Beyond the Battlefield: Contextualizing Your Soldiers (1 Viewer)

PolarBear

Major
Joined
Feb 24, 2007
Messages
6,706
I am wondering if other collectors in reading and researching the historical background of the soldiers in their collections seek out the broader historical, political, economic, social, and cultural context of which they are a part? In other words looking at them in the context of their times and not just the history of the regiments or the battles that they participated in. For example, as a collector of the Anglo-Egyptian/Sudan War (1882-1898), I find it interesting that among the motivations for the British invasion of Egypt in 1882 was their desire to secure the Suez Canal for strategic passage to India and the Raj, the "Jewel in the Crown" of their empire as outlined in this web commentary below.

Source: http://www.wartimesindex.co.uk/infopage.php?menu=wars&display=EgyptAndSudan

Anglo-Egyptian War, 1882

Context

Although the actual war and invasion took place during 1882, its origins can be traced to 1869 with the opening of the Suez Canal. The Canal, initially dismissed as unworkable by the British, later became strategically important as a shortened trade route to her other great colonies in the East. Indeed, by 1875, the British Government had acquired a 40% joint ownership of the Canal, the other being the French, another regional colonial power. Further reasons for British involvement was the large and growing Egyptian Government debt owed to British interests and, to a lesser extent, the Sudanese slave trade to which the Egyptian authorities turned a blind-eye.

As a nation Egypt was in limbo. Although legitimately a province of the Turkish Empire it neither governed nor cared for Egyptian affairs, because of its own internal decline. Consequently, Egypt had been looted and misgoverned for decades by the Khedives, the Egyptian rulers, hence the huge debts. Since 1875, in order to protect their debt and its payments, the British and French governments had jointly managed Egypt’s finances and internal affairs through a ‘Dual Control’ administration.

From 1881 however, Egyptian resentment grew against the European domination. This was particularly strong within the officer corps of the Egyptian army, which after a long simmering period eventually erupted into open revolt against the foreigners, commanded by the popular and nationalistic Colonel Ahmed Arabi. This led to violent civil disorder in the major towns with Europeans being attacked, their homes burnt, and in one incident in Alexandria the deaths of fifty expatriates. In a deteriorating situation and lack of governmental control Colonel Arabi seized power as virtual dictator of Egypt.

The British Government sensing further escalation of the rebellion ordered 61 ships to the area from Malta, Cyprus, Gibraltar, India and England. The French, already busy with their own colonial problems in Algeria and Tunisia, refused to participate in the campaign to re-establish order; therefore the British did it on their own.

Invasion

The sight of the British fleet offshore precipitated a threatening reply by Arabi’s army who began installing two hundred artillery batteries along the Alexandrian shoreline. After rejecting a British ultimatum on the 11th July to remove those guns, war began with a ten-hour bombardment from the nineteen British warships of its Mediterranean fleet, destroying all the batteries. This led Arabi to set up a new camp further west at Tel-el-Kebir, between Cairo and the Canal, to make a final defence against the British invasion.

In overall command of the invasion was Lieutenant-General Sir Garnet Wolseley who commanded 40,000 regular troops. The first objective was to secure the Suez Canal, which was duly achieved without a shot being fired. The rest of the offensive to regain British control would take a little over two months.

With the Canal secure, the land phase of the war commenced on 28th August 1882. The main British forces pushed on from Ismailia, half way down the Canal, east of Tel-el-Kebir to engage with Arabi. Another force of 2,000 men, landing at Alexandria, westwards of Tel-el-Kebir, acted as a diversionary tactic and decoy to confuse Arabi. This force was met at Mahuta and twice at Kassassin with weak resistance to stop their advance. Notable from the first Kassassin engagement was a brilliant charge of the Household Cavalry and with sabres flashing quickly had the Egyptian forces scattered. The second Kassassin attack took place on the 9th September, this time the 13th Bengal Lancers distinguishing themselves. Unable to stop the British advance the remainder of Arabi’s forces withdrew to join their comrades at the heavily defended camp of Tel-el-Kebir, totalling 20,000 Regulars, 6,000 Irregulars and 75 cannons of different calibre.

The decisive battle of the war commenced on the night of 12/13th September with the main British force of 17,500 men and sixty guns crossing the desert towards Tel-el-Kebir. British intelligence had learned that Egyptians did not fully maintain their defences after dark, hence the night march. The whole five-mile crossing was undertaken without a sound above a whisper since surprise was imperative as Arabi believed that this force was still near Kassassin.

The attack went in at dawn led by the Highland Brigade on the left, the Guards Brigade in the centre and the Royal Irish Guards on the right. They quickly entered the outer trenches and with fixed bayonets carried out hand to hand fighting and soon had overwhelmed the Egyptian defences. British losses were 339 men, with 243 alone from the Highland Brigade, whilst Egyptian dead amounted to many hundreds. Arabi and the remains of the Egyptian army fled to Cairo, where Arabi was caught by the British Cavalry the next day. Arabi was tried and sentenced to death, but commuted to exile in Ceylon (Sri Lanka). With Arabi caught all other Egyptian resistance crumbled.

Aftermath

With Colonel Arabi removed Egypt became a British protectorate for the next seventy-two years, with its own later conflicts. However, a more immediate difficulty presented itself. Having acquired Egypt, Britain also gained Sudan, Egypt’s own problematic dependent territory. With one crisis resolved an even greater one was about to begin.
 
Frankly it's the main reason I stay away from the colonial periods, just not interested in the most powerful and technilogically advanced countrys in the world attacking and enslaving little more than stone age civilizations for natural rescources. Some might see romance and glory in Conquering India, the Middle East and Africa, while culturally in many ways these areas had 1000's of years of civilization and were very advanced, technilogically they were very backward. Not a fair fight for the wrong reasons on sooo many levels, I can't celebrate these actions.
Ray
 
My view is that soldiers are embelematic of their times and that you can't understand them without understand the very elements you mentioned. I know some people like to understand and study units in the abstract but I'm more interested in the context you mention.

For example a lot of ink was devoted here to Custer's actions at Little Big Horn but my view is that if you don't understand why they were there and what was US policy the study alone doesn't make complete sense.

Another example, the Spanish Civil War. You can't understand the battles without understanding the politics; even tactics were influenced by politics. The Republic side, heavily influenced by the Communists, was more interested in propaganda victories than real victories, to their ultimate detriment. The Republic would never mass its tanks a la Blitzkrieg because that the proponent of that theory, Marshal Tuckhavchesky, had been executed during the Russian Purge Trials and the Army commanders were worried about suffering the same fate.
 
Polarbear...

Its absolutely correct what you say and, importantly forgotten by many including historians. You cannot take an event et al from its historical period and analyze it from a modern perspective without understanding all that lay behind it from a cultural, political and economic

Hindsight is wonderful tool but, often ensures unbalanced arguments IMO.

Interesting prose and thread
Mitch
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top