إمبراطورية الإسلام في حوض النيل

by Dominic Green, دومينيك غرين, وليد شحادة (ترجمة وتحقيق)

نبذة الناشر:
يروى هذا الكتاب قصة ما يحدث عادة عندما يجد رئيس ذو ذهن لبيرالي منفتح نفسه أمام جماعتين متعارضتين من الأصوليين هما الأصوليون الإسلاميون والأصوليون المسيحيون.

Genres: History, Africa, Nonfiction, Middle East, War, Egypt, Religion

478 pages

First published January 1, 2007

About the author

British writer and musician (b. 1970)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominic_...


Librarian note:
There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name

Reviews

[Czarny Pies · Rating 3 out of 5]

Despite its ghastly title, "Three Empires of the Nile, The Victorian Jihad, 1869 -1999" is a very well written if thinly researched history of Egypt from the completion of the Suez Canal to the reconquest of the Sudan in 1899. During this time, the Khedive of Egypt went bankrupt, sold his controlling interest in the Suez Canal to the British government and placed himself under de facto British tutelage. To the south, a charismatic Sufi cleric Mohammed Ahmed al-Mahdi led a successful revolt against the Khedival Egyptians and the British creating an independent Mahdi state that lasted from 1885 to 1899. Green using secondary sources tells the story from the British rather than the Turkish, Egyptian or Mahdi perspective. What he does exceptionally well is explain how the British managed Egypt in the context of their domestic politics and diplomatic concerns.

Prior to the construction of the Suez Canal, Egypt had been ruled by a Turkish Khedive that was in nominal terms subject to the Ottoman Sultan in Istanbul. A Turkish aristocracy dominated the armed forces and the military. The cost of constructing the Suez Canal put the Khedive close to personal bankruptcy in 1875, he sold his portion of the canal to the British. The British had two objectives. First, they wished to ensure the smooth operation of the canal. Second, they wished to protect the financial interests of the those Europeans who had invested in the canal. British shipping accounted for 70% of the tonnage that used the canal. As the link between Britain and its Asian possessions, the canal was of the greatest strategic importance.

Unlike India, Egypt had no potential to generate revenues for Britain. Consequently the British wished to spend the least amount possible ruling it. They also wished to do nothing to weaken the Ottoman Sultan as both the Austrians and Russians wished to seize territory from his territory. The British were happy then to leave the government of Egypt and the defense of its territory outside of the canal zone to the Khedive a vassal at least in theoretic terms of the Sultan.

Events conspired against them. Arab liberal professionals and army officers wanted a larger share of the wealth and power of Egypt. A revolt began in 1879 that the British Navy crushed in 1882. Next in 1885, a religious movement led by the Mohammed Ahmed, a charismatic and messianic Fakir seized control of the Sudan.

The British would have preferred to ignore the Mohammed Ahmed as the Sudan had no wealth to be exploited and did not impact the security of the Suez Canal. However, the Khedive and the Ottoman Sultan his overlord both felt that it was absolutely essential to their dignity that the Sudan be reconquered and restored to the Khedive. The British had no enthusiasm for the project and resorted to half measures. As a results they suffered several significant defeats the most famous of which was the Siege of Khartoum (1884-1885) in which the Mahdis captured the city, killed Gordon and massacred the majority of Europeans in the city. It was not until 1899 when the British thought that the French might increase their influence in the region, that the British final decided to make the military and financial commitment necessary to suppress the Mahdi revolt.

Green has no new discoveries for the experts in the field. However, for the reader unfamiliar with the era, he does an outstanding job making a complex series of events of comprehensible.

The fact that the "Three Empires on the Nile"was not published by an academic publisher shows badly. I found a number of factual errors that I was sure and several more items that I felt needed checking.

I also think that Green should have noted that the British administrators were correct to assume that the British were right to be confident that the Mahdi revolt could not spread to Egypt. The Mahdi theology was shiite and very primitive. The theologians of Egypt were sunni and quite sophisticated. Moreover they accepted the calilphal authority of the Sultan thus would never have risen up in revolt against the Khedive.

[Christopher Saunders · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dominic Green's Three Empires on the Nile revisits that most famous of Victorian conflicts: the Mahdist Wars of 1880s Sudan, where a self-proclaimed Muslim messiah defied and nearly defeated Egypt, England and a host of other nations on the banks of the Nile. The subject of numerous books, novels and films, this war is usually celebrated as a tale of imperial derring-do populated with larger-than-life protagonists, sometimes (as in Lytton Strachey's Eminent Victorians) a study in imperial hubris and religious folly. Green generally leans towards the latter, as he depicts the machinations of British imperialists reluctantly propping up an ailing, corrupt Egyptian khedivate; the nationalist rebellion of Urabi Pasha, an Egyptian colonel whose defiance of the West prefigure Nasser's similar stance during the Suez Crisis (albeit with far less success); the suffering of the Sudanese people under Egyptian misrule and British exploitation, which caused a marginal figure named Mohammed Ahmed to build a religious following that vanquished several Anglo-Egyptian armies before establishing an oppressive sharia state. Nonetheless, Green can't help leaning into the sword-and-scimitars excitement of the tale, recapitulating the familiar saga of Charles Gordon, the blue-eyed messiah-general sent to evacuate Khartoum who instead envisioned himself its savior; the futile rescue mission of General Wolseley and the political repercussions in London and Cairo; the misrule of the Mahdi's corrupt successor and the blood-soaked vengeance of Horatio Kitchener at Omdurman a decade later. The book is heavy on action and narrative, light on analysis (Green makes a few facile nods to modern Middle Eastern conflicts) and brings few fresh insights to this well-trod story. But for those who are encountering Gordon, the Mahdi and friends for the first time, it's perfectly serviceable.

[Thomas · Rating 5 out of 5]

In keeping with a piece of advice from Ray Bradbury that has been making the rounds, in which he suggests that writers must have a slightly creepy love affair with books, I say emphatically that this week I am creepily in love with books about Sudan.

Today, I am particularly in love with Three Empires On the Nile, a brilliant, dry, inspiring and horrifying account of the colonial hijinx that led to the grotesque mismanagement of both Egypt and Sudan in the last part of the 19th century.

The book touches on the crumbling of the Ottoman Empire and the ascendency of British imperialism, with a cast of characters that includes a parade of colonial notables including Gladstone, Gordon, Kitchener and the corrupt pseudo-monarchs of the disintegrating Egyptian vassal state.

Its second half is concerned almost entirely with the rise and fall of the Mahdist State in what is today South Sudan; the bookends of the movement's rise and fall were the massacres at Khartoum (1885), which saw the death of Charles Gordon, and Omdurman (1898), presided over by Lord Kitchener.

Expanding its scope to include the Egyptian, Ottoman, French, Belgian, and British politics of the time, Three Empires on the Nile is brutally sarcastic toward both Colonialism and Islamism in the way that only 100 years of hindsight can provide.

Filled with colonial pratfalls and oodles of Stupid Prime Minister Tricks, it's a riveting study in Victorian politics as well as a solid piece of historical adventure horror...oh, and it's also a history book, not a thriller. Then again, can't it kind of be both? Hellz yeah, if you're a Colonialism geek like me.

The 21st-century end of the Mahdist story, incidentally, is the Muslim Brotherhood, which descended directly from the Islamism that created that group and therefore ultimately Al Qaeda, and the coup that led to Sudan becoming the very first Sunni state governed by Sharia law.

But wait, there's more; the British expeditions into southern Sudan were originally prompted by the slave trade, which was an atrocity perpetrated primarily by northern, lighter-skinned Arabic-speaking Muslim Sudanese against the southern tribal peoples, primarily Christian and animist.

Sound familiar? Why, yes, yes in fact, the racial, ethnic and religious factors that drove the slave trade in Gordon's time are precisely what drive it today, along with the mass slaughter of Sudanese blacks by government-supported forces, including both Sudanese government troups and Arabic-speaking Janjaweed militias in Darfur and what is now South Sudan. (South Sudan seceded last year -- successfully, apparently, with international help).

But what makes this book so enjoyable is the evident disgust it heaps on the political animals of Victorian England and the arrogant and criminal disregard they showed both for their own heroes (Gordon) and their subject peoples. Concerned with resources and markets, not people, Colonialists of this era often wrapped themselves in the mantle of humanitarianism in order to royally fuck shit up. I have no doubt that at times, they believed they had the best of intentions. Of course, the other side of the coin is the frank corruption and ineffectiveness of the Egyptian and Ottoman states -- or, even more so, King Leopold, who never had any good intentions for his private corporate rule over the Congo.

The title is, I believe -- like all the best history book titles -- a double-entendre; "Three Empires on the Nile" could be the British, Ottoman and French Empires...or it could be the British Empire, the Mahdi State and the Egyptian Empire, which may rightly be called that insofar as its conquest of Sudan was, in the minds of its leaders, explicit imperial expansion. Corruption and Egypt's dependence on Britain meant that it could never become a real empire -- but one doesn't need to read very deeply to see the similarities between atrocities of every flavor, and the irrelevance of all good intentions in doing anything more than justifying self-interest.

The book's very last line says it all: "Today, the price of a child slave in Khartoum is $35."

Three cheers for Gordon and Kitchener and Gladstone. Three cheers for Muhammad Ahmad, self-proclaimed messianic redeemer of the Islamic faith, and Isma'il Pasha, Khedive of Egypt. Now somebody stick a fork in our ass and turn us over, we're done.

[Joel Trono-Doerksen · Rating 1 out of 5]

If I drank (which I don't) and there was a drinking game with this book, to take a shot every time there was an orientalist trope, I would need 7 livers to survive. I thought after reading the book Prisoners of the Mahdi, written in 1956, that one written in 2007 would be a bit more balanced and enlightened. Not at all. Green almost exclusively draws on European sources and the book reads like something written by Kitchener himself. The book castigates any and all who would stand against British imperialism: the Mahdi, Afghani, 'Urabi and Abdu (all great men in my view). Not satisfied by condemning a 19th century anti-imperial movement that thoroughly embarrassed the British Empire, Green, in his conclusion moves into the late century, writing about the American bombing of a pharmaceutical plant but fails to mention that there was no nerve gas being created there but only a factory making medicine. Green should have remained a jazz guitarist instead of writing this apologist screed for empire.

[Sajith Kumar · Rating 4 out of 5]

After Britain consolidated her colonial stranglehold on India, the trade route linking the two countries assumed strategic importance and had to be protected at any cost. The naval route around the Cape of Good Hope was sufficiently fortified by a series of ports on both coasts of Africa. Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt in 1798 to find a stable alternate route to India led to a race between Britain and France over the control of Egypt. The digging and opening up of Suez Canal in 1869 under French supervision and management reduced the distance to India by 4000 miles. With this, Egypt became the pivot on which British imperialist designs rested in balancing its careful exclusion of other European powers from its sphere of influence and marketing of the colonial produce. As the Suez carried 70% of British steamer ships to India, their statesmen detached Egypt from the influence of Ottoman sultans and invested its puppets as Egypt’s rulers under the honorific ‘khedive’, whose scope ended up somewhere between a sultan and a vassal. Egyptian society was the most socially advanced in Africa and the people resented the British game of running the land behind the façade of an impotent khedive. The native soldiers rebelled against British power and Turkish nobility which treated them as outcastes. All these rebellions were mercilessly put down by the British. At this pitiable state of affairs in the nation’s mainstream politics, the dark forces of religion raised its ugly head. A Sufi mystic arose in Sudan, which was annexed to Egypt a few decades before, and claimed himself to be a prophet of god. His warriors fought with diabolical vigour and utmost religious fanaticism. The origins of modern jihad in the Middle East may be traced to this religious upstart. He won a few battles at first, inflicting heavy losses on the British. But a retributive force was soon assembled that decimated the jihadis in a battle between their medieval army brandishing spears and swords with a few rifles against the world’s most sophisticated military power with high-speed machine guns. This book tells the story of British interventionism in Egypt from the opening of the Suez in 1869 to the aftermath of the victory in Sudan in 1899. Dominic Green is a scholar of English literature and Jewish studies who is currently the Mandel Fellow in Comparative History at Brandeis University.

Ours is an age of science and enlightened idealism. Even though each person can’t individually live up to the lofty heights of ideal behaviour, it is an accepted moral that each should at least strive for it. Religion also has assumed the mantle of benevolent altruism as if it had been its preserve over the ages. This is plain wrong. All religions followed evil such as slavery as long as it was a socially acceptable custom in the society in which it thrived. Slavery was wiped off the face of the earth not by calls to fraternity and divine love professed by the religions. In fact, they tried to cling on to this heinous custom citing divine sanction in the holy books. The author presents the case of Egypt in 1857 when the Ottoman sultan Abdul Mejid banned slave trade under British pressure. Islamic law allowed slave hunts and trading as long as a Muslim didn’t enslave a fellow Muslim. They were allowed to wage jihad, capture infidels or Christians, enslave them and use them in further jihads to expand the dar al-Islam (land of Islam). This was so conventional and commonplace that the slave raiders used the term ghazwa to describe their campaigns as in early Islam in Arabia. The condition of the slaves was pitiable in the extreme. They were chained, whipped, and deprived of food and water. The elderly were left to die by the wayside and very young infants who couldn’t walk simply thrown aside. The male slaves were castrated by cutting off the entire genitalia at the abdomen and cauterized the wound with boiling butter. The eunuchs were a cherished commodity to guard the extensive harems of sultans. As soon as the slave trade was banned, the business interests and religious conservatives in Mecca set off a jihad against the Ottoman authorities.

The much trumpeted ‘White Man’s Burden’ consisted of civilizing the black people of the world. The British believed in ‘Three Cs’ for African enlightenment – Christianity, commerce and civilization. But the local ethos in Africa had not grown much beyond loyalty to one’s own tribe fortified with Islamic precepts. This was obviously poorly assimilated. Fraternity among Muslims naturally rose up when they faced a common Christian enemy, but in his absence, they fought each other. Shiism expects a redeemer to appear at the end of time. Called Mahdi by the adherents, the redeemer is thought to conquer the world and establish a kingdom of god on earth. Mohammed Ahmed, a mystic from Dongola claimed himself the Mahdi and established a theocratic state at Khartoum, enslaving the whole of Sudan. The author presents a clear narrative that brings out the tenuous links Sudan maintained with Egypt and remarks insightfully that in religious societies where religion doubled as politics, messianism was the politics of despair. Ansar, the Mahdi’s troops of loyal followers, sacked Khartoum and brutally decapitated its British Governor Charles Gordon. His lieutenants roamed the city and countryside in jihadi style – looting, raping, pillaging and murdering the defenseless citizens not following the conquerors’ religious sect. Captured women were congregated in the market place and the jihadi leaders took their pick. The Mahdi’s plan for women is given in the book. He wanted the women not to go outside unless ‘strictly necessary’ and not to speak in public. She could not speak to a man unless she wore a veil. When she did speak, she must whisper. If she uncovered her hair ‘even for the blink of an eye’, she received 27 lashes. If she used ‘obscenity’, she received 80. Her duty was to put her womb at the service of jihad (p.128). Judging from the reports emanating out of the regions of the Middle East where the ISIS hold sway, we have to admit that nothing has changed in the Islamic world in the last 150 years!

British response to the defeat at Khartoum was slow in coming, but well calculated. When at last the retribution came, it depended more on scoring a point over the French rival force that set out to capture and control the headwaters of the Nile. Anyone who regulated the flow of Egypt’s life force of the Nile controlled the economy of the country as well. The intervening period saw the ‘Scramble for Africa’ when the European powers openly bandied about their imperialist ambitions. Britain sat somewhat contented counting on her vast white colonies of Australia and Canada and also its eastern jewel of India. But lesser powers like Italy and Belgium were desperate to make a foothold in Africa which was abundant in natural resources and raw materials of all kinds. The book describes the vagaries of British politics during the period. Readers lose sight of the figures in a melee involving Gladstone, Lord Salisbury and Rosebury. Green presents the portrait of an ineffective, indecisive and openly incoherent administrative apparatus that ran the country. Leaders are accountable to the people in a democracy, but the wild rush behind populism extols the dangers of leaders who have other agendas and personal shopping lists. The punitive force was assembled after a gap of fifteen years. General Herbert Kitchener decimated the Dervishes of the Khalifa’s army, as the Mahdi had died in the meantime and power turned over to a caliph representing the spiritual preceptor. The fight was an uneven one. The local fighters’ captured rifles were no match for the Maxim machine guns of the British which spewed out bullets at a rate of 500 a minute. 10,000 soldiers of the Khalifa were killed in just three hours of fighting and another 16,000 were badly wounded. Not surprisingly, Kitchener unfurled the British flag over Sudan thereby opening up another chapter in the history of colonialism and exploitation by the European powers.

The book is delightfully written with a clear strain of humour and wit permeating its every page. The subtle humour makes us laugh as well as think hard at the fickleness of human character even though the person might be occupying a highly dignified seat. Prime ministers Gladstone, Salisbury, the khedives of Egypt and the military commanders are all the receiving end of Green’s sarcastic best. A lot of monochrome plates and a number of maps are included. Extensive notes are given at the end of the book. A good bibliography and a nice index add to the attraction.

The book is highly recommended.

[Jason Herrington · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good historical look at Sudan & Egypt at the end of the 19th century. Gives quite a bit of info on British governmental wrangling over this area too. You clearly see the imperialistic drive at work. Tells of the rise of the Mahdi in Sudan, as well as the story of Gordon & Kitchener both of whom are British military heroes. So many things at play to make this region a powder keg, as well as a place to be exploited: Suez Canal opening, slave trade in Sudan, Ottoman Empire slowly crumbling, nationalistic fervor rising, colonial desires rising as well. I thought it was an interesting read, though hard to follow all the names, especially all the Pashas. Also the audiobook seemed to have 1 chapter out of order.

[Al Berry · Rating 4 out of 5]

Solid title on the rise of the Mahdi, Gordon's Martyrdom and eventual avenging.

[Leo Walsh · Rating 2 out of 5]

"Three Empires on the Nile" by Dominic Greem is an narrative history covering north Africa during the late 19th century, an interesting period which saw the British Empire reaching its apex and the Ottoman Empire in decline. Though the focus is in Egypt an Sudan, Dominic Green does a nice job setting the region in context.

"Three Empires" begins with the opening of the Suez Canal, built under French control. It goes on the trace how the canal, which displaced the land-routes, began to shift the power in Egypt (and the Middle Eastern Mediterranean in general) from Turkish to western European control. Green goes on to trace Egypt's Sultan Khedive Isma'il Pasha -- an Ottoman appointee -- and his complete fiscal mismanagement which leads to teh British taking control of Egypt from the French, And their ensuing efforts to shut down the Arabic slave trade in the Sudan and the ensuing political upheaval. Which eventually leads to the rise of the Mahdi, the Islamic version of the Hebrew Messiah, and his attempt to establish a caliphate in Sudan, freed from the corrupting influence of Turkey and culturally-foreign British.

The bulk of the novel is high-adventure, but strikes me as a book written in 1890 instead of 2011. It tells an engaging account of the Victorian hero General Charles Gordon -- an eccentric, unmarried, semi-mystical Christian -- taking on leadership of the evacuation of Khartoum. When al-Mahdi's forces cut the telegraph lines, Gordon paints himself into a corner and instead of leaving Kartoum, is killed by Mahdist forces after a brutal and unnecessary sage. The books action ends when Sir Horatio Herbert Kitchener vanquishes the Mahdi and his troops, avenging Gordon.

While readable, "Three Empires" suffers from a lack of depth. Green makes both overt and covert attempts to make this material relevant. There is, no doubt, a very strong resonance between the early Mahdist attempt at to create a more-pure Arabic caliphate and ISIL, but the tie-in seems tenuous at best. Worst, the material Green relies on, especially to paint Gordon's character, seems dated.

If you're looking for a quick military history that doesn't lose its way in obtuse detail, look no further. "Three Empires" fits the bill. But if you;re looking for material that helps your typical westerner make sense of the Middle East circa 201x, don't bother.

I'm giving the book 2.5 stars because I was looking for context on the Middle East. But it is a well written page-turner. And does include high-adventure that makes me think of Robinson Caruso. So I'll gladly round up to 3-stars.

[Miroku Nemeth · Rating 2 out of 5]

So full of Orientalist tropes that it almost seems like a satire. Maybe I should be surprised that such an uncritical propaganda piece could be written in the last twenty years, but I'm not. I know the history from many different sources, and this is almost entirely British propaganda, and sadly biased to the point of absurdity. Of course, many readers will come to this looking for affirmation of prejudices they already hold, and this will challenge none of them, and they will walk away from the work satisfied their biases and hatreds have been confirmed. Green's "scholarship" on basics of Islam or Islamic history or theology is horribly inadequate, and it seems that he really should stay writing on British history proper, where he is better informed.

[Randhir · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very topical book. Egypt and Sudan in late 19th Century when the Mahdi stormed into the Sudan and challenged the reluctant imperialist ambitions of Great Britain. Excellent personality sketches. The only one who comes out well is Lord Cromer, the de facto ruler of Egypt. Gordon, despite advice, insisted on occupying Khartoum where he was cut off besieged by the Mahdi. the dilly dallying by Gladstone and Gen Wolesley ultimately lead to his doom, which he dealt with with great courage. The vengeance by Kitchener was terrible and showed a personality which led him to the apex of military leadership. The misery of the people of Sudan was horrific. mostly enslaved, their lives held cheap and their population reduced by 50%. Except for maybe the first half of 20th century this nation and its offshoots maybe the most miserable on Earth. It's a lesson for those who believe in messiahs. Their ruthlessness in pursuit of God is a terrible price to pay. There are so many similarities to modern day Middle East. The Mahdists are a near replica of the IS, while the wishy washy response of powers is similar. Gladstone reminds one of Obama. For all those who think history doesn't repeat itself, read this book. A must read.

[Ronald Lett · Rating 3 out of 5]

The 19th century European scramble for African colonies was initiated by events in the 18th century. One of the most important of these events was the opening of the Suez Canal. This short cut to “British” India had a great impact on the peoples that share the River Nile; Currently the Nile Basin includes 10 countries. So, in 1869, ten years after the start of construction, the Suez Canal which was constructed by the French, with British Finance and Egyptian labor was opened. The British interests in India would not let the canal fall into hostile European or Arab hands. To control the Canal Britain must control Egypt and to control Egypt, it must control the Nile basin. This was the basis for the imperial conflicts.
The Three Empires of the Nile: The Victorian Jihad 1869-1899 will introduce the reader to this important history. Other than the title (or two titles) this book is clear and well written. The author does not define which are the 3 empires mentioned in the title. The British and the Ottoman Empires are certainly recognized as empires but the Ottoman Empire the sick man of Europe was hardly a player, so perhaps he meant the Egyptian Empire. Higher up the Nile form Egypt is the Sudan. the Mahdist rebellion led to the control of great expanses of Sudanese territory for a few decades, but it would be hard to call their state a nation let alone an empire. So, my assumption it that the 3 empires are the British, Egyptian, and Mahdist Sudanese. Other imperial factors were the French interests along the White Nile in Egypt and the Sudan which were contrary to British interests and the Ethiopian Empires conflict with both the Egyptians and the Mahdists and along the Blue Nile. The construction of the Suez Canal was followed by imperial conflict which ended with the British occupation of both Egypt and the Sudan. There was wider impact on the whole continent of Africa but this is hardly discussed in this book. The reader will have to find this information elsewhere.
Egypt was a problem for Britain. It was officially a part of the Ottoman Empire which made it difficult to colonize; the Khedive of Egypt was subordinate to the Turkish Sultan. But the Ottoman Empire was losing its grip and Egyptian Nationalism which Britain saw as a threat to the Suez Canal was on the ascendancy. Egypt an empire within an Empire controlled the provinces of the Sudan which were larger than Egypt itself, as well as several ports along the Red Sea. But just as the Ottomans were losing control of their empire Egypt was losing control of its. One of the responses of the Khedives was the appointment of various governors some anti-slavery Europeans others local slave traders. These included Gordon who was twice appointed to the Sudan and Baker who was failed to secure Lake Nyanza (Victoria) from the Buganda Kabaka (Ugandan King) .
The Khedive Ismail, and his son Tawfik who succeeded him were neither Turks nor Egyptians but Albanians. They nominally reporting to the Turkish Sultan but were puppets to the British in part because of the debts that Ishmail incurred and the fact that the British bailed out Tawik. But the Egyptians were always scheming for independence from both the Turks and the British. The Khedives indebted their Egyptian subjects and sold out the Egyptian interests in the Canal to the Europeans. The foreign Khedives were challenged by two forms of nationalism religious and military. The founding of Islamism by Al Afghani Jamal and his followers eventually lead to the founding of the Muslim Brotherhood an important force in Egypt today. A failed coup against the Khedives by Egyptian Colonels led by Col. Ahmed Urabi was a prelude to coup by Col. Abdul Gamma Nasser in 1950. But the weak Khedives needed the British to save them from the colonels. This gave them the opportunity to occupy Egypt; Eventually the military nationalist under Nasser ended the era of British puppets and the nationalization of the Suez Canal.
In the Sudan the rise of the Mahadi, the Muslim zealot led a rebellion against the Egyptians and established the first Sunni Islamic State in modern times. He was challenged for the control of the Sudan at Khartoum by General Charles Gordon the Christian Zealot who worked as Governor General of the Sudan for the Khedive but was also under secret British orders. He did not follow the British orders to withdraw from Khartoum, when he was under siege spurned the Mahadis offer of clemency so died the hero defending Khartoum. Gordon’s adversary the Mahdi died shortly after him, due to the typhus epidemic which resulted from the unburied bodies left after the battle for Khartoum. Khalifa Abdallahia was neither the esthetic nor the charismatic leader that his predecessor was. This illiterate extended the Mahdist state up the Blue Nile taking territory and the life of the Emperor Johannes IV from Ethiopia. But after the death of the Mahdi the entire state became a death camp for its citizens. Under the Khalifa more than half of its citizens died due to starvation and disease.
The British Prime Ministers during the decade covered by this book were interesting, conflicted individuals. Disraeli the converted Jew, Gladstone the self-flagellator and Salisbury who articulated the concept of British rule from the Cape to Cairo had very inconsistent colonial policy motivated by short term expediency, the Irish problem and Gordon’s death rather than any clear strategic planning.
The faults of the Europeans in particular the failure of Wolsey to relieve Gordon, and the brutal revenge of Gordon perpetrated by Kitchener when he took Khartoum and brought the Sudan under British rule are descrped. The French imperial focus on Egypt and the attempt to counter the Cape to Cairo with the Atlantic to the Red sea and the standoff at Fashoda between Kitchener and Marchand are a well written side bar.
This is good history but also interesting studies of the Egyptians, British and Sudanese protagonists.

[Matthew · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book covers the events concerning the events of Egypt and the Sudan in the end of the 19th Century. The “three empires” are those of the Turkish linked Khedive Ishmail of Egypt, the Mahdi, and then Britain. The book does a good job with explaining the Ottoman Turkish backgournd of the events that through Disraeli’s machinations with the Suez Canal lead up to Britain rather than France becoming the primary European power involved with Egypt and the Sudan and does an equally good job with explaining the motivations of the self-appointed Mahdi. It is a bit weaker on Victorians such as Charles Gordon and Garnet Wolseley. This weakness comes from a lack of willingness to accept the Victorians as they were and instead to present them through the weak lens of psychohistory as well as from an attempt to draw parallels between British intervention in the Sudan in the 1800s and American intervention in the Middle East in the 1990s and 2000s.

[David Donnelly · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good overview of the British occupation of Egypt and Sudan as they fought late 19th century jihadis.

More comprehensive than single titles focused on Gordon at Khartoum or Omdurman; the gradual creep of,reluctant British imperialism is detailed from the building of the Suez Canal, resulting financial insolvency for Egypt, the drift out of the Turkish Sultan's orbit, Wolsley's failed expedition to rescue Gordon, and the ultimate technological assault of Kitchener on the Mhadi's forces. The early inspirations of Al Quaeda and Isis are all laid out. Fluidly written and engaging.

[JuliAnna · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was hoping more cultural history and less military history. In addition, it is told from the perspective of the British. The title is really far more interesting than the book turns out to be.

[Casey · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great book, providing a history of Egypt and the Sudan in the late 19th Century. Rather than just being a book about the growth of Egypt as a modern country, the arduous relationship between Egyptian interests and British imperial designs, or the rise and fall of the Mahdist movement in the Sudan, this book covers all three topics in an enjoyable and entertaining manner. I’ve read a number of other books on this era and region, but this was certainly the best at providing the whole story with sufficient detail and offering far-reaching conclusions. The author, Dominic Green, deftly includes all the involved personas. From the halls of European governments to palace gardens of Egyptian Beys, Café conspiracies of Islamic visionaries to campfire meetings of desert revolutionaries; all of the various political, religious, cultural, and economic forces which collided in late 19th century Egypt are presented and their interactions analyzed. The lengthy postscript takes the reader to the present, showing how many of the trends and events we’ve seen in the Egyptian-Arab world were embryonic in this Imperial Era conflict. Recommended for those wanting to know more about the beginnings of Egyptian nationalism and the influence of late 19th century Islamic figures on current events.

[Jim Bogue · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a fascinating study of events in Egypt and the Sudan from the 1850s to the British conquest in 1898. It is written mostly from the British perspective, but certainly not flatteringly. The author’s entertaining style and incisive word portraits make the various, flawed, protagonists come alive.
The British, or at least Prime Minister Gladstone, did not want to get involved in Egypt, and emphatically not in the Sudan. Though they did hope to end slavery and slave trading there. When a Sudanese student declared himself the Mahdi and gathered an army they tried to stay out. But they were already heavily involved in fixing Egypt’s finances, so they sent General Gordon to rescue stranded refugees in Khartoum. Instead he stayed and was killed by the Mahdi’s soldiers.
And therefore, some yeas later, the British sent an army. The author fleshes out the story; the reader will learn a lot. And he closes by noting that, in 2007 when the book was written, you could buy a slave in the Sudan for $35.

[ExtremeBibliophile · Rating 4 out of 5]

A highly detailed account of the British Empire's expansion into Egypt and Sudan, with all of its (mostly negative) ramifications that continue to the present day. The book opens with an account of the opening of the Suez Canal, a massive engineering achievement that in certain respects proved a catalyst for the regional conflicts that followed. There are several instances of breathtakingly stupid decisions and indecisions, and figures such as Winston Churchill, Ferdinand de Lesseps, and General Gordon of Khartoum receive coverage both admiring and critical. Expect no Rule Britannia jingoism here but a solid treatment of a historical era that had far-reaching and unforeseen consequences.

[Norman Smith · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a decent history of the period, worth reading for background into how Britain ended up in control of Egypt and the Sudan. I have read a couple of other books on this period, but this one goes back to the beginning (in this case, construction of the Suez Canal) better than others.

In general, it is well written and lively, but it would have been somewhat better if the author had toned down some of the more purple passages, and cut out some of the snark and sarcasm.

[Gypsi · Rating 4 out of 5]

This nonfiction account tells of the clash between Victoria's Britain, Turkish-ruled Egypt, and the Islamic army of the Madhi toward the end of the nineteenth century. Green brings many of the Victorian players to life, and manages to tell a good yarn while explaining a tragic bit of history. I certainly recommend it to those interested in Victorian foreign politics, or larger-than-life Victorian figures.

[Sam · Rating 3 out of 5]

A well written and engaging book on the bleak history of Sudan, it unfortunately has the habit of being under researched in tangential areas of concern. However, the well researched information directly related to Sudan, and the uncensored quotations of British officers, help make this a good starting point on the area

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

A well-written history of British involvement in Egypt and Sudan during the last third of the 19th Century. In the category of the more things change, the more they stay the same, it is a story of African kleptocracy, Islamic fanaticism, and the hubris and follies of Empire.

[Jason S · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting account of the British involvement in Egypt and Sudan from 1870-1900. Includes detailed account of British electoral history at the time. Has a seeming anti-Liberal party bias, but overall was enlightening. Good narrative and easy to read.

[Bill Suits · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wonderful and amazing audiobook to listen to. I can't recommend enough.

[Roy Draa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting perspective on theVictorian history of Egypt, Sudan and its shaping of modern geopolitics in the region.

[Tim Robinson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Sordid and gruesome.

[Takli · Rating 3 out of 5]

Easy to read, kept me going.

[Jeff Brooks · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely spellbinding work of popular history! And a window into the state of the 21st century world.

[Reader · Rating 4 out of 5]

Does a great job of explaining the politics of Egypt and Sudan in the time period however kind of fell off after the Mehdi passing but that is towards the very end

[Andrea · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was one of those books that seems to overlap with lots of others I've read (history of the Suez Canal, history of the European exploration of the Nile, history of Sudan etc), but somehow it doesn't manage to add anything new or memorable. I am surprised because I selected the book expecting to get new insights into the characters involved in the origins of modern Egypt and Sudan. However, the author relies on fairly tired standard sources. Worse, there isn't much critical examination of the relative reliability of those sources, so a variety of old chestnuts get tossed out without any collaborating evidence. Not a bad book, just not anything new or engaging if you've already done any reading on the area and probably not enough narrative coherence if it's new material to the reader.

[Emmanuel Gustin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting account of the complicated and violent relationship of Egypt, Sudan, Britain and France in the days of imperialism and the "scramble for Africa." By telling a complicated story, it has the merit of showing how interlinked the fate of the Egyptian fellahin could be with the power games of the great powers. And the account of the rise and fall of the Mahdist state in the Sudan is not only fascinating, but remains painfully relevant in our times.

What I disliked about the book is its the author's regular descent into flippancy. Sometimes it is hard not to be satirical about the incredible twists and turns of the politicians and some of the more bizarre characters that occupied the stage. But this is a story about real people and a lot of them died, so the historian owes them some respect, and a serious attempt to understand their fate and motives.