Comparative History

This essay aims to describe and analyze the causes of the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, its external and internal agents and various historical and ideological components which condensed in diplomacy and Western historiography later would be known as the "Eastern Question." The writing begins by placing the main features that allowed the development and expansion of the Ottoman Empire and how the problems in the control of the eastern Mediterranean, the Balkans and Mesopotamia was the cause of further decline due to the interests of European powers on its territory (Russia and the exit to the Black Sea, England, and the control of the Suez canal) adding to this nascent nationalism in their territories, where Greeks, Serbs and Arabs and even the Turks themselves were not within their national projects in the continuity of Ottoman Empire. Completing these processes with their disintegration and the formulation of the Republic of Turkey.

Uno de los legados materiales más importantes que el mundo moderno ha recibido de la Antigüedad clásica, específicamente del Imperio Romano, es el sistema de consolidación territorial a través de la construcción de obras arquitectónicas y de ingeniería. La manera moderna de entender los límites entre países, de trazar ciudades y de controlar territorios y poblaciones, tiene su génesis en la Roma antigua. En un año en donde la guerra ha sido protagonista en los estudios históricos, cabe resaltar otros aspectos; no todo puede ser la desolación de la Primera Guerra Mundial, debe existir también un espacio para el legado material y cultural que hombres como Augusto heredaron a la humanidad. Sea esta la oportunidad para, asimismo, demostrar la posibilidad de elaborar ejercicios históricos sobre contextos lejanos en el tiempo y el espacio, pero cercanos gracias a las tecnologías de la información y al legado patente.

La historia militar es vista con recelo por parte de la academia, los estudios de historia militar son prácticamente huérfanos y en un país en conflicto como Colombia, hablar historiográficamente sobre estos temas se convierte en tabú, a pesar de los avances historiográficos que esta corriente ha tenido en las últimas décadas. Esta ponencia busca reflexionar sobre la naturaleza misma de la guerra, la historiografía militar y la pertinencia de su aplicación en Colombia, todo esto con el fin de hacer un aporte a la labor social del historiador frente al pasado y la historia del conflicto.

Ponencia presentada el 25 de septiembre de 2013 en el marco del primer Congreso Colombiano de estudiantes de Historia, desarrollado en la Universidad de Cartagena, Colombia.

Esta ponencia, presentada el 15 de octubre de 2014 en el IV Congreso Internacional de Estudiantes de Historia en Lima, Perú. Expone las principales conclusiones de mi trabajo de grado, y versa sobre las diversas transformaciones en el modo de hacer la guerra durante la independencia de Colombia, las influencias de las guerras del antiguo régimen en el siglo XVIII y las guerras napoleónicas y la confluencia de estas experiencias en la conformación de un modo de guerra «colombiano», que tuvo su génesis en la campaña definitiva de la independencia nacional: la campaña libertadora de 1819.

Ponencia presentada el 2 de marzo de 2015 en el Coloquio "A 150 años de la Guerra del Paraguay: Conflictos armados en América Latina" En la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

En el siglo XIX, dos procesos integrales surcan la historia de América Latina: la independencia de los territorios españoles, y su posterior conformación como naciones. Esta conformación, en muchas ocasiones fue violenta, con terribles guerras entre los nacientes países que hasta el día de hoy calan en el imaginario popular, potenciando este hecho a través de las representaciones artísticas. Es el caso de la Guerra del Pacífico entre Perú y Chile y la Guerra de la Triple Alianza, entre Paraguay, Argentina, Uruguay y Brasil. Esta ponencia fue presentada el 3 de marzo de 2015 durante el Coloquio Internacional: A 150 años de la Guerra del Paraguay. Conflictos Armados en América Latina, en la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad de México. México.

En el marco de las conmemoraciones de la Gran Guerra, cabe recordar la campaña de Gallípoli o de los Dardanelos en 1915 como un punto de inflexión en el frente oriental de la contienda y como un acontecimiento que significó el fin y el inicio de acontecimientos que son de vital importancia en la actualidad, un siglo después: el fin del Imperio otomano como órgano administrativo que gobernó en medio Oriente durante casi cinco siglos y el inicio de la intervención imperialista en esta región, con su consecuente generación de conflictos. Así como un nuevo comienzo para cientos de inmigrantes de los dominios otomanos que llegaron hasta costas colombianos. Gallípoli sintetiza el fin y el inicio de un nuevo mundo en medio de una batalla imposible.

One of the most important material legacies that the modern world has received from classical antiquity, specifically from the Roman Empire, is the system of territorial consolidation through the construction of architectural and engineering works. The modern way of understanding the boundaries between countries, of mapping cities and controlling territories and populations has its genesis in ancient Rome. In a year in which war has been a protagonist in historical studies, other aspects should be highlighted; Not everything can be the desolation of World War I, there must also be a space for the material and cultural legacy that men like Augustus inherited to humanity. This is also the opportunity to demonstrate the possibility of elaborating historical exercises about distant contexts in time and space, but close thanks to information technologies and the patent legacy.

In the context of the commemorations of the Great War, it is worth recalling the Gallipoli or also know as the Dardanelles campaign in 1915 as a turning point on the eastern front of the war and as an event that meant the end and the beginning of events that are Of vital importance today, a century later: The end of the Ottoman Empire as an administrative organ that ruled in the Middle East for almost five centuries and the beginning of imperialist intervention in this region, with its consequent generation of conflicts. As well as a new beginning for hundreds of immigrants from the Ottoman dominions that arrived until Colombian coasts. Gallipoli synthesizes the end and the beginning of a new world in the middle of an impossible battle. At last the year has come, the date many historians, especially those who study war or military affairs, looked forward to rediscover, rethink and rewrite the history of the Great War. 2014 marks the beginning of a series of commemorations, events and publications that will once again bring to the forefront one of the most definitive and defining armed conflicts in the history of humanity on the occasion of its centenary. But in spite of this, one can approach the main bookstores in any city, and see in the canopies and shelves, illustrated books on the Wermacht, on Sherman or Panzers tanks, in better locations-and surely sales-than books that commemorate the hundred years of the Great War.

This essay aims to describe and analyze the causes of the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, its external and internal agents and various historical and ideological components which condensed in diplomacy and Western historiography later would be known as the "Eastern Question." The writing begins by placing the main features that allowed the development and expansion of the Ottoman Empire and how the problems in the control of the Eastern Mediterranean, the Balkans and Mesopotamia was the cause of further decline due to the interests of European powers on its territory (Russia and the exit to the Black Sea, England, and the control of the Suez canal) adding to this nascent nationalism in their territories, where Greeks, Serbs and Arabs and even the Turks themselves were not within their national projects in the continuity of Ottoman Empire. Completing these processes with their disintegration and the formulation of the Republic of Turkey.

This paper presents the main conclusions of my undergraduate thesis and deals with the various transformations in the way of waging war for the independence of Colombia, the influences of the wars during the eighteenth century and the Napoleonic wars, and the confluence of these experiences in the conformation of a «Colombian» way of war, which had its genesis in the definitive campaign of national independence: the Liberation Campaign of 1819.

Military history is viewed with suspicion by the academy; The studies of military history are practically orphans and in a country in conflict like Colombia, to speak historiographically on these subjects becomes taboo, in spite of the advances that this historiographical current has had in the last decades. This paper seeks to reflect on the very nature of war, military historiography and the relevance of its application in Colombia, all with the purpose of making a contribution to the social work of the historian against the past and the history of the conflict.

The age of revolutions at the turn of the eighteenth to the nineteenth century is generally circumscribed historiographically to the events that took place in Western Europe. There is a gap in historiography that does
not take into account that these new ideas and conceptions were exported, assimilated, combined and applied simultanously in non-European contexts, during this period. The revolutionary processes in the periphery are seen as mere collateral consequences of the events in Europe, but the truth is that these insurrections are not merely the result of the European context impact, but rather they dialogued with the thought and ideas of the era, and even nurtured certain spheres such as Byron's phillhelenism or Humboldt's expeditions.

The aim of this work is to draw attention towards the specific paths, similarities and divergences that the transmission of the ideas of the Enlightenment –and later, the Revolution– had during the process of
independence in Greece and Colombia. These two processes in particular, are relevant for their position within the revolutions on a regional scale, and despite the geographical distance, their historical development isstrikingly similar. These connections were at various scales and levels. It is at the end of the 18th century that the colonial
subjects of the Spanish and Ottoman empires in other geographical spaces began to visit places beyond the imperial borders. The ideas of freedom and rebellion started to arrive either by wealthy criollos like Bolívar or Miranda; as by agents of a foreign empire like Kapodistrias or Ipsilantis; or through societies such as the neogranadian mason lodges or Filiki Eteria. Transmitting those ideas until the fighters, including veterans or volunteers from Europe, klepthes in Greece or lanceros in Colombia, who in the end transformed this ideas in proper independence.

*Article published in the Volume XVIII and XIX/July 2018 of the Journal of  International Students of History Association CARNIVAL.*

At the moment of talking about revolutionary processes in the turn from the 18th to the 19th century, the views and analyzes (as in many other topics) are directed to events in Europe and North America. Evidently, the revolution that gave rise to the United States of America and the first French republic and empire are of fundamental importance for modern history and its consequences affect virtually every inhabitant of the planet today. But these revolutions gave rise to other emancipatory processes in colonial territories belonging to other empires. These uprisings are often disregarded, despite their «success» translated into the formation of new national entities, earlier than some major examples of nation-building in the nineteenth century.
These new «nations» despite the geographical distance, share several characteristics that are difficult to overlook, but have been ignored or at least lightly discussed by historians. This unawareness is particularly evident in the works of a general character like compilations and handbooks that deal with this topic. It seems that at the time of writing and making the global history of the revolutions and the conformation of nations during the 19th century, there is a disconnection and a void in which Latin America and the Balkans are left out of the discussion or seen as processes aside.
This article would seek to establish a framework for these shared characteristics between these regions. Both share belonging to a declining empire; the plurality of peoples and proto-national demonstrations, which will be used by local elites in their favor, and they share as well a rough geography that will allow the development of a certain character of war in these territories, like the propensity to irregular warfare. Likewise, there is a series of essential and disjointed differences to be considered, such as the effective elimination of colonial power in the Americas (apart from certain possessions in the Caribbean) or the marked religious character that the Balkan revolts could have.

This paper will use a comparative approach to examine the Colombian and Greek revolutions. Despite the spatial distance between the two, their contemporaneity establishes a platform that showcases their concordances. Perhaps the most essential similarity is the nature of both conflicts: post-Napoleonic wars, largely waged with irregular warfare using both human and economic resources, indoctrination of combatants and the presence of geographical obstacles. Performing this comparison is important because it helps uncover correlations between the cases that can inform our understanding of an important period of global history and construct a more cohesive narrative of events hitherto neglected by global scholarship.