Mike, you might really enjoy Edward Erickson's "Ottoman Army Effectiveness in World War I: A Comparative Study" as a follow-up.
The Ottoman military lacked long unit histories and a military aristocracy - so von der Goltz and like-minded Ottoman officers were able to implement reforms that might have been more difficult to get through in Germany itself. That actually left the Ottoman army more organizationally advanced in many regards than the German army in 1914 and Erickson's thesis is that the Ottomans simply outfought the British until about 1917, as you had an amateur army versus a highly experienced Prussian-modelled one.
That contrary to British historiography which dismissed notable Ottoman victories as the result of the incompetence of British commanders.
The Ottoman military lacked long unit histories and a military aristocracy - so von der Goltz and like-minded Ottoman officers were able to implement reforms that might have been more difficult to get through in Germany itself. That actually left the Ottoman army more organizationally advanced in many regards than the German army in 1914 and Erickson's thesis is that the Ottomans simply outfought the British until about 1917, as you had an amateur army versus a highly experienced Prussian-modelled one.
That contrary to British historiography which dismissed notable Ottoman victories as the result of the incompetence of British commanders.
