@bartieboy93 I hope you don't think the Egyptian and Sudanese soldiers who fought under Gordon were cowards. They were probably as good as any of the local contingents from other parts of the British empire--Gurkhas, Sikhs, KAR, etc.--who fought alongside or, sometimes, in place of British Army units. Often the fault, if there was one, was with their European officers.
At the siege of Khartoum for example there were only 3 British people. General Gordon had been put in charge of the evacuation of the Sudan and the devolving of power (but had then been trapped in Khartoum by the Mahdi's men). With him he brought Lieutenant Colonel J.D. Stewart to help. The third and final Briton was the civilian Frank Power, British Consul and "Times" Correspondent. Gordon's most prominent commander (that he devolved power to) was an Egyptian soldier called Muhammed Ali Pasha.
@Briselance This took place in 1884/5. The first world war began in 1914 (as i am sure you are aware). In the first decade of the 1900s the Young Turks became more and more influential and in 1908 they seized power. Amongst liberal reforms that can quite generally be applauded they also stoked a sense of nationalism in modern Turkey and were ashamed at the fact that the once great Ottoman Empire was being propped up and abused by the British (Crimean war Britain and France fight for Turkey).
@Briselance For most of the 19th century the crumbling Ottoman Empire had given more and more trade and territorial concessions to Britain and France in exchange for their protection. Russia repeatedly tried to, or asked the West to join them in, destroying it and dividing the Ottoman Empire between them, however Britain and France always helped it and preserved it. However when the Young Turks toppled the old Sultan and replaced him with the figurehead Mehmed V they became hostile to Britain.
@Briselance So at thge beginning of WW1 the new Ottoman leaders decided that they could defeat Britain in Egypt (which was a protectorate and technically jointly owned by Britain and Turkey) and make the Ottomans glorious once again. Of course what they actually achieved was to make their best friend their worst enemy and make their protector their destroyer.
"Of course what they actually achieved was to make their best friend their worst enemy and make their protector their destroyer."
You mean the declaration of war from Turkey to United Kingdom was a mistake from Turkey ? I can't do anything but agree with you, then.
It stills amazes me how countries of that time could be allied in a conflict and, some 10 or 20 years later, turn against each other. And in WW2, Turkey was a "quiet ally" of the Allies ...
The square formation only worked properly when the unit was both intensely trained and drilled, and equipped with bayonets. The troops here looked like local levies so they were neither :P
Comment removed
martynrobin121 1 year ago
@martynrobin121 Cool
dingdangdo94 6 months ago
cowards led by one of the bravest men ever
bartieboy93 1 year ago
@bartieboy93 I hope you don't think the Egyptian and Sudanese soldiers who fought under Gordon were cowards. They were probably as good as any of the local contingents from other parts of the British empire--Gurkhas, Sikhs, KAR, etc.--who fought alongside or, sometimes, in place of British Army units. Often the fault, if there was one, was with their European officers.
McGrenzer 1 year ago
@McGrenzer no, churchill himself talks about the egyptian soldiers.
he said that they could be decent soldiers but they were never fierce,
besides, if you look at the start of the war you see a lot of battles with egyptian troops fleeing the battlefield
one example, i believe that it was in the battle of el obied that lots and lots of egyptian soldiers deserted
bartieboy93 1 year ago
Sorry Gov, what the hell are we doing here?
edsphoto 1 year ago
At the siege of Khartoum for example there were only 3 British people. General Gordon had been put in charge of the evacuation of the Sudan and the devolving of power (but had then been trapped in Khartoum by the Mahdi's men). With him he brought Lieutenant Colonel J.D. Stewart to help. The third and final Briton was the civilian Frank Power, British Consul and "Times" Correspondent. Gordon's most prominent commander (that he devolved power to) was an Egyptian soldier called Muhammed Ali Pasha.
thebigJM92 1 year ago
These troops werent British. The army in Sudan was Egyptian, its officers were a mixture of Ottoman (Turk) and British.
thebigJM92 1 year ago 6
@thebigJM92
A mixture of Turk and British officer ?! O_o
Since Turks and British fought against each other during the 1st W.W., when did the battle portrayed in this video happened ?
Briselance 1 year ago
@Briselance This took place in 1884/5. The first world war began in 1914 (as i am sure you are aware). In the first decade of the 1900s the Young Turks became more and more influential and in 1908 they seized power. Amongst liberal reforms that can quite generally be applauded they also stoked a sense of nationalism in modern Turkey and were ashamed at the fact that the once great Ottoman Empire was being propped up and abused by the British (Crimean war Britain and France fight for Turkey).
thebigJM92 1 year ago
@Briselance For most of the 19th century the crumbling Ottoman Empire had given more and more trade and territorial concessions to Britain and France in exchange for their protection. Russia repeatedly tried to, or asked the West to join them in, destroying it and dividing the Ottoman Empire between them, however Britain and France always helped it and preserved it. However when the Young Turks toppled the old Sultan and replaced him with the figurehead Mehmed V they became hostile to Britain.
thebigJM92 1 year ago
@Briselance So at thge beginning of WW1 the new Ottoman leaders decided that they could defeat Britain in Egypt (which was a protectorate and technically jointly owned by Britain and Turkey) and make the Ottomans glorious once again. Of course what they actually achieved was to make their best friend their worst enemy and make their protector their destroyer.
thebigJM92 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thebigJM92
"Of course what they actually achieved was to make their best friend their worst enemy and make their protector their destroyer."
You mean the declaration of war from Turkey to United Kingdom was a mistake from Turkey ? I can't do anything but agree with you, then.
It stills amazes me how countries of that time could be allied in a conflict and, some 10 or 20 years later, turn against each other. And in WW2, Turkey was a "quiet ally" of the Allies ...
Briselance 1 year ago
@Briselance
... It's the meanders of History, I guess.
Briselance 1 year ago
@thebigJM92 , I am so sure these troops were Sudanese.
to7a1 3 months ago
bastard sudan bastards! TURKS ARE YOURS MASTERS!
TimeTimer3000 1 year ago
@TimeTimer3000 you are the slaves in Germany and the low class in Europe, the turks were cut off from Sudan with sharp swords
NubianPyankhi 1 year ago
Comment removed
htcpower 1 year ago
A simpler time, when Muslims stood and fought rather than electing to leave blow themselves up in the marketplace.
AspiringPotato 1 year ago 2
The square formation only worked properly when the unit was both intensely trained and drilled, and equipped with bayonets. The troops here looked like local levies so they were neither :P
QuintusFontane 2 years ago
the power of sun in Sudan..can Darken you....God Save our nation please
Panda21Panda 2 years ago
They should have formed square!
LordWellington15 2 years ago 11
There is no square that could have saved them...Beside...Sudan Equal the Land I was created in..God Save our nation please!!!..I love you Dear God
Panda21Panda 2 years ago