Effects of the Arab Revolt on Turkish Defeat

From Lawrence of Arabia, one of my favourite movies:

General Murray: [on the Arab Revolt] It's a storm in a tea cup, Mr. Dryden - a sideshow. If you want my own opinion, this whole theater of operations is a sideshow! The real war's not being fought against the Turks, but the Germans. And not here, but on the Western front in the trenches! Your Bedouin Army - or whatever it calls itself - would be a sideshow of a sideshow!

Ottoman Empire sustained barely 300,000 death as a result of the war, about 4-5 times less than the other world powers you cant help but notice that General Murray could be right

The arab revolt was a general revolt, they hit the ottomans from their supply lines and back. Like the armenian in eastern anatolia. So they effected the war.

Thats a banned topic remember?

Originally posted by Feanor Between 1914 and 1918, Ottoman Empire suffered 800,000 military casualties, more than the combined casualties of UK and USA during the Second World War. But most of them were either killed in Dardanelles or Eastern Anatolia, I think. Arab revolt was carried out by a few thousand irregular cavalries.

True, military casualties did reach 800,000 thats why I referred to the actual number of death

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties#_note-21

scroll down to footnotes: 22

but you are wrong about Britain suffering less losses
http://www.ysursa.com/history/West%20Civ/Textbook/WWI-casualties.htm
http://europeanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/blww1castable.htm
http://www.worldwar1.com/tlcrates.htm

ah true, I misread, pardon

Thats because the Arab revolt was an actual revolt. They were also relatively far away from Anatolia and also had low Turkish population in the vicinity. They also had a far greater number of men who were armed and could oppose the Turkish army with relatively small foreign assistance. And don't forget, they also had the advantage of being muslim...

Hello to You all.

 

Well, the effect of the Arab revolt is a matter of controversy. On the one hand, it was a stab in the back of the Turks that diverted their resources from the main battlefields of eastern Anatolia and Iraq. On the other hand, the �revolt� was not as big as it has been portrayed. Sherif Hussain (the real leader of the revolt) and his sons rallied the Arab tribes (my own tribe was one of them) of Hijaz, Syria and Iraq to join a revolt against the �bloody� Turks. Now no matter was has been said, the only reason for these tribes to join this revolt was money and booty. The sheikhs and the general population were far too preoccupied with making a living in those terrible days than to have the luxury of which state to support and what form of government to choose. The Sherif took advantage of their need and urged them to revolt promising them wealth, booty and revenge from the Turks whom some of the tribes had old vendettas. Despite that, the Turks were not stupid and immediately know the effect these tribes might have and made shore that they also benefit from them as well and they succeeded. In Iraq for example the Turks successfully made the shia religious authorities issue fatwas for the tribes to fight against the British and they succeeded in gathering many tribes under their umbrella and those tribes made impressive victories early in the campaign. Also in Arabia one of the biggest tribes there Shammar which was loyal to their leader who was at the same time the prince of Hail sided with the Turks against both Abdul Aziz ibn Saud (who took part in the revolt a fact that few know) and Sherif Hussain. Sherif Hussain would have definitely lost early on in the revolt if it weren�t for the uncoordinated interference of ibn Saud who took Qassim the only province between him and Hail and had seriously threatened Hail several times though he couldn�t occupy it. Later on ibn Saud will take Hijaz from Sherif Ali (Hessian�s son) without any objection from the British who abandoned their former ally. However, in my opinion the revolt did help divert the Turkish resources in a very large and underdeveloped theatre of operations instead of concerting their effort in fight the Brits successfully in Iraq.    

Originally posted by Sparten Being muslim has never helped anybody, ask the Bengalis, you can simply declare the acts unislamic.

ah but it does, in "muslim" empire at least, why do you think Kurds were "tolerated" after their "betrayel" in 1920 (except the fact that they were too disorganized to serioulsy challange the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic)

Would the Ottomans have won the Middle Eastern front if the arabs hadn't revolted?