Peace Theories and the Balkan War | Page 4

whose customs and ideas he tolerates, but makes little effort to
understand. The expression indeed, 'Turkey in Europe' means indeed no
more than 'England in Asia,' if used as a designation for India.... The
Turks have done little to assimilate the people whom they have
conquered, and still less, been assimilated by them. In the larger part of
the Turkish dominions, the Turks themselves are in a minority.... The
Turks certainly resent the dismemberment of their Empire, but not in
the sense in which the French resent the conquest of Alsace-Lorraine
by Germany. They would never use the word 'Turkey' or even its
oriental equivalent, 'The High Country' in ordinary conversation. They
would never say that Syria and Greece are parts of Turkey which have
been detached, but merely that they are tributaries which have become
independent, provinces once occupied by Turks where there are no

Turks now. As soon as a province passes under another Government,
the Turks find it the most natural thing in the world to leave it and go
somewhere else. In the same spirit the Turk talks quite pleasantly of
leaving Constantinople some day, he will go over to Asia and found
another capital. One can hardly imagine Englishmen speaking like that
of London, but they might conceivably speak so of Calcutta.... The
Turk is a conqueror and nothing else. The history of the Turk is a
catalogue of battles. His contributions to art, literature, science and
religion, are practically nil. Their desire has not been to instruct, to
improve, hardly even to govern, but simply to conquer.... The Turk
makes nothing at all; he takes whatever he can get, as plunder or pillage.
He lives in the houses which he finds, or which he orders to be built for
him. In unfavourable circumstances he is a marauder. In favourable, a
Grand Seigneur who thinks it his right to enjoy with grace and dignity
all that the world can hold, but who will not lower himself by engaging
in art, literature, trade or manufacture. Why should he, when there are
other people to do these things for him. Indeed, it may be said that he
takes from others even his religion, clothes, language, customs; there is
hardly anything which is Turkish and not borrowed. The religion is
Arabic; the language half Arabic and Persian; the literature almost
entirely imitative; the art Persian or Byzantine; the costumes, in the
Upper Classes and Army mostly European. There is nothing
characteristic in manufacture or commerce, except an aversion to such
pursuits. In fact, all occupations, except agriculture and military service
are distasteful to the true Osmanli. He is not much of a merchant. He
may keep a stall in a bazaar, but his operations are rarely undertaken on
a scale which merits the name of commerce or finance. It is strange to
observe how, when trade becomes active in any seaport, or upon the
railway lines, the Osmanli retires and disappears, while Greeks,
Armenians and Levantines thrive in his place. Neither does he much
affect law, medicine or the learned professions. Such callings are
followed by Moslims but they are apt to be of non-Turkish race. But
though he does none of these things ... the Turk is a soldier. The
moment a sword or rifle is put into his hands, he instinctively knows
how to use it with effect, and feels at home in the ranks or on a horse.
The Turkish Army is not so much a profession or an institution
necessitated by the fears and aims of the Government as the quite

normal state of the Turkish nation.... Every Turk is a born soldier, and
adopts other pursuits chiefly because times are bad. When there is a
question of fighting, if only in a riot, the stolid peasant wakes up and
shows surprising power of finding organisation and expedients, and
alas! a surprising ferocity. The ordinary Turk is an honest and
good-humoured soul, kind to children and animals, and very patient;
but when the fighting spirit comes on him, he becomes like the terrible
warriors of the Huns or Henghis Khan, and slays, burns and ravages
without mercy or discrimination."[1]
Such is the verdict of an instructed, travelled and observant English
author and diplomatist, who lived among these people for many years,
and who learned to like them, who studied them and their history. It
does not differ, of course, appreciably, from what practically every
student of the Turk has discovered: the Turk is the typical conqueror.
As a nation, he has lived by the sword, and he is dying by the sword,
because the sword, the mere exercise of force by one man or group of
men upon another, conquest in other words, is an impossible form of
human relationship.
And in order to maintain this