Prior to the Europeans imposing administrative borders, the region was akin to a feudal system with regional warlords/kings - somewhat like India prior to British colonization.
Under the Ottoman Empire, there was no strong centralized government that ruled all of the Middle East, and there were no clearly defined administrative borders. The Ottomans, especially in the declining centuries, experienced constant revolts. It wasn't until the Ottoman Empire collapsed and after WWI that borders were imposed.
Saying there is no Kurdistan is much like saying there was no Greece - since really it didn't exist until 1830 or so, and and didn't finalize its borders until the early 1920s. Sure, there was that Golden Age thing (and most of that spent as a region of independent city states) - but for most of its history, Greece has been a colony of one Empire or another... the Romans, the Byzantines, the Ottomans, etc.
So, the question is, how do you define a nation? Is it an arbitrary set of borders that have existed long enough for people to have accepted them as part of the map (then what's Kashmir?) Is it a strong government that exerts control over a specific region (Russia/Chechnya)? Is it a national identity that has some historical connection to otherwise occupied lands(Israel)? Or is it a common cultural, linquistic and racial heritage shared among a number of people who occupy relatively contiguous territories (Kurdistan) that happen to be ruled by another crowd (Romans, Armenians, Turks, Arabs)?
Though it is true that there is no historical nation of Kurdistan (though there was, breifly a kingdom of Corduene), Roman maps acknowledge the region and a distinct culture, and an administrative region named as such.
The Kurdish people apparently had less influence than others at the end of WWI, and no distinct borders were created. Rather, the Eurpoeans were more interested in appeasing the Hashemites and the Turks.
Prior to the Europeans imposing administrative borders, the region was akin to a feudal system with regional warlords/kings - somewhat like India prior to British colonization.
Under the Ottoman Empire, there was no strong centralized government that ruled all of the Middle East, and there were no clearly defined administrative borders. The Ottomans, especially in the declining centuries, experienced constant revolts. It wasn't until the Ottoman Empire collapsed and after WWI that borders were imposed.
Saying there is no Kurdistan is much like saying there was no Greece - since really it didn't exist until 1830 or so, and and didn't finalize its borders until the early 1920s. Sure, there was that Golden Age thing (and most of that spent as a region of independent city states) - but for most of its history, Greece has been a colony of one Empire or another... the Romans, the Byzantines, the Ottomans, etc.
So, the question is, how do you define a nation? Is it an arbitrary set of borders that have existed long enough for people to have accepted them as part of the map (then what's Kashmir?) Is it a strong government that exerts control over a specific region (Russia/Chechnya)? Is it a national identity that has some historical connection to otherwise occupied lands(Israel)? Or is it a common cultural, linquistic and racial heritage shared among a number of people who occupy relatively contiguous territories (Kurdistan) that happen to be ruled by another crowd (Romans, Armenians, Turks, Arabs)?
Though it is true that there is no historical nation of Kurdistan (though there was, breifly a kingdom of Corduene), Roman maps acknowledge the region and a distinct culture, and an administrative region named as such.
The Kurdish people apparently had less influence than others at the end of WWI, and no distinct borders were created. Rather, the Eurpoeans were more interested in appeasing the Hashemites and the Turks.