Talk:Battle of Omdurman

message: 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)
thread_title:  Last Cavalry Charge 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Winston in South Africa 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Casualties Discrepancy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Treatment of Prisoners 

message: 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)
replies: text: BTW - this link is dead. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 00:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  War Nerd Article 

message: 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)
replies: text: The currect caption mentions how the uniforms had been changed on X date in India; however this is in Africa. The caption doesnt really appear to be rather useful; should these men be dressed in red or not?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest I have no idea if this affected the uniforms worn in Africa. My intention was to correct the assumption that it was an error on the part of the artist.--MarkBarl (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture Caption 

message: Is the Mahdist flag  verifiable? SpinningSpark 08:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If it can't be supported with reliable sources, then it can be fairly removed in my opinion. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

text: I've done a quick google image search and the flag does seem to have one or two results that look similar, however as Hchc2009 says, if there is doubt it can be deleted and ask the IP to provide a source. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 09:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you will find that most of those trace back to Wikipedia or Flickr.  One that doesn't  gives the source as a 1952 letter from Sudan public relations but with no verifiable reference.  Not very convincing, given the late date and the personal nature of the claim. SpinningSpark 11:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be worth having the flag in the article on the revolt, captioned as "a possible reconstruction of the Mahdist flag", I think? But in the infobox, no. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't see how the article body is any better than the infobox without a reliable source.  This letter was supposedly written to Ottfried Neubecker who is certainly a high authority on flags, but if he did not publish the information we can only conclude he did not think it reliable, even if the letter actually exists at all - and there is not even an RS for that much. SpinningSpark 17:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

text: I'd agree that it shouldn't be in the infobox. To avoid potential visual bias issues - it's a bit odd to have two on one side and none on the other - it might be worth removing the UK & Egypt flags as well, if we can't find a workable Mahdist one. Shimgray | talk | 12:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Flag icons in infoboxes are not great at any time, IMHO. Rich Farmbrough, 22:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This RFC has now been automatically closed by the bot.  Since no one is actually supporting the flag in the infobox I have now removed it.  Regarding the other flags, I decline to get involved in the "flags in infoboxes debate" and have left them alone.  I leave that to others to deal with, but it probably should be discussed at some central location rather than here as it has wider implications. SpinningSpark 10:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mahdist flag 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Murdoch Mystery -- S06E02 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of Omdurman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080313220023/http://old.exile.ru:80/2007-June-29/war_nerd.html to http://old.exile.ru/2007-June-29/war_nerd.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The spoils of war in the Egyptian Sudan 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Omdurman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080925190004/http://www.thegunzone.com/dum-dum.html to http://www.thegunzone.com/dum-dum.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: The term "Dervish" is a term often applied to a sect of Sufi mystics originating in Persia. The term was often used pejoratively by British troops in reference to the followers of Muhammad Ahmad (the Mahdi) and his followers who were (mostly) Sufis. However Muhammad Ahmad disavowed the term "Dervish" in reference to him and his followers. Therefore to call them Dervishes is inaccurate, despite many English language sources that identify them as such. Mediatech492 (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Wikipedia should not call them the Devishes.  But, is there any evidence that people in the 1880s and 1890s used the term "Dervish" pejoratively?-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Read "The River War" by Winston Churchill; it fairly accurately reflects the attitude of British forces in the Sudan; and was a significant influence on the attitudes of the home population in Britain. Mediatech492 (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Churchill had little experience of the Sudan and was not a careful observer.  In addition his book was edited to bring out things that would go down well with the public in the UK, and omits things that would not.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  The factual accuracy of the book is irrelevant to the point. The question was whether the term "Dervish" was used pejoratively. Churchill's book clearly shows that it was. Mediatech492 (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to call the Khalifa's side 

message: The general impression is that the Sudanese forces were armed only with ancient equipment, mostly with just swords and spears, and that their defeat therefore was almost a 'massacre' because of that gross imbalance in firepower.
This link may serve to rebalance that impression. Cassandra:
From The Myth of Ansar Firepower By Doug Johnson (Originally appeared in Savage and Soldiers, Issue 1-2), 
By 1884 the Mahdi had around 20,000 rifles and plenty of ammunition (Wingate, p. 97). 
 In the east, Uthman Diqna captured a total of nearly 4000 Remington rifles after the Egyptian defeats of El Teb, Tokar, Sinikat, and elsewhe
The Mahdi captured some 15,000 rifles and plenty of ammunition from Khartoum (Preston, p. 138), plus the arsenal where bullets could be cast and powder manufactured.  In 1887 Abu Ania commanded 30,000 well armed and well trained jihadiyya (Theobald, p. 152), while each of the three khalifas and the provincial governors had large sections of these effective Black soldiers.  The arsenal was stocked mostly with Remington breechloaders and repeaters (Collins, p. 83).
http://www.savageandsoldier.com/sudan/AnsarFirepower.html
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.240.193 (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2018‎
:One solution would be to have sections on both the Anglo-Egyptian order of battle, and the Mahdist order of battle.  It would also be useful if these sections explained something about the forces.  There was a significant difference in the concept of operations.  The Mahdist side believed that shock action was decisive, and that fire arms were mainly useful for suppressive fire.  The Mahdist side believed that artillery was for sieges and for engaging steamers on the Nile.  Most of the Mahdist machine guns were left in their artillery park.  The Anglo-Egyptian side believed that the killing role of small arms and artillery (including machine guns) could be decisive.
:In the period before the Anglo-Egyptian reinvasion of the Sudan, the Mahdist side made some poor decisions about defence procurement.  They had inherited a cartridge factory in Khartoum for making ammunition for Remington rifles.  This needed saltpetre for the propellant - they opted to source this locally, rather than ship it from southern Sudan.  The propellant tended to be weak and very variable, so accuracy and range were poor.  The Mahdist government could have had a deal with the French, rather like the deal the Abbysinians had; but the Mahdist government rejected this, in part for ideological reasons, and possibly because with their concept of operations they could not see the point of having all their troops armed with modern repeater rifles.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mahdists well-armed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Correct name of "Jabal Surgham" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ambiguity in the casualty count 

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