|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Nov 10, 2023 3:43:15 GMT
What if there was somehow no Mahdist revolt of 1881-1898? The Mahdi is killed early before gaining any fame, any revolts in Sudan remain scattered and local in scale, and never cause Egyptian troops to quit the whole of Sudan. Egyptian forces never lose control of Khartoum to any uprisings for more than a year. It doesn't take a whole big Kitchener expedition by the British, a decade after martyrdom of another British General (Gordon) and Egyptian force, to reclaim Sudan. Would the result be that instead of the special administration of "Anglo-Egyptian Sudan" which later, in 1956, simply became independent "Sudan" would simply remain multiple southern provinces of the Egyptian Khedivate and then Kingdom and ultimately Republic, through the 20th and 21st century? Could Egypt hold all Sudan, north and south, down? Would it have to do any less in the Arab/Middle East sphere with additional Sudanese preoccupations? Or would the resources extracted make up for the resources expended? Would Egypt-Sudan have any broader strategic orientations or temptations in Africa towards Eritrea and Ethiopia (on Nile issues), or other African neighbors - Uganda, Kenya, Congo/Zaire, Central African Republic, Chad, over border security/resource disputes?
In the shorter run, continuous Egyptian control over the Sudan after 1881, once Egypt is puppeted by Britain from 1882, should advantage Britain against French and Italian rivals, and perhaps German, to at least some small degree. It would preempt the events of the Fashoda Affair by allowing Britain to project influence via Egypt to that spot well in advance of French arrival. What effects might that have? Does that leave any room or likelihood for further British expansion into areas that became Chad/French Equatorial Africa? Or German Tanganyika? Or conflict with and expansion into Abyssinia, possibly in alliance with Italy?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832 
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Nov 10, 2023 15:34:18 GMT
What if there was somehow no Mahdist revolt of 1881-1898? The Mahdi is killed early before gaining any fame, any revolts in Sudan remain scattered and local in scale, and never cause Egyptian troops to quit the whole of Sudan. Egyptian forces never lose control of Khartoum to any uprisings for more than a year. It doesn't take a whole big Kitchener expedition by the British, a decade after martyrdom of another British General (Gordon) and Egyptian force, to reclaim Sudan. Would the result be that instead of the special administration of "Anglo-Egyptian Sudan" which later, in 1956, simply became independent "Sudan" would simply remain multiple southern provinces of the Egyptian Khedivate and then Kingdom and ultimately Republic, through the 20th and 21st century? Could Egypt hold all Sudan, north and south, down? Would it have to do any less in the Arab/Middle East sphere with additional Sudanese preoccupations? Or would the resources extracted make up for the resources expended? Would Egypt-Sudan have any broader strategic orientations or temptations in Africa towards Eritrea and Ethiopia (on Nile issues), or other African neighbors - Uganda, Kenya, Congo/Zaire, Central African Republic, Chad, over border security/resource disputes? In the shorter run, continuous Egyptian control over the Sudan after 1881, once Egypt is puppeted by Britain from 1882, should advantage Britain against French and Italian rivals, and perhaps German, to at least some small degree. It would preempt the events of the Fashoda Affair by allowing Britain to project influence via Egypt to that spot well in advance of French arrival. What effects might that have? Does that leave any room or likelihood for further British expansion into areas that became Chad/French Equatorial Africa? Or German Tanganyika? Or conflict with and expansion into Abyssinia, possibly in alliance with Italy?
Assuming there's no major revolt at all then the Egyptian influence would definitely be stronger in northern Sudan. Possibly less interested in the southern region as Britain had pressurized Egypt to give up on slavery, which was the prime reason Egypt had sent forces to that region in the 1st place. Not sure if it would want to push further south but it might want to gain more influence in places like Yemen and Eritrea to secure control of the southern entrance to the Red Sea. Which could well be supported by Britain as a joint operation, with them being interested in Aden for similar reasons. Whether this might lead to a clash with the Ottomans who also claimed Yemen and was technically still the ruling power in Egypt anyway.
It would open up more opportunities for Britain as well but a lot would depend on both internal and international events. You won't have the Fashoda affair but other things could develop all over the place. Of course the French could accept the British offer for a joint control of Egypt which might ease relations between the two nations. However you could see Britain having a strong role in eastern Africa if its secure in the Sudan region and doesn't have the distraction of the Sudanese revolt and the latter mission to restore Egyptian rule there.
|
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Nov 10, 2023 19:58:51 GMT
What if there was somehow no Mahdist revolt of 1881-1898? The Mahdi is killed early before gaining any fame, any revolts in Sudan remain scattered and local in scale, and never cause Egyptian troops to quit the whole of Sudan. Egyptian forces never lose control of Khartoum to any uprisings for more than a year. It doesn't take a whole big Kitchener expedition by the British, a decade after martyrdom of another British General (Gordon) and Egyptian force, to reclaim Sudan. Would the result be that instead of the special administration of "Anglo-Egyptian Sudan" which later, in 1956, simply became independent "Sudan" would simply remain multiple southern provinces of the Egyptian Khedivate and then Kingdom and ultimately Republic, through the 20th and 21st century? Could Egypt hold all Sudan, north and south, down? Would it have to do any less in the Arab/Middle East sphere with additional Sudanese preoccupations? Or would the resources extracted make up for the resources expended? Would Egypt-Sudan have any broader strategic orientations or temptations in Africa towards Eritrea and Ethiopia (on Nile issues), or other African neighbors - Uganda, Kenya, Congo/Zaire, Central African Republic, Chad, over border security/resource disputes? In the shorter run, continuous Egyptian control over the Sudan after 1881, once Egypt is puppeted by Britain from 1882, should advantage Britain against French and Italian rivals, and perhaps German, to at least some small degree. It would preempt the events of the Fashoda Affair by allowing Britain to project influence via Egypt to that spot well in advance of French arrival. What effects might that have? Does that leave any room or likelihood for further British expansion into areas that became Chad/French Equatorial Africa? Or German Tanganyika? Or conflict with and expansion into Abyssinia, possibly in alliance with Italy?
Assuming there's no major revolt at all then the Egyptian influence would definitely be stronger in northern Sudan. Possibly less interested in the southern region as Britain had pressurized Egypt to give up on slavery, which was the prime reason Egypt had sent forces to that region in the 1st place. Not sure if it would want to push further south but it might want to gain more influence in places like Yemen and Eritrea to secure control of the southern entrance to the Red Sea. Which could well be supported by Britain as a joint operation, with them being interested in Aden for similar reasons. Whether this might lead to a clash with the Ottomans who also claimed Yemen and was technically still the ruling power in Egypt anyway.
It would open up more opportunities for Britain as well but a lot would depend on both internal and international events. You won't have the Fashoda affair but other things could develop all over the place. Of course the French could accept the British offer for a joint control of Egypt which might ease relations between the two nations. However you could see Britain having a strong role in eastern Africa if its secure in the Sudan region and doesn't have the distraction of the Sudanese revolt and the latter mission to restore Egyptian rule there.
Seems like a reasonable set of consequences from a more modest Mahdist moment (3M)  |
|
