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

Written by Churchill when he was a young Calvary Officer and on the way back from Campaigns in the Sudan, "The River War" shows the marks of greatness were with him early. This is a book well worth the time on several levels. One. It is a good read. Two. While penned in the early 20th Century, the geographical setting and the situational politics are as contemporary as today's news. The British were seeking to take revenge for the sacking of Khartoum which was under British control and the murder of the British General CG Gordon. The fanatic Muslim leader known as the Madhi lead the successful rebellion against the British and their surrogate Egypt. Churchill records in his book, originally published in Two Volumes here abridged into one, the story of the British armies retaking Khartoum and crushing the Madhi's army. Three. This is more than just the dry repetition of historical facts. The Churchill of words comes through the dust of history with the light of understanding on the life of the troops in the desert wildness and along the always difficult Nile River as they make their way to Khartoum. He fearlessly comments on the ability or lack thereof of the command staff. He describes in some detail a famous calvary charge which in the course of history was the last carried out by the British army. Four. I found it exciting to see his style and thinking at this young age. Unknown to Churchill who took the occasion to record a piece of history and to pass judgment on decisions by command staff and politicians alike was the fact that he himself would be a part of such a command staff rising to the top of command and political leadership. This account would prove to be but the beginning of many volumes written over the course of very many years.

Winston Churchill had the opportunity to say many things and one of them was "I have not become the Queen's first minister in order to preside over the dissolution of the British Empire". Or was it the "... the King's first minister..."? I don't recall whether it was his first or second term as Prime Minister. In any case, history recalls WSC as a Imperialist in the grand tradition with all the baggage that may entail. However, before we join in that celebration or condemnation, let us read carefully some passages from The River War. First we read "What enterprise that an enlightened community may attempt is more noble and more profitable than the reclamation from barbarism of fertile regions and large populations? To give peace to warring tribes, to administer justice where all was violence.....etc,etc" All very conventional late 19th stuff believed by the great majority of Europeans and North Americans of the time. But a few sentances later we find "Yet as the mind turns from the wonderful clouldland of aspirations to the ugly scaffolding of attempt and achievement, a succession of opposite ideas arises." Churchill then goes on to detail the struggle of those "tenacious of liberty" who oppose the imperial task and the "greedy trader","inopportune missionary","ambitious soldier" and "lying speculator" who dishonor the enterprise. Then he he says "...it hardly seems possible for us to believe that any fair prospsect is approached by so foul a path". Much later in the book as WSC is describing the aftermath of the Battle of Omdurman and the flight of the Khalifa Abdullah. He points out that Abdullah flees after the defeat of his army alone and unarmed and joins the remnants of his army and "...found many disheartened friends; but the fact that, in this evil plight, he found any friends at all must be recorded in his favor and in that of his subjects." He goes on to point out that this "tyrant, oppressor,...scourge...embodiment, as he has been depicted to European eyes, of all the vices; the object, as he was believed in England, of his people's bitter hatred, found safety and welcome among his flying soldiers." I am not ripping these statements from context. Churchill repeatedly pays tribute to the courage of his enemies, who indeed at one climactic moment were trying their personal best to turn his body into chopped meat, and clearly, as other reviewers have pointed out, gives tribute to Krupp, Maxim, Nordenfelt, Lee, Metford, Martini and Henry and their like contributers to the Machine Age civilization that enabled the reconquest of the Sudan. He never attributes any other motives to his Arab enemies than rational calculation of self interest, planning and thoughfulness, no condescension of uknowable savage impulses or fanatical behaviour, though great willingness to fight and die. So where does this leave us? Winston Churchill was both a young man of his class and time and also possessor of some level of moral honesty that was with him

My attention was drawn to the book when I received an e-mail with the text of a speech allegedly made by Churchill in 1899, and attributed to pp 248-250 of Volume II of the first edition. The nicest part says "Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it." Copies of the first edition are offered for much more money than the matter is worth to me. The soft-cover edition I bought (Wildside Press, no date) does not contain the supposed speech or quotation. Can anyone shed light on that? The book itself is a meticulously detailed account of the campaign against the Mahdi, of the events that led up to it, and of the political context of Egypt and the Susan in those years. More detail than you might have thought you needed. The Mahdi's troops were said to be very brave, well armed with Mauser rifles and Nordenfeldt field guns (Sir Basil Zaharoff's company!); the Egyptian soldiers led by British officers had Lee Metford rifles (good but inferior to Mausers)and much more ammo; the Sudanese soldiers led by British officers had Martini-Henry single shot breech-loading rifles (remember the movie "Zulu" with Michael Caine, about the battle at Rorke's Drift?), not very good but good enough. British military organization, logistics, and professional discipline carried the day. If you need a capsule account of the campaign itself, the best comment came from Hillaire Belloc, a British gasbag: "The difference is that we have got...the Maxim Gun, and they have not."

This is a great history of an obscure little war that holds many lessons for the military today. I recommend it as a great read for any soldier or anyone linterested in military history or science. Churchill is a great writer and you can almost feel the heat and smell the gunsmoke in these pages.

Winston Churchill is one of the greatest figures of world history; this book, written when Churchill was in his twenties, is a wonderful book that considers the reconquest of the Sudan both from a first person point of view (because Churchill was there), and from a broader historical perspective. Churchill begins the work some 13 years before the war, with the killing of the legendary General Gordon in Khartoum at the hands of the fanatical Dervishes. Churchill lays out in detail the reaction in Britain, the political reasons for why no action was taken at the time, and then goes into a wonderful segue about the intervening years of the wars of the Mahdi and his successor, the Khalifa. The book is painstakingly researched; and the young Churchill is obviously trying to "get it right"; interjecting his opinions where it is relevant and introducing facts and tables where it is necessary to make his case. The military buildup, the logistical and technical feat of the railroad built to support the army, the manufacture and employment of river gunboats, and the precise orders of battle and description of equipment -- these are details that show Churchill's immense grasp not only of the broad strategic picture but also a consummate mastery of the details of nineteenth century soldiering. One can see at work the mind that made Churchill a valuable cabinet member in the following thirty years, and an invaluable Prime Minister in wartime. The prose style is a bit heavy, and Churchill's writing is not at the same level that won him the Nobel Prize, but it is a fine early work about an interesting, if little known, war. The book itself also caused a rift between Kitchener and Churchill that was never really mended; as a result, Churchill's fall from the Admiralty and the failure of Gallipoli may have had this book as a very small cause. But this is not the book's fault! A very good work of military history, and an excellent insight into the incredible mind of Winston Churchill.