Ottomans not Turks is there a difference?

[bacon]

I always thought that the Ottoman empire at the time of the first world war had regiments and troops taken from every corner of their empire. From what I understand troops were more likely to be serving as far away from their home districts as the government could arrange (for reasons of regional security).

So the Ottomans would of had as many varied and long travelled groups serving in their forces as the British would have had.

Has anyone out there done any research on this.

Why do we know every tiny far flung identity that served for the Brits but almost nothing about the ottoman forces?

Surely there would have been Iraqis, Syrians, Armenians, Greeks, Kurds, Lebanese, Arabs, Egyptians, Levantines and all those other smaller groups represented ( like yazidi and lots of others).

I think its disappointing, and a glaring hole in research connected with Gallipoli. Something akin to saying that there were only English troops at Gallipoli.....not Australian, New Zealand, Indian, Zion, Irish, Scot, French, Senegal etc.

If we are only going to call all these troops 'Turks' then shouldnt we also refer to all British forces as English?

I would love to hear of some research about this

[trajan]

There is almost certainly something in Turkish on this topic, but there may well not be - as in many Islamic countries, many modern Turks don't really 'go' for history the same way we do, and so the subject may not have been looked at. That aside, there is also the point that the Turks lost the war and an empire to boot.

However, they certainly moved bods around a lot in WW1, and so I wouldn't be surprised to learn of an 'Arab' regiment at Gallipoli. In fact to an extent Turkey still has this thing about moving conscript soldiers from their place of origin to somewhere far away for security reasons: as a very general rule, if you are born in the East you serve in the west and vice versa.

Trajan

[centurion]

I believe that it was Ottoman policy over the centuries to play down individual nationalities, they wanted to discourage local nationalism

[stevenbecker]

Mate,

From what I have glemed from my research into the Ottoman Army both veiws are correct.

While they wanted to suport the view they were all one country in fact they had there differences and looked down on thoses out of the main stream.

As mentioned they had Anatolain units and Arab units

Kemal's 19th Div had two Arab Regts, while most of these types of Troops never left there areas of forming there were many times when this couldn't be helped.

Captured prisoners at Anzac saw all types of Turks being taken, from Greeks to Armienians, while both Christian and Islamic troops were not unknown in the ranks.

But its is well known that the best Turkish soldiers were called Anatolian for thoses formed in thoses parts of the country.

This is just a general over view and could no where be complete

A look at a number of works on the Turkish Army should help.

Cheers

S.B

[kenf48]

The Turkish authorities keep a very tight hold on their records. The essential research in English is 'Ordered to Die A History of the Ottoman Army in the First World War' Lt-Col Edward Erickson. One of only three western historians given access to the records, he describes the Turkish Army as a 'multi-ethnic peasant army'. The British failed to recognise that while it was constituted from various ethnic groups the key to its effectiveness was the strength of leadership and organisation by a predominately Turkish officer class, on the other hand the Turks as noted above tended not to differentiate among their soldiers on the grounds of ethnicity.

Previously discussed on the forum

There is very limited information but it's clear there were Arabs, or at least regiments originally based in Syria fighting at Gallipoli.

Are you connected to this 'campaign'?

http://ww100.govt.nz/the-enemy-at-gallipoli-wasnt-the-turks

Ken

[Bryn]

The 72nd and 77th were Arab regiments at Anzac. There's very little available on them, but there's a possibility they played a much bigger part in the fighting of 25th April than they have ever been given credit for.

Ken, when you say, 'on the other hand the Turks as noted above tended not to differentiate among their soldiers on the grounds of ethnicity,' that's not true in the case of at least the Armenians. In the book - Pye, E. Prisoner of War 31,163 Bedros M. Sharian, (New York, Fleming H. Revell, 1938) - the central figure, an Armenian, who related the story to the author, was a soldier in the Ottoman army, captured by the allies at Gallipoli. He states that the treatment he and others of his ethnic background received was particularly harsh. He was glad to be a prisoner of war.

[bacon]

I agree Bryn.

The 72nd and 77th were instrumental in cutting up the advances across plateau 400. They were probably also responsible for murdering the Australian wounded left behind on Pine ridge.

Sadly for them they were mere colonials in an empire army and so had no voice.

I would also suggest that the bias shown in Turkish accounts about the efficacy of different units be thrown into this light.

Looking at modern Turkish accounts its easy to believe that it was solely a 57th/27th regiment affair (which happens to be a Anatolian/Turkish unit).

As to harsh treatment, I believe that the ottoman army at that time was very old school when it came to harsh measures. I can remember seeing Turkish officers & ncos beating the **** out of conscripts in the 1980's, so how much worse it must have been in 1915 with a Turkish ruling class standing over millions of ethnic minorities?

I understand how the peninsular presents itself as a tool of propaganda for all sides, But the Turkish view that they were defending the homeland is kinda crimped by the realization that the entire peninsular was occupied by Greek speaking Ottomans who were hardly the most willing of Ottomans at that time.

As every possible angle on Gallipoli has been looked at from so many different directions, these are all new debates and so poorly discussed, documented and considered academically. I remember telling this to K_____ when i first met him in the 1980's ( he was undiscovered then...just a small time tourist guide). Yet here we are, K____ 's detailed, moot discussions of whether or not there were machine guns at north beach taking precedence over fundamental issues affecting the 50% share of the other combatants. Am i off the topic point here? Should i start a new topic on this?

[centurion]

There was an account published in the USA C1916 by a deserter from the Turkish Army in Palestine and he definitely accused them of extreme discrimination against soldiers not from Asia Minor.

[stevenbecker]

Mate,

There's the famous account where the Colonel of an (Arab) Regt (reported as the 160th Regt, but no such regt found) was shot after the battle of Rafa when he refused to move his Regt to suport the fighting there.

" One of the results of this battle for the Turkish Army was the destruction of the 31^st Infantry Regiment, that was tempered by the poor showing of the 160^th Regiment at Rafa which lead to its commander being sentenced to death for his failure to help the 31^st Regiment, and the 160^th Regiment was disbanded and reformed as the 31^st Infantry Regiment and 1^st Battalion 80^th Regiment."

So far confirmation of who this officer was or any other details from Turkish account failed to find more details.

S.B

[bacon]

There was an account published in the USA C1916 by a deserter from the Turkish Army in Palestine and he definitely accused them of extreme discrimination against soldiers not from Asia Minor.

He is starting to sound like an British colonial .......

But as a deserter i guess he wouldnt have much good to say about his previous overlords.

Its just so frustrating that we know or understand so little about the multi facets of the ottoman army at the time.

We can so comfortably divide the various stories and experiences of nationalities from the British side, but there is this yawning chasm of a gap in what was happening 'over the fence'. The account of a lone deserter hardly fills the cup!

Is there anyone out there who has a handle on piecing any of this together? Lets start with the basics..... what regiments at gallipoli were not of anatolian turkish background? And the little bit we do know.....that of the 4? regiments that faced the landing...50% were not anatolian.....does this ratio carry us thru the rest of the campaign?

[trajan]

According to this site: http://www.aljazeera.com/archive/2004/01/200849135129326810.html

"Two thirds of the troops who made up [Mustafa Kemal's] 19th Division that faced the first wave of the Allied invasion were Syrian Arabs,

comprising the 72nd and 77th regiments of the Ottoman army, says Turkey-based Australian writer and historian Bill Sellars."

It goes on to say:

"An Australian airforce [sic] officer, Captain Thomas White, captured by the Ottomans in Iraq in 1915, wrote in his diary of conscripted Arab troops being brought in for training from the region near Mosul, where he was being held prisoner. "Roped together by the shoulders and further secured in pairs with wooden handcuffs," he wrote, "strings of footsore Arabs arrived to be trained; food for cannon on some distant front." They varied in age from mere boys to white-bearded patriarchs, rounded up from villages already depleted of horses, arms and food, and marched great distances by mounted gendarmes who drove them with whips like cattle. "The survivors of this hard school, when sufficiently tractable, were armed with nondescript weapons, and given a course of recruit training that was as inefficient as it was ludicrous.""

[trajan]

I see that PJA was also interested in this topic - there is a short bit at:

In principle, I wonder if the Ottoman's did bother to record ethnicity? After all, unless you were a Christian or a Yezidi or a Nusayri, then you were simply a Muslim subject of the Ottoman Empire. True, they would have recorded origin - but Aleppo, just to give one example, did have a non-Arab minority, and so a person conscripted there need not be an ethnic Arab.

[kenf48]

Post 4 of the reposted link to the other thread seems relevant.

If, as is suggested in the literature, not just one account, that men were 'conscripted' or more accurately 'pressed' into the Army then it would seem prudent to post them away from their home. The fact the 72nd and 77th Regiments were based in Aleppo does not guarantee their ethnicity as 'Syrian Arabs',it was just as likely the men were of diverse ethnic backgrounds.

Incidentally I said 'tended not to differentiate..' I was not suggesting an absolute, to a lesser extent it occurred in the British and no doubt other Continental Armies, e.g. Scottish Regiments filled with 'Londoners', as all English men were apparently referred to; Northumbrians in the Devons etc etc.

Ken

[michaeldr]

Erickson (Gallipoli: The Ottoman Campaign) gives some details on the 77^th Infantry Regiment

3^rd August 1914 - mobilised in Aleppo

21^st August 1914 - numbered 47 Officers & 2,347 Other-ranks

27^th September 1914 - moved to Thrace and began training

1^st November 1914 – numbered 64 Officers & 3,179 men; NB about 1,000 being from “local Thracian force pools”

6^th November 1914 – the regiment received its colours at Çatalca (NW of Istanbul); NB the ceremony was translated into Arabic as many of its soldiers did not speak Ottoman Turkish

23^rd February 1915 – departed for Gallipoli

[centurion]

He is starting to sound like an British colonial .......

He was a citizen of Jerusalem and his family had been there at least 3 generations possibly more

[bacon]

Erickson (Gallipoli: The Ottoman Campaign) gives some details on the 77^th Infantry Regiment

3^rd August 1914 - mobilised in Aleppo

21^st August 1914 - numbered 47 Officers & 2,347 Other-ranks

27^th September 1914 - moved to Thrace and began training

1^st November 1914 – numbered 64 Officers & 3,179 men; NB about 1,000 being from “local Thracian force pools”

6^th November 1914 – the regiment received its colours at Çatalca (NW of Istanbul); NB the ceremony was translated into Arabic as many of its soldiers did not speak Ottoman Turkish

23^rd February 1915 – departed for Gallipoli

Wow, now thats really interesting information!! The thracian/greek element is amazing, as is the reference that many of them didnt speak Turkish...... but we have barely scratched the surface, but still good stuff!

[stevenbecker]

Mate,

We should not forget this unit of the Turkish Army

27th (Arab) Divison (raised in Syria)

1-3/79th Regt -79th MG Co

1-3/80th Regt- 80th MGCo

1-3/81st Regt

27th Artillery Regt

3rd Sqn 29th Cav Regt,

27th Medical Co,

43th mobile Hospital,

46th Cooking unit,

3Co/8th Eng bn

Div dissolved early 1918 (the local conscripts went over to the British whilst the h/q joined the 20. Army Corps

These regts were used singlely along with the Vetern 3rd Div in the fighting in Sinai at Romani, Magdhaba and Rafa.

This unit had a mixed fighting record, since it was used as single units, its value was under estamated. not only because it was an Arab formation.

Other Arab Divs used in the same area,

23rd Division (raised in Palestine)

1-3/67th Regt- 67th MGCo

1-3/68th Regt

1-3/69th Regt - 69th MG Co

and

25th (Arab) Division (raised in Syria)

1-3/73rd Regt -73rd MG Co

1-3/74th Regt

1-3/75th Regt- 75th MG Co

You can see where the 72nd and 77th Arab Regts came from the same areas.

S.B

[bacon]

Definitely large numbers of arabs served, how about greeks? Any info? I am aware that huge areas of anatolia were greek speaking and masses of them vacated Turkey and migrated to greece after the Ataturk independance war in the 1920's. there must have been a few hundred thousand serving in the military.

I know that the dardanelles was mostly a greek speaking zone until the 1920's.

[trajan]

Not wishing to split hairs, Steve, but just because a unit was raised in an Arab area does not mean that it was composed of a majority of ethnically Arab soldiers! As I have always understood it, nomadic Arabs were excluded from service in the Ottoman army (although I can't think right now where I learnt that!) and many of the urban centres in these ostensibly Arab areas had, I believe, substantial migrant Anatolian, Bosnian, etc., populations.

[trajan]

Definitely large numbers of arabs served, how about greeks? Any info? I am aware that huge areas of anatolia were greek speaking and masses of them vacated Turkey and migrated to greece after the Ataturk independance war in the 1920's. there must have been a few hundred thousand serving in the military.

I know that the dardanelles was mostly a greek speaking zone until the 1920's.

Again, can't think where I got the information from right now but I believe that non-Muslim Ottoman subjects were usually relegated to labour, transport, supply, etc., units. But, yes, Greeks and Armenians were liable for conscription after 1908 or so. Today, btw, as I understand it, in the 'modern' Turkish army, a conscript of Christian origin (very few) is compulsory circumcised on entry...

[bacon]

The numbers of christians, particularly greeks, was quite substantial in Asia minor until the 1920's. Huge communities an masse retreated from asia minor when Kemals pan Turkish regime took power in the 1920s. So before that, the involvement must have been substantial. In addition, with the 72nd and 77th being committed to the battlefield in 1915, there is fairly clear evidence there that they all cant have been support troops. Although the general Turkish antipathy for awarding the 72nd and 77th regiments any real recognition is an indication that they were regarded as Arab units, not anatolian (otherwise we'd have another 'heroic' Turkish regiment at anzac.....more than the 57th taking all the attention alone).

[trajan]

... Although the general Turkish antipathy for awarding the 72nd and 77th regiments any real recognition is an indication that they were regarded as Arab units, not anatolian (otherwise we'd have another 'heroic' Turkish regiment at anzac.....more than the 57th taking all the attention alone).

BUT, the general Ottoman opinion of the 72nd and 77th was that they were poorly trained rather than poorly motivated - Mustafa Kemal noted that the 77th in particular had a poor appreciation of operational matters. See, e.g., E.J.Erickson, Ottoman Army Effectiveness in World War I: A Comparative Study, p. 36. In other words, they might not have received praise because of their below average perfomance and hence their propensity to panic rather than because of their ethnicity

[stevenbecker]

Mate,

"but just because a unit was raised in an Arab area does not mean that it was composed of a majority of ethnically Arab soldiers"

I am not in a position to disagree, but my understanding is that yes most soldiers in these So called Arab Regts were local raised men.

Rember these areas had there own depot Regts where recruits/conscrips were sent to be trainind then sent to a formation

The 12th depot Regt was in Palestine possibly based at Damascus or Jerusalem or both since there was more then one Bn in this training Regt.

But the Ottoman command kept these Arab Divs away from the front lines prefering to keep them back as garrisons and a possible invasion along the Palestine/Syrian coast.

Cheers

S.B

[stevenbecker]

Mate,

"There's very little available on them, but there's a possibility they played a much bigger part in the fighting of 25th April than they have ever been given credit"

I have to agree with Byrn here that the two Arab Regts arrived in time to suport the 27th Regt in the fighting on that side of the battlefield.

While Kemal kept the 57th Regt under his personal comand in the hills, the other two (Arab Regts) were fighting to keep us from pushing out of Anzac.

While the 27th Regt is celabrated for its actions on the 25 April it was well helped by the two Arab Regts, even if they had a mixed fighting record.

Even the Turks down play the actions of the two Arab Regts, and place more of the lack of training and fighting ability of these units and give all of the victory to the two Anotalian Regts.

Cheers

S.B

[bacon]

I agree. The 77th and 72nd did far more essential 'work' than they are credited with. The dreadful bias or prejudice that runs through Turkish accounts is hardly balanced and never really been addressed.

"BUT, the general Ottoman opinion of the 72nd and 77th was that they were poorly trained rather than poorly motivated - Mustafa Kemal noted that the 77th in particular had a poor appreciation of operational matters."

I note that Australians,pre gallipoli, were judged and recorded similarly by the British.

I will go further, for all the talk about their lack of motivation,training or martial ability pre fighting at Anzac, their overall effectiveness was to stall and then stop an Anzac breakout in April 1915. I would say on that basis, they more than pulled their weight.

The tragedy is that such a significant contribution to the history of the battlefield is relegated to virtual darkness, and if not for the works of the Allied official histories their memory & role would almost certainly been buried even deeper. To my mind, the historical gap is a far more significant issue than other debates that come to mind.