Talk:Mahdist War

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Nuro Dragonfly in topic New South Wales, not Australia...

There's a hole in the article edit

I'm not competent but I find it strange that this article mentions neither the Beja nor the Fuzzy Wuzzies. Maikel 12:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

The reasons of the revolt edit

The article used to say that one of the reasons for the start of the revolt were the egyptian attempts to abolish slave trade. It truth is quite the opposite, as one of the main reasons for invading Sudan in the first place was to obtain slaves for service in the Egyptian army.

Can Advisers Consent? edit

"The British advisers to the Egyptian government gave tacit consent for another expedition." I find this sentence a bit strange -- if they were only advisers how can they consent? Flaviusvulso (talk) 05:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mahdist War. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Australia? edit

How can Australia have been a belligerent? The war was in the 19th century, and Australia did not exist until the 20th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.90.242.158 (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Mahdi was well armed edit

The idea that the Mahdist forces at Omdurman were poorly armed is an oft-repeated myth to explain their catastrophic defeat. They certainly had 30,000 modern rifles, and reportedly also some machine guns and artillery. They simply didn't use them well. Cassandra

Sentence fragment removed edit

The following sentence fragment was near the end of the lead:

Expanding the scale of the conflict to include not only Britain and Egypt but the Italian Empire, the Belgian Congo and the Ethiopian Empire.

If someone can complete the thought, or turn it into a sentence, it can be put back in. MayerG (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

New South Wales, not Australia... edit

Can somebody correct the inclusion of Australia - prior to its federated existence - as being involved in this British Empire Imperialist war, as it was solely a New South Wales contingent that fought and as a colonial expeditionary force, thus the flag will also need to be corrected. Furthermore, can someone actually illustrate the activities of the New South Wales and Canadian colonial expeditionary forces, as I see nothing speaking to their involvement in this war as members of the Empire in any regards. Both colonies had achieved Responsible Government during the mid 1800s, so they are NOT "British" and are not to be lumped in with such a term - anywhere in Wikipedia - from that period onwards, within any conflicts the British Empire engaged in historically. Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 10:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply