Cilicia [known during the Crusades as Lesser Armenia] is a district closely connected with Armenian history and independence; and here, in the sudden period of liberty which followed the downfall of Abdul-Hamid, Armenians gave unrestrained vent to their aspirations. Their clubs and meeting-places were loud with boastings of what was soon to follow. Post cards were printed showing a map of the future Armenian kingdom of Cilicia and circulated through the Ottoman post. Armenian nationalists marched in procession in the streets bearing flags purporting to be the flag of Lesser Armenia come to life again. The name of the future king was bandied about, no aloof nebulous personage, but, it is said, a well-known Armenian land owner of the Cilician plain, held in peculiar disfavor by the Moslems. Giving a fuller meaning to these matters was the steady assertion that an Armenian army gathering in the mountains by Hajin and Zeitun--an army of rumor like the legendary Royalist Army of Jales which terrorized revolutionary France--would presently march upon Adana and set up an Armenian kingdom again. Sober Armenians of Cilicia tell you now that these proceedings were folly, the work of revolutionary societies and hot-heads and that the mass of the Armenian population held aloof. But there can be no doubt that the movement was approved and supported by many, and intended to involve the whole race; that it had in fact, got beyond the control both of those who desired to go more slowly and those who disapproved of it altogether.[213] What is here said of the hot-brained revolutionaries of Lesser Armenia can with even greater truth be affirmed of their seditious compatriots of Greater Armenia. For those who know them best do not hesitate to declare that their lurid accounts of frequent and inevitably recurrent atrocities in certain parts of Asia Minor are to be interpreted in the same way as those which were first published regarding the horrors of Adana and other towns of Cilicia in 1909, and of Constantinople in 1896.[214] We get only one-sided reports respecting them, which reports, if not glaringly exaggerated, are in nearly all instances in severest condemnation of the “bloodthirsty” Turk. No one probably has a more accurate knowledge of Turkey and her people or has made a more thoughtful study of the Armenian Question than has the noted traveler and Orientalist, David G. Hogarth, sometime fellow in the University of Oxford. With an experience of several years in Armenia, he frankly declares, writing of the Armenian Question: