Some people talk about Saudi Arabia as if it is some political aberration created by Britain and the United States special interests. In fact, the Saudi royal family can trace its origins to the 15th century, and rose to become a major military, religious and political force in the early 18th century, before the United States even existed and when European powers didn’t dare challenge the Ottoman supremacy in the Persian Gulf.
The First Saudi State was established when Sheikh Mohammed Ibn Abdul Wahab settled in Diriyadh and Prince Mohammed Ibn Saud backed his movement to cleanse the Islamic faith. Initially a mere rabble of radicals in the desert wasteland, the Saud forces soon ousted the Ottomans from the Persian Gulf and went on to capture the Holy Cities of Islam. They were defeated by Egyptian forces, acting on Ottoman orders, who razed the Saudi capital to the ground, executed the Whabbi religious agitators, and exiled the political figures.
The Second Saudi State emerged very shortly thereafter, but only ruled in the eastern half of Arabia. They were challenged and eventually conquered by another Arab Emirate that emerged in the north, but not for long — the Saudi clan roared back in the early 20th century, and during World War I, succeeded in largely unifying the interior of the Arabian Peninsula. It was probably only British influence and power along the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf shore that protected Oman, Qatar, and the other emirates of the Persian Gulf.
The history of this geography can be visualized here:
You can read a pro-Saudi version of this narrative at the Saudi Aramco website.
The role of Saudi Arabia in defeating the Ottomans and expelling them from the Persian Gulf had major implications for the geopolitics of the 19th century and beyond. I’ll be addressing more of this in future, but understanding the role of the Saudi role in ending Ottoman Rule in the Near East is a key prerequisite to reviewing the modern history of the Persian Gulf.
Very good post.
I once read something along these lines: “On a map, the Emirates, Qatar, and Bahrain look suspiciously as if they were cut out by a foreign power with the sole intention of preventing Saudi Arabia from having easy access to the Persian Gulf… which, of course, they were”
That’s true, although the language is deceptive, and makes the British sound a lot more powerful in Arabia than they really were. More accurately, the existing rulers of tiny and otherwise inconsequential provinces were able to preserve their power by leveraging the influence of the British. Such are the mechanics of politics.
Can you list your primary sources in regards to the First Saudi State’s history,
John Philby and Captain Shakespeare might have something to say about it.
Wikipedia.
You could go on for chapters and chapters regarding John Philby’s career in the Middle East if we expanded this one line: “It was probably only British influence and power along the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf shore that protected Oman, Qatar, and the other emirates of the Persian Gulf.”
Ever wonder how the Middle East might look had WWI not happened?
Very interesting question… I don’t think that WWI was quite a definitive moment for the Middle East as many people would have us believe. Ottoman influence and power in the region was steadily receding for at least a century before WWI, with the first Saudi State, the French capture of Algeria, and the British treaties with various emirates along the fringe of the Arabian Peninsula. By 1910, the Saudis were the new power in Arabia Proper, France and Britain were quick to throw their power and influence around along the coastal regions where they felt it was convenient, prudent, and in their interest, and WWI only accted to accelerate Ottoman decline. The big question, I think, is how powerful the Saudis would have become had they been left to their own devices, and what could have checked them. Some schemes had them taking power as far as Palestine and Mesopotamia — could they have gone farther into Egypt or Persia? How long will they last? In 50 years, when the oil money is gone and the migrant laborers go home, the country could quickly degenerate into a nomadic wasteland, lasting for as long as possible on the crumbling infrastructure built with temporal fortunes.
Turkey possibly going a bit further south into the Kurdish areas of Mesopotamia. Israel would not exist. Lebanon would probably be a part of Syria. SA would extend into parts of Jordan and Iraq.
The real artificial states of the area seem to be Jordan and Iraq.
Re Curzon: Thanks for the thoughtful reply. In regard to the Ottomans, I tend to agree that their empire would have continued to melt away, but perhaps not. Suppose they had lasted another 20 years without WWI? By the 1930s, the oil strikes had occurred and money was flowing to the region. Could petrodollars have saved the Ottomans? Re Oliver: Your point about Israel was one of the things I was thinking about. Am also wondering about Kuwait? Would they have remained a part of Iraq had their been no Versailles Treaty to hack them off? And as you suggest, would there even be an Iraq? Apologies to Curzon for going off topic.
Re Feeblemind:
I’m not familiar with the modern Ottoman Empire, but I don’t think petrodollars would have saved it. As Curzon mentioned, it was already on the decline. It also seems that there has only ever been one country that has gained very disproportionate windfalls from the extraction of a single resource and not become a corrupt or autocratic State: Norway. But that’s just off the top of my head.
Kuwait became a British protectorate in 1899. The Gulf coast is mainly a product of the 19th century. If anything changes at all, Kuwait is larger as oil would have given Britain a reason to expand it.
Israel among other things wouldn’t exist without the Balfour declaration, which wouldn’t be made without Britain at war with the Ottoman empire and in trouble. This could happen only in a World War.
Question,
Why was in in the early 20th the Saudi’s were powerful enough to expand so fast? Now with its wealth and western military equipment it is considered a paper tiger. It long relied on foreign expertise like Pakistani pilots.
During the Siege of Mecca it needed French and Pakistani help (they also turned down the help of competent Hashemite Jordanian commandos).
Basically it is only strong due to money and foreign help it can buy while Iraq, Iran and Jordan seem to be much stronger militarily.
DJ, why were they able to expand so rapidly in the 18-19th century? It certainly wasn’t Pakistani pilots then.
Certainly King Ibn Saud, during his exile in Kuwait, became keenly aware of the importance of geopolitics, as Kuwait, a minor kingdom with nothing of real value except a minor pearling industry, that survived by playing politics with the great powers of the region.
Interesting, I have heard a comment a few times that the House of Saud are the masters of Arab tribal politics. That sounds like the same vein as your explanation.
Pingback: ComingAnarchy.com » The Geography of Vietnam Through History
Pingback: Yemen: Geography Matters! « Bulldogger's Blog
Turkey possibly going a bit further south into the Kurdish areas of Mesopotamia. Israel would not exist. Lebanon would probably be a part of Syria. SA would extend into parts of Jordan and Iraq.