The Young Turks

When I was in college, I had the distinct pleasure of taking Western Civilization I and II with Dr. David Harnett.



I idolized the man.



It was not just his expansive knowledge of Western History, but his style… and style he had in spades.



His suits were perfect, his cufflinks gleamed, and each time he walked into the packed lecture hall holding his maps, you leaned forward knowing you were about to not just be educated, but entertained.



His instruction, and his way of instructing, were a large influence on not just my educational trajectory, but on my presentation skills as well.  If you have ever suffered through one of my lectures here at Artemis, or in one of my public speaking engagements, the parts that you hopefully liked… well… that was me channeling Dr. Harnett.



It was during Western Civilization II that I became particularly fascinated with the Ottoman Empire, more specifically the end of the Ottoman Empire.  Dr. Harnett wove a fascinating tale, and I was intrigued at how this empire came to an end.  At least “coming to an end” is how I perceived it then.  Looking at our current state of affairs, it is entirely plausible that the death of the empire may have been a bit premature.



First, a bit of a history lesson…



Lesson One:



The nation-state system we currently think of when we imagine the globe and, by extension global conflict, is a relatively recent phenomenon.  In 1648 the Peace of Westphalia ended the Thirty Years War and began the process of creating the nation-state system we now know.  For a bit of perspective, that is 375 years of this gig taking place.  It has been over 2,000 years since the Common Era began, and multiple millennia existed before that.  So… what we have come to know in our little personal era of history is completely different from what most humans have experienced since we first crawled out of the ooze.



What I believe we are now watching is an attempt to reestablish long-forgotten empires.



Yes.  Hitler had this vision, but it has morphed beyond that, and continues to morph.  Now, Les Ancien Regimes seem to be coming back into style.  I referenced the Ottoman Empire and, yes, we will be talking about that in a bit… but it is not just there.  We have seen it in the feeble attempt by Vlad the Putin to reconstitute the Soviet Union.  There is some scholarship (nothing I particularly agree with) that would attempt to equate NATO with the Holy Roman Empire.



China is trying to go full Kublai Khan… this time in a version that extends massively beyond the original empire.



Then, of course, there is the Middle East.



Lesson Two:



The Middle East has always had indigenous peoples who, from an ethnographic standpoint, have not really gone beyond their traditional stomping grounds.  The definition of what constitutes the “Middle East” has varied significantly, and the empires that have controlled the middle east have been vast and varied… from Alexander the Great, to the Roman Empire, to the Ottoman Empire, to the French and British Empires.  Yes… it has all been great fun.



The Ottomans are a fascinating aspect of this though.



Let’s cut right to the chase at the beginning:  These guys were monsters.  Literally.  Their entire governmental structure was based on an imposition of force through extreme cruelty.  They also were extreme realists.  Rather than control the culture of a conquered territory, they simply taxed it.  Why force a square peg into a round hole when you own both the board and the peg?



It was monarchical through a potentate.  The Empire began with Osman I in what is now Turkey.  He was a tribal leader who had a decent amount of charisma.  It went all the way to the end of WWI with the death of Mehmed VI, a Sultan who didn’t.



Worse for the Ottomans… they decided to go all “power to the people”.  The Committee of Union and Progress (which sounds like a Soviet-inspired propaganda group) took over the governing of the Empire and decided to cast their lot with Germany during WWI.



Not the brightest move.



The tribal groups… the nomads and bedouins of the Levant had been ignoring their Ottoman masters for centuries, and now, with British and French help, they decided to make war on them, as well as the Germans.  This led to the British and French handing over real estate in the middle east as a kind of “thank you” to their wartime allies.  Thus, the modern Middle East was born.



Kemal Attaturk in Istanbul saw an opportunity himself.  He rejected the Ottomans; he also rejected the Allies, and pushed for an independent statehood, which he unashamedly called “Turkey”.



Thus, the Empire was dead… supplanted by independent nation-states given capital and care by their British, French, and, yes, American allies.



Now a war is upon them, a war all of you have been watching since October 7th, when irregular Hamas terrorists decided to kill Israelis.  Israel, in response, has vowed to wipe out Hamas.



Suddenly, Erdogan, the Prime Minister of Turkey, has not just taken the Palestinian side, he has all but declared war on Israel.  Now Erdogan is a hardliner’s hardliner.  He has vacillated between accepting Western values and totally dismissing them throughout his career.  He inherited a country that was a NATO member, and now seems to be wiling to throw all of that to the wind.






National leaders are not mad.  They may act mad… but they operate in a sphere of realism.  They make rational choices for rational reasons.  We may not agree with those reasons… We may not understand the value of those reasons… but they have rational reasons nonetheless.



So what is Erdogan’s rational reason?



The reconstitution of the Ottoman Empire with him, of course, as the Sultan.



Rational or not… sometimes these gambits end up in abysmal failure.  Adolf Hitler learned that firsthand.



Recent Posts

Saint Alive! Blog - Catacombs

Saints Alive!

The sounds of dripping were muffled by the hiss of the torch.  I could feel the oil-laden rag at the end of the truncheon burning

Read More »
PAGA(Private Attorneys General Act) Blog


One of the most infuriating aspects of Constitutional Law is the need to remain philosophically consistent, even when… especially when… outcomes on specific cases seem

Read More »

Comments (7)

  • Jerome Schammel Reply

    I had a history teacher in college whose lectures on Ancient Egypt were spell bounding. His English accent only added to the effect. I am a supreme history buff. My areas of expertise are American Revolutionary era and the American Civil War. Add in anything WWII and Vietnam. They say the study of history will help us avoid the mistakes of the past. I have found no matter what, humans will continue to make the same mistakes over and over again. History doesn’t repeat itself but it definitely rhymes.

    11/08/2023 at 10:03
    • BRUCE VICTOR Reply

      Good article. As a Jew, the observed relationship of disarming Israel would result in no Israel.
      If we say the same of the terrorist run middle east countries, there would be no war.
      A big difference.

      11/08/2023 at 13:23
  • Howard Wallace Reply

    Some might say that the end of the Ottoman Empire began with the loss of the Battle of Vienna that started on September 12, 1683. Some might also say that on September 11th final preparations were finished and some minor skirmishes took place which could be a reason why Osama picked that day for his attack, revenge for the humiliation of the defeat at the hands of the Christians.

    I always enjoy your lectures/discussions, particularly when you get into the weedy stuff, the inside baseball information. I admire your ability to stand up and give an hour long talk without any notes or rambling.

    11/08/2023 at 10:24
  • Frank Verrill Reply

    I left the following post on

    11/08/2023 at 10:39
  • Frank Verrill Reply

    I think you should have a discussion with Alan Dershowitz on either yours or his podcast on the efficacy of a functioning 2nd amendment for Israel. Alan commented that if he had been a framer he would not have been in favor. I think the Holocaust may of had a lower body count if the Jews, gays, gypsies and undesirables had Lugers, Mausers, bayonets and ammunition. Just as the victims of October 7th.

    11/08/2023 at 10:44
  • John Denney Reply

    Human nature hasn’t changed in thousands of years.
    Some say man is basically good; others say basically evil, but I say basically conflicted, being created in the image & likeness of God, & thus having a built in sense of righteousness, but also born wanting not, “Thy will be done”, but, “My will be done”, as anyone who’s dealt with a 2 year old knows.
    So there’s a spectrum of behavior, from saintly at one end to psychopathic monster at the other. To a psychopath, nothing is more important than his desires.
    People can be influenced to move either direction on that spectrum: you find a wallet stuffed with cash, credit cards, & the owner’s contact info, and the conflict starts.
    Psychopath: “Finders keepers, losers weepers”
    Saint: “Dude! You gotta do the right thing!”
    Compromise: “Just take the cash for your trouble, & return the rest.”

    A psych professor told me the best book he’d ever read on the male psyche was, “Wild At Heart”, which states that every young man yearns for adventure, a battle to fight, & a beauty to rescue. Young Luke Skywalker, eh?

    An army can be grown by appealing to those desires. The soldiers can also be influenced to move toward one end or the other of that spectrum of good & evil.

    God’s will? Love Him, & love one another.

    11/08/2023 at 11:40
  • Olaf Kilthau Reply

    Where do the Kurds stand in this?

    11/09/2023 at 11:59

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *