In the early months of the First World War, the Ottoman EmpireOttoman Empire ottoman-empire The Islamic empire centred on Istanbul that ruled Anatolia, the Arab Middle East, North Africa, and southeastern Europe from the fourteenth century to its dissolution after the First World War. Its collapse created the modern states of the Middle East, Turkey, and the Balkans in ways that continue to shape regional politics. At its peak in the sixteenth century, the Ottoman Empire encompassed an enormous territory from Hungary to Yemen, from Algeria to the borders of Persia. It was a multi-ethnic, multi-religious state governed through the millet system, which granted non-Muslim communities (Christians, Jews) significant autonomy in their internal affairs in exchange for taxes and political loyalty. The nineteenth century brought simultaneous challenges: nationalist movements among the Balkan populations — Serbs, Greeks, Bulgarians, Romanians — used the language of national self-determination to carve independent states from Ottoman territory, with Russian and Western support; the empire lost more than a third of its European territory in the 1877–78 war with Russia. Attempts at modernisation and reform — the Tanzimat reforms, the Young Turk Revolution of 1908 — failed to arrest the decline and produced new tensions between Turkish nationalist modernisers and the empire’s Arab, Armenian, and Kurdish populations. The First World War was catastrophic: the empire entered on the German side, suffered the Armenian Genocide (1915–23), lost the Arab provinces to British-led forces, and was dissolved by the Treaty of Sèvres (1920) — replaced by the Turkish Republic under Ataturk, whose territorial integrity was established by the Treaty of Lausanne (1923). The Ottoman Empire’s collapse created the modern Middle East in ways that are still unfolding. The borders drawn by the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the subsequent mandates reflected French and British strategic priorities rather than the population distributions, administrative traditions, or political aspirations of the peoples concerned. The result was a set of states whose internal social compositions were incompatible with the nation-state model imposed on them: Iraq with its Sunni-Shia-Kurdish divisions, Lebanon with its confessional arithmetic, Syria with its minority-dominated military, Israel-Palestine with its overlapping claims. These incompatibilities were not caused by the Ottoman Empire — which governed diverse populations through systems of autonomous administration — but by the particular form of its destruction and replacement. The ongoing instability of the region reflects, in significant part, the unresolved consequences of those decisions made in London and Paris between 1916 and 1920. made a decision that would shape the conflict in the Middle East for years to come. On the night of February 2–3, 1915, an Ottoman army—exhausted after a month-long marchLong March long-march The Chinese Communist Party’s 6,000-mile strategic retreat of 1934–35, in which approximately 100,000 soldiers fled Chiang Kai-shek’s encirclement campaigns and crossed mountains and rivers to reach Yan’an in the northwest. The survival of the party and the emergence of Mao’s leadership made it the founding myth of the People’s Republic. The Long March began in October 1934 when the main Communist forces, nearly encircled by Chiang Kai-shek’s fifth encirclement campaign in Jiangxi province, broke through the Nationalist lines and began moving west and north. The march covered approximately 12,500 kilometres over twelve months across some of China’s most inhospitable terrain — the Luding Bridge chain crossing, the snow-covered peaks of the Great Snowy Mountains, the treacherous Grasslands of Sichuan. Of approximately 100,000 who began, around 8,000 reached Yan’an. The brutal attrition of the march had political consequences: it removed many of the Soviet-trained Comintern-oriented leaders and provided the crisis conditions in which Mao consolidated his authority, at the Zunyi Conference of January 1935, over the party’s military direction. The Long March established the CCP’s base in Yan’an, where it spent the decade before the civil war’s final phase building a distinctive political culture — mass mobilisation, land reform, guerrilla warfare — that would defeat the Nationalists in 1949. The march was retrospectively mythologised as a heroic journey that demonstrated the CCP’s indestructibility; Mao’s poem celebrating it — ‘The Red Army fears not the trials of the Long March’ — became one of the most famous texts in Chinese communist culture. The Long March is one of history’s most compelling examples of how military defeat, when survived, can be transformed into political capital. The CCP emerged from the march smaller but ideologically purified — in the sense that those who remained had demonstrated a level of commitment that the march itself had selected for — and with a leadership group forged by shared experience of extreme hardship. This transformation of near-annihilation into foundation myth is not unique to China: revolutionary movements from the Cuban guerrillas’ Sierra Maestra campaign to the Algerian FLN’s mountain retreats have used the experience of sustained adversity as a source of legitimacy. The myth also had a distorting effect: the Long March’s emphasis on self-reliance and mass mobilisation became ideological commitments that made the CCP resistant to both Soviet advice (useful when the advice was good) and modernisation strategies that didn’t fit the march’s heroic template. across the Sinai Peninsula—launched a desperate assault on the Suez Canal. The attack failed. British machine guns and the sheer width of the waterway repulsed the Ottoman forces before they could establish a foothold. But the offensive was more than a minor skirmish in a forgotten theater. It was a strategic gamble that revealed the Ottoman Empire’s ambitions, its dependencies, and the brutal realities of waging war across unforgiving terrain.
The Suez Canal offensive was the Ottoman Empire’s first major military operation after entering the Great War in November 1914. Conceived as a bold strike at the heart of British imperial communications, it aimed to sever the lifeline between London and its Asian colonies, incite an anti-British uprising in Egypt, and demonstrate the Ottoman state’s continued relevance as a global power. Yet the expedition also exposed the fragility of Ottoman military planning, the limits of German-Ottoman cooperation, and the profound logistical challenges that would plague the empire throughout the war. Understanding this campaign is essential for anyone seeking to grasp how the Ottoman Empire fought—and ultimately collapsed—during the First World War.
The Strategic Significance of the Suez Canal
When the Ottoman Empire joined the Central Powers in October 1914, the British government moved swiftly to secure what it considered the most vulnerable point in its imperial network: the Suez Canal. Completed in 1869, the canal had transformed global trade and military strategy. It reduced the sea voyage from London to Bombay from over 10,000 miles around the Cape of Good Hope to just 4,500 miles. For the British Empire, it was quite literally a lifeline—carrying troops, raw materials, and the oil from Persian refineries that increasingly powered the Royal Navy.
Egypt itself occupied an anomalous position. Formally still part of the Ottoman Empire under a khedive, it had been under British military occupation since 1882. When the Ottomans declared war, Britain responded by annexing Egypt outright, deposing the pro-Ottoman Khedive Abbas Hilmi II, and installing a sultanate under British protection. The Egyptian population, largely indifferent to the war’s European origins, found itself subject to martial law, forced labor, and requisitioning—a prelude to the widespread hardship that would later engulf the region.
For the Ottoman leadership, the canal represented both an opportunity and an ideological imperative. The ruling Committee of Union and Progress (CUP)—a faction of nationalist officers who had seized power in 1913—viewed British control over nominally Ottoman territory as a humiliation that demanded redress. More pragmatically, striking at the canal would disrupt British troop movements, particularly the flow of Indian soldiers to the Western Front. It would also demonstrate to Germany, the Ottomans’ new ally, that the empire was not a passive partner but a capable military force.
There was, however, a deeper logic rooted in Ottoman attempts to project Islamic authority. In November 1914, the Ottoman government proclaimed a jihadJihad jihad The Arabic term meaning ‘struggle’ or ‘effort’, used in Islamic theology to refer to both the internal spiritual struggle against sin and the external military struggle in defence of the faith. In contemporary political usage it is most often associated with the latter meaning, specifically armed struggle against non-Muslim rule or influence. In classical Islamic jurisprudence, jihad encompasses a range of meanings from the internal striving to be a better Muslim (often called the ‘greater jihad’) to the collective obligation of armed defence of the Muslim community (the ‘lesser jihad’). The political history of the term’s modern transformation is inseparable from the anti-colonial struggles of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, in which Islamic scholars and political leaders used jihad to mobilise resistance against European occupation of Muslim-majority lands. The contemporary association of jihad primarily with violent struggle is partly the result of the deliberate promotion of a particular interpretation by Salafi-jihadist organisations from the 1970s onward, and partly the result of Western media usage that narrowed the term’s meaning. In the works of ideologues like Sayyid Qutb and Abdullah Azzam, jihad was reframed as an individual obligation (fard ‘ayn) — applying to every Muslim — rather than a collective one directed by legitimate authorities, removing the institutional checks that classical jurisprudence had placed on its invocation. This reframing, combined with the Soviet-Afghan War experience and then the US interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, produced the jihadist movement as it is understood today. The analytical challenge with jihad in contemporary discourse is distinguishing between description and definition: using the term to describe a wide range of violent and non-violent Islamic political movements risks conflating organisations with radically different goals, methods, and social bases, while restricting it to violent extremism ignores the legitimate theological and political traditions the term encompasses. The term’s politicisation — by jihadist organisations that use it to claim universal Islamic sanction for their violence, and by Western politicians and media who use it to associate all Islamic political activism with terrorism — has made genuine analysis more difficult. For students of history, the more productive question is always specific: which organisation, in what context, pursuing what political goals through what means, funded and supported by whom? The word ‘jihad’ is a starting point for inquiry, not a conclusion. (holy war) against the Entente powers, calling on Muslims under British, French, and Russian rule to rise up. The Suez Canal offensive was intended to be the military accompaniment to this declaration. If Ottoman troops could cross the Sinai and threaten the canal, perhaps Egyptian Muslims would indeed rebel. The British garrison would be stretched thin. The very legitimacy of British rule in the Islamic world would be shattered.
The Architects of the Offensive
The man tasked with turning this vision into reality was Ahmed Djemal Pasha, one of the triumvirate of CUP leaders (along with Enver Pasha and Talat Pasha) who effectively ruled the empire. Djemal was appointed commander of the Fourth Army, headquartered in Damascus, with responsibility for the Syrian and Arabian provinces. He was a complex figure—energetic, autocratic, and deeply suspicious of Arab nationalism, which he sought to suppress through a combination of coercion and public works. His ambition for the canal offensive was immense. He reportedly told German officers that he intended to reach the canal by mid-December 1914 and then march on Cairo.
Djemal’s enthusiasm was tempered by reality. The Ottoman army was still recovering from the devastating Balkan Wars of 1912–13. Its officer corps had been purged, its equipment was outdated, and its supply systems were rudimentary. Moreover, Djemal had to contend with the presence of German advisors, whose influence over Ottoman military planning was growing. The most important of these was Colonel Friedrich Freiherr Kress von Kressenstein, a Bavarian engineer who would become the operational mastermind of the Sinai campaigns.
Kress von Kressenstein recognized the immense challenges of a cross-desert advance. The Sinai was not an empty wasteland—it contained oases, Bedouin tribes, and ancient caravan routes—but it lacked the infrastructure to support a modern army. Water was the critical constraint. An Ottoman division required tens of thousands of gallons per day, and the only reliable sources lay at intervals of forty to sixty miles. Kress understood that any offensive would require the construction of a pipeline, supply depots, and a rudimentary railway. But political pressure from Istanbul and Berlin, eager for a quick victory, pushed for haste.
The Ottoman force assembled for the expedition consisted of approximately 20,000–25,000 men, drawn from the Fourth Army’s corps. They were a mixed group—regular infantry, camel-mounted mürettep (provisional) units, and Bedouin irregulars promised payment and plunder. Artillery was limited, and there were no heavy siege guns capable of bombarding British warships in the canal. German officers later noted the poor state of Ottoman equipment: outdated rifles, insufficient ammunition, and uniforms ill-suited to the desert climate. Yet morale was initially high. The troops had been told they were marching to liberate Egypt, and Islamic eschatology mingled with nationalist fervor.
The March Across Sinai
The advance began in mid-January 1915. The main Ottoman column departed from Beersheba (now in southern Israel) and struck southwest toward the Suez Canal. A secondary force moved from Aqaba along the Gulf of Aqaba coast to threaten the canal’s southern reaches. The route was known from antiquity—the same path that Napoleon had contemplated, and that the British themselves had used for their own strategic surveys. But for an army of the early twentieth century, it was a logistical nightmare.
The Ottomans attempted to lay a water pipeline alongside their line of march, but the project was woefully inadequate. Pipes were improvised, pumps failed, and the pace of construction lagged far behind the troops. Soldiers carried goatskins filled with water, but consumption far exceeded supply. As the column advanced, wells at oases like Katia and Bir el-Abd were found to be insufficient or deliberately sabotaged by Bedouin loyal to the British. Horses and camels died by the hundreds. Men collapsed from exhaustion and dehydration. Accounts from German officers describe scenes of stragglers left behind, their tongues swollen, their minds delirious.
The Bedouin of the Sinai played a crucial role that is often overlooked. British intelligence had cultivated relationships with key tribal leaders, paying subsidies to secure their loyalty. Bedouin scouts provided constant reports on Ottoman movements, while their raiding parties attacked Ottoman supply columns. For the Ottomans, the Bedouin were a fickle ally—some had been recruited with promises of gold, but many more were content to wait and see which side would prevail.
Despite these hardships, the main Ottoman force reached the vicinity of the Suez Canal by early February. The plan was to cross the canal at several points using pontoon bridges and small boats, then seize the British defensive positions on the western bank. Kress von Kressenstein had personally reconnoitered the approaches and identified a section near the town of Ismailia as the most promising. There, the canal was narrower, and the terrain offered some cover. The attack was scheduled for the night of February 2–3, with the goal of achieving surprise.
The Battle for the Canal
The British defenders were, however, well prepared. By late 1914, the British had stationed around 30,000 troops in Egypt, a mix of Indian Army units, territorials, and a small contingent of ANZAC (Australian and New Zealand Army Corps) soldiers who were originally destined for the Western Front. The canal defenses were commanded by Major General Sir John Maxwell, a veteran of colonial campaigns who understood the strategic stakes. He had ordered the reinforcement of key positions, the construction of earthworks on the western bank, and the deployment of armed patrol boats—converted civilian vessels armed with naval guns—that could patrol the waterway.
Intelligence was another British advantage. The Ottomans had hoped for secrecy, but their preparations were detected early. Royal Navy seaplanes conducted reconnaissance flights over the Sinai, spotting the advancing columns. Bedouin informants provided details on Ottoman strength and timing. By the time the Ottoman troops reached the canal, the British knew exactly where and when they would strike.
In the early hours of February 3, Ottoman engineers attempted to launch their pontoons. They were met with a hail of fire from British machine guns and rifles. The patrol boats, their searchlights sweeping the canal, illuminated the Ottoman positions and unleashed heavy shelling. The pontoons were destroyed before they could reach the water. A few Ottoman soldiers managed to cross on makeshift rafts or by swimming, but they were quickly captured or killed. The secondary Ottoman force to the south fared no better, encountering entrenched Indian battalions at the town of Suez.
By dawn, the attack had collapsed. Ottoman commanders had no reserves to exploit any breakthroughs—there were none—and their artillery, positioned too far back, was ineffective. Casualties were relatively light by the standards of the war: around 200 Ottoman dead, 500 wounded, and several hundred captured. British losses were negligible. But the psychological impact was significant. The Ottoman army had been defeated without ever seriously threatening its objective.
Djemal Pasha initially tried to present the campaign as a reconnaissance in force, but the reality of failure was undeniable. The surviving Ottoman troops began a grim retreat back across the Sinai, retracing their path through the desert. Many more men died on the return march than in the battle itself. By the end of February, the Fourth Army was back in Palestine, its strength severely reduced, its morale broken.
Why the Offensive Failed
Historians have identified several interlocking reasons for the failure of the Suez Canal offensive. The most immediate was logistical. The Ottoman army simply lacked the capacity to project and sustain a modern force across hundreds of miles of desert. Water, transport, and supply lines were inadequate from the start, and the decision to advance before the pipeline was completed was a fatal miscalculation. Kress von Kressenstein later wrote that the offensive was launched “against all the principles of military science” due to political pressure.
Second, the Ottomans underestimated British defensive capabilities. The British had not only fortified the western bank but also maintained control of the canal itself, turning it into a mobile defensive barrier. The patrol boats, armed with naval guns, gave the defenders a firepower advantage that the Ottoman field artillery could not match. Moreover, British intelligence—through air reconnaissance, Bedouin scouts, and signals intercepts—robbed the Ottomans of any element of surprise.
Third, the much-anticipated Egyptian uprising never materialized. Egyptian society, still recovering from the British occupation and deeply ambivalent about Ottoman rule, did not rally to the jihad call. The ulama (religious scholars) at al-Azhar University, the center of Sunni learning, remained cautiously aligned with the British authorities, who had carefully managed religious affairs since 1882. When Ottoman troops reached the canal, local Egyptians largely stayed in their homes. The Bedouin of the Sinai, far from aiding the invaders, actively assisted the British.
Finally, the offensive suffered from a structural flaw in Ottoman decision-making. The CUP leadership in Istanbul, particularly Enver Pasha, was simultaneously launching a disastrous winter campaign against the Russians in the Caucasus—the Battle of Sarikamish—that would destroy the Ottoman Third Army. Resources were split between two distant fronts, and neither received the full support it needed. Djemal’s ambition clashed with Enver’s strategic priorities, and German advisors found themselves mediating rivalries rather than coordinating a coherent war effort.
Aftermath: The Canal Remains a British Lifeline
In the immediate aftermath, the British recognized that the canal’s security was far from guaranteed. The Ottoman failure in February 1915 was not the end of the Sinai campaign. Over the next two years, Kress von Kressenstein—now promoted to general—organized a systematic advance across the desert, building a railway and pipeline that eventually reached within thirty miles of the canal. Ottoman forces launched a second, larger attack in August 1916 at the Battle of Romani, which was again repulsed. Only then did the British go on the offensive, pushing the Ottomans back across Sinai into Palestine, culminating in the 1917 campaigns that led to the fall of Jerusalem.
For the Ottoman Empire, the Suez Canal offensive had long-term consequences. It failed to achieve any of its strategic objectives, yet it consumed resources that might have been used elsewhere. More importantly, it marked the beginning of Djemal Pasha’s increasingly authoritarian rule over Syria, where his paranoia about Arab separatism led to mass executions and deportations. These policies would later fuel the Arab Revolt of 1916, transforming the Ottoman-Arab relationship from one of imperial loyalty to open rebellion.
The campaign also demonstrated the limits of German-Ottoman military cooperation. German officers like Kress von Kressenstein brought technical expertise and organizational skills, but they could not resolve the fundamental weaknesses of the Ottoman war machine: inadequate infrastructure, a fragile economy, and a divided leadership. The Suez offensive was a rehearsal for the larger failures that would eventually consume the empire.
Rethinking the Ottoman War Effort
For decades, the Suez Canal offensive was treated by military historians as a footnote—a sideshow to the great battles of the Western Front. Recent scholarship, however, has reassessed the campaign’s significance. It was, in many ways, a microcosm of the Ottoman experience of the First World War: overreach fueled by ideological ambition, hampered by material constraints, and fought in punishing environments that tested the limits of human endurance. The offensive also illuminates the global nature of the war. Here was an Ottoman army, advised by German officers, attacking a waterway defended by Indian and ANZAC troops, seeking to destabilize a British protectorate whose population remained formally Ottoman. The lines of empire, alliance, and faith intersected in ways that defy simple narratives.
Moreover, the Suez offensive challenges the stereotype of the Ottoman army as an inherently “backward” force. The planning of the expedition—particularly the construction of a water pipeline across the desert—was an impressive feat of engineering, even if it was rushed. Ottoman officers learned rapidly from their mistakes. By the time of the Battle of Romani in 1916, the Ottoman Sinai expeditionary force was far better organized and supplied. The failure at Suez in 1915 was not a sign of incompetence but of the mismatch between ambition and the harsh realities of time, terrain, and logistics.
Conclusion
The Suez Canal offensive of 1915 was a bold gamble that failed, but its echoes reverberated throughout the war and beyond. For the British, it confirmed the vulnerability of their imperial communications and led to a sustained military buildup in Egypt that would eventually transform the country into a staging ground for the conquest of Palestine and Syria. For the Ottomans, it was an early warning that their empire, already weakened by decades of decline and recent military defeats, was ill-prepared for a war of attritionWar of Attrition Full Description A military strategy that aims to win by wearing down the enemy’s resources, manpower, and morale rather than by decisive manoeuvre. The Western Front (1914–1918) became the defining example of attritional warfare, where both sides accepted mass casualties in the belief that the enemy would collapse first. The battles of Verdun and the Somme in 1916 were explicitly designed as attritional campaigns, costing over a million casualties between them without producing a decisive result. Critical Perspective The attritional logic of the First World War has been used to condemn its commanders as uniquely callous — “lions led by donkeys.” This verdict has been substantially revised by military historians like John Terraine and Gary Sheffield, who argue that attrition was a rational response to the technological conditions of industrialised warfare, and that the British army’s learning curve from 1916 to 1918 represents a genuine military achievement. against a global power. The men who marched across the Sinai in January 1915—many of whom never returned—were among the first of the hundreds of thousands of Ottoman subjects who would perish in a war that ultimately destroyed the empire they sought to defend.
Today, the Suez Canal remains one of the world’s most strategic waterways, a testament to the enduring geopolitical importance of the Middle East. The Ottoman offensive of 1915 is largely forgotten, overshadowed by Gallipoli and the Arab Revolt. Yet it was a crucial opening act in the Ottoman collapse—a moment when an empire, attempting to reclaim its place in the world, instead revealed its fragility. Understanding that moment helps us see the First World War not only as a European conflict but as a global convulsion that redrew borders, shattered empires, and set the stage for the modern Middle East.
Further Reading & Sources
· Erickson, Edward J. Ordered to Die: A History of the Ottoman Army in the First World War. Greenwood Press, 2001.
· Fromkin, David. A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East. Henry Holt, 1989.
· Rogan, Eugene. The Fall of the Ottomans: The Great War in the Middle East. Basic Books, 2015.
· Djemal Pasha. Memories of a Turkish Statesman, 1913–1919. George H. Doran Company, 1922.
· Kress von Kressenstein, Friedrich. Mit den Türken zum Suezkanal. Schlegel, 1938.
Leave a Reply