The massacre that shattered the old Ottoman world

Summary

Summary of "The Massacre That Shattered the Old Ottoman World" – History Extra Podcast

Published on December 16, 2024

---

Introduction

In the episode titled "The Massacre That Shattered the Old Ottoman World," hosted by Immediate Media on the History Extra podcast, renowned historian Danny Bird delves into the harrowing events of the 1860 Damascus massacre. Produced by the team behind BBC History Magazine, this episode offers a comprehensive exploration of a pivotal moment in Middle Eastern history, featuring in-depth discussions with Danny Bird about his latest work.

---

Setting the Scene: Damascus Before the Massacre [02:46 – 05:27]

Eugene Rogan opens the discussion by asking Danny Bird to contextualize Damascus in the mid-19th century. Danny Bird paints a picture of a city undergoing significant transformation. The advent of industrial Europe introduced steam shipping, drastically altering trade dynamics. Traditional camel caravans from Baghdad and pilgrimage routes were supplanted by European goods flooding into markets like Beirut, threatening local Muslim merchants and artisans.

Bird explains, “Damascus was a port of the desert, but suddenly, Beirut was becoming a real entrepot for more and more European trade” (02:59). This shift not only disrupted the established economic balance but also introduced foreign consuls from Britain, France, Prussia, Russia, and Greece. These consuls granted privileges to local Christians, inadvertently enriching them at the expense of the Muslim majority, thereby igniting underlying tensions.

---

The Unique Position of Damascus [05:27 – 08:01]

Rogan inquires whether Damascus was unique in its susceptibility to such violence. Bird responds that while many provincial capitals in the Ottoman Empire experienced similar dynamics, Damascus stood out due to its conservative, Arabic-speaking populace and its relatively isolated position compared to cosmopolitan coastal cities like Smyrna or Beirut. The introduction of European legal and economic influences clashed with the conservative Sunni Muslim majority, especially after the Ottoman reforms of 1856 granted legal equality to Christians and Jews.

Bird notes, “When the Ottoman state passed the reform in 1856 granting total legal equality to Christians and Jews alongside Muslims, this was a real blow to the standing of the conservative Sunni Muslim factions of Damascus” (07:51). This legislative shift undermined the Muslim majority’s traditional dominance, setting the stage for heightened communal tensions.

---

The Vision of a 'Sick Man of Europe' [08:01 – 11:04]

Rogan brings up the characterization of the Ottoman Empire as the "sick man of Europe." Bird acknowledges this European perspective but cautions against adopting it uncritically. He emphasizes the Ottoman Empire's adaptability and reform efforts during this period. The Tanzimat reforms (1839-1876), aimed at modernizing the empire, were a blend of responding to European pressures and internal modernization.

Bird explains, “If the Ottoman reforms were part of the explanation of what broke down in Damascus and led to a massacre in 1860, I would also argue that the success of reconstruction that followed those events was in itself a success story of the same reform process” (08:01). This duality highlights both the challenges and achievements of the Ottoman state in navigating a rapidly changing world.

---

The Onset of Violence: Prelude to Massacre [11:04 – 17:19]

Rogan probes whether the 1860 violence was an aberration or part of a larger pattern of state violence. Bird asserts that the 1860 massacres were unprecedented in their scale and brutality within the Ottoman context. He compares them to later atrocities, such as the Armenian Genocide, positioning the Damascus events as an "original sin" in communal violence (09:45).

Describing the buildup to the massacre, Bird details the escalating tensions between Muslims and Christians. Influenced by the conflict in Mount Lebanon, Muslim merchants in Damascus grew resentful of the economic gains among Christians. Misguided fears and rumors fueled a mob mentality:

“It was in that febrile atmosphere that you had really just a spark to set off a Muslim mob that ran amok through the streets of the Christian quarter” (15:56).

The massacre itself spanned seven to eight days, characterized by rampant looting, murder, rape, and arson targeting the Christian community. Approximately 5,000 Christians were killed, with much of their property destroyed. Remarkably, interventions by key Muslim notables prevented total annihilation, allowing around 85% of the Christian community to survive.

---

European Intervention and Ottoman Response [17:19 – 26:32]

Rogan inquires about the role of European powers during the massacre. Bird recounts that European nations swiftly responded, particularly France under Napoleon III, which dispatched a 6,000-strong intervention force to protect Christians and support Ottoman efforts to restore order (17:32). However, this intervention was met with Ottoman suspicions of colonial ambitions, given France's recent occupation of Algeria.

A multinational commission, including representatives from Britain, Russia, Prussia, and Austria, was sent to advise Ottoman officials on restructuring governance in Mount Lebanon to prevent future violence. Fouad Pasha, a key Ottoman statesman and reformer, spearheaded efforts to contain the crisis and preserve Ottoman sovereignty in the region.

---

Danny Bird’s Archival Discovery [19:56 – 26:32]

Rogan shifts focus to Danny Bird's personal research journey. Bird shares an anecdote about discovering previously uncataloged consular correspondence in the American archives, authored by Michael Meshaka, America's first Vice Consul in Damascus. These Arabic-language notebooks provided invaluable, contemporaneous insights into the events leading up to and during the massacre.

Bird emphasizes the significance of Meshaka’s reports, stating:

“His reports capture the mood, the fears, the detail of Damascus in far more granularity than any of the later sources I've ever read” (20:12).

This discovery allowed Bird to construct a nuanced narrative, balancing Christian and Muslim perspectives and understanding the complex societal dynamics of 19th-century Damascus.

---

Blame and Accountability [26:32 – 35:41]

When asked about attribution of blame, Bird contrasts Meshaka’s initial reports with his later historical account. While Meshaka blamed the Ottoman governor, Ahmed Pasha, for failing to protect Christians and possibly inciting violence, Bird's broader analysis suggests that systemic reforms and shifting societal norms played pivotal roles.

Bird states:

“He doesn't see it in strictly sectarian terms, but a failing governance by the Ottoman state and its representatives for sure” (26:44).

This perspective underscores the interplay between political reforms, external pressures, and internal societal changes in precipitating the massacre.

---

A Turning Point in Middle Eastern History [28:25 – 32:11]

Rogan asks Bird to elaborate on why the 1860 massacre is considered a turning point. Bird explains that it marked the transition from the Ottoman millet system—where religious communities were self-governing but second-class citizens—to a modern concept of Ottoman citizenship with equal rights and representation. This shift was further propelled by infrastructural developments like telegraphs, improved highways, and the advent of urban infrastructure, which collectively modernized Ottoman society.

Bird articulates:

“I think it's Ottoman modernity in that distinctly translated sense that we can really see 1860 as a major turning point where there was a before and there was an after” (28:25).

This modernization not only altered economic and social structures but also redefined political relations among different communities within the empire.

---

Echoes of the Past: Armenian Genocide Comparison [32:11 – 35:41]

Rogan draws a parallel between the 1860 Damascus massacre and the Armenian Genocide. Bird cautiously agrees that while both events involve communal violence, each genocidal incident has its unique precursors and contexts. He emphasizes that the Armenian Genocide was driven by specific wartime dynamics, such as the perception of Armenians as a fifth column during World War I.

Bird remarks:

“It's important to look to each genocidal moment for its own specific origins” (32:11).

This distinction highlights the complexity of mass violence and the necessity of understanding each event within its own historical framework.

---

Relevance to Modern-Day Syria [35:41 – 39:59]

Rogan inquires about the relevance of the 1860 events to contemporary Syria, especially in light of the brutal civil war following the Arab Spring. Bird acknowledges the profound differences in scale and context but identifies enduring lessons in societal reconstruction and reconciliation. While the 1860 massacre involved the destruction of neighborhoods and loss of life on a smaller scale compared to the millions affected by the recent conflict, the underlying themes of communal division and the possibility of rebuilding offer poignant reflections.

Bird states:

“This story is not just about how a society breaks down into mass violence, but it's also a story about how a society can reconstruct and find a way towards reconciliation” (35:51).

He also notes that for Syrian Christians, the legacy of the 1860 events remains a living memory, influencing their experiences and responses to contemporary conflicts.

---

Conclusion

The episode culminates with Bird emphasizing the importance of historical memory to prevent the recurrence of past atrocities. By studying the 1860 Damascus massacre, contemporary societies can glean insights into the mechanisms of communal violence and the pathways to reconciliation and reconstruction.

As Eugene Rogan concludes, listeners are encouraged to engage with Bird's work, "The Damascus Events, the 1860 Massacre and the Destruction of the Old Ottoman World," published by Alan Lane, to gain a deeper understanding of this critical juncture in Ottoman and Middle Eastern history.

---

Notable Quotes

• Danny Bird [02:59]: “Damascus was a port of the desert, but suddenly, Beirut was becoming a real entrepot for more and more European trade.”

• Danny Bird [07:51]: “When the Ottoman state passed the reform in 1856 granting total legal equality to Christians and Jews alongside Muslims, this was a real blow to the standing of the conservative Sunni Muslim factions of Damascus.”

• Danny Bird [15:56]: “It was in that febrile atmosphere that you had really just a spark to set off a Muslim mob that ran amok through the streets of the Christian quarter.”

• Danny Bird [20:12]: “His reports capture the mood, the fears, the detail of Damascus in far more granularity than any of the later sources I've ever read.”

• Danny Bird [28:25]: “I think it's Ottoman modernity in that distinctly translated sense that we can really see 1860 as a major turning point where there was a before and there was an after.”

• Danny Bird [32:11]: “It's important to look to each genocidal moment for its own specific origins.”

• Danny Bird [35:51]: “This story is not just about how a society breaks down into mass violence, but it's also a story about how a society can reconstruct and find a way towards reconciliation.”

---

Closing Remarks

Produced by Daniel Kramer Arden, this episode of the History Extra Podcast offers a profound exploration of the 1860 Damascus massacre, its causes, consequences, and enduring legacy. By weaving together archival research, historical analysis, and contemporary reflections, Danny Bird provides listeners with a nuanced understanding of a tragedy that significantly altered the Ottoman Empire and shaped the modern Middle East.

For more information, listeners are encouraged to visit HistoryExtra.com and explore additional resources related to this episode.

Transcript

[Eugene Rogan]

70,000 people are here and Bob Dylan.

[Danny Bird]

Is the reason for it.

[Timothee Chalamet]

Inspired by the true story.

[Danny Bird]

If anyone is going to hold your attention on stage, you have to kind of be a freak. Are you a freak? Hope so.

[Timothee Chalamet]

And starring Timothee Chalamet as Bob Dylan. He defied everyone.

[Danny Bird]

Turn it down.

[Timothee Chalamet]

They lie to change everything.

[Fouad Pasha]

Make some noise.

[Timothee Chalamet]

BD Timothee Chalamet Edward Norton El Fanny Monica Barbaro A complete unknown only in Peter's Christmas Day pretty DAR under 1790 minute without parenting this episode is brought to you by Lifelock. The holidays mean more travel, more shopping, more time online, and more personal info in places that could expose you to identity theft. That's why LifeLock monitors millions of data points every second. If your identity is stolen, their US based restoration specialist will fix it, guaranteed or your money back. Get more holiday fun and less holiday worry with Lifelock. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com podcast terms apply.

[Shopify Representative]

This episode is brought to you by Shopify. Upgrade your business with Shopify, home of the number one checkout on the planet. Shop Pay boosts conversions up to 50%, meaning fewer carts going abandoned and more sales going Cha Ching. So if you're into growing your business, get a commerce platform that's ready to sell wherever your customers are. Visit shopify.com to upgrade your Selling today.

[McCain Representative]

From your fryer to the table. It's a quick trip for crispy fries, but how about across town delivery? McCain sure. Crisp fries are designed to go from fryer to container to carrier to passenger seat across town during rush hour, down a shortcut that wasn't all that short to a doorstep before they hit the table. And that first bite, the crispiness speaks for itself.

[Danny Bird]

Mmm.

[McCain Representative]

To the last bite. McCain's SureCrisp fries go the distance. See how far our fries can take your [e-mail] Delivery.

[Fouad Pasha]

Welcome to the History Extra Podcast. Fascinating history historical conversations from the makers of BBC History magazine. In 1860, the diverse Ottoman city of Damascus witnessed the massacre of thousands of Christians. The killings, combined with Constantinople's hardline response, shattered the city's tolerant society, and it took 25 years for Damascus to recover its stability and prosperity. Earlier this year, historian Eugene Rogan spoke to Danny Bird to explain why these shocking events proved to be a watershed in the modern history of the Middle East. Please note that this episode was recorded prior to the recent overthrowing of the regime of Bashar al Assad.

[Eugene Rogan]

Eugene, thanks for joining me to discuss your book, which focuses on the shocking and brutal Events that unfolded in Damascus during 1860. Could we begin by setting the scene? What was happening in this part of the Middle east prior to the events of 1860?

[Danny Bird]

The mid 19th century was a period of transformative change for Syria. You had massive changes in the direction of trade as industrial Europe was beginning to take advantage of steam shipping to dump ever more amounts of the products of the wool and cotton mills of Manchester and Lyon into the markets of Beirut. And they're beginning to filter into Damascus in numbers that are really threatening the local artisanal trade and the Muslim merchants and artisans who made their money off that. This is also reorienting the trade of Damascus away from its natural hinterland of the desert roots. The trade of Damascus was always carried on camel caravans coming from Baghdad with all of the treasures of Persia, India and the eastern Asian lands, and the pilgrimage caravan from Mecca. So if you like, Damascus was a port, but it was a port of the desert. Now suddenly, its neighboring city, Beirut, is becoming a real entrepot for more and more European trade, accelerating ever faster with steam shipping. And behind these merchant interests of Europe, you start having a new consular presence as the British, the French, the Prussians, the Russians, the Greeks introduce foreign consuls to the city of Damascus starting in the 1830s. Normally that would sound like a benign development, but these consuls are all in a position to hire local Christians to serve in their consulates. And they begin to benefit from extraterritorial legal privileges. They wouldn't be tried by Ottoman law, tax breaks, they get taxed like foreigners. And all these developments are enhancing and enriching Ottoman Christians at the expense of the Ottoman Muslim majority. And I think in the course of 25 years, you went from a situation in which you would say Damascus was a city in equilibrium with an 85% Muslim majority, a Christian minority of 10 to 12%, and a Jewish minority about 3 or 4%, in which the Muslims were at the top of the heap, and in which the Christians and Jews were respected and protected, but distinctly second class citizens. Suddenly the economic center of gravity is shifting at the expense of the Muslim majority to the benefit of the Christians. And they're becoming increasingly assertive as their newfound political and economic powers are giving them an edge.

[Eugene Rogan]

Was Damascus unique in this respect? Was there anything special about that city in the region where the violence would later erupt?

[Danny Bird]

In 1860, Damascus was in many ways typical of provincial capitals of the Ottoman Empire. But Damascus had been isolated from the exchanges of the Mediterranean world, and in that sense was, in Islamic terms, a more conservative city than many of the cities on the coast, places like Smyrna or Izmir or Beirut or Alexandria, which were really cosmopolitan centers. Diversity in Damascus was all Arabic speaking. It might be Muslim Christians and Jews, but they were all ethnic Arabs. Their worldview was being challenged by the kind of advent of new ideas and influences coming from Europe, really for the first time in mid century. And if they were looking for the Ottoman state, remember the Sultan, the head of the Ottoman Empire, was also the Caliph, the spiritual leader of the global ummah of Sunni Muslims. If Sunni Muslims in Damascus were looking for someone to take their side in recalibrating the society of Damascus, the Ottomans failed them as well. Because in a bid to try and stave off a particularly pernicious European practice of intervening in Ottoman domestic affairs in the protection of minority communities, the Ottomans began to pass reform measures to try and increase the legal standing or powers of minority communities. The argument was, Britain, France, Russia, you no longer need to interfere in Ottoman affairs to protect Christians and Jews, because they're all equal before the law of the Ottoman Empire now. But when that reform was passed by the Ottoman state in 1856, granting total legal equality to Christians and Jews alongside Muslims, this was a real blow to the standing of the conservative Sunni Muslim factions of Damascus. And for them, faced with pressure from abroad, their own government had let them down too. And I think it was a real spark for the tensions that were to develop between 1856 and the massacre of 1860.

[Eugene Rogan]

You've kind of alluded to it there, and many people listening will be familiar with the Ottoman Empire's diagnosis as the sick man of Europe. Do you think that's a fair description of the empire during the mid 19th century?

[Danny Bird]

I think it's a fair description of the way Europeans looked at the Ottoman Empire. And I think the mistake we make as historians is to buy into the European worldview when we study the Ottoman Empire. My history of the Ottoman Empire suggests a state that was very adaptable to a rapidly changing world, disadvantaged militarily and economically by the kind of supercharged Europe of the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution. But the Ottomans were translating those ideas and technologies that had so helped a supercharged Europe to the benefit of their own state. And I think that the 19th century period of reforms really reflects as much the success of the Ottoman state in adapting to 19th century modernity as it was about them trying to play their position of weakness to gain European goodwill. And maybe if we look at the Tanzimat, we could divide those 19th century reforms the Tanzimat, referring to reforms that take place between 1839 and the promulgation of the Ottoman Constitution in 1876. So a good four plus decades of reform, you could divide those reforms between those which are really targeting European public opinion and those which were to make the Ottoman state fit for purpose. And in the latter agenda, I think the Ottomans achieved a great deal. In my book, if the Ottoman reforms were part of the explanation of what broke down in Damascus and led to a massacre in 1860, I would also argue that the success of reconstruction that followed those events was in itself a success story of the same reform process.

[Eugene Rogan]

Was the violence in 1860 an aberration or were massacres and state violence a common occurrence during Ottoman rule?

[Danny Bird]

The massacres of 1860 were absolutely unprecedented in their extent and their violence. It was practically unheard of to have large scale communal violence, as was witnessed in Mount Lebanon in May, June of 1860 and in Damascus in July of 1860. Following these events, you would have massacres on horrific scales, targeting the Greek community for various uprisings such as in Crete. And of course, the deterioration of Ottoman Armenian relations would give rise to wide scale massacres in Eastern anatolia in the 1890s, in the coastal city of Adana in 1909, and of course, the Armenian genocide of 1915-1918. In a sense, I would say the events in Syria and Lebanon are the kind of original sin of communal violence that we will witness later in the 19th century. But before then, I cannot think in the Arab or Turkish lands of any event to match the violence and bloodletting that took place in 1860.

[Eugene Rogan]

Looking at the massacre itself, could you describe some of what actually transpired on the ground during those horrific events?

[Danny Bird]

Tensions have been building between the Muslim and Christian community. In a sense, I think the events in Mount Lebanon played a key role in raising those tensions. If you like, the Muslims of Damascus had examined their relations with the Christian community and had identified their Christian problem. At the same time, very different communities. The Maronites of Mount Lebanon, the Druze, as a distinct religious community that were a kind of esoteric offshoot of Shiite Islam, had their own conflict emerge into a civil war in which the druze, outnumbered about 4 to 1 by Christian fighters, had come to see the Christians as posing a threat to their existence in Mount Lebanon and decided to take the initiative by shock attacks in which the Jews could not afford to lose a single battle. And in the course of May and June, in mixed cities or Christian towns such as Jazine or Deir El Qamar or Hezbollah or Rashaya, culminating in the attack on the town of Zahli, overlooking the Makah Valley. The Druze were able to achieve total victory over their Christian neighbors and in the process kill some 11,000 mostly Christian men of fighting age. The Damascene Muslims viewed the Druze, who identified their own Christian problem as an existential threat for which extermination seemed a reasonable solution. And they were positively excited to watch these two communities deteriorate into bloodletting and began to dream of taking similar action against their own Christian problem. We know this from accounts of contemporaries who describe how the Muslim merchants in Damascus celebrated the fall of the Christian stronghold of Zahli by hanging lanterns in the markets of Damascus. In celebration, the authorities had to go and force them to take them down. But you have the development of a real bloodlust. And at the same time that they're dreaming of massacring their Christian threat to eliminate their Christian problem, the Muslims of Damascus irrationally begin to believe that the tiny Christian minority of Damascus was plotting the same against them. And our contemporary accounts, on which my book is based are full of these wild rumors. Muslims claiming that Christians were hiding hundreds of armed men who would rise up and massacre them when they were at their mosques of prayer. Or false rumors of such massacres against Muslims in Jerusalem or in the Syrian town of Homs that never took place. But I think it's a reflection of when you have bad intentions towards another community, you imagine them thinking the same against you. And it was in that febrile atmosphere that you had really just a spark to set off a Muslim mob that ran amok through the streets of the Christian quarter. Their chant was rob, murder, burn. And that's precisely the game plan they played to. They robbed the Christian houses of every possession, every valuable, right down to the windows and nails of the houses. They murdered the men and the adolescent boys. They abducted, in many cases, raped women of the household, and then they set the houses on fire. And fearful that the Ottoman authorities might at any moment intervene with soldiers or police when they realized that no one was stopping them, the madness carried on. This went on for seven to eight days, unchecked, in the course of which the intention was to kill every Christian, certainly every Christian male. The children were spared. The women could be integrated into households, kill the Christian men, burn down their houses so there would be no trace of the Christians in the community, burn down the churches, the monasteries, all the institutions of religious orders, and then in this way, there would be no Christians to come back and it would have succeeded had you not had the intervention of key Muslim notables who, appalled at this mindless violence against their Christian neighbors, intervened to try and rescue Christians from the mob. And they succeeded. Largely 85% of the Christian community survives these horrific massacres, but in the process, 5,000 Christians are killed, 2,500 Damascene Christians, and an estimated 2,500 who were refugees from previous attacks on towns and villages around Damascus who had come to the city for protection. Those, in effect, were the Damascus events.

[Etsy Representative]

This episode is brought to you by Etsy. Oh, hear that?

[Danny Bird]

Okay, thank you.

[Etsy Representative]

Etsy knows these aren't the sounds of holiday gifting. Well, not the ones you're hoping for. You want squeals of delight? Happy tears?

[Timothee Chalamet]

How did you.

[Etsy Representative]

And spontaneously written songs of joy.

[Timothee Chalamet]

I am so happy.

[Danny Bird]

Oh yeah, oh yeah, oh yeah.

[Etsy Representative]

Um, okay, the song needs a bit of work, but anyway, to get those reactions, make sure everyone on your list feels heard with handmade, handpicked and designed gifts from small shops on Etsy. Gifts like personalized jewelry, custom artwork, cozy style items, vintage pieces, and home decor to celebrate all of your favorite people and their specific kind of special. For original gifs that say I get you, Etsy has it Hablas Espanol.

[Babbel Representative]

If you've heard that sound from Babbel before, I bet you do. Babbel is the science backed language learning app that actually works with quick 10 minute lessons handcrafted by over 200 language experts. Babbel gets you on your way to speaking a new language in just a few weeks with over 16 million subscriptions sold and a 20 day money back guarantee. Just start speaking another language with Babbel right now. Up 55% off your Babbel subscription at babbel.com Spotifypodcast spelled B A B B L.com Spotifypodcast rules and restrictions may apply.

[Eugene Rogan]

As you've already mentioned, there was a precedent for European intervention in the Ottoman world and I was just curious to know if there was any direct involvement from the European powers before, during and after the atrocity.

[Danny Bird]

The European powers were quick to respond to the violence that unfolded in Mount Lebanon and then in Damascus. As soon as news of the massacres in Lebanon reached the west. The government of Napoleon III in France chose to dispatch a 6,000 man intervention force with the mission of protecting the Christians and helping their resettlement and to reinforce the Ottoman Empire in trying to restore law and order. Those were all very noble goals from the Ottoman perspective. They feared that French measures were actually a pretext for what could be a colonial intervention? Ottoman reasons for such concerns were well grounded since, after all, France had occupied Algeria, a former Ottoman domain, in 1830, and was still there. So there was a real concern that European intervention not be allowed to encroach on Ottoman sovereignty in such a vital and strategic area as the eastern Mediterranean coastline. The Europeans also dispatched a multinational commission involving representatives not just from France, but Britain, Russia, Prussia, Austria, to go and give advice to the Ottoman officials on how to restructure the governance of Mount Lebanon to prevent future outbreaks of violence such as had been witnessed in 1860. And in a sense, this was a continuation of these European politics of intervening in the Ottoman Empire on behalf of the Christian community that the Ottomans had hoped to forestall by their reforms of the Tanzimat. So they had to send one of their most experienced statesmen to try and contain the damage and struggle to preserve Ottoman sovereignty over the Syrian lands. The man they chose then serving as foreign minister was a man named Fouad Pasha, one of the great thinkers and reformers of the Tanzimat age. He was actually one of the officials who drafted the 1856 reform law that gave legal equality. So he was someone who was really invested in the reform process, saw the events in Damascus in particular as a kind of reactionary intervention to prevent the reforms that he was advocating. And he came with a broom to try and sweep up the mess, preserve these territories for the Ottoman Empire and to keep the threat of European intervention at bay.

[Eugene Rogan]

I'd like to turn now to your own personal journey in the sense that you mentioned in the book that you'd spent the past 30 plus years researching these events. Could you tell me a little bit about the sources you discovered and how they've embellished this part of history?

[Danny Bird]

It was one of the fun aspects of my story to go back to a visit to the archives when I was still just a doctoral student in 1989. I was working on Ottoman measures east of the River Jordan. And the two major cities where you had foreign consuls reporting on these events were Jerusalem and Damascus. I'd been to the French and the British archives. I'd done all my work locally. It made sense just to touch base and see if the American consular records didn't hold material of interest to my subject. But more than that, I was aware that the first American Vice Consulate to Damascus was one of the leading intellectuals of the day. His name was Michael, or Michael Meshaka, and Meshaka was A native of Mount Lebanon, born in 1800, well published author in his day leading thinker of the Arab Renaissance known as the Nahda. So of all the material, I was most excited to read his reports in his role as America's first Vice Consul, Damascus. He was appointed in September of 1859. And when I went to the American archives and called up the first three volumes of Damascus registers, the archivist could not find them. And after several repeat attempts, they invited me back into the stacks, the kind of inner sanctum of the archive. I felt very excited just to get back there and have a look inside. And I was about to give up because all the registers were in place, they were in good order, when I noticed on one shelf over to his side, there were three little notebooks that didn't seem to fit with the rest of these leather bound, August looking volumes with the crest of the U.S. state Department. And as I took one down, it was a 19th century notebook, obviously locally sourced in Damascus, with a paper label glued on the front, written entirely in Arabic, saying Register of the Consular Correspondence of the Vice consulate of Damascus, 1859-1865. And I found them. The archivists had not been able to catalog those volumes because there wasn't anything in English to guide them. They must have come back with a kind of item list when the materials repatriated from Damascus to the archives in Damascus, probably in the mid 20th century. But I realized this is 1989, I was the first researcher to lay hold of this material. For all I knew, the first person to hold them since Meshaka himself penned them, which was one of those exciting discoveries. It's the only time I've had that in all my years as an archival historian. And I was literally shaking with excitement because I knew I was holding the most important new material, shedding light on Damascus before, during and after this crucial moment of 1860. And in my mind, I said at that point that the next book I write after I finish my doctorate and publish that was going to be Damascus.

[Eugene Rogan]

That is an incredible find and an incredible story. And why is Meshaka such an invaluable eyewitness to the events of 1860?

[Danny Bird]

Well, we have a number of very detailed and excellent contemporary manuscripts, mostly written by Christians. I have two wonderful sources by Muslim notables that had been published and were very useful for me in balancing out the Christian perspective with that of the Muslim community. But all of these works tended to be published, or rather written after the events. Mashaka himself wrote a history of Syria and Lebanon in the 18th and 19th century, and he finishes it with his personal experiences of the events of 1860. But he wrote that in 1873, 13 years after the event, informed by hindsight. What makes the reports he wrote? There's two volumes of reports by Mishaka father and the third volume by his son Nasif, who succeeded him as vice consul. So there's a decade worth of reports there that are week by week. They have no sense of hindsight, they have no sense of what the future holds. And they capture the mood, the fears, the detail of Damascus in far more granularity than any of the later sources I've ever read. And in that way, I feel Damascus comes out in these reports as so much more of a vital and dynamic city. A city that's not reduced to the kind of picture postcards of most of the descriptive works of the time, but a city of crime and criminality, of prostitution, of, you know, pranksters and of gangs. And, you know, you identify with the city as a real place when you get to do a deep dive. And Mishaka himself was a fantastic guide. He's definitely a flawed character. I came to him with deep admiration, knowing about the many works he'd written. But, you know, I'm shocked to learn that the man married a 12 year old. What kind of man marries a 12 year old? Or that when it came to trying to itemize his losses, he tried to reclaim the value of a female slave. Oh, my God. We have one of the leading theological thinkers of 19th century Damascus, a Protestant convert, an American vice consul, just on the eve of the American Civil War, which is about slavery, trying to reclaim the value of a slave. And he writes about her in very inhuman terms. This is a property. So this is many ways, because of his flaws. I think Meshaka is a much better guide to that very different, very strange land of mid 19th century Damascus. And I felt so lucky to do a deep dive through his reports, hundreds of reports as they are, to go through that decade of lead up to crisis, the calamity itself, and then the long road back to reconstruction and the reconciliation that ultimately followed.

[Eugene Rogan]

Did Meshaka attribute blame for the massacre to any particular group or organization? And did he have any recommendations on what should be done to protect the region's Christians after the events Here again.

[Danny Bird]

It'S so interesting being able to compare and contrast what Meshaka himself was writing in 1860 and thereafter with what he himself wrote in his history in 1873. In his history of 1873. If he lays the blame anywhere, it's on the behavior of pretentious Christians, not recognizing that there was a kind of social hierarchy and not all people were created equal and that we all had a duty to be obedient to the diktats of the state and the government, that we owed them obedience. And through such obedience was order. So a very kind of obedient servant of the Ottoman order. It's almost shocking to read if you go back to his reports. He writes with an outrage at the failings of the Ottoman governor to fulfill his duties to preserve and protect the Christians from such violence. He's absolutely conspiratorial. He believes that the governor was almost certainly personally engaged but had done everything to promote or encourage the violence rather than try and contain and stop it. So his reports blame squarely on the failings of the government of the governor, Ahmed Pasha. And he identifies some heroes among the Muslim community. He doesn't see it in strictly sectarian terms, but a failing governance by the Ottoman state and its representatives for sure.

[Eugene Rogan]

In your book you mention that the 1860 events in Damascus represent a kind of turning point in the history of the Middle East. Could you explain what you mean by that?

[Danny Bird]

Until 1860 there remained the expectation among the Muslim majority in the Ottoman Empire that their society would continue to resist change in ways that brought the Ottoman world in line with, let's say, European norms. So the whole notion that minority communities, Christians and Jews, would be self governing isolated camps within the Ottoman state in what they used to call the millet system, which had first been challenged by the legal equality of the 1856 reform. The ways in which the Ottomans reimposed their order in Damascus was to ensure that the new order of citizens, rights and equality between all Ottomans would now become established. And this takes the Ottomans away from that old order of, as I said, self governing groups within the Ottoman state, much more to a modern notion of citizenship where through reforms to local governance, for instance, you have councils at all level of government that local people are elected to. So you have the principle of election, you can stand for office, you can vote and that you can be voted into office. In which Muslims, Christians and Jews were all represented. There would be a quota system. This was heading in the direction towards a notion of citizenship and the choice and the changing of one's leaders by the vote, which was a total departure from the old order and the beginning of a new order. It was also a time in which the Ottomans began to see the value of linking their economy more directly through communications infrastructure. This is a big part of linking Damascus to the Ottoman world and the world beyond by telegraph. By proper highways that allow the movement of goods and people by carriage rather than on donkey or horseback. Distances become much shorter in the Ottoman Empire and it'll be followed by the advent of urban infrastructure transport like tramways or indeed even the railway. And suddenly steam begins to displace animal power. The groups that used to make their living from animal power, such as Bedouin tribes, would have to rethink their place in society and economy. And even the morphology of cities began to change. A city like Damascus, which was built to accommodate camels and mules, now had to have its streets widened to allow two way traffic of coaches and carriages. And the old kind of thousand and one night markets give way to these broad new arcades of covered markets, some stretching 500 or 600 meters in length. It was truly a new modernity that was distinctly Ottoman, but very much influenced by the changes shaping the modern world of Europe, North America, but also of India, of China, of Japan, of Latin America. And I think it's Ottoman modernity in that distinctly translated sense that we can really see 1860 as a major turning point where there was a before and there was an after. And I think the Ottoman reassertion of control and power with these new forms of modernity was very much part of a post 1860 world.

[Eugene Rogan]

Can the event that's widely known as the Armenian Genocide, though that term is disputed by Turkey, be considered an echo of the 1860 events that took place in Damascus?

[Danny Bird]

It seems to me that each genocidal moment has distinct precursors. And in that sense, I think people are less influenced by previous acts of violence as, let's say, a factor of imitation. And rather, I would look at the ways in which specific tensions give rise in communities that lead to that very particular conjuncture where one community views the other as an existential threat and where extermination then becomes a reasonable solution. As I say those words, it's such a banal sounding formula, but you have to put yourself in the situation, Danny, of imagining that everybody on your side of your residential neighborhood took it in their heads to kill everyone on the opposite side of the street, went into the kitchen to get knives and went hand to hand to kill the other. That's what this kind of violence looks like. And it's not to say that the people caught up in it are in any way so different from you and me, from our societies. It's just over a period of time, you will have a very specific breakdown in relations between communities. And when it comes to the Armenians, it has a Lot to do with local situations that are particular to each moment. I mean, I think in many ways I have the hardest time of making sense of the Adana massacre of Armenians in 1909. It comes in the aftermath of a counter revolution being put down in 1909. And I, for the life of me, cannot make sense why suddenly at that moment, the Armenians of Adna became a target. But in the First World War and the Armenian genocide itself, which comes just six years after the Adana massacres, there was a distinct change in the perception of the Armenian community of the Ottoman Empire to be seen at a moment where the Ottomans were total war as a fifth column aiding Russia. Who was the existential threat for the Ottomans on their eastern frontier, that particularly after the Ottomans lost their bold gambit to try and encircle and defeat the Russians in the middle of winter snows at the end of December, beginning of January 1914, 1915, the Ottoman 3rd army was one of the most important, strongest armies. And of roughly 100,000 men who went forward, some 20,000 came back. It was devastating. And the eastern frontier with Russia was never reestablished as a secure zone for the Ottomans. They felt always vulnerable to Russia on their eastern frontier. And those were the territories in which Armenians of the Ottoman Empire were concentrated. And they found themselves being appealed to by Armenians in Russian Armenia to cross lines and make common cause. And it's that very specific context that turned Armenians not just in eastern Anatolia, but everywhere in the empire as an existential threat to the Ottomans at a time of total war. Please do not mistake this for justification, but in understanding the context, we can help to explain how such aberrant instances of mass violence can take place. But I think it's important to look to each genocidal moment for its own specific origins. There will always be something quite specific to the breakdown in relations between the communities involved. And I don't think anyone was looking back on 1860 events before launching the genocide against Armenians in 1915.

[Eugene Rogan]

Since the Arab Spring, present day Syria has endured a brutal civil war. Do the events of 1860 hold any relevance to Syrians seeking to rebuild their shattered society today?

[Danny Bird]

Your question is very relevant, and I think the events of 1860 have for most people, long been forgotten. At the time I was writing up my book, the Syrian historian Sami Mubayad brought out a history in Arabic on the 1860 events, which I got the chance to read from COVID to cover as I was writing my own. And it's a wonderful book, very well written, and he wrote it in a bid to prevent these events from being forgotten because he believed that Syrians could learn from their history, that there were lessons of value to Syrians divided by conflict now. And as a Syrian historian, he took a light touch to talking about the nature of the conflict now. But his readers don't need to be reminded what he's talking about. Is there a lesson of relevance to assyria, devastated by 13 years now of civil war? And if so, what? And I mean, the first thing to say is that the difference between the conflicts of 1860 and post 2011 means it's almost. It bears no comparison. So the destruction inflicted on the Christian quarters inside the walls of the old city of Damascus in 1860 numbered about 1,500 houses and perhaps 3 to 500 shops, workshops, factories. The destruction since 2011 numbers in the millions of housing units across several cities of Syria. And so the sheer magnitude, the scale of the destruction, the scale of loss of life, means that it's almost impossible to think of what in the history of 1860 is relevant to Syrians. The only thing I can say is that this story is not just about how a society breaks down into mass violence, but it's also a story about how a society can reconstruct and find a way towards reconciliation of estranged communities to turn the page and move forward against the prospect of a better future for the next generation. There is that moral to the story that might mean that this history will have something of value or relevance to be told to Syrians themselves. The only other community of Syrians that I think are touched by this history will, of course, be the Christian communities of Syria. Their own experience of the conflict since 2011 has been very difficult, many of them having been taken hostage or kidnapped by various Salafi groups who then tried to ransom them to raise money. And in that way, I think the conflict has driven many Christian churches to seek the support of the government of Bashar Al Assad, which for many Syrians, has put them on the wrong side of history. But those communities never forgot the events of 1860. And recently, measures have been taken to canonize Franciscan priests who were killed in the 1860 events. They're known in Syria as the Damascus Martyrs. And the very fact that they remain alive enough issue that the canonization of these people, these priests killed in the 1860 events, tells you that that part of the history remains a living legacy for the Christians of Damascus. They, at least, are aware that when relations between the minority community and the majority community break down, that it can spell an existential threat for the Christians of Syria and indeed Christians across the Middle east have found the 21st century makes the Middle east an increasingly hostile territory. And many authors have followed the decline in the numbers of Christian churches not just in Syria but in Iraq and Jordan and Lebanon and Palestine and Israel to be a cause of real concern that in a sense in the birthplace of Christianity that so many Christian churches are being driven beyond their homelands. So there are elements of this story which will be of relevance to all Syrians, but ultimately it is history and it's as history that its contribution will stand. We write about this so that we don't forget, we hope through not forgetting not to repeat the mistakes or the horrors of the past.

[Fouad Pasha]

That was Eugene Rogan, whose book the Damascus events, the 1860 massacre and the Destruction of the Old Ottoman World is out now, published by Alan Lane. Thanks for listening. This podcast was produced by Daniel Kramer Arden.