This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Omdurman article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 2, 2004 and September 2, 2008. |
Is writing this article in a British view with the 'Dervishes' being "the enemy" NPOV? I think not.--Dittaeva 13:45, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Is Churchill's work actually copyrighted? john k 02:37, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I would agree, however, that the Churchillian account is highly problematic as an encyclopedia article. Someone needs to go through and revamp the article. john k 02:38, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
as they were better movitvated fighters man to man not fighting for greed
OK, I'm always torn between amusement and outrage when I find articles like this. "Dervishes" are Sufi mystics that are chiefly known for their poetry and ability to twirl in place for long periods of time. I had a vision of British soldiers with Maxim guns gunning down 10,000 mystics twirling in white robes when I started reading this article. The term they called themselves was "Ansar" (supporters) - like Ansar al-Islam. Khalifa means successor, because the chief claim to fame al-Taashi had was that he came after the Mahdi. I've gone through and changed these, which were the most blatant POV I saw, and also the few things I know given my limited knowledge of Mahdists. I do like the operational detail of it though.
So the original reason I wandered over here from Omdurman was because I was wondering what people thought about moving this article to Battle of Karari and making this a redirect. And yes Google has a couple orders of magnitude more hits for Battle of Omdurman rather than Battle of Karari, but there's a case for historical accuracy to be made. The article clearly states the location of the battle was Karari (well, Kerreri before I changed it) and that the army moved on to Omdurman only after the victory. - — BanyanTree 02:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This article states the 21st Lancers performed what became the last cavalry charge by a British Cavalry unit, but the Timeline of the British Army states for 8 November 1917, "About 200 men of the Warwickshire Yeomanry and Worcestershire Yeomanry charge with sabres drawn and defeat an Ottoman battery and a large group of Ottoman infantry at Huj. It was one of the last cavalry charges by the British Army." The National Army Museum states that the last British Cavalry charge occurred at the Battle of El Mughar, 13 November 1917, by the Buckinghamshire Hussars. This "last charge" issue could be perhaps clarified with a distinction between "cavalry," "yeomanry," and "hussars," but the cavalry page notes that yeomanry and hussars are subcategories of cavalry.
The Timeline page also adds this qualifier: that the 21st Lancers here "perform one of the last full cavalry charges." So what is the difference between a "cavalry charge" and a "full cavalry charge?"
Addmittedly one of the problems in history is definitively identifying something as the first or the last. So these cavalry charges are all qualified as "one of the last..." But, still, it would be great to be able to identify the last. [okay, it's my whimsy]
Can this "last charge" issue be clarified? --RedJ 17 18:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Not sure but you've persuaded me at least that Omdurman shouldn't be described as the last cavalry charge by the British. Lisiate 00:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
If I might, I think that the difference between a "cavalry charge" and "full cavalry charge" is purely in the element used in the charge. For instance, here, the entirety of the 21st Lancers were engaged, hence a full charge. However, at Huj and El Mughar, they were merely individual squadrons, not the entire unit. 69.116.223.226 (talk) 20:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
From "With Kitchener to Khartoum" by G. W. Steevens
"Battle of Omdurman" [1]
"Omdurman - Analysis and Criticism" [2]
I have removed the image of Churchill "in South Africa", as it is clearly of a much older man, taken sometime after the Dardanelles affair (when he was serving in Europe not Africa). This 1898 picture from the Churchill Society would be more appropriate, if copyright allows - Bastie 12:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
We have somewhat of a discrepancy in the article. It says that 21st Lancers lost 5 offices and 65 men, yet Aftermath section says the total loss in all the forces was 48 men. Someone with sources of reference on the subject should look into this. Keije 18:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
On one of those UK history programs it was said that Kitchener refused to allow relatives to tend their wounded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.213.65.242 (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Should Gary Brecher's article (http://old.exile.ru/2007-June-29/war_nerd.html) be included in the External Links section? The War Nerd is a relatively well-known commentator on war, and his insight could better help people to understand the battle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elzair (talk • contribs) 20:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty to expand the caption for the picture "The Battle of Omdurman" I own a copy of this picture and the text at the bottom explains that the soldiers have been depicted in their regimental uniforms to identify them and supplies a key which corresponds to numbers included in the picture to enable the identification of the various troops. The original caption gave the impression that it was a historical error by the artist.--MarkBarl (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
To clarify: the British all wore Khaki. The red uniform in the picture was artistic licence. My great grandfather fought in the war and his wife kept this picture in her bedroom in Nz in her old age. I saw it often .There were 2 similar pictures that showed differing views. Below the picture is an index of the regiments featured in the picture. I believe the picture was mass produced. The family copies were given to the Auckland War Memorial Museum. The family still has his medals from India and this campaign. Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 08:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Is the Mahdist flag verifiable? SpinningSpark 08:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
This flag has been inserted as an icon in the infobox of this, and numerous other articles. It is not a very likely looking Mahdist flag. Sources that I can find make no mention of it and show quite different style of flags [3][4]. I cannot trace any source for this image; the Commons page gives the source as the corresponding bitmap image on Wikipedia and that page says the image was created "using free images found on wikipedia". I propose that the image is removed from all articles in which it has been inserted. SpinningSpark 08:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
In the mystery crime TV series Murdoch Mysteries in the episode “Winston's Lost Night” young Winston Churchill comes to Toronto and because of speaking against the behaviour of the general Gordon after the battle (the desecration of the Mahdi’s grave) he gets involved in the murder.
Shouldn’t this be also included in the In art section?
Ceplm (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Omdurman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Editors may be interested in this 33 page paper with images / art / etc. Severed heads: the spoils of war in the Egyptian Sudan.pdfLevel C (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Omdurman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
An editor seems to object to referring to the Khalifa's side as "Mahdist". He/she used the following terms to describe his/her edits "written like a 19th century British report" and "rm strangely inappropriate language". The editor removed the word "Mahdist" and substituted the word "Muslim".
But hang on. More than two-thirds of the 25,800 strong Anglo-Egyptian army were Egyptian or Sudanese [page 157 Slaves of Fortune, Sudanese Soldiers & the River War 1896-1898]. Almost all the 17,600 Egyptian and Sudanese troops in the Anglo-Egyptian army were Muslims.
Nor is it OK to the characterise the Khalifa's side as Sudanese, since there were many Sudanese in the Anglo-Egyptian army, who felt that they were fighting for the legitimate government of the Sudan (the Khedive of Egypt).
The Wikipedia article on the war(s), that the Battle of Omdurman is part of, is called the "Mahdist War". The term "Mahdist" is used in reliable sources, as is the term "Dervish". There are objections to the term "Dervish" - see Dervish#Mahdists. I do not think the term "Dervish" was really intended to be pejorative by people at the time - but some modern people evidently object to it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
The general impression is that the Sudanese forces were armed only with ancient equipment, mostly with just swords and spears, and that their defeat therefore was almost a 'massacre' because of that gross imbalance in firepower.
This link may serve to rebalance that impression. Cassandra:
From The Myth of Ansar Firepower By Doug Johnson (Originally appeared in Savage and Soldiers, Issue 1-2),
By 1884 the Mahdi had around 20,000 rifles and plenty of ammunition (Wingate, p. 97).
In the east, Uthman Diqna captured a total of nearly 4000 Remington rifles after the Egyptian defeats of El Teb, Tokar, Sinikat, and elsewhe
The Mahdi captured some 15,000 rifles and plenty of ammunition from Khartoum (Preston, p. 138), plus the arsenal where bullets could be cast and powder manufactured. In 1887 Abu Ania commanded 30,000 well armed and well trained jihadiyya (Theobald, p. 152), while each of the three khalifas and the provincial governors had large sections of these effective Black soldiers. The arsenal was stocked mostly with Remington breechloaders and repeaters (Collins, p. 83).
http://www.savageandsoldier.com/sudan/AnsarFirepower.html
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.240.193 (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2018
This section content added on 16 April 2003 is identical to the content from this blog which seems to date from 2001. Aeengath (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Working at the moment as an editor with the german version of Churchill's "Early life" I stumbled over this ominous "Jabal Surgham" which I just couldn't verify. Indeed you will not find it on any map of the Sudan or in any source other than these old sources by Churchill and his like. I found the solution in the following book:
P. M. Holt, M. W Daly: The History of the Sudan – From the Coming of Islam to the Present Day, Third Editon, Weidenfeld and Nicolson London (1961, 1963), 1979; p. 112:
„On 1 September, the Egyptian and British forces were encamped near an abrupt hill called Jabal Surkab“.
A footnote (5) to "Surkab" explains: „The name is often distorted to Surgham“.
So I would recommend to change the name throughout to "Surkab" with "often distorted to Surgham“ in brackets when it is first mentioned.
The full text of the book by Holt/Daly is available at archive.org:
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.108363/page/n129/mode/2up
Best wishes from Germany
--Heiko arntz (talk) 12:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
it is said that 12,000 were killed and 13,000 were wounded. It's also said that the wounded were killed after the battle. Wouldn't that indicate that thousands more people were killed? There seems to only be a single line on this atrocity, which strikes me as being an incredible lack.
2607:FEA8:AA1D:6B00:599B:1D29:ED9D:C5DE (talk) 08:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I question if the recent move was a good idea. This article remains the primary topic. PatGallacher (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)