ottoman syria

Officially, the Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon (1923−1946), was aLeague of Nations mandate founded after the First World War and the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire concerning Syria and Lebanon.

During the two years that followed the end of the war in 1918 – and in accordance with the Sykes-Picot Agreement that was signed between Britain and France during the war – the British held control of most OttomanMesopotamia (modern Iraq) and the southern part of the Ottoman Syria (Palestine andTransjordan), while the French controlled the rest of Ottoman Syria, Lebanon, Alexandretta(Hatay) and other portions of southeastern Turkey.

You can know more on Wikipedia.
Sorry about my bad hand written and any mistakes.


Hetalia and France © Himaruya Hidekaz.
APH Syria © Me.

2

The Map on top is the Ottoman Empire, the Map on the bottom is current ISIS holdings and affiliates… See a comparison? Proof that if not learned from history repeats itself. And proof that as history continues to prove that since its inception the Islamic faith continues in its attempts at world domination…

This is way beyond the usual scope of my blog, but I couldn’t not share this!

A rare and important Mamluk steel sword, Egypt or Syria, 13th-15th centurythe straight double-edged steel blade with engraved inscription on both sides, the hilt with rounded, ridged pommel, oval-shaped wood reserved in the centre, with a wrist-strap ring above and pierced quillon tips
106cm.

On both sides:  
‘This is a waqf of the Emir of Yalbugha, in the year 862 AH(?)’ (1457-58 AD)

Although the reading of the date is uncertain, it coincides with the style of its inscription and presumed period of manufacture. The date furthermore corresponds to those relating to the Emir Sayf al-Din Yalbugha b. 'Abd Allah al-Baha'i al-Zahiri Barquq, who was named to the post of governor of Alexandria on 29 December 1438, a position he held for less than a year, passing away on 22 October 1439 (L. Kalus, 'Donations pieuses d'épées médiévales à l'arsenal d'Alexandrie’, in Revue des Etudes Islamiques, t.L., Paris, 1982). A number of similar swords were donated by Yalbugha to the Arsenal of Alexandria confirming the suggested attribution of this sword (see Kalus 1982, pp.80-86, and Mohamed 2007, p.43, no.12).

Swords from the early Islamic period such as this example are extremely rare and characterised by their straight and double-sided blades. Swords belonging to the Mamluks and early Ottoman Emirs and Sultans are today mainly dispersed between the Topkapi Saray and the Military Museum, Istanbul. The swords in the Military Museum are said to be “[…] a series of extremely unusual swords that were brought back to Istanbul by the Ottomans after the conquest of Egypt as spoils of war and placed in the Arsenal” (ibid, p.124, no.83), explaining the presence of so many Mamluk examples in Turkish collections.

Of the very few extant examples of early Islamic swords, there are two reputed to have belonged to the Prophet and others said to have belonged to the early Caliphs and Companions, taken as booty from the Mamluks by the Ottomans after the battle of 1517. These survive in the Has Oda of the Topkapi Saray and are known as the 'Blessed Swords’ or Suyuf al Mubarake. The Military Museum, Istanbul features similar examples to our sword with resembling mounts and blades and although they are identified as Mamluk and dated to the fourteenth century, they must have derived from the Ayyubid style of the Saif Badawi or the 'Bedouin Sword’ (Yucel 2001, pl.80-83).

One sword of the twelfth century, belonging to Najm al-Din Ayyub, the father of Saladin, the conqueror of Jerusalem, made by Salim Ibn 'Ali for Najm al Din (inv.no. 2355) has a quillon whose socket and guard is akin to that of our sword (Yucel 1988, p.77, cat.no.34). A related quillon can be found on a blade with Abbasid or Umayyad provenance (ibid, p.76, pl.33). For two other examples of comparable pommels and quillons found on fourteenth-century blades and identified as Mamluk, see Mohamed 2007, p.112, nos.11-12. A handful of blades related to ours in the Military Museum, Istanbul are on display (four in the galleries, with a similar number in the reserve collection but not in good condition) of identical size, temper, weight and quality of steel.

The early Mamluk Sultans were Turks from the Kipchak territories, and preferred the use of the sabre, a slightly curved slashing weapon, more suitable for mounted warfare than the Saif Badawi. There is evidence that Mamluks carried and used both types; however the Saif Badawi was reserved for investiture and enthronement ceremonies of the Emir, in honour of The Prophet, who had several straight, named blades (See Elgood 1979, p.203). This Arab tradition of the Saif Badawi was continued in Saudi Arabia, Zanzibar and Oman until the nineteenth century (Mohamed 2007, p.79, cat.43).

And Lebanon is my new OC
ヽ(´▽`)/
Officially, the Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon (1923−1946), was aLeague of Nations mandate founded after the First World War and the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire concerning Syria and Lebanon.

During the two years that followed the end of the war in 1918 – and in accordance with the Sykes-Picot Agreement that was signed between Britain and France during the war – the British held control of most OttomanMesopotamia (modern Iraq) and the southern part of the Ottoman Syria (Palestine andTransjordan), while the French controlled the rest of Ottoman Syria, Lebanon, Alexandretta(Hatay) and other portions of southeastern Turkey.

Hetalia & France © Himaruya Hidekaz.
Apt Syria & Lebanon © ME.

dailymail.co.uk
New Yorkers are baffled as skywriters scribble pro-Turkish slogans
Skywriters have written pro-Turkish slogans in the air above New York. They wrote 'How happy Is the one who says, I am a Turk' in Turkish and also slogans which denied the Armenian genocide.

Pro-Turkish group skywrites and has rally promoting Turkey and denouncing the existence of the Armenian Genocide.  This is probably because tomorrow the 24th of April is the anniversary of the Armenian Genocide which the modern country of Turkey, successor of the Ottoman Empire, denies ever happened.  

The Armenian Genocide remains one of the world’s most devastating and largest atrocities in history.  Deportation and mass murders of Armenians, Assyrians, and even Greek peoples occurred in large scales   

~Hasmonean

May 6, 1916 - Syrian Independence Leaders Hanged in Beirut and Damascus

Pictured - The death throes of a failing empire.

Twenty-one Syrians, leaders of groups advocating independence from the Ottoman Empire, were executed by hanging in Damascus and Beirut on May 6.  Abd al-Hamid al-Zahrawi, one of the killed, was a senator in the Ottoman Parliament in Constantinople.  The rope broke when he was first dropped from the platform, a second try killed him. 

Jamal Pasha, the Ottoman Governor of Syria, executed two more Arab leaders later that month, the Mufti of Gaza and his son.  Jamal was nicknamed “the Bloodthirsty”.  The executions and response were symptoms of a growing independence movement in Arabia, and Turkey’s increasingly despotic attempts to hold on to its empire. 

In the Hedjaz, an Arab revolt was brewing, led by the guardian of Mecca, Grand Sharif Hussein.  Hussein had about 50,000 men under arms, including deserters from the Ottoman Army, but badly needed weapons and help against the Turks.  The Entente, however, was not particularly eager for another campaign in the Middle East, especially after the failure of the Gallipoli landings and the fall of Kut several days prior.  While some officers proposed helping the Arab rebels destroy the Ottoman Empire from within, others opposed any new campaigns that could become sideshows distracting from the Western Front. 

The French especially derided the idea.  Georges Clemenceau, a veteran politician, mocked the campaign in Salonika, which was viewed as such a pointless distraction.  Over a quarter of a million men, British and French, had been sent to Greece to fight the Bulgarians.  Besides a few skirmishes, they had so far failed to do much else then entrench themselves, or provoke the neutral Greek government.  When Clemenceau asked what they were doing, he responded that the Allied soldiers there were no more than: “Diggers!  Then let them be known to France and Europe as ‘The gardeners of Salonika!”

youtube

Al-Nakba: Episode One

The Nakba did not begin in 1948. Its origins lie over two centuries ago. So begins this four-part series on the Nakba, meaning the castasophe about the history of the Palestinian exodus that led to the first Arab-Israeli War in 1948 and the establishment of the state of Israel. This sweeping history starts back in 1799 with Napoleon’s attempted advance into Palestine to check British expansion and his appeal to the Jews of the world to reclaim their land in league with France. The narrative moves through the 19th century and into the 20th century with the British Mandate in Palestine and comes right up to date in the 21st century and the on going Nakba on the ground. Arab, Israeli and Western intellectuals, historians and eye-witnesses provide the central narrative which is accompanied by archive material and documents, many only recently released for the first time.

Palestine has a long history. 

This is the area before it was named Palestine.

Note the divisions between the north and south.  Phoenicia spread almost till Caesarea.


This is Byzantine Palestine.

Note that it includes a significant chunk of Jordan and does not include Acco (Acre).


This is Arab Palestine

Overall, it continued the Byzantine division. 


This is Ottoman Palestine, AKA Ottoman Syria (when, I was told, Palestinian identity developed).

And after 1871 the districts were rearranged. 


In the 17th century, Fakhr-al-Din II conquered northern Palestine/southern Lebanon, and forced the Ottomans to recognize him as ruler of his state.


And then came the British, with that map we all know and love.

Sorry… this map we all know and love.  Transjordan was carved out in 1921.


And then we’ve got Greater Syria, which existed for a very short time in 1920.

Abdullah I of Jordan had been a proponent of Greater Syria under Hashemite rule, based on the original proposal for a Kingdom of Syria following the Arab Revolt. The Hashemite monarchy of Iraq was also believed to have harboured ambitions of union with Syria. The Ba'athist government of Hafez al-Assad in Syria also pursued the idea of Greater Syria, resulting in its involvement in the Lebanese Civil War and the Syrian Occupation of Lebanon.


On 15 May 1948, Jordan invaded Palestine together with other Arab states, and attacked Jerusalem.[29] Following the war, Jordan occupied the West Bank and on 24 April 1950 Jordan formally annexed these territories, an act that was regarded as illegal and void by the Arab League. At the Jericho Conferenceon 1 December 1948, 2,000 Palestinian delegates supported a resolution calling for “the unification of Palestine and Transjordan as a step toward full Arab unity”.[30] The move formed part of Jordan’s “Greater Syria Plan” expansionist policy,[31]and in response, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Syria joined Egypt in demanding Jordan’s expulsion from the Arab League.[32][33] A motion to expel Jordan from the League was prevented by the dissenting votes of Yemen and Iraq.[34] On 12 June 1950, the Arab League declared the annexation was a temporary, practical measure and that Jordan was holding the territory as a “trustee” pending a future settlement.[35][36]


I wonder how many Palestinians would support or oppose such a state today.   Kind of theoretical as Syria is falling apart and Jordan might not be here tomorrow (and if it were up to the pro-Palestinians, neither would Israel).  For all the talk of nationalism, Syrian and Jordanian national identities are quite new, and as it seems now, might not be here in a hundred years. 


Meanwhile, Jews defined “Land of Israel” differently (it does not match any of the borders shown above, nor those of the State of Israel) and had their own national identity which coalesced many, many years ago and was therefore independent of the land and of any specific borders.


National identity is closely tied with reality.  Borders define national identity just as much as national identity defines borders.  The State of Israel is not the same as the Land of Israel, and most Jews don’t really care.

We always dreamed of regaining our sovereignty in the Land of Israel and Jerusalem.   Nothing else really mattered.


Palestinians could have had that too.

The two states - Arab Palestine and Jewish Palestine (later renamed Israel)

But Palestinians preferred wiping out the Jews.

And so here we are. 

It’s not a question of whether Palestine has a history. It’s a question of whether Arabs will ever let Jews live in their own sovereign state in their own homeland.

So far, the answer we got in 1948 and 1967 was “no”.

The reason Palestinians don’t have their own state today is because they refuse to accept that such a state would mean the end of the conflict.  That is, they refuse to accept a sovereign Jewish state.