Talk:Battle of Omdurman

Churchill text
Is writing this article in a British view with the 'Dervishes' being "the enemy" NPOV? I think not.--Dittaeva 13:45, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * See the article. The second part is essentially a slightly modified version of Winston Churchill's original report from 1898. Of course it is heavily POV. On the other hand, I think there is a lot of value in having a first-hand historical document in there. Maybe the source should be stressed more. --Stephan Schulz 18:16, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'm not requesting it be removed because it is POV, but if the second part is more or less written by Churchill it seems quite obvoiusly copyvio, and the least thing that should be done is to make it a quote which is probably more appropriatly placed in Wikiquote.--Dittaeva 20:38, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is Churchill's work actually copyrighted? john k 02:37, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think it is probably not, since it was probably published before 1923 (see Project Gutenberg copyright howto), it would be nice to have this confirmed though. That is according to US law however, under european law it protected 75 years after the author died, if it was covered by british Crown Copyright not assigned to the crown then it was covered by british copyright law 50 years after publication. When it is in the PD and is not a direct quotation, I suggest we just work through it and make it NPOV.--Dittaeva 09:58, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I seriously doubt it is copyrighted anywhere in the world. If a newspaper article from the second but last century is still under copyright, something is very wrong with our copyright system (ok, so it is...). Anyways, it was written in 1898, so while it would be protected under current law, it certainly fell into --the public domain in the intervening time. --Stephan Schulz 11:50, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would agree, however, that the Churchillian account is highly problematic as an encyclopedia article. Someone needs to go through and revamp the article. john k 02:38, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * modern weapons - so the natives would have prevailed against the imperialism of the Brits

as they were better movitvated fighters man to man not fighting for greed
 * I think this is a dangerous fallacy. We can go through the article and make it more politically correct (remove "enemies", "our side"...), but that will not change the factual base of the article. It will just hide the inherent POVness of Churchill's account. It might be good to dig out the original, unmodified text and precede it with a clear warning (or to put it into WikiSource and link to it). We can add whatever modern information is available in a separate paragraph.--Stephan Schulz 11:50, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A few edits
OK, I'm always torn between amusement and outrage when I find articles like this. "Dervishes" are Sufi mystics that are chiefly known for their poetry and ability to twirl in place for long periods of time. I had a vision of British soldiers with Maxim guns gunning down 10,000 mystics twirling in white robes when I started reading this article. The term they called themselves was "Ansar" (supporters) - like Ansar al-Islam. Khalifa means successor, because the chief claim to fame al-Taashi had was that he came after the Mahdi. I've gone through and changed these, which were the most blatant POV I saw, and also the few things I know given my limited knowledge of Mahdists. I do like the operational detail of it though.

So the original reason I wandered over here from Omdurman was because I was wondering what people thought about moving this article to Battle of Karari and making this a redirect. And yes Google has a couple orders of magnitude more hits for Battle of Omdurman rather than Battle of Karari, but there's a case for historical accuracy to be made. The article clearly states the location of the battle was Karari (well, Kerreri before I changed it) and that the army moved on to Omdurman only after the victory. -   &mdash; BanyanTree 02:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * OK this has been written ages ago but i still have to answer:
 * I disagree that the term Dervish is incorrect or inapropriate. All Dervishes don't do the twirling dance: you're thinking of the Turkish Mevlevi order. Other Dervishes are simply members of Sufi Muslim fraternities that differ greatly in practise. Read the Dervish article for more info. As followers of a Sufi preacher, the Mahdists could well be considered Dervishes. There are also, i'll concede, strong arguments against the use of this term, as Mahdism was as much a political as a religious movement, but even if this is the case the term was widely used at the time by different authors(Churchill among others). So it's no use saying they were "mistakenly referred to as Dervishes" as that term has historical significance. ie it's not for us to judge what is incorrect or not. Different people use different words for the same thing: Americans call trousers "pants" but British people don't go around saying "trousers mistakenly referred to as pants"!
 * Also with replacing "Dervish" by "Ansar", the article has slipped from a British to a Sudanese POV, as Ansar is the word the Mahdists used to define themselves. I prefer to simply use the word "Mahdist"(ie followers of the Mahdi) as this is more neutral.


 * As for renaming the battle... Historically(as in all the history books) it is called Battle of Omdurman. This is because Omdurman was the objective of the Anglo-Egyptians, and also the nearest significant town. Kererri(or Karari - as you will: transliterations from the Arabic are notoriously imprecise and subject to interpretation) was just an insignificant village(at the time) next to which Kitchener's army happened to camp. In point of fact, if you want to be really accurate the battle was fought on a plain near Karari, so you could try calling it The Battle on the plain between Karari and Omdurman but I'm not sure that would go down too well.


 * This article could do with improving (the German article is much better), and I'll be editing it soon.
 * Best regards Raoulduke47 19:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Last Cavalry Charge
This article states the 21st Lancers performed what became the last cavalry charge by a British Cavalry unit, but the Timeline of the British Army states for 8 November 1917, "About 200 men of the Warwickshire Yeomanry and Worcestershire Yeomanry charge with sabres drawn and defeat an Ottoman battery and a large group of Ottoman infantry at Huj. It was one of the last cavalry charges by the British Army." The National Army Museum states that the last British Cavalry charge occurred at the Battle of El Mughar, 13 November 1917, by the Buckinghamshire Hussars. This "last charge" issue could be perhaps clarified with a distinction between "cavalry," "yeomanry," and "hussars," but the cavalry page notes that yeomanry and hussars are subcategories of cavalry.

The Timeline page also adds this qualifier: that the 21st Lancers here "perform one of the last full cavalry charges." So what is the difference between a "cavalry charge" and a "full cavalry charge?"

Addmittedly one of the problems in history is definitively identifying something as the first or the last. So these cavalry charges are all qualified as "one of the last..." But, still, it would be great to be able to identify the last. [okay, it's my whimsy]

Can this "last charge" issue be clarified? --RedJ 17 18:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Not sure but you've persuaded me at least that Omdurman shouldn't be described as the last cavalry charge by the British. Lisiate 00:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If I might, I think that the difference between a "cavalry charge" and "full cavalry charge" is purely in the element used in the charge. For instance, here, the entirety of the 21st Lancers were engaged, hence a full charge. However, at Huj and El Mughar, they were merely individual squadrons, not the entire unit. 69.116.223.226 (talk) 20:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Another account of the Battle of Omdurman
From "With Kitchener to Khartoum" by G. W. Steevens

"Battle of Omdurman"

"Omdurman - Analysis and Criticism"

Winston in South Africa
I have removed the image of Churchill "in South Africa", as it is clearly of a much older man, taken sometime after the Dardanelles affair (when he was serving in Europe not Africa). This 1898 picture from the Churchill Society would be more appropriate, if copyright allows - Bastie 12:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Casualties Discrepancy
We have somewhat of a discrepancy in the article. It says that 21st Lancers lost 5 offices and 65 men, yet Aftermath section says the total loss in all the forces was 48 men. Someone with sources of reference on the subject should look into this. Keije 18:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I noticed the exact same thing as I was reading through this article. I took the figure from the only URL linked already, although it admits that number might be a bit low. A more revised number would be nice, with sources of course. Vicarious 22:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Treatment of Prisoners
On one of those UK history programs it was said that Kitchener refused to allow relatives to tend their wounded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.213.65.242 (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

War Nerd Article
Should Gary Brecher's article (http://old.exile.ru/2007-June-29/war_nerd.html) be included in the External Links section? The War Nerd is a relatively well-known commentator on war, and his insight could better help people to understand the battle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elzair (talk • contribs) 20:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW - this link is dead. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 00:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Picture Caption
I have taken the liberty to expand the caption for the picture "The Battle of Omdurman" I own a copy of this picture and the text at the bottom explains that the soldiers have been depicted in their regimental uniforms to identify them and supplies a key which corresponds to numbers included in the picture to enable the identification of the various troops. The original caption gave the impression that it was a historical error by the artist.--MarkBarl (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The currect caption mentions how the uniforms had been changed on X date in India; however this is in Africa. The caption doesnt really appear to be rather useful; should these men be dressed in red or not?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * To be honest I have no idea if this affected the uniforms worn in Africa. My intention was to correct the assumption that it was an error on the part of the artist.--MarkBarl (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

To clarify: the British all wore Khaki. The red uniform in the picture was artistic licence. My great grandfather fought in the war and his wife kept this picture in her bedroom in Nz in her old age. I saw it often .There were 2 similar pictures that showed differing views. Below the picture is an index of the regiments featured in the picture. I believe the picture was mass produced. The family copies were given to the Auckland War Memorial Museum. The family still has his medals from India and this campaign. Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 08:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Mahdist flag
Is the Mahdist flag verifiable?  Spinning Spark  08:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

This flag has been inserted as an icon in the infobox of this, and numerous other articles. It is not a very likely looking Mahdist flag. Sources that I can find make no mention of it and show quite different style of flags. I cannot trace any source for this image; the Commons page gives the source as the corresponding bitmap image on Wikipedia and that page says the image was created "using free images found on wikipedia". I propose that the image is removed from all articles in which it has been inserted.  Spinning Spark  08:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If it can't be supported with reliable sources, then it can be fairly removed in my opinion. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've done a quick google image search and the flag does seem to have one or two results that look similar, however as Hchc2009 says, if there is doubt it can be deleted and ask the IP to provide a source. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 09:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you will find that most of those trace back to Wikipedia or Flickr. One that doesn't  gives the source as a 1952 letter from Sudan public relations but with no verifiable reference.  Not very convincing, given the late date and the personal nature of the claim.  Spinning  Spark  11:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It might be worth having the flag in the article on the revolt, captioned as "a possible reconstruction of the Mahdist flag", I think? But in the infobox, no. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't see how the article body is any better than the infobox without a reliable source. This letter was supposedly written to Ottfried Neubecker who is certainly a high authority on flags, but if he did not publish the information we can only conclude he did not think it reliable, even if the letter actually exists at all - and there is not even an RS for that much.  Spinning  Spark  17:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd agree that it shouldn't be in the infobox. To avoid potential visual bias issues - it's a bit odd to have two on one side and none on the other - it might be worth removing the UK & Egypt flags as well, if we can't find a workable Mahdist one. Shimgray | talk | 12:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Flag icons in infoboxes are not great at any time, IMHO. Rich Farmbrough, 22:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC).


 * This RFC has now been automatically closed by the bot. Since no one is actually supporting the flag in the infobox I have now removed it.  Regarding the other flags, I decline to get involved in the "flags in infoboxes debate" and have left them alone.  I leave that to others to deal with, but it probably should be discussed at some central location rather than here as it has wider implications.  Spinning  Spark  10:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Murdoch Mystery -- S06E02
In the mystery crime TV series Murdoch Mysteries in the episode “Winston's Lost Night” young Winston Churchill comes to Toronto and because of speaking against the behaviour of the general Gordon after the battle (the desecration of the Mahdi’s grave) he gets involved in the murder.

Shouldn’t this be also included in the In art section?

Ceplm (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Battle of Omdurman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080313220023/http://old.exile.ru:80/2007-June-29/war_nerd.html to http://old.exile.ru/2007-June-29/war_nerd.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The spoils of war in the Egyptian Sudan
Editors may be interested in this 33 page paper with images / art / etc. Severed heads: the spoils of war in the Egyptian Sudan.pdfLevel C (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Omdurman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080925190004/http://www.thegunzone.com/dum-dum.html to http://www.thegunzone.com/dum-dum.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

What to call the Khalifa's side
An editor seems to object to referring to the Khalifa's side as "Mahdist". He/she used the following terms to describe his/her edits "written like a 19th century British report" and "rm strangely inappropriate language". The editor removed the word "Mahdist" and substituted the word "Muslim".

But hang on. More than two-thirds of the 25,800 strong Anglo-Egyptian army were Egyptian or Sudanese [page 157 Slaves of Fortune, Sudanese Soldiers & the River War 1896-1898]. Almost all the 17,600 Egyptian and Sudanese troops in the Anglo-Egyptian army were Muslims.

Nor is it OK to the characterise the Khalifa's side as Sudanese, since there were many Sudanese in the Anglo-Egyptian army, who felt that they were fighting for the legitimate government of the Sudan (the Khedive of Egypt).

The Wikipedia article on the war(s), that the Battle of Omdurman is part of, is called the "Mahdist War". The term "Mahdist" is used in reliable sources, as is the term "Dervish". There are objections to the term "Dervish" - see Dervish. I do not think the term "Dervish" was really intended to be pejorative by people at the time - but some modern people evidently object to it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The term "Dervish" is a term often applied to a sect of Sufi mystics originating in Persia. The term was often used pejoratively by British troops in reference to the followers of Muhammad Ahmad (the Mahdi) and his followers who were (mostly) Sufis. However Muhammad Ahmad disavowed the term "Dervish" in reference to him and his followers. Therefore to call them Dervishes is inaccurate, despite many English language sources that identify them as such. Mediatech492 (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that Wikipedia should not call them the Devishes. But, is there any evidence that people in the 1880s and 1890s used the term "Dervish" pejoratively?--  Toddy1 (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Read "The River War" by Winston Churchill; it fairly accurately reflects the attitude of British forces in the Sudan; and was a significant influence on the attitudes of the home population in Britain. Mediatech492 (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Churchill had little experience of the Sudan and was not a careful observer. In addition his book was edited to bring out things that would go down well with the public in the UK, and omits things that would not.--  Toddy1 (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The factual accuracy of the book is irrelevant to the point. The question was whether the term "Dervish" was used pejoratively. Churchill's book clearly shows that it was. Mediatech492 (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Mahdists well-armed
The general impression is that the Sudanese forces were armed only with ancient equipment, mostly with just swords and spears, and that their defeat therefore was almost a 'massacre' because of that gross imbalance in firepower.

This link may serve to rebalance that impression. Cassandra:

From The Myth of Ansar Firepower By Doug Johnson (Originally appeared in Savage and Soldiers, Issue 1-2),

By 1884 the Mahdi had around 20,000 rifles and plenty of ammunition (Wingate, p. 97).

In the east, Uthman Diqna captured a total of nearly 4000 Remington rifles after the Egyptian defeats of El Teb, Tokar, Sinikat, and elsewhe

The Mahdi captured some 15,000 rifles and plenty of ammunition from Khartoum (Preston, p. 138), plus the arsenal where bullets could be cast and powder manufactured. In 1887 Abu Ania commanded 30,000 well armed and well trained jihadiyya (Theobald, p. 152), while each of the three khalifas and the provincial governors had large sections of these effective Black soldiers. The arsenal was stocked mostly with Remington breechloaders and repeaters (Collins, p. 83).

http://www.savageandsoldier.com/sudan/AnsarFirepower.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.240.193 (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2018‎
 * One solution would be to have sections on both the Anglo-Egyptian order of battle, and the Mahdist order of battle. It would also be useful if these sections explained something about the forces.  There was a significant difference in the concept of operations.  The Mahdist side believed that shock action was decisive, and that fire arms were mainly useful for suppressive fire.  The Mahdist side believed that artillery was for sieges and for engaging steamers on the Nile.  Most of the Mahdist machine guns were left in their artillery park.  The Anglo-Egyptian side believed that the killing role of small arms and artillery (including machine guns) could be decisive.


 * In the period before the Anglo-Egyptian reinvasion of the Sudan, the Mahdist side made some poor decisions about defence procurement. They had inherited a cartridge factory in Khartoum for making ammunition for Remington rifles.  This needed saltpetre for the propellant - they opted to source this locally, rather than ship it from southern Sudan.  The propellant tended to be weak and very variable, so accuracy and range were poor.  The Mahdist government could have had a deal with the French, rather like the deal the Abbysinians had; but the Mahdist government rejected this, in part for ideological reasons, and possibly because with their concept of operations they could not see the point of having all their troops armed with modern repeater rifles.--  Toddy1 (talk) 14:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Battle and Aftermath section Copyvio
This section content added on 16 April 2003 is identical to the content from this blog which seems to date from 2001. Aeengath (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I removed the copyvio tags as it seems you're mistaken. The "anasudani.net" bodytext has tags ("[4]", "[5]") which do not correspond to any references or sources on that website. Instead, they appear to match the reference tags that had existed on a ~2012ish version of this article. Webarchive confirms that the website had this content by 2013 but not necessarily any earlier.


 * There are also a few minor numerical and semantic differences between the two texts; the "anasudani.net" text matches the 2012 version in every case rather than the 2003 version, further supporting the hypothesis that they copied from the (evolving) Wiki article and not the other way round. Ceconhistorian (talk) 10:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Correct name of "Jabal Surgham"
Working at the moment as an editor with the german version of Churchill's "Early life" I stumbled over this ominous "Jabal Surgham" which I just couldn't verify. Indeed you will not find it on any map of the Sudan or in any source other than these old sources by Churchill and his like. I found the solution in the following book:

P. M. Holt, M. W Daly: The History of the Sudan – From the Coming of Islam to the Present Day, Third Editon, Weidenfeld and Nicolson London (1961, 1963), 1979; p. 112:

„On 1 September, the Egyptian and British forces were encamped near an abrupt hill called Jabal Surkab“.

A footnote (5) to "Surkab" explains: „The name is often distorted to Surgham“.

So I would recommend to change the name throughout to "Surkab" with "often distorted to Surgham“ in brackets when it is first mentioned.

The full text of the book by Holt/Daly is available at archive.org:

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.108363/page/n129/mode/2up

Best wishes from Germany

--Heiko arntz (talk) 12:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

ambiguity in the casualty count
it is said that 12,000 were killed and 13,000 were wounded. It's also said that the wounded were killed after the battle. Wouldn't that indicate that thousands more people were killed? There seems to only be a single line on this atrocity, which strikes me as being an incredible lack.

2607:FEA8:AA1D:6B00:599B:1D29:ED9D:C5DE (talk) 08:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Move
I question if the recent move was a good idea. This article remains the primary topic. PatGallacher (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)