Lawrence of Arabia: Desert Mirage

~14 min read

Note 02/25/2026: I wrote this as my final paper for the same class where I wrote this essay. This paper evolved through many forms, and accompanied other pieces of writing that I decided not to post.

Myths are public dreams; dreams are private myths. —Jospeh Cambell

World War I began on July 28th, 1914 catalyzed by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Once called “The War to end all Wars” it reshaped the global stage, resulting in the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, Russian, and German Empires. Despite its immense scope and impact, it would soon be overshadowed less than twenty years later by World War II. Due to this, there tends to be less focus on the first World War in favor of its more contemporary brother. In public memory, its trench warfare and shifting alliances have faded, often replaced by a singular image—-that of TE Lawrence, synonymously referred to as Lawrence of Arabia. It is interesting that Lawrence stands out as one of the sole figures of World War. One scholar writes,

It could be said that the war in the Middle East was a sideshow of the First World War and Lawrence’s part was a ‘…sideshow to the sideshow’. Why then has Lawrence been remembered when greater military men have been forgotten? The romanticism of his exploits are surely the reason (Barron 48).

Accordingly, Lawrence’s enduring image is a result of his significant media attention over his actual military contributions during the Arab revolt. T.E. Lawrence’s distinct persona and role in the Arab Revolt were used by the public and the media to romanticize and understand the Middle East and Arabs, notably in Lowell Thomas’s travelogue With Lawrence in Arabia and David Lean’s 1962 film Lawrence of Arabia, which casted him as a central figure of the Arab people and the revolt itself while simplifying political realities and reinforcing colonial ideologies under the guise of cinematic and narrative drama.

It is important to clarify T.E. Lawrence’s actual intentions and contributions to the Arab Revolt—the section of conflict for which he is most known for—as can be most accurately inferred from reliable sources. While Lawrence’s exploits and character have been significantly mythologized over time, these are not necessarily faults of his character; The purpose here is not to critique Lawrence, but rather to examine the image understood by Western Audiences that shape the Arab Revolt, Middle East, and Arab people’s and perpetuates Imperial and Colonial ideals. To understand Lawrence, one must first have a firm grasp of the Arab Revolt: Its motives, timeline, and key players. The Arab Revolt began on the 10th of June 1916 during World War I as an uprising against the Ottoman Empire primarily by Arab people. It was launched by Sharif Huseein of Mecca, a highly respected Arab leader and member of the Ottoman Elite. The title of ‘Sharif’ signified his status as a religious authority and direct descendant of Mohammad, a role that garnered him considerable influence and legitimacy among Arab tribes. The goal of the revolt was to secure Arab independence from Turkish rule, and this venture was supported—if ambiguously—by the British through diplomatic promises such as the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence. The British encouraged Hussein’s movement, providing him with weapons, ammunition, and gold. Their support however was not entirely altruistic. The Ottoman Empire was allied with Germany against England and France, which made the revolt strategically useful to the greater war effort. They hoped it would divert Ottoman troops and destabilize control over the Middle East. Additionally, unknown to the leader’s of the revolt and even to British correspondence in the Middle East, Britain and its allies had secretly negotiated the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which planned to divide the Middle East into “mandates and spheres of influence” after the war and the destabilization of the Ottoman Empire (Tarver 593). The Arab Revolt, while genuine, would be caught between promises of independence and contradictory imperial ambitions. It was within this context that T.E. Lawrence would find himself increasingly involved in Middle Eastern affairs.

Lawrence was a British academic who found himself in the Levant during 1914, a region encompassing modern-day Syria, Palestine, and Israel. Due to his work he became immersed in the landscape, languages and culture of the region. With the outbreak of the war he would relocate to Egypt to work in British military intelligence, notably the Arab Bureau, where his familiarity with the region and its people made him a valuable asset to British operations. The Arabs in the Hejaz—western Arabia—were encouraged by Sharif Hussein, the Emir of Mecca and the British to revolt against the Ottoman Empire under the promise of postwar Arab independence. It was to one of Huseein’s sons, Faisal ibn Hussein, that Lawrence would work with as an advisor. His efforts here were not incidental, as Lawrence’s leading of Arab troops effectively neutralized Ottoman troops and destabilized important infrastructure. One scholar writes, “A significant part was played by Lawrence’s Arab force using irregular methods and it is claimed that the contributions significantly assisted the British” (Barron 48). Lawrence made use of the Bedouins natural abilities in conflict, notably their mobility. They sabotaged supply lines and detonated railroads. Their warfare consisted of small mobile engagements—a pioneering form of modern guerilla warfare—that allowed for destabilization of Ottoman supplies and forces with minimal casualties to Arab forces (Tarver 587-591). Overall, “Lawrence’s published writings include seventeen separate instances of action against the Turkish forces” (Tarver 587). His actions during the war were both extensive and effective in weakening the Ottoman war effort.

During the Arab Revolt, other British Officers operated in the region, but Lawrence stands out due to his unique understanding of the Arab people. Lawrence’s chief biographer, John Mack, wrote, “He became thoroughly conversant with the intricacies of their tribal and family jealousies, rivalries and taboos” (Wyatt-Brown 2). His understanding of the region’s honor-based society allowed him to navigate disputes with an unusual degree of success. His success also lay in his ability to motivate the Bedouins. The Bedouins, or nomadic Arab tribesmen, had little notion of nationalism besides a sense of unity among tribes (though hardly between them), which made them hard to control like traditional soldiers under a common flag. G.W.B. Barron, a South African military officer, argued that, “Lawrence was the first to tie revolutionary warfare directly to political aspirations, wherein the guerillas involved had a military and political function” (Barron 50). Rather than appealing to a unified national identity—which the Bedouins largely lacked—Lawrence appealed to the aspirations of the Bedouins by uniting their existing tribal goals such as tribal honor, regional power, and revenge against Ottoman oppression with the broader strategic objectives of the revolt. In addition, Lawrence further integrated himself into Bedouin culture by ignoring the traditional fatigues of military officers in favor of traditional Arab dress: “The robes strengthened his bonds with his Bedouin troops and lent him considerable prestige in that status-conscious society. More important, it strengthened his bonds with the Arab people” (Wyatt-Brown 7). The robes that Lawrence wore would not only make him stand out to the Arabs as an individual understanding of their culture but as a symbol of intrigue after the revolt. Lawrence’s campaign would ultimately be a military success: his forces disrupted key Ottoman supply lines and seized key territory, culminating in the the occupation of Damascus alongside Allied forces in 1918 towards the end of the war (Barbudo 77). While Lawrence’s efforts were successful the broader goal of Arab independence was never realized. British and French mandates went on to replace Ottoman rule, trading one Empire for another.

Soon after the war, Lawrence was developed as a centerpiece of Western Understanding in the Middle East as early as 1919 through the works of Lowell Thomas. Thomas, an American journalist, developed a two part travelogue titled With Allenby in Palestine and Lawrence in Arabia (1919) that followed General Allenby of British forces in Palestine and Lawrence through Arabia. The Travelogue was an early mix of film, presentation, and pictures, and portrayed two different lands, Palestine and Arabia, to audiences in Britain and America. Palestine was related to America for its religious significance—being seen as centrally important to Protestant traditions that viewed it as the biblical Holy Land. It was the land of Jesus, the events of the Old Testament, and the Crusades. On Jerusalem, Lowell wrote, “this city more than Athens and more than Rome has taught the nations civic justice, and has given its name to that ideal city in Heaven – The New Jerusalem, the City of God” (Wiedeman 15). Lowell placed Palestine as a familiar place in the minds of his viewers, and Jerusalem as a centerpiece of America’s cultural heritage. He simplified the complex conflict of the Middle East into a shallow backdrop that Western audiences could comprehend through familiar beliefs that aligned with imperial interests. In the context of the British fighting through Jerusalem, they were seen as saving the Holy Land akin to the “Christian soldiers” of the Crusades (Wiedeman 15). Arabia, on the other hand, was a land and culture that Western audiences were largely unfamiliar with; Lowell depicted Arabia as, “a far off and unknown land of exotic peoples and practices” (Wiedeman 18). It was mysterious and exotic, evoking images of endless desert dunes, men and women in flowing robes, and palm trees scattered across oases. Lowell centered his narrative around Lawrence—a white British officer adorned in Arab dress and embedded among the locals. When public fascination grew around this image, “Thomas created for Colonel Lawrence the image of a ‘Paladin of Arabia’ and ‘Prince of Mecca’” (Tarver 586). Using the term ‘Paladin’, Thomas alluded to the legendary knights of medieval European literature. The term hearkened forward the notion of a heroic, noble warrior fighting for a righteous cause—much like the chivalric knights of Charlemagne’s court or King Arthur’s round table. Being called the ‘Prince of Mecca’ positioned him symbolically at the heart of the Arab religious and political hierarchy. Leveraging his position as a military leader fighting for Arab independence, Lowell depicted Lawrence as a leader and savior of the Arabs. While he was undeniably important to the Arab revolt, his placement as the central leading figure of the Arab Revolt was untrue, and showcased an idealization of western supremacy over a ‘backwards’ people. This had a significant effect on his public persona as well, “Lawrence remained closely identified with these intensely idealized fantasies of imperial authority and omnipotent power during the rest of his own lifetime and beyond.” (Dawson 99). From then on, Lawrence would be known less and less for his actual pursuits, and become closer to a symbol shaped by myth and media.

T.E. Lawrence’s historical image is highly influenced by the media that has portrayed him. In regards to film, none are more relevant to modern audiences than David Lean’s Lawrence of Arabia. Known for its cast, score, and cinematography, it would go on to win 7 Academy Awards, and is widely considered as one of the greatest films ever made. While the film centers on Lawrence’s actions during WWI and the Arab Revolt, it is widely dramatised and prioritizes entertainment and style. In regards to historical integrity, Robert Bolt, the screenwriter for the film, “deliberately chose to alter history for dramatic purposes, with the agreement of the director” (Barbudo 78) Though not presented as an academic source concerning the actual events of Lawrence’s time in the Middle East, the film nevertheless stands as one of the defining lenses for western audiences into Lawrence’s life and the Arab Revolt. Regardless of its own stance, Lawrence of Arabia is for many the primary, if not sole, lens through which T.E. Lawrence’s actual life and the broader historical events are understood. As his image became shaped by the media over memory, the line between man and myth began to blur. As Wyatt-Brown notes, “It was entirely fitting that his fame in our times should be represented not by Lawrence himself but by an actor in a film” (Wyatt-Brown 26). Lawrence himself died in 1935 at just 46 years old due to a motorcycle accident, and with this early death his likeness became secondary to his myth. Moreover, it is with Lawrence’s premature death that the film begins. As one scholar notes, “To begin a film with the death of the protagonist appears to propose that the film is interested not in the man, but in the legend” (Khashashina 6). This framing signals to the viewer that what follows is not a strict recount of historical events but a cinematic experience that seeks to reconstruct Lawrence as a timeless, mythic figure.

While the film surrounds the eponymous Lawrence first and foremost, it nonetheless paints a singular picture of the Revolt and Arabia as a whole. In her analysis of the film, Khashina writes, “We rely on his [Lawrence] interpretations of the world around him to understand that which ‘has become too complex for the average Englishman to understand’ (Boal 126)” (Khashashina 10). The situation in the Middle East, both then and now, is complex and concerns a wide variety of conflicting beliefs, peoples, and ideologies. Similarly to Lowell’s Travelogues, the complexities of this situation are simply removed in favor of presenting the Arabs as an uncultured, backwards people. In one scene, during a congregation of the Arab National Council in Damascus, Arabs are shown to “walk on tables, shout at each other indistinctly, and threaten each other with words and weapons.” (Khashashina 11). This scene caricatures the Arabs according to antiquated stereotypes of an uncivilized, barbaric people in need of western intervention, who are otherwise incapable of self-government. It also overlooks the reality of Arab leadership who were actively engaged in efforts at organized governance and independence.

One could argue that these characterizations exist merely to highlight Lawrence’s role within the Arab Revolt, but they rely fundamentally on the strategies used by Lowell Thomas some thirty years prior. In some sense, Lawrence of Arabia continues Thomas’s legacy in a benign manner, capturing the beauty and mystery of the desert through the expanded visual language of cinema. One scene, for example, is described as a “visual feast”, utilizing widescreen 70mm film to capture “the vastness of space, the richness of colour, the subtlety and clarity of light that gives way to a mesmeric shimmering of heat haze” (Dawson 108). The cinematography here is new, but derives from the same lineage of Thomas’s experimental travelogs which pictured the desert using—for the time—groundbreaking photography, narration, and a unique narrative score. Yet in more critical ways, the film inherits Thomas’s ideological framework. As Dawson observes, “Lowell Thomas’s myth-making is subjected to ironic scrutiny, while at the same time the film retains something of the wonder and excitement of Thomas’s legendary narrative” (Dawson 104). While the film succeeds in portraying Lawrence as a remarkable, spectacular figure, it ultimately reinforces the myth that Thomas helped to create, while continuing to frame the story within a colonial narrative that marginalizes Arab agency rather than challenging it.

One of the film’s most telling departures from reality lies in its treatment of Lawrence’s awareness of the Sykes-Picot Agreement. As noted earlier, the Sykes-Picot Agreement was a secret agreement made between Allied forces to split up the land of the Middle East post-war. This was done in spite of the independence promised to the Arabs. The screenwriter Robert Bolt, “chose to make Lawrence ignorant of the so-called Picot-Sykes agreement… while the historical Lawrence was aware, almost from the beginning, of the secret Western projects, which caused him a heavy feeling of guilt.” (Barbudo 79). This deliberate choice to delay Lawrence’s knowledge restructures the narrative for dramatic effect, but in doing so, it distorts the political reality of the situation. It presents Lawrence as non-complicit to the secret agendas of Western powers, whereas in reality Lawrence knew of the broader imperial plans for the Middle East in lieu of promised Arab Independence post-war—a topic which he wrote about in his journal and which caused him a heavy feeling of guilt. (Barbudo 79). While this restructuring of the truth is integral to the narrative chronology of the movie, it heavily distorts the historic details. The alteration is blatantly disingenuous to the reality of Lawrence’s role, as it shifts complicity away from himself and the imperial powers he served. Though effective as a dramatic device, the consequences are significant. Lawrence of Arabia remains the primary source through which many audiences encounter the Arab Revolt, and this change reinforces a narrative in which Western betrayal is minimized in favour of dramatic appeal.

T.E. Lawrence was a major part of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire during World War I, playing a notable role as a military advisor during the Arab Revolt. His legacy persists however much more in part to his narrative construction through early media portrayal like Lowell Thomas’s travelogues and later through David Lean’s Lawrence of Arabia. Through these portrayals and others like them, T.E. Lawrence was elevated to the status of a singular Western hero, where he was used by the media to romanticize and understand the Middle East, but also to obscure complex political realities of the Arab Revolt and minimize Arab peoples. While these portrayals are at times artistically compelling, technologically groundbreaking, and culturally significant, they fundamentally perpetuate colonial and imperial ideologies and Western saviorism. For many, these pieces of media remain the definitive sources of Lawrence’s story, illustrating how myth can not only shape public memory but overwrite the history it seeks to portray.

Works Cited

Barbudo, Maria Isabel. “Lawrence of Arabia (1962): A Tragic Hero in an Ever-Lasting Quest.” Anglo-Saxonica, ser. 3, no. 7, 2014, pp. 77–86.

Barron, G.K.B. “The Contribution Made by T. E. Lawrence to the Theory of Revolutionary Warfare.” Scientia Militaria: South African Journal of Military Studies, vol. 13, no. 4, 1983, doi:10.5787/13-4-542.

Dawson, Graham. “A Lament for Imperial Adventure: Lawrence of Arabia in the Post-Colonial World.” Kunapipi, vol. 18, no. 1, 1996, article 11. University of Wollongong, https://hdl.handle.net/10779/uow.27671373.v1.

Khashashina, Leen. Lawrence as an Orientalist Figure of Empire in David Lean’s Lawrence of Arabia. MA thesis, Montclair State U, 2024. Theses, Dissertations and Culminating Projects, no. 1397, https://digitalcommons.montclair.edu/etd/1397/.

Tarver, L. J. “In Wisdom’s House: T. E. Lawrence in the Near East.” Journal of Contemporary History, vol. 13, no. 3, 1978, pp. 585–608. https://doi.org/10.1177/002200947801300309

Wiedeman, Greg. “Lowell Thomas and American Cultural Knowledge of Palestine and Arabia.” Northeastern University Graduate History Conference, 16 Mar. 2013, https://gregwiedeman.com/presentations/ltConferenceTalk.html.

Wyatt-Brown, Bertram. “The Ironies of TE Lawrence’s Relevance and Reputation.” Clio Historical Society Conference (Baltimore, MD). 2008.