Comments by "Arthur Mosel" (@arthurmosel808) on "The History Chap" channel.

  1. He left off the fact that the suppression of slavery by the Egyptians which angered Moslems. The Mahdi supported slavery, which helped fuel the revolt.
    17
  2. The grades tied to formations wasn't the same as today. Brigades were often commanded by Colonels not Brigadier Generals. This was especially true when European officers commanded colonial troops or as mercenary officers in a smaller nation.
    2
  3.  @LaHayeSaint  These were still single shot rifles and just a few years before the Zulus inflicted a severe defeat on British troops t hat had problems with cartridges over heating and not ejecting; and enemies close enough to cover a distance in a rush. These Egyptian troops were no where near as trained as the British troops who were overwhelmed and were facing an enemy just as furious and even more willing to die for their beliefs. I doubt that this force surrounded, weaken by little sleep and water could have stopped them. Remember just a few years later, a similiar force broke a British square. I doubt that the colonel's lack of experience was the deciding factor. Overconfidence would have been a definite factor as it was in the beginning stages of the Zulu War a few years earlier; remember no British officers had experience with the Moslem Sudanese or "Fuzzy Wazzies" as the British later called them. Kipling even extolled their bravery in one poem.
    2
  4.  @LaHayeSaint  The force recon was insufficient, They were traveling in an area that provided the enemy cover for what amounted to an ambush, which was carried out by a night attack from all sides. As indicated there were some defenses, however I agree inadequate; however with foreclosing from all sides, a soldier, animal or camp follower could be hit from behind or the side even 8f safe from t he front. The terrain was forested and gullies, not hilly, so there was no high point to site it, and since the fire was coming from conceled shooters, no clear meaningful targets.for the guns. The same issue with the Nordenfelt guns. As stated, they were tired, already on short water rations and suffering from the heat. Add to this the Mahdi prevented a direct assault where the artillery and Nordenfelts might have caused enough casualties to change things. The Mahdi used his best weapons, heat and water shortage, to force movement from the entrenched position to an march situation where his numbers, their fanaticism, and the forest allowed them the optimum chance of success. My take, poor recon, wrong direction of advance in enemy territory, heat and water shortage, and the poor quality of the forces that he was given ruined the Egyptian forces. This was aided by depending on bad advice because of unfamiliarity with the region and faced with an enemy leader who knew his advantages and used them made the outcome less a question the colonel's ability than over optimism at all levels.
    2