Africa During the Scramble: Egyptian Ambition

[Gary Oswald]

Discuss this new article by @Gary Oswald here

 

[Alex Richards]

Egypt's own Empire-building efforts in this period really do need more attention- there were the efforts to take the Hedjaz and Palestine as well.

 

[Death's Companion]

Egypt's own Empire-building efforts in this period really do need more attention- there were the efforts to take the Hedjaz and Palestine as well.

In fairness they seemed to fall into the standard pattern since the days of the Pyramids with the same outcome. Its kind of alluded to in the 3000 years of foreign or unrepresentative elite rule part but its kind of stark that the cycle of rebirth, reconquest and then getting the knees cut off by the latest empire on the block somewhere in the holy land after which it all goes to shit seems to be pretty unbroken since the New Kingdom.

 

[Thande]

In fairness they seemed to fall into the standard pattern since the days of the Pyramids with the same outcome. Its kind of alluded to in the 3000 years of foreign or unrepresentative elite rule part but its kind of stark that the cycle of rebirth, reconquest and then getting the knees cut off by the latest empire on the block somewhere in the holy land after which it all goes to shit seems to be pretty unbroken since the New Kingdom.

There's probably a similar argument to be made about China, it's just that Egypt has more cultural resonance for us in the west (and is even older as a coherent civilisation, though I imagine that assertion will lead to @Tom Colton and his colleagues sharpening their trowels).

 

[Gary Oswald]

There's probably a similar argument to be made about China, it's just that Egypt has more cultural resonance for us in the west (and is even older as a coherent civilisation, though I imagine that assertion will lead to @Tom Colton and his colleagues sharpening their trowels).

The thing about China is like foreign rule is a lot harder because there's a lot more of it.

Like if Modern day Egypt included Syria, Iraq, Turkey and Greece, then most of it's historical rulers would be from modern day Egypt.

And that's kind of where China is. From the perspective of like 1900, prior to the Mongol revolt, China never had a ruler born outside China. But obviously that doesn't mean that for a lot of the country, the mongols and the manchus and the han wouldn't be an alien elite.

 

[Thande]

The thing about China is like foreign rule is a lot harder because there's a lot more of it.

Like if Modern day Egypt included Syria, Iraq, Turkey and Greece, then most of it's historical rulers would be from modern day Egypt.

And that's kind of where China is. From the perspective of like 1900, prior to the Mongol revolt, China never had a ruler born outside China. But obviously that doesn't mean that for a lot of the country, the mongols and the manchus and the han wouldn't be an alien elite.

I think the problem with that comparison is we're using a modernish (or in fact probably 1900 era) definition of "China", and if history had gone differently we might be describing everything from the African Great Lakes to Syria as "Egypt", just sometimes disunited.

I'm mindful of the fact that most western maps depicting the Qing dynasty draw a distinction between "China proper", the historically Han core - a term which the modern PRC naturally is not a fan of - and the periphery comprising the "Chinese Empire", whose ruling elite was originally drawn from under the Qing, Yuan and so on.

edit: Also, reading your article, the idea of an Egyptian army led by a German and comprised largely of Confederate veterans invading Ethiopia is one of those things that sounds 'wacky AH cool' at first glance and then 'oh no' on a moment's reflection.

 

[Nick Sumner]

Great article. Thank you!

 

[Redolegna]

including Liberian politicians, Mexican soldiers and Italian Nuns

One round of googling later, my eyes are still slightly disbelieving what I read.

 

[Gary Oswald]

One round of googling later, my eyes are still slightly disbelieving what I read.

For the curious you're looking for Selim Aga (Sudanese slave raised in Scotland who acted as a guide for Richard Burton and moved to Liberia to run for President there), Josephine Bakhita (Sudanese slave who was bought back to Italy as a Nanny and then became a nun and later a Saint) and the personal bodyguards of Maximilian I of Mexico. Also Michelle Amatore who became a sniper in the Sardinian Army during the Italian wars of unification, but I didn't mention.

If you were a famous Black European during the 1860s you had some chance of being a freed Sudanese Slave.

 

[Charles EP M.]

edit: Also, reading your article, the idea of an Egyptian army led by a German and comprised largely of Confederate veterans invading Ethiopia is one of those things that sounds 'wacky AH cool' at first glance and then 'oh no' on a moment's reflection.

Yeah, especially when they're nominally there to stop slavery - it makes little sense narratively but here it is!

 

[Avian Overlord]

For the next few decades, as the hoped for mineral riches weren’t found and Egyptian eyes turned elsewhere, the province settled into a status quo of quiet neglect.

This seems to be a recurring problem with empire building in Africa.

 

[Thande]

Yeah, especially when they're nominally there to stop slavery - it makes little sense narratively but here it is!

It's like one of those action movie sequels where they have to bust out the villain of the first film as the expert to help them stop the new villain. "No-one knows slavery like us!"

 

[TR1996]

The anti-slavery Khedive of Egypt employed ex-Confederates?

 

[Gary Oswald]

The anti-slavery Khedive of Egypt employed ex-Confederates?

They did, yep. As said in the article, Ismail was looking for outsiders to enforce his writ in Sudan and central Africa because he didn't trust his Egyptian and Sudanese Officers. He met an ex union officer, Thaddeus Mott, who convinced him that the USA had the best soldiers in the world as they'd all been taught hard lessons in the civil war.

So Ismael wrote to General Sheridan to ask if he could send over any officers who'd be willing to leave the US army to serve abroad. And Sheridan was like, good excuse to get rid of some rebels and sent over a bunch of confederates who wouldn't serve in the union army.

The Egyptians fucking hated them and blamed them for the loss against the Ethiopians because they didn't respect the Ethiopian Army and were too reckless in charging them.

Tbf, like if the Egyptian Army refused to employ anyone who had been a slave holder, it'd have to let go of half of it's Egyptian and Sudanese officers.

 

[Redolegna]

The Egyptians fucking hated them and blamed them for the loss against the Ethiopians because they didn't respect the Ethiopian Army and were too reckless in charging them.

You'd think a certain bad day would have taught them.

then again...

 

[Thande]

They did, yep. As said in the article, Ismail was looking for outsiders to enforce his writ in Sudan and central Africa because he didn't trust his Egyptian and Sudanese Officers. He met an ex union officer, Thaddeus Mott, who convinced him that the USA had the best soldiers in the world as they'd all been taught hard lessons in the civil war.

Ah yes, the same logic Harry Harrison used in "Stars and Stripes Forever", with what you say below being a rather more likely outcome of said logic than the one depicted in that series.

 

[Death's Companion]

Ah yes, the same logic Harry Harrison used in "Stars and Stripes Forever", with what you say below being a rather more likely outcome of said logic than the one depicted in that series.

Given the European Armies reviewing the Americans generally assumed that large scale trench works were from a lack of discipline and a squeamishness that would not be relevant with Europeans who also had the artillery and cavalry to just smash through I think there is a case to be made for the Union being the best soldiers in the world at the time. I'd take four years of industrialised warfare over the handful of colonial slapfests that still somehow produced military disasters that would echo through history and the record closer to home... The army everyone in the world thought the greatest was about to completely bungle two separate wars... The one that smashed it sleepwalked into a global conflict it realised it was going to lose but sheer pluck and determination and clever tactics would obviously rewrite what all the facts were saying...



Notably however the Confederate Veterans were not the soldiers who won the American civil war. Just saying I think it's entirely fair to say that the Union Generals had more hands on experience with modern warfare and a more realistic view of its interacies than the largely peacetime and policing forces that were the competition. Especially since this very article mentions the multiple times the Brits put their heads through a brick wall they expected to made out of black paper in Sudan. Expecting the African enemy to just run away was hardly something unique to exiled traitors from the States.

 

[Gary Oswald]

Given the European Armies reviewing the Americans generally assumed that large scale trench works were from a lack of discipline and a squeamishness that would not be relevant with Europeans who also had the artillery and cavalry to just smash through I think there is a case to be made for the Union being the best soldiers in the world at the time. I'd take four years of industrialised warfare over the handful of colonial slapfests that still somehow produced military disasters that would echo through history and the record closer to home... The army everyone in the world thought the greatest was about to completely bungle two separate wars... The one that smashed it sleepwalked into a global conflict it realised it was going to lose but sheer pluck and determination and clever tactics would obviously rewrite what all the facts were saying...

Notably however the Confederate Veterans were not the soldiers who won the American civil war. Just saying I think it's entirely fair to say that the Union Generals had more hands on experience with modern warfare and a more realistic view of its interacies than the largely peacetime and policing forces that were the competition. Especially since this very article mentions the multiple times the Brits put their heads through a brick wall they expected to made out of black paper in Sudan. Expecting the African enemy to just run away was hardly something unique to exiled traitors from the States.

Yes, I do think as much as these things can be measured Mott was probably right. Certainly only Germany had an army with as much experience of large scale wars and as good a record of winning them.

It didn't work for Ismael not because the union officers didn't live up to billing but because it turns out a random foreign leader ringing up the US Army looking for loans of soldiers doesn't get handed Grant and Sherman in a gift bag.

Re: the British Army, Michael Asher argued that the problem it had was that it had come to rely on its training programme rather than its officers. So he points at the First and Second Battles of El Teb during this war, both of which involved essentially the British officer pointing at the enemy and saying get them, the first battle the British officer in question was in charge of Egyptian Conscripts who just couldn't stand up against the Dervish counter attack and so the British lost, the second battle the officer had troops from India who could and so the British won.

Arguably the main reason for the British doing so much better in the second Anglo-Mahdist War was that they'd had 11 years to actually properly train the Egyptians.

Kitchener's volunteer army of WWI did so badly you could argue because it was separated from the main army, kept apart from the veterans and so couldn't learn from them, where as that history of training and mentoring was the British Army's greatest strength.