LMFAO after a siege that lasted 313 days, brilliantly held by Major-General Gordon & Gordon ultimately only being defeated by an over whelming force of 50-60 thousands! Yep that’s one hell of a defeat.
@Bulllseye2012 Yeah, the British relief force on camels would have reached Khartoum in time if the Nile hadn't of broken down some of the barricades as it rose. That was the only reason the Mahdists were able to enter the town
OMG - this has to be one of the few wars the Americans didn't turn up late to and make a fortune selling weapons to everyone :) Seriously though, anyone have an idea how many people died in the European conquest of Africa compared to the American conquest of the North America? I know the Germans committed genocide against the Hottentots, but anywhere else - did they suffer like the Native Americans?
It was the biggest battle of the Mahdist War, but the British didnt win the war for another year till 1899, Battle of Umm Diwaykarat was the decider.
However Battle Omdurman is not just a decisive victory against the thousands of dervishes but also famous for Winston Churchill fighting with the 21st Lancer's and many streets in the UK naming their streets, roads and lanes Omdurman, after the battle.
We never got a ha'porth's change of 'im: 'E squatted in the scrub an' 'ocked our 'orses,
'E cut our sentries up at Sua~kim~, An' 'e played the cat an' banjo with our forces. So 'ere's ~to~ you, Fuzzy-Wuzzy, at your 'ome in the Soudan; You're a pore benighted 'eathen but a first-class fightin' man; We gives you your certificate, an' if you want it signed We'll come an' 'ave a romp with you whenever you're inclined.
@TheLegend8612 Well I know your obviously a superior being because you live in the UK, but here's a little history reminder 1775-1783, I forgot what war was your country involved in then? What was the outcome?
@Jared1494 Oh I remember that. A war with Britain on one side, and American rebels, France, Spain and Holland on the other. Yes quite a miracle that the war lasted so long really....
@thebigJM92 Because that changes the outcome of the war at all. Not to mention the Hessian mercenaries you had along with the greatest army in the world.
@Jared1494 er no... but what do you expect when you put one nation against three, and rebels. Hessian mercenaries were just part of the British army, like Gurkha's now, and it was far from the biggest army in the world. France, Prussia and Russia had bigger armies than Britain. And whilst Britain had the biggest navy it couldnt defeat the 3 next biggest AND transport tens of thousands of troops thousands of miles at the same time.
"@TheLegend8612 Well I know your obviously a superior being because you live in the UK, but here's a little history reminder 1775-1783, I forgot what war was your country involved in then? What was the outcome?"
The battle was in Sep 1889. I bet you know the location of Sudan or Omdurman. The British army killed more than 10000, more than 14000 were wounded. There were more battles fought. In all killed about 100,000. And that is to make something of it as one said. From that day and up to 1956 the British remained carrying most of Sudan treasures building their empire and leaving the country in a civil war lasted about 50 years between the north and the south.
Yeah maybe some clips from Young Winston would have been better instead of a bunch of 5th graders wearing Red Shirts but that is just my humble opinion.
Don't split hairs! He's mentioned as being English in the video. Whatever, yes I know he was from the Black Isle near the Cromarty Firth (I've been there many times) and I made a mistake by saying he was from the Western Isles but hey - that's still a lot nearer than England.
am a sudanese student from sudan... british foot prints r stil in sudan from building universities to puting the oil to fire in southern sudan nd western sudan... our grand fathers who fought bravly in omdurman they laked the proper wepons to defend there land ... there culture .... but there is one think for certain ( they were legends nd they will stay so until the last day ) just like the samurai ...
Lacked the proper weapons my arse! They had cannon. The Sudan is back to where it was before the British tried to make something of it .. it's a dust bowl and full of people blinded by religious fervour. Your religion is the reason your still in the dark ages!!!!
@theray2006 They were incredibly brave. You have no idea how brave they were.....but they could not prevail against European modern firepower. Their casualties were enormous and still they came on. British water cooled Maxim machine guns over heated. The 21st Lancers lost a fifth of their troopers in the first charge alone. It was one of the few engagements in history when resolute Cavalry met equally resolute warriors head on in a unmoveable solid wall.
All the information portrayed in the video was taken from a High School AP Euopean History text book. Everyone involved in the video was no older than 15 or 16 at the time and were just trying to get a stupid school project done.
If you don't like the factual innaccuracies, take it up with McGraw-Hill. They publish the text books that the school provided to the students.
Why are you guys even watching this video? Where are you finding it?
highly innacurate and a tad myopic. The Mahdi's, or rather, by the time of Omdurman, the khalifa's army possesed at LEAST 14 thousand remington rifles taken from Hick's column and the 1st et-teb. Most of the forces that smashed the mahdi/khalifa were sudanese and egyptian, trained and re-equipped by the British. Britain wanted RID of the sudan, that's why gordon was sent to evacuate the EGYPTIAN GARRISONS AND THEIR FAMILIES.
The Sudan was certainly not coveted by the British as a colony, as it had no economic value at the time. They were drawn into the areadue to the proximity to their Egyptian interests. The British did have colonial aspirations in Africa, but not in the Sudan. The Mahdi started the fighting in the 1880's, his followers had destroyed at least two earlier Egyptian armies there before any significant British force showed up. Gordon arrived at Khartoum with one one other British solider. ONE.
Full of inaccuracies. The Brits were not defeated at Khartoum. There was ONE British General, Gordon, there, trying to save the native non-muslims and scattered European civillians from death or slavery by the Mahdi, the Muslim leader, who had vowed to convert enslave the area. He could have left on a steamer but stayed. They cut his head off, against the Mahdi's orders.
Indeed the battle was unbalanced but i think at that time the imperialists were frank enough to declare their greed to dry the resources of the African continent and take men as slaves ... today it have other names : war against terrorism .. interests .. our friends .. maintain human rights .. and others (you know)
The british were cowards invaders using banned maxim guns against national patriotic Sudanese who were honorably martyred in defence of their country.
Bullshit. The Mahdists were the vile and bloodthirsty predecessers of Al Queda who didn't know when to step down when confronted by their betters. Them Englishmen soon put these Muzzies in their place.
Predecessors of Al Queda? They fought for their land and freedom against European influence and British colonial desires. More similarity to Boxer rebellion, Bolivarist army and North American Indian wars than suicide bombings.
For if you recall, this war was fought on their soil. Mahdists can hardly be referred to as the agressors.
There is hardly any connection between modern muslim terrorism and these armies of tribesmen in the Sudanese wastelands. Both use Islam as an unifying, morale-boosting factor, that's true, but the modern terrorism strives from desperation and sheer hate, Mahdists on the other hand fought simply to drive back the invader and regain their lost dignity and culture.
I agree to a point but the Mahdists like all Muslims to this day were not just fighting to regain their country. They seek to kill all non believers by the sword. If the UK and US forces were not in the middle east right now then UK and US citizens would be getting murdered by drug fuelled suicide bombers. Yeah that right, drug fuelled and not through being brave. They believe that if you are a non believer then its ok to kill you as your not a Muslim.
Well said man. This video makes out that the British forces had it easy but the muslims had cannon and decent guns as they were being armed by the Russians and French. American shite!
Now that is a summarised story. BTW did you know that ww1 leader Kitchener led this army and that Winston Churchill was there too. Also, does Desert Storm and Iraq 2003 seem any less one sided?
If only the Mahdi hadn't died in 1885. I'm sure Lord Kitchener would have had some fun with him in 1897 when the Mahdists were wiped out
TalonMercenary 2 months ago
Defeated at Khartoum!!!
LMFAO after a siege that lasted 313 days, brilliantly held by Major-General Gordon & Gordon ultimately only being defeated by an over whelming force of 50-60 thousands! Yep that’s one hell of a defeat.
313 days WOW
Bulllseye2012 6 months ago
@Bulllseye2012 Yeah, the British relief force on camels would have reached Khartoum in time if the Nile hadn't of broken down some of the barricades as it rose. That was the only reason the Mahdists were able to enter the town
TalonMercenary 2 months ago
OMG - this has to be one of the few wars the Americans didn't turn up late to and make a fortune selling weapons to everyone :) Seriously though, anyone have an idea how many people died in the European conquest of Africa compared to the American conquest of the North America? I know the Germans committed genocide against the Hottentots, but anywhere else - did they suffer like the Native Americans?
blueray1969 9 months ago
the british were not defeated at karthoum the egyptians were
fix the acne and the funny voice mate
bartieboy93 1 year ago
It was the biggest battle of the Mahdist War, but the British didnt win the war for another year till 1899, Battle of Umm Diwaykarat was the decider.
However Battle Omdurman is not just a decisive victory against the thousands of dervishes but also famous for Winston Churchill fighting with the 21st Lancer's and many streets in the UK naming their streets, roads and lanes Omdurman, after the battle.
Woodlander65 1 year ago
the British were f--king great alright we won some wars or what
edwards21416 1 year ago
52,000 muslims v 9800 british troops and some 20,000 african troops.
kingbleah 1 year ago
1:11 - 1:25 It's the Rage Virus!
7343186 1 year ago
Well, for a bunch of 15 year olds with only their school textbooks as backup, I have to say that this video is pretty crap.
oarfrost 2 years ago
We took our chanst among the Khyber 'ills, The Boers knocked us silly at a mile,
The Burman give us Irriwaddy chills, An' a Zulu ~impi~ dished us up in style:
But all we ever got from such as they Was pop to what the Fuzzy made us swaller;
We 'eld our bloomin' own, the papers say, But man for man the Fuzzy knocked us 'oller.
Simba117 2 years ago
We never got a ha'porth's change of 'im: 'E squatted in the scrub an' 'ocked our 'orses,
'E cut our sentries up at Sua~kim~, An' 'e played the cat an' banjo with our forces. So 'ere's ~to~ you, Fuzzy-Wuzzy, at your 'ome in the Soudan; You're a pore benighted 'eathen but a first-class fightin' man; We gives you your certificate, an' if you want it signed We'll come an' 'ave a romp with you whenever you're inclined.
Simba117 2 years ago
"FUZZY-WUZZY"
(Soudan Expeditionary Force)
We've fought with many men acrost the seas, An' some of 'em was brave an' some was not:
The Paythan an' the Zulu an' Burmese; But the Fuzzy was the finest o' the lot.
Simba117 2 years ago
best stick to ur own history yanks, cos u know fuck all about ours!
TheLegend8612 2 years ago
@TheLegend8612 Well I know your obviously a superior being because you live in the UK, but here's a little history reminder 1775-1783, I forgot what war was your country involved in then? What was the outcome?
Jared1494 1 year ago
@Jared1494 Oh I remember that. A war with Britain on one side, and American rebels, France, Spain and Holland on the other. Yes quite a miracle that the war lasted so long really....
thebigJM92 1 year ago
@thebigJM92 Because that changes the outcome of the war at all. Not to mention the Hessian mercenaries you had along with the greatest army in the world.
Jared1494 1 year ago
@Jared1494 er no... but what do you expect when you put one nation against three, and rebels. Hessian mercenaries were just part of the British army, like Gurkha's now, and it was far from the biggest army in the world. France, Prussia and Russia had bigger armies than Britain. And whilst Britain had the biggest navy it couldnt defeat the 3 next biggest AND transport tens of thousands of troops thousands of miles at the same time.
thebigJM92 1 year ago
@Jared1494 French victory
columnsx 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jared1494
"@TheLegend8612 Well I know your obviously a superior being because you live in the UK, but here's a little history reminder 1775-1783, I forgot what war was your country involved in then? What was the outcome?"
Didn't the slave owners win?
oarfrost 1 year ago
The battle was in Sep 1889. I bet you know the location of Sudan or Omdurman. The British army killed more than 10000, more than 14000 were wounded. There were more battles fought. In all killed about 100,000. And that is to make something of it as one said. From that day and up to 1956 the British remained carrying most of Sudan treasures building their empire and leaving the country in a civil war lasted about 50 years between the north and the south.
anonyma370 2 years ago
ok fair enough i live near the black isle
JAKWIK 2 years ago
Yeah maybe some clips from Young Winston would have been better instead of a bunch of 5th graders wearing Red Shirts but that is just my humble opinion.
LastRonin47 2 years ago
good project nicely done lad make a brit out you colonials yet lol.
kingbleah 2 years ago
i did not call sir hector english i was refering to a previous post and sir hector was born on the black isle NOT the western isles
JAKWIK 2 years ago
Don't split hairs! He's mentioned as being English in the video. Whatever, yes I know he was from the Black Isle near the Cromarty Firth (I've been there many times) and I made a mistake by saying he was from the Western Isles but hey - that's still a lot nearer than England.
bloobear1 2 years ago
Comment removed
bloobear1 2 years ago
am a sudanese student from sudan... british foot prints r stil in sudan from building universities to puting the oil to fire in southern sudan nd western sudan... our grand fathers who fought bravly in omdurman they laked the proper wepons to defend there land ... there culture .... but there is one think for certain ( they were legends nd they will stay so until the last day ) just like the samurai ...
ashagg911 2 years ago
Lacked the proper weapons my arse! They had cannon. The Sudan is back to where it was before the British tried to make something of it .. it's a dust bowl and full of people blinded by religious fervour. Your religion is the reason your still in the dark ages!!!!
bloobear1 2 years ago
THEM ENGLISHMAN it was sir hector macdonald and the highland brigade that won onderman
JAKWIK 2 years ago
ENGLISHMAN? Get your facts right Sir Hector MacDonald was a Scotsman from the Western Isles 'Fighting Mac'
bloobear1 2 years ago
no the british are great ,.thats why great britain get it,.
hujjesb 3 years ago
hey well done thankyou for this very interesting
hujjesb 3 years ago
Yanks...stick to yer bugers lads... LOL
maggiethefox 3 years ago
Waht is this, the Mahdist war?
eviltreemonster 3 years ago
I think those sudanese are REALY brave charging at the british with endless enthusiasm, I mean they are VERY brave
theray2006 3 years ago 4
@theray2006 They were incredibly brave. You have no idea how brave they were.....but they could not prevail against European modern firepower. Their casualties were enormous and still they came on. British water cooled Maxim machine guns over heated. The 21st Lancers lost a fifth of their troopers in the first charge alone. It was one of the few engagements in history when resolute Cavalry met equally resolute warriors head on in a unmoveable solid wall.
BlackCountryPuddler 1 year ago
Awesome!!!
LordWellington15 3 years ago 2
Rule Brittania!!!
fishystik 3 years ago
loool its funny, the fuzzy wuzzy will kick your ass, and u will say Elrooob, loool
take it easy dear sudanese they are just kids having fun
GARGANDI 3 years ago
All the information portrayed in the video was taken from a High School AP Euopean History text book. Everyone involved in the video was no older than 15 or 16 at the time and were just trying to get a stupid school project done.
If you don't like the factual innaccuracies, take it up with McGraw-Hill. They publish the text books that the school provided to the students.
Why are you guys even watching this video? Where are you finding it?
OminousMoniker 3 years ago
highly innacurate and a tad myopic. The Mahdi's, or rather, by the time of Omdurman, the khalifa's army possesed at LEAST 14 thousand remington rifles taken from Hick's column and the 1st et-teb. Most of the forces that smashed the mahdi/khalifa were sudanese and egyptian, trained and re-equipped by the British. Britain wanted RID of the sudan, that's why gordon was sent to evacuate the EGYPTIAN GARRISONS AND THEIR FAMILIES.
McDivers1875 3 years ago
fuck the british fuck france till the end of
life
suliman444 3 years ago
You faggot. The British are for all time
tuco1808 3 years ago
british = jewish
batalion666 3 years ago
mahdi is great leader
dawod1 3 years ago
god bless sudan
dawod1 3 years ago
The Sudan was certainly not coveted by the British as a colony, as it had no economic value at the time. They were drawn into the areadue to the proximity to their Egyptian interests. The British did have colonial aspirations in Africa, but not in the Sudan. The Mahdi started the fighting in the 1880's, his followers had destroyed at least two earlier Egyptian armies there before any significant British force showed up. Gordon arrived at Khartoum with one one other British solider. ONE.
brucec43 3 years ago
Full of inaccuracies. The Brits were not defeated at Khartoum. There was ONE British General, Gordon, there, trying to save the native non-muslims and scattered European civillians from death or slavery by the Mahdi, the Muslim leader, who had vowed to convert enslave the area. He could have left on a steamer but stayed. They cut his head off, against the Mahdi's orders.
brucec43 3 years ago 2
Indeed the battle was unbalanced but i think at that time the imperialists were frank enough to declare their greed to dry the resources of the African continent and take men as slaves ... today it have other names : war against terrorism .. interests .. our friends .. maintain human rights .. and others (you know)
ahmed660066 3 years ago
@ahmed660066 don't think the British were doing slavery in the 1880's, must be mixing us up with Africans/muslims.
pan1pan1 4 months ago
The british were cowards invaders using banned maxim guns against national patriotic Sudanese who were honorably martyred in defence of their country.
rokonda 3 years ago
Bullshit. The Mahdists were the vile and bloodthirsty predecessers of Al Queda who didn't know when to step down when confronted by their betters. Them Englishmen soon put these Muzzies in their place.
eviltreemonster 3 years ago
Predecessors of Al Queda? They fought for their land and freedom against European influence and British colonial desires. More similarity to Boxer rebellion, Bolivarist army and North American Indian wars than suicide bombings.
For if you recall, this war was fought on their soil. Mahdists can hardly be referred to as the agressors.
Kasakkasotnia 3 years ago 6
Oh the english were no saints but the Muslims are stirring up trouble today because of these madmen.
eviltreemonster 3 years ago
There is hardly any connection between modern muslim terrorism and these armies of tribesmen in the Sudanese wastelands. Both use Islam as an unifying, morale-boosting factor, that's true, but the modern terrorism strives from desperation and sheer hate, Mahdists on the other hand fought simply to drive back the invader and regain their lost dignity and culture.
Kasakkasotnia 3 years ago 4
I agree to a point but the Mahdists like all Muslims to this day were not just fighting to regain their country. They seek to kill all non believers by the sword. If the UK and US forces were not in the middle east right now then UK and US citizens would be getting murdered by drug fuelled suicide bombers. Yeah that right, drug fuelled and not through being brave. They believe that if you are a non believer then its ok to kill you as your not a Muslim.
bloobear1 2 years ago
@Kasakkasotnia Yea and they god clearly help them win, as the gods always do! Haha 10 000 dead vs 48, what a nutshell!
cyberdaemon 1 year ago
Well said man. This video makes out that the British forces had it easy but the muslims had cannon and decent guns as they were being armed by the Russians and French. American shite!
bloobear1 2 years ago
God bless the British!
Northgrant 3 years ago
Now that is a summarised story. BTW did you know that ww1 leader Kitchener led this army and that Winston Churchill was there too. Also, does Desert Storm and Iraq 2003 seem any less one sided?
kensquash 4 years ago