The woman sniper of Gallipoli

[pipvh]

pipvh wrote, "... can we agree that, given a strong - at least anecdotal - tradition of women combatants on all sides of the Balkan wars and the various Turkish conflicts that followed, that it isn't altogether out of the question that women might have been present at Gallipoli as irregulars? "

No. What 'strong' anecdotal tradition are you referring to? I'm not concerned with what may or may not have possibly, maybe, happened somewhere else. This thread concerns the evidence, or lack thereof, for the presence of women snipers in the Ottoman army at Gallipoli. To use an analogy, the fact that Annie Oakley was handy with a gun does not prove there were women snipers in the US army shooting from the battlements of the Alamo. They're two completely different things.

Plenty of very well documented women fighters in the Greek Resistance in WW2: http://www.gutenberg-e.org/poulos/chapter4.html. And in Bulgaria: Mirka Ginova. There are photos on the web of women in armed Armenian bands in 1915. My grandmother knew women - relations - who associated with the Klephtic bands in Macedonia pre-1912, and who were armed.

Women fighters in the Balkan/Turkish wars weren't a case of may or may not have possibly, maybe, happened somewhere else. The Annie Oakley analogy is false: women played a documented role as irregulars in the various conflicts within the Balkans and Turkey - they still do: plenty of women fighting in the PPK.

I'm saying that this makes the presence of a woman sniper at Gallipoli something more than an utter impossibility. But no, it certainly doesn't prove that she/they existed, and I'm not arguing that.

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

pipvh

Mate, just to get the record straight on your comments in relation to the thread idea.

You said: "I'm saying that this makes the presence of a woman sniper at Gallipoli something more than an utter impossibility. But no, it certainly doesn't prove that she/they existed, and I'm not arguing that."

Mate, as a basic precept of logic, one cannot prove the absence of something. To give you an extreme example of this, I was once challenged by a Tax Office clerk, in writing might I add, to prove by documentary evidence that I did not have a bank account with a particular bank. I politely asked the person to suggest a methodology to fulfil this request. It took a few minutes for the thought processes to click through until the blindingly obvious became blindingly obvious.

So too with the woman sniper.

I have demonstrated that the stories which circulated at the time were no more than a recycling of the "monkey brain dinner" story that everyone has heard of, but no one had seen. The stories that were presented as fact were unpacked to demonstrate the inconsistencies of the commentary. thus casting doubt on the veracity of the story as a factual account.

Nothing has been said that states, with hand on heart, that there was never a female sniper on Gallipoli. I can never prove that ... not now nor in a month of Sundays. I cannot prove a negative.

However, I am not asserting that there ever was such a woman sniper at Gallipoli. Those who do make that assertion need to come up with better evidence than has been produced to date to establish the veracity of the claim. It is for the person making the claim to stump up with the irrefutable evidence. It is not for me to do so in the negative. That I have undermined the stories is enough to suggest that anyone utilising that particular commentary to establish the thesis that there was a female sniper should go away and do some further homework and present better evidence.

So we need to go beyond the rumour and folk stories and stump up with real evidence. Else wise, entertaining apocryphal stories should remain as part of self indulgence rather than peddled as "fact". So a female sniper at Gallipoli is not "an utter impossibility", however it is highly improbable under the current circumstances.

Cheers

Bill

[pipvh]

Bill, no disagreement from me. The tax inspector analogy struck a particularly unpleasant nerve, I must say.

My argument was not that there must have been a woman sniper at Gallipoli - it is, as you say, completely unprovable without documents or forensics - but more with the idea that women couldn't have been snipers because women wouldn't have been snipers - eg the woman in haribob's photo was holding a rifle because someone had given it to her for a laugh. Women did fight in the guerrilla actions that attended the break-up of the Ottoman Empire, from the 1790s right through to the present, and I suppose that, as someone with a couple of those women in my ancestry I wanted to stand up for them...

Self-indulgent? Moi? Maybe, but it's a fascinating topic. I wish there was a forum like this one for the Balkan Wars with intelligent discussion. As it is, I've yet to find anywhere on the web that handles these subjects without it degenerating into everyone calling everyone else malaka in all the languages of the Balkan Peninsula ;-)

[bob lembke]

Bill;

I support and applaud your post right above 100% (actually, not quite; see below:). I cannot recall seeing a "woman Gallipoli sniper assertion" that seemed creditable, and there are very good reasons why it is almost impossible that women fought in the Turkish Army at Gallipoli, as opposed to taking part in ethnic cleansing in some remote dusty village in the Balkans.

In regards to the odd mention, thrice removed, of something of that sort, my wife, who is very active on a largely Brit-centered literary forum, told me that they had a thread on the topic of "Great Books of Australia". One of the books nominated was the memoirs af a "Digger" who served at Gallipoli, and among his assertions was the belief among some of his "down-under" buddies that the Pyramids of Gaza were built with the assistance of dinasours as draft animals, which he reported but seemed to be neutral about, and the assertion that occasionally the ANZAC troops bathing just off-shore, as they did in great numbers, were occasionally grabbed and eaten by sea monsters, which he believed to be true. Megan has the book in her library, and has read it, and if anyone is interested she says that she can dig out the title in a few minutes.

In sharp contrast to ethnic squabbling in the Balkan Wars, the fighting at Gallipoli was almost unbelievably organized and dense. The two sides had about 20 divisions fighting along front lines that were only a few miles long. The practical problems of having women combatents in such an enviroment are numerous and need not be discussed. Each Turkish battalion had an immam, who upon occasion, when the other senior officers were killed, took over and successfully led the battalion in close combat, according to their German advisors/commanders, such as Kannengeiser, the commander of a Turkish division. These immans were very close to the men and the idea that these guys would tolerate Turkish women troops in combat is absurd. Some of the fantasy stories have little old widows living in little white stone houses in no-man's-land, and occasionally slipping out to pick off a Brit or ANZAC, and having 20 or 30 wallets or noses from their victims on display in their bric-a-brac cabinet in the sitting room. Just rediculous, there were no civilians in the combat zone, and "no-man's-land" was sometimes 5 or 10 yards across.

My one reservation is "the monkey brains dinner" story, which is 100% true (depending on what is being claimed). I have a great fault in dragging threads OT, so I will not beat it to death, but I was very seriously immersed in Chinese food for decades, organizing banquets for Chinese-Americans and Chinese-Chinese at their request that I did not even attend, cooking for decades, and it is true. One friend saw an amazing display of this "dish" in a top Tiapei (sp?) restaurant, and another very close friend had it several times, and other exotic food, as the commander of a Special Forces A-team in Vietnam who commanded a unit of Cambodian mercenary cannibals. The unwritten contract with the Cambodians was: "We will die for you, but you must eat our food!" Eating monkey brains and human flesh had important significance, not just curiousity or random cruilty (sp?). Any more discussion shoud be off this thread, I think. In the presence of the latter friend I discussed this topic with a leading Philadelphia restaurant owner who was an immigrant from China.

Bob

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

pipvh

Mate, exclude yourself this instant from the "self indulgent" group. My comment was broader in application than relating to your good self. There are many folks who grasp at a legend and peddle it as fact. It happens on this site and it happens in the broader community. One of the clearest articulation of this comes from the group who door knock telling me that I too should have an invisible friend to talk to and play with at all times. In some circles, people who indulge in this activity are commonly known as insane - delusional - but in other circles, it is seen as an essential qualification for high state office. Hence my spray regarding self indulgence in the peddling of apocryphal stories.

Bob

Glad you enjoyed your monkey brains mate. Perhaps I should have said "Santa Claus" or "The Tooth Fairy" in the hope that you might not have had dealings with them sometime in the past.

Cheers

Bill

[bob lembke]

pipvh

Glad you enjoyed your monkey brains mate. Perhaps I should have said "Santa Claus" or "The Tooth Fairy" in the hope that you might not have had dealings with them sometime in the past.

Bill

For the record, I have not eaten the brains out of the head of a live monkey, nor have I seen it done. Also, it is a tremendously dangerous idea.

I was eating with a girl friend and the former Special Forces NCO at a good Chinese restaurant, and while we waited for our food my friend, being hungry, ordered a plate of chicken feet, which he proceeded to eat with great relish, with no help from me or my girl friend. When I was paying, Ken, the owner, having noticed the chicken feet being wolfed down, said: "Your friend knows the food." I responded: "Ken, he does. He has had the monkey brains." At this Ken got a bit of a sick look, not easy to induce in a Chinese food professional. He said nothing. Then I said: "And he has had the 'fragrant dog' ." Ken said nothing, but sort of smiled.

When the Chinese eat dog, they often call it "four-legged human", in honor of the dog's appreciated virtues of loyalty and obedience. (In Hong Kong, as the British rulers did not want to know about their subjects eating dog, restaurant signs where dog was available wrote something else, but in red paint.) And when human flesh was eaten, the euphemism was "fragrant dog". See, cross euphemisms. Supposedly, dog and human flesh have a similar taste, which is also supposedly similar to lamb, which is probably why many Chinese have a horror of eating lamb. (I figured out the latter taste similarity while eating a dinner of raw lamb kibbee in a Lebanese restaurant at midnight.)

It is dangerous to give me an opening. Having some sense of shame, I have spared you the other, more spectacular story. Try me.

Bob

[johnshep]

Just as a red herring, I happened to catch an edition of Woman's Hour on BBC Radio 4 some 10+ years ago when idling away some time on one of our motorways (aka car parks). It was possibly marking one of the 10-year anniversaries of the armistice. The topic was women who had served on the Western Front in the British army in WW1. This well-researched review found a handful of women who had seen active service (as men) in the trenches. I can only think they went to some lengths to avoid the shower cubicles - if they existed.

John

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

John

Mate, you might be interested in a thread on Women in the AIF:

 

These very issues are discussed.

Cheers

Bill

[johnshep]

Thanks for that Bill - fascinating thread. I should have guessed that the topic would have been covered already given the awesome level of expertise on this forum.

John

[2ndCMR]

http://www.iwmcollections.org.uk/dbtw-wpd/...mp;FG=0&QS=

http://www.iwmcollections.org.uk/dbtw-wpd/...mp;FG=0&QS=

No doubt there are others; I didn't look further.

[T8HANTS]

Same old thing though, a farrier in 53 Div comments on the doings of New Zealanders. Always third hand hearsay, and no body. I refuse to believe that if a woman had been captured, no one bothered to take her photograph. She would have become the ultimate mess trophy!

G

[bob lembke]

I can't believe that we are still discussing this. If one had any understanding of the Turkish Army, the nature of Turkey then and now, and the military situation at Gallipoli, one must dismiss this idea out of hand. Some have suggested that the (possible) participation of women in the guerrilla fighting/ethnic cleansing in the Balkans during the Balkan Wars as suggesting that there might have been women serving at Gallipoli. The two situations are entirely different. Gallipoli was an intense military situation, with, toward the end something like 22 divisions on the Turkish side along a little bit of front. There were no civilians living at the front; but the civilians are often part of the sniper stories. ("The little old Turkish widow living in her cottage in the middle of no-man's-land, when caught sniping she had 140 Allied dog tags on her living room wall, and drawers full of wallets and watches.") Who has been in the military and thing that you could have a chance of preserving the secret of a female body without at least company-level approval? In the Turkish Army of then and of today 90% of the men would have been shocked and upset at the idea of a woman present. Each Turkish battalion had an Imam, who were very influential and respected (according to German commanders, they sometimes successfully led the battalion in combat when senior officers were lost); they would not have tolerated it one half of a second. And I am sure that 80% of the men would have gone straight to the Imam if he found out that there was a woman in the ranks. Additionally, any Turkish officer who supported such an idea would probably put himself in a bad position. The Turks had every sort of shortage, but not one of brave men willing to die to protect the homeland.

I have been reading a number of the Allied memoirs from Gallipoli, and even the better ones often repeat some really strange stories, usually not things that they claimed they saw, but rumors, often repeated as fact. Turkish snipers were a big problem, and also the Turks that crawled about at night with often only knives, I am sure that the Allied men found the Turks exotic, and might believe such rumors.

Additionally, I have read many of the too few accounts of German participants, and I have never heard of such a thing from these sources. My father was there, unfortunately told me much too little about his experiences there, but he never mentioned such a thing.

If necessary I will post the accounts of how ANZAC men were eaten by sea monsters bathing on the beach at ANZAC Cove, and how the pyramids were built with the aid of dinasours.

Bob Lembke

[T8HANTS]

The Turks had every sort of shortage, but not one of brave men willing to die to protect the homeland

I will second that !.......G

[josquin]

Gentlemen

The letter of Ivor Lloyd Jones, of the 7th Royal Welsh Fusiliers, is substantially more credible

than the Greenwood & Clifton subterfuge to which it is compared. Lloyd Jones's text, as I

read it, is clearly describing events he had experienced (being specific, as well, about

the participation of male adolescents as well as young females). I feel that you dismiss

Lloyd Jones' facts too readily. I think a fair argument can be made for the participation

of male adolescents and females in the Gallipoli Campaign: the Turks responded to the

British invasion of their country with fervent nationalism which would have imbued

everyone, male or female, with the will to fight for the homeland; the Turkish Army

had a long tradition of irregulars (Bashi Bazouks, guerrillas, etc.) participating in

battles and campaigns with regular army units; given the strictures of culture and

religion in an Islamic traditional society, few would have cared to call attention to

an occurrence that was not sanctioned by the Koran. The mullahs had absolute

legal, political, and religious authority over the people; they would not have responded

kindly to anyone talking, let alone writing, about such an occurrence. Just as women

fought in the Great Patriotic War in 1941-45 Soviet Union and adolescents were in

the Iranian army during the decade-long war with Iraq in the 1980s, I believe that

the likely participation of adolescent boys and women as Turkish irregulars during the

Gallipoli Campaign. You underestimate the tradition of strong, nationalistic resistance

to foreign invaders that has long existed in eastern Southern Europe, the Levant,

and Asia Minor. I believe that Lloyd Jones' letter was a literal description of the

reality the British soldiers faced daily at Gallipoli rather than a fanciful invention

composed to console a grieving family. Were it merely the latter, there would be

every reason to write exclusively about victory and patriotism and no reason

at all to include all the specific details of daily combat.

A fascinating thread, gentlemen!

regards Trelawney

[Bryn]

Lloyd-Jones's letter never states that he actually saw a female sniper at Suvla. Like all these accounts that touch on this topic, it is vague on details and mentions no times or places. It's a letter, not a diary entry. It sounds to me as if it's a recount of every rumour that's gone round about snipers. Or are we expected to believe that, in the [maximum] one week between arriving at Suvla and the writing of the letter, Lloyd-Jones had seen so many dead snipers that some of them included adolescent boys and girls? That would make them pretty common behind the lines, since it's far less likely they were examined when they were killed in front of the lines.

Back to the woman hiding out in the white house and shooting scads of allied soldiers then collecting their ID tags without anyone noticing (except if nobody noticed, how did the writer of the account know about it?)

2ndCMR wrote,

"Is it possible the woman et famille hid and evaded removal? Is it possible they snuck back later? Is it possible to fire a rifle in a battle zone and not be heard? Is it possible to shoot a straggler dead on an isolated spot and then go out after dark to rifle his body if he has fallen otherwise unobserved? Is it possible to kill for both love of country and lucre at the same time?"

Since, theoretically, ANYTHING is possible, the answers must be yes. But that's not proof of women snipers at Gallipoli. It's not even evidence. It's pure supposition.

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

Trelawney

Mate, thanks for your interesting note and your plea on behalf of Ivor Lloyd Jones.

I suppose the crux of your plea relies upon sentiment and teleology rather than the strict nature of evidence. However, it is the latter item that determines the veracity of sentiment and teleology.

Let me give you an example. Here is a diary extract from Bert Schramm of 1 October 1918:

http://alh-research.tripod.com/Light_Horse...1-october-1918/

You will find it compared to the War Diary of the Regiment and Brigade he belonged to as well as the unit history that emerged subsequent to the end of the war.

As a simple farmer from the back blocks of South Australia, he painfully produces 98 words to describe a terrific victory emerging from terrible carnage. The essential point is that his diary can be relied upon as evidence since it is independently corroborated consistently throughout its production. He writes only of things he knows of his own experience. When he deals with things he has not personally witnessed, he predicates it with the word "rumour". As a witness, his words are highly reliable.

In contrast to Ivor Lloyd Jones, there is no established pattern that leads to the conclusion that information contained in his letter, that he writes that is of not his own knowledge, is accurate. There is no independent corroboration. In this case, the respective War Diary entries would make an admirable start to establishing the veracity. But this won't happen, not then nor now. The reason is simple. No such corroborating entry exists in the War Diaries of the British, Australian, New Zealand or French forces. The capture of a female sniper, either dead or alive, would definitely be remarked in a War Diary. Not only that, Ashmeed Bartlett would have been invited to examine the body or the person to allow him to construct paeans about Turkish tactics at Gallipoli. This was a public relations dream presented on a plate to the Allies, if it were true.

But the War Diaries are empty of this data and Ashmeed Bartlett did not write a piece about the capture or death of a female sniper. The absence of this impressive corroborative evidence tends to undermine in a great way the veracity of "information" contained in the Ivor Lloyd Jones letter. So regardless of sentiment, evidence establishes the veracity of that sentiment. While the sentiment remains it needs to be understood that it appears to be based upon unprovable fantasy rather than corroborated reality.

The teleological aspects of your post are more easily disposed of as they have no relevance to establishing the veracity of the claim. It is irrelevant that there were female guerrillas fighting in this or that arena. We know this as we have seen the evidence. We know that a German female, Brigitte Kuhlmann, was involved in the hijack of the Air France airliner to Entebbe in July 1976. We know this because of external evidence. The fact that Brigitte Kuhlmann was involved in guerilla activities does not lead to the conclusion that there was a female sniper at Gallipoli just because of virtue that there is a gender sharing issue. Women do go to war. Women do fight in wars as combatants. Women have been and are now snipers. None of this is in doubt. We have external and independent confirmation. Again, knowing this does not confer some teleological veracity on the Gallipoli female sniper story.

Bryn summed up the teleological argument well when he said: Since, theoretically, ANYTHING is possible, the answers must be yes. But that's not proof of women snipers at Gallipoli. It's not even evidence. It's pure supposition.

I hope this sorts out the confusion between sentiment, teleology and evidence for you.

Cheers

Bill

[James Blonde]

Gentlemen

The letter of Ivor Lloyd Jones, of the 7th Royal Welsh Fusiliers, is substantially more credible

than the Greenwood & Clifton subterfuge to which it is compared. Lloyd Jones's text, as I

read it, is clearly describing events he had experienced (being specific, as well, about

the participation of male adolescents as well as young females). I feel that you dismiss

Lloyd Jones' facts too readily. I think a fair argument can be made for the participation

of male adolescents and females in the Gallipoli Campaign: the Turks responded to the

British invasion of their country with fervent nationalism which would have imbued

everyone, male or female, with the will to fight for the homeland; the Turkish Army

had a long tradition of irregulars (Bashi Bazouks, guerrillas, etc.) participating in

battles and campaigns with regular army units; given the strictures of culture and

religion in an Islamic traditional society, few would have cared to call attention to

an occurrence that was not sanctioned by the Koran. The mullahs had absolute

legal, political, and religious authority over the people; they would not have responded

kindly to anyone talking, let alone writing, about such an occurrence. Just as women

fought in the Great Patriotic War in 1941-45 Soviet Union and adolescents were in

the Iranian army during the decade-long war with Iraq in the 1980s, I believe that

the likely participation of adolescent boys and women as Turkish irregulars during the

Gallipoli Campaign. You underestimate the tradition of strong, nationalistic resistance

to foreign invaders that has long existed in eastern Southern Europe, the Levant,

and Asia Minor. I believe that Lloyd Jones' letter was a literal description of the

reality the British soldiers faced daily at Gallipoli rather than a fanciful invention

composed to console a grieving family. Were it merely the latter, there would be

every reason to write exclusively about victory and patriotism and no reason

at all to include all the specific details of daily combat.

A fascinating thread, gentlemen!

regards Trelawney

Except it was a society entirely dominated by men.

where the role of women was strictly regulated to the house and home.

Are we to believe the machismo of the male dominated population and strict religious belief

would have allowed women to be trained with a weapon or even attend a sniper course.

I believe not, there is no credible evidence that such women snipers existed,

even one example of a captured or even a armed dead woman would have made the headlines

am milked for all the propaganda value it contained.

Connaught Stranger

[michaeldr]

Things like this usually have a grain of truth somewhere at the bottom.

If you wish, like the tiny grain of sand, which, in the end becomes the pearl in the oyster

What could have been that original grain of sand in this case?

There are two refs to 'women' which I have come across in my recent reading

and perhaps they offer alternative explanations of where this myth began

see 'The Incomparable 29th and the River Clyde' by George Davidson MA, MD., Major RAMC, published in Aberdeen, 1919

page 115, refers to c.June 28th and the Gully Ravine area

"The whole fight was on our extreme left, with a front

of not much over half a mile. This must have been very

thoroughly ploughed up, and a large number of Turks

blown to pieces. One woman was found among the

dead, but it is believed that many of them had their wives

with them. Many of their underground dwellings were

so elaborate that they had evidently made up their minds

that they were to spend the coming winter here."

the second is, admittedly, a less likely candidate, but it must be also be considered

see page 110 which refers to c.June 20th, this time at 'W' Beach

"A strange occurrence happened the other day at W.

Beach, when I was up The Gully. A figure appeared over

the sky line in petticoats, as it was thought. Our men

began yelling "A wuman, a wuman," and all tore out to

see what they had not seen for months. Lieut. Thomson

and Corporal Morrice were the most excited. These two

have not yet got over their disappointment on discovering

this was an Egyptian-and a male one-in a long coat."

[bob lembke]

see 'The Incomparable 29th and the River Clyde' by George Davidson MA, MD., Major RAMC, published in Aberdeen, 1919

page 115, refers to c.June 28th and the Gully Ravine area

"The whole fight was on our extreme left, with a front

of not much over half a mile. This must have been very

thoroughly ploughed up, and a large number of Turks

blown to pieces. One woman was found among the

dead, but it is believed that many of them had their wives

with them. Many of their underground dwellings were

so elaborate that they had evidently made up their minds

that they were to spend the coming winter here."

Turkish soldiers did not have their wives with them at Gallipoli. Again, an absurd idea, for about seventy reasons. I would insult our intelligence by even listing 20 or 30 of them. The second part of the boldened quote is more vague, but also seems silly. In early summer 1915 thr Turks had built elaborate enough dugouts to enable their families to stay with them over the winter?

As I have said before, my wife, my excellent book-scout, found a passage in an Australian diary where the Digger states that the Egyptians used dinasaurs (sp?) as draft animals when they built the Pyramids. Same diary states that a number of Australians were eaten by sea monsters when swimming off the ANZAC bridgehead. Shall I post and establish the truth. I have read a number of allied diaries and memoirs from Gallipoli recently, in particular from Australians (not trying to offend anyone here), and I must state that they repeat quite a number of really silly things.

Bob Lembke

[Myrtle]

I have come across newspaper reports regarding this subject and I have read the posts in this thread and the one thing that I continually come back to is "If a Turkish woman sniper was killed by the allies how would this have been handled by the military, especially considering the position of women in society at this particular time in history".

Myrtle

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

Michael

Mate, you are correct that there is usually a grain of truth in the fantasy, else it would not get legs. My belief, which I have stated at the very beginning relates to the ancient and well practised art of body stripping, something women did with great relish at the end of a battle in these parts. The sheer wealth of the British Army presented a bonanza in well manufactured product and booty that could not just be left to rot on the ground. Body stripping and grave robbing was quite common in the Sinai during the 1916 affrays with the Bedu digging up the buried bodies to strip them of the valuables. To them, war was an inconvenience coupled with an opportunity to increase their personal wealth. It you are searching for your grain of truth, this is the place to start. Bob's comments, to which I agree, indicate a false grain on the data you have presented. The Ottoman troops would have been astounded to learn that there was room for their wives in the bunkers. It takes little to imagine the consequences of this on moral if it were true. However, the Turkish records tend to indicate that this is more a imagined conclusion by the author rather than a cross referenced piece of evidence.

Bob

Good post mate and please do not think that reciting stupid comments from AIF men would cause me any distress. There is nothing in the rule book that says all AIF were somehow smarter than mere mortals and thus not prone to acts of cupidity or idiocy. Mate, having read many diaries, I have seen some fantastic claims, all of which were total BS from an author who was DAS. However, even the clever diarists made up things. Ion Idriess, the noted diarist who transposed his diaries into "The Desert Column" was prone to adopt "stories" in a Mark Twain fashion and call them his own, be they true or false. About a quarter of the content of "The Desert Column" is sheer and utter twaddle - the trick is finding out which parts are fantasy and that which is reality.

Myrtle

Exactly.

Cheers

Bill

[bob lembke]

I have come across newspaper reports regarding this subject and I have read the posts in this thread and the one thing that I continually come back to is "If a Turkish woman sniper was killed by the allies how would this have been handled by the military, especially considering the position of women in society at this particular time in history".

Myrtle

Hi, Myrtle;

The history of Turkey is quite fascinating, and one aspect is the position of women. As you mention it I will veer O-T a bit. I will postulate that, in balance, a Turkish woman of about 1750 perhaps was in a better legal position vis-a-vis men than an English woman of 1850. (As a practical matter this would be more true in the upper classes, where a woman would be in a better position to exert her rights - this applies to the English woman as well, of course) and also depends on what weight one would put on certain differences imposed by al-Islam, for example, poligamy and the veil, as opposed to greater fiscal rights.

I almost understand the Turkish situation than the English. I am assuming that an English woman of the period could own money and property (or could she?) but, when married, her husband controlled her property. (Did her father control her assets before marraige? By law, or by custon?) A dowery was paid by the bride's family to the groom, and was his unconditionally. A Turkish woman, married or unmarried, could own and control property. In Turkey, the dowery was paid by the groom's family in effect to the bride, and was held in a sort of escrow, and while a man could easily divorce his wife, in that case the dowery and the earnings and financial gains reverted to the divorced woman, who would move back to her family, with honor, and control the assets.

Much has been made of the fact that, under al-Islam, on the death of the father a daughter got half the share of the estate that a male sibling got, but was it not true that in the English system the oldest male sibling got the whole ball of wax, and that all the daughters, plus the other sons, might get nothing? I believe that the half share of daughters was set by Koranic law.

There was an interesting effect of the veil. Upper-class Turkish women, say 1700 or 1800, would use non-Muslim merchants from the recognized minorities (Jews, Armenians, Greeks, Genoese, in the main; these people controled much or most trade) as go-betweens; they might visit upper-class homes, showing fine fabrics and other goods, rendezvous might be set up thru them with lovers, and then the Turkish wife would visit the merchant's shop, where there would be a "love nest" and a lover in the back of the shop. When the wife went out she would borrow a coarse cloak from a servant, and she would be veiled, and even if a husband thought he recognized his wife out on the street, unless he was 100%, iron-clad sure it was his wife, if he acosted a woman, or even spoke to her, and it was not his wife, he coulds expect the family of the woman he stopped to literally kill him, or al least come after him in a very serious way. This situation, which did not have an easy solution drove Turkish men nuts, and I think that, at one time, they persuaded the Sultan to pose a decree banning such shopping visits to non-Muslim shops, but I think they never managed to manage this vexing problem.

Of course, at the top, in Topkapi Palace, soon after Osman Turkey was established, there were events sometimes called the "feminization of the Sultanate",and after that the women, several hundred of them, and their armed and cranky Blank and White Enuchs largely "ruled the roost", and the life of the Sultan and his sons were, to my mind, miserable, a night-mare. The Sultan's mother was the Dragon-in-Chief, generally.

Of course, in the lower classes, the lives of women were generally miserable, and the above theoretical rights were largely meaningless. But that was true in different degrees everywhere, except, perhaps, Amazonia.

Bob Lembke

[michaeldr]

quote: Turkish soldiers did not have their wives with them at Gallipoli. Again, an absurd idea, for about seventy reasons. I would insult our intelligence by even listing 20 or 30 of them. The second part of the boldened quote is more vague, but also seems silly. In early summer 1915 thr Turks had built elaborate enough dugouts to enable their families to stay with them over the winter?

Bob,

You may be right about the second part; it is only an opinion and as such could be mistaken

Regarding the sex of one of the bodies found; doctors tend to know about these things

and I see no reason to doubt Davidson

regards

Michael

[Bryn]

But again, the writer does not say he personally saw or found a woman. He uses the passive tense: 'a woman was found'. Presumably, being a doctor, and well acquainted as educated people were then in the use of grammar, his use of the passive is deliberate.

In any case, he does not seem to be dealing with facts, because as Bob has pointed out, there is little chance that the Turks were preparing winter quarters in June. Priorities such as the constant heavy fighting, patrolling, wiring and so on would have dictated that such construction, if even considered at the time, would have been fairly low on the 'must-do' scale.

[michaeldr]

No, I don't think so

He makes a deffinate statement ie 'One woman was found'

and only then does he moves on to his conjecture, begining " but it is believed that "

This action took place in the vacinity of the Boomerang