this post and the photos below, I was out of the country for a little while! Expect more regular updates soon!

I was fortunate enough to visit Great Britain earlier this month with my friend and colleague Eric, a historian of British politics. I tried a couple of times to write this post as a day-by-day, but it kept turning out either truncated and choppy or way too long. Instead, I think just posting some highlights and lowlights might be a good idea. It'll give me room for more history and remove a lot of needless stuff about taxi rides and dinner, but still allow me to keep a good flow.  None of these are in any particular order, and I haven't included everything from the trip, but hopefully you enjoy!

The Highlights

1. Hampton Court Palace

The main courtyard of Hampton Court Palace

The first major site we visited, and one of my favorites of the trip. In 1515 construction of the current
palace was begun by Henry VIII's favorite adviser Cardinal Thomas Wolsey who envisaged it as the greatest country manor in England. In 1529 he gave it as a gift to Henry in an attempt to save his own skin but soon fell from favor anyway. It became a favorite of Henry's, and served as a royal residence until the reign of George II, undergoing a renovation in the 1600's to make it a rival of Versailles.  The project was never finished and this left the palace a curious mix of styles. Today Hampton Court is no longer used as a residence by the royal family, but a suite of apartments still occupies some of the buildings. These are given to revered civil servants or friend of the royal family as a form of state gift; as an example, the widow of the founder of the scouting movement was granted an apartment in the 1950's. Today the palace sits in the outer suburbs of London, and sits surrounded by neighborhoods and parks. Its packed with history but because the palace is a bit out of the way it doesn't draw the huge crowds you might expect.

The massive reflecting pool doesn't really work in the rain...

The palace is gorgeous, and unlike other palaces and castles open to the public in London, not entirely packed with tourists. Much of the estate's art work is on display, and a visitor gets a nice mix of history, architecture, and art on their visit. The gardens extremely beautiful, and the reflecting pool was awesome to see even in the rain. You can easily spend the better part of a day there, and I'd love to return, especially in nicer weather, to take more time there.

2. The British Museum
I mean, what can I say that hasn't been said about this truly special museum? It was founded to house artifacts acquired throughout the British domains during the years of her empire, and it has something for any historical taste. You can view the Rosetta Stone, the Sutton Hoo helmet, gates from ancient Mesopotamian cities,  a copy of The Great Wave, Roman armor, African religious items, a death mask made of Napoleon's face, and more. The museum covers pretty much every period and location of human history, and it does it in a way that's not entirely overwhelming. It's also free to enter! Prices at the gift shop and cafes aren't too insane either, and Eric and I each eagerly donated a few Pounds for a map.

The British Museum's George III Library

The only real downside was that we were only able to see the museum for a few hours. On my next trip to London I am hoping to take most of an entire day to visit, to really explore the galleries.

Yes, I elbowed my way through the crowd of tourists like any good American to get a selfies with the Rosetta Stone...

3. The Imperial War Museum London

Me outside IWM

This has been my grail museum ever since I found out it existed, and it did not disappoint. I have wanted to visit IWM for years, but have never had the chance until this trip. Located inside of the old British Admiralty College, IWM London tells the history of the British military in the 20th and 21st Centuries. It has taken a leading role in all of the WWI commemoration events you may have seen on the news, and I was especially excited to see their First World War gallery.

I kept tearing up in the galleries.

Which turned out to be maybe the best single museum exhibit I have ever seen. It managed to be entertaining, informative, sobering, and well laid out all at once. They had some great artifacts - I was able to see T.E. Lawrence's headband that he actually wore in Arabia, as well as an original Mk. V Tank. The World War II exhibit was a bit of a let down (but I might be biased on that one...) but overall I really enjoyed our visit. If you're ever there also be sure to check out the surrounding neighborhood. In addition to hip restaurants and such, it includes a number of "blue plaque" historical markers. One of these is just across the street from IWM's gate, where it marks the house that William Bligh (of the Bounty mutiny) lived in during his time at the admiralty.

Lawrence stuff!

4. The Tower of London

One of the Tower's Ravens; legend says that if fewer than 6 reside on the grounds at any time the monarchy and England will be destroyed. 

Beheadings, the Crown Jewels, Beefeaters, royal guards, the Tower has it all. The first section of this relatively large complex was built by William the Bastard shortly after his conquest of England, and it served throughout its long history as a prison, a military garrison, the main fortress defending London, a royal residence, and more. Really i don't have room to discuss this castle's long and storied history here, but entire books and careers have been dedicated to the study of its history.

The Tower is still a military garrison. Sorry, no photos allowed of the Crown Jewels.

This was one of the best sites we got to see in London proper. I was able to meet the first female Yeoman Warder in history (these are the guards of the tower who also serve as tour guides), see the Crown Jewels of Great Britain including the Koh-i-Noor diamond used by Queen Victoria and the current crown used by Elizabeth II, and tour a great military history exhibit. The Beefeaters are fantastic guides and insanely knowledgeable not only about the Tower's history, but also the history of London and British history in general. They're also happy to stop and have a chat. When you're done (you can do the entire complex in a few hours), Tower Bridge and St. Paul's Cathedral are both quite nearby.

Tower Bridge is right next door too!

5. Dinefwr

The Ruins of Dinefwr

This was the big reason I came on the trip, and I was not disappointed. If there's interest I may eventually do a full post just on this site, but for now I'll summarize briefly. Dinefwr Castle is located in Wales, and was built by the Prince of Deheubarth Rhys ap Gruffyd, my ancestor. Until Edward I launched his conquest of the country a hundred years later it was the mightiest fortress in Wales. It eventually fell into disuse but the family built a manor nearby which was rebuilt in the 1600's and is an interesting mix of Gothic and vernacular English country home styles. Today the castle, house, and surrounding estate are managed as a park by the Welsh government.

The views from the castle are amazing. The haze in the distance isn't fog, it's the rain rolling in!

My personal connections aside, Dinefwr was still a great visit despite some rain and wind. The surrounding countryside is absolutely gorgeous, and the views from the top of the ruined castle is one of the most beautiful sites we saw in Great Britain. Unfortunately the house was closed for the day, but the tea room was cute and apparently the tour of the building is great. There's also a ton of wildlife nearby (the estate was maintained as a hunting reserve until Victorian times and as a result the area was never depopulated of animals like most of the rest of Britain), and some great walking and hiking in the area. If I am ever able to make it back to Wales I'd like to stay in the nearby village and spend a full day on the grounds, but even if I'm not this will remain one of my favorite places I've ever been.

Stone cottages and streams, Wales really looks like the Shire!

6. The White Cliffs and Dover Castle

Perhaps the most iconic natural site in England, the White Cliffs sit at the furthest southwestern corner of England, looking across the English channel at nearby Calais, France. The area has served as the primary entry to England (and later Great Britain) for all of recorded history; Julius Caesar landed here, as did the Roman army which later fully conquered Britain. Some of the first Anglo-Saxon settlements are nearby, and William the Bastard landed nearby at the start of his conquest. Henry II realized the strategic importance of the area, and built imposing Dover Castle overlooking the harbor. The fortress was expanded and improved dozens of times throughout history; it was fortified during the Seven Years War, and had major gun batteries improved to fend off a potential invasion by Napoleon. It was fitted with anti-aircraft batteries during the First World War. During WWII the site was used to organize the British retreat from Dunkirk, and then served as the front-line headquarters and a focal point for local radar stations during the Battle of Britain. Today the site is mostly a tourist attraction, but the Princess of Wales Royal Regiment maintains a small garrison and several military installations are located nearby.

View of an Anglo-Saxon church and Roman lighthouse from the top of Dover's main Keep

The Cliffs are just awesome, and are probably the only location we visited which rivaled Wales for natural beauty. A series of trails runs along their tops and down to the beach, and there is little in the way of signage or protective barriers making the area perfect for photography. The castle is great, and if anything, I would say that it's too big; we were there for more than 3 hours and barely saw a tiny fraction of the fortress. Dover also is an interesting town, and France is just a short ferry ride away. On my next trip I would like to do two or three days in Dover, just hiking the cliffs, touring the castle, and exploring the town and nearby Calais.

7. The Guards Museum
I was peripherally aware of this museum, but stumbled upon it completely by accident. On our last day Eric and I split up, and I had intended on looking around Westminster. Unfortunately a massive political protest was going on, so I just started walking. I soon stumbled upon Wellington Barracks, with a large sign outside saying "Guards Museum: OPEN". So I decided to take a peek inside, and I'm glad I did. The museum is owned, run, and maintained by the Foot Guards regiments of the British Army (you might know them better as the "royal" guards, the guys in the big black hats). It has exhibits on their regimental histories dating back to the English Civil War, and they had some truly stupendous stuff including uniforms owned by monarchs (including Her Majesty Elizabeth II). My favorite was a display on the Mahdist war, which contained weapons, banners, and a full suit of chain mail taken from Dervish forces at the battle of Omdurman.

Unfortunately due to the reverence which the Guards hold their trophies and relics, no photos are allowed inside of the museum. So here's a statue of Lord Alexander!

The museum was smallish, and sadly totally empty on the day I visited. All of the docents were retired guardsmen, and one was kind enough to give me a personal tour after I told him I was a historian from the US. The museum contained some GREAT military history, and it's totally free. You can do it easily in less than an hour, and the site also contains a small armor (as in tank) exhibit and a building dedicated to toy soldiers. If you decide to visit London and have even just 20 minutes to spare, I encourage you to get over and support these guys, they have a great little exhibit!

8. The Taxi Drivers
Ok, this one is a bit weird but bare with me. Usually I'm not a big taxi problem; I mostly use them when I find myself impossibly lost or tired, and otherwise stick to buses, subways, trams, and my feet. However, at least in central London, you really should take at least a couple of rides in an iconic black cab. They are surprisingly affordable and the conversations Eric and I had with the drivers were amazing. One guy talked with me about the English Premier League (soccer), and it was great to hear his thoughts on the current season. Another took us along a route which passed through an area of the city officially off limits to pedestrians and tourists, and talked to us in depth about the local area's history. A third talked to us about American politics, while a fourth explained his issues with the current political situation in Britain. We got insights from the drivers I don't think I could have heard otherwise. All of the drivers were old-school London Cockneys, and it was great to get an insight into local Londoner's lives. We also learned a lot about local history not necessarily covered by local guides or books, and got unfiltered opinions on a wide variety of topics from locals. It was great, and a very pleasant surprise!

The Lowlights

1. The Museum of London (Sorta)

The museum administers what's left of the Roman walls. Here's a statue of my main imperator Trajan near one of the wall sections.

As the name might have given away, the Museum of London is a museum dedicated to London's history. The first half of the exhibits are great; the sections on Rome, the Anglo Saxons, Prehistory, and Tudor and Civil War times area great. But the second half of the exhibits left a very sour taste in my mouth. I won't get too deep into this, but in short they became VERY political. As in, obviously pro one side of the aisle political. Any hint of trying to keep bias away disappeared, and I was extremely disappointed to see subjects like the Zeppelin raids during WWI (which killed thousands of Londoners) either entirely ignored or barely touched upon in favor of political history which, while of course affecting London, were mostly national or Empire-wide issues. Several other visitors seemed to have similar issues while we were going through the exhibits, so I am hoping that means I didn't just visit on a bad day.The exhibit outside of the museum on the city's ancient and medieval walls was great though! Also, avoid the gift shop; it was by far the most expensive we encountered on our trip.

Where else could I get a photo with a Penny-Farthing though?!

 
2. Lorry Drivers

Driving in Britain isn't the difficult; I have a very slight advantage in that I've driven around the continent a fair bit, but realigning yourself to drive on the left in a right-hand-drive car isn't difficult in general. My biggest issue was lane placement (I kept drifting left) but I had gotten used to it after a few hours. I also want to start this one off by saying that the vast, vast majority of drivers I encountered in England and Wales were great.

I can not say the same about the lorry (cargo trucks like semi-trucks here in the US) drivers. In Britain the speed limits are much higher on average; even a winding 2-lane back road might have a 60 or 70 mph speed limit, and most motorways have one that's 80. For the most part this works, but the lorry drivers make it sometimes terrifying. They weave in and out of traffic, cut you off, rarely signal, and speed like crazy. Multiple times I had one cut me off without signaling and pass within 2 feet of my front bumper (the Mercedes I rented had a sensor that would warn me when I got to close to the car in front of me, it would beep if I was within 2 feet of another bumper, and it went off like crazy around trucks).

I don't want to dissuade anyone from driving overseas; You get to see way more than you would by sticking to a bus or train system and a car offers way more freedom for exploration. Just, if you're going to Britain, be extra careful around truckers.

3. Half the Site or Museum Websites
I love museums and historic sites, as you might have guessed by my highlights. I've spent a lot of time browsing websites for these institutions, and for the most part the ones in Britain are great; they are modern and professional looking, and pretty easy to navigate. My main issue was that the information was frequently out of date. Repeatedly we arrived at a museum, church, or site which we had researched that morning or the night before, only to find out it was closed. We would read about a great tour or exhibit, only to find out it was no longer being offered or was not yet open. This was extremely frustrating because the information on the websites often conformed with guidebooks and all of the other information we could find. Some of this may have been down to the fact we were visiting in the off season, but up to date on these websites would have made our use of time a lot more efficient!


And that's it! I have freed up more time for writing, so expect more posts soon!

So What's Up With?: Turkey

The world is a little crazy right now, and due to the brevity preferred by the modern 24 hour news cycle, a lot of people remain curious about WHY events are happening. I frequently find myself or my historian friends being asked to explain the historical context of certain events, and I thought a series of posts talking about the history of certain countries or groups by be interesting or useful to some of you. These posts aren't meant to be all-inclusive, and I'll be skimming over, simplifying, or leaving out information simply to keep things short. I'm also going to endeavor to keep things apolitical by sticking to the current consensus among historians on a given topic. Today we'll be starting with Turkey; it's been in the news a lot and it's the country I specialized in as an undergrad, so it seemed like an obvious place to start!

1. The Ottoman Empire: So What's a Turk?

The modern Republic of Turkey is the successor state to the Ottoman Empire which ruled most of the Middle East from the late Middle Ages until the early 20th Century. The founders of the empire were Turks; a tribal group who originated in modern Central Asia and Mongolia. Taking advantage of instability in the wake of political turmoil in the Islamic world, devastation left by the crusades, and weaknesses in the aftermath of the Mongol conquests, more and more of these Turkic peoples began moving south into Anatolia and the Middle East.  The term "Ottoman" refers specifically to the ruling dynasty of the empire. The dynasty was founded in the early 1300's by Osman I, a Turkic tribal leader whose father had assisted another Turkish empire, the Seljuks, in their fight against the Byzantine Empire and been granted lands in modern Anatolia for his service. Slowly the Ottomans gained followers and conquered more and more lands, mostly from the Byzantines or other tribal groups.

The greatest extent of the Ottoman Empire, covering multiple modern nations. 

In 1453 the Ottomans finally took Constantinople. By 1683 the Ottoman state was at its apex; they controlled either directly or through tributary vassals all of North Africa, Egypt, Anatolia, Greece, the Balkans, the entire Black Sea coast, most of Mesopotamia, and significant portions of the Arabian Peninsula including the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. They were successful for several reasons; the empire was relatively tolerant, allowing them to rule a diverse empire composed of hundreds of ethnic and religious groups without too much instability. Their government was well structured and centralized, and in many ways quite modern for its time with a system of local governors reporting to regional heads who in turn reported directly to the government in Constantinople. Their leaders were also extremely effective; ANY son of the previous sultan could become heir, so usually all of the potential heirs would spend years plotting against and assassinating one another to take power, giving all excellent political experience early on and ensuring only the most brutal and experienced would succeed.  Most importantly, they had a modern, well organized, and well equipped military which was only stopped in 1683. In that year a massive Ottoman army laid siege to Vienna in Austria, but was crushed in the largest cavalry charge in history when nearly 20,000 heavy cavalry from Germany and Poland surprised the Ottomans from behind and annihilated their largest field army (this event inspired the Battle of Pelennor fields from The Lord of the Rings !).

Until they were dissolved in 1826, the Janissary Corps served as the Sultan's elite professional slave soldiers.

2. The Sick Man of Europe

Things really started going downhill for the Ottomans in the 1700's. The European powers grew more centralized and their armies became more professional. The Ottomans began to suffer economic problems as well; their control over eastern trade routes became less and less relevant as European sailing technology and focus on the Americas increased. Partly due to their success the government also became increasingly conservative and resistant to change, and by the late 1800's things were in dire straits for the Empire. They had lost a number of humiliating wars against western powers (beginning with Napoleon in 1798), especially Russia. They were also suffering internal problems as the government became more and more oppressive and nationalism grew among ethnic minorities. Egypt was effectively lost to the British in the mid 1800s, Greece and several Balkan nations gained their independence and ethnic and religious unrest began to break the empire apart from the inside.

Napoleon's campaign also sparked European interest in Ancient Egypt, and created huge demand for
Orientalist art. 

Punch Magazine cartoon parodying Sultan
Abdul Hamid II, showing hims as so
incompetent that he learns of his Empire's
reorganization from a posting resembling
an eviction notice. 

 Desperate for to regain their prestige and to force the Sultan to follow through on earlier promises of constitutional reform, a group of young Turkish intellectuals and army officers staged a revolution in 1908. This brought an end to the autocratic rule of the Sultan, but replaced it effectively with a dictatorship led by Young Turk leaders who paid lip service to the Sultan. Despite some early government and military reform successes, the Ottomans continued their decline; after suffering humiliating defeat in the Balkan wars and losing their remaining North African influence to Italy and France, the dictators of Turkey known as the Three Pashas began seeking a European alliance to help them recover their lost prestige and territory. They found their ally in thew newly formed Empire of Germany. The alliance was convenient for both sides for several reasons.  Germany was in a rivalry with England, France, and (especially important to the Turks), Russia, all of whom had expressed colonail interest in current or former Ottoman territory. The Germans hoped the Turks would be able to form a southern front against Russia in a theoretical war between the great powers, while the Ottomans hoped that Germany would be able to give them the decisive military edge to defeat their hated northern rivals. The alliance was formally ratified on August 2, 1914; 2 days later Germany's invasion of Belgium brought France and England into the First World War. Germany would become a massive arms and equipment supplier to the Empire throughout the war, and provided both officers and training to the outdated Ottoman military.

3. The War

World War I was a disaster for the Ottoman Empire. They managed to win a few victories (notably against the British Indian Army in Mesopotamia, modern Iraq), but spent most of the war on their back foot. For decades Arabs within the empire had been discriminated against, with even Arab officers in the Ottoman army frequently insulted, used in suicidal attacks, or sent to isolated garrisons with no chance for advancement. Arab nationalism had been on the rise as a result, which the British began to use to their advantage. Spurred by Anglo-French promises of an independent state, and made confident by British training and equipment and Entente promises of liberty, the Arab revolted cutting the empire in half. With the help of western advisers like Lawrence of Arabia and with British deliveries of weapons and explosives, the Arabs became a constant drain on the Ottoman war effort beginning in 1916.

Arab soldiers during the war. In addition to the Bedouin guerrillas made famous by Lawrence of Arabia, the Arabs
did employ a professional army trained, equipped, and largely led by British and French officers. 

Ottoman officers pose with hung Armenian doctors in
Aleppo, 1916. 

Meanwhile, in 1915, the Armenian Genocide had begun. In brief, a combination of instability caused by Armenian nationalists, Turkish prejudice, and worry that the Armenians could act as a dangerous Christian fifth column  caused the Turks to begin mass deportations and killing of Armenians. The genocide itself remains controversial and extremely complicated, but in short perhaps as many as two million Armenians were killed or died as a result of these killings and deportations. It also infuriated western nations, and relevant to this discussion, has caused continual international tension with Turkey and her neighbors to this day. The modern nation of Turkey does not recognize the Armenian genocide. I won't get into all of the details here, but in general most Turks acknowledge that massacres took place, but do not believe that the killings were an attempt at systematic eradication and do not believe that as many died during the genocide than is usually estimate. Further some Turks (including the current government) state that due to instability and violence caused by Armenian nationalists in the years leading up to the war, the deportations and executions were justified but botched by a handful of incompetents. This, as you might expect, is seen as extremely offensive to many nations, especially in Armenia and in nations with large Armenian expat communities.



The battles of the war were mostly disasters for the Ottomans, who suffered loss after loss. This was
especially true in the Caucuses. Enver Pasha, one of the Young Turk leaders, drew up a plan to attack Russia through the Caucus mountains and regain territory. Despite thinking himself a military genius, the attack was made in harsh terrain in winter the the Ottomans suffered appalling casualties from which the Ottoman military was unable to recover. Liman von Sanders had a poor opinion of Enver; not only was a he not a genius, von Sanders believed that Enver was actually dangerously incompetent and the two clashed frequently over matters of military policy.  I should also note here that, due to his central role in the Armenian Genocide, Enver is an extremely controversial and loathed figure to this day. In Turkey after the war Enver and Mustafa Kemal also became political and military rivals, and eventually Enver was exiled. He wound fighting in the new Soviet Union, attempting to establish a Turkish state in the Muslim majority areas of the country. While fighting he was killed by Red Army troops in 1922.

Mustafa Kemal at Gallipoli

The one bright note (from the Ottoman perspective) during the war was the Gallipoli. The entente decided to knock the Ottomans out of the war by attacking Constantinople during the Dardanelles campaign, a plan which First Lord of the British Admiralty Winston Churchill championed. Thanks to the brilliant leadership of local leaders, particularly a young officer named Mustafa Kemal, the Turks inflicted huge casualties on the British fleet and the predominantly Australian, New Zealander, and British Indian Army troops who were landed on the Turkish beaches. Kemal became a national hero, a role which was further reinforced in 1918. As the broken Ottoman army retreated from Arabia and the Levant, Arab and British forces harried their fleeing foes. Kemal managed to keep his 7th Army intact and formed them into a defensive line around Aleppo which he was able to hold until the war ended. Nearly all other Turkish forces in the area, including the 8th Army, were destroyed almost to a man.



4. The False Peace
The peace which ended the war had massive ramifications for the future of the world. In the Middle East, the Entene reneged on most of their promises; far from granting the Arabs their own large national state, the victorious western powers carved the former empire up. Britain cemented its hold on Egypt and the Sinai, and also took Palestine and Mesopotamia (modern Iraq). France took Syria and occupied southeastern Anatolia. Greece was given a large part of Thrace, including the historic Ottoman capital of Edirne, as well as numerous Aegean islands and a strip of the Anatolian coast around Izmir. Armenia became a fully independent nation, and Italy occupied most of Southwestern Anatolia. Most humiliating for most Turks, a strip of land around the Dardanelles (the area which the Turks had so successfully defended throughout the war) was occupied by an international coalition, as was the capital at Istanbul. The treaty went into effect in 1920 and despite never being formally ratified, had huge repercussions which can still be seen today. The treat laid the groundwork for the formation of the modern state of Israel (which would grow out of the British mandate in Palestine), and formed most of the borders that modern Middle Eastern countries conform to.

Partitioning of the Empire. Most Arab areas south of this went over to British control. 

 While most Turks realized that the empire was lost forever, the occupation by foreign troops was unacceptable, particularly in the capital and the Dardanelles where so much bled had been shed. Mustafa Kemal, who since the end of the war had served in a number of roles reorganizing the defeated military, quickly decided to take action, In June 1919 he issued a declaration which stated that, as a result of the partitioning and occupation of the country, Turkish independence was at risk. A month later he resigned his commission, putting him in danger of execution both by occupying authorities and the rump Ottoman government. In September he assembled a congress in Sivas, one of the few cities not to be occupied, and at this meeting the delegates elected him to be effectively the head of the executive committee of the congress. In December the final parliamentary elections of the Ottoman Empire were held, and Kemal's party took a majority of seats; in early 1920 this body was finally dissolved by the occupying British.

As a result of this, Kemal called for new national elections to create a Grand National Assembly. When this assembly met in 1920, it essentially created a second government for Turkey, as the occupying powers still recognized the Ottoman government led effectively by Grand Vizier Damat Ferid Pasha who signed the above treaty. This enraged the GNA members, and Kemal called for the assembly of an army to defend Turkey.

5. War of Independence

Early on, Kemal's forces appeared to be in dire straits. In the west they were opposed by the remaining Ottoman loyalist armies, backed up by the occupying Entente forces while in the west they were also facing the new Armenian army, who had occupied territory granted to them in the treaty but which the GNA did not recognize as theirs.

Turkish leaders during the War of Independence. Mustafa Kemal is in the front row, third from the right. The man fourth from the left in the funny hat is a Soviet military adviser. The Soviets pumped resources into the war hoping to keep the area unstable and perhaps leaving it open to Communist revolution. 

Turkish soldiers in a trench before the
battle of Dumlupinar. 

The war which followed, the Turkish War of Independence, raged until late 1922. After successfully invading
Armenia and reclaiming disputed territory, the GNA faced an invasion from Turkey as they moved to occupy the areas in western Anatolia they had been granted at the end of the war. On August 5, 1921, after the Greek army was only 80 kilometers away from the frontier held by GNA forces, Mustafa Kemal was appointed as Commander in Chief of all GNA forces. After halting the Greeks at the Battle of the Sakarya River, the allies sought to negotiate a modified but still punishing version of the treaty with the GNA government (now based in Ankara), but they were refused outright. Later that same month Kemal launched a sweeping attack on the Greek occupied territory in Anatolia. On August 30 1922 the Kemal's forces swept the remaining Greeks out of Anatolia in the Battle of Dumlupinar, and his forces regained control of the city of Smyrna by September 9. The next day Kemal sent a telegraph to the new League of Nations, informing them that the Turkish population of the country had been so humiliated and enraged that he could not keep them under control.  Now facing both a well-organized and led national army as well as the prospect of a brutal insurgency, the western powers sought peace and the GNA gained formal control of Turkey.

6. The Republic of Turkey
On November 1, 1922, the GNA's newly founded parliament abolished the sultanate and the Ottoman Empire ceased to exist. The Treaty of Lausanne, made with the occupying powers, established the recognized sovereignty of the new state and finalized its borders. On October 29, 1923 the Republic of Turkey officially came into being, with Mustafa Kemal as its first president and Ankara as its new official capital.

Ataturk during his presidency

Kemal began an aggressive campaign of reform, modernization, and westernization. Traditional forms of
dress such as the fez were banned. Women were given political and civil rights unheard of up until that point. The writing system of the Ottomans had been based on Arabic, but writing in the Turkish language was clunky with this alphabet due to certain sounds in Turkish. Therefore, it was replaced by a new system based on a modified form of the western Latin alphabet. The country was secularized, and a firm division of church and state was established, while things like alcohol and freedom of religion were instituted. All Turks were also expected to take on a surname in the western style; Mustafa Kemal was granted the surname "Ataturk" by parliament, meaning Father of Turks in 1934. By the eve of the Second World War Turkey had made large strides in modernization, though it remained functionally a dictatorship first under Ataturk and then under his successor Ismet Inonu, until the latter was defeated in free elections in 1950.

Ataturk's legacy cannot be understated when trying to understand modern Turkey. Thanks in part to a personality cult which was fostered around him during his long presidency, and in part thanks to the belief among Turks that he saved the country from becoming a victim of colonization, Ataturk remains wildly popular today. Laws exist prohibiting the insulting of Ataturk (in a country with otherwise fairly liberal free speech laws), and every house, business, bus, and building has a photo of the man.

The author took this photo in 2008. It shows a massive photograph of Ataturk flanked by Turkish flags over looking the city of Istanbul from a nearby hill. 

7. A World at War

Izmet Inonou, leader of Turkey in WWII

During World War II, Turkey remained neutral and profited from both sides. After the First World War ties
with Germany had been close, and the Nazis attempted to rebuild the old alliance but to no avail. Despite this, the two nations remained firm trading partners. In 1939, unsure of Hitler's intentions, Turkey signed a pact with Britain which stated that Britain would come to Turkey's aid in the event of a German attack on Anatolia, but this never happened and Turkey remained an important supplier of Chrome and other materials to both the Axis and the Allies. In August 1944, when German defeat was unavoidable, Turkey broke off relations and began growing closer to the allies. In February of 1945, only months before the end of the war in Europe, Turkey declared war on Germany and Japan (Italy had already been defeated). While Turkish troops never saw combat, they did continue to supply the allies and this allowed Turkey a seat at the table in the formation of the United Nations.

During the War of Independence, the GNA had received supplies and money from the Bolsheviks, who had hoped to cause further instability among the western allies. However, beginning in the 1930's under Stalin the Soviet Union became increasingly aggressive and relations between the old rivals worsened. After World War II, the Soviets even went as far as demanding the establishment of Soviet naval bases on Turkish soil, especially in the straits around Istanbul. Worried about growing Soviet influence, American President Harry Truman gave a speech on March 12, 1947 which established the Truman Doctrine. This doctrine would provide massive military and economic support to Greece and Turkey, and implied support for other nations as well. The speech is often considered to mark the starting point of the Cold War, and Turkey was at its center.

Turkish soldiers in Korea during the war. The Turks were supplied with American equipment and fought under American command.  

The United States kept its word, and money and military equipment flowed into Turkey. Turkey was a loyal ally; in 1950 the Republic sent forces to aid the United Nations forces in the Korean War. At the Battle of Wawon, the Turkish Brigade led a rearguard action which slowed the North Korean army and cost the brigade dearly in the loss of men and equipment. At the battle of Kunuri the brigade lost 15% of its combat strength. Then at the battle of Kumyangjang-Ni in January 1951, the brigade saw off a Chinese army  more than three times its size. The unit received the Distinguished Unit Citation from the United States, and by the end of the war 721 Turks had been killed and more than 2,000 wounded. In acknowledgement of their contribution, Turkey was invited by the United States to join NATO, which they did in 1952.

Throughout the Cold War, Turkey remained a critical ally of the United States, which began establishing air bases in the country. In 1962, the United states began deploying Jupiter ICBM's equipped with nuclear warheads in Turkey. Concerned and needing a show of Force, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev began the construction of Soviet missile cites in Cuba, leading to the Cuban Missile Crisis (that's right, despite most high school level history courses implying the Soviets were responsible, we built threatening nuke bases first!). At the peaceful conclusion of the crisis the missiles were withdrawn, but American troops remained in country.

American Jupiter ICBM in Turkey in 1961, bearing a Turkish flag. 

In the 1950's, the Greek and Turkish populations of the island of Cyprus began having increasingly heated ethnic tensions which turned into violence. In 1974 the military Junta in Greece managed to stage a coup on the island with the aim of an annexation of the island to Greece down the road. Concerned about naked Greek aggression, and justifying themselves by claiming they were protecting the Turkish minority on Cyprus, Turkey invaded the island and established a Turkish puppet republic. The republic exists today and Cyprus remains divided, though only Turkey itself recognizes the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus today. The invasion and subsequent occupation was criticized by most world governments, and the issue remains a sticking point in Turkish foreign relations, particularly with Greece and the European Union.

Map showing the ethnic population distribution between Greeks and Turks on Cyprus before the 1974 Coup and today. 

8. Turkish Coups
Despite the establishment of a multiparty republican democracy in Turkey after World War II, the country has faced periods of instability. Turkey has seen three successful and several unsuccessful coup attempts. The first, in 1960, was staged by Turkish military officers who had been trained in the United States. Truman Doctrine money was running low, and the then prime minister Adnan Menderes had planned to visit Moscow. This led to fears that he was attempting to realign the nation towards the Warsaw pact and the military intervened. Menderes was executed for treason, and the military effectively controlled the nation until 1965. In 1971, facing internal strife and an unpopular government, military leaders issued a "coup memorandum" warning the civilian government to improve the situation, which led to the fall of the then-current administration. In 1980 General Kenan Evren staged another coup. Martial law was established and despite handing the government back to civilian authorities two years later, the military continued its effective control of politics for some time after.

Adnan Menderes and his staff are arrested by Turkish military police. Note that the Turkish military is still using mostly American equipment and weapons. 

The remainder of the 1980's were a flowering period for Turkey; under the leadership of Turgut Ozal and his Motherland Party the economy was liberalized and the standard of living for the average Turkish citizen improved dramatically. However, the Motherland party also advocated certain conservative social values, which some argue opened the door for radical Islamist sympathizers who until then had been virtual pariahs in the Turkish political stage.

PKK Kurdish rebels pose with their Communist-Inspired
flag in the Turkish city of Diyarbakir in 2015. 

During the 1980s the conflict with the Kurds truly began as well. The Kurds had been an ethnic minority throughout the Ottoman period, and had faced periods of repression and growth during the Republican period. With Turkey's entry into NATO, the Soviet Union began equipping and training Kurds in an effort to destabilize Turkey. However, the situation remained fairly stable until the 1980 coup, when Evren's military government launched a brutal crackdown on leftist organizations and individuals, especially in Kurdish areas. This led to a series of Kurdish terrorist and military attacks on Turks, and the conflict has been going on ever since. The Kurds and particularly the PKK are seen by terrorists by many Turks, especially as they have historically depended on suicide and IED bombings, hostage taking and kidnapping, and guerrilla attacks on Turkish conscript soldiers and police officers. The Kurds meanwhile see the Turks as an oppressive occupying force bent on preventing Kurdish independence. Both sides have committed atrocities, and while things began to calm down in the 2000's, the rise of ISIS has reignited issues on the border.

In 1987 the southeast of Turkey was put under emergency martial law in part due to increased conflict with the Kurds. Turkey was politically unstable throughout the 1990's, and things came to a head in 1997 with Necmettin Erbakan's government. He was accused by the military of supporting Islamist policies which were counter to the secular law of Turkey, leading to his resignation to prevent another coup. Several political parties were banned in the aftermath, and in 1999 a coalition between a center-left and far right nationalist party formed a government which instituted economic reforms and human rights legislation, but which was mostly ineffective due to the radically differing ideologies of the two parties forming the coalition.

9. Turkey Today

In 2002 the former Mayor of Istanbul, Recep Erdogan, came to power at the head of the Justice and Development Party (the AKP). The party has won every election since, but has become increasingly controversial abroad. Turkey attempted to join the EU in the early 2000's, but due to human rights and economic issues Turkey was rejected and its bids to join the EU since then have stalled. EU leaders cited a draconian justice system, government instability, economic issues, and human rights abuses against Kurds and other minorities as reasons for the rejection, though some Turks saw it simply as a matter of western arrogance or racism.

Erdogan, the current leader of Turkey

The AKP has continued to improve the economy of Turkey, but has become increasingly totalitarian. Several alleged coup attempts have taken place since they came to power, but many view these as excuses for the party and Erdogan to simply liquidate rivals or threats to their power. The party relies heavily on the rural vote in Turkey, and has begun to increasingly use Islamist language of a type not seen before in mainstream Turkish politics. Due to Ataturk's major emphasis on secularization, Turkish politics and religion have long been heavily seperated, but the AKP has begun to break some of these barriers down.In 2013 protests erupted in the Taksim neighborhood of Istanbul as young people gathered to show their support for Turkish secularism and democracy. The protests were brutally put down by riot police, and 11 protesters were killed. This was the first time that many westerners became familiar with the increasing repression faced by the Turkish public.

Riot police attack Turkish protestors

In 2016, a coup was staged citing increasing censorship and a breakdown of secular values in government. This was easily put down, and some commentators believe that the coup was actually a false-flag operation to allow Erdogan to take more firm control of the government. Since the coup a series of purges have been launched which have resulted in the firing or arrest of hundreds of thousands of politicians, teachers, academics, civil service workers, and journalists. Amnesty International claims that many of these have been victims of torture while under detention, and many have been charged with belonging to terrorist groups on clearly fabricated evidence.

Turkish citizens pose on a surrendered tank in the aftermath of the failed 2016 coup attempt in Istanbul. 

Turkey's traditional 20th century alliances have also begun to break down. This really started in 2003 with the American invasion of Iraq. Erdogan's government refused to allow American forces to use Turkey as a launching off point for ground attacks, or even as a launching point for bombing and aircraft missions. In the wake of the instability after the invasion, Turkey saw an increase in problems with Kurdish militant groups, some of whom were armed by the US to fight the Iraqi insurgency and others who know had more breathing room now that they could retreat into a less hostile Iraq. Turkey did eventually commit troops to Iraq for peacekeeping purposes, but the strain between the Us and Turkey remains.

Turkish artillery in firing positions on the Syrian border. 

The Arab spring in 2012, the Syrian civil war, and the rise of the Islamic state have further complicated matters in Turkey. Erdogan's government has been accused of supporting Islamist groups in Syria either directly or by funding them indirectly through the purchase of oil from Islamic State held refineries. Turkish troops have also skirmished with Russian forces operating to support the Assad regime, and Turkish-trained and backed militias have shot down Russian aircraft, killing pilots. Despite this tension with her old rival, Turkey seems to be moving closer to Russia as Erdogan looks for alternatives to the United States.

Conclusion

Andrei Karlov lies dead behind his
shouting assassin, 2016. 

As you can see, Turkey has an incredibly complex history. Despite its status as one of the oldest
democracies in the Muslim world, it is constantly threatened by ethnic strife, nationalist movements, religious extremists, militant religious groups, and the strategic needs of foreign powers. Currently the Erdogan government is becoming increasingly repressive, even as Ankara and Istanbul suffer attacks from Islamic extremists. As the meeting point of the Middle East, Europe, and Russia, Turkey finds itself in dire straits. Most recently, in December 2016 an off-duty Turkish police officer assassinated Andrei Karlov, the Russian ambassador to Turkey during a press conference in Ankara. The assassin shouted Islamic mottoes and called on witnesses to "remember Aleppo" (in reference to Russian bombings in that city), but Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed that the assassin had been motivated by an urge to damage Turkish-Russian ties.

I'm not sure what the future holds for Turkey, and it's difficult to say where it is going to go. While becoming increasingly sympathetic to Islamists, Turkey is also strengthening ties to Russia. At the same time, only hours before this article was posted, Turkey agreed to sign a multi-million dollar arms deal with Great Britain. Pundits have also noted that Turkey looks forward to better relations with the United States under President Trump, despite Erdogan's criticism of Trump's policies on Muslim immigration. Turkey is complex and fascinating, and hopefully you have a little bit more of an understanding about their current and historical political situation and why they seem so unstable today.

Further Reading

Lord Kinross, Ottoman Centuries. This book, while a little older, is still considered the gold standard for a basic, in-depth look at the history of the Ottoman Empire.

Caroline Finkel, Osman's Dream: The History of the Ottoman Empire. This is essentially an in-depth chronology of the Ottoman Empire. It offers little analysis, but is good to get a more in-depth look at the empire.

Carter Findley, The Turks in World History. If you want an extremely detailed look at the history of the Turks, then look no further. This is a fairly advanced read geared more towards academics, but it's worth a look if you have a serious interest!

Eugene Rogan, The Fall of the Ottomans: The Great War in the Middle East. This is my favorite book on the final years of the Ottoman Empire, Rogan does a great job of mixing both political and military history and manages to keep things fairly simple.

Andrew Mango, Ataturk: The Biography of the Founder of Modern Turkey. There are a lot of Ataturk biographies out there, but I like this one because it manages to stay relatively unbiased and is detailed without being an extremely difficult read.

Stephen Kinzer: Crescent and Star: Turkey Between Two Worlds. A great book on modern Turkish history, this is updated fairly regularly with new editions to boot!

Andrew Finkel, Turkey: What Everyone Needs to Know. If you want a much more detailed, longer version of the post you've just read, this is the book for you!