Which era saw more political violence and murder in the Middle East, 1818-1918, or 1918-2018

Which century was bloodier for the people of the region, in proportion to their population:

  • a) 1818-1918

    Votes: 17 27.9%
  • b) 1918-2018

    Votes: 44 72.1%

  • Total voters
    61

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
The Middle East as defined here consists of the territories from Libya to Iran, and Turkey to Yemen, related but close-by areas, like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan, Algeria are all excluded:

middle_east_earthquake_1973.jpg


Which century had a higher rate of murder, maiming and torture, per capita, in this region.

a) 1818-1918, or
b) 1918-2018
 
I'd answer a) because the population of the area was orders of magnitude lower back then, thus making the per capita rate likely higher even if political violence in the involved area has been insanely high in absolute terms in the last century. However, the 1818-1918 period also saw some major outbreaks of violence, most notably the Armenian and Assyrian genocides.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I'd answer a) because the population of the area was orders of magnitude lower back then, thus making the per capita rate likely higher even if political violence in the involved area has been insanely high in absolute terms in the last century. However, the 1818-1918 period also saw some major outbreaks of violence, most notably the Armenian and Assyrian genocides.

Interesting - we have a case hear of one view (b) winning the poll so far, but only the minority view (b) being supported by a post.

Did some quick wiki'ing, and the Armenian and Assyrian genocides "contributed" to both periods under consideration. Wiki dates the Assyrian from 1914 to 1920. It dates the Armenian from 1914 to 1923. Although it recognizes 1915 as the peak year for the Armenians.
 
On second thought, however, I retract my previous statement. The 1918-2018 period in the region has been so brutal that it compensates the population growth for the OP question purposes. The sum total for the Iran-Iraq Gulf War, Lebanese, Syrian, Yemeni and Libyan civil wars, Italian reconquest of Libya, recurring Kurdish insurgencies, successive Arab-Israeli wars, innumerable bloody repressions by essentially all the regional regimes at various times (with the Shah and the Baathist governments being particularly egregious, but Qaddhafi, the Saudi Monarchy, the Egyptian military and Republican Iran also contributing greatly), the various colonial conflicts and anti-colonial rebellions, the Turkish wars of "independence", the conflicts in the Arabian peninsula in the interwar period, the local front of WWII (albeit a secondary one), the American invasion of Iraq, and a few other "minor" conflicts and disturbances (Cyprus for ex.) probably created an average level of political violence per capita that outweighs the still very bloody preceding century even on a per capita basis.
 
Actually, it's pretty interesting to realize that the Middle East from 1518 to 1720 was one of the most peaceful regions in the world.

E: Amended 1798 to 1720, I was just thinking about the Sublime State and forgot about Iran.
 
Last edited:

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Actually, it's pretty interesting to realize that the Middle East from 1518 to 1798 was one of the most peaceful regions in the world.

Well, except for the continued Ottoman-Safavid wars. But yes, if compared to the constant bloodbath called "Europe", it was a fairly tranquil corner.

More peaceful than Europe, but I'm not sure it was that tranquil.

To a degree, violence in Europe could just have been better recorded. Violence and revolts in the Middle East in 1518-1798, did not directly involve westerners and did not ultimately change borders on the map, but that doesn't mean it did not happen. Also, Europe's messes in this period were meticulously covered because this was the age of print, whereas printing was much rarer in the Ottoman Empire during this time.

Actually, it's pretty interesting to realize that the Middle East from 1518 to 1798 was one of the most peaceful regions in the world.

Even if so, interesting that this excludes the 1798-1918 period.
 
More peaceful than Europe, but I'm not sure it was that tranquil.

To a degree, violence in Europe could just have been better recorded.
We have more bureaucratic records from the Ottomans than from any other Islamic society. And really, the Middle East was an abode of tranquility compared to Europe or seventeenth-century China. There were four main sources of war:
  • Ottoman-Safavid Wars: Much less open warfare than in European wars, mainly affected marginal areas of the region (Iraq and the Caucasus)
  • Celali rebellions: A serious nuisance for Constantinople, but hardly anything comparing to the seventeenth-century rebellions in China. It helped that the Ottomans were very good at dealing with non-state actors.
  • Fights between local nobility, or between the state and the local nobility: These were not particularly bloody as a general rule.
  • Fights between nomads, or between nomads and agriculturalists: These either took place in the most marginal regions, or were generally successfully resolved by the meditation of Constantinople and Isfahan.
 
However, the 1818-1918 period also saw some major outbreaks of violence, most notably the Armenian and Assyrian genocides.

The Genocides don't actually count. Accoding to wikipedia Genocide is the mass killing for apolitical reasons such as... race and religion. "There is 10 rebels in the town. I don't want to find the 10 out of 30,000 people. I'll kill them all since the locals are sympathetic to the rebels anyways" counts as an extrajudicial killing. "I hate Armenians, kill them all" or "All Armenians are law breakers" is genocide. The OP wanted to know about political killings.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
The Genocides don't actually count. Accoding to wikipedia Genocide is the mass killing for apolitical reasons such as... race and religion. "There is 10 rebels in the town. I don't want to find the 10 out of 30,000 people. I'll kill them all since the locals are sympathetic to the rebels anyways" counts as an extrajudicial killing. "I hate Armenians, kill them all" or "All Armenians are law breakers" is genocide. The OP wanted to know about political killings.

Kind of a nitpick I wasn't intending. I'll let genocides be counted.

E: Amended 1798 to 1720, I was just thinking about the Sublime State and forgot about Iran.

Ah, so Iran had a yucky violent 1720-1798, even while the Ottoman Empire was more stable? Actually, did Iran have a nice early 19th century than late 18th century?
 
Kind of a nitpick I wasn't intending. I'll let genocides be counted.

I wasn't trying to be nitpicky, I genuinely thought you wanted to stick to political killings.

OK now that the intention has been clarified...

The Armenian Genocide alone is probably three times as bad as all of the violence in the preceding century in this particular region. It was really that bad. If you believe Wikipaia, in some sense it was closer to full success (in terms of act of mass murder) than the Holocaust. In the latter case, the worst case scenario spared those who fled Nazi Germany in the 1930s. In the case of the former... if it wsn't for the Battle of Sardarbad being a victory for the Amernain National Council "it is perfectly possible that the word Armenia would have henceforth denoted only an antique geographical term" because if Ottomans won, there were no substaintial nubmers Amernians who fled successful
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I wasn't trying to be nitpicky, I genuinely thought you wanted to stick to political killings.

OK now that the intention has been clarified...

The Armenian Genocide alone is probably three times as bad as all of the violence in the preceding century in this particular region. It was really that bad. If you believe Wikipaia, in some sense it was closer to full success (in terms of act of mass murder) than the Holocaust. In the latter case, the worst case scenario spared those who fled Nazi Germany in the 1930s. In the case of the former... if it wsn't for the Battle of Sardarbad being a victory for the Amernain National Council "it is perfectly possible that the word Armenia would have henceforth denoted only an antique geographical term" because if Ottomans won, there were no substaintial nubmers Amernians who fled successful

So the Armenian genocide would count against both periods. The peak year was 1915 in the first century under consideration. The violence continued against Armenians after 1918 but Armenians got to fight back more effectively after Sardarbad, so things would not have been as one-sided after that. (and I suppose in much of 1916 and 1917, those Armenians who still lived in territory the Russians occupied and had not been herded into the desert had a bit of a reprieve from violence).
 
We have more bureaucratic records from the Ottomans than from any other Islamic society. And really, the Middle East was an abode of tranquility compared to Europe or seventeenth-century China. There were four main sources of war:
  • Ottoman-Safavid Wars: Much less open warfare than in European wars, mainly affected marginal areas of the region (Iraq and the Caucasus)
  • Celali rebellions: A serious nuisance for Constantinople, but hardly anything comparing to the seventeenth-century rebellions in China. It helped that the Ottomans were very good at dealing with non-state actors.
  • Fights between local nobility, or between the state and the local nobility: These were not particularly bloody as a general rule.
  • Fights between nomads, or between nomads and agriculturalists: These either took place in the most marginal regions, or were generally successfully resolved by the meditation of Constantinople and Isfahan.

Most of this perhaps due to a paradigm shift in the Mid East to a single state ruler. The Ottoman period brought more peace in terms of foreign wars certainly than the previous periods where murder in warfare exceeded Europe.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
The Ottoman period brought more peace in terms of foreign wars certainly than the previous periods where murder in warfare exceeded Europe.

?

More murder in warfare in medieval times in Muslim world? Was this because dynasties generally did not last as long and borders changed faster than in Western Europe in that era?

Also, did you have a vote in the poll and an answer to the OP?
 
Top