What is the modern view of Arabs of Lawrence of Arabia? I mean he didn't really fit in with the English nor with the Arabs. I find the man to be particulary noble and a great example. I hope most Arabs could understand his passion even though he was English.
What do Arabs think of Lawrence of Arabia?
- Thread starter Transkar
- Start date
Lawrence of Arabia is highly overrated both in terms of his role, and the legend surrounding him. His role was a very small one in the Arab revolt, the real movers and shakers behind it were Sharif Husain and Shikh Faisal, Lawrence functioned basically as no more than a British adviser to the Arabs.
Much of his lionization was due to British propaganda and racial biases. And that terribly inaccurate movie Lawrence of Arabia. I doubt most Arabs even know of him or his role in the Arab revolt, he was a minor figure in reality.
Much of his lionization was due to British propaganda and racial biases. And that terribly inaccurate movie Lawrence of Arabia. I doubt most Arabs even know of him or his role in the Arab revolt, he was a minor figure in reality.
Considering the fact that Husain and Faisal were getting their arses handed to them until Lawrence arrived and began advising them, I think he had far more of an impact on the Arab Revolt than you give him credit for. He was also the best possible candidate to unite the Arabs, being as he was NOT an Arab and therefore free to mediate between the different political units. As the movie, however inaccurate - and it is incredibly inaccurate - demonstrates in the scene where he shoots an Arab criminal in order to avoid having the alliance break apart.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Actually, Lawrence really didn't feature in contemporary propaganda- the British Army considered him to be something of an embarrassment, a reckless knight-errant, and generally considered his Arab guerillas to be a band of ill-controlled thugs, much preferring their "worthy opponents" in the Turkish Army. His popularity in Britain really came after the war, when the story of his exploits became widespread, and he published a memoir of the events, Seven Pillars of Wisdom. His role is certainly exaggerated, and derived in part from the idealised "Mighty Whitey" archetypes, but it wasn't so consciously malicious as you suggest.
Frank Drebin
Police Squad!
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2010
- Messages
- 456
i think they still love omar sharif, although he does soaps for egyptian tv now.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
If the matter is about racial biases, can I ask why the British feared/respected Atatürk far more than von Sanders?
I've seen nothing to indicate the British especially feared Mustafa Kemal, though they may have respected him as a able commander during the latter part of the Palestine campaign which is uprising seeing as how von Sanders had gone and had gotten himself a through beating at Mediggo.
Before Gallipoli however he was just a Lt. Colonel and during it he had just been promoted by Sanders to Commander of the 19th Division. If anything his role in Gallipoli is rather overstated largely due to Turkish nationalism. I know of no reason why the British would have paid him any special attention given that his military career really took off after Gallipoli where he served on the Cacus front as Brigadier General. He only really appeared in British consciousness during his time in Palestine.
Before Gallipoli however he was just a Lt. Colonel and during it he had just been promoted by Sanders to Commander of the 19th Division. If anything his role in Gallipoli is rather overstated largely due to Turkish nationalism. I know of no reason why the British would have paid him any special attention given that his military career really took off after Gallipoli where he served on the Cacus front as Brigadier General. He only really appeared in British consciousness during his time in Palestine.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
It's popularly conceived that the XIX Division was what saved the day for the Turks at Gallipoli. So yeah, Atatürk had achieved his mythological status long before the Turkish War of Independence.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Turks were traditionally ranked higher than Arabs in the contemporary racial hierarchies of the time. The elite of the day were often quite precise about these things, eschewing the simplistic classifications of "white", "black" and so on in favour of overly precise (and utterly incorrect) classifications; as such, distinctions were made between "sub-races" such as the Turks and Arabs, or, for that matter, the "Teutonic" English and the "Celtiberian" Irish.
Popularly conceived in Turkey maybe. It's not entirely mythological the 19th division and Mustafa Kemal did play an important role, though somewhat overstated, an unfortunate tendency among propagandists, nationalists, and historians. And really the cult of Ataturk only reached its heights in his exploits following Galliopoli his moderate sucesses against the Russians, and the fact that he wasn't around to get pwned by Allenby at Meddigo like Sanders was. And of course the Turkish War on Independence after which a rather glorious cult of personality was built which no doubt even Stalin was envious of. Certainly the cult of Ataturk has had greater longevity than Stalin's, though it seems to be losing a bit of veneer now.
Before Lawrence arrived the Arabs had already taken Jiddah, Ragbegh, Yendo, and Qufidia, while their only major setback had been at Medina. So I don't know what you're talking about when you say they were getting their arses handed to them, seems like they were doing quite well by all appearances.
Lawrences strategic contribution was to suggest that they attack the Hijaz railroad rather than take the cities, which was not a boon to the Arabs who wanted those cities but rather a boon to the British who wanted the Ottomans tied down defending the railroad.
Faisal and Sharif Husain had tens of thousands of men what they lacked was equipment, they had a small number of largely antiquated rifles, little artillery to speak of, and no airplanes or real motorized veichles. Lawrence wasn't what helped them win, it was the British providing them with rifles, artillery, and machine guns. And of course the Ottomans were heavily committed on other fronts.
You give credit to Lawrence where none is due. I've seen little to indicate that Lawrence played any major role in uniting the Arabs, and the movie as a whole was just awful.
Considering the fact that the power-base of the Arabs was in the Arabian Peninsular, where they ruled as vassals for the Turks, and all of those cities you mentioned were cities which they already ruled on behalf of the Turks, with only small Turkish garrisons, it would be somewhat surprising if they didn't capture those cities. The only city in the entire peninsular with a sizable Turkish garrison was Medina, and that's where the Arabs were defeated. Decisively so.
The Turks were also routinely launching raids from Medina, meaning that the Arabs hadn't actually consolidated the territory that they had taken. Put a few aircraft in Medina - which the Turks were planning on doing - and the Arab rebellion would be incapable of operating within a certain radius of the garrison. Say goodbye to any chance of winning.
The Turks had also been somewhat busy fighting on both the Russian and Dardanelles fronts, which limited the available troops to use in pacifying rebellions. And the Arab Revolt was nowhere near as potentially dangerous for the Turks, whose power-base was Anatolia, as the feared Armenian and Greek rebellions, which is why they expended so much effort ethnically cleansing Anatolia. Not to mention the Egyptian and Mesopotamian fronts, where the Turks successfully fought off the British.
Lawrence's suggestion to attack the Hijaz railroad rather than the cities was most definitely a boon to the Arabs. The Arabs were physically incapable of taking Medina. It was too well-defended and fortified. The weapons that could take it were needed far more urgently in France than they were in Arabia. Few of those cannons even reached Egypt and only then long after Lawrence's arrival. So the only way for the Arabs to take Medina - and other cities along the railroad - was by starving the Turks out.
By attacking the railroad the Arabs forced the Turks to do one of two things; they could withdraw from Medina and the Peninsular, leaving it to the Arabs, or; expend massive amounts of energy guarding the railroad and protecting supply convoys, weakening themselves on other fronts. The Turks, who feared the Arab Revolt might provide an example to other groups in the Empire if succesful, sought to keep face by retaining Medina. It was the incorrect strategic decision and if you read Seven Pillars of Wisdom you'll note that it was actually not what Lawrence expected or aimed at. He thought the Turks would withdraw.
This is a classic strategy. If your enemy occupies an unassailable position, you do not waste your forces in attacking it. Instead, you cut the more lightly-defended areas surrounding the impregnable fortress, specifically the supply lines. Either the defender stays in their fortress until they eventually starve or they withdraw, saving their army but relinquishing the fortress to the enemy. Consider Stalingrad, which is a very similar case. The Germans could have withdrawn and saved their army, but instead they stayed until, starving and desperate, they were forced to surrender in order to avoid complete destruction. Lawrence expected the Turks to withdraw, but like the Germans in Stalingrad, they didn't.
The Arabs didn't just lack equipment, they lacked training. They were attempting to take cities, which they simply weren't capable of doing. The Arabs who had military experience had been conscripts in the Turkish army; they could follow orders, but didn't understand strategy. The British couldn't even beat the Turks themselves until they achieved a preponderance of force in Egypt. How exactly were they supposed to supply the Arabs with what they needed to conduct seiges of places like Medina, or Deraa? Heavily fortified, highly-defensible military outposts? Most of the supplies the Arabs received went through Yemen, which was a considerably-longer and more dangerous trip than to Alexandria, at least before the Arabs took Aqaba.
Lawrence recognised something that the Arabs should have worked out for themselves, but hadn't. Their strength didn't lay in seige warfare, or even their numbers. There were far more Arabs who either supported the Turks or didn't care one way or the other than there were rebels. The strength of the Arabs lay in their ability to launch hit-and-run raids and melt into the desert, where the Turks could not pursue them. In other words, classic guerrilla warfare. Bleed the enemy dry.
You also forget that Lawrence did indeed play a major role in uniting the Arabs. He had nothing to do with the initial revolt, but the success of Arabs in driving the Turks out of Arabia - due to Lawrence's instigation to attack the Hijaz railroad - inspired more Arabs to join the revolt. Some tribes which had originally been pro-Turkish even defected because of this. He was also instrumental in setting up the short-lived Arab Republic in Damascus, which collapsed due to the Arabs' inability to cooperate - though the British and French went out of their way to exacerbate the problem.
Regarding the film; it's a bloody-good film. Fantastic even. It's also woefully inaccurate, but that doesn't make the film bad as a film. Just bad as an historical film. And this is coming from the guy who can't bring himself to watch most historical films due to their dearth of accuracy.
One must be careful, Karalysia, not to underestimate someone just because the British thought he was more important than he was. You seem to frequently negate the importance of important people, circumstances and events just because their importance was overestimated by whites and imperialists; you overcompensate for "imperialist propaganda" regularly.
Similar threads
