Most people noted that when they got close Churchill put away his government issue sword and took out the latest thing in automatic pistols given to him by his mother! Smart man.
The Historic battle of Omdurman was won by British Forces mainly on account of the superior performance of their Newly introduced MAXIM Machine guns which literally Mowed down thousand of Mehdis . Artillery played a Minor role .
Not quite. The dervishes were under artillary fire when they were more than a mile and a half from the British lines. This broke up their formations and made them poor targets for the terrifying, but not overly accurate maxim guns.
Not quite. The dervishes were under artillery fire when they were more than a mile and a half from the British lines. This broke up their formations and made them poor targets for the terrifying, but not overly accurate maxim guns.
@mosquito103 Can't give you a satisfactory answer to that question except to say that it was frequently done by overeager commanding officers, particularly cavalrymen, of many nations; Custer is only one. Sometimes, of course, "orders is orders" and "their's not to reason why", but not scouting or ignoring scouting reports was pretty common as well. What's even worse, perhaps,
@mosquito103 "Why would you call a cavalry charge without knowing the disposition and size of the force you are assaulting. "
As McGrenzer said, most cavalry commanders. It wasn't quite as daft as it sounds. Unless the enemy was pretty well trained and were able to form squares or something similar in very short order, they would be caught in open formation and cut down by the advancing horsemen, so the usual practice was for opposition to ran away. Churchill himself made this point......
@mosquito103 "Why would you call a cavalry charge without knowing the disposition and size of the force you are assaulting. "
As McGrenzer said, most cavalry commanders. It wasn't quite as daft as it sounds. Unless the enemy was pretty well trained and were able to form squares or something similar in very short order, they would be caught in open formation and cut down by the advancing horsemen, so the usual practice was for opposition to ran away. This was one of the rare occassions when..
@SD78 and... most of the people killed were muslims themselves it was no religious fight. look basically people here are having a go a muslims, when actually the sudanese were just defending their country and not spreading terrorism or anything. i don't care of you hate muslims, but these sudanese have nothing to do with terrorists and were fighting for freedom
Always interesting to see film interpretations of "cavalry charges". That one was more accurate than some, but it sort of failed in it's intent....cavalry is meant to scare and break the enemy, and cut them down as they run. If the enemy really stands and doesn't falter, like in this scene, there's really little advantage to being mounted. A line of rifle-and-bayonet armed infantry would've done the job better. But one can't always have what they want in battle, and it's long-over now.
02:35 : What in the heck is a Spanish flag doing here ?! If the British troops were fighting a Spanish force, I would have understood, but there are only Arabs (Egyptians, maybe ?). Anyone, you have a clue ?
The bagpipes sounding must be a massive moral boost for British and allied troops within hearing distance. It makes you feel like you're freaking invincible. ^^
@LordWellington15 Tell that to Cornwallis. Or to Lord Chelmsford at Isandlwana. Allowing yourself to believe your own myth of superiority is dangerous...it leads to complacency. That said, the British sure are bulldogs when it comes to battle! I'd be comfortable enough with them on my flanks! =)
@justforever96 Yes, Islandwanna was the fault of Chelmsford. He thought just cause he had artillery and firepower that he could beat 30 000 Zulu's. But the odds were 25:1. But we got our revenge at Rorke's Drift.
This was not the last Charge of British Cavalry. IN WW1 there were many successful charges of British (as well as Dominion and French) cavalry in 1914 and in 1918 on the Western Front and Middle East.
I doubt Winston Churchill ever would have expressed it like that, rather an exageration on the directors behalf.
The famous charge of the 21st Lancers depicted caused a larger number of British casuaties (five officers and sixty-five men out of 310, and 120 horses). The high casualty figures suggest that this cavalry charge of unbroken infantry over unknown ground should never have been made.
In the main Battle of Omdurman (Karari) the firepower of more than 20,000 British-Egyptian rifles, artillery and machine guns killed 11,000 Dervish warriors, and wounded another 16, 000. Contrast with a total loss of 48 killed and 428 wounded on the British side.
Right! Who's ready to give the Fuzzy Wuzzy a damn good thrashing? Six of the best, trousers down? Play up, play up, and play the game as I always say, what!
you make non sense! south of susan wasn't part of the sudan yet! you were not even Christians before the civil war! and Copts in Khartoum Bahri were more than you! and they still live among us, if you are happy now! then take back all of your people from Khartoum and let us live in peace
That's what the Romans said too, and look what happened to Rome.
Napoleon believed the same as did Hitler, who thought Germany should lead the world.
Newsflash. All empires fall sooner or later, and the British is already gone, and judging by your huge national dept I'd say you are on your way down too.
No countries should dominate. Variety creates the best and most balanced world.
@ImperialGuard9001 Well in this situation that is rather unfair on the British. The Sudan was at this time Egyptian territory, directly under the control of the Khedive. Egypt itself was technically part of the Ottoman Empire under the Turkish Sultan (but in reality he had little influence). Instead Britain had a protectorate over Egypt and helped to train the Egyptian army etc. The British made the Khedive of Egypt ban the slave trade in the Sudan (very profitable for Arabs) which created....
@thebigJM92 Good God man..I though u learned something about doing ur and repeat ur research first be4 talking about any subjects. ur info about Mahdi is just as bad and wrong as ur info about Islam..man please don't rely on Wikipedia for information..first: there was a slave trade in Sudan, however the Brits didn't ban it nor did they pressure the Khedive to do so. the Brits fueled the slave trade because they were buying slaves from Sudan.
@thebigJM92 man..I thought u learned something about getting good info be4 talking..do ur research..and I mean ur research be4 tackling any subject. and Wikipedia is not a good source fro info. first: there was slave trade in Sudan however the Brits didn't ban it nor did they pressure the Khedive to do so. the Brits fueled slavery in Sudan because they were buying slaves. where else you think the slaves were going? the slavery was done by Zubair pasha..
@ImperialGuard9001 discontent. The man calling himself the Mahdi used this discontent to rebel against the Egyptians and drive them out, so he could rule with his brand of extremely harsh Shariah law (what he called pure, think Taliban). He whipped the arabs in the Sudan up against the Khedive who he said was a "Turk" and smashed the Egyptian armies (led by British but made up of Egyptians). The famous Briton Charles Gordon was sent to the Sudan to get the Egyptian troops out (retreat) but...
@thebigJM92 Wrong...Arabs tribes opposed the Mahdi from the beginning. Mahdi army was for the most part from African tribes from Darfur region. and he wasn't fighting the Egyptian army it was an army made of mercenaries under full Brits command.all officers were Brits army soldiers. Gordon wasn't sent to retreat, he was pulled from China after massacring hundreds of thousands of Chinese to do the same in Sudan" why u think Chinese love Sudan". Gordon was offered safe passage outta Sudan.
@ImperialGuard9001 the Mahdi's men trapped him in Khartoum. For months he held out with 8000 Egyptian troops (there were only 3 British people in Khartoum during the siege and one was a civilian), using paddle steamers and old cannon. Only too late was General Wolseley with a real British army sent out to defeat the Mahdi and save Gordon, Khartoum fell, Gordon was killed and a general massacre ensued. Wolseley was then ordered to leave the Sudan without beating the Mahdi...
@ImperialGuard9001 The Mahdi then decided he would spread his brand of Islam (nothing but a cult in reality), he made major plans for the next steps. First he would invade Egypt, drive the Turks and Europeans out and implement his extreme Islam. Then he would turn south and invade Christian Abbyssinia (now Ethiopia) and force those infidels to convert or die. Luckily for everyone however he died before he could implement these plans. But the Khallifa Abdallahi took over and continued his plans.
@thebigJM92 The slave master was a Sudanese named Zubair pasha and he commanded a small army of well trained and armed men. both training and weapons were provided by the Brits army. at one point he grow so powerful the Brits though he is going to take over Sudan and sparks an independence quest all over Africa, so they tricked him by calling for an important meeting in Egypt and that is where he was put under house arrest till his death. he was living in a palace like a king..
@thebigJM92 Wrong..Wrong..Wrong.. the Mahdi died soon after the fall of Khartoum. and he was planning in offering full truth with the Queen of England, by the way, Mahdi ordered his troops to capture not kill Gordon because he wanted to exchange him for Orabi pasha the Egyptian officer who led a coup against the Brits in Egypt and was serving life term. Mahdi wanted Orabi pasha to take over after him. he was even ready to get Zubair pasha if the Brits refused to exchange for Orabi pasha.
@thebigJM92 Mahdi was a Sufi Muslim...Sufism is the most peaceful brand of all Islamic sectors. Khaleefa Abdulah was a very arrogant man and he did try to put a plan to invade even Britain. he was opposed by everyone. by the way Khaleefa Abdullah is from Darfur and he is as dark as a piece of charcoal and as African as can be. am letting u know so u don't make a mistake by calling him Arab. if Mahdi get his wish in Orabi or Zubair pasha. Sudan would be a different place right now. they had.
@dongol35 Well that is a mixture of partial truth and nationalist Sudanese myth. My information? How about "The Scramble for Africa"? Perhaps wikipedia uses some of that info i don't know. All i know is that it is THE classic text on the subject.
@thebigJM92 and who wrote that classic text??????? please don't tell me a Brit wrote it.....the truth was lived by my grand fathers who fought bravely for the Mahdi and the tales were related from father to son..Mahdi was a brave man with a plan for the country however he died be4 finalizing it. Khaleefa Abdullah was an arrogant man who destroyed every thing Mahdi worked 4 and who ignored all the sacrifices by my people to built his own legacy. Did that classic text talked about how
@thebigJM92 how most commanders in Khaleefa army opposed him and disagreed with what he was doing? did it talked about the countless brave warriors who left the cause and returned to their villages because the thought Khaleefa was an insane man? by the way, after the Brits defeated the Khaleefa they tried so hard to erase any thing Mahdism from Sudan history. so many Classic text were written to fabricate and falsify Mahdi era history and brain wash the new generations.
@dongol35 It's an american book, a book that DOESN'T support imperialism and spends a lot of time criticising the imperial European powers. It starts off at the death of Dr David Livingstone and goes right through to 1912. It describes all the major imperial events in Africa inbetween.
@thebigJM92 I will share a funny tale with u, u can't find it in that Classic text. Khaleefa Abdullah wrote a letter to the queen of England asking her to surrender her crown to him and convert to Islam and he told her if she become a good Muslim he may let her become the second wife of one his soldiers...it was a hilarious thing.
@thebigJM92 Thanks for the Heads Up on the book "Scramble for Africa." I saw a used copy in a store a couple blocks from here. I might sneak off and grab it while I'm supposed to be running business errands.
@thebigJM92 SKulked back into my office with "Scramble for Africa" and "The Race to Fashoda" (sounds like I'm getting ready for a track and field event). I read Pakenham's book on the Boer War; if this is half as good I'm in for a good read.
@thebigJM92 the wisdom and education and knowledge to negotiate a treaty with the Brits. by the way, Khaleefa Abdullah ruling in Sudan is the reason that Arab tribes don't want to see any African ruling Sudan, they always refer to his bad time and what he did in Sudan as an example to why African tribes should not rule the country again. Khaleefa killed more Sudanese than any one else, except for the Brits of course.
@thebigJM92 the wisdom and education and knowledge to negotiate a treaty with the Brits. by the way, Khaleefa Abdullah ruling in Sudan is the reason that Arab tribes don't want to see any African ruling Sudan, they always refer to his bad time and what he did in Sudan as an example to why African tribes should not rule the country again. Khaleefa killed more Sudanese than any one else, except for the Brits of course.
@ImperialGuard9001 So a few years later (though for different reasons) a new army made up of a mixture of British and Egptian troops led by the Briton General Kitchener re-invaded the Sudan. It was at this battle (Omdurman) that Kitchener and his men finally got revenge for the death of Gordon and ended the Mahdi's mad experiment. Slavery was banned again, Shariah law was relaxed, and the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan was created.
@ImperialGuard9001 Yes, it is jolly good fun reading how the Portugese "empire" turned into a big, flaming ball of shit as soon as the Dutch kicked their asses out the Netherlands, took all their ship-pilots back - and then took their Empire off them. Lol!
@zigzag909 Its amazing how ignorance can bring out the most disgusting comments. And also recive the most thumbs up. When it comes down to it, people today really are pathetic.
oduerman was an incredibly one-sided battle, the British artillery decimated the Mhadists before they even got within range of the British maxim guns and trenches
@gitboogy "oduerman was an incredibly one-sided battle, the British artillery decimated the Mhadists before they even got within range of the British maxim guns and trenches". Splendid, how gratifying! :0D
Im afraid yes, they did. They invaded India and subjugated the Hindus (ever heard of the Mughal/Moghul Empire). The Sikh tradition of carrying a knife to protect the faith was AIMED at Muslim invader rulers. Im sorry this is elementary Indian history. They invaded Egypt through the Sinai and suppressed the Coptic christians, they swept through North Africa and even into the Iberian Peninsular (Spain and Portugal). They reached mid-France before they were stopped (battle of Poitiers 732AD)
Well, later they invaded the Balkans and reached Vienna in the 17'th century. The siege of Vienna was a year long. Fortunately the Ottoman Empire never defeated Austria, OR it's allies which actually came to their aid. The Polish cavalry for instance.
@AlexDeLarge90 Yes you are quite right. Ottomans invaded the Balkans (leading to Vlad and his twisted but effective methods in Transylvania) and reached Vienna before halting at its gates. Much respect to the Austrian emperor and his brave armies. HOWEVER the Austrians can also thank the Persian Safavid Dynasty for causing the Ottomans a lot of trouble on their eastern front at this time.
They spread through Asia Minor (formally Christian, now Muslim Turkey), into central Asia (Kazakhstan etc). The only one they did not invade was Indonesia, where merchant settled WITH the natives (though they did use what would now be condemned as aggressive economic force, though everything is condemned now.)
The battle of omdurman was more like a massacre.10,000 enemy dead and only 48 British and Eygptian dead.Swords and spears against machine guns and artillery.
@rollindanny57 actually it was 60,000 Sudanese warriors dead within a couple of hours. by the way, this battle is where the British army tested its ever famous Maxim machine gun. however we Sudanese never called it a massacre, unfair battle yes but our warriors died with honor defending their beloved country.
Actually the charge at omdurman and his escape from the boers are well-documented and verified by independant sources. He also saw action on the Northwest Frontier, in the Spanish- American war and on the Western front in WWI as an infantry officer.
@swanningaround Actually he did, not only here and in South Africa but also in Cuba, India and as an infantry officer on the Western Front in WW1. He also had to be restrained from putting himself in harm's way on D-Day and prior to the crossing of the Rhine in WW2
Putting himself in harm's way. More like putting himself in the general's way to make sure he engraciated himself and got plenty of medals. He did serve in the army, and while others were seeking out the enemy, he was avoiding them and seeking out the war correspondents for photo ops. His escape from the Boers? He was easily captured by a few peasants, and simply walked out when they were asleep. Churchill was big at talking "no surrender", but quickly did himself.
I suggest you read a biography that isn't written by David Irving. The majority of British casualties at Omdurman were suffered in the scene depicted here, he was lucky to come through unscathed.
As for "engraciating" (sp.) himself in WW2, why would he need to? He was already the Prime Minister.
And he was himself a war correspondent btw, but pulled strings to get where the action was. He also volunteered for the infantry in WWI after the disaster at Gallipoli.
Yes. He volunteered for the infantry after his Gallipoli mess, as a publicity gimmick. Our Winston wasn't to be exposed to any danger, and was, like a normal posh staff officer, well behind the lines quaffing expensive alcoholic drinks and fine cuisine. As for engratiating himself, he did this during the various Victorian "campaigns" (putting down the natives), mainly Indian. He liked to avoid action, but be close to the general looking imposing in his dress uniforms, hoping to get a medal.
What on earth are you basing these ridiculous assertions on?
By the various 'Victorian campaigns' do you mean the Malakand and Nile expeditions? In the former he asked for a written copy of an order to retire because he was worried about looking foolish, in the latter he was in the thick of the most dangerous part of the fight.
In the First war he deliberately got himself assigned to the front line. As for your assertion about quaffing, his battalion HQ was tee-total, the front-line was not.
Here the British saved the christian south of Sudan from a mass murdering Islamic extremist (the Mad Mahdi).
Now of course such imperialist interventionism is angrily shouted down. And thus we have the millions of deaths in South Sudan. Yes we are much better people now.....
@thebigJM92 he aint mad u hog he kicked the brittish out of my country for good . so i dont think his mad , i think u should check with a doctor u looney infidel.
This battle is the climax of the campaign by Lord Kitchener that re-captured the Sudan for Britain and Egypt (and therefore, by extension, the Ottomans).
Before this the Sudan was controlled by Egypt, which was itself controlled (nominally) by the Ottomans. Britain then made Egypt a protectorate and the Sudan became the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. Then the Mad Mahdi wiped out a British armed Egyptian army and thats when the British got involved. He was also a religious nutter.
So the roll of the British IMperialism was to remove "religious nutters" all around the world by killing them and all their believers and country men. Sorry but who is the "nutter" here?
I suggest you read a history book on the subject. The Sudan was under the control of Egypt, which itself was a province of the Ottoman Empire. At the same time the Ottoman Empire relied on Britain to survive (see Crimean War). In exchange Britain got many advantages over other powers, including making Egypt a protectorate to combat the French in West Africa.
This meant the Egyptian Sudan became the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan....
Things were going fine for quite a while, with an Egyptian army (led by British officers and armed by Britain) keeping the peace as it had always been kept. Then our Mad Mahdi popped up out of nowhere like a latter day Muhammed and decided that all the land would be his and his followers. He destroyed an Egyptian army and laid siege to Khartoum. A relief expedition was sent, but it failed to reach Khartoum before it fell (it was defended by Egyptians led by General "chinese" Gordon)....
The Egyptian armies had been marching through the Sudan for hundreds of years. It was nothing new. What was relatively new was the British officers, but the overall effect was only to add a bit of variety. British instead of Turk. Britain cannot be blamed for this one.
A few more years passed. The government was toppled and a new one replaced it. This government decided to get revenge and re-take the Sudan. The Mad Mahdi had by this time enforced strict Islamic laws on ALL inhabitants (or killed them, their choice). So Lord Kitchener led one of the great epics of history, building a railroad as he went so he could keep the British army supplied. Though this battle (Omdurman) didnt end the fighting it took the fire out of the rebellion.
Oh and how do you think these Arabic Muslims got to the Sudan? The Sudan is in AFRICA. Yes you guessed it, they INVADED and drove out the original african inhabitants... Christian Ethiopia fought for its existence for thousands of years against Islamic Arab encroachment,.
@thebigJM92 Dear Sir; there are "Native" Muslims in India, China, Malaysia, Indonesia, Russia.....etc, do you think they became Muslims the Yankee style by "driving out the original inhabitants" ... get a cup of coffee and do some reading.
@thebigJM92 you are spreading lies... the mahdi himself was African.. these arent even Arabs they are Dervish peoples... which are by ALL MEANS AFRICAN.. Do not spread lies here... yes some were Arab but the Mahdi himself also is Dervish
@DSNCB919 Yes i didnt say the Mahdi wasnt dead when Kitchener beat his cult. In fact one of the defining features of the campaign after Omdurman was the blowing up of the Mahdi's tomb. The word dervish is derived from the Persian, and they existed all over the Middle-East. The Mahdi himself was hardly of the original Sudanese peoples (like those in Ethiopia) when he claims that he was directly descended from Muhammed.
@DSNCB919 He was born in Sudan and has been called the first Sudanese nationalist, but only if you allow that the Muslim conquerors of the Sudan were the real Sudanese (he was not an Egyptian/Turk, he was more Sudanese than that, but he was not an African in the very real sense, in the same way that a Boer is not a real African).
@thebigJM92 wow next thing you kno youll be calling The Nubians not African but foreign invaders.. please stop trying to take away AFRICAN history and call it something else people like you make me sick
@DSNCB919 Dont be a fool. It was Muhammed's ancestors who had invaded this land off the Nubians-the ones that they hadnt butchered were driven further South or sold into slavery (ever heard of the Arab slave trade? Or does that not register in your blinkered "west is bad, everyone else good" mentality?) The different Nubian peoples were once powerful, for a period between dynasties there were Nubian Pharaohs who invaded Egypt.
@thebigJM92 you see you read books and make up stories but I am of the land and your calling me foreign when I am not I AM pure African and we dont claim these foreign lies you do so stop trying to call us what we are not and mind your own buisness... Everytime something is good in Africa you Europeans want to call it foreign.. you cant trick us and your insulting me
@DSNCB919 The Zulu empire was not foreign, that was African power in all its glory. When the Nubians conquered Egypt, that was the African peoples at their peak, the Ashanti and the Lunda peoples built up great civilisations out of virtually nothing. These were great African peoples, these were the noble Africans of old, not the mad Mahdi and his cult of Islam. Not the Arab slave traders who spent over a thousand years spreading the lash and Islam.
@thebigJM92 al-mahdi is pure African case closed... just look at the people of the Sudan today... yes Arab mix but look at the actual people.. just browned skined africans...
@thebigJM92 if u were in person I would slap you right now... stop spreading those lies... and actually look at the people and stop beleving western media and STOP telling those lies GO to Khartoum and tell me what you see
@DSNCB919 Khartoum? Do you say that Khartoum is a traditional African city? And yet Ibrahim Pasha, the ruler of Egypt, founded Khartoum in 1821 as an outpost for the Egyptian army. The settlement grew as a regional center of trade, including the slave trade of Africans to the Arab world. Al-Sudan means Land of the Blacks because that was what it was originally. But then the "blacks" were driven out of the North and centre.
@thebigJM92 Im telling you to go to Khartoum and see what the people look like... your all about books and lies your mis-guided.. they are all Africans... some brown some dark but you woulnt find any whites in Sudan.. the Arabs are Afro-Arab... you tell lies because your embarrassed by your defeat so you have to make excuses
@thebigJM92 im talking about before when the Mahdi army raped u and beheaded your leader... because of that you dont want to admit their African because ppl like you always think Africa is inferior... Stop replying your white from europe how are you going to say what African is African and who isant?
@DSNCB919 Well you have shipped out to the United States so you are hardly in a position to talk. And the army that the Mahdi destroyed was made up of Egyptian soldiers with British officers. It was an Egyptian army led by Britain's, not a British army. The Mahdi never defeated a British army, Wolseley led the British army relief force but arrived at Khartoum a day late to save Gordon, but Wolseley defeated any opposition on his route.
@thebigJM92 wrong..wrong..wrong..he never made it past the norther area of Sudan and returned to Egypt when he learned that Muhdi conquered Khartoum. we did defeat the British army. why you think the Brits are scared to get evolved in Darfor? look up the EUFOR force in Chad, British have a couple logistic solders, that is because they never want to face a Sudan warrior again. we are the only nation to defeat British when they had the whole world under their control. we own the Brits.
@thebigJM92 I hate to educate ignorant people like you, Sudan referred to the area from the red sea to the ocean. from Somalia to Wast Africa and every area in between, the whole area was called Sudan. Mali was called French Sudan till recently. how and why the name stuck with current country is up for debate. there was never black driven to the south, the same people still live in the same land their ancestor occupied for thousands of years. get ur fact straight.
Ethiopia and Somalia been fighting each other for centuries. Ethiopia invaded Somalia 2 years ago. Islam has nothing to do with that. I lived in Sudan all my life and have many Christian friends who practice their faith freely. who said Mahdi was not a freedom fighter, the British did, why? THERE WERE NO CHRISTIANS IN SOUTH SUDAN BEFORE BRITISH INVASION, that is a fact. by the way , how did you prove all these things are wrong?once again, get your fact straight.
Just go back and read over what i have already written. You seem to have some kind of mental deficiency. The Adal Sultan specifically had the aim of converting the populace to Islam and was backed up by the Ottoman Empire, Islam had EVERYTHING to do with it. I have shown many examples of christian persecution and hell, just type it in on a search engine and tens of thousands of things pop up. Mahdi was giving no-one freedom, he would be absolute ruler, that is not freedom.
@thebigJM92 you looked up Wikipedia and copy-paste what ever they have written. am telling you man, Wiki is not a reliable source for info. Mahdi freed the country from the Brits, by the way, do you know that Mahdi army was mainly from the Africans tribes who live in Darfur. have you ever heard of Sultan Ali Dinar, the great Fur tribe leader? Sudan is not just Arabs its Africans mixed with Arabs or Arab culture, that is Sudan. your knowledge about Sudan is clouded by deep hate for Islam.
@dongol35 There are far more websites than just Wikipedia, perhaps you should try looking at some that are not written by Muslim apologists?
Who says the men were all eunuchs? (though many who looked after Harems were), they werent allowed to have children, its not the same thing. I must say the best example of slavery in Islam is the Mamluks. I will give Islam its due, it might have violated every human right in its time, but even the Mamluks kept the faith they were forcibly converted to.
@thebigJM92 one last thing: there are as many Muslims in Ethiopia as there are Christians(around 30 millions Ethiopians are Muslims) now:
according to you; Ethiopia was never invaded by Muslims and was never invaded by Arabs, can you explain how these Ethiopians converted to Islam? were they forced to convert? one fact: force conversion is strictly forbidden according to Islamic teachings. for good reason, forced ones never make good followers and will stab ur back at earliest chance.
@thebigJM92 Al-Sudan even means the Land of the Blacks Arab is not a race the janjaweed are true Africans with Arab tribal influence also Africa doesnt even mean black.. but Westerners always try to turn Africa into a racial conflict when Africa isant even on an Racial level.. thats Western idealisim... the Darfur war is over Oil
@thebigJM92 hahahahaha...seriously man, you need help. I heard of the European slave trade(over 14 millions Africans enslaved and sold in USA and the Islands) how many Africans were sold in the so called Arab slave trade, and where they live now? and for the last time, SUDAN WAS NEVER EVER NEVER invaded by the Muslims.
@dongol35 You plainly live in denial you disgusting apologist for a modern minor genocide. There are thousands of reports and respectable articles about christian persecution in Sudan. And now you play down the Arab slave trade! The christian slave trade lasted 200 years. The Arab slave trade lasted over 1200 and they took Europeans as well as Africans. Estimates of the Arab slave trade (for purely Africans and not Europeans) ranges from 10 to 18 million.
@thebigJM92 to make it a short argument. where are these 10 to 18 millions live now? we all know where to find the 14 million Africans enslaved by Europeans, can you point out where the 10 to 18 millions enslaved by Arabs live now?? by the way, don't use Wikipedia as a source of information, any one can edit that shit. hit the local library and find some good books, if u trying to learn about the subject that is.
@dongol35 I have already TOLD you. The 10 to 18 million people was over 1200 years! They went to Egypt, Spain, Persia, even India. But it was over such a long time that, unlike the christian one, they werent all taken at once so there was no "swamping". The men could not have children and the women who did had them with Arabs, the situation is completely different to the European one. No descendants
@thebigJM92 you can't be serious man. really, wow...wow. I guess we Africans need to re-write our history books to include this valuable piece of information about Arab slave trade. wow.wow. where u teach history again? what university? I never thought I was talking to a history professor. was that your PhD thesis? it sound nice thou "THE ARAB SLAVE TRADE and the 18 millions Eunuch".
@dongol35 Sudan was never invaded by Muslims. But the old christian Sudanese kingdoms were, and they add up to the same thing. And whether you like it or not Muslims tried to invade Ethiopia and convert the population. Deny it all you like but you are lying to yourself and everyone else, the facts are their. The leader of the Adal Sultanate was backed up by the Ottoman Empire.
@DSNCB919 The Mahdiyah (Mahdist regime) imposed traditional Islamic laws. Sudan's new ruler also authorized the burning of lists of pedigrees and books of law and theology because of their association with the old order and because he believed that they former accentuated tribalism at the expense of religious unity.
@DSNCB919 The Mahdi said his movement was not a religious order that could be accepted or rejected at will, but that it was a universal regime, which challenged man to join or to be destroyed. The Mahdi modified Islam's five pillars to support the dogma that loyalty to him was essential to belief. The Mahdi also added the declaration "and Muhammad Ahmad is the Mahdi of God and the representative of His Prophet" to the recitation of the creed, the shahada. Sounds like a nutter to me.
@thebigJM92 man..you need to do some serious reading about the subject, no Wikipedia please. Sudan was never invaded by the Arabs or Muslims. the only time Sudan was invaded was by the Turks and British forces, and the Mahdis defeated them both..
in a way this war was almost practice or a taster of what was to come in ww1
XXRichardBXX 9 months ago
The ending of the video was perfect haha
BearcatBrethren 9 months ago
the end of the video lmao
Ccaven 9 months ago
I LOVE those chain-mail epaulets!
horselips 10 months ago
Not the Gay Gordons Fellow townsman, I listended to it, but thathnks for the idea.
glasswizzard 11 months ago
Most people noted that when they got close Churchill put away his government issue sword and took out the latest thing in automatic pistols given to him by his mother! Smart man.
freebeerfordworkers 11 months ago
Bonnie Dundee.
FellowTownsman 11 months ago
Those smaller artillery pieces what calibre are they and what name?
JSLegoMaster 11 months ago
does anyone know the name of the pipe tune that comes into sound at 0.08 seconds and goes thru to 11 seconds????????
glasswizzard 11 months ago
@glasswizzard Sounds like the Gay Gordons to me. (And by Gay i mean Happy, high morale, cheerful etc.)
FellowTownsman 11 months ago
@FellowTownsman what about the pipe tune after the British Grenadiers?
oofy90 11 months ago
"ere's to you Fuzzy Wuzzy!"
SonofThor73 11 months ago 2
killing ragheads in the sudan!
Nwfcocks23 11 months ago
oh bloody hell!
jibgt6 1 year ago 2
The Historic battle of Omdurman was won by British Forces mainly on account of the superior performance of their Newly introduced MAXIM Machine guns which literally Mowed down thousand of Mehdis . Artillery played a Minor role .
This fact is widely acknowledged.
drshara63 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@drshara63 "Artillery played a Minor role "
Not quite. The dervishes were under artillary fire when they were more than a mile and a half from the British lines. This broke up their formations and made them poor targets for the terrifying, but not overly accurate maxim guns.
oarfrost 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@drshara63 @drshara63 "Artillery played a Minor role "
Not quite. The dervishes were under artillery fire when they were more than a mile and a half from the British lines. This broke up their formations and made them poor targets for the terrifying, but not overly accurate maxim guns.
oarfrost 1 year ago
The British Empire always wins, baby.
MajBlood 1 year ago 3
can anyone please tell me where I can download this move?
dadepoot 1 year ago
Why would you call a cavalry charge without knowing the disposition and size of the force you are assaulting.
mosquito103 1 year ago
@mosquito103 Can't give you a satisfactory answer to that question except to say that it was frequently done by overeager commanding officers, particularly cavalrymen, of many nations; Custer is only one. Sometimes, of course, "orders is orders" and "their's not to reason why", but not scouting or ignoring scouting reports was pretty common as well. What's even worse, perhaps,
McGrenzer 1 year ago
@mosquito103 (Continuation) was the difficulty in recalling and reforming the cavalry after a charge (Wellington complained of this).
McGrenzer 1 year ago
@mosquito103 "Why would you call a cavalry charge without knowing the disposition and size of the force you are assaulting. "
As McGrenzer said, most cavalry commanders. It wasn't quite as daft as it sounds. Unless the enemy was pretty well trained and were able to form squares or something similar in very short order, they would be caught in open formation and cut down by the advancing horsemen, so the usual practice was for opposition to ran away. Churchill himself made this point......
oarfrost 1 year ago
@mosquito103 "Why would you call a cavalry charge without knowing the disposition and size of the force you are assaulting. "
As McGrenzer said, most cavalry commanders. It wasn't quite as daft as it sounds. Unless the enemy was pretty well trained and were able to form squares or something similar in very short order, they would be caught in open formation and cut down by the advancing horsemen, so the usual practice was for opposition to ran away. This was one of the rare occassions when..
oarfrost 1 year ago
@oarfrost the infantry stood its ground
oarfrost 1 year ago
those fuzzy-wuzzies don't like it up em sir !
itkapatanka 1 year ago 5
bagpipes and british grenadiers playing :]
Manchester1O1 1 year ago
im only watching this cos of dads army
scids225 1 year ago
Apache gunships and surgical air strikes take the grandeur out of battle scenes don't they....
Reegatron 1 year ago
so what if sudan was muslims, those sudanese never did anything to the british, just defied their rule
hanros98 1 year ago
@hanros98
Uhhhhhh...the brutal Mahdist regime killed millions of it's own people in the space of two decades and was a bastion of slavery.
SD78 1 year ago
@SD78 and... most of the people killed were muslims themselves it was no religious fight. look basically people here are having a go a muslims, when actually the sudanese were just defending their country and not spreading terrorism or anything. i don't care of you hate muslims, but these sudanese have nothing to do with terrorists and were fighting for freedom
hanros98 1 year ago
Ahhhhh nothing like a good old Mauser C-96 at your side.
GSPatton89 1 year ago
I feel bad about the horses. I'm glad they're no longer used in warfare.
haydencantact 1 year ago
Hahaha...the Derwish Army showing the Spanish flag!!!!
ViejoCabo 1 year ago
to be continued tune in next week....
MrUrbanLander 1 year ago
I love this stuff.
SlyRy 1 year ago
Always interesting to see film interpretations of "cavalry charges". That one was more accurate than some, but it sort of failed in it's intent....cavalry is meant to scare and break the enemy, and cut them down as they run. If the enemy really stands and doesn't falter, like in this scene, there's really little advantage to being mounted. A line of rifle-and-bayonet armed infantry would've done the job better. But one can't always have what they want in battle, and it's long-over now.
justforever96 1 year ago
02:35 : What in the heck is a Spanish flag doing here ?! If the British troops were fighting a Spanish force, I would have understood, but there are only Arabs (Egyptians, maybe ?). Anyone, you have a clue ?
Briselance 1 year ago
The bagpipes sounding must be a massive moral boost for British and allied troops within hearing distance. It makes you feel like you're freaking invincible. ^^
Briselance 1 year ago
You can never beat the British!
LordWellington15 1 year ago
@LordWellington15 Tell that to Cornwallis. Or to Lord Chelmsford at Isandlwana. Allowing yourself to believe your own myth of superiority is dangerous...it leads to complacency. That said, the British sure are bulldogs when it comes to battle! I'd be comfortable enough with them on my flanks! =)
justforever96 1 year ago
@justforever96 Yes, Islandwanna was the fault of Chelmsford. He thought just cause he had artillery and firepower that he could beat 30 000 Zulu's. But the odds were 25:1. But we got our revenge at Rorke's Drift.
LordWellington15 1 year ago
This was not the last Charge of British Cavalry. IN WW1 there were many successful charges of British (as well as Dominion and French) cavalry in 1914 and in 1918 on the Western Front and Middle East.
I doubt Winston Churchill ever would have expressed it like that, rather an exageration on the directors behalf.
fp470 1 year ago
It's the soldiers of the Queen, my lads
Who've been, my lads, who've seen, my lads
In the fight for England's glory lads
When we've had to show them what we mean:
And when we say we've always won
And when they ask us how it's done
We'll proudly point to every one
Of England's soldiers of the Queen!
matthompson 1 year ago
@matthompson Oh, I've heard that sone. Wasn't it used in the closing credits of "Breaker Morant?"
a0e0roberts 1 year ago
@matthompson GSTQ
LordWellington15 1 year ago
1876.
DamnedEye 1 year ago
2:28 - 3:09
I MUST JOIN THE ARTILLERY!
UDI1995 1 year ago 14
@UDI1995 The comforting sound of the big guns...at least when they're on your side.
arthurpendragonsyt 11 months ago 2
Churchill's view of Islam is neatly summed up in his comment at the time, saying it is "as dangerous in a man as hydophobia in a dog".
johnsammyanfal 1 year ago 2
The famous charge of the 21st Lancers depicted caused a larger number of British casuaties (five officers and sixty-five men out of 310, and 120 horses). The high casualty figures suggest that this cavalry charge of unbroken infantry over unknown ground should never have been made.
johnsammyanfal 1 year ago
In the main Battle of Omdurman (Karari) the firepower of more than 20,000 British-Egyptian rifles, artillery and machine guns killed 11,000 Dervish warriors, and wounded another 16, 000. Contrast with a total loss of 48 killed and 428 wounded on the British side.
johnsammyanfal 1 year ago
yo it is 1872
brianluk2006 1 year ago
@brianluk2006 The movie is 1972, the battle happened in 1898
Goatoftheforest 1 year ago
Right! Who's ready to give the Fuzzy Wuzzy a damn good thrashing? Six of the best, trousers down? Play up, play up, and play the game as I always say, what!
IronBrig4 1 year ago
thebigJM92
you make non sense! south of susan wasn't part of the sudan yet! you were not even Christians before the civil war! and Copts in Khartoum Bahri were more than you! and they still live among us, if you are happy now! then take back all of your people from Khartoum and let us live in peace
hottiezol 1 year ago
Britain and America are destined to rule the World...
Braunheim 1 year ago
@Braunheim
That's what the Romans said too, and look what happened to Rome.
Napoleon believed the same as did Hitler, who thought Germany should lead the world.
Newsflash. All empires fall sooner or later, and the British is already gone, and judging by your huge national dept I'd say you are on your way down too.
No countries should dominate. Variety creates the best and most balanced world.
Damn nazi.
AlexDeLarge90 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Good to see our boys carrying on this great tradition of killing ragheads in Afghanistan.. Great fun.
zigzag909 1 year ago 25
@zigzag909 Yes is jolly good fun British Imperalism creating fun out of killing natives all over the world
ImperialGuard9001 1 year ago
@ImperialGuard9001 Well in this situation that is rather unfair on the British. The Sudan was at this time Egyptian territory, directly under the control of the Khedive. Egypt itself was technically part of the Ottoman Empire under the Turkish Sultan (but in reality he had little influence). Instead Britain had a protectorate over Egypt and helped to train the Egyptian army etc. The British made the Khedive of Egypt ban the slave trade in the Sudan (very profitable for Arabs) which created....
thebigJM92 1 year ago
@thebigJM92 Good God man..I though u learned something about doing ur and repeat ur research first be4 talking about any subjects. ur info about Mahdi is just as bad and wrong as ur info about Islam..man please don't rely on Wikipedia for information..first: there was a slave trade in Sudan, however the Brits didn't ban it nor did they pressure the Khedive to do so. the Brits fueled the slave trade because they were buying slaves from Sudan.
dongol35 1 year ago
Comment removed
dongol35 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thebigJM92 man..I thought u learned something about getting good info be4 talking..do ur research..and I mean ur research be4 tackling any subject. and Wikipedia is not a good source fro info. first: there was slave trade in Sudan however the Brits didn't ban it nor did they pressure the Khedive to do so. the Brits fueled slavery in Sudan because they were buying slaves. where else you think the slaves were going? the slavery was done by Zubair pasha..
dongol35 1 year ago
@ImperialGuard9001 discontent. The man calling himself the Mahdi used this discontent to rebel against the Egyptians and drive them out, so he could rule with his brand of extremely harsh Shariah law (what he called pure, think Taliban). He whipped the arabs in the Sudan up against the Khedive who he said was a "Turk" and smashed the Egyptian armies (led by British but made up of Egyptians). The famous Briton Charles Gordon was sent to the Sudan to get the Egyptian troops out (retreat) but...
thebigJM92 1 year ago
@thebigJM92 Wrong...Arabs tribes opposed the Mahdi from the beginning. Mahdi army was for the most part from African tribes from Darfur region. and he wasn't fighting the Egyptian army it was an army made of mercenaries under full Brits command.all officers were Brits army soldiers. Gordon wasn't sent to retreat, he was pulled from China after massacring hundreds of thousands of Chinese to do the same in Sudan" why u think Chinese love Sudan". Gordon was offered safe passage outta Sudan.
dongol35 1 year ago
@ImperialGuard9001 the Mahdi's men trapped him in Khartoum. For months he held out with 8000 Egyptian troops (there were only 3 British people in Khartoum during the siege and one was a civilian), using paddle steamers and old cannon. Only too late was General Wolseley with a real British army sent out to defeat the Mahdi and save Gordon, Khartoum fell, Gordon was killed and a general massacre ensued. Wolseley was then ordered to leave the Sudan without beating the Mahdi...
thebigJM92 1 year ago
@ImperialGuard9001 The Mahdi then decided he would spread his brand of Islam (nothing but a cult in reality), he made major plans for the next steps. First he would invade Egypt, drive the Turks and Europeans out and implement his extreme Islam. Then he would turn south and invade Christian Abbyssinia (now Ethiopia) and force those infidels to convert or die. Luckily for everyone however he died before he could implement these plans. But the Khallifa Abdallahi took over and continued his plans.
thebigJM92 1 year ago
@thebigJM92 The slave master was a Sudanese named Zubair pasha and he commanded a small army of well trained and armed men. both training and weapons were provided by the Brits army. at one point he grow so powerful the Brits though he is going to take over Sudan and sparks an independence quest all over Africa, so they tricked him by calling for an important meeting in Egypt and that is where he was put under house arrest till his death. he was living in a palace like a king..
dongol35 1 year ago
@thebigJM92 Wrong..Wrong..Wrong.. the Mahdi died soon after the fall of Khartoum. and he was planning in offering full truth with the Queen of England, by the way, Mahdi ordered his troops to capture not kill Gordon because he wanted to exchange him for Orabi pasha the Egyptian officer who led a coup against the Brits in Egypt and was serving life term. Mahdi wanted Orabi pasha to take over after him. he was even ready to get Zubair pasha if the Brits refused to exchange for Orabi pasha.
dongol35 1 year ago
@thebigJM92 Mahdi was a Sufi Muslim...Sufism is the most peaceful brand of all Islamic sectors. Khaleefa Abdulah was a very arrogant man and he did try to put a plan to invade even Britain. he was opposed by everyone. by the way Khaleefa Abdullah is from Darfur and he is as dark as a piece of charcoal and as African as can be. am letting u know so u don't make a mistake by calling him Arab. if Mahdi get his wish in Orabi or Zubair pasha. Sudan would be a different place right now. they had.
dongol35 1 year ago
@dongol35 Well that is a mixture of partial truth and nationalist Sudanese myth. My information? How about "The Scramble for Africa"? Perhaps wikipedia uses some of that info i don't know. All i know is that it is THE classic text on the subject.
thebigJM92 1 year ago
@thebigJM92 and who wrote that classic text??????? please don't tell me a Brit wrote it.....the truth was lived by my grand fathers who fought bravely for the Mahdi and the tales were related from father to son..Mahdi was a brave man with a plan for the country however he died be4 finalizing it. Khaleefa Abdullah was an arrogant man who destroyed every thing Mahdi worked 4 and who ignored all the sacrifices by my people to built his own legacy. Did that classic text talked about how
dongol35 1 year ago
@thebigJM92 how most commanders in Khaleefa army opposed him and disagreed with what he was doing? did it talked about the countless brave warriors who left the cause and returned to their villages because the thought Khaleefa was an insane man? by the way, after the Brits defeated the Khaleefa they tried so hard to erase any thing Mahdism from Sudan history. so many Classic text were written to fabricate and falsify Mahdi era history and brain wash the new generations.
dongol35 1 year ago
@dongol35 It's an american book, a book that DOESN'T support imperialism and spends a lot of time criticising the imperial European powers. It starts off at the death of Dr David Livingstone and goes right through to 1912. It describes all the major imperial events in Africa inbetween.
thebigJM92 1 year ago
@thebigJM92 I will share a funny tale with u, u can't find it in that Classic text. Khaleefa Abdullah wrote a letter to the queen of England asking her to surrender her crown to him and convert to Islam and he told her if she become a good Muslim he may let her become the second wife of one his soldiers...it was a hilarious thing.
dongol35 1 year ago
@thebigJM92 Thanks for the Heads Up on the book "Scramble for Africa." I saw a used copy in a store a couple blocks from here. I might sneak off and grab it while I'm supposed to be running business errands.
ImperialistRunningDo 1 year ago
@ImperialistRunningDo Ha ha no problem! I found it superb!
thebigJM92 1 year ago
@thebigJM92 SKulked back into my office with "Scramble for Africa" and "The Race to Fashoda" (sounds like I'm getting ready for a track and field event). I read Pakenham's book on the Boer War; if this is half as good I'm in for a good read.
ImperialistRunningDo 1 year ago
@ImperialistRunningDo Ah good man! I hope you enjoy them!
thebigJM92 1 year ago
@thebigJM92 the wisdom and education and knowledge to negotiate a treaty with the Brits. by the way, Khaleefa Abdullah ruling in Sudan is the reason that Arab tribes don't want to see any African ruling Sudan, they always refer to his bad time and what he did in Sudan as an example to why African tribes should not rule the country again. Khaleefa killed more Sudanese than any one else, except for the Brits of course.
dongol35 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thebigJM92 the wisdom and education and knowledge to negotiate a treaty with the Brits. by the way, Khaleefa Abdullah ruling in Sudan is the reason that Arab tribes don't want to see any African ruling Sudan, they always refer to his bad time and what he did in Sudan as an example to why African tribes should not rule the country again. Khaleefa killed more Sudanese than any one else, except for the Brits of course.
dongol35 1 year ago
@ImperialGuard9001 So a few years later (though for different reasons) a new army made up of a mixture of British and Egptian troops led by the Briton General Kitchener re-invaded the Sudan. It was at this battle (Omdurman) that Kitchener and his men finally got revenge for the death of Gordon and ended the Mahdi's mad experiment. Slavery was banned again, Shariah law was relaxed, and the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan was created.
thebigJM92 1 year ago
@ImperialGuard9001
Have a look at the context.
2210ethan 1 year ago
@ImperialGuard9001 Yes, it is jolly good fun reading how the Portugese "empire" turned into a big, flaming ball of shit as soon as the Dutch kicked their asses out the Netherlands, took all their ship-pilots back - and then took their Empire off them. Lol!
gyrofoam1 1 year ago
@ImperialGuard9001 Well all those brown people need to be shown who's the boss of this planet.
Puzzoozoo 1 year ago
@zigzag909 yeah great killing natives who want freedom great fun
hanros98 1 year ago
@zigzag909 Well the fuzzy wozzys didn't know who was boss, so had to be taught a lesson with modern military weapns. Good show lads I say.
Puzzoozoo 1 year ago
@zigzag909 Omdurman is in the Sudan mate. It's nowhere near Afghanistan.
tonylast47 1 year ago
@zigzag909 british colonial armies frequently had large members of native soldiers.
dargay 1 year ago
@dargay THE 4 FEATHERS IS BETTER.
COLONEL961 1 year ago
@COLONEL961 I hope you are referring to the older version and not that stupid heath ledger one...
omega856 1 year ago
@omega856 yes the older version.I liked the grumpy father.
COLONEL961 1 year ago
@zigzag909 half the troops are colonial u twat. ragheads in british unifroms, look at the guys wearing fez's
bullshitohen1 1 year ago
@zigzag909 Omdurman is in the Sudan you ignorant twat!
jimpomac 1 year ago 3
@zigzag909 yeah great... we lost too many great & good men and got kicked out eventually, great fun ... they do say history repeats don't they?!
coffee2bsmelt 1 year ago
@zigzag909 Its amazing how ignorance can bring out the most disgusting comments. And also recive the most thumbs up. When it comes down to it, people today really are pathetic.
RedShadow238 1 year ago 11
oduerman was an incredibly one-sided battle, the British artillery decimated the Mhadists before they even got within range of the British maxim guns and trenches
gitboogy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gitboogy "oduerman was an incredibly one-sided battle, the British artillery decimated the Mhadists before they even got within range of the British maxim guns and trenches". Splendid, how gratifying! :0D
adamswampy 1 year ago
those fuzzy wassis dont like it up em!!!!
kingbleah 1 year ago
All of those imperialists deserved death.
warpedcomedy 1 year ago
The United States is the textbook definition of an Empire, therefore making you an imperialist you self defeating idiot.
smoochym 1 year ago
can't yall just watch a movie w/o all the friggen arguments???just enjoy the damn show!
who gives a shit about all your personal comments,and don't bother to respond as i will just delete it w/o reading it!
keithehlert 1 year ago
Can someone tell me why hundreds of Brits have travelled thousand miles heavily armed to massacar 10,000 lives? What was their crime?
braima2007 1 year ago
Don't people know when they are conquered
jthofner 1 year ago
@jthofner would you? would I? ( quote from gladiator forgot the name of the person)
DSNCB919 1 year ago
Im afraid yes, they did. They invaded India and subjugated the Hindus (ever heard of the Mughal/Moghul Empire). The Sikh tradition of carrying a knife to protect the faith was AIMED at Muslim invader rulers. Im sorry this is elementary Indian history. They invaded Egypt through the Sinai and suppressed the Coptic christians, they swept through North Africa and even into the Iberian Peninsular (Spain and Portugal). They reached mid-France before they were stopped (battle of Poitiers 732AD)
thebigJM92 1 year ago
@thebigJM92
Well, later they invaded the Balkans and reached Vienna in the 17'th century. The siege of Vienna was a year long. Fortunately the Ottoman Empire never defeated Austria, OR it's allies which actually came to their aid. The Polish cavalry for instance.
AlexDeLarge90 1 year ago
@AlexDeLarge90 Yes you are quite right. Ottomans invaded the Balkans (leading to Vlad and his twisted but effective methods in Transylvania) and reached Vienna before halting at its gates. Much respect to the Austrian emperor and his brave armies. HOWEVER the Austrians can also thank the Persian Safavid Dynasty for causing the Ottomans a lot of trouble on their eastern front at this time.
thebigJM92 1 year ago
They spread through Asia Minor (formally Christian, now Muslim Turkey), into central Asia (Kazakhstan etc). The only one they did not invade was Indonesia, where merchant settled WITH the natives (though they did use what would now be condemned as aggressive economic force, though everything is condemned now.)
thebigJM92 1 year ago
@braima2007 its called REVENGE. their crime was; they defeated the British army and freed their country.
dongol35 1 year ago
I think it was "Donald where's ya troosers?"
rollindanny57 1 year ago
What is that highlander bagpipe tune in the beginning of this clip.
jthofner 1 year ago
The battle of omdurman was more like a massacre.10,000 enemy dead and only 48 British and Eygptian dead.Swords and spears against machine guns and artillery.
rollindanny57 1 year ago
@rollindanny57 - a good win then ?
crackerbash63 1 year ago
A great victory!!!!!
jthofner 1 year ago
@rollindanny57 actually it was 60,000 Sudanese warriors dead within a couple of hours. by the way, this battle is where the British army tested its ever famous Maxim machine gun. however we Sudanese never called it a massacre, unfair battle yes but our warriors died with honor defending their beloved country.
dongol35 1 year ago
Comment removed
2210ethan 1 year ago
BOOM!!!
LordWellington15 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Young Winston was a big lie, just like him. He probably never saw any action.
swanningaround 1 year ago
@swanningaround
Actually the charge at omdurman and his escape from the boers are well-documented and verified by independant sources. He also saw action on the Northwest Frontier, in the Spanish- American war and on the Western front in WWI as an infantry officer.
2210ethan 1 year ago
@swanningaround Actually he did, not only here and in South Africa but also in Cuba, India and as an infantry officer on the Western Front in WW1. He also had to be restrained from putting himself in harm's way on D-Day and prior to the crossing of the Rhine in WW2
2210ethan 1 year ago
Putting himself in harm's way. More like putting himself in the general's way to make sure he engraciated himself and got plenty of medals. He did serve in the army, and while others were seeking out the enemy, he was avoiding them and seeking out the war correspondents for photo ops. His escape from the Boers? He was easily captured by a few peasants, and simply walked out when they were asleep. Churchill was big at talking "no surrender", but quickly did himself.
swanningaround 1 year ago
@swanningaround
I suggest you read a biography that isn't written by David Irving. The majority of British casualties at Omdurman were suffered in the scene depicted here, he was lucky to come through unscathed.
As for "engraciating" (sp.) himself in WW2, why would he need to? He was already the Prime Minister.
And he was himself a war correspondent btw, but pulled strings to get where the action was. He also volunteered for the infantry in WWI after the disaster at Gallipoli.
2210ethan 1 year ago
Yes. He volunteered for the infantry after his Gallipoli mess, as a publicity gimmick. Our Winston wasn't to be exposed to any danger, and was, like a normal posh staff officer, well behind the lines quaffing expensive alcoholic drinks and fine cuisine. As for engratiating himself, he did this during the various Victorian "campaigns" (putting down the natives), mainly Indian. He liked to avoid action, but be close to the general looking imposing in his dress uniforms, hoping to get a medal.
swanningaround 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What on earth are you basing these ridiculous assertions on?
By the various 'Victorian campaigns' do you mean the Malakand and Nile expeditions? In the former he asked for a written copy of an order to retire because he was worried about looking foolish, in the latter he was in the thick of the most dangerous part of the fight.
In the First war he deliberately got himself assigned to the front line. As for your assertion about quaffing, his battalion HQ was tee-total, the front-line was not.
2210ethan 1 year ago
Here the British saved the christian south of Sudan from a mass murdering Islamic extremist (the Mad Mahdi).
Now of course such imperialist interventionism is angrily shouted down. And thus we have the millions of deaths in South Sudan. Yes we are much better people now.....
thebigJM92 2 years ago 7
@thebigJM92 he aint mad u hog he kicked the brittish out of my country for good . so i dont think his mad , i think u should check with a doctor u looney infidel.
frenzykiller909 1 year ago
No he didnt.....
This battle is the climax of the campaign by Lord Kitchener that re-captured the Sudan for Britain and Egypt (and therefore, by extension, the Ottomans).
Before this the Sudan was controlled by Egypt, which was itself controlled (nominally) by the Ottomans. Britain then made Egypt a protectorate and the Sudan became the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. Then the Mad Mahdi wiped out a British armed Egyptian army and thats when the British got involved. He was also a religious nutter.
thebigJM92 1 year ago
So the roll of the British IMperialism was to remove "religious nutters" all around the world by killing them and all their believers and country men. Sorry but who is the "nutter" here?
braima2007 1 year ago
I suggest you read a history book on the subject. The Sudan was under the control of Egypt, which itself was a province of the Ottoman Empire. At the same time the Ottoman Empire relied on Britain to survive (see Crimean War). In exchange Britain got many advantages over other powers, including making Egypt a protectorate to combat the French in West Africa.
This meant the Egyptian Sudan became the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan....
thebigJM92 1 year ago
Things were going fine for quite a while, with an Egyptian army (led by British officers and armed by Britain) keeping the peace as it had always been kept. Then our Mad Mahdi popped up out of nowhere like a latter day Muhammed and decided that all the land would be his and his followers. He destroyed an Egyptian army and laid siege to Khartoum. A relief expedition was sent, but it failed to reach Khartoum before it fell (it was defended by Egyptians led by General "chinese" Gordon)....
thebigJM92 1 year ago
@thebigJM92 Come again, what were those "Egyptian army led by British officers and armed by Britain" doing far away from their homes? Keeping peace?
braima2007 1 year ago
The Egyptian armies had been marching through the Sudan for hundreds of years. It was nothing new. What was relatively new was the British officers, but the overall effect was only to add a bit of variety. British instead of Turk. Britain cannot be blamed for this one.
thebigJM92 1 year ago
A few more years passed. The government was toppled and a new one replaced it. This government decided to get revenge and re-take the Sudan. The Mad Mahdi had by this time enforced strict Islamic laws on ALL inhabitants (or killed them, their choice). So Lord Kitchener led one of the great epics of history, building a railroad as he went so he could keep the British army supplied. Though this battle (Omdurman) didnt end the fighting it took the fire out of the rebellion.
thebigJM92 1 year ago
Oh and how do you think these Arabic Muslims got to the Sudan? The Sudan is in AFRICA. Yes you guessed it, they INVADED and drove out the original african inhabitants... Christian Ethiopia fought for its existence for thousands of years against Islamic Arab encroachment,.
thebigJM92 1 year ago
@thebigJM92 Dear Sir; there are "Native" Muslims in India, China, Malaysia, Indonesia, Russia.....etc, do you think they became Muslims the Yankee style by "driving out the original inhabitants" ... get a cup of coffee and do some reading.
braima2007 1 year ago
@thebigJM92 you are spreading lies... the mahdi himself was African.. these arent even Arabs they are Dervish peoples... which are by ALL MEANS AFRICAN.. Do not spread lies here... yes some were Arab but the Mahdi himself also is Dervish
DSNCB919 1 year ago
@DSNCB919 Yes i didnt say the Mahdi wasnt dead when Kitchener beat his cult. In fact one of the defining features of the campaign after Omdurman was the blowing up of the Mahdi's tomb. The word dervish is derived from the Persian, and they existed all over the Middle-East. The Mahdi himself was hardly of the original Sudanese peoples (like those in Ethiopia) when he claims that he was directly descended from Muhammed.
thebigJM92 1 year ago
@DSNCB919 He was born in Sudan and has been called the first Sudanese nationalist, but only if you allow that the Muslim conquerors of the Sudan were the real Sudanese (he was not an Egyptian/Turk, he was more Sudanese than that, but he was not an African in the very real sense, in the same way that a Boer is not a real African).
thebigJM92 1 year ago
@thebigJM92 wow next thing you kno youll be calling The Nubians not African but foreign invaders.. please stop trying to take away AFRICAN history and call it something else people like you make me sick
DSNCB919 1 year ago
@DSNCB919 Dont be a fool. It was Muhammed's ancestors who had invaded this land off the Nubians-the ones that they hadnt butchered were driven further South or sold into slavery (ever heard of the Arab slave trade? Or does that not register in your blinkered "west is bad, everyone else good" mentality?) The different Nubian peoples were once powerful, for a period between dynasties there were Nubian Pharaohs who invaded Egypt.
thebigJM92 1 year ago
@thebigJM92 you see you read books and make up stories but I am of the land and your calling me foreign when I am not I AM pure African and we dont claim these foreign lies you do so stop trying to call us what we are not and mind your own buisness... Everytime something is good in Africa you Europeans want to call it foreign.. you cant trick us and your insulting me
DSNCB919 1 year ago
@DSNCB919 The Zulu empire was not foreign, that was African power in all its glory. When the Nubians conquered Egypt, that was the African peoples at their peak, the Ashanti and the Lunda peoples built up great civilisations out of virtually nothing. These were great African peoples, these were the noble Africans of old, not the mad Mahdi and his cult of Islam. Not the Arab slave traders who spent over a thousand years spreading the lash and Islam.
thebigJM92 1 year ago
@thebigJM92 al-mahdi is pure African case closed... just look at the people of the Sudan today... yes Arab mix but look at the actual people.. just browned skined africans...
DSNCB919 1 year ago
@DSNCB919 The real Africans are those in Darfur and the South who are being massacred.
thebigJM92 1 year ago
@thebigJM92 if u were in person I would slap you right now... stop spreading those lies... and actually look at the people and stop beleving western media and STOP telling those lies GO to Khartoum and tell me what you see
DSNCB919 1 year ago
@DSNCB919 Khartoum? Do you say that Khartoum is a traditional African city? And yet Ibrahim Pasha, the ruler of Egypt, founded Khartoum in 1821 as an outpost for the Egyptian army. The settlement grew as a regional center of trade, including the slave trade of Africans to the Arab world. Al-Sudan means Land of the Blacks because that was what it was originally. But then the "blacks" were driven out of the North and centre.
thebigJM92 1 year ago
@thebigJM92 Im telling you to go to Khartoum and see what the people look like... your all about books and lies your mis-guided.. they are all Africans... some brown some dark but you woulnt find any whites in Sudan.. the Arabs are Afro-Arab... you tell lies because your embarrassed by your defeat so you have to make excuses
DSNCB919 1 year ago
@DSNCB919 "you tell lies because your embarrassed by your defeat so you have to make excuses"
Hate to tell you mate but Britain won the battle of Omdurman, it was a crushing victory actually, not much more resistance against Egypt after that.
thebigJM92 1 year ago
@thebigJM92 im talking about before when the Mahdi army raped u and beheaded your leader... because of that you dont want to admit their African because ppl like you always think Africa is inferior... Stop replying your white from europe how are you going to say what African is African and who isant?
DSNCB919 1 year ago
@DSNCB919 Well you have shipped out to the United States so you are hardly in a position to talk. And the army that the Mahdi destroyed was made up of Egyptian soldiers with British officers. It was an Egyptian army led by Britain's, not a British army. The Mahdi never defeated a British army, Wolseley led the British army relief force but arrived at Khartoum a day late to save Gordon, but Wolseley defeated any opposition on his route.
thebigJM92 1 year ago
@thebigJM92 wrong..wrong..wrong..he never made it past the norther area of Sudan and returned to Egypt when he learned that Muhdi conquered Khartoum. we did defeat the British army. why you think the Brits are scared to get evolved in Darfor? look up the EUFOR force in Chad, British have a couple logistic solders, that is because they never want to face a Sudan warrior again. we are the only nation to defeat British when they had the whole world under their control. we own the Brits.
dongol35 1 year ago
@thebigJM92 I hate to educate ignorant people like you, Sudan referred to the area from the red sea to the ocean. from Somalia to Wast Africa and every area in between, the whole area was called Sudan. Mali was called French Sudan till recently. how and why the name stuck with current country is up for debate. there was never black driven to the south, the same people still live in the same land their ancestor occupied for thousands of years. get ur fact straight.
dongol35 1 year ago
@dongol35 Where as you have claimed that:
Christian Ethiopia was never attacked-proved wrong,
christians are not persecuted in the Sudan-proved wrong,
the Mahdi was merely a Sudanese freedom fighter-proved wrong and
christians did not live in South Sudan until the British arrived-proved wrong.
It is you, sir, that must get your facts right.
thebigJM92 1 year ago
@thebigJM92 are you serious;
Ethiopia and Somalia been fighting each other for centuries. Ethiopia invaded Somalia 2 years ago. Islam has nothing to do with that. I lived in Sudan all my life and have many Christian friends who practice their faith freely. who said Mahdi was not a freedom fighter, the British did, why? THERE WERE NO CHRISTIANS IN SOUTH SUDAN BEFORE BRITISH INVASION, that is a fact. by the way , how did you prove all these things are wrong?once again, get your fact straight.
dongol35 1 year ago
@dongol35 *sigh*
Just go back and read over what i have already written. You seem to have some kind of mental deficiency. The Adal Sultan specifically had the aim of converting the populace to Islam and was backed up by the Ottoman Empire, Islam had EVERYTHING to do with it. I have shown many examples of christian persecution and hell, just type it in on a search engine and tens of thousands of things pop up. Mahdi was giving no-one freedom, he would be absolute ruler, that is not freedom.
thebigJM92 1 year ago 2
@thebigJM92 you looked up Wikipedia and copy-paste what ever they have written. am telling you man, Wiki is not a reliable source for info. Mahdi freed the country from the Brits, by the way, do you know that Mahdi army was mainly from the Africans tribes who live in Darfur. have you ever heard of Sultan Ali Dinar, the great Fur tribe leader? Sudan is not just Arabs its Africans mixed with Arabs or Arab culture, that is Sudan. your knowledge about Sudan is clouded by deep hate for Islam.
dongol35 1 year ago
@dongol35 There are far more websites than just Wikipedia, perhaps you should try looking at some that are not written by Muslim apologists?
Who says the men were all eunuchs? (though many who looked after Harems were), they werent allowed to have children, its not the same thing. I must say the best example of slavery in Islam is the Mamluks. I will give Islam its due, it might have violated every human right in its time, but even the Mamluks kept the faith they were forcibly converted to.
thebigJM92 1 year ago 2
@thebigJM92 one last thing: there are as many Muslims in Ethiopia as there are Christians(around 30 millions Ethiopians are Muslims) now:
according to you; Ethiopia was never invaded by Muslims and was never invaded by Arabs, can you explain how these Ethiopians converted to Islam? were they forced to convert? one fact: force conversion is strictly forbidden according to Islamic teachings. for good reason, forced ones never make good followers and will stab ur back at earliest chance.
dongol35 1 year ago
@thebigJM92 Al-Sudan even means the Land of the Blacks Arab is not a race the janjaweed are true Africans with Arab tribal influence also Africa doesnt even mean black.. but Westerners always try to turn Africa into a racial conflict when Africa isant even on an Racial level.. thats Western idealisim... the Darfur war is over Oil
DSNCB919 1 year ago
@thebigJM92 hahahahaha...seriously man, you need help. I heard of the European slave trade(over 14 millions Africans enslaved and sold in USA and the Islands) how many Africans were sold in the so called Arab slave trade, and where they live now? and for the last time, SUDAN WAS NEVER EVER NEVER invaded by the Muslims.
dongol35 1 year ago
@dongol35 You plainly live in denial you disgusting apologist for a modern minor genocide. There are thousands of reports and respectable articles about christian persecution in Sudan. And now you play down the Arab slave trade! The christian slave trade lasted 200 years. The Arab slave trade lasted over 1200 and they took Europeans as well as Africans. Estimates of the Arab slave trade (for purely Africans and not Europeans) ranges from 10 to 18 million.
thebigJM92 1 year ago
@thebigJM92 to make it a short argument. where are these 10 to 18 millions live now? we all know where to find the 14 million Africans enslaved by Europeans, can you point out where the 10 to 18 millions enslaved by Arabs live now?? by the way, don't use Wikipedia as a source of information, any one can edit that shit. hit the local library and find some good books, if u trying to learn about the subject that is.
dongol35 1 year ago
@dongol35 I have already TOLD you. The 10 to 18 million people was over 1200 years! They went to Egypt, Spain, Persia, even India. But it was over such a long time that, unlike the christian one, they werent all taken at once so there was no "swamping". The men could not have children and the women who did had them with Arabs, the situation is completely different to the European one. No descendants
thebigJM92 1 year ago
@thebigJM92 you can't be serious man. really, wow...wow. I guess we Africans need to re-write our history books to include this valuable piece of information about Arab slave trade. wow.wow. where u teach history again? what university? I never thought I was talking to a history professor. was that your PhD thesis? it sound nice thou "THE ARAB SLAVE TRADE and the 18 millions Eunuch".
dongol35 1 year ago
@dongol35 Sudan was never invaded by Muslims. But the old christian Sudanese kingdoms were, and they add up to the same thing. And whether you like it or not Muslims tried to invade Ethiopia and convert the population. Deny it all you like but you are lying to yourself and everyone else, the facts are their. The leader of the Adal Sultanate was backed up by the Ottoman Empire.
thebigJM92 1 year ago
@DSNCB919 The Mahdiyah (Mahdist regime) imposed traditional Islamic laws. Sudan's new ruler also authorized the burning of lists of pedigrees and books of law and theology because of their association with the old order and because he believed that they former accentuated tribalism at the expense of religious unity.
thebigJM92 1 year ago
@DSNCB919 The Mahdi said his movement was not a religious order that could be accepted or rejected at will, but that it was a universal regime, which challenged man to join or to be destroyed. The Mahdi modified Islam's five pillars to support the dogma that loyalty to him was essential to belief. The Mahdi also added the declaration "and Muhammad Ahmad is the Mahdi of God and the representative of His Prophet" to the recitation of the creed, the shahada. Sounds like a nutter to me.
thebigJM92 1 year ago
@thebigJM92 man..you need to do some serious reading about the subject, no Wikipedia please. Sudan was never invaded by the Arabs or Muslims. the only time Sudan was invaded was by the Turks and British forces, and the Mahdis defeated them both..
dongol35 1 year ago