What do you think?
Rate this book
Lawrence in Arabia: War, Deceit, Imperial Folly and the Making of the Modern Middle East
Goodreads Choice Award
Nominee for Best History & Biography (2013)NATIONAL BESTSELLER • A New York Times Notable Book • Finalist for the National Book Critics Circle Award in Biography • A thrilling and revelatory narrative of one of the most epic and consequential periods in 20th century history – the Arab Revolt and the secret “great game” to control the Middle East“A fascinating book, the best work of military history in recent memory and an illuminating analysis of issues that still loom large today."—The New York Times"Brilliant. . . . A dazzling accomplishment that combines superb historical research with a compelling narrative.”—The Seattle TimesThe Arab Revolt against the Turks in World War I was, in the words of T. E. Lawrence, “a sideshow of a sideshow.” As a result, the conflict was shaped to a remarkable degree by a small handful of adventurers and low-level officers far removed from the corridors of power.At the center of it all was Lawrence himself. In early 1914 he was an archaeologist excavating ruins in Syria; by 1917 he was riding into legend at the head of an Arab army as he fought a rearguard action against his own government and its imperial ambitions. Based on four years of intensive primary document research, Lawrence in Arabia definitively overturns received wisdom on how the modern Middle East was formed.One of the Best Books of the NPR, The Christian Science Monitor, The Seattle Times , St. Louis Post-Dispatch , Chicago Tribune
663 pages, Kindle Edition
First published August 6, 2013
About the author
Scott Anderson
102 books213 followersScott Anderson is a veteran war correspondent who has reported from Lebanon, Israel, Egypt, Northern Ireland, Chechnya, Sudan, Bosnia, El Salvador, and many other strife-torn countries. He is a contributing writer for The New York Times Magazine, and his work has also appeared in Vanity Fair, Esquire, Harper's and Outside.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,511 reviews
September 3, 2024
“By the second decade of the twentieth century, the Ottoman Empire had long been in a state of seemingly terminal decline. The proverbial ‘sick man of Europe,’ its epitaph had begun to be written as far back as the 1850s, and in the intervening years no fewer than five of the imperial powers of Europe had taken turns snatching away great swaths of its territory. That the Ottomans had managed to avoid complete destruction thus far was due both to their skill at playing off those competing European powers and to no small measure of improbable good luck. In 1914, however, all that was about to change. By guessing wrong – very wrong – in the calamitous war just then descending, the Ottomans would not only bring on their own doom but unleash forces of such massive disintegration that the world is still dealing with the repercussions a century later…”
- Scott Anderson, Lawrence in Arabia: War, Deceit, Imperial Folly and the Making of the Modern Middle East
Despite the ennobling gloss later applied by President Woodrow Wilson, the First World War is best understood as a purely European conflict that slipped the borders of the continent. Though it was fought on all corners of the globe, this was a function of the imperial nature of the main players, whose far-flung colonies had helped precipitate the conflict in the first place. Far from an attempt to “make the world safe for democracy,” the First World War more resembled the Napoleonic Wars of the early 1800s, waged to establish the hierarchy of Europe. The main differences in the two struggles, separated by a century, were the technologies involved, and the array of allies chosen by each side.
The Euro-power-motivated nature of the First World War can best be seen in its conclusion, when instead of following the Wilsonian ideals of self-determination, the victorious allies divvied up the remains of three fallen empires. This was especially true in the Middle East where, after having supported an Arab uprising against the Ottoman Empire, Great Britain and France divided up the region into areas of direct, indirect, and joint control. Those decisions – to separate some people, while joining others, for the benefit of the colonizing powers – still reverberate today. Years of instability, war, and heartbreak are the bitter fruits of their victory in World War I.
This is a complex story, with many interlocking parts. If you are looking for a broad overview, Scott Anderson’s Lawrence in Arabia is probably not where you want to start. But if you already know the overarching framework, and want a ground-level presentation of how it played out, told in novelistic fashion through the eyes of the participants, you can’t do better than this.
Anderson structures Lawrence in Arabia in such a way that it is told through the experiences of four central characters. There is Curt Prüfer, a German academic who tried to incite an Islamic jihad against the British; Aaron Aaronsohn, a Zionist in the employ of the Ottoman Empire, who forged a spy ring in Palestine; and William Yale, a Standard Oil man sent to wring concessions from the Turks, who ended up drawn into the vortex of war.
Towering above them all is Thomas Edward Lawrence, the famous and controversial “Lawrence of Arabia.” A young officer with no true military background (he was an archaeologist before the war), Lawrence found himself in “a sideshow of a sideshow,” able to do a remarkable amount of geopolitical freelancing in the deserts. With the attention of Great Britain focused intently on the Western Front, he set about bending events to his will. Together with Faisal ibn Hussein, Lawrence helped formulate an overall strategy for the Arab Revolt, while also capturing key cities, shooting up trains, and blowing up bridges. Despite their success, Faisal’s vision of a pan-Arab nation never came to pass.
Lawrence is a fascinating figure, and no matter what you ultimately think about him, he definitely commands the stage. Though honored in his time, Lawrence’s reputation has fallen dramatically since reaching its zenith in David Lean’s famous film. Part of this is the reality that in a post-colonial world, the employee of a colonizer is treated with suspicion, even though Lawrence worked against Great Britain’s interests in favor of the Arabs. Part of this also comes from the fact that Lawrence probably received too much credit for the overall result in the Middle East. He was, after all, only one man, and it was the Arabs that did most of the actual fighting. Lawrence did not help matters by sprinkling his memoir – Seven Pillars of Wisdom – with various lies and falsehoods.
One of Anderson’s chief achievements here is to put Lawrence in his proper context. Just because he received too much credit, does not mean he does not deserve any. By carefully sifting the evidence – including an examination of the fictions of Seven Pillars of Wisdom – Anderson is able to present a balanced portrait.
Anderson is a journalist and war correspondent, not a historian. The distinction is important, but not necessarily in the way you might think. Anderson’s profession does not mean that Lawrence in Arabia is some rewarmed compendium of secondary sources, or a hurriedly written sketch of events. No, this is history, and deeply researched. Lawrence in Arabia is over five-hundred pages of text, and its endnotes demonstrates careful review of primary documentation. It might not be written by an academic, but it is academically strong.
Rather, Anderson’s journalistic background comes through in the way that Lawrence in Arabia is told. This is written like a historical thriller, shifting among the perspectives of its featured stars. The upshot is an immediacy to the narrative, the marvelous sense that you are living the events alongside them. You are led into a world of intrigue, betrayal, treachery, and vicious warfare, where prisoners were seldom taken by either side.
The downside is that it can be hard to follow the labyrinthian plots, especially when you are only shown small parts of it at a time. There were a couple moments when I set Lawrence in Arabia down to consult a more general reference.
The only other criticism I have of Lawrence in Arabia is its choice of cast. Anderson clearly shows the importance of both Lawrence and Aaronsohn. The necessity of following Yale and Prüfer is not nearly so obvious. I would have preferred more time with Faisal ibn Hussein, Hussein bin Ali, or Djemal Pasha instead.
Any writer who ventures into the realm of the Middle East is embarking upon a fraught project. There is no single, agreed-upon truth, and it is hard to say anything without deeply offending someone. In my opinion, Anderson does a good job on this tightrope. He is savage in his condemnation of Great Britain and France’s territorial acquisitiveness, which encompasses the ugly traits of arrogance, greed, and superiority. At the same time, he does not ignore atrocities on the part of the Ottoman Empire, including the Armenian Genocide, which killed upward of a million people, yet is strangely forgotten among the crimes of this world. While harsh in his judgments of empires, Anderson is more forgiving of the men and women involved. He makes a real attempt to look through eyes as disparate as Sarah Aaronsohn, Djemal Pasha, T. E. Lawrence, and even Mark Sykes, for whom the division of the Arabian Peninsula was a mere intellectual exercise. Acknowledging the humanity of all involved does not excuse mistakes, but deepens the tragedy, giving this book an impact you don’t always find in nonfiction.
- Scott Anderson, Lawrence in Arabia: War, Deceit, Imperial Folly and the Making of the Modern Middle East
Despite the ennobling gloss later applied by President Woodrow Wilson, the First World War is best understood as a purely European conflict that slipped the borders of the continent. Though it was fought on all corners of the globe, this was a function of the imperial nature of the main players, whose far-flung colonies had helped precipitate the conflict in the first place. Far from an attempt to “make the world safe for democracy,” the First World War more resembled the Napoleonic Wars of the early 1800s, waged to establish the hierarchy of Europe. The main differences in the two struggles, separated by a century, were the technologies involved, and the array of allies chosen by each side.
The Euro-power-motivated nature of the First World War can best be seen in its conclusion, when instead of following the Wilsonian ideals of self-determination, the victorious allies divvied up the remains of three fallen empires. This was especially true in the Middle East where, after having supported an Arab uprising against the Ottoman Empire, Great Britain and France divided up the region into areas of direct, indirect, and joint control. Those decisions – to separate some people, while joining others, for the benefit of the colonizing powers – still reverberate today. Years of instability, war, and heartbreak are the bitter fruits of their victory in World War I.
This is a complex story, with many interlocking parts. If you are looking for a broad overview, Scott Anderson’s Lawrence in Arabia is probably not where you want to start. But if you already know the overarching framework, and want a ground-level presentation of how it played out, told in novelistic fashion through the eyes of the participants, you can’t do better than this.
Anderson structures Lawrence in Arabia in such a way that it is told through the experiences of four central characters. There is Curt Prüfer, a German academic who tried to incite an Islamic jihad against the British; Aaron Aaronsohn, a Zionist in the employ of the Ottoman Empire, who forged a spy ring in Palestine; and William Yale, a Standard Oil man sent to wring concessions from the Turks, who ended up drawn into the vortex of war.
Towering above them all is Thomas Edward Lawrence, the famous and controversial “Lawrence of Arabia.” A young officer with no true military background (he was an archaeologist before the war), Lawrence found himself in “a sideshow of a sideshow,” able to do a remarkable amount of geopolitical freelancing in the deserts. With the attention of Great Britain focused intently on the Western Front, he set about bending events to his will. Together with Faisal ibn Hussein, Lawrence helped formulate an overall strategy for the Arab Revolt, while also capturing key cities, shooting up trains, and blowing up bridges. Despite their success, Faisal’s vision of a pan-Arab nation never came to pass.
Lawrence is a fascinating figure, and no matter what you ultimately think about him, he definitely commands the stage. Though honored in his time, Lawrence’s reputation has fallen dramatically since reaching its zenith in David Lean’s famous film. Part of this is the reality that in a post-colonial world, the employee of a colonizer is treated with suspicion, even though Lawrence worked against Great Britain’s interests in favor of the Arabs. Part of this also comes from the fact that Lawrence probably received too much credit for the overall result in the Middle East. He was, after all, only one man, and it was the Arabs that did most of the actual fighting. Lawrence did not help matters by sprinkling his memoir – Seven Pillars of Wisdom – with various lies and falsehoods.
One of Anderson’s chief achievements here is to put Lawrence in his proper context. Just because he received too much credit, does not mean he does not deserve any. By carefully sifting the evidence – including an examination of the fictions of Seven Pillars of Wisdom – Anderson is able to present a balanced portrait.
Anderson is a journalist and war correspondent, not a historian. The distinction is important, but not necessarily in the way you might think. Anderson’s profession does not mean that Lawrence in Arabia is some rewarmed compendium of secondary sources, or a hurriedly written sketch of events. No, this is history, and deeply researched. Lawrence in Arabia is over five-hundred pages of text, and its endnotes demonstrates careful review of primary documentation. It might not be written by an academic, but it is academically strong.
Rather, Anderson’s journalistic background comes through in the way that Lawrence in Arabia is told. This is written like a historical thriller, shifting among the perspectives of its featured stars. The upshot is an immediacy to the narrative, the marvelous sense that you are living the events alongside them. You are led into a world of intrigue, betrayal, treachery, and vicious warfare, where prisoners were seldom taken by either side.
The downside is that it can be hard to follow the labyrinthian plots, especially when you are only shown small parts of it at a time. There were a couple moments when I set Lawrence in Arabia down to consult a more general reference.
The only other criticism I have of Lawrence in Arabia is its choice of cast. Anderson clearly shows the importance of both Lawrence and Aaronsohn. The necessity of following Yale and Prüfer is not nearly so obvious. I would have preferred more time with Faisal ibn Hussein, Hussein bin Ali, or Djemal Pasha instead.
Any writer who ventures into the realm of the Middle East is embarking upon a fraught project. There is no single, agreed-upon truth, and it is hard to say anything without deeply offending someone. In my opinion, Anderson does a good job on this tightrope. He is savage in his condemnation of Great Britain and France’s territorial acquisitiveness, which encompasses the ugly traits of arrogance, greed, and superiority. At the same time, he does not ignore atrocities on the part of the Ottoman Empire, including the Armenian Genocide, which killed upward of a million people, yet is strangely forgotten among the crimes of this world. While harsh in his judgments of empires, Anderson is more forgiving of the men and women involved. He makes a real attempt to look through eyes as disparate as Sarah Aaronsohn, Djemal Pasha, T. E. Lawrence, and even Mark Sykes, for whom the division of the Arabian Peninsula was a mere intellectual exercise. Acknowledging the humanity of all involved does not excuse mistakes, but deepens the tragedy, giving this book an impact you don’t always find in nonfiction.
March 20, 2017
Maybe if more people would have listened to T.E. Lawrence after World War I then an American president wouldn’t be at the UN today speaking on the Syrian crisis as I write this review.
It’s hard reading a history of lost opportunities because I always have an irrational hope that it will somehow end differently this time. (There’s a marketing ploy. Write up a non-fiction book, but then switch to alt-history fiction in the last chapter. “And they all lived happily ever after. The End.”) There are certainly no shortages of miscalculations and mistakes that have haunted the world since the ‘war to end all wars’.
As the title suggests, this is primarily about T.E. Lawrence (a/k/a Lawrence of Arabia) whose exploits in the Middle East during World War I became the stuff of legend. However, this is not just another biography, rather it examines all the political intrigue, double dealing, back stabbing, and outright espionage that went on in that region during the war. Then it digs into how all this plotting created a mess that we’re still dealing with today.
In addition to Lawrence several other people and their actions are detailed. There was William Yale who worked for an oil company that pulled all the kinds of sleazy maneuvers to secure future profits, and then he went on to be America’s chief intelligence officer in the region once the US entered the war. Curt Prufer was a German diplomat in Cairo that ran a variety of intelligence and propaganda operations. Aaron Aaronsohn was a Jewish agronomist who set up a spy ring as he supposedly worked for the Turks in the hope that he could use it to convince England to set up a Zionist nation after the war. Mark Sykes was a British diplomat who secretly negotiated a treaty to divvy up the area with France after the war, and then promised the Arab leaders independence if they’d revolt against Turkey.
All of these people and many more played a role in the ultimate outcome with their competing agendas, but it’s Lawrence who remains the fascinating pivotal figure in the story. As anyone who’s seen the classic movie about him knows, Lawrence was a conflicted man. As a scholar who knew the Middle East he started as a lowly mapmaker for the British, but eventually he became a critical part of convincing many Arabs to fight against the Turks. He was aware that he could be setting them up for betrayal and hated himself for it. At times he’d try to subvert the plans of men like Sykes while technically committing treason in the process by flat out telling his chief Arab ally Faisal that the British would double cross them for the French after the war, but he also risked his life countless times carrying out British war plans in the desert. By the end of the story Lawrence has become a tragic figure who was left shattered by the war and his failure to help the Arabs achieve a fairer deal.
It's an interesting account of the region during the war both in terms of the military and political machinations that every player was engaged in. Ironically, the Arabs so mistrusted Britain and France by war’s end that they would have preferred the Americans to step in as honest brokers, but Wilson’s administration squandered yet another chance to achieve stability by keeping the mess at a distance other than making sure the oil companies got what they wanted.
Anderson lays out how lies and greed wasted a prime opportunity to restructure the Middle East, but he’s realistic enough to note that there were far too many groups with differing motives involved to make everyone happy. That there would almost certainly have been major problems no matter who was in charge. Still, he paints a convincing picture of how things could have been better. More’s the pity.
It’s hard reading a history of lost opportunities because I always have an irrational hope that it will somehow end differently this time. (There’s a marketing ploy. Write up a non-fiction book, but then switch to alt-history fiction in the last chapter. “And they all lived happily ever after. The End.”) There are certainly no shortages of miscalculations and mistakes that have haunted the world since the ‘war to end all wars’.
As the title suggests, this is primarily about T.E. Lawrence (a/k/a Lawrence of Arabia) whose exploits in the Middle East during World War I became the stuff of legend. However, this is not just another biography, rather it examines all the political intrigue, double dealing, back stabbing, and outright espionage that went on in that region during the war. Then it digs into how all this plotting created a mess that we’re still dealing with today.
In addition to Lawrence several other people and their actions are detailed. There was William Yale who worked for an oil company that pulled all the kinds of sleazy maneuvers to secure future profits, and then he went on to be America’s chief intelligence officer in the region once the US entered the war. Curt Prufer was a German diplomat in Cairo that ran a variety of intelligence and propaganda operations. Aaron Aaronsohn was a Jewish agronomist who set up a spy ring as he supposedly worked for the Turks in the hope that he could use it to convince England to set up a Zionist nation after the war. Mark Sykes was a British diplomat who secretly negotiated a treaty to divvy up the area with France after the war, and then promised the Arab leaders independence if they’d revolt against Turkey.
All of these people and many more played a role in the ultimate outcome with their competing agendas, but it’s Lawrence who remains the fascinating pivotal figure in the story. As anyone who’s seen the classic movie about him knows, Lawrence was a conflicted man. As a scholar who knew the Middle East he started as a lowly mapmaker for the British, but eventually he became a critical part of convincing many Arabs to fight against the Turks. He was aware that he could be setting them up for betrayal and hated himself for it. At times he’d try to subvert the plans of men like Sykes while technically committing treason in the process by flat out telling his chief Arab ally Faisal that the British would double cross them for the French after the war, but he also risked his life countless times carrying out British war plans in the desert. By the end of the story Lawrence has become a tragic figure who was left shattered by the war and his failure to help the Arabs achieve a fairer deal.
It's an interesting account of the region during the war both in terms of the military and political machinations that every player was engaged in. Ironically, the Arabs so mistrusted Britain and France by war’s end that they would have preferred the Americans to step in as honest brokers, but Wilson’s administration squandered yet another chance to achieve stability by keeping the mess at a distance other than making sure the oil companies got what they wanted.
Anderson lays out how lies and greed wasted a prime opportunity to restructure the Middle East, but he’s realistic enough to note that there were far too many groups with differing motives involved to make everyone happy. That there would almost certainly have been major problems no matter who was in charge. Still, he paints a convincing picture of how things could have been better. More’s the pity.
August 23, 2013
Anderson's new book Lawrence In Arabia offers the benefit of introducing the cast of characters surrounding Lawrence's exploits, providing important context for the complexity of the era. Unfortunately Anderson never mentions a person critical to the success of the British WWI efforts - Gertrude Bell. She traversed the harrowing Njed Desert as did Lawrence, only she did this years before him. She learned the languages and tribal politics of the region, and her maps were used for all subsequent military and intelligence work by the Arab Bureau in Cairo, where Lawrence was also a member. She transferred to Iraq and successfully navigated English colonial politics to ensure Faisal's installation as King and the British Empire's access to India. By the end of her lifetime's service for the Foreign Office she concluded the region would inevitably be governed by tribal Arab loyalties rather than any superimposed western form of government. In her diaries, she describes meeting Lawrence when he was new to archaeology on a dig in Syria, remarking that she "wasn't sure he would come to much". However they both contributed greatly to the intelligence work at the Arab Bureau in Cairo, and after WWI they both attended the Paris Peace talks and pushed for Faisal to lead the Arabs in Iraq. I find it a great pity that her name is so often omitted as a key figure from histories of the period. The Arabs themselves thought of her as "an honorary man", for her leadership, language and mapping skills, and sheer courage. I strongly believe she should have been included by Anderson as a peer of Lawrence, whose exploits were built on so much of what she had already accomplished in Arabia. Her accomplishments are well documented in numerous scholarly books about her, and in her own writings and diaries. Scott Anderson is a journalist, a professional writer, and someone who should have been aware of these published sources. So I was dismayed to find his book's index has not a single entry for this significant figure of the time in Arabia.
I write from the perspective of a 22-year career as an archaeologist and scientist in the eastern Mediterranean, with extensive travels in the region, and years of research on Gertrude Bell for a film project. But perhaps I am most offended from the perspective of being a woman, and watching how invisible even great women remain.
I write from the perspective of a 22-year career as an archaeologist and scientist in the eastern Mediterranean, with extensive travels in the region, and years of research on Gertrude Bell for a film project. But perhaps I am most offended from the perspective of being a woman, and watching how invisible even great women remain.
March 3, 2019
Lawrence was no ordinary man: Brave, resolute, passionate, intelligent, reflective, quiet, cold, distant, stoic, conflicted, righteous, deceitful, independent, eccentric. Anderson digs into the psychology of Lawrence and the constant mind games he was engaged in as much as his military exploits. While Lawrence is the main story, Anderson weaves in and out of several others, these include: Aron Aaronsohn – A Jewish agronomist living in Syria turned spymaster to help the British in hopes of establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine. William Yale - A Standard Oil of New York agent who secured oil concessions in Syria then becoming an American intelligence agent in Cairo. Curt Prüfer – A German intelligence agent. Djemal Pasha – The Ottoman governor of Syria. With all these characters and many more we learn about Ottoman rule of its Arab territories, the Armenian genocide, Turkish and Arab fighters and their harsh tactics, British controlled Cairo, the British bureaucracy, French diplomacy, horrendous British military tactics, the Jewish settlers, Standard Oil of New York, the Arabian desert and much more. True to the book’s title, we see how the modern Middle East formed. The book starts off slow as Anderson lays the groundwork and introduces the key figures, but with that work done the story takes off. My notes below focus solely on Lawrence.
Lawrence, born in 1888, grew up in a middle class family. An exceptionally bright student he was admitted to Oxford where he was drawn to archeology. Attracted to the Middle Ages and the Middle East, he spent the summer of 1909 in Syria studying the castles of the Crusaders. He used his original research in his thesis earning coveted first-class honors. After graduation Lawrence returned to Syria where he worked on excavations and getting to know the land. Unlike most Westerners, Lawrence eschewed luxuries. He could walk miles through searing heat with a phenomenal capacity to endure the harshest conditions. He ate simply and embraced the local people who responded in kind. At that time Syria was part of the Ottoman Empire. Lawrence resented the Turkish administrators and embraced the local Arab population. When in January of 1914 Lawrence was asked to help the British military map the Sinai to prepare for possible attacks on the Suez Canal, Lawrence readily agreed. He was now a recognized expert on the topography of much of Syria and Palestine. After the breakout of war in august 1914 Lord Kitchener personally wrote Lawrence not to enlist, but to wait for assignment. First Lawrence went to London preparing maps for the military and was commissioned a second Lieutenant. After Turkey entered the war as a German ally he was transferred to British intelligence in Cairo.
Lawrence recognized that the weakness of the Ottoman Empire was the resentment of the non-Turkish population including Christians and Jews. In Cairo he hatched a plan to invade Alexandretta on the coast of Syria just south of Anatolia. Weakly defended with a populace that hated the Turks, such an invasion could lead to widespread revolt and separate Turkey from its Arab empire. Unfortunately the French objected not wanting British troops in its area of interest, Syria. London instead decided to invade Gallipoli which proved disastrous.
Lawrence studied people like he studied topography, carefully and patiently. After being sent into the Hejaz (western Saudi Arabia) to meet tribal leaders, Lawrence, determined that Faisal ibn Hussein had the necessary passion to lead an Arab uprising. Aiding Lawrence was his fluent Arabic and experience in Arab cultures. He also relied on his study of medieval European military tactics at Oxford to understand how these men were recruited and organized and how they would fight. For these clansmen and tribal leaders were analogous to the knights and their legions in 14th century France. Lawrence as usual would come up with a plan that went against the British decision making bureaucracy. However as an intelligence agent with access to highly classified data, he knew well how this bureaucracy worked and how to manipulate it. Lawrence embedded himself with the tribes learning how to talk to the Arab chieftains to win them over to his point of view.
In December 1916 Lawrence became a valued aid to Faisal who convinced the British to assign Lawrence to him personally. Lawrence was thrilled but soon disillusioned as he saw Faisal waiver when faced with actual combat. But as Lawrence gained more experience he became more realistic about what the Arabs could accomplish and more importantly which Arabs he could rely on. Lawrence grew to identify with the Arab cause even more than Britain’s. He was disillusioned with the duplicity of his own government’s dealings although Lawrence also used deceit to achieve his aims. Britain promised Faisal’s father, Emir Hussein, in the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence that if the Arab’s revolted that the British would guarantee them independence for their new country. That included Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq with the exception of small temporary enclaves. Hussein believed the British and kept that letter in his pocket. But the British also promised Syria and Lebanon to the French in the secret Sykes-Picot agreement in 1916. British MP Mark Sykes also promised the Zionist community they could have Palestine for their help in the war. Lawrence hated the French who he saw as even more double dealing than the British and did not want them to get Syria. Taking a step for which he could have been court-martialed, Lawrence shared confidential information about the Anglo-French agreement with Faisal to convince him to attack the Turks in Syria. Lawrence was determined to see the Arabs take Syria from the Turks so that they and not the French could not have it once the Ottoman Empire was defeated.
In March 1917 Lawrence led his first attack on a Turkish railway station at Aba el Naam. The attack did much damage but failed to take out the locomotive as Lawrence saw many of his Arab allies retreat in the face of danger. Lawrence started meeting with many tribes to assess how much they could and would help and how reliable they would be. To further prepare for his campaign to take Syria Lawrence went on a dangerous solo trip from the Hejaz to the outskirts of Damascus, an effort that would earn him a nomination for the Victoria Cross, Britain’s highest military honor. He met with Syrian tribal leaders to glean how much support an Arab invasion would get. Most were hesitant even though conditions under the Ottomans had deteriorated badly with food shortages, epidemics and masses of starving deported Armenians.
In June 1917 upon return to the Hejaz Lawrence organized an Arab force to attack Aqaba. It would be a long journey through harsh land with blistering heat and withering sandstorms to come at the city from the backside which the Turks would not expect. Lawrence also directed many small parties to venture into southern Syria and destroy bridges and other Turkish assets to divert attention from his main objective. The journey was especially hard on Lawrence who suffered from recurring malaria and boils among other ailments. But his endurance was legendary. In route Lawrence and his accompanying tribal fighters, primarily the Howeitat, surprised and massacred a Turkish force of 550 at Aba el Lissan. This was revenge for the Howeitat. The Turks had cut the throats of everyone, mostly woman and children, in a Howeitat settlement while the men were away. The Howeitat hatred of the Turks is why Lawrence saw them as reliable allies. Approaching Aqaba from the mountains, Lawrence caught the Turks with no defensive positions. They surrendered.
In July 1917 having traveled some 1300 miles by camel in the last thirty days, Lawrence raced another 150 to reach Cairo and report to HQ which still didn’t know Aqaba had been captured. His uniform long gone he reported in tattered Arab robes. His success brought him immediate fame and glory. He parlayed that into a plan for a two prong attack with British forces under General Allenby. The British would proceed to Palestine along the coast. Lawrence and whatever Arab allies he could muster would proceed inland to Syria. First he would conduct a raid from Aqaba on a bridge and crossing train near Mudowarra. Exploding a mine on the bridge sent the locomotives into the underlying culvert. Lawrence had Lewis machine guns and a Stokes mortar which decimated the Turkish soldiers. The accompanying 100 Arab fighters finished the job looting the train which also carried civilians many of whom were also killed. Similar raids were conducted while Lawrence waited for the British offensive in Palestine. Some Arabs were motivated by hatred of the Turks but many were motivated by profit. Throughout the ensuing campaigns revelations about the English commitments to French autonomy in Syria and a Jewish homeland in Palestine would make the Arab’s question their allegiance to the British. This resulted in Faisal with Lawrence concurrence initiating negotiations with the Turks which would be ongoing but not fruitful. Lawrence knew the British would find out and wanted them to stop taking the Arabs for granted.
In November 1917 with a £20,000 ($2.1 million today) bounty on his head Lawrence led a dangerous raid to blow up a railroad bridge in Turkish controlled Syria. The goal was to prevent Turkish reinforcements as General Allenby attacked the Turks in Palestine. Much went wrong. Lawrence had too little demolition cable resulting in his being wounded. Worse one of his men was Turkish spy. The Turks were alerted and the operation failed. But Lawrence was determined to do something. He found a Turkish troop train to blow up in Minifer as a consolation prize. Then he decided to scout the Deraa train station in Syria. Caught by the Turks he was tortured and probably raped. Somehow he got away. Lawrence offered several versions of what happened perhaps trying to hide his humiliation. Lawrence found his way back to Aqaba and from there to Jerusalem to meet a victorious General Allenby.
In January 1918 Lawrence working with Faisal and the Arab Legion took the town of Tafileh in inland Syria. But Lawrence after his ordeal at Deraa recruited his own personal guard of about 60 men who would be loyal only to him. These were mostly outlaws and outcasts of the tribes so they would have no competing loyalty. Many would die in the ensuing battles. The Turks sent a thousand men to retake Tafileh. Lawrence using a classic pincer attack destroyed this army for which he was awarded the Distinguished Service Order medal. The battle also showed Lawrence had become hardened caring little while the Arabs finished off the Turks trapped in a gorge.
The battle at Tafileh was a success but the broader objectives were no longer feasible since Lawrence left control of £6,000 worth of gold in the hands of Hussein’s 21 year old son, Zeid. The gold was to pay the fighters who would join Lawrence in a new attack but Zeid used it to pay back wages mostly to uninvolved tribes. Lawrence devastated went to report to General Allenby half expecting to be relieved. But Allenby had bigger concerns planning a new attack. This direct attack on the Turks and Germans in Palestine failed with heavy casualties. Then he found out half his troops were being transferred to France. Also the Imperial Camel Corps was to be eliminated. Lawrence asked what about the camels. Many camels had been killed in the war and were in heavy demand. Few were available limiting how many Arabs could join the fight. Allenby gave Lawrence 2,000 fine camels. Lawrence was ecstatic as was Faisal.
In September 1918 Allenby, reinforced by British Arab Legion troops from Iraq and Indian troops, again attacked the Turkish army in Palestine, this time with more innovative tactics. Lawrence was to isolate the important Deraa rail station to block Turkish reinforcements. In addition to the camels Lawrence took advantage of new technology, the Rolls Royce armored car, enabling him to speed around destroying railway tracks and bridges with great efficiency. Lawrence’s attacks with Arab fighters proved successful preventing Turkish reinforcements. Allenby’s attack sent the Turks and Germans reeling. Lawrence was ready in ambush as they retreated. His Arab forces killed many thousands. They were spurred on by the brutality of the retreating Turks who were killing and raping all Arab civilians they could find including children. Witnessing this civilian carnage Lawrence OK’d that there would be no Turkish prisoners and the Arabs took out their revenge. Soundly beaten the Turks abandoned Damascus retreating to the Anatolian border.
In October 1918 Lawrence and Faisal met with General Allenby who said Faisal would be in charge of Syria but that he would have to work through a French liaison officer in governing the country. Lawrence and Faisal both were stunned as Britain had indicated the Sykes-Picot agreement was dead and had promised the Arabs they would have an independent Syria. But Britain had yielded to French pressure just a month earlier. Lawrence refused to work with the French and demanded he be returned to England which he was allowed to do. Summoned to Buckingham Palace by King George V, Lawrence thought the meeting would be about ongoing Middle East negotiations. Entering the room facing the King he soon realized he was to be knighted which he declined turned around and walked away.
In December 1918 Lloyd George met with Clemenceau. They divided the Middle East between them with France taking Syria including Lebanon and Britain taking Iraq and Palestine including Trans-Jordan. Still Lawrence tried to help the Arabs working as an advisor to Faisal at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference to little avail and angering the British negotiators. Britain soon found itself fighting off a revolt in Iraq with thousands dying. In 1920 Lloyd George made Churchill Colonial Secretary. Churchill turned to Lawrence who helped him make significant changes. Faisal was crowned King of Iraq. Faisal had been ousted from Syria in a battle with the French who inherited a colony filled with seething hatred. Trans-Jordan was separated from Palestine and Faisal’s younger brother Abdullah crowned King. Faisal’s father Hussein was given the Hejaz allowing the Wahhabist backed ibn Saud to take the interior. In 1924 ibn Saud attacked Mecca and took the Hejaz from Hussein who lived out his days in Jordan with his son. With increased Jewish immigration and the prospect of a Jewish state, relations between Arab and Jew in Palestine went from bad to worse. The Middle East we know today was taking shape.
Lawrence felt he had betrayed the Arabs and felt responsible for the many grisly deaths he had witnessed, in his mind all for nothing. Lawrence, never the most stable person, became insular and depressed. Today we would say he suffered from PTSD. He joined the air force as a private wanting no position with responsibility. He avoided friends even King Faisal when he visited Britain. He wrote his autobiographical account of his time in the Middle East, Seven Pillars, privately printing only a few copies. He did write a very popular abbreviated version for general publication and donated the proceeds to charity. He moved into a small cottage where he devoted his time to reading and even translating Homer’s Odyssey. He died in a motorcycle accident in 1935 at the age of 46. Churchill stated in his eulogy “I deem him one of the greatest beings alive in our time. I do not see his like elsewhere. I fear whatever our need we shall never see his like again.”
Lawrence, born in 1888, grew up in a middle class family. An exceptionally bright student he was admitted to Oxford where he was drawn to archeology. Attracted to the Middle Ages and the Middle East, he spent the summer of 1909 in Syria studying the castles of the Crusaders. He used his original research in his thesis earning coveted first-class honors. After graduation Lawrence returned to Syria where he worked on excavations and getting to know the land. Unlike most Westerners, Lawrence eschewed luxuries. He could walk miles through searing heat with a phenomenal capacity to endure the harshest conditions. He ate simply and embraced the local people who responded in kind. At that time Syria was part of the Ottoman Empire. Lawrence resented the Turkish administrators and embraced the local Arab population. When in January of 1914 Lawrence was asked to help the British military map the Sinai to prepare for possible attacks on the Suez Canal, Lawrence readily agreed. He was now a recognized expert on the topography of much of Syria and Palestine. After the breakout of war in august 1914 Lord Kitchener personally wrote Lawrence not to enlist, but to wait for assignment. First Lawrence went to London preparing maps for the military and was commissioned a second Lieutenant. After Turkey entered the war as a German ally he was transferred to British intelligence in Cairo.
Lawrence recognized that the weakness of the Ottoman Empire was the resentment of the non-Turkish population including Christians and Jews. In Cairo he hatched a plan to invade Alexandretta on the coast of Syria just south of Anatolia. Weakly defended with a populace that hated the Turks, such an invasion could lead to widespread revolt and separate Turkey from its Arab empire. Unfortunately the French objected not wanting British troops in its area of interest, Syria. London instead decided to invade Gallipoli which proved disastrous.
Lawrence studied people like he studied topography, carefully and patiently. After being sent into the Hejaz (western Saudi Arabia) to meet tribal leaders, Lawrence, determined that Faisal ibn Hussein had the necessary passion to lead an Arab uprising. Aiding Lawrence was his fluent Arabic and experience in Arab cultures. He also relied on his study of medieval European military tactics at Oxford to understand how these men were recruited and organized and how they would fight. For these clansmen and tribal leaders were analogous to the knights and their legions in 14th century France. Lawrence as usual would come up with a plan that went against the British decision making bureaucracy. However as an intelligence agent with access to highly classified data, he knew well how this bureaucracy worked and how to manipulate it. Lawrence embedded himself with the tribes learning how to talk to the Arab chieftains to win them over to his point of view.
In December 1916 Lawrence became a valued aid to Faisal who convinced the British to assign Lawrence to him personally. Lawrence was thrilled but soon disillusioned as he saw Faisal waiver when faced with actual combat. But as Lawrence gained more experience he became more realistic about what the Arabs could accomplish and more importantly which Arabs he could rely on. Lawrence grew to identify with the Arab cause even more than Britain’s. He was disillusioned with the duplicity of his own government’s dealings although Lawrence also used deceit to achieve his aims. Britain promised Faisal’s father, Emir Hussein, in the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence that if the Arab’s revolted that the British would guarantee them independence for their new country. That included Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq with the exception of small temporary enclaves. Hussein believed the British and kept that letter in his pocket. But the British also promised Syria and Lebanon to the French in the secret Sykes-Picot agreement in 1916. British MP Mark Sykes also promised the Zionist community they could have Palestine for their help in the war. Lawrence hated the French who he saw as even more double dealing than the British and did not want them to get Syria. Taking a step for which he could have been court-martialed, Lawrence shared confidential information about the Anglo-French agreement with Faisal to convince him to attack the Turks in Syria. Lawrence was determined to see the Arabs take Syria from the Turks so that they and not the French could not have it once the Ottoman Empire was defeated.
In March 1917 Lawrence led his first attack on a Turkish railway station at Aba el Naam. The attack did much damage but failed to take out the locomotive as Lawrence saw many of his Arab allies retreat in the face of danger. Lawrence started meeting with many tribes to assess how much they could and would help and how reliable they would be. To further prepare for his campaign to take Syria Lawrence went on a dangerous solo trip from the Hejaz to the outskirts of Damascus, an effort that would earn him a nomination for the Victoria Cross, Britain’s highest military honor. He met with Syrian tribal leaders to glean how much support an Arab invasion would get. Most were hesitant even though conditions under the Ottomans had deteriorated badly with food shortages, epidemics and masses of starving deported Armenians.
In June 1917 upon return to the Hejaz Lawrence organized an Arab force to attack Aqaba. It would be a long journey through harsh land with blistering heat and withering sandstorms to come at the city from the backside which the Turks would not expect. Lawrence also directed many small parties to venture into southern Syria and destroy bridges and other Turkish assets to divert attention from his main objective. The journey was especially hard on Lawrence who suffered from recurring malaria and boils among other ailments. But his endurance was legendary. In route Lawrence and his accompanying tribal fighters, primarily the Howeitat, surprised and massacred a Turkish force of 550 at Aba el Lissan. This was revenge for the Howeitat. The Turks had cut the throats of everyone, mostly woman and children, in a Howeitat settlement while the men were away. The Howeitat hatred of the Turks is why Lawrence saw them as reliable allies. Approaching Aqaba from the mountains, Lawrence caught the Turks with no defensive positions. They surrendered.
In July 1917 having traveled some 1300 miles by camel in the last thirty days, Lawrence raced another 150 to reach Cairo and report to HQ which still didn’t know Aqaba had been captured. His uniform long gone he reported in tattered Arab robes. His success brought him immediate fame and glory. He parlayed that into a plan for a two prong attack with British forces under General Allenby. The British would proceed to Palestine along the coast. Lawrence and whatever Arab allies he could muster would proceed inland to Syria. First he would conduct a raid from Aqaba on a bridge and crossing train near Mudowarra. Exploding a mine on the bridge sent the locomotives into the underlying culvert. Lawrence had Lewis machine guns and a Stokes mortar which decimated the Turkish soldiers. The accompanying 100 Arab fighters finished the job looting the train which also carried civilians many of whom were also killed. Similar raids were conducted while Lawrence waited for the British offensive in Palestine. Some Arabs were motivated by hatred of the Turks but many were motivated by profit. Throughout the ensuing campaigns revelations about the English commitments to French autonomy in Syria and a Jewish homeland in Palestine would make the Arab’s question their allegiance to the British. This resulted in Faisal with Lawrence concurrence initiating negotiations with the Turks which would be ongoing but not fruitful. Lawrence knew the British would find out and wanted them to stop taking the Arabs for granted.
In November 1917 with a £20,000 ($2.1 million today) bounty on his head Lawrence led a dangerous raid to blow up a railroad bridge in Turkish controlled Syria. The goal was to prevent Turkish reinforcements as General Allenby attacked the Turks in Palestine. Much went wrong. Lawrence had too little demolition cable resulting in his being wounded. Worse one of his men was Turkish spy. The Turks were alerted and the operation failed. But Lawrence was determined to do something. He found a Turkish troop train to blow up in Minifer as a consolation prize. Then he decided to scout the Deraa train station in Syria. Caught by the Turks he was tortured and probably raped. Somehow he got away. Lawrence offered several versions of what happened perhaps trying to hide his humiliation. Lawrence found his way back to Aqaba and from there to Jerusalem to meet a victorious General Allenby.
In January 1918 Lawrence working with Faisal and the Arab Legion took the town of Tafileh in inland Syria. But Lawrence after his ordeal at Deraa recruited his own personal guard of about 60 men who would be loyal only to him. These were mostly outlaws and outcasts of the tribes so they would have no competing loyalty. Many would die in the ensuing battles. The Turks sent a thousand men to retake Tafileh. Lawrence using a classic pincer attack destroyed this army for which he was awarded the Distinguished Service Order medal. The battle also showed Lawrence had become hardened caring little while the Arabs finished off the Turks trapped in a gorge.
The battle at Tafileh was a success but the broader objectives were no longer feasible since Lawrence left control of £6,000 worth of gold in the hands of Hussein’s 21 year old son, Zeid. The gold was to pay the fighters who would join Lawrence in a new attack but Zeid used it to pay back wages mostly to uninvolved tribes. Lawrence devastated went to report to General Allenby half expecting to be relieved. But Allenby had bigger concerns planning a new attack. This direct attack on the Turks and Germans in Palestine failed with heavy casualties. Then he found out half his troops were being transferred to France. Also the Imperial Camel Corps was to be eliminated. Lawrence asked what about the camels. Many camels had been killed in the war and were in heavy demand. Few were available limiting how many Arabs could join the fight. Allenby gave Lawrence 2,000 fine camels. Lawrence was ecstatic as was Faisal.
In September 1918 Allenby, reinforced by British Arab Legion troops from Iraq and Indian troops, again attacked the Turkish army in Palestine, this time with more innovative tactics. Lawrence was to isolate the important Deraa rail station to block Turkish reinforcements. In addition to the camels Lawrence took advantage of new technology, the Rolls Royce armored car, enabling him to speed around destroying railway tracks and bridges with great efficiency. Lawrence’s attacks with Arab fighters proved successful preventing Turkish reinforcements. Allenby’s attack sent the Turks and Germans reeling. Lawrence was ready in ambush as they retreated. His Arab forces killed many thousands. They were spurred on by the brutality of the retreating Turks who were killing and raping all Arab civilians they could find including children. Witnessing this civilian carnage Lawrence OK’d that there would be no Turkish prisoners and the Arabs took out their revenge. Soundly beaten the Turks abandoned Damascus retreating to the Anatolian border.
In October 1918 Lawrence and Faisal met with General Allenby who said Faisal would be in charge of Syria but that he would have to work through a French liaison officer in governing the country. Lawrence and Faisal both were stunned as Britain had indicated the Sykes-Picot agreement was dead and had promised the Arabs they would have an independent Syria. But Britain had yielded to French pressure just a month earlier. Lawrence refused to work with the French and demanded he be returned to England which he was allowed to do. Summoned to Buckingham Palace by King George V, Lawrence thought the meeting would be about ongoing Middle East negotiations. Entering the room facing the King he soon realized he was to be knighted which he declined turned around and walked away.
In December 1918 Lloyd George met with Clemenceau. They divided the Middle East between them with France taking Syria including Lebanon and Britain taking Iraq and Palestine including Trans-Jordan. Still Lawrence tried to help the Arabs working as an advisor to Faisal at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference to little avail and angering the British negotiators. Britain soon found itself fighting off a revolt in Iraq with thousands dying. In 1920 Lloyd George made Churchill Colonial Secretary. Churchill turned to Lawrence who helped him make significant changes. Faisal was crowned King of Iraq. Faisal had been ousted from Syria in a battle with the French who inherited a colony filled with seething hatred. Trans-Jordan was separated from Palestine and Faisal’s younger brother Abdullah crowned King. Faisal’s father Hussein was given the Hejaz allowing the Wahhabist backed ibn Saud to take the interior. In 1924 ibn Saud attacked Mecca and took the Hejaz from Hussein who lived out his days in Jordan with his son. With increased Jewish immigration and the prospect of a Jewish state, relations between Arab and Jew in Palestine went from bad to worse. The Middle East we know today was taking shape.
Lawrence felt he had betrayed the Arabs and felt responsible for the many grisly deaths he had witnessed, in his mind all for nothing. Lawrence, never the most stable person, became insular and depressed. Today we would say he suffered from PTSD. He joined the air force as a private wanting no position with responsibility. He avoided friends even King Faisal when he visited Britain. He wrote his autobiographical account of his time in the Middle East, Seven Pillars, privately printing only a few copies. He did write a very popular abbreviated version for general publication and donated the proceeds to charity. He moved into a small cottage where he devoted his time to reading and even translating Homer’s Odyssey. He died in a motorcycle accident in 1935 at the age of 46. Churchill stated in his eulogy “I deem him one of the greatest beings alive in our time. I do not see his like elsewhere. I fear whatever our need we shall never see his like again.”
May 3, 2023
Was Lawrence of Arabia the man you thought he was?
Someone famous probably urged us never to delve too deeply into the lives of our heroes since we’re so likely to become cruelly disappointed. And you may have held a vision of Lawrence as one of the few genuine heroes of the 20th Century—a vision nourished by David Lean’s 1962 film masterpiece. But you can’t read Scott Anderson’s biography of Lawrence of Arabia in the context of the First World War in the Middle East and emerge with that image unscathed. Because T. E. Lawrence—archaeologist, author, diplomat, warrior—was a piece of work.
In Anderson’s expert telling, Lawrence was moody, arrogant, deceitful, possibly masochistic, and even, in one dramatic episode, traitorous. Of course, he was also brilliant, brave to the point of foolhardiness, and an extraordinary wartime leader of men.
In Lawrence in Arabia, Scott Anderson views the man through a wide-angle lens. Although his focus is squarely on Lawrence himself, he probes the life and work of his subject from the years before the war until his death in 1933 in tandem with three other remarkable figures in the unraveling of the Ottoman Empire, the awakening of Arab nationalism, and the emergence of the Jewish state in Palestine.
THREE OTHER REMARKABLE FIGURES
** Curt Pruefer was, like Lawrence, an academic thrown into the chaos of the Middle East. In the course of the war, he came to head German espionage activities in the region and was, in effect, Lawrence’s counterpart.
** William Yale, an American descended from the founder of the university that bore his name, was an operative for Standard Oil turned State Department intelligence operative.
** Aaron Aaronsohn was an eminent Jewish agronomist who developed and ran Britain’s largest spy network in the region. He was so passionate an advocate for the founding of a Jewish state that he openly sparred with Chaim Weizmann, then the leader of world Zionism and the beloved first President of Israel.
On Lawrence’s meandering path through the region, he met both Yale and Aaronsohn, and in both cases the men took an instant dislike to one another, a disturbingly common circumstance in the Englishman’s life. But fortunately the Englishman and the German never encountered each other, since one might well have killed the other.
“DECEIT AND FOLLY” IN THIS BIOGRAPHY OF LAWRENCE OF ARABIA
Don’t think for a minute that Lawrence stands out for his sins in comparison with his contemporaries in the region. Anderson’s subtitle refers to “war, deceit, and imperial folly,” and for good reason. Both Pruefer and Yale were deceitful to the point of treachery as well. And the British diplomats and military men surrounding Lawrence were, on the whole, so duplicitous themselves and so patently incompetent that Lawrence’s behavior could sometimes be easily understood.
In fact, the deplorable picture of war in the Middle East that emerges from Lawrence in Arabia is a worthy reflection of the senseless slaughter that characterized the war in Europe. There, millions of young men were needlessly dying from Gallipoli to the Somme as a result of the utter stupidity and pigheadedness of the military leadership of the warring Great Powers.
Lawrence in Arabia is as dense a work of history as any academic study and eminently readable to boot. It casts a bright light on a frequently neglected aspect of World War I. Lawrence called it “a sideshow of a sideshow,” which greatly underrates its historical importance. And it illuminates the forces that helped create the tragic state of the Middle East today.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Scott Anderson is the author of seven works of nonfiction and two novels. His best-known work is this biography of Lawrence of Arabia. He frequently contributes to mainstream national magazines. Born in 1959, he grew up in East Asia, primarily Taiwan and Korea, where his father was a US government agricultural adviser. His brother is Jon Lee Anderson, an author and journalist. (They have co-authored two books.) Anderson currently lives in Brooklyn, New York.
Someone famous probably urged us never to delve too deeply into the lives of our heroes since we’re so likely to become cruelly disappointed. And you may have held a vision of Lawrence as one of the few genuine heroes of the 20th Century—a vision nourished by David Lean’s 1962 film masterpiece. But you can’t read Scott Anderson’s biography of Lawrence of Arabia in the context of the First World War in the Middle East and emerge with that image unscathed. Because T. E. Lawrence—archaeologist, author, diplomat, warrior—was a piece of work.
In Anderson’s expert telling, Lawrence was moody, arrogant, deceitful, possibly masochistic, and even, in one dramatic episode, traitorous. Of course, he was also brilliant, brave to the point of foolhardiness, and an extraordinary wartime leader of men.
In Lawrence in Arabia, Scott Anderson views the man through a wide-angle lens. Although his focus is squarely on Lawrence himself, he probes the life and work of his subject from the years before the war until his death in 1933 in tandem with three other remarkable figures in the unraveling of the Ottoman Empire, the awakening of Arab nationalism, and the emergence of the Jewish state in Palestine.
THREE OTHER REMARKABLE FIGURES
** Curt Pruefer was, like Lawrence, an academic thrown into the chaos of the Middle East. In the course of the war, he came to head German espionage activities in the region and was, in effect, Lawrence’s counterpart.
** William Yale, an American descended from the founder of the university that bore his name, was an operative for Standard Oil turned State Department intelligence operative.
** Aaron Aaronsohn was an eminent Jewish agronomist who developed and ran Britain’s largest spy network in the region. He was so passionate an advocate for the founding of a Jewish state that he openly sparred with Chaim Weizmann, then the leader of world Zionism and the beloved first President of Israel.
On Lawrence’s meandering path through the region, he met both Yale and Aaronsohn, and in both cases the men took an instant dislike to one another, a disturbingly common circumstance in the Englishman’s life. But fortunately the Englishman and the German never encountered each other, since one might well have killed the other.
“DECEIT AND FOLLY” IN THIS BIOGRAPHY OF LAWRENCE OF ARABIA
Don’t think for a minute that Lawrence stands out for his sins in comparison with his contemporaries in the region. Anderson’s subtitle refers to “war, deceit, and imperial folly,” and for good reason. Both Pruefer and Yale were deceitful to the point of treachery as well. And the British diplomats and military men surrounding Lawrence were, on the whole, so duplicitous themselves and so patently incompetent that Lawrence’s behavior could sometimes be easily understood.
In fact, the deplorable picture of war in the Middle East that emerges from Lawrence in Arabia is a worthy reflection of the senseless slaughter that characterized the war in Europe. There, millions of young men were needlessly dying from Gallipoli to the Somme as a result of the utter stupidity and pigheadedness of the military leadership of the warring Great Powers.
Lawrence in Arabia is as dense a work of history as any academic study and eminently readable to boot. It casts a bright light on a frequently neglected aspect of World War I. Lawrence called it “a sideshow of a sideshow,” which greatly underrates its historical importance. And it illuminates the forces that helped create the tragic state of the Middle East today.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Scott Anderson is the author of seven works of nonfiction and two novels. His best-known work is this biography of Lawrence of Arabia. He frequently contributes to mainstream national magazines. Born in 1959, he grew up in East Asia, primarily Taiwan and Korea, where his father was a US government agricultural adviser. His brother is Jon Lee Anderson, an author and journalist. (They have co-authored two books.) Anderson currently lives in Brooklyn, New York.
September 25, 2014
This book is not Lawrence of Arabia but instead concerns the activities of Lawrence in Arabia as well as those of several other major characters who were determined to create a Middle East that suited their purposes once the Great War was over.
Britain and France had no intention of allowing their hold on the countries in the East to be broken for independence. They also were determined to break up the faltering Ottoman Empire and so the Sykes-Picot treaty came into being; a semi-secret document between those two countries dividing up the spoils of war. However, they failed to tell those countries involved and kept up the masquerade of liberators rather than that of absentee landlords. To add more complications to the situation was the Zionist movement which was determined to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Into the middle of this situation came T.E. Lawrence, a low level army officer with an immense knowledge of the area and a speaker of Arabic in all its dialects. His duty was to pull all the tribes of Arabic bedouins into a revolt against the Turkish with the promise of a country of their own. And the mythical Lawrence of Arabia was born.
Lawrence was a complex man who was disliked by many of his countrymen but generally loved by the Arabs. The fact that he was living a lie regarding the outcome of the Arab rebellion and that Britain/France had no intention of creating an Arab state, haunted him and eventually drove him into periods of deep depression.
There is so much happening in this book that I could write pages about it but, although I only mentioned Lawrence, there are other very interesting characters abounding in these pages. Read this book!! It is fascinating and very well researched and written. And forget the Lawrence of Arabia that is in your mind's eye.....the beautiful Peter O'Toole with the unbelievably blue eyes charging the Turks on his racing camel with his white robes whipping in the wind.......that was the Lawrence of legend. He was a much different man and much more interesting. Highly recommended.
Britain and France had no intention of allowing their hold on the countries in the East to be broken for independence. They also were determined to break up the faltering Ottoman Empire and so the Sykes-Picot treaty came into being; a semi-secret document between those two countries dividing up the spoils of war. However, they failed to tell those countries involved and kept up the masquerade of liberators rather than that of absentee landlords. To add more complications to the situation was the Zionist movement which was determined to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Into the middle of this situation came T.E. Lawrence, a low level army officer with an immense knowledge of the area and a speaker of Arabic in all its dialects. His duty was to pull all the tribes of Arabic bedouins into a revolt against the Turkish with the promise of a country of their own. And the mythical Lawrence of Arabia was born.
Lawrence was a complex man who was disliked by many of his countrymen but generally loved by the Arabs. The fact that he was living a lie regarding the outcome of the Arab rebellion and that Britain/France had no intention of creating an Arab state, haunted him and eventually drove him into periods of deep depression.
There is so much happening in this book that I could write pages about it but, although I only mentioned Lawrence, there are other very interesting characters abounding in these pages. Read this book!! It is fascinating and very well researched and written. And forget the Lawrence of Arabia that is in your mind's eye.....the beautiful Peter O'Toole with the unbelievably blue eyes charging the Turks on his racing camel with his white robes whipping in the wind.......that was the Lawrence of legend. He was a much different man and much more interesting. Highly recommended.
October 4, 2016
For those wanting to read about Lawrence of Arabia, STOP, read the title again & flip the title about so it reads “War, deceit, imperial folly & the making of the modern middle East” – which features Lawrence IN Arabia – Now don’t be put off by that opening gambit, Just wanted to make it clear as to what the book is about as probably like many folk you would gravitate to this book at the mention of Colonel TE Lawrence AKA Lawrence of Arabia? Yes TE Lawrence is the major player & used subtly to sell the book which I have no problem with as he does feature heavily in the geopolitics of the time.
Ok Still here? Good as otherwise you would miss a most EXCELLANT tale of adventure, espionage, political intrigue & warfare.
Normally I read bios & non-fiction in piecemeal as can find them a touch heavy but this book reads akin to a fiction novel & I did so in three, albeit protracted, readings of the main three chapters. It’s a worthy 4.5 stars, not quite the full 5 as perhaps the final parts of the third chapter descend into a complex battle of Arabia at war’s end & Lawrence becomes very, understandably, withdrawn from the events.
I must admit I was attracted to this book at first at the mere mention of TE Lawrence as from childhood & in particular the film Lawrence of Arabia I have been fascinated by the story, especially so as he lived post-war just a few miles away from where I reside. I still remember readily many a quote from the film as I’m sure others do & for one I’ll be next reading TE Lawrence’s own bio written post-war called the Seven Pillars, which is referred to often.
As to the context of the book, well.......
It’s very insightful to the origins of the current state of the modern Middle east & tales the story of all the players in the pre-war years to the conclusion of The Great War through the eyes of the British, Germans, Ottoman Empire, French, Americans, The Zionist Jews & lastly the Arabs whose land it was. The crux of the story goes thus? The British & French are looking to carve up the Ottoman empire between themselves in the post war era, the Americans also want a piece when they finally join the war but moreso with an eye on the oil, the Ottomans are an empire in decline with enemies on all sides who are desperately trying to keep their borders intact at whatever cost, the Germans are looking to evoke a Jihadist rebellion against the allies but again later in the war look to align also with the Zionists, The Zionists are willing to align themselves with either the allies or the central powers & offer up a spy network, basically whomever will aide them in carving out a nation state for themselves albeit as a protectorate to start with & finally the Arabs who want to have the land for themselves & be free firstly of Ottoman rule & then of other imperial powers.
Ok that’s just a paragraph & this book goes FAR beyond this level of base reference, IT IS Immense & I highly recommend anybody with a passing interest in the middle east of today to have a read.
Ok Still here? Good as otherwise you would miss a most EXCELLANT tale of adventure, espionage, political intrigue & warfare.
Normally I read bios & non-fiction in piecemeal as can find them a touch heavy but this book reads akin to a fiction novel & I did so in three, albeit protracted, readings of the main three chapters. It’s a worthy 4.5 stars, not quite the full 5 as perhaps the final parts of the third chapter descend into a complex battle of Arabia at war’s end & Lawrence becomes very, understandably, withdrawn from the events.
I must admit I was attracted to this book at first at the mere mention of TE Lawrence as from childhood & in particular the film Lawrence of Arabia I have been fascinated by the story, especially so as he lived post-war just a few miles away from where I reside. I still remember readily many a quote from the film as I’m sure others do & for one I’ll be next reading TE Lawrence’s own bio written post-war called the Seven Pillars, which is referred to often.
As to the context of the book, well.......
It’s very insightful to the origins of the current state of the modern Middle east & tales the story of all the players in the pre-war years to the conclusion of The Great War through the eyes of the British, Germans, Ottoman Empire, French, Americans, The Zionist Jews & lastly the Arabs whose land it was. The crux of the story goes thus? The British & French are looking to carve up the Ottoman empire between themselves in the post war era, the Americans also want a piece when they finally join the war but moreso with an eye on the oil, the Ottomans are an empire in decline with enemies on all sides who are desperately trying to keep their borders intact at whatever cost, the Germans are looking to evoke a Jihadist rebellion against the allies but again later in the war look to align also with the Zionists, The Zionists are willing to align themselves with either the allies or the central powers & offer up a spy network, basically whomever will aide them in carving out a nation state for themselves albeit as a protectorate to start with & finally the Arabs who want to have the land for themselves & be free firstly of Ottoman rule & then of other imperial powers.
Ok that’s just a paragraph & this book goes FAR beyond this level of base reference, IT IS Immense & I highly recommend anybody with a passing interest in the middle east of today to have a read.
August 17, 2014
I found this a fascinating look at World War I in the Middle East. Mr. Anderson basically looks at the war through the experiences of four people. They are a British Archeologist - T.E. Lawrence – better known as Lawrence of Arabia, an American oil man - William Yale, a minor German Diplomat – Curt Prufer and finally a Jewish Palestinian agronomist-Aaron Aaronsohn. In telling the story of these four men, the author attempts to explain how World War I created the modern Middle East. While Lawrence’s story is the main storyline, the other three men’s tale is also fascinating. I found Prufer’s story particularly fascinating. A frustrated minor official Germany’s Cairo Embassy; during the war he rose to be Germany’s chief intelligence office in Constantinople.
The author tells Lawrence’s story using his own writings –mainly The Seven Pillars of Wisdom, recollections of his contemporaries and official reports. They often don’t agree. When they don’t Mr. Anderson then gives the reader his best guess at what really happened. The author does agree with Lawrence on how he became “Lawrence of Arabia” – basically nobody cared, his efforts were in a sideshow of a sideshow.
The author also looks at the Lawrence conflicted loyalties. Even as the British were trying to encourage the Arabs to revolt by promising an independent Greater Syria after the war, they were cutting a deal with the French to divide up the Ottoman Empire, keeping the best parts for themselves. As Lawrence became aware of this, the author believes he told the King Faisal about their plans, technically committing treason.
In telling Aaronsohn’s tale, Anderson looks at the conflict inside Zionism itself. Aaronsohn was willing to work with either the Ottomans or the Allies, depending on the deal he was given on a Jewish homeland in Palestine after the war. Eventually he came to believe the Allies were offering a better deal and gave them a fully formed spy network inside Palestine. The story of how he made contact and he perseverance when the British in Cairo didn’t seem too interested in his network is well told. The story of the conflict between Aaronsohn and Chaim Weizmann, who became Israel’s first President, is also well done.
Carl Prufer's story is that of a man who is frustrated with the system and uses the war to advance farther in his career than possible in the prewar world. Stuck at the chief translator at the Cairo Embassy and unable to advance further because of his birth, he becomes Germany’s preeminent Arabist and spends most of the war trying to ignite a Jihad against the Allies. One of his agents was Chaim Weizmann’s sister.
In telling William Yale’s story, the author looks at how Oil shaped the map of the Middle East post war. Yale is the son of an impoverished branch of the family that founded Yale University. Upon graduating from college takes a job with SOCONY looking to lock up land in Palestine for future oil exploitation. It is in this capacity he first encounters Lawrence. He eventually becomes he US’ man in the Middle East after the US joins the war. Much of his efforts are frustrated because the US Gov’t disinterest in the region. This allows Britain and France to do pretty much what they want at Versailles.
Finally the author tells how the war affected Lawrence. He returned to England a very disillusioned man. He turned down both a knighthood and the Victoria Cross. He eventually enlisted in the RAF as a common enlisted airman using a false name, and when he was discovered, he enlisted in the Royal Tank Corps, again using a false name, finally he returned to the RAF. He died shortly after leaving the RAF.
In summary this is an excellent look at the machinations that led to the modern Middle East and the role that Lawrence played in making that happen. I would rate this 4.25 stars rounded down for good reads.
The author tells Lawrence’s story using his own writings –mainly The Seven Pillars of Wisdom, recollections of his contemporaries and official reports. They often don’t agree. When they don’t Mr. Anderson then gives the reader his best guess at what really happened. The author does agree with Lawrence on how he became “Lawrence of Arabia” – basically nobody cared, his efforts were in a sideshow of a sideshow.
The author also looks at the Lawrence conflicted loyalties. Even as the British were trying to encourage the Arabs to revolt by promising an independent Greater Syria after the war, they were cutting a deal with the French to divide up the Ottoman Empire, keeping the best parts for themselves. As Lawrence became aware of this, the author believes he told the King Faisal about their plans, technically committing treason.
In telling Aaronsohn’s tale, Anderson looks at the conflict inside Zionism itself. Aaronsohn was willing to work with either the Ottomans or the Allies, depending on the deal he was given on a Jewish homeland in Palestine after the war. Eventually he came to believe the Allies were offering a better deal and gave them a fully formed spy network inside Palestine. The story of how he made contact and he perseverance when the British in Cairo didn’t seem too interested in his network is well told. The story of the conflict between Aaronsohn and Chaim Weizmann, who became Israel’s first President, is also well done.
Carl Prufer's story is that of a man who is frustrated with the system and uses the war to advance farther in his career than possible in the prewar world. Stuck at the chief translator at the Cairo Embassy and unable to advance further because of his birth, he becomes Germany’s preeminent Arabist and spends most of the war trying to ignite a Jihad against the Allies. One of his agents was Chaim Weizmann’s sister.
In telling William Yale’s story, the author looks at how Oil shaped the map of the Middle East post war. Yale is the son of an impoverished branch of the family that founded Yale University. Upon graduating from college takes a job with SOCONY looking to lock up land in Palestine for future oil exploitation. It is in this capacity he first encounters Lawrence. He eventually becomes he US’ man in the Middle East after the US joins the war. Much of his efforts are frustrated because the US Gov’t disinterest in the region. This allows Britain and France to do pretty much what they want at Versailles.
Finally the author tells how the war affected Lawrence. He returned to England a very disillusioned man. He turned down both a knighthood and the Victoria Cross. He eventually enlisted in the RAF as a common enlisted airman using a false name, and when he was discovered, he enlisted in the Royal Tank Corps, again using a false name, finally he returned to the RAF. He died shortly after leaving the RAF.
In summary this is an excellent look at the machinations that led to the modern Middle East and the role that Lawrence played in making that happen. I would rate this 4.25 stars rounded down for good reads.
September 21, 2023
War Games.
The legend of Thomas Edward Lawrence, aka Lawrence of Arabia is one of the most famous to be born out of the First World War. As the author Scott Anderson notes he remains one of the most ‘enigmatic and controversial’ figures of the 20th century. The story has been told countless times, there a several biographies, huge scores of scholarly work and even three movies, one being critically acclaimed. However, as Anderson notes historians have never quite been able to decide on what to make of this young and bashful Oxford scholar and archaeologist, who with no military training ride into battle at the head of an Arab army and changed history.
As Anderson notes, part of this is the terrain he operates in. The modern Middle East is a place where history and assertions down to the most simplest sentences are dissected and argued over. So with this Lawrence himself is a hero and a villain, a warrior and a parasite all at the same time. Anderson asserts the other reason, as being the man’s personality itself. Hugely shy, very private and almost a recluse after the war. However, it seems Lawrence himself was also intent on dividing opinion, he seemed intent on baffling all those that knew him. This legend and controversy which has effected so much of the 100 years or so since the events will continue to be stuff of major interest.
This is book is not a biography in the traditional sense. It does follow the life of Lawrence but focuses primarily on the First World War, the Arab revolt and the forming of the modern Middle East as a consequence. The story is told using the lives of three important contemporaries, Curt Prüfer a German spy working against the British, Aaron Aaronsohn, a Zionist and William Yale an American working for the Standard Oil Company who eventually ended up working for the USA. This allows Anderson to deliver the full picture, with the underlying themes of Jihad, nationalism, the question of a Jewish homeland and of course oil. Other major figures include Faisal, one of the key leaders in the Arab revolt and later King of Iraq and Djemal Pasha the Ottoman governor of Syria. This is a multinational and multifaceted struggle, with weaving and complex alliances and aspirations.
Anderson shows how western lack of knowledge or respect for the reason and their intervention, from Woodrow Wilson’s fourteen points and further declarations, the Sykes-Picot agreement and Balfour Declaration alongside false promises to Hussain, Sharif of Mecca, all disabled and broke the area. The effects have ben colossal. For me this is all a great approach as I feel you cannot tell the story as a linear narrative there are so many other factors. Furthermore Anderson wants to show how the modern Middle East was formed. I still gained the impression of what Lawrence was like and what he wanted. He was not a military man, but an academic who knew the region. That is how he rose to prominence. This had huge effects, he practically committed high treason for the Arab cause and felt huge disgust of his government’s treatment of them. He also seemed to have deplored the fighting and horrors even if he was involved in them at the time. He killer people, let wounded to die and say atrocities being committed. This alongside the huge disappointment of the outcome, not from defeat but betrayal is what finally broke him.
Historians have never been able to agree what to make of Lawrence, this strange man who was caught up in one of the saddest stories in history. One which has caused a catalogue of war and misery, oppressive dictatorships and religious divide for over a century. However, this is why this is essential reading, it is how we can begin to understand the complexities and challenges of the modern world. They can’t be undone but maybe we can learn from them. A great book of a poignant story.
The legend of Thomas Edward Lawrence, aka Lawrence of Arabia is one of the most famous to be born out of the First World War. As the author Scott Anderson notes he remains one of the most ‘enigmatic and controversial’ figures of the 20th century. The story has been told countless times, there a several biographies, huge scores of scholarly work and even three movies, one being critically acclaimed. However, as Anderson notes historians have never quite been able to decide on what to make of this young and bashful Oxford scholar and archaeologist, who with no military training ride into battle at the head of an Arab army and changed history.
As Anderson notes, part of this is the terrain he operates in. The modern Middle East is a place where history and assertions down to the most simplest sentences are dissected and argued over. So with this Lawrence himself is a hero and a villain, a warrior and a parasite all at the same time. Anderson asserts the other reason, as being the man’s personality itself. Hugely shy, very private and almost a recluse after the war. However, it seems Lawrence himself was also intent on dividing opinion, he seemed intent on baffling all those that knew him. This legend and controversy which has effected so much of the 100 years or so since the events will continue to be stuff of major interest.
This is book is not a biography in the traditional sense. It does follow the life of Lawrence but focuses primarily on the First World War, the Arab revolt and the forming of the modern Middle East as a consequence. The story is told using the lives of three important contemporaries, Curt Prüfer a German spy working against the British, Aaron Aaronsohn, a Zionist and William Yale an American working for the Standard Oil Company who eventually ended up working for the USA. This allows Anderson to deliver the full picture, with the underlying themes of Jihad, nationalism, the question of a Jewish homeland and of course oil. Other major figures include Faisal, one of the key leaders in the Arab revolt and later King of Iraq and Djemal Pasha the Ottoman governor of Syria. This is a multinational and multifaceted struggle, with weaving and complex alliances and aspirations.
Anderson shows how western lack of knowledge or respect for the reason and their intervention, from Woodrow Wilson’s fourteen points and further declarations, the Sykes-Picot agreement and Balfour Declaration alongside false promises to Hussain, Sharif of Mecca, all disabled and broke the area. The effects have ben colossal. For me this is all a great approach as I feel you cannot tell the story as a linear narrative there are so many other factors. Furthermore Anderson wants to show how the modern Middle East was formed. I still gained the impression of what Lawrence was like and what he wanted. He was not a military man, but an academic who knew the region. That is how he rose to prominence. This had huge effects, he practically committed high treason for the Arab cause and felt huge disgust of his government’s treatment of them. He also seemed to have deplored the fighting and horrors even if he was involved in them at the time. He killer people, let wounded to die and say atrocities being committed. This alongside the huge disappointment of the outcome, not from defeat but betrayal is what finally broke him.
Historians have never been able to agree what to make of Lawrence, this strange man who was caught up in one of the saddest stories in history. One which has caused a catalogue of war and misery, oppressive dictatorships and religious divide for over a century. However, this is why this is essential reading, it is how we can begin to understand the complexities and challenges of the modern world. They can’t be undone but maybe we can learn from them. A great book of a poignant story.
January 7, 2021
“Всички хора мечтаят, но не по еднакъв начин. Онези, които мечтаят през нощта в прашните недра на своите умове, се събуждат през деня, за да разберат, че това е било суета. Но мечтателите на деня са опасни хора, защото те могат да действат в съня си с отворени очи и да го направят възможен.“
Т.Е. .Лорънс из „Седем стълба на мъдростта
Човекът, идентифицирал се толкова дълбоко с една кауза, че тя става негово прозвище. Романтик и идеалист или хитър и прагматичен стратег – кое от двете е Лорънс? Борец за арабска свобода или изпечен политически интригант? Противоречивата му природа безпроблемно акомодира всякакви крайности.
Или това поне ни внушава образът на Т. Е. Лорънс, представен в книгата “Лорънс в Арабия”. Скот Андерсън се опитва да види отвъд романтичната легенда за волния синеок авантюрист, препускащ с камила сред арабските дюни, персонифициран за масова кино консумация от Питър О’Тул. В много голяма степен тази задача е постигната, не без помощта и на подробна панорамна снимка от последните години на Османска империя в периода на Първата световна война.
Докато войната на Западния фронт буксува в ада на окопите, в Близкия Изток е налице съвсем различна динамика. Една шествековна империя е на път да се разпадне, а кандидати за щедрата плячка не липсват. В териториите на Палестина, Сирия и Ирак освен вездесъщия Лорънс, си дават среща разбунтувани арабски вождове, реформистки настроени младотурци, дипломати-аматьори, един амбициозен германски шпионин, обеднял американски аристократ – служител на безскрупулна нефтена компания, и редица други второ и третостепенни играчи.
Разнобоят на интереси, пъстрата етническа картина и локалните точки на напрежение са били факт и преди Голямата война, като последната просто катализира центробежните процеси в този объркан регион. В такава ситуация съюзи се създават и разпадат за дни, всеки обещава всичко на всички, а предателствата и лъжите са инструменти на реалполитик.
Но ако и днес гледаме на този жестоко конкурентен период от историята с известен нюанс на романтика, ��ължим го на неуморния Лорънс. В епоха, когато британското колониално високомерие към “по-неразвитите” народи определя характера на една политика, която е всичко останало, но не и гъвкава, а още по-малко приобщаваща, нашият герой успява там, където всички други са се проваляли. Разбрал, че приятелства и съюзи не се изковават с гледане “отвисоко”, Лорънс постига забележително потапяне в чуждата култура, и то във времена на изострен национализъм.
Може би най-интересните хора са тези, които носят белезите на повече от една национална идентичност – една предопределна от рождението и една придобита впоследствие. И ако семената на днешния трагичен хаос в Близкия Изток са посети през 1914-1918 г., то личната трагедия на Лорънс може би се състои точно в тази допълнителна идентичност, придобита сред арабските пясъци.
За читателя на “Лорънс в Арабия” ще е трудно да остане безучастен към образа на английския археолог/бунтовник/военен/шпионин/писател. Но книгата на Скот Андерсън има и други достойнства – тя разказва, но и обяснява; замислена е като историческа, но е структурирана като роман. Досущ като живота на Т. Е. Лорънс.
Т.Е. .Лорънс из „Седем стълба на мъдростта
Човекът, идентифицирал се толкова дълбоко с една кауза, че тя става негово прозвище. Романтик и идеалист или хитър и прагматичен стратег – кое от двете е Лорънс? Борец за арабска свобода или изпечен политически интригант? Противоречивата му природа безпроблемно акомодира всякакви крайности.
Или това поне ни внушава образът на Т. Е. Лорънс, представен в книгата “Лорънс в Арабия”. Скот Андерсън се опитва да види отвъд романтичната легенда за волния синеок авантюрист, препускащ с камила сред арабските дюни, персонифициран за масова кино консумация от Питър О’Тул. В много голяма степен тази задача е постигната, не без помощта и на подробна панорамна снимка от последните години на Османска империя в периода на Първата световна война.
Докато войната на Западния фронт буксува в ада на окопите, в Близкия Изток е налице съвсем различна динамика. Една шествековна империя е на път да се разпадне, а кандидати за щедрата плячка не липсват. В териториите на Палестина, Сирия и Ирак освен вездесъщия Лорънс, си дават среща разбунтувани арабски вождове, реформистки настроени младотурци, дипломати-аматьори, един амбициозен германски шпионин, обеднял американски аристократ – служител на безскрупулна нефтена компания, и редица други второ и третостепенни играчи.
Разнобоят на интереси, пъстрата етническа картина и локалните точки на напрежение са били факт и преди Голямата война, като последната просто катализира центробежните процеси в този объркан регион. В такава ситуация съюзи се създават и разпадат за дни, всеки обещава всичко на всички, а предателствата и лъжите са инструменти на реалполитик.
Но ако и днес гледаме на този жестоко конкурентен период от историята с известен нюанс на романтика, ��ължим го на неуморния Лорънс. В епоха, когато британското колониално високомерие към “по-неразвитите” народи определя характера на една политика, която е всичко останало, но не и гъвкава, а още по-малко приобщаваща, нашият герой успява там, където всички други са се проваляли. Разбрал, че приятелства и съюзи не се изковават с гледане “отвисоко”, Лорънс постига забележително потапяне в чуждата култура, и то във времена на изострен национализъм.
Може би най-интересните хора са тези, които носят белезите на повече от една национална идентичност – една предопределна от рождението и една придобита впоследствие. И ако семената на днешния трагичен хаос в Близкия Изток са посети през 1914-1918 г., то личната трагедия на Лорънс може би се състои точно в тази допълнителна идентичност, придобита сред арабските пясъци.
За читателя на “Лорънс в Арабия” ще е трудно да остане безучастен към образа на английския археолог/бунтовник/военен/шпионин/писател. Но книгата на Скот Андерсън има и други достойнства – тя разказва, но и обяснява; замислена е като историческа, но е структурирана като роман. Досущ като живота на Т. Е. Лорънс.
December 18, 2023
Ignore the title, the subtitle, War, Deceit, Imperial Folly and the Making of the Modern Middle East, is a far more accurate description.
It’s a complex story of duplicity and broken promises, a narrative history which places Lawrence at its centre. The complexity of the story is matched by the complexity of the man himself. An academic who became a soldier, and whose vision helped to shape and drive the Arab revolt in WW1, he manipulated his British superiors just as carefully as he organised the Arabs, suffered from depression and self-loathing, and was something of an unreliable narrator. Eventually both he and the Arabs were betrayed by Britain and France, as they carved up the Middle East between them.
Anderson uses an interesting structure. Although supposedly told through four central characters: Lawrence is joined by a German, a Zionist and an American, in reality it’s Lawrence who dominates the story - to the extent that for long periods the others feel superfluous, although overall their different perspectives do add to the narrative. I’m just not sure why these three were given prominence over, say, the Arab leaders.
But it’s a minor point. Always interesting and extremely readable, this really drew me in.
It’s a complex story of duplicity and broken promises, a narrative history which places Lawrence at its centre. The complexity of the story is matched by the complexity of the man himself. An academic who became a soldier, and whose vision helped to shape and drive the Arab revolt in WW1, he manipulated his British superiors just as carefully as he organised the Arabs, suffered from depression and self-loathing, and was something of an unreliable narrator. Eventually both he and the Arabs were betrayed by Britain and France, as they carved up the Middle East between them.
Anderson uses an interesting structure. Although supposedly told through four central characters: Lawrence is joined by a German, a Zionist and an American, in reality it’s Lawrence who dominates the story - to the extent that for long periods the others feel superfluous, although overall their different perspectives do add to the narrative. I’m just not sure why these three were given prominence over, say, the Arab leaders.
But it’s a minor point. Always interesting and extremely readable, this really drew me in.
July 29, 2017
'Lawrence in Arabia' is a well-researched and well-written book.
The best review I read about this book is here:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
There are many other reviews which are also excellent, as well. I agree with them, up to a point.
The avarice behind the Western powers' superficial alliance with the tribes of the Middle East in fighting World War II against the Germans is supported by actual letters, documents and recollections from hundreds of sources, many listed in the book. Without question, France and England planned to be in control of the Middle East, making this regional bit and that part (which were soon to be countries) as subservient puppets of their own empires. The Western World wanted to defeat Germany and her allies, but they also wanted to sneak in some looting and theft from their Middle-Eastern 'allies' wherever possible.
Lawrence, to his credit, wanted the Arabs to be in charge of the Middle East once the War ended. He was an amazing warrior on the right side of history - charismatic, intelligent and courageous. He helped knit the various tribes into cohesive troops, and in aiding the cause of wrestling the Near East from the Ottoman Empire and pushing the Turks back to Turkey, gave the Arabs self-respect. However, although Lawrence was heroic, he also was human. The picture which emerges from this book, and many others, shows a complex man who got roughed up by the war as much as an ordinary soldier did. Years later, he no longer had the strength to advocate for the Arabs. He was deeply disturbed by the discriminatory and rapacious foreign policies he discovered that underlay the actions of the democracies and kingdoms of the West.
The book is a real door-stopper, and I think a bit of pruning could have been done, but it truly is a very good book. However, unlike the author and many reviewers, I do not think it includes enough Middle Eastern viewpoints, history and much analysis of the impact of Islam on the politics and rivalries pre-existing before WWI. It's a big book as it is, but a few paragraphs here and there would have given it more of a nuanced tone, instead of one of only 'How the White Man Messed Up the Arabs,' with the usual epilogue stapled in the back, 'They'd Be Rich Democracies Just Like Us IF We Hadn't Been So Greedy and Racist.' The Arabs were already messed up and technologically primitive because of their ongoing regional wars and the religious domination of their culture long before the West discovered them.
The West, then and now, tends to take on ALL responsibility for locally-caused regional problems, which is a kind of paternalism as well as demeaning to the locals, even if it is a well-meant mea culpa. The book describes some of the tribal chieftains indicating they would have preferred the United States to be their patron after the War, instead of the mean English and French, but as recent history has shown (past history, too) nation building is not possible, even if it's the less-rapacious USA as overlords (we only want their resources and their love, not the country, generally).
Afghanistan is seen by the West as culturally Neanderthaloid and laughable - yet how many major powers have now been defeated by those backwoods ignoramuses of Afghanistan? The Taliban is poised to take over Kabul as soon as the West leaves. Yes, it's sad and bad, especially for the women, but I'm sure Kabul will only miss all of those dollars pouring in without accountability. But the Afghans have already survived first the English and then the Russian invasions previously, which occurred before the USA and NATO. After all of us have left, not once have the Afghans assimilated anything or changed their customs, which have been solidly in place for centuries. Apparently indoor plumbing, modern medicine and electricity aren't the inducement to modernize as the West expects of many cultures.
(Edit: July, 2017. Currently, the Chinese are attempting to become a patron of Afghanistan...)
Muslim Africa, Asia and the Near East population majorities prefer, support, and vote for, when voting is allowed, theocratic dictators who take all of the countries' wealth for themselves, and who modernize if and when they feel like it, even when our ambassadors/CIA meddle and despite every attempt the West makes to force modern technology and financial partnerships on them.
I could, and have, spoken 900 page tomes myself on how the West and all of its modern ways and secular education models are rejected by Muslim nations.
Muslims had universities long before the West, but today many of their Ph.D. degrees that are awarded are based on an education primarily of Quran-directed science, philosophy and history, despite the availability of religion-free secular studies. What many Muslim doctorate students learn in Middle-Eastern colleges is equivalent to what our Evangelical Christian college doctorate students learn (i.e., Christian doctorate students graduate with the ability to argue using bible-based philosophy as 'science proofs' and logic that earth is 6,000 years old and was created in 6 days by god - a god for whose existence they also have learned certain philosophical-based arguments all of which looks to me quite circular - the world and physics is proof that a god exists because obviously a god made the world because a world and physics exists). Muslim colleges use the Quran the same way as Christian colleges use the Bible as the guiding source and direction of all studies.
Muslim primary schools are segregrated by gender and they are often discriminatory against the many various Muslim sects and tribes. Basic reading/writing is often learned by copying the Quran over and over for 6-8 years in many many many Muslim countries. Graduation occurs when a student is able to recite the entire Quran from memory - often the only measure of qualification for leadership in local politics and business.
They choose their culture as we do ours, despite the West's efforts to infiltrate or invade or trade.
The Arabs are the Arabs are the Arabs (unless they are Persians, which many Americans mistakenly mix up with India's Hindus and Sikhs as a single cohesive 'Arab Muslim' group). Muslim countries, or at least the founding Muslim tribes, have been Muslim for millennia (1,217 years, give or take some decades, using 800 CE as a baseline), and they've experienced multiple local military defeats and invasions and conquests and civil wars long before the USA became a country (America is only 241 years old).
WWI spilled over into their already blood-soaked lands, and then WWII came, but the Arabs have mostly removed the West's influences except for what they wanted to keep. Basically, Westerners kicked the overlord Turks out for them - who all of the Arabs hated. They use the West as a scapegoat, and we let them because most of us believe it, too. However, I still recall my shock, for example, in discovering black Africans sold black Africans to the West for slaves.
A broad reading of multicultural and comparative history books can free you of many delusions. I recommend 'Lawrence in Arabia', but more reading is necessary to fully understand the historical Middle East.
The best review I read about this book is here:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
There are many other reviews which are also excellent, as well. I agree with them, up to a point.
The avarice behind the Western powers' superficial alliance with the tribes of the Middle East in fighting World War II against the Germans is supported by actual letters, documents and recollections from hundreds of sources, many listed in the book. Without question, France and England planned to be in control of the Middle East, making this regional bit and that part (which were soon to be countries) as subservient puppets of their own empires. The Western World wanted to defeat Germany and her allies, but they also wanted to sneak in some looting and theft from their Middle-Eastern 'allies' wherever possible.
Lawrence, to his credit, wanted the Arabs to be in charge of the Middle East once the War ended. He was an amazing warrior on the right side of history - charismatic, intelligent and courageous. He helped knit the various tribes into cohesive troops, and in aiding the cause of wrestling the Near East from the Ottoman Empire and pushing the Turks back to Turkey, gave the Arabs self-respect. However, although Lawrence was heroic, he also was human. The picture which emerges from this book, and many others, shows a complex man who got roughed up by the war as much as an ordinary soldier did. Years later, he no longer had the strength to advocate for the Arabs. He was deeply disturbed by the discriminatory and rapacious foreign policies he discovered that underlay the actions of the democracies and kingdoms of the West.
The book is a real door-stopper, and I think a bit of pruning could have been done, but it truly is a very good book. However, unlike the author and many reviewers, I do not think it includes enough Middle Eastern viewpoints, history and much analysis of the impact of Islam on the politics and rivalries pre-existing before WWI. It's a big book as it is, but a few paragraphs here and there would have given it more of a nuanced tone, instead of one of only 'How the White Man Messed Up the Arabs,' with the usual epilogue stapled in the back, 'They'd Be Rich Democracies Just Like Us IF We Hadn't Been So Greedy and Racist.' The Arabs were already messed up and technologically primitive because of their ongoing regional wars and the religious domination of their culture long before the West discovered them.
The West, then and now, tends to take on ALL responsibility for locally-caused regional problems, which is a kind of paternalism as well as demeaning to the locals, even if it is a well-meant mea culpa. The book describes some of the tribal chieftains indicating they would have preferred the United States to be their patron after the War, instead of the mean English and French, but as recent history has shown (past history, too) nation building is not possible, even if it's the less-rapacious USA as overlords (we only want their resources and their love, not the country, generally).
Afghanistan is seen by the West as culturally Neanderthaloid and laughable - yet how many major powers have now been defeated by those backwoods ignoramuses of Afghanistan? The Taliban is poised to take over Kabul as soon as the West leaves. Yes, it's sad and bad, especially for the women, but I'm sure Kabul will only miss all of those dollars pouring in without accountability. But the Afghans have already survived first the English and then the Russian invasions previously, which occurred before the USA and NATO. After all of us have left, not once have the Afghans assimilated anything or changed their customs, which have been solidly in place for centuries. Apparently indoor plumbing, modern medicine and electricity aren't the inducement to modernize as the West expects of many cultures.
(Edit: July, 2017. Currently, the Chinese are attempting to become a patron of Afghanistan...)
Muslim Africa, Asia and the Near East population majorities prefer, support, and vote for, when voting is allowed, theocratic dictators who take all of the countries' wealth for themselves, and who modernize if and when they feel like it, even when our ambassadors/CIA meddle and despite every attempt the West makes to force modern technology and financial partnerships on them.
I could, and have, spoken 900 page tomes myself on how the West and all of its modern ways and secular education models are rejected by Muslim nations.
Muslims had universities long before the West, but today many of their Ph.D. degrees that are awarded are based on an education primarily of Quran-directed science, philosophy and history, despite the availability of religion-free secular studies. What many Muslim doctorate students learn in Middle-Eastern colleges is equivalent to what our Evangelical Christian college doctorate students learn (i.e., Christian doctorate students graduate with the ability to argue using bible-based philosophy as 'science proofs' and logic that earth is 6,000 years old and was created in 6 days by god - a god for whose existence they also have learned certain philosophical-based arguments all of which looks to me quite circular - the world and physics is proof that a god exists because obviously a god made the world because a world and physics exists). Muslim colleges use the Quran the same way as Christian colleges use the Bible as the guiding source and direction of all studies.
Muslim primary schools are segregrated by gender and they are often discriminatory against the many various Muslim sects and tribes. Basic reading/writing is often learned by copying the Quran over and over for 6-8 years in many many many Muslim countries. Graduation occurs when a student is able to recite the entire Quran from memory - often the only measure of qualification for leadership in local politics and business.
They choose their culture as we do ours, despite the West's efforts to infiltrate or invade or trade.
The Arabs are the Arabs are the Arabs (unless they are Persians, which many Americans mistakenly mix up with India's Hindus and Sikhs as a single cohesive 'Arab Muslim' group). Muslim countries, or at least the founding Muslim tribes, have been Muslim for millennia (1,217 years, give or take some decades, using 800 CE as a baseline), and they've experienced multiple local military defeats and invasions and conquests and civil wars long before the USA became a country (America is only 241 years old).
WWI spilled over into their already blood-soaked lands, and then WWII came, but the Arabs have mostly removed the West's influences except for what they wanted to keep. Basically, Westerners kicked the overlord Turks out for them - who all of the Arabs hated. They use the West as a scapegoat, and we let them because most of us believe it, too. However, I still recall my shock, for example, in discovering black Africans sold black Africans to the West for slaves.
A broad reading of multicultural and comparative history books can free you of many delusions. I recommend 'Lawrence in Arabia', but more reading is necessary to fully understand the historical Middle East.
March 15, 2021
An excellent and unbiased examination of the exploits of T.E. Lawrence in Arabia during WWI. Beside the thorough treatment of Lawrence it also is a merciless review of the European imperialism that laid the foundation for much of the Middle east turmoil that we have today. If that wasn't enough the book further illustrates the utter senseless destruction of human life that was the family feud we know as WWI. In light of the coming 100th anniversary of the start of WWI a must read book for any serious history devotee.
July 18, 2022
As more than a thousand people have already noted, this is a good book. It is not some dusty historical account. Although Scott Anderson seems to suggest he is a historian in his opening notes, he is not. This is an entertaining treatment of the WWI Middle East theater written by an accomplished journalist and novelist. It is not entirely about Lawrence, the would be archaeologist and insurgent either. Three other main characters are added to tell the story from a variety of angles.
There is an American Standard Oil man turned spy, a German language professor become intelligence officer, and a Zionist agronomist working as a double agent against the Ottoman Empire. All four unlikely persons would become increasingly intertwined in the conflicts between British, Turkish, German and Arab regional interests. There is also a well developed supporting cast of the requisite military men and period politicians who need to be to be introduced along the way.
The plots and subplots are woven together in a writerly manner. At times you can almost forget that you are reading about actual events. The opposing factions are layed out clearly and are easily understood. Anderson is witty if somewhat glib in his portrayal of the actions and intentions of the players. Should I have a complaint it would be the book is too entertaining in a facile way. It reads like a screenplay. When will the movie be out? Oh right, it's already been done.
There is an American Standard Oil man turned spy, a German language professor become intelligence officer, and a Zionist agronomist working as a double agent against the Ottoman Empire. All four unlikely persons would become increasingly intertwined in the conflicts between British, Turkish, German and Arab regional interests. There is also a well developed supporting cast of the requisite military men and period politicians who need to be to be introduced along the way.
The plots and subplots are woven together in a writerly manner. At times you can almost forget that you are reading about actual events. The opposing factions are layed out clearly and are easily understood. Anderson is witty if somewhat glib in his portrayal of the actions and intentions of the players. Should I have a complaint it would be the book is too entertaining in a facile way. It reads like a screenplay. When will the movie be out? Oh right, it's already been done.
July 21, 2013
This is a fascinating book, for the most part well written. While the key character is T. E. Lawrence, the book is formally structured as an examination of the roles of and sometimes interaction among four characters: T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia), Curt Prufer (umlaut over the u), Aaron Aaronson, and William Yale.
A brief note about each. Lawrence began World War I on an archaeological expedition--and ended up as a celebrity. Prufer was a German who worked for German interests in the Middle East. Aaronsohn was a Zionist and an agronomist trying to enhance agriculture in Jewish areas. He also developed a spy network as World War I broke out. Yale was of the family after whom the college was named. He was, at the outset of WW I, an official for Standard Oil of New York (now Mobil) seeking access to lands that might be rich in oil. During the war, he became a representative of the United States' foreign policy apparatus.
The book provides considerable depth to each of these persons--but Lawrence is at the center. He is portrayed as somewhat enigmatic, someone who was almost a tragic character. While he fought for Arab independence, he knew of nefarious schemes by the English and French to be dominant forces in the Middle East after the war's end. He was a decent person who ended up tolerating acts of violence (such as watching as prisoners were killed after surrendering). The author suggests that, after a period of time at war, he became someone afflicted with Post traumatic stress disorder.
Aaronsohn, too, was an important figure. He tried to advance Zionist ideals and saw that working with Great Britain might be the best pathway. He developed an espionage network in the Middle East, with his sister as a key player. It took a great effort to get the British officials in the Middle East to pay attention. The spy network suffered greatly for his vision. The story also tells of the tension between Aaronsohn and a key leader among Zionists--Chaim Weizmann.
Other important actors are portrayed as well. The Hussein family, whose father and sons became important leaders in the Middle East after the war, albeit compromised in many respects by the English and French. Then, the ibn Saud family (ultimately becoming the rulers of Saudi Arabia).
The book does a very good job of outlining the complex interactions among countries, the cynicism of European powers in the Middle East, the negative results of this cynicism. The development of the Middle East was perverted by European efforts at domination, as the end of the book attests.
One final feature of note--the discussion of the fates of the major characters in this drama.
All in all, this is a fine volume, and one well worth looking at if one wishes to understand the roots of some current dysfunction in the region.
A brief note about each. Lawrence began World War I on an archaeological expedition--and ended up as a celebrity. Prufer was a German who worked for German interests in the Middle East. Aaronsohn was a Zionist and an agronomist trying to enhance agriculture in Jewish areas. He also developed a spy network as World War I broke out. Yale was of the family after whom the college was named. He was, at the outset of WW I, an official for Standard Oil of New York (now Mobil) seeking access to lands that might be rich in oil. During the war, he became a representative of the United States' foreign policy apparatus.
The book provides considerable depth to each of these persons--but Lawrence is at the center. He is portrayed as somewhat enigmatic, someone who was almost a tragic character. While he fought for Arab independence, he knew of nefarious schemes by the English and French to be dominant forces in the Middle East after the war's end. He was a decent person who ended up tolerating acts of violence (such as watching as prisoners were killed after surrendering). The author suggests that, after a period of time at war, he became someone afflicted with Post traumatic stress disorder.
Aaronsohn, too, was an important figure. He tried to advance Zionist ideals and saw that working with Great Britain might be the best pathway. He developed an espionage network in the Middle East, with his sister as a key player. It took a great effort to get the British officials in the Middle East to pay attention. The spy network suffered greatly for his vision. The story also tells of the tension between Aaronsohn and a key leader among Zionists--Chaim Weizmann.
Other important actors are portrayed as well. The Hussein family, whose father and sons became important leaders in the Middle East after the war, albeit compromised in many respects by the English and French. Then, the ibn Saud family (ultimately becoming the rulers of Saudi Arabia).
The book does a very good job of outlining the complex interactions among countries, the cynicism of European powers in the Middle East, the negative results of this cynicism. The development of the Middle East was perverted by European efforts at domination, as the end of the book attests.
One final feature of note--the discussion of the fates of the major characters in this drama.
All in all, this is a fine volume, and one well worth looking at if one wishes to understand the roots of some current dysfunction in the region.
September 24, 2013
Although I was familiar with a lot of the subject matter, Anderson’s book proved to be quite interesting. I learned a lot about the angle played by Standard Oil of New York (Socony), more or less as amoral war profiteers (a la Krupp in Germany) and, more particularly, the players other than T E Lawrence. They seem to have been every bit as interesting and adventurous as Lawrence, albeit less driven to test themselves physically.
Anderson writes that “Lawrence was able to become ‘Lawrence of Arabia’ because no one was paying much attention.’ Anderson portrays Lawrence as a lone operator, even though the British actually committed massive resources to the Middle East during the war. There was the Gallipoli campaign, the Mesopotamian campaign, the conquest of the Levant, and Allenby’s Egypt expedition. Anderson portays the Hashemite uprising as free-ranging operation, making no mention of the British and French officers attached to it.
Anderson does a good job stripping away much of the supposed "glamour" and "adventure" that make up our mythologized, popular image of Lawrence's Arab Revolt. Many of the Arabs joined more out of desire for British gold and the loot of war. The desert they fought in had little clean water and many flies. Wounded Arabs and Turks were left to die if wounded on the battlefield, and few prisoners were taken by either side. Lawrence himself killed many unarmed warriors, both Arab and Turk.
Anderson gives us a layered and nuanced look at how France, Britain, Germany and the ottoman Empire developed policies regarding the region or tried to govern it or to shape the way in which it would be governed after the war. Fiascos like the British campaign for Gallipoli do not show Winston Churchill in his finest hour but the book is frank about what was and a bit wistful seeming about what could have been if local advice had been followed to focus a landing on Alexandretta. Similarly, the author expands his view from an Arabia-focused account offered by Lawrence to discuss the ways in which German armed forces and advisors worked with the Ottomans to try to topple British rule in Egypt and to deny passage of British colonial forces to Europe through the Suez Canal.
Anderson creates three-dimensional characters whether he's describing politicians, generals, or spies, or whether he's telling about the Turks, Arabs, Zionists, or the British. T.E. Lawrence particularly comes to life in Mr. Anderson's book. Those expecting Peter O'Toole from the movie Lawrence of Arabia may be disappointed, because the T.E. Lawrence in Mr. Anderson's telling is far more complex and nuanced. Although he was a great tactician, and at times, a brutal warrior, he came to regret and was deeply troubled by his wartime experiences. And Anderson shows how everything that Lawrence had fought for, gave up his own humanity for, and arguably betrayed his country for (by revealing details of a secret treaty to Faisal), came to nothing as a result of a five-minute conversation between Lloyd George and Clemenceau, who proceeded to divide up the corpse of the Ottoman Empire and give the Arabs less than they wanted.
Anderson also introduces us to some of the other oddballs who were running amok in the region at the time. There's a Zionist agronomist, a German diplomat trying to start a jihad, an American oilman-turned-spy, and of course, Mark Sykes, who had a fondness for firing off memos proposing neat solutions to the region's problems, usually in direct opposition to those he had advocated weeks or even days earlier. Anderson comments that the reason TE Lawrence was able to become "Lawrence of Arabia" was that nobody was paying much attention, The same goes for these other characters too -- arguably, a group of unappointed freelancers, acting on their own impulses, did as much to shape the region as any of the politicians or generals did.
The thoughtful analysis of the region with the background tapestry of multiple Arab contenders, incompetent British Army and bureaucracy juxtaposed with the German distorted desire for influence, the Ottoman regime's ability to do well in spite of themselves, the French somewhat delusional imperial desires, the cold-blooded Standard Oil capitalism and the fledgling Zionist movement in Palestine. Though Lawrence was quite eccentric and uniques, other individuals representing often competing agendas were also intensively involved in the region as well.
There a couple typos: for example, on page 64, 1914 is rendered as "2014", on page 162, swathes is rendered as "swatches", on page 283, 257, 000 is rendered as "j257,000".
Anderson writes that “Lawrence was able to become ‘Lawrence of Arabia’ because no one was paying much attention.’ Anderson portrays Lawrence as a lone operator, even though the British actually committed massive resources to the Middle East during the war. There was the Gallipoli campaign, the Mesopotamian campaign, the conquest of the Levant, and Allenby’s Egypt expedition. Anderson portays the Hashemite uprising as free-ranging operation, making no mention of the British and French officers attached to it.
Anderson does a good job stripping away much of the supposed "glamour" and "adventure" that make up our mythologized, popular image of Lawrence's Arab Revolt. Many of the Arabs joined more out of desire for British gold and the loot of war. The desert they fought in had little clean water and many flies. Wounded Arabs and Turks were left to die if wounded on the battlefield, and few prisoners were taken by either side. Lawrence himself killed many unarmed warriors, both Arab and Turk.
Anderson gives us a layered and nuanced look at how France, Britain, Germany and the ottoman Empire developed policies regarding the region or tried to govern it or to shape the way in which it would be governed after the war. Fiascos like the British campaign for Gallipoli do not show Winston Churchill in his finest hour but the book is frank about what was and a bit wistful seeming about what could have been if local advice had been followed to focus a landing on Alexandretta. Similarly, the author expands his view from an Arabia-focused account offered by Lawrence to discuss the ways in which German armed forces and advisors worked with the Ottomans to try to topple British rule in Egypt and to deny passage of British colonial forces to Europe through the Suez Canal.
Anderson creates three-dimensional characters whether he's describing politicians, generals, or spies, or whether he's telling about the Turks, Arabs, Zionists, or the British. T.E. Lawrence particularly comes to life in Mr. Anderson's book. Those expecting Peter O'Toole from the movie Lawrence of Arabia may be disappointed, because the T.E. Lawrence in Mr. Anderson's telling is far more complex and nuanced. Although he was a great tactician, and at times, a brutal warrior, he came to regret and was deeply troubled by his wartime experiences. And Anderson shows how everything that Lawrence had fought for, gave up his own humanity for, and arguably betrayed his country for (by revealing details of a secret treaty to Faisal), came to nothing as a result of a five-minute conversation between Lloyd George and Clemenceau, who proceeded to divide up the corpse of the Ottoman Empire and give the Arabs less than they wanted.
Anderson also introduces us to some of the other oddballs who were running amok in the region at the time. There's a Zionist agronomist, a German diplomat trying to start a jihad, an American oilman-turned-spy, and of course, Mark Sykes, who had a fondness for firing off memos proposing neat solutions to the region's problems, usually in direct opposition to those he had advocated weeks or even days earlier. Anderson comments that the reason TE Lawrence was able to become "Lawrence of Arabia" was that nobody was paying much attention, The same goes for these other characters too -- arguably, a group of unappointed freelancers, acting on their own impulses, did as much to shape the region as any of the politicians or generals did.
The thoughtful analysis of the region with the background tapestry of multiple Arab contenders, incompetent British Army and bureaucracy juxtaposed with the German distorted desire for influence, the Ottoman regime's ability to do well in spite of themselves, the French somewhat delusional imperial desires, the cold-blooded Standard Oil capitalism and the fledgling Zionist movement in Palestine. Though Lawrence was quite eccentric and uniques, other individuals representing often competing agendas were also intensively involved in the region as well.
There a couple typos: for example, on page 64, 1914 is rendered as "2014", on page 162, swathes is rendered as "swatches", on page 283, 257, 000 is rendered as "j257,000".
September 2, 2013
As I write this review, the horrors of the civil war in Syria fill the headlines and the US is considering yet another disastrous intervention in the Middle East. Scott Anderson, following the celebrated figure of TE Lawrence through the deserts of Arabia, has written an excellent history of how the debacle began – Britain and France scrambling over the "Great Loot" of the collapsing Ottoman Empire; their perfidy toward the Arabs they had encouraged to revolt, including the portentous Balfour Declaration that set the stage for Israel's disenfranchisement of Palestinians; and the origin of the US "tradition of fundamentally misreading the situation in the Middle East... that the American intelligence community would rigorously maintain for the next ninety-five years."
The story has been well-told before, but Anderson's account is sharp, fresh and frequently entertaining. Lawrence, the flawed hero at the heart of his book, deserves his celebrity. The book begins with Lawrence refusing a knighthood (apparently the first time that had happened) and ends with the broken warrior writing a friend a week before his death, "I imagine leaves must feel like this after they have fallen from their tree." Yet Lawrence's exploits – often brilliant, sometimes unconscionable – provide a compelling vantage from which to survey the action of "the first great cataclysm of the twentieth century."
The story has been well-told before, but Anderson's account is sharp, fresh and frequently entertaining. Lawrence, the flawed hero at the heart of his book, deserves his celebrity. The book begins with Lawrence refusing a knighthood (apparently the first time that had happened) and ends with the broken warrior writing a friend a week before his death, "I imagine leaves must feel like this after they have fallen from their tree." Yet Lawrence's exploits – often brilliant, sometimes unconscionable – provide a compelling vantage from which to survey the action of "the first great cataclysm of the twentieth century."
August 13, 2016
The book is HEAVILY detailed in every day minutiae of TE Lawrence and his peers. The subtitle "... the making of the modern middle east" is a bit misleading.
Its generally about micro politics, personal experiences, family histories and individual war maneuvers by the main players on the ground during WWI.
There is little information on the sociological, geographical or governmental arrangements in the middle east leading up to WWI or after the war. Instead it is about TE Lawrence and his specific experiences- which frankly- did not need another book to rehash in such minute detail. The region as a whole isn't much more clear to me now, but I slogged through a whole lot of excruciating detail for little reward on a global scale of present day understanding.
Its generally about micro politics, personal experiences, family histories and individual war maneuvers by the main players on the ground during WWI.
There is little information on the sociological, geographical or governmental arrangements in the middle east leading up to WWI or after the war. Instead it is about TE Lawrence and his specific experiences- which frankly- did not need another book to rehash in such minute detail. The region as a whole isn't much more clear to me now, but I slogged through a whole lot of excruciating detail for little reward on a global scale of present day understanding.
January 14, 2024
Extremely readable and interesting.
Before Lawrence OF Arabia, the legend, was Lawrence IN Arabia, the story of a colonial representative betrayed by his own side. T.E. Lawrence formed alliances, but was undercut by secret agreements between France and Britain to carve up Palestine and ignore the promises made to local groups during the course of the war.
Fascinating. As a follow-up to this I'm going to read Margaret MacMillan's Paris 1919 for more insight into the Treaty of Versailles signed outside Paris after World War I. Lawrence was outraged by the duplicity, and his criticism was so problematic his own government banned him from the Versailles negotiations which doled out territories like soup to the greedy.
Before Lawrence OF Arabia, the legend, was Lawrence IN Arabia, the story of a colonial representative betrayed by his own side. T.E. Lawrence formed alliances, but was undercut by secret agreements between France and Britain to carve up Palestine and ignore the promises made to local groups during the course of the war.
Fascinating. As a follow-up to this I'm going to read Margaret MacMillan's Paris 1919 for more insight into the Treaty of Versailles signed outside Paris after World War I. Lawrence was outraged by the duplicity, and his criticism was so problematic his own government banned him from the Versailles negotiations which doled out territories like soup to the greedy.
November 24, 2021
Interesting read! Well researched and detailed. When I read about this time in history, I tend to concentrate on France and Germany and forget about what was happening in other areas of the world. A lot of learning happened while reading this book!!
December 27, 2020
”Аз все още си оставам вечно неудовлетворен. Мразя да съм отпред, мразя да съм отзад, не обичам отговорностите и не се подчинявам на заповедите.”
Т. Е. Лорънс
Мечтите за величие и наличието на големи територии са опасна комбинация. В навечерието на Първата Световна Война Османската империя владее все още впечатляващо големи и разнообразни като население територии. Такива са териториите на Сирия и Арабия, от които ще се роди целият Близък Изток, познат днес.
Скот Андерсън не оставя читателя да скучае, изследването му е почти роман с цяла галери�� от герои. Събитията обхващат периода 1914 - 1919 г. с кратък обзор на последвалите събития.
Британският археолог Т. Е. Лорънс сбъдва желанието си за приключения, сурово-аскетичен живот и знания в пясъците на Палестина. Археологическата му кариера не продължава дълго, заменена с работа във военното британско разузнаване в Кайро. А от Кайро до прикрепването му като военен съветник на Фейсал, потомък на рода на Пророка Мохамед и бъдещ крал на Ирак, крачката не е особено голяма, и нетърпеливият Лорънс стръвно се хвърля в битката.
В Сирия и Арабия са се ��рицелили мнозина и всеки си е заплюл парче или пък я иска цялата. Британците, чийто представител е Лорънс. Французите, заплюли си Дамаск и Бейрут за след войната, и сключили споразумение под масата с добрата стара Англия чрез Съглашението Сайкс - Пико. Арабите, видели удобния момент да отхвърлят властта на Османската Империя, но все още разцепени във враждуващи кланове и религиозни течения, сред които още тогава Лорънс посочва като опасност тъкмо уахабитите на племенния вожд Ибн Сауд, дал името си на днешна Саудитска Арабия. Петролните концерни като американския “Стандард Ойл”, командировали в района еквивалент на днешнит�� разузнавачи, но с по-корпоративна мисия. Германците, стремящи се да удържат този огромен фронт стабилен. Самите турци, противопоставящи се на всякакво откъсване на територии. Ционистите на Хаим Вайцман и Арон Аронсон, тихо или шумно прокарващи идеята за еврейска държава в Палестина, като за начало - под британски мандат.
На тази арена Лорънс има възможността да блесне и да изгори, да нанесе щети на себе си и на историята. Забележителна по мащаб е играта, в която се впуска: да защитава арабската кауза и независимост, да лавира и да манипулира събитията както срещу външни врагове, така и срещу директивите на собственото си правителство, и - уви - срещу самите араби, които често сами режат клона, на който са. Борба на толкова фронтове, дори и подкрепена с бърза мисъл, дарба за интриги, чувство за месианска мисия и огромна воля и издържливост, в крайна сметка е обречена. Огромна смелост се иска да се опълчиш срещу решения на собственото си правителство, счетени за несправедливи, но Лорънс успява - поне донякъде, майсторски разминавайки се с военния съд. Но да свърши почти сам работата на цяла бъдеща нация, която е в процес на турбулентно формиране, не е дори по неговите сили. Собствената му психика и физика накрая отхвърлят този товар. А мечтата
за голяма и единна арабска държава си остава мираж, налълцсна на апетитни парчета по време на Парижката мирна конференция и последвалите я делби, пазарлъци, конфликти и преврати.
Исторически факт е обаче, че първите крале на Ирак и Йордания през 20 век са “творения” на Лорънс. Анализите му се ползват и днес.
Т. Е. Лорънс
Мечтите за величие и наличието на големи територии са опасна комбинация. В навечерието на Първата Световна Война Османската империя владее все още впечатляващо големи и разнообразни като население територии. Такива са териториите на Сирия и Арабия, от които ще се роди целият Близък Изток, познат днес.
Скот Андерсън не оставя читателя да скучае, изследването му е почти роман с цяла галери�� от герои. Събитията обхващат периода 1914 - 1919 г. с кратък обзор на последвалите събития.
Британският археолог Т. Е. Лорънс сбъдва желанието си за приключения, сурово-аскетичен живот и знания в пясъците на Палестина. Археологическата му кариера не продължава дълго, заменена с работа във военното британско разузнаване в Кайро. А от Кайро до прикрепването му като военен съветник на Фейсал, потомък на рода на Пророка Мохамед и бъдещ крал на Ирак, крачката не е особено голяма, и нетърпеливият Лорънс стръвно се хвърля в битката.
В Сирия и Арабия са се ��рицелили мнозина и всеки си е заплюл парче или пък я иска цялата. Британците, чийто представител е Лорънс. Французите, заплюли си Дамаск и Бейрут за след войната, и сключили споразумение под масата с добрата стара Англия чрез Съглашението Сайкс - Пико. Арабите, видели удобния момент да отхвърлят властта на Османската Империя, но все още разцепени във враждуващи кланове и религиозни течения, сред които още тогава Лорънс посочва като опасност тъкмо уахабитите на племенния вожд Ибн Сауд, дал името си на днешна Саудитска Арабия. Петролните концерни като американския “Стандард Ойл”, командировали в района еквивалент на днешнит�� разузнавачи, но с по-корпоративна мисия. Германците, стремящи се да удържат този огромен фронт стабилен. Самите турци, противопоставящи се на всякакво откъсване на територии. Ционистите на Хаим Вайцман и Арон Аронсон, тихо или шумно прокарващи идеята за еврейска държава в Палестина, като за начало - под британски мандат.
На тази арена Лорънс има възможността да блесне и да изгори, да нанесе щети на себе си и на историята. Забележителна по мащаб е играта, в която се впуска: да защитава арабската кауза и независимост, да лавира и да манипулира събитията както срещу външни врагове, така и срещу директивите на собственото си правителство, и - уви - срещу самите араби, които често сами режат клона, на който са. Борба на толкова фронтове, дори и подкрепена с бърза мисъл, дарба за интриги, чувство за месианска мисия и огромна воля и издържливост, в крайна сметка е обречена. Огромна смелост се иска да се опълчиш срещу решения на собственото си правителство, счетени за несправедливи, но Лорънс успява - поне донякъде, майсторски разминавайки се с военния съд. Но да свърши почти сам работата на цяла бъдеща нация, която е в процес на турбулентно формиране, не е дори по неговите сили. Собствената му психика и физика накрая отхвърлят този товар. А мечтата
за голяма и единна арабска държава си остава мираж, налълцсна на апетитни парчета по време на Парижката мирна конференция и последвалите я делби, пазарлъци, конфликти и преврати.
Исторически факт е обаче, че първите крале на Ирак и Йордания през 20 век са “творения” на Лорънс. Анализите му се ползват и днес.
May 6, 2013
This is not the David Lean film of a similar title (although its heft is close to the film's length - should come with a musical entr'acte). It's a magnificently researched tome that follows the famous T.E. Lawrence along with other notable gentlemen whose fingerprints still mark the Middle East.
Opening before the war, and epiloguing after the Paris peace conferences, there is surprisingly little desert warfare in the book. Lawrence doesn't hit his camel-riding stride until early 1917, which gives him just shy of two years in the saddle. But, steeped in the region's history and culture for nearly a decade before, his deeds of that time propelled him into legend. Outside of those famous years, Lawrence is enmeshed in the endless duplicities and machinations of the Great Powers, often finding or placing himself at the centre of events and shaping them according to his own peculiar and shifting view of the world. Those familiar with the "Great Game" of the British Raj will instantly recognize its transplantation to this corner of the world. The second part of the subtitle, Making of the Modern Middle East may be a bit of a stretch - Anderson seems to throw it in towards the end - but the first part, War, Deceit, Imperial Folly, is entirely accurate. The common phrase "fit of absence of mind" used to describe British Imperialism cannot be used here. They knew (or at least different departments knew different things) exactly what they were doing, and few had any qualms about committing to contradictory treaties and promises. It will take a while, if it ever happens, before another author cleans up the nearly villainous image of Britain drawn here in what will become the definitive book about the period.
Follow me on Twitter:@Dr_A_Taubman
Opening before the war, and epiloguing after the Paris peace conferences, there is surprisingly little desert warfare in the book. Lawrence doesn't hit his camel-riding stride until early 1917, which gives him just shy of two years in the saddle. But, steeped in the region's history and culture for nearly a decade before, his deeds of that time propelled him into legend. Outside of those famous years, Lawrence is enmeshed in the endless duplicities and machinations of the Great Powers, often finding or placing himself at the centre of events and shaping them according to his own peculiar and shifting view of the world. Those familiar with the "Great Game" of the British Raj will instantly recognize its transplantation to this corner of the world. The second part of the subtitle, Making of the Modern Middle East may be a bit of a stretch - Anderson seems to throw it in towards the end - but the first part, War, Deceit, Imperial Folly, is entirely accurate. The common phrase "fit of absence of mind" used to describe British Imperialism cannot be used here. They knew (or at least different departments knew different things) exactly what they were doing, and few had any qualms about committing to contradictory treaties and promises. It will take a while, if it ever happens, before another author cleans up the nearly villainous image of Britain drawn here in what will become the definitive book about the period.
Follow me on Twitter:@Dr_A_Taubman
July 29, 2014
There is no time in the past one hundred years that the events chronicled in Scott Anderson's epic Lawrence in Arabia: War, Deceit, Imperial Folly and the Making of the Modern Middle East would not have astonishing and heartbreaking relevance to our understanding of conflicts in every corner of the Middle East, and by the blurry extension of artificially-created borders, South Asia. Yet, to read this book during the week that Israel launched a ground offensive in Gaza, U.S. officials declared the Islamist State in Iraq a threat greater than al-Qaeda, and as the horror in Syria continues unabated and we commemorate the 100th anniversary of the start of World War I... well. Wow.
History is now. History is the top of the hour news updates. Today's bloodshed is born of yesterday's ignorance, power plays, and backdoor agreements.
The central narrative of Lawrence in Arabia does indeed revolve around the young, physically slight, Oxford scholar T.E. Lawrence, and his complicated relationship with the Middle East, but this book is so much more than a biography of one man. It is a multi-character examination of the end of the Ottoman Empire, the first stirrings of the nation of Israel, and the carving of the enormous space between the Sahara desert and Afghanistan, between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, the Indian Ocean and the Red Sea into the modern Middle East.
Anderson introduces us to Prince Faisal, who becomes king of Iraq; Djemal Pasha, the governor of Syria; Curt Prüfer, a German diplomat who conspires with the Ottomans to ignite rebellion against the British Empire; Aaron Aaronsohn, an agronomist who becomes an activist spy determined to see the establishment of an Israeli state; William Yale, of the University Yales, who works as an employee of Standard Oil until the U.S. State Department recruits him as an operative; Mark Sykes, the posh aristocrat who carves up the Middle East with his French counterpart, Georges Picot, only to double-cross the French in the end (but have no sympathy for the cuckolded French. Really). But it is T.E. Lawrence's actions and his physical and emotional journey through the Middle East--the stuff of legends--that captivate the reader and propel her through this fascinating, if not overwhelmingly detailed, account.
These men, and a handful of women--namely Sarah Aaronsohn, Aaron's sister, and Minna Weizmann, Prüfer's lover--act against the backdrop of World War I as it builds, then explodes. Anderson relives the horror of Gallipoli and Britain's devastating lack of imagination and intellect, Turkey's genocide against ethnic Armenians, and the role oil was beginning to play in the fight over who would claim which parts of the Middle East when the dust finally settled. But of course, the dust has never settled.
Scott Anderson succeeds in taking complex, convoluted, and baffling events and distills them with great storytelling aplomb into something the lay historian can follow and appreciate. Highly recommended.
History is now. History is the top of the hour news updates. Today's bloodshed is born of yesterday's ignorance, power plays, and backdoor agreements.
The central narrative of Lawrence in Arabia does indeed revolve around the young, physically slight, Oxford scholar T.E. Lawrence, and his complicated relationship with the Middle East, but this book is so much more than a biography of one man. It is a multi-character examination of the end of the Ottoman Empire, the first stirrings of the nation of Israel, and the carving of the enormous space between the Sahara desert and Afghanistan, between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, the Indian Ocean and the Red Sea into the modern Middle East.
Anderson introduces us to Prince Faisal, who becomes king of Iraq; Djemal Pasha, the governor of Syria; Curt Prüfer, a German diplomat who conspires with the Ottomans to ignite rebellion against the British Empire; Aaron Aaronsohn, an agronomist who becomes an activist spy determined to see the establishment of an Israeli state; William Yale, of the University Yales, who works as an employee of Standard Oil until the U.S. State Department recruits him as an operative; Mark Sykes, the posh aristocrat who carves up the Middle East with his French counterpart, Georges Picot, only to double-cross the French in the end (but have no sympathy for the cuckolded French. Really). But it is T.E. Lawrence's actions and his physical and emotional journey through the Middle East--the stuff of legends--that captivate the reader and propel her through this fascinating, if not overwhelmingly detailed, account.
These men, and a handful of women--namely Sarah Aaronsohn, Aaron's sister, and Minna Weizmann, Prüfer's lover--act against the backdrop of World War I as it builds, then explodes. Anderson relives the horror of Gallipoli and Britain's devastating lack of imagination and intellect, Turkey's genocide against ethnic Armenians, and the role oil was beginning to play in the fight over who would claim which parts of the Middle East when the dust finally settled. But of course, the dust has never settled.
Scott Anderson succeeds in taking complex, convoluted, and baffling events and distills them with great storytelling aplomb into something the lay historian can follow and appreciate. Highly recommended.
March 26, 2016
A well written overview of T. E. Lawrence's contributions to British and Arab WW I victories in Western Arabia and Syria. Scott Anderson focuses on the Middle East but he also does a good job of outlining events in Europe. Not knowing much about WWI I was shocked by the scale of the killing. How little did those in power value life to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of lives in such futile battles? The arrogance which led to such bloodshed is shown to have extended to foreign policy as British and French diplomats divide and redivide spoils of a war not even close to being won. Maybe something similar happens during every war.
There is a big cast of characters and they are all quite fascinating but they can be a bit tricky to keep track of. I especially got mixed up with the rotating cast of Lawrence's higher ups. I found myself wishing I'd read it all in one go so as to avoid having to go back and look up who was who. The kindle version has a feature called X-ray which pulls up blurbs on people and places that came in handy.
There are many tantalizing what ifs along the way. Chaim Weizmann and Prince Faisal lobbying the peace conference for a joint Arab-Jewish state (there's even a picture of them together wearing keffiyehs), a movement of Syrian exiles lobbying for an American protectorate "...an idea that appeals to both Christian and to Moslem." And the pipe dream of King Hussein of an Arab nation encompassing all of modern day Iraq, Syria, Israel, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. It's hard to resist thoughts of what might have been but Anderson does a good job of dismantling these hopes in the epilogue although pointing out "it's hard to imagine that any of this could possibly have produced a sadder history than what has actually transpired over the past century..."
There is a big cast of characters and they are all quite fascinating but they can be a bit tricky to keep track of. I especially got mixed up with the rotating cast of Lawrence's higher ups. I found myself wishing I'd read it all in one go so as to avoid having to go back and look up who was who. The kindle version has a feature called X-ray which pulls up blurbs on people and places that came in handy.
There are many tantalizing what ifs along the way. Chaim Weizmann and Prince Faisal lobbying the peace conference for a joint Arab-Jewish state (there's even a picture of them together wearing keffiyehs), a movement of Syrian exiles lobbying for an American protectorate "...an idea that appeals to both Christian and to Moslem." And the pipe dream of King Hussein of an Arab nation encompassing all of modern day Iraq, Syria, Israel, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. It's hard to resist thoughts of what might have been but Anderson does a good job of dismantling these hopes in the epilogue although pointing out "it's hard to imagine that any of this could possibly have produced a sadder history than what has actually transpired over the past century..."
May 11, 2017
Can history / historians be objective? Or will there always be some degree of subjectivity?
I picked up on this, thinking that it would be an in depth account of the life of TE Lawrence. It is not. It was a serendipitous mistake because not only does it give a perspective on the person of Lawrence, it paints a picture on a much bigger canvas, an account on the beginnings of modern day Middle East. It is an impressive work, with many fine details and plenty of stories and characters. Set primarily during World War I in the countries of the Middle East, it recounts Lawrence’s exploits and traces his influences.
Three other persons, Aaron Aaronsohn, Curt Prufer and William Yale, are also featured out of the long, bewildering list of who’s who. Like Lawrence, they have some form of espionage, military intelligence or diplomatic role. Each is a representative of their own nation’s secret agenda. But of these agent provocateurs, it is Lawrence who holds a different objective from his own country, makes the most significant and lasting impact on the region and thus became the most famous.
Lawrence is an enigmatic figure. He is not exactly a warrior, a strategist or a leader, yet he had such a pivotal role in the difficult years of the Great War. The stories surrounding him range from the admirable to the scandalous, from credible to disingenuous, from compassionate to cold-hearted. The author should be given credit for attempting to maintain objectivity in his account of Lawrence, presenting the differing views and information sources. Still, there remains an aura of mystery surrounding the person of Lawrence. (The author does have quite strong views in certain areas. For example, he is highly critical of Mark Sykes.)
The following is just a small selection of insights into Lawrence the person:
The effect of losing two brothers in just five months seemed to draw Lawrence even deeper into his emotional shell.
Over the course of his wartime service, Lawrence was awarded a number of medals and ribbons, but with his profound disdain for such things, he either threw them away or never bothered to collect them.
”Lawrence is quite fit, but much oppressed by the risk and magnitude of the job before him. He opened his heart to me last night and told me that he felt there was so much for him still to do in this world, places to dig, peoples to help, that it seemed horrible to have it all cut off, as he feels it will be, for he feels that, while he may do the [Yarmuk] job, he has little or no chance of getting away himself.”
The author gives a very informative account of the Middle Eastern conflict, and it is not difficult to see how it was the sideshow of the Great War. The “Sick Man of Europe”, the Ottoman Empire, was in its twilight, and the various nations of the Middle East were hungry for autonomy. Having their own schemes were the colonial powers of France and Britain, waiting to swoop in and grab the spoils. It is interesting to see how all this history ties in with all the events that happened since, till today.
History is often the tale of small moments – chance encounters or casual decisions or sheer coincidence – that seem of little consequence at the time, but somehow fuse with other small moments to produce something momentous, the proverbial flapping of a butterfly’s wings that triggers a hurricane.
Overall, the book is well written, exciting without being sensationalist. The book does get rather dry and featureless in the middle with the desert events (heh heh! Couldn’t resist that one), although it picks up again nearer the end. The epilogue is very nicely done and wraps things up for the main characters as well as the nations, all the way up to the present day.
A few more thoughts:
I think I can now appreciate a bit better the novels coming from Middle Eastern authors.
The world is tainted with selfishness, hate and depravity. It needs more compassion, love and integrity.
I picked up on this, thinking that it would be an in depth account of the life of TE Lawrence. It is not. It was a serendipitous mistake because not only does it give a perspective on the person of Lawrence, it paints a picture on a much bigger canvas, an account on the beginnings of modern day Middle East. It is an impressive work, with many fine details and plenty of stories and characters. Set primarily during World War I in the countries of the Middle East, it recounts Lawrence’s exploits and traces his influences.
Three other persons, Aaron Aaronsohn, Curt Prufer and William Yale, are also featured out of the long, bewildering list of who’s who. Like Lawrence, they have some form of espionage, military intelligence or diplomatic role. Each is a representative of their own nation’s secret agenda. But of these agent provocateurs, it is Lawrence who holds a different objective from his own country, makes the most significant and lasting impact on the region and thus became the most famous.
Lawrence is an enigmatic figure. He is not exactly a warrior, a strategist or a leader, yet he had such a pivotal role in the difficult years of the Great War. The stories surrounding him range from the admirable to the scandalous, from credible to disingenuous, from compassionate to cold-hearted. The author should be given credit for attempting to maintain objectivity in his account of Lawrence, presenting the differing views and information sources. Still, there remains an aura of mystery surrounding the person of Lawrence. (The author does have quite strong views in certain areas. For example, he is highly critical of Mark Sykes.)
The following is just a small selection of insights into Lawrence the person:
The effect of losing two brothers in just five months seemed to draw Lawrence even deeper into his emotional shell.
Over the course of his wartime service, Lawrence was awarded a number of medals and ribbons, but with his profound disdain for such things, he either threw them away or never bothered to collect them.
”Lawrence is quite fit, but much oppressed by the risk and magnitude of the job before him. He opened his heart to me last night and told me that he felt there was so much for him still to do in this world, places to dig, peoples to help, that it seemed horrible to have it all cut off, as he feels it will be, for he feels that, while he may do the [Yarmuk] job, he has little or no chance of getting away himself.”
The author gives a very informative account of the Middle Eastern conflict, and it is not difficult to see how it was the sideshow of the Great War. The “Sick Man of Europe”, the Ottoman Empire, was in its twilight, and the various nations of the Middle East were hungry for autonomy. Having their own schemes were the colonial powers of France and Britain, waiting to swoop in and grab the spoils. It is interesting to see how all this history ties in with all the events that happened since, till today.
History is often the tale of small moments – chance encounters or casual decisions or sheer coincidence – that seem of little consequence at the time, but somehow fuse with other small moments to produce something momentous, the proverbial flapping of a butterfly’s wings that triggers a hurricane.
Overall, the book is well written, exciting without being sensationalist. The book does get rather dry and featureless in the middle with the desert events (heh heh! Couldn’t resist that one), although it picks up again nearer the end. The epilogue is very nicely done and wraps things up for the main characters as well as the nations, all the way up to the present day.
A few more thoughts:
I think I can now appreciate a bit better the novels coming from Middle Eastern authors.
The world is tainted with selfishness, hate and depravity. It needs more compassion, love and integrity.
Read
April 16, 2014I'll spare y'all the seemingly obligatory, world weary, gently sorrowful musings as to how the Middle East ended in its current predicaments - oh, the humanity! - and concentrate on the book itself.
The writing is generally great, understandable, quick, colorful - but it is a little too long, a little too novelistic in places. Lots of "...as they gazed out onto the trackless desert..." and "as every traveler in the desert knows..." and a touch of what Barbara Tuchman called the "surely" school of history. ("As Napoleon watched the ship recede from Elba, he must surely have...") Excising a lot of these flight of fancy - and helpfully shortening the book by a hundred odd pages - might have done it some good.
I'm not really up on the historiography of Lawrence, which the book sometimes seemed to assume one ought to be. Some parts - maybe the whole thing - feel like they're taking a stance in an argument about his actions and character that I just wasn't privy too. Not in itself a problem, but it would have been nice to get more of that background for the uninitiated.
Anderson is willing to undercut and question Lawrence at time, very ably digging into his letters and memoirs as text, so to speak, to note when something seems too far fetched, too neat, too cliched, comparing against other sources and common sense (where available). On the other hand, there are other episodes - just as grand and cinematic, just as personal and devoid of corroboration - he accepts seemingly at face value. What are the sources? Why reject some and accept others? NOTE MARKERS IN THE TEXT. PLEASE. PLEASE.
The book also takes the respectful sort of tack and refuses to dive too deeply into the persona of Lawrence himself. I thought this was a good idea for the most part, not turning it into a gossipy biography (given what the book is really about, which I might admittedly not be quite the target audience of) but still a touch frustrating. Passing references to mental breakdowns, possible homosexuality, ambition or lack thereof, etc, really could have stood to be expounded on a little. At least in (AGAIN) pointing out what the sources here were would have been useful, especially since a lot of it did seem to have some bearing on actual alliances, decisions and historically relevant courses of action. (Plus, I'm ok with gossiping about the dead.)
Ultimately, since the politics and the basic historical outline - and even the details of the diplomatic wrangling - are all very familiar to me (this is the stuff of Israeli highschool history finals. Wake me up in the middle of the night, to this day, and I can tell you all about the Hussein-McMahon correspondence) what I was hoping for was more detail about Lawrence and the Arab Rebellion. That's not really the focus, unfortunately.
The addition of an American oil man/intelligence worker, German spy and Jewish Zionist ringleader (some nice detail on Aaronsohn, who's been a bit hagiographed in Israel in some quarters and therefore studiously ignored in others) as "supporting characters" does something to flesh out the times and the scope - but the Arabs actually remain rather fuzzy personages. There's very little sense of the political meaning of the rebellion for those who conducted it or even very much military detail. It's more of a history of how the British bureaucracy of WW1 managed the rebellion and the imperial slavering at the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire than a history of the rebellion itself, which is a bit of a shame at the end of the day.
The writing is generally great, understandable, quick, colorful - but it is a little too long, a little too novelistic in places. Lots of "...as they gazed out onto the trackless desert..." and "as every traveler in the desert knows..." and a touch of what Barbara Tuchman called the "surely" school of history. ("As Napoleon watched the ship recede from Elba, he must surely have...") Excising a lot of these flight of fancy - and helpfully shortening the book by a hundred odd pages - might have done it some good.
I'm not really up on the historiography of Lawrence, which the book sometimes seemed to assume one ought to be. Some parts - maybe the whole thing - feel like they're taking a stance in an argument about his actions and character that I just wasn't privy too. Not in itself a problem, but it would have been nice to get more of that background for the uninitiated.
Anderson is willing to undercut and question Lawrence at time, very ably digging into his letters and memoirs as text, so to speak, to note when something seems too far fetched, too neat, too cliched, comparing against other sources and common sense (where available). On the other hand, there are other episodes - just as grand and cinematic, just as personal and devoid of corroboration - he accepts seemingly at face value. What are the sources? Why reject some and accept others? NOTE MARKERS IN THE TEXT. PLEASE. PLEASE.
The book also takes the respectful sort of tack and refuses to dive too deeply into the persona of Lawrence himself. I thought this was a good idea for the most part, not turning it into a gossipy biography (given what the book is really about, which I might admittedly not be quite the target audience of) but still a touch frustrating. Passing references to mental breakdowns, possible homosexuality, ambition or lack thereof, etc, really could have stood to be expounded on a little. At least in (AGAIN) pointing out what the sources here were would have been useful, especially since a lot of it did seem to have some bearing on actual alliances, decisions and historically relevant courses of action. (Plus, I'm ok with gossiping about the dead.)
Ultimately, since the politics and the basic historical outline - and even the details of the diplomatic wrangling - are all very familiar to me (this is the stuff of Israeli highschool history finals. Wake me up in the middle of the night, to this day, and I can tell you all about the Hussein-McMahon correspondence) what I was hoping for was more detail about Lawrence and the Arab Rebellion. That's not really the focus, unfortunately.
The addition of an American oil man/intelligence worker, German spy and Jewish Zionist ringleader (some nice detail on Aaronsohn, who's been a bit hagiographed in Israel in some quarters and therefore studiously ignored in others) as "supporting characters" does something to flesh out the times and the scope - but the Arabs actually remain rather fuzzy personages. There's very little sense of the political meaning of the rebellion for those who conducted it or even very much military detail. It's more of a history of how the British bureaucracy of WW1 managed the rebellion and the imperial slavering at the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire than a history of the rebellion itself, which is a bit of a shame at the end of the day.
October 26, 2013
A few years ago I participated in a bike ride in Beer Sheva in the south of Israel. One of the points we stopped at, was the British Cemetery from WW1. This cemetery has 1240 British Empire soldiers buried in it. The leader of our group explained about the place and about the battles near Beer Sheva in WW1. I was quite surprised. What the British army included people from Australia, New Zealand, India and other places? What… the Turkish army that stood against them actually had German officers? What … Beer Sheva was finally conquered by a cavalry charge? I suddenly noticed that I know very little about WW1 at all and the battles in the Middle East specifically. Lawrence in Arabia filled a big gap in my knowledge. I had heard bits of pieces of the events, especially the ones in Palestine. This book gives an interesting account of the activities of T.E. Lawrence (A.K.A Lawrence of Arabia) before, mainly during and after WW1. The book describes the reason and political interests for the WW1 activities in the Middle East and their effect on the war and on the future of the area. It is always interesting for me to read about my land from an outsider point of view and a much broader point of view. I have always been fascinated with Bedouins and spent considerable time with them on camel treks and in their villages in the Sinai dessert. The descriptions (and pictures) of the Bedouins in this book showed me that they actually did not change much, and the same charm they had 100 years ago in the desserts of Arabia still remained in my encounters with them (of course the Bedouins I spent time with were not at war and did not kill anybody – I am talking about the tranquility, the hospitality and charm) . This book, with its amazing description of events, with its deep analysis of the political backgrounds, with its fascinating discussions of the personal points of view, with its rich scenery and its photographs really left me hungry for more information about WW1.
April 23, 2014
I haven't been able to stop thinking about this since I finished it - basically all I want to read now are books exactly like this one. It's extremely engaging and the character studies are especially fascinating given the huge personalities involved. The book becomes increasingly painful to read as the revolt progresses and the surrounding web of lies deepens. So many what-ifs, though Anderson raises good points that under no circumstances could there have been an idyllic outcome. Still, it's hard to see the missteps and missed opportunities laid out when we already know the outcome.
July 4, 2013
Masterful, engaging historical non-fiction told through a cast of characters that are "too true to be good". A fascinating read! Anderson takes a focus on Lawrence, constantly examining the culturally accepted legends of his story, and also examines three other men in the region at the same time: an American oilman-turned-spy, a German intelligence agent, and a Zionist agronomist. A brilliant and compelling personal narrative that gives the reader a deeper appreciation for the founding of the Middle East. Not to be missed!
October 29, 2023
“History is often the tale of small moments—chance encounters or casual decisions or sheer coincidence—that seem of little consequence at the time, but somehow fuse with other small moments to produce something momentous, the proverbial flapping of a butterfly’s wings that triggers a hurricane.”
― Scott Anderson, Lawrence in Arabia: War, Deceit, Imperial Folly, and the Making of the Modern Middle East
After the war broke out between Israel and Hamas, my son texted me seeking some insights into the current problems in the Middle East. The explanation is not something one can include in a brief text. To be honest, the reasons are hardly simple. The typical narrative regarding tensions and conflicts that have afflicted the Middle East over the past century originate with the arbitrary redrawing of the region’s map by the British and French after the Ottoman Empire collapsed during World War I. Some would argue that this explanation is an enduring myth. While the revised narrative doesn’t let the British and French off the hook, there seems to be more to the problem than unilaterally drawn borders. Reading this book is just part of my journey toward a better understanding of the region’s problems.
T.E. Lawrence remains one of the most iconic figures of the early 20th century. His life has been the subject of a 1962 movie, many biographies, and numerous articles. Part of the fascination with Lawrence has to do with the sheer improbability of his tale. Lawrence was a young archaeologist working at Carchemish who became an army officer, despite having no military training, who found himself the champion of a downtrodden people and thrust into events that changed the course of history. Ultimately, the Lawrence story ultimately ended badly for all concerned: for Lawrence, for the Arabs, for Britain, and for the world at large.
Anderson thoroughly explores the making of the Lawrence legend. There are plenty of villains here: William Hale of Socony (Standard Oil Company of New York); Mark Sykes, who, along with François Georges-Picot, initialed the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 that would eventually define, for the United Kingdom and France, the mutually agreed spheres of control influence and control in an eventual partition of the Ottoman Empire. These are just a few of the scoundrels in this fascinating story.
Seriously researched and well written, Lawrence in Arabia provides a window into the tragic history of the Middle East.
― Scott Anderson, Lawrence in Arabia: War, Deceit, Imperial Folly, and the Making of the Modern Middle East
After the war broke out between Israel and Hamas, my son texted me seeking some insights into the current problems in the Middle East. The explanation is not something one can include in a brief text. To be honest, the reasons are hardly simple. The typical narrative regarding tensions and conflicts that have afflicted the Middle East over the past century originate with the arbitrary redrawing of the region’s map by the British and French after the Ottoman Empire collapsed during World War I. Some would argue that this explanation is an enduring myth. While the revised narrative doesn’t let the British and French off the hook, there seems to be more to the problem than unilaterally drawn borders. Reading this book is just part of my journey toward a better understanding of the region’s problems.
T.E. Lawrence remains one of the most iconic figures of the early 20th century. His life has been the subject of a 1962 movie, many biographies, and numerous articles. Part of the fascination with Lawrence has to do with the sheer improbability of his tale. Lawrence was a young archaeologist working at Carchemish who became an army officer, despite having no military training, who found himself the champion of a downtrodden people and thrust into events that changed the course of history. Ultimately, the Lawrence story ultimately ended badly for all concerned: for Lawrence, for the Arabs, for Britain, and for the world at large.
Anderson thoroughly explores the making of the Lawrence legend. There are plenty of villains here: William Hale of Socony (Standard Oil Company of New York); Mark Sykes, who, along with François Georges-Picot, initialed the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 that would eventually define, for the United Kingdom and France, the mutually agreed spheres of control influence and control in an eventual partition of the Ottoman Empire. These are just a few of the scoundrels in this fascinating story.
Seriously researched and well written, Lawrence in Arabia provides a window into the tragic history of the Middle East.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,511 reviews