I mean, I've read and like Anderson's book but it really is amazing to watch the man completely ignore one of the great ironies of Lawrence and the media mythologizing him afterwards, he himself while acknowledging the controversy refuses to address the way his perspective overshadows that that really matters. The line that will always stick out to me is the "There really was not a lot of people around in this way." what he really means is there were so few Europeans/European like people to attach yourself to. Sure he acknowledges men like Nassib al-Bakri or Nuri al-Said or countless others but they are minor characters in their own story, the story of the Arab revolt. But it isnt their story, not according to this narrative, the Arab story is merely a setting for the European story, of men in an exotic land using their artificially inflated status to drastically change the lives of people they know little of, and by extension who the audience is given little connection to. The Arab world in this book and in Lawrence of Arabia itself is ultimately a setting, we are not introduced to the truly amazing and intricate world itself, but an imagined reality. Little is made of the Qabadayat of Damascus, or the political situation in Istanbul, Beirut or Damascus. Internal Arab politics are not deeply explored only explained in such detail that will allow the reader to follow along with Lawrence's story. If it seems like I'm making a bigger deal of it than I should it's because this is one of the most sympathetic english portrayals of the era.
Scott Anderson's book, Lawrence in Arabia, is truly wonderful. The audiobook version is read by a terrific narrator, Malcolm Hillgartner. I highly recommend it to any fan of TE Lawrence and of WWI.
Definitely an amazing book, and one doesn't plow through it quickly. Scott Andersen's absorbing writing style in this book reminds me of that of The Prize by Daniel Yergin.
Gallipoli was a tragedy suffered by Australian & New Zealand soldiers in their thousands (ANZAC's) not just the British. When you read in this book the staggering folly that led to the whole Gallipoli campaign, it's a blood boiling moment. The book is a fascinating read and shows the incredible amount of research that must have gone in to it. Also good to read is Michael Korda's 'Hero' the life of Lawrence of Arabia.
I LOVE IT, the tragic story of the so called Arabian Sideshow of Theater during WWI is so well done by him. How the British and French under the Sykes -Picot Agreement managed to curse that part of the world for the next century is criminal.
The middle east has had problems since the Mongolians invaded it in the 12th century. The Mongolians sacked Baghdad and set Arabian culture back a couple hundred years. Though European interference definitely didn't help.
That part of the world is cursed, regardless. Always has been, always will be. "A tribal bloodbath," if I can quote Lawrence of Arabia. Obama wisely recognized that and got us out of there as much as possible. A complete waste of time, money, lives. This is what Lawrence said about Mesopotamia in 1920. Sound familiar? 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘌𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘔𝘦𝘴𝘰𝘱𝘰𝘵𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘢 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘢 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘱 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘴𝘤𝘢𝘱𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘥𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘳. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘵 𝘣𝘺 𝘢 𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘉𝘢𝘨𝘩𝘥𝘢𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥, 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘦, 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘧𝘢𝘳 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘭𝘥, 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘢𝘥𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘣𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘥𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘴. 𝘐𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘴𝘰𝘰𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘦. 𝘞𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘧𝘢𝘳 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘢 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳. "Report on Mesopotamia" The Sunday Times (22 August 1920)
@@pix046 It doesn't matter which dictator we leave in or which we take out. Middle East is chaos. Always has been, always will be. I just don't think Islam is a faith or a way of life that is comfortable in the modern world. The Arabs worship their bedouin life and probably wish they could return to that,. The Gods had a funny sense of humor when they put all that oil and wealth under the east, but all the need in the east. They should let Norwegians run the place. They know how to handle their energy resources and wealth,.
The deal constructed by Lord Balfour was the final 'nail in the coffin' for Western - Middle East relations; this has given rise to the mistrust and plain hatred of the Judaeo Christian West by the Islamic world. This situation will NEVER be resolved.
Regarding TE's cold letter to his parents about the death of his brother, Anderson doesn't mention here the reason for this, which was because his mother was controlling and abusive. TE had never, even in the past, shown any emotion to her in his letters. His heartless letters were his way of distancing and protecting himself from her. Anderson makes it sound like TE was some person devoid of compassion which isn't true.
I actually enjoyed it because it gave quite a bit of info into the political side of things, and sort of fleshed out TE's activities. I did learn a bit regarding the surrounding events, though I found most of Anderson's sources for TE's own activities were simply passages from Seven Pillars. Anderson's views on TE's personality are a bit off at times though. I usually recommend people use it to supplement other bios on TE, and not use it as their primary source on TE's work in the Arab Revolt. Mack and Korda's books are better books overall.
Lawrence's relationship with his mother was about the same as Raymond Shaw in The Manchurian Candidate, I think. Lawrence was a bastard child and his mother was their maid, I think. Lawrence's father's first wife was a religious cuckoo or something, and he left her and took his children to England. I think.
Churchill was not "First Admiral" at the time of Gallipolli (there is no such political post). He wasn't a serving naval officer. He was the political head of the Royal Navy - the First Lord of the Admiralty.
General Wavell said this in his letter to his sister: "He will always have his detractors, those who sneer at the "Lawrence legend"; who ascribe his successes with the Arabs to gold; who view the man as a charlatan in search of notoriety by seeming to seek obscurity; who regarded his descent from colonel to private as evidence of some morbid nostalgie de la boue. They knew not the man. Those who did, even casually and sporadically, like myself, can answer for his greatness. The complexity of his character, the "mystery" of Lawrence on which much has been written, seems to me to lie mainly in the fact that he transcended the ordinary heights in so many qualities: in courage, in knowledge, in self-discipline, in skill with his hands, in artistry of words, in sympathy with the common working man and with the soldier, in demanding so little life for his body and so much - too much perhaps - for his mind. But I am not competent to analyze the man: all I can say is that he was cast in heroic but very human mould, and that it was good to know him". From Wavell Scholar and Soldier by John Connell.
Thank you for the review. As a Jordanian, I don't think that my country was "artificially made", in fact, I believe it's what technically could be saved because the British broke the promises they made to King Hussein Bin Ali.
transjordan wass created illigaly on a sunday afternoon in jerusalem by winston churchill with the stroke of his pen on a map. it is an artificial state and was made illigaly without the consent of the league of nations
Sykes-Picot is willfully misunderstood (also by Lawrence). It was meant as a proposed temporary partition of the area for administrative purposes, not a final division of the Middle East.
Lawrence didn't inform the British about the attack on Aqaba? So the the Royal Navy bombardment of Aqaba at the same time as the attack was a coincidence? Also the Arab army was 2,000 strong by Aqaba, not 600, it was the Turks who had 600 men.
It irritates me when so-called American experts get their details wrong. Scott Anderson said that Churchill was "The First Admiral...Head of the Navy". First Admiral? Churchill was the political head of the navy - The First Lord of the Admiralty. (The professional head of the navy is The First Sea Lord). You may think this is being pedantic, but someone who claims to be an authority on the subject matter HAS to get it right. Otherwise it damages their credibility...
He looked a bit nervous to me and misspoke several times about some trivial things. I'd still recommend this book to people who are interested in this period. It's really well-written and draws you in right from the beginning.
Fair enough, I personally forgive him with the confusion of First Lord and Head Admiral...However, if you are going to put yourself forward as an expert...get the terms right. Also true even with knighthoods, the Americans bby and large use the surname rather than the Christian name when referriong to (for example) Sir Hopkins rather than Sir Anthony
42:32 No the Australians & NZ were sent to the wrong location (Anzac Cove)... That was the first wave of ANZAC's who to their credit got to the top... while the British came in later to a flat area Suvla Bay.
This British bad planning that caused all the deaths was noted by the future General Sir John Monash who was a real planner and advocate of the co-ordinated use of infantry, aircraft, artillery and tanks that ended the First World War. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Monash
Anderson over eggs his pudding saying that the fall of Damascus caused the almost victorious German army to collapse on the Western Front. While it may have had some effect the fact is that the average German soldier was sick of fighting and sick of the appalling conditions of his family back in Germany and - more to the point - sick of the psychotic Kaiser. The military had known for a long time that the war was lost - they fought on to try and secure favourable peace terms.
What also has to be taken in to account was the fact that Islam accepted Christianity as a fellow religon along with the Hebrews. The attitude of the likes of Lawrence was one of "the people of the book" was prevalent at the time.
Lawrence is a tragic figure, possibly born 30 yrs too early. If he had lived into the 40s and 50s Lawrence would have seen the collapse of most of colonialism. What we have in its [place is not ideal either--tribalism and religious conflicts.
If only... Clearly the world would be an infinitely better place if only those fools who lived through WWI had been as brilliant as modern day academics believe themselves to be. 😆
The speaker needs to take a class in public speaking. His delivery is halting, disjointed, mumbling, stumbling, hard to follow and often hard to hear. He should stick to writing.
Not, that I know of. He never said so. Afaik he said about himself as of beeing asexual. But in his book it is surprising to read so many indications. E.g. Arab boys rolling and wrestling in the sand, love only men can have, because of lack of contact to women, and so on. He often describs young men in detail... on the other hand, he writes about one of the Arab leader (Auda?) having sex with his young wife, very often. Hard to tell for me, I could not make an oppinion about this yet. Did not finish the book, yet.
Jeff Smith if he was a homosexual he wasn’t a practicing one, in his book The Mint he describes how he dislikes physical contact and how his fellow aircraftsmen would pin him down and sit on him for fun when they found out about his dislike, which drove him wild. He also mentions discussing the sex act with the Archbishop of Canterbury in the same book and concluded that he had little interest in it as it was over so quickly. He did have girl friends in his undergraduate days and actually proposed marriage to one of them, but his biographer conclude he did this probably because it was the thing to do. He seemed to find most women of the time intellectually beneath him because they didn’t have the educational opportunities. So my belief was that he preferred the company of men, and probably died a virgin.
Love this interview Gary. I am so enjoying the book...after all our travels to Turkey the history of this world fascinates me.
I mean, I've read and like Anderson's book but it really is amazing to watch the man completely ignore one of the great ironies of Lawrence and the media mythologizing him afterwards, he himself while acknowledging the controversy refuses to address the way his perspective overshadows that that really matters.
The line that will always stick out to me is the "There really was not a lot of people around in this way." what he really means is there were so few Europeans/European like people to attach yourself to.
Sure he acknowledges men like Nassib al-Bakri or Nuri al-Said or countless others but they are minor characters in their own story, the story of the Arab revolt. But it isnt their story, not according to this narrative, the Arab story is merely a setting for the European story, of men in an exotic land using their artificially inflated status to drastically change the lives of people they know little of, and by extension who the audience is given little connection to.
The Arab world in this book and in Lawrence of Arabia itself is ultimately a setting, we are not introduced to the truly amazing and intricate world itself, but an imagined reality. Little is made of the Qabadayat of Damascus, or the political situation in Istanbul, Beirut or Damascus. Internal Arab politics are not deeply explored only explained in such detail that will allow the reader to follow along with Lawrence's story.
If it seems like I'm making a bigger deal of it than I should it's because this is one of the most sympathetic english portrayals of the era.
Thanks for taking the words right out of my mouth! Though a year ago
It begins at 3:42.
reading Lawrence in Arabia ,now. A real page turner. Anderson is a master of his craft.
Scott Anderson's book, Lawrence in Arabia, is truly wonderful. The audiobook version is read by a terrific narrator, Malcolm Hillgartner. I highly recommend it to any fan of TE Lawrence and of WWI.
It's an amazing book and very readable!
Definitely an amazing book, and one doesn't plow through it quickly. Scott Andersen's absorbing writing style in this book reminds me of that of The Prize by Daniel Yergin.
Gallipoli was a tragedy suffered by Australian & New Zealand soldiers in their thousands (ANZAC's) not just the British. When you read in this book the staggering folly that led to the whole Gallipoli campaign, it's a blood boiling moment. The book is a fascinating read and shows the incredible amount of research that must have gone in to it. Also good to read is Michael Korda's 'Hero' the life of Lawrence of Arabia.
Don't forget the French, who lost 12,000 to the ANZAC 8,000 and the Brits with about 25,000
I LOVE IT, the tragic story of the so called Arabian Sideshow of Theater during WWI is so well done by him. How the British and French under the Sykes -Picot Agreement managed to curse that part of the world for the next century is criminal.
The middle east has had problems since the Mongolians invaded it in the 12th century. The Mongolians sacked Baghdad and set Arabian culture back a couple hundred years. Though European interference definitely didn't help.
Well, the way the Americans are doing it now is ultra criminal. A sight more people are getting killed. And the power vacuums...
That part of the world is cursed, regardless.
Always has been, always will be.
"A tribal bloodbath," if I can quote Lawrence of Arabia.
Obama wisely recognized that and got us out of there as much as possible.
A complete waste of time, money, lives.
This is what Lawrence said about Mesopotamia in 1920. Sound familiar?
𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘌𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘔𝘦𝘴𝘰𝘱𝘰𝘵𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘢 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘢 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘱 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘴𝘤𝘢𝘱𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘥𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘳. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘵 𝘣𝘺 𝘢 𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘉𝘢𝘨𝘩𝘥𝘢𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥, 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘦, 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘧𝘢𝘳 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘭𝘥, 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘢𝘥𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘣𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘥𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘴. 𝘐𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘴𝘰𝘰𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘦. 𝘞𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘧𝘢𝘳 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘢 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳.
"Report on Mesopotamia" The Sunday Times (22 August 1920)
@@pix046 It doesn't matter which dictator we leave in or which we take out. Middle East is chaos. Always has been, always will be. I just don't think Islam is a faith or a way of life that is comfortable in the modern world. The Arabs worship their bedouin life and probably wish they could return to that,.
The Gods had a funny sense of humor when they put all that oil and wealth under the east, but all the need in the east.
They should let Norwegians run the place. They know how to handle their energy resources and wealth,.
The deal constructed by Lord Balfour was the final 'nail in the coffin' for Western - Middle East relations; this has given rise to the mistrust and plain hatred of the Judaeo Christian West by the Islamic world. This situation will NEVER be resolved.
Regarding TE's cold letter to his parents about the death of his brother, Anderson doesn't mention here the reason for this, which was because his mother was controlling and abusive. TE had never, even in the past, shown any emotion to her in his letters. His heartless letters were his way of distancing and protecting himself from her. Anderson makes it sound like TE was some person devoid of compassion which isn't true.
+Sonya M Good point. I didn't much like Anderson's book, he had some odd perspectives on well-covered events and not much new information.
I actually enjoyed it because it gave quite a bit of info into the political side of things, and sort of fleshed out TE's activities. I did learn a bit regarding the surrounding events, though I found most of Anderson's sources for TE's own activities were simply passages from Seven Pillars. Anderson's views on TE's personality are a bit off at times though. I usually recommend people use it to supplement other bios on TE, and not use it as their primary source on TE's work in the Arab Revolt. Mack and Korda's books are better books overall.
This American knows Jack shit
Lawrence's relationship with his mother was about the same as Raymond Shaw in The Manchurian Candidate, I think. Lawrence was a bastard child and his mother was their maid, I think. Lawrence's father's first wife was a religious cuckoo or something, and he left her and took his children to England. I think.
Churchill was not "First Admiral" at the time of Gallipolli (there is no such political post). He wasn't a serving naval officer. He was the political head of the Royal Navy - the First Lord of the Admiralty.
For the people who write the transcripts: the word is 'self-abnegation' (meaning 'self-denial' of sorts), 1.03.39
General Wavell said this in his letter to his sister:
"He will always have his detractors, those who sneer at the "Lawrence legend"; who ascribe his successes with the Arabs to gold; who view the man as a charlatan in search of notoriety by seeming to seek obscurity; who regarded his descent from colonel to private as evidence of some morbid nostalgie de la boue. They knew not the man. Those who did, even casually and sporadically, like myself, can answer for his greatness. The complexity of his character, the "mystery" of Lawrence on which much has been written, seems to me to lie mainly in the fact that he transcended the ordinary heights in so many qualities: in courage, in knowledge, in self-discipline, in skill with his hands, in artistry of words, in sympathy with the common working man and with the soldier, in demanding so little life for his body and so much - too much perhaps - for his mind. But I am not competent to analyze the man: all I can say is that he was cast in heroic but very human mould, and that it was good to know him". From Wavell Scholar and Soldier by John Connell.
There were heroes from the western front. Those stories just need to be told.
Thank you for the review. As a Jordanian, I don't think that my country was "artificially made", in fact, I believe it's what technically could be saved because the British broke the promises they made to King Hussein Bin Ali.
transjordan wass created illigaly on a sunday afternoon in jerusalem by winston churchill with the stroke of his pen on a map. it is an artificial state and was made illigaly without the consent of the league of nations
I've not read anywhere that Lawrence warned the Arabs regarding Sykes Picot Agreement. Anyone else?
Sykes-Picot is willfully misunderstood (also by Lawrence). It was meant as a proposed temporary partition of the area for administrative purposes, not a final division of the Middle East.
@@RoyCousins Temporary, just like the temporary barracks I lived in in the 1970s that had been built in 1923.
Lawrence didn't inform the British about the attack on Aqaba? So the the Royal Navy bombardment of Aqaba at the same time as the attack was a coincidence? Also the Arab army was 2,000 strong by Aqaba, not 600, it was the Turks who had 600 men.
Sound is bad.
It irritates me when so-called American experts get their details wrong. Scott Anderson said that Churchill was "The First Admiral...Head of the Navy". First Admiral? Churchill was the political head of the navy - The First Lord of the Admiralty. (The professional head of the navy is The First Sea Lord). You may think this is being pedantic, but someone who claims to be an authority on the subject matter HAS to get it right. Otherwise it damages their credibility...
He looked a bit nervous to me and misspoke several times about some trivial things. I'd still recommend this book to people who are interested in this period. It's really well-written and draws you in right from the beginning.
Fair enough, I personally forgive him with the confusion of First Lord and Head Admiral...However, if you are going to put yourself forward as an expert...get the terms right. Also true even with knighthoods, the Americans bby and large use the surname rather than the Christian name when referriong to (for example) Sir Hopkins rather than Sir Anthony
42:32 No the Australians & NZ were sent to the wrong location (Anzac Cove)... That was the first wave of ANZAC's who to their credit got to the top... while the British came in later to a flat area Suvla Bay.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_at_Suvla_Bay
This British bad planning that caused all the deaths was noted by the future General Sir John Monash who was a real planner and advocate of the co-ordinated use of infantry, aircraft, artillery and tanks that ended the First World War. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Monash
one of the better books I have read lately...read it twice, in fact...
Who,in this excellent book, was Omar Sharif portraying in the epoc movie L o A ?
Omar Sherif played Sherif Ali, who was actually a composite of several characters that Lawrence worked with.
Anderson over eggs his pudding saying that the fall of Damascus caused the almost victorious German army to collapse on the Western Front. While it may have had some effect the fact is that the average German soldier was sick of fighting and sick of the appalling conditions of his family back in Germany and - more to the point - sick of the psychotic Kaiser. The military had known for a long time that the war was lost - they fought on to try and secure favourable peace terms.
willie otoole totally agree and anyway unlike the film, Allenby and the British troops got to Damascus first.
Which mother stepmom or real
Your comments re the French are accurate.
An odd take on Gallipoli. And an even odder take on the Lawrence myth.
💪🏽
European colonial imperialism is a disgrace. Free Palestine
What also has to be taken in to account was the fact that Islam accepted Christianity as a fellow religon along with the Hebrews. The attitude of the likes of Lawrence was one of "the people of the book" was prevalent at the time.
Lawrence is a tragic figure, possibly born 30 yrs too early. If he had lived into the 40s and 50s Lawrence would have seen the collapse of most of colonialism. What we have in its [place is not ideal either--tribalism and religious conflicts.
Taylor Susan Lopez Eric Rodriguez Elizabeth
Hall Donna Harris Joseph Walker Robert
If only...
Clearly the world would be an infinitely better place if only those fools who lived through WWI had been as brilliant as modern day academics believe themselves to be. 😆
The speaker needs to take a class in public speaking. His delivery is halting, disjointed, mumbling, stumbling, hard to follow and often hard to hear. He should stick to writing.
sad yanks gimme a break...yawns
+Rovejag WHO ARE YOU ? GOD, JUDGE & JURY. ?
Was Lawrence gay?
Not, that I know of. He never said so. Afaik he said about himself as of beeing asexual. But in his book it is surprising to read so many indications. E.g. Arab boys rolling and wrestling in the sand, love only men can have, because of lack of contact to women, and so on. He often describs young men in detail... on the other hand, he writes about one of the Arab leader (Auda?) having sex with his young wife, very often.
Hard to tell for me, I could not make an oppinion about this yet. Did not finish the book, yet.
Jeff Smith if he was a homosexual he wasn’t a practicing one, in his book The Mint he describes how he dislikes physical contact and how his fellow aircraftsmen would pin him down and sit on him for fun when they found out about his dislike, which drove him wild. He also mentions discussing the sex act with the Archbishop of Canterbury in the same book and concluded that he had little interest in it as it was over so quickly. He did have girl friends in his undergraduate days and actually proposed marriage to one of them, but his biographer conclude he did this probably because it was the thing to do. He seemed to find most women of the time intellectually beneath him because they didn’t have the educational opportunities. So my belief was that he preferred the company of men, and probably died a virgin.