The River War: An Account of the Reconquest of the Sudan

by Winston S. Churchill

First published in 1899 and revised for the 1902 edition by its author Winston Churchill, this history of the River War in Sudan vividly chronicles the military campaign that altered the destinies of England, Egypt, and the Arabian peoples in northeast Africa. More by accident than design, in Churchill’s view, England was drawn into the affairs of Egypt in the 1880s, for at the same historical moment that the English, under Lord Cromer, were granted virtually sovereign power to establish a sound government in Egypt and to stimulate its national economy, the Mahdi rebelled in the Egyptian suzerainty of Sudan. Violence and bloodshed ensued, and the English soon found themselves embroiled alongside their Egyptian ally in a bitter conflict with the fiercely nationalistic Mahdi—a conflict that culminated in the massacre of General Charles Gordon at Khartoum and the emergence of the fanatical regime known as the Dervish Empire. 

In this illuminating volume, Churchill not only dramatically relates the catastrophic events in Sudan’s 1880s, but also places them in the context of Sudanese history. So it is that his subsequent account of the reconquest and pacification of Sudan by a mixed Anglo-Egyptian force under the command of Sir Herbert Kitchener weds history to destiny, as the outcome of the River War for decades would link Great Britain to the uneasy future of Egypt and Sudan. 

Genres: History, Africa, Military History, Nonfiction, Military Fiction, War, Biography

400 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1899

About the author

Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, politician and writer, as prime minister from 1940 to 1945 and from 1951 to 1955 led Great Britain, published several works, including The Second World War from 1948 to 1953, and then won the Nobel Prize for literature.

William Maxwell Aitken, first baron Beaverbrook, held many cabinet positions during the 1940s as a confidant of Churchill.

Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (Can), served the United Kingdom again. A noted statesman, orator and strategist, Churchill also served as an officer in the Army. This prolific author "for his mastery of historical and biographical description as well as for brilliant oratory in defending exalted human values."

Out of respect for Winston_Churchill, the well-known American author, Winston S. Churchill offered to use his middle initial as an author.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston...

Reviews

[Janet Roger · Rating 5 out of 5]

Last night I watched one of England’s finest actors playing a Sudanese political leader and an equally famous American taking on the role of a 19th century English general. The movie was Khartoum (1966). The actors Lawrence Olivier and Charlton Heston. And full marks for Heston’s excellent English accent and mannerisms. For Oliver’s take on the Mahdi I don’t have the upbringing to judge. Except to say if you’ve seen his Othello, you’ll get the idea.

But, setting aside these and a few other remarkable performances, plus some outstanding photography of the ancient monuments, the only reason for continuing to watch the movie for a long two and a half hours, was for a reminder of the background and lead-up to the reconquest of the Sudan. For that though I would have done much better to trust someone who’d been on the frontlines of this later campaign, had a tale to tell and a prose style to deliver the story a whole lot better.

Still in his early twenties and desperate to get into the action, Winston Spencer Churchill tried wheedling his way into the war by all routes available to someone of his privileged birth and not insignificant fortune but in the end, it came down to asking his mother. Her friend was Sir Evelyn Wood. He ran the Horse Guards. Two days later, young Winston was a cavalry lancer and a month after that in August 1898 was setting out from Atbara, with an army intent on re-establishing British control of the Sudan. And in September he was there at the Battle of Omdurman – one of the last major cavalry charges made by the British army.

For the religious and political background to the siege of Khartoum and the death of General Gordon you won’t find anything better. And Churchill’s vivid first-hand account of this follow-up campaign is second to none.

[Manny]

A startling article by Robert Fisk in today's Independent. I figured I'd better make a copy in case it gets taken down or altered:

Ukip couldn't better what Winston Churchill had to say about Muslims

As the Havengore carried Churchill’s body down the Thames, I was not at all enjoying his funeral.

A cub reporter on the Newcastle Evening Chronicle, I was based in the frozen coal port of Blyth, where even the puddles of vomit outside the pubs frosted over on Sunday mornings. And the Blyth lifeboat – how all of us regretted it – had long ago been named the Winston S Churchill and even the town’s socialist dignitaries agreed that this blue-painted but life-saving barque should set off into the North Sea blizzards on 30 January 1965 with, you guessed it, a clutch of local reporters on board.

A 19-year-old Fisk managed (just) to master his seasickness while a council flunky hurled a rather tatty wreath into the waters as the boat pitched horribly amid the waves.

A colleague was later heard to remark that we could “thank fucking Churchill for that”, a comment that did not find its way into my report for the Chron.

This, of course, was before the dung heap of history took a swing at the old man’s life. Gallipoli, the creation of fraudulent Arab satraps in the sandpits of Transjordania and Mesopotamia, the deployment of troops in the General Strike, Dresden, those old racist quotes (the Indians, the “fakir” Gandhi, the Red Indians); they’re all part of the “don’t-forget-what-a-shit-Churchill-was” coverage that would never have been published in our coverage of the funeral 50 years ago.

But I have to report that Churchill had some pretty intemperate views about Muslims, which he expressed in the first edition of his 1899 account of the Sudan campaign, The River War – views so dark that he was persuaded to delete them from all later editions.

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism [sic] lays on its votaries!” Churchill wrote in this now almost unobtainable first edition. “Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy … Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture … exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.”

There is much more on the enslavement of women and the dangers of Islam, along with the usual liberal sentiments which have their modern-day counterparts.

“Moslems [sic] may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die: but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.”

But there are a few, now-censored remarks which would have Isis and Boko Haram nodding in agreement. “No stronger retrograde force [than Islam] exists in the world,” the great man announced, but “…Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step…” If it were not for Christianity, “sheltered in the strong arms of science,” then “the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.” Ukip couldn’t better that.

And Churchill was not alone among his contemporaries in denigrating the peoples of India and the Arab world. Politicians from India and Egypt impressed one of his fellow Europeans as “jabbering Orientals” and “mountebanks” who tried to convince Europe that the British Empire was about to collapse.

“England will never lose India unless she gives way to racial confusion…,” he wrote. “Indian risings will never be successful… I…would far rather see India under British domination than that of any other nation.”

These imperialist statements appear in Hitler’s Mein Kampf, whose English publishers, Hurst & Blackett, blurbed their 1938 edition with the advice that this is “a book everyone should read, for it reveals the forces and circumstances which went to make a remarkable character”.

The trouble was that a lot of people did read Mein Kampf. The tragedy was that they didn’t take it seriously. Thanks be to God, therefore, that we had the author of The River War. My dad adored him so much that he persuaded Churchill to autograph the first volume of his Marlborough: His Life and Times. The book is beside me as I write these words. “Inscribed by Winston S Churchill 1948,” the Great Man wrote on the flyleaf. Volume Two got shorter shrift. “WSC” was all the old boy would give my dad there.

Bill Fisk kept a massive, black-and-white photograph of Churchill above the fireplace at our old home in Maidstone; the 1940 Prime Minister glowering into the camera.

When Bill died, my mum asked me if she could take the picture down. I agreed. I didn’t like Churchill very much, least of all after I wrote my PhD thesis on Ireland and WSC’s threats to invade the country during the Second World War when he declared that Eire was “at war but skulking”.

But I was moved by Nicholas Soames’s comment that his grandfather was an “authentic” man – compared, at least, to the Cameron show which we had to watch last week as the current Prime Minister fawned over Churchill’s memory.

As for Bill’s huge photograph, it has no place on my wall today. But I keep it still, in a little cupboard. You can’t throw Churchill away.

[Alan Tomkins · Rating 5 out of 5]

A vivid and thrilling narrative, every bit as exciting as a grand adventure novel. Churchill was an amazing writer who brought this military history to pulse pounding life. Of course he had firsthand knowledge of the events, as he served in the 21st Lancers, which had a major role in the Battle of Omdurman. But it is his skill as a raconteur that turns the details of military campaigns into fascinating stories. I highly recommend this book for fans of history and adventure alike.

[Keith · Rating 5 out of 5]

The River War: An Historical Account of the Reconquest of the Soudan. By Winston Spencer Churchill. 2 vols. (London: Longmans, Green, and Co.,1899).

For many people today to speak or hear of Winston Churchill is to be reminded of his valiant and indomitable leadership of Great Britain during the Second World War. This is proper and correct but Churchill's life encompassed much more than the wartime prime ministery. Reading his River War 114 years after its publication allows readers a glimpse into the early life and adventures of the young Winston and of the times that molded his character.

Churchill graduated from the military academy at Sandhurst in 1895. He was twenty years old. Four years later he had already seen combat on the Indian frontier (and written a book about it) and then inveigled himself into the military force that Great Britain was sending to Egypt to put down the Madhi rebellion in the Sudan (or Soudan as it was then spelled). From this experience Churchill almost immediately began writing a book. Aside from the historical account that The River War so admirably relates, the book became for Churchill a new experience. His first book, The Story of the Malakand Field Force(1898) was derived from newspaper dispatches that the enterprising young Churchill sent back to London. (Churchill occurred some emnity among the regular officers for making money out of his military service). The River War was to be a more comprehensive effort. The book reflects the beginnings of the writer who was to earn the Nobel Prize for Literaure fifty-three years later. In his delightful and entertaining autobiography, My Early Life, Churchill reflects on the style and writing of The River War:

This work was extending in scope. From being a mere chronicle of the Omdurman campaign, it grew backwards into what was almost a history of the ruin and rescue of the Soudan. I read scores of books, indeed everything that had been published upon the subject; and I now planned a couple of fat volumes. I affected a combination ofthe styles of Macaulay and Gibbon, the staccato antitheses of the former and the rolling sentences and genitival endings of the latter; and I stuck in a bit of my own from time to time.

This is certainly an understatement. Churchill clearly did read everything and its seems difficult to think what more he might have added. The fiinshed work was two volumes comprising almost a thousand pages. It was abridged in 1933 and that work is the one most available today. The first edition is a massive book and one can see where some of the details might easily be erased with no harm done to the whole; however, Churchill was fastidious and that effort shows.

Churchill's developing style is much in evidence, a kind of playfulness that is more ironic and saracastic when he comes to write his history of the Second World War. Two of my favorite sentences from The River War:

“A mile away to the rear the gunboats, irritated that the fight was passing beyond their reach, steamed restlessly up and down, like caged Polar bears seeking what they might devour.”

“At the end of the next march, which was made by day, the guides, whose memories had been refreshed by flogging, discovered a large pool of good water, and all drank deeply in thankful joy.”


The book is steeped in the world-view of empire, of the white man's destiny to lead the barbarians to civilization. Churchill is constant in referring to Muslim rebels and the Soudanese and Egyptian natives in the British forces as "savages" and "primitives." On the other hand, he clearly admires the bravery and tenacity of the Dervishes who comprised the Madhi's army. Churchill is at pains to identify every Emir or other leader who fought with the Madhi's army. He characterizes the entire campaign as being fought between antique and modern forces. In this he is surely right. Muskets, cannon, Maxim machine guns and Nile gunboats were unlikely to falter against horsemen with swords.

The account of the march down the Nile from Egypt is a highlight of the book. Forced by the need for fresh water to stay within sight of the Nile the British and Egyptian forces nonetheless, forded the Nile cataracts, built a railway for easier resupply, manhandled gunboats over the cataracts and fought several giant set piece battles against an enemy which vastly outnumbered them, if only in manpower.

Churchill is remarkedly clearheaded about the effects, both good and bad, of imperialism. In the book he succinctly describes the tragic consequences of the clash between ancients and moderns:

Wild peoples, ignorant of their barbarism, callous of suffering, careless of life but tenacious of liberty, are seen to resist with fury the philanthropic invaders, and to perish in thousands before they are convinced of their mistake. The inevitable gap between conquest and dominion becomes filled with the figures of the greedy trader, the inopportune missionary, the ambitious soldier, and the lying speculator, who disquiet the minds of the conquered and excite the sordid appetites of the conquerors. And as the eye of thought rests on these sinister features, it hardly seems possible for us to believe that any fair prospect is approached by so foul a path.

(italics added)

After 9/11 Churchill was often quoted in various contexts. The River War was plumbed containing as it does a war between British imperialism and Muslim troops. Churchill is perceptive in describing the roots of the Muslim revolt. He notes that religion was not the cause of the revolt but a pretext that was fuelled by fanaticism. He also notes that the Sudanese had many reasons to revolt. In this we may see reflections of our current situation.

[Joseph Guido · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ever read something that made you feel wholly inadequate in your writing…if not your thinking? I am on my fourth reading of “The River War” and each time I read it, the sheer brilliance and eloquence of Winston Churchill dumbfounds, confounds, and hounds me. Churchill is a man genius and this book, a history written so very early in his life and career at the very end of the 19th Century, give great insight into the man much later in life and career who was to forge some of the greatest decisions and make history in the 20th Century.

“The River War: An Account of the Reconquest of the Sudan” is magisterial in register, poetic in meter, and completely modern in manner. Magisterial because Churchill speaks from his personal experiences in the War as well as his interactions with other soldiers and leaders, not-to-forget the extensive research Churchill did to cut through the fog and friction of battle to clearly outline the progression of the military campaign and its history. Poetic because Churchill uses a beautiful English, precise syntax, but easy voice throughout—perfectly balanced with care for the ear and an absolute joy to read. Modern because Churchill astoundingly breaks with the first-person, highly personal, often stiff, travelogue or memoire style of the time for an incredibly modern and sweeping account of this conflict with global reach. It is here where I give Churchill the greatest deference: he incorporates an astounding quantity of information from a huge region to place the conflict, and specifically his experiences, into a far-reaching geopolitical and socio-cultural context. Although this is really the standard today-it was not then and almost unheard of in his day. I cannot think of anything like it before him outside Tolstoy, and Tolstoy was writing fiction (although based upon a profound understanding of real events and personalities), although Thucydides comes to mind.

It is his sense of “the political” (in the translated words of Clausewitz; “der Politik” from his famous "Der Krieg ist eine bloße Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln") in military affairs which is both so rare and so important…surely becoming critical to Churchill when the world most needed a cool and deliberate leader at the helm—one can easily hear him with his gruff voice advising to “Keep Calm and Carry On.” His coolness and deliberation were surely constructed out of experiences and projects such as “The River War.” In his later words: “Character may be manifested in the great moments. But it is made in the small ones.” I often imagine Churchill drawing upon the character formed from an infinite number of small moments bitterly fighting The Mahdiyya in the wilds, hardships, and deprivation of the Sudanese desert.

Which brings me to my final point of praise: the timelessness of truth. In setting the stage in Chapter 1, he observes that “Fanaticism is not a cause of war…. It has therefore been stated, and is to some extent believed, that the revolt in the Soudan was entirely religious. If the worst untruths are those that have some appearance of veracity, this impression must be very false indeed. It is, perhaps, an historical fact that the revolt of a large population has never been caused solely or even mainly by religious enthusiasm.” Well said, old Chap.

In a world where Osama Bin Laden started a renegade terrorist organization translated as “The Refuge” (Al Qaeda) founded some strange form of Islamic "extremism" in the very same Sudan where Churchill fought, where the United States embarked on a “Global War On Terrorism” largely aimed at attacking the sins of "extremists" like Bin Laden, where groups not far from Sudan are forming “Islamic States” which seem strikingly similar to The Mahdiyya of 19th Century Sudan, and today where the Sudanese military has recently overthrown President Bashir with no clear way forward, “The River War” should be read by all—with an aim at understanding its many lessons.

[Rik Brooymans · Rating 4 out of 5]

The other books in my shelf would seem to indicate I'm a Winston Churchill fan. I'm not quite sure what it is about his writing. Perhaps it's the old fashioned view on the world that romanticised the business of empire. Churchill would be strung up by some of the PC brigade these days, but he makes none of his generalizations our of malice or avarice and is speaking of personal opinions gained through time in the field. Still, some of the descriptions take a while to get used to.

The book does a good job in describing the British attempt to defeat the Mahdist forces that embarrassed them a few years before. The inexorable march toward victory and the complete lack of any hope for the Mahdist forces meant that it took some literary skill to keep it interesting. But interesting it was.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's quintessential Churchill. It's biased, unabashedly imperialist, and old fashioned to the point of racism... But all the same, it's vibrant, exciting, eloquent, surprisingly even handed, and viscerally memorable narration.

You won't find a better book regarding this war, nor a better window into the minds of a Great Britain that forged an African Empire almost as an afterthought.

Churchill was also hardly a selfish old boring racist. He had mountains of ink to spill on critiquing the European hubris that almost lost the Sudan to an Islamist jihad, and you see that to the core of this man was a strong belief that Britain was best for Africa.

Churchill also lived his beliefs, risking his life on the frontlines of this war as a cavalry lancer. The final battle of this war would see Churchill take part in one of the last major cavalry charges of world history. What a read!

[Stinger · Rating 3 out of 5]

Churchill knows how to tell a good story, and he does so with vigor on this occasion. One lesson that can be gleamed from the conflict described in the pages of this book is the following: opposing war parties may have differing moral justification for their actions. In this tale, the Muslim uprising was in response in part to hypocrisy displayed by the religious and political authorities; thus the rise of the Mahdi was a return to piety. The British sought justice for the killing of General Gordon and disorder brought about by the revolution against Egyptian rule. Both parties felt justified and both parties, no doubt, contained some persons of corrupt character who acted in such a manner as to facilitate the conflict.

[Tamer Alshazly · Rating 1 out of 5]

No question he is a good story teller, but strange enough he did not write the story! Full of malintentions and grude for the Egyptian authority and Egypt in general, he failed in being anything but a minor war correspondent. In summary the book will tell you - with the longest nose- that evey negative action or halt is due to egyptians and any opposite is due to the good hands of the brits!!!
How hypocrate can you be, no body will ever know as the sky is your limit.
Poor history book, full of nonsense and disgusting selfishness, i only wonder for what did you list the references in the face of your book if you will never read, nevertheless you may never understand. Chirchul is a huge lie just comic actor but what can we say, luck is luck!!!

[Luise · Rating 3 out of 5]

The main reason why I read this book was to gain an insight into contemporary reports and thoughts after having read Edward Zaid's Orientalism. And who better to study than an imperialist who thought himself above anyone and anything simply because he was British, he truely did not disappoint. Now, if you read this hoping for a great story, I'd say you'll be disappointed with his lack of actual story telling but it is a great look into British colonialism. Best read with some prior insight into colonial sentiments and history/anthropology.

[James Taylor · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is fascinating on several levels.

It is (to any modern reader) a window onto what were undoubtedly unbelievably racist views widely held at the time. Churchill does not hesitate to describe the indigenous populations of Sudan (or “Soudan” in his spelling) variously as “savages” and “uncivilised”. The first section of the book, in particular, goes into detail as to why, in Churchill’s eyes, the colonisation of Africa by the European powers was not only entirely justified, but necessary for the betterment of everyone who lived there.

This is despite the fact that, by the end of the book, it is clear that tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people have been killed by British and Egyptian soldiers.

Sudan is simply seen as being entirely uncivilised. Egypt is shown as a little better, albeit a vassal of the Great Powers, but still heavily criticised by Churchill for the state of corruption and unhappiness it allowed to fester in Sudan while it was in control and unsupervised by Britain. This incompetence was, in Churchill’s view, the direct cause of the rebellion by the Mahdi and creation of the Mahdist State.

Likewise, the Liberal government (led by Prime Minister Gladstone) receives heavy criticism for failing to come to General Gordon’s aid in time.

The Mahdist rebellion is described by Churchill as a holy war; if anything, the reconquest of Sudan by the UK and Egypt (carried out partly to avenge the death of General Gordon at Khartoum and restore British honour) comes very close to what might otherwise be described as a holy war. By the end of the book, Britain and France are dividing the entire continent of Africa between them and we are given an analysis of which country comes out on top in Churchill‘s view (spoiler: it’s Britain).

Churchill is strongest at describing the battles he participated in - the movements and tactics of the army - which he does in detail. He is weakest at the underlying causes of the war and at explaining the perspective of the local population, which is largely ignored. This is the very definition of “top-down” history. However, his passages on British politics, while very partial, demonstrate that he clearly had a keen eye on politics even at that stage of his career.

Likewise, Churchill displays a strong understanding of the logistics of war - construction of the Desert Railway to resupply the army and (of course) Britain’s overwhelming technological superiority is the true reason why Kitchener was so successful, despite several blunders and near-misses along the way.

[Bert Corluy · Rating 4 out of 5]

churchill is an amazing author. he takes the reader with him into the action. this book is slightly different because he wasn't there for a big chunk of it. and the young churchill was not quite yet the historiographer his older self would become. but his wide ranging intellect, his empathy, compassion and respect for his enemies which he tries to understand even as he does his duty as a British officer are on full display. his description of the charge of the 21th lancers of which he was a part is bonechilling. not for someone trying out churchill for the first time but definite recomendation for the churchill veteran. gives a lot of insight in the mind of the young officer who would one day play leading roles in both world wars

[Mohammed Hanafi · Rating 4 out of 5]

كتاب تاريخي ممتاز يصف كيفية اعادة احتلال السودان بواسطة جيش الحكم الثنائي الإنجليزي المصري، ويعتبر مكمل لكتاب سلاطين باشا "السيف والنار في السودان" عن تلك الحقبة من تاريخ السودان.
يتميز الكاتب بقدرة روائية مبهرة في وصف المعارك وتقريب الصورة الى القارئ وشرح الأوضاع المحيطة بطروف المعارك، وكذلك يتميز الكاتب بذوق أدبي جميل جداً في الوصف والدليل وصفه لوادي النيل عامةً في بداية الكتاب،.
الكتاب يعتبر من الكتب المميزة في سرد أحداث فترة المهدية وكيفية التحضير لاخماد الثورة المهدية، وقد راعى المؤلف اعطاء المقاتلين الشجعان من جنود المهدية حقهم وذكر الكثير من بطولاتهم في الدفاع عن الدعوة المهدية وعن الأراضي التي تحوزها المهدية من السودان.
كتاب تاريخي رائع ومفيد.

[Eric Chevlen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Before he was a politician, Winston Churchill was a soldier and journalist. This book is a marvelous telling of the Egyptian and British campaign in the Sudan in the late 19th century. Churchill pays particular and appropriate attention to the logistics that allowed the British to deliver men and arms to a distant desert campaign. The book is chock-a-block with typical Chuchillian turns of phrase. Recommended to those interested in military history or the ongoing conflict between Christendom and the Islamic world.

[David Mcelroy · Rating 5 out of 5]

River War to free a people.

The River War shows that at times it is left to outsiders to free people's from tyrannical powers. In this case it is Islamic tyranny, as it is today. It has been left unchecked by distant governments too long. There will come a time when the slavers must be stopped once more before they become a dominant world power.

[Nat Bond · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting history of a war that I had never heard of.

[Nick Hernandez · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very well written accounts of British imperialists vs Islamic fanatics in Northern Africa in the late 1880s.

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

Exciting well written Historical narrative of the Reconquest of the Sudan, by Winston Churchill, between 1896 and 1899 by Anglo-Egyptian forces led by Lord Kitchener.
The Account begins with the Rebellion in the Sudan led by the "self proclaimed Mahdi" (Muhammad Ahmad).
In Islam, The Mahdi is a prominent figure in Islamic eschatology who is believed to appear at the End of Time to rid the world of evil and injustice.
Since The Mahdi claimed dominion over the entire Islamic world, General Charles "Chinese" Gordon, who at the time was sent by the British government. As the new governor of the Sudan he was to restore peaceful relations. Gordon was led to believe that the revolt would not end with control of Sudan, but would also attempt to conquer Egypt and perhaps the wider region.
Gordon was also concerned by the fragility of the Egyptian army, which had suffered several defeats by the Sudanese. For those who may be familiar with the film "Khartoum" starring Charlton Heston and Laurence Olivier, it is about this part of Sudanese History. Gordon was killed in the siege of Khartoum. Later the Mahdi also died of sickness but his followers carried on under Khalifa.
The River War is mostly concerned about the time 13 years later (1898-99) when Lord Herbert Horatio Kitchener was sent to reconquer the Sudan utilizing Anglo-Egyptian and Sudanese armies.
Winston Churchill at the time was a brash young British Officer who volunteered to go and fight. He also had the idea to write an account of the events which he later sold. Kitchener did not much like Churchill and refused him several times but in the end Churchill finagled his way past Kitchener's objections.
The story is very dramatic as Kitchener actually built train tracks and a line down the Nile from Egypt to Khartoum (in the desert) in order to move his army and weapons into place. He also had several powerful gunboats on the Nile.
I've picked up many of Churchill's personal thoughts from his biographies more so than this account as he later mused on the massive fire power brought to bear on the Dervish rebels bringing with it the understanding of the direction that Modern Warfare was taking and it scared him.

During the Battle of Omdurman which was the largest and most decisive battle, the Anglo-Egyptian-Sudanese soldiers who were greatly outnumbered, slaughtered thousands of Dervish warriors as they attempted a cavalry type charge across a thousand yards while the British allies lost only a handful of men. They cut the dervishes down with Maxim machine guns, rifles, and other heavy weapons in a very impersonal type of warfare which seemed unfair to Churchill as he watched the mass slaughter. The Dervishes never even got close to the Anglo-Egyptian lines.
The Anglo-Egyptian-Sudanese totaled about 25,800 and lost 48 dead and 382 wounded.
The Dervishes totaled 52,000 men and had 12,000 killed, 13,000 wounded, and 5000 captured.

Churchill does tell of one cavalry charge after this battle by the 21st Lancers of which he- Churchill took part. In 1898 It was the last cavalry charge by the British in History. The battle he stated was more like the combat in previous wars. This type of combat saw its' culmination in WWI and later in WWII and in particular the huge change in war with the use of nuclear weapons for the first time. Churchill saw this new type of warfare coming as far back as 1898 with the development of more powerful and scientific weapons.

[Mohamed Elnazir · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Narration is perfect, I like all the openings of each chapters, which holding some proverbs and advices.
Gordon rescue mission was a bit hesitant, that which leads me to understand that Gordon has been appointed by the Khedive not by Her Majesty Govt., so protecting the great British officer lays upon the Khedive shoulders.
Likening the Sudanese with their British fellas is fair enough (p86) “Sambo – for such is the Sudanese equivalent to Tommy – was a lazy, fierce, disreputable child. But he possessed two tremendous military virtues. To the faithful loyalty of a dog he added the heart of lion”
I noticed that what is mentioned on (page 97) the Khedive is begging for British support, which is verify my theory that Sudan is merely governed by British.
Churchill shows how the British were compassionate regarding the summons of the Egyptian soldier, so in time of Ismail they were tardily dragged from their home in chains
In comparison with each army there is no even a unified platform to see how the two armies differ at. The British army is very advance in terms of capabilities toward the Dervish army. Calculation of everything to extent of spare parts would inevitably outweigh the equation, on other side the Dervish army only have a bayonets and Lion heart.
In page 186 1st paragraph, Churchill made an assumption of “the triangle two sides together is shorter than the third side” which is partially correct, cause it depends on the interior angle.
Churchill confess the courage of the Sudanese soldiers who fight a very modern gun with bravery and bayonet
Khalifa Abdullah was a tyrant, but we cannot judge him with 21t century thoughts.
Lastly the British army was a conqueror and the Dervishes were defenders, so no one blame a defender who fought to the death for his land.

[Gavin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not being familiar with The River War I think it appropriate for Sir Winston to provide the details. I'm not certain how many people I know would be interested to read, but I thoroughly enjoyed this although even with a number of maps enclosed I was often lost. I did wonder how things were at the time when you had to move steam ships around cataracts in the Nile and build a railroad to help facilitate fighting the Dervish.

Difficult as well for my modern perspective to grasp Colonial soldiers, their training, and officers as well as the equipment required to ship, move, and put together a steam ship or build a railroad in an inhospitable country. And that is before the task of food and water!

I would be interested in reading more about this campaign and perhaps trying to follow the movements on a modern map. No doubt the Nile has moved and perhaps the railroads and towns are not where or named as they were over a hundred years ago.

I'll have to see if Osprey offers a book related to this. That would help me visualize everything better.

[Katherine Davis · Rating 5 out of 5]

We think of Winston Churchill as the inspired leader of Britain during WWII, but by then he was 65 years old and had already amassed wide-ranging experience in wars. His description of the Mahdist War in Sudan in 1898, in which he was a cavalryman aged 24, shows a remarkable understanding of all the elements of successful warfare and statecraft as well as a sensitivity to the many costs of war. In these days of condemnation of colonialization, The River War shows how those involved in expanding British influence across the world thought of their mission and impact. The Mahdist War was a jihadist war, and Churchill’s careful descriptions of the territory, the people, and the regional history shed light on today’s continuing troubles in the area.

[A Bushra · Rating 4 out of 5]

First rate writer. Among politicians Churchill is -with Lincoln- heads and shoulders above his colleagues.
As in to this book in particular, the first few chapters -where he sets the background before the invasion of the Sudan- are gripping. They also tell you a lot about his views about the western civilisation, colonial policy, and Islam.
Towards the middle and the end, it becomes a slightly mundane narration of minuscule details which might interest those with a keen eye for the military aspect of the story (perhaps the target audience for this book), I found myself losing interest.

But all in all, definitely worth reading, at least in part.

[Melsene G · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was unable to find the correct version of this book. I read the hardcover edited by James Muller in 2020 and it had about 840 pages. Half was an Appendix. This was a tough book to get through, font was tiny and so much of it was in red ink, edits, and comments. However, anything by Winston is enjoyable to me so I plowed ahead.

This book covers the Nile River and Egypt from 1889-1902. Up the river with the 21st Lancers, the Battle of Omdurman (9.2.1898), Dervishes, the Fashoda Incident, Major Marchand, Kitchener, lots of deaths, anti-French sentiment, Gen. Gordon and his death, Khartoum, cool sketches by AJ McNeill, and talk of Gladstone. The Brits befriended Egypt for resources, and access to the waterways. The hope was to develop the land, bring in fresh water or clean water and grow wheat.

[Neculai Burghelea · Rating 4 out of 5]

A short episode in the history of a perennially troubled Sudan

Read in the current geo-political context the book is a valuable element in the historical tapestry of the region. Churchill's writing style is more military than literary but it is at times a small window into the journalistic vocabulary of his times. Terms like "jihad" seemed to have been common even then .. although describing a fervour more general then than how we know it now...A more objective description of the Arab combatants than expected. A good read.

[Adam · Rating 5 out of 5]

An Excellent Sophomore Effort

As compared with his first book, The Story of the Malakand Field Force, this is a much-improved effort. The author shows a firm grasp on the history of the region and the events which led to the conflict and great skill as a historian. The work, like the last one, bogs down somewhat with regard to the tactical detail of the engagements that the author personally participated in. I look forward to tackling histories where less tactical detail is available within the personal knowledge of Sir Winston.

[Mark Croxford · Rating 3 out of 5]

The largely forgotten battles in the Upper Nile

Hard book to get into with the racial arrogance in the first chapter. However it is a reflection of attitudes when the book was written, no matter how grating to modern minds. Also it would benefit by the inclusion of maps, although I expect the original edition did not have them.

The book provides an interesting insight into a campaign most modern readers will not have heard of, as well as to the political background of the day.

We also see several names mentioned of men who became better known from WW1.

[Terry O'Connor · Rating 5 out of 5]

Readable and informative

Churchill's description of the lands are sometimes as good as pictures. It is an comfortable read and references many other sources. Explaining the history prior to the Mahdist uprising and although it appears overly detailed at times it flows well and gives the reader a clear idea of the resources and time it took to re -conquer the Sudan. One has to remember that this is written by a soldier of the Queen and a Victorian. Good pros and attention to detail. If you are interested in the area, history and politics of the period read this.

[Robert Hepple · Rating 4 out of 5]

First published in 1899, and later in 1962 first published in this abridged form, 'The River War' is an account of the wars in Sudan from the rise of the Mahdi in the 1880s up to the Battle of Omdurman in 1898. The style of writing reflects very much the time in which it was written, with the added bonus that the writer took part in the final battles. Churchill does avoid being openly jingoistic, and seems to raise the question of how you can justify annexing provinces simply out of imperial ambitions. Whatever the tone, a simply amazing read.

[Raimo Wirkkala · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sir Winnie's penchant for cringe-worthy racist observations of non-British peoples is a bit off-putting, and they are delivered in such a casual fashion that one understands the tenor of the times. This and some 'inside-baseball'-level accounting of military formations are the book's drawbacks, but, this being, at the end of the day, a fine work of military history, some of the latter is to be expected. The chapter regarding the penultimate Battle of Omdurman is masterfully rendered, as are the final two chapters which bring down the curtain on this affair of "reconquest", as he calls it.

[Don · Rating 3 out of 5]

A Detailed Description of a Campaign

This story is told using Churchills well known ability to use the English language to take the person into the heart of the conflict. Unfortunately the detail was in my opinion excessive. It didn't match my level of interest. Consequently the three stars. I would recommend this book to those who enjoy detail of conflict .