The word Sudan is of Arabic origin and refers to "the country of the blacks". However when used literally, the word would only apply to the Southern Sudan as the Northern is inhabited by the white Arabs. Before Sudan was divided into two, it was considered to be the largest country in Africa comprising of two and a half million square kilometers of land.

Though large, the Sudan has a sizeable portion of the desert. Its population is sparse and scattered throughout the country- The present day republic of Sudan is a unity in diversity in terms of national, ethnic, cultural and economic composition. The north is inhabited by Arabs who are predominantly Muslims while the South is inhabited by Negroes who are either Christians or pagans.

Although the Africans are divided among many tribes, the followinng are the largest. The Shilluk, Dinka and Nuer people are classified as nilotic and are cattle keepers. The Bari, the Didinga, the Turkana and a few others are Nilo-Hamitic and are predominantly growers of crops living in the lakes plateau ofBahr el Ghazal region. The South comprises of three provinces, Equatorial, Upper Nile and Bahr el Ghazal.

For the first time in the history of Sudan, the northern and southern part were brought together in 1820 when Mohammed Alt invaded and conquered Sudan with the assistance of Turkish forces. His main objectives of conquering Sudan were to find the gold mines of ancient Egypt, control trade and use Sudan as a source of raw materials for his industries in Egypt,

He wanted Sudan as territory from which he would recruit men for his forces and source of revenue in form of taxes. He also aimed at getting timber for his shipbuilding industry in order to strengthen his naval fleet.

1.                Assess the Turko-Egyptian rule in the history of Sudan between 1820-1881.

2.                Account for the outbreak of the Mahdist rebellion of 1882 showing why it succeeded.

3.                Describe the formation and the disintegration of the Mahdist State by 1898.

The making of modern Sudan was the work of Muhammed Ali and his successors such as Khedive Ismail.  Muhammed Ali had the ambitions of extending the Egyptian empire as far south as modern Sudan where he hoped to obtain enough slaves for the black army whom he wanted to include in his force that would be loyal to him.

Furthermore Muhammed Ali expected to get gold that he had existed in this area.   It is also believed that he wanted to punish and harass the remnants of the Mamelukes who had fled into Sudan, but most important; Muhammed Ali hoped that by conquering Sudan, he would be in complete control of the Red Sea which would virtually lead him into the holy places.

It was therefore under the above circumstances that Muhammed Ali carried out various invasions on Sudan, the first of which was against Sennar commanded by his son.  He later took over Dongola Kordofan, Darfur and with occupation of Sennar and Kordofan, the main ports of northern Sudan came under the Turko-Egyptian rule; such that between the years of 1820-1881 Sudan was under the hegemony of the Turko-Egyptian rule.

During the Turko-Egyptian administration, it was believed that  there was increased trade between the two countries Sudan and Egypt and this was greatly precipitated by the improved communication systems such as the telegraphic systems, new steamers, railway networks among others..

Furthermore, it was during the Turko-Egyptian rule that new methods of farming and new crops for example cotton were introduced in Sudan and little wonder, that cotton growing later became a major export crop of economy of Sudan.

Closely related new lands were brought under irrigation and plantation of new crops such as sugar cane, indigo began to be grown.

It is also argued that Khartoum as the capital of modern Sudan is an achievement of the Turko-Egyptian government.

On the foreign arena, the Turko-Egyptian rule expanded to the south bringing under control the Pagan liberal tribes of the South.

Despite the achievements of the Turko-Egyptian rule, it is believed that later they were to become unpopular because after conquering these areas, with hope of getting slaves, gold and exploiting the forests of Equatorial region to build ships, the administrators were disappointed for the Negroes they hoped to enslave were further in the south, an area that was swampy and therefore difficult to travel in and also gold had already been exhausted in the gold mines.

The climax of which was that the climate was not favourable to the Egyptians as it was a rainy area.

As a result of these misfortunes, the Egyptians decided to make their conquest worthwhile by using all necessary means to make the Sudanese pay for their struggle thus ruling with an iron hand.

Therefore their administration included taking over of the Sudanese lands for plantations by force, imposition of forced labour on the Sudanese masses in plantations and public works.

The Sudanese were heavily taxed to enable the administration pay for the maintenance of the area, in addition to forcing the Sudanese masses to work in public places and on plantations.  The Sudanese cattle were taken away from them by the administrators and slave trade on which many Sudanese depended was abolished as a mechanism of getting the people to work on their plantations.

Furthermore, the administration exploited the little minerals and ivory from Sudan, something that greatly annoyed the Sudanese masses who were angered by the loss of their wealth.

The Turko-Egyptian rulers seem to have greatly been more interested in exploitation than the interest of the masses of Sudan for their system was characterised by corruption of officials in hope of making quick money than the development of Sudan.

The worst of which as that the Turko-Egyptian administration greatly relied on Christian European officials notably Sir Samuel Baker, Emin Pasha, Sir Charles George Gordon and other Turkish administrators who belonged to the Hana fite code of Muslims that was a lax form of Islamic code and indeed abused the Islamic norms.  It was therefore the desire by the predominantly Islamic Sudan to fight against the non-muslims (infidels) that created the raw material for the outbreak of the Mahdist rebellion.

Closely related, the administration abolished the existing Islamic culture and introduced Christianity in the area with a western type of law as opposed to the Islamic law.

The above situation/state of affairs was supplemented by the rise of a new political and religious leader in the personality of Muhammed Ahmed.  Born in 1844 in Dongola province to a family of boat builders.  He was educated in Islamic law and theology and later became a scholar who belonged to the Sanusiyya brotherhood and had the ambitions of creating an ideal Islamic society and indeed he saw himself as a `heaven sent deliverer’ who in 1881 was proclaimed by his followers as a Mahdi (the guided one) from whom the revolt against the Turko-Egyptian rule traces its title the Mahdist revolt.

THE MAHDIST REVOLT OF 1881-8185

Following the rise of Muhammed Ahmed the Mahdi and his claims to be a saviour of the Sudanese masses from the infidel leadership of the Turko-Egyptians, the Sudanese masses joined in what seemed to have been a Jihad that came to be the Mahdist revolt.

In as much as the religious aspect seemed to have played an important role in this revolt, it is vital to note that a number of other factors have been advanced in an attempt to account for the outbreak of the Mahdist revolt, and these included:

The Sudanese resentment of the loss of their independence which they were determined to fight for by expelling the oppressive regime of the Turko-Egyptian rulers.

The Sudanese also resented the taking over of their land by the Egyptians for the purpose of putting up plantations for cash crops.

The Sudanese resented forced labour which was imposed on them without payment by the owners of plantation cash crops who wanted man power to work on these plantations while at the same time did not want to lose money on labour.  It is therefore under these circumstances that forced labour was employed.

Furthermore the Sudanese resented the unfair taxation system where they were being overtaxed by the Egyptian colonialists for instance the poll tax and market taxes which greatly affected the merchants and traders failure to pay led to imprisonment, fines.

The Sudanese also resented loss of their cattle which were taken away by the Turko-Egyptian administrators.

They also rejected the policy of being led by Christian leaders whom they regarded as infidels considering the fact that a greater part of northern Sudan were predominantly Moslems.

Closely related the Sudanese resented the erosion of their culture by the Turko-Egyptian regime which imposed the Egyptian ways of life and established a western culture.  Therefore the Sudanese masses revolted in order to restore their destroyed culture.

Economically, the Sudanese were opposed to the attempt by the Turko-Egyptian rulers to stop slave trade which was a traditional economic activity among the Sudanese masses.  The above state of affairs was put in motion by the coup d’etat of Urabi Pasha in Egypt against foreign domination from which the Sudanese picked a leaf to launch their revolt against the oppressive governance of the Turko-Egyptian rule hence the rise of Muhammad Ahmed-Al-Mahdi came timely to propagate the outbreak of the revolt.

He made a number of battles which finally led to the capture of Khartoum and the subsequent establishment of the Mahdist state.

Unlike many of the African rebellions, the Mahdist rebellion was one of the unique successful ones and indeed a number of factors have been advanced to account for this historical irony and among these include the fact that the rebellion was not confined to one class or territorial group, but had spread throughout the country among the Sudanese people and therefore it is no surprise that the Mahdist rebellion has been described as a nationalistic rebellion.

The oppressive policies of the Egyptian rule in Sudan affected all people which encouraged them to rise and revolt against this leadership.

Islam played a very important role for the leader was a Muslim who had claimed divinity which therefore united people under the umbrella of religion where the masses believed they were fighting a Jihad against the infidels.

Meanwhile the British opinion that was championed by the British premier  Gladstone was greatly opposed to the idea of the extensionism of the British extension into Sudan as evident in the words of Gladstone.

“An unnecessary extension of the British responsibility”.

This attitude forced the Egyptian rulers to abandon the Sudan and left the whole country to the Mahdist and indeed the attempt by Gordon to suppress the Mahdist rebellion was futile for he was killed by the Mahdist and the political vacuum was occupied by Muhamman-Ahmadi.

The political conditions in Egypt greatly opened way for the success of the Mahdist revolt for the British turned their attention to crashing the Urabist coup d’etat at the expense of the success of the Mahdist rebellion.

In conclusion therefore, the success of the Mahdist rebellion is largely explained by the fact that it was supported by a multitude of the Sudanese masses such as the traders, peasants, the soldiers, religious scholars.  The external factors only provided the momentum.

Causes of the Mahadist revolt

SociaL Causes

1.                Anti foreign cultures

2.                Religious discontebnt

3.                The desire to sudanise their adfministration

4.                Emergence  of Muhammad Ahmed

Political

5.                Loss of independence

6.                Political events in Egypt by 1881

7.                Exploitation from egyptian administrators sent to SudaN

8.                Political repressive system

Econimic

9.                Land alenation

10.           Forced labour

11.           Unfair taxation

12.           The abolitiopn of slave trade

THE MAHDIST STATE

The conclusion of the Mahdist revolt did witness the formation of the Mahdist state under the leadership of Muhammad-Al-Mahdi who during his short term of office tried to re-organise the political structure of Sudan, created the ideals of an Islamic government which was to be based on the Koran or Sharia where punishments were administered for un Islamic activities for example adultery, drunkenness, smoking and a law was enforced that required women to wear veils.

In these activities, the Mahdi appointed three deputies or Khalifas among whom included Abdullahi, Ali and Muhammad Shariff.

However Muhammad-Al-Mahdi did not live to enjoy on the fruit of his victory for no sooner had he established the Mahdist state then he died on 22 June 1885.  The death of Mahdi witnessed the succession of one of his deputies in the personality of Abdullah Khalifa in what historians have referred to as the Khalifa administration of 1885-1898.

REASONS FOR THE SUCCESS OF THE MAHDIST REVOLT

Able leadership. A cross section of local populace welcomed Mohamed Ahmed "the Mahdi" as a natural concept among Moslems to believe in people of their religion. He was a good preacher and raised hopes of Sudanese by promising political economic and social reforms. His words fell on fertile brains as people were discontented of the Turko-Egyptian rule. He attracted support in almost all Sudanese major tribes such as the Baqqara cattle keepers, the southern Kordafan and Darfmi tribes.

Selection of propaganda literature. Mohammed Ahmed and his group used convincing words that naturally unified the Sudanese behind a common cause, for example, they seriously condemned the unfair taxation policies, corruption, recruitment oftn^ Sudanese into the Egyptian forces, forced labour and inefficient Turko Egyptian administration. With such words, all classes of people in Sudan had to support the revolt hence success.

The geographical extent of the revolt. It was as widespread as the Turko -Egyptian rule in Sudan. The grievances for the revolt could be easily found in almost all comers of Sudan where foreign rule was evidenced. Causes for the revolt had accumulated for sometime but the war lacked a clear leadership. With the rising up of Mohamed Ahmed to champion the cause, all regions of Sudan, all classes rallied behind him thus leading to success of the Mahdist revolt.

The coincidence of Mahdist uprising with Urabist revolt of Egypt in 1881. In 1881 Colonel Urabi Pasha took the lead of Egyptians in the famous Urabist revolt against the foreigners in Egypt. This meant that Egyptian troops were mainly engaged in war with the British at home and when they were defeated in 1882, they lost respect of all sorts- among the Sudanese and hopes to maintain Sudan tinder the Turko-Egyptian rule faded. After the loss of the Egyptian independence to the British in 1882, the Turko Egyptian administrators had little interest in the events of Sudan.

Impact of financial bankruptcy in Egypt. Khedive Ismail had borrowed a lot of money from European banks especially France and Britain and by 1879, the interest on borrowed amount had accumulated. By 1881 at the outbreak of Mahdist revolt, Egypt was still servicing the foreign debt with even increased pressure from European economic commission. Thus it was in a weak financial position to finance a war of that scale. Organising and sending of regular expeditions to Sudan became hard hence leading to the success of the Mahdist revolt.

Lack of foreign assistance. British government was quite reluctant to help the Egyptian government against the Sudanese and Egypt could not appeal to Ethiopia for military assistance because of their historical conflicts. The British Prime Minister supported the principle of self-government by the Sudanese. Under such circumstances, it became too costly in terms of money and manpower to defeat the Mahdist revolt.

Role of Islam as a unifying factor. The Sudanese people used Islam as a tool of resistance. Regardless of the distinction in their beliefs, it was Islam, which gave people strength, morale, courage, determination, and sense of unity. The presence of common grievances and objectives of the rebellion made all the Sudanese to rally behind their Moslem leader Mohamed Ahmed "the Mahdi".

The unique environment in Sudan. The weakness of the Egyptian side coupled with the hostile environment in Sudan made the Mahdist revolt a success. The geography of the two countries was not exactly the same. The infrastructural setting was different all of which provided an advantage to the Mahdist side. On top of this, war supplies in terms of arms, foods and drinks were in short supply. There was lack of proper guidance from the local population thus leading to Egyptian defeat.

The Mahdist forces had military advantage over the Turko-Egyptian army. They were well prepared, large in number and under the effective commander of generals like Abdullah. The Mahdist forces devised several military expeditions that the Turko Egyptian forces failed to cope with, for example, they managed to push the British forces led by Hicks deep into waterless scrub-land of southern Sudan.

The morale of local people. Those who never went for war kept home praying and singing-praising songs of success at the war front such as "it is hopeless to fight the soldier of Allah".

The elders kept encouraging the young, adult to enroll into the forces of Mahdist and liberate their country from the hands of the Turko-Egyptian administrators. The Mahdist forces as well used the ambushes and the guerilla war tactics which featured well against these foreigners.

Support of metropolitan Britain. The public pinion in Britain changed in favour of the Sudanese freedom. The British prime minister supported the Sudanese self rule trying to capture their popularity as a country along the Nile valley which Britain hoped to colonise with time as the case happened in 1898 with the formation of the condominium government.

The hatred of Tewfiq nepotic government and his father Khedive Ismail. The Khartoum regime was internally divided. Most officials by then hated Khedive Ismail who reversed the scale of their salaries in attempt to meet the demands of the escalating debt. The local people were overtaxed, soldiers privileges reduced all of which demoralized the Turko-Egyptian forces. The coming in of his son as a new king of Egypt in 1879 worsened the situation.

THE ADMINISTRATION OF KHALIFA ABDALLA  (1885-1898) AND THE DISINERGRATION OF THE MAHDIST  STATE

The Khalifa administration has been viewed with a lot of controversy among history scholars for instance Euro-Centric writers have described his administration as a combination of brutality and barbarism.  Others look at him as having been less religious than a military man.  In their attempt to justify their conquest of Sudan while others want to portray their sufferance as prisoners under his government.  And indeed to this school of thought, the disintegration of the Mahdist State is largely attributed to the mal-administration of Abdullah Khalifa.

Recent scholars however have come to acknowledge Abjullah’s successes during his reign for like Al-Mahdi, Abdullahi attempted to purify the Sudanese society in accordance to the Islamic beliefs where activities for example over taxation, oppression of the masses and corruption were severely punished which created an ideal Islamic society a theocratic system that was acceptable to all Sudanese masses.

It was during his reign that the capital was established at Omdurman at the bank of the Nile after being transferred from Khartoum.

He decentralised the administrative system where he delegated Emirs to rule over the divided provinces.

The army was greatly improved, provided with fire arms some of which were captured from the defeated Egyptian army although some were manufactured in Omdurman.  He used the army to suppress conflicts especially those of the Baqaara tribe which was the most troublesome.

Despite his achievements Abdullah Khalifa’s administration was largely undermined by both internal and external factors;  for internally the death of Al-Mahdi created a crisis for his followers, him inclusive because he (Al-Mahdi) had claimed divinity and therefore he was supposed to be immortal, something that greatly troubled Abdullahi reign.

In addition Abdullahi’s administration was characterized by conflicts with other Khalifas who refused to accept him as their leader and other members of the Mahdi’s families who looked at themselves as hereditary rulers notably Muhammed’s tribesmen such as Ashraf and Ashrif who always created civil wars.

It is also argued that the administration of Khalifa was secretarian in nature for he greatly relied on his tribesmates the Baqaara and his relatives who occupied the higher offices of government.  For example it is argued that his son Uthman was the commander of his military forces.  This poor leadership therefore greatly undermined the strength of the Mahdist State, which was worsened by extended forces for example.

The Egyptians always invaded the Mahdist state to recover their territory. 

Similarly the Orthodox Christian empire of Ethiopia made attempts to go to war with the Sudanese to which Abdullahi declared a Jihad although his forces were defeated at the battle of Metemma where John IV was killed in the year of 1889 and the rise of Menelik to power only worsened the situation.

These circumstances entered their climax following the last decade of 19th Century imperialistic conflicts the greatest of which leading to the Fashoda incident of 1898.

The last decade of the 19th Century witnessed imperialistic designs towards the upper Nile and among these included Germans who wanted to head for Sudan from Tanganyika.  Britain from Uganda and Kenya, Cecil Rhodes who dreamt of painting Africa red from Cape Colony to Cairo by the transcontinental railway and a telegraphic system.  Similarly, Leopold II of Belgium was determined to extend from the Congo basin and so were the Italians from the Red Sea Coast but the greatest of these contenders were notably France and Britain who were determined to occupy Sudan for purely strategic motives by keeping away other European powers.

It’s vital to note that Britain was concerned with the strategic position and recognised the Sovereignity of other powers where they had interest at the price of leaving the upper Nile Valley free.  However, France refused this recognition for she always regarded the British occupation of Egypt as a treacherous act.  Indeed it was on this note that a French Officer in the personalities of Major J.B. Merchand was sent from upper Congo and Britain sent H.H. Kitchner both of whom came face to face at the sand bank of Fashoda where Britain and France almost went to war in what came to be known as the Fashoda incident.  The concern of many historians therefore is to try and give an account of why Britain and France almost went to war and why the war was averted.

THE FASHODA CRISIS OF 1898

The Fashoda incident of 1898 was majorly a European colonial economic rivalry between Britain and France explained by facts both in Africa and Europe although some of the factors are too far fetched to be able to explain the crisis.

Among these included the British occupation of Egypt for the Nile Valley was a life blood of British stay in Egypt hence she hurried to cover the Nile in order to protect her economic empire in India and the far East.  It’s then that she came face to face with the French forces under Merchand in what came to be the Fashoda incident.

Other scholars also contend that the shift in balance of power in Europe after the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71 forced France to take over strategic position in order to have a share in the East and the Indian Ocean thus dragging her to the sand banks of Fashoda in what came to be the Fashoda crisis.

Another factor was the desire by the French in the West to co-ordinate with the Horn of Africa in Somali land through Sudan.  This threatened Britain who equally wished to move her forces through Sudan coming face to face with the French in what came to be the Fashoda incident.

The Franco-Prussian occupation of the Mediterranean Sea meant surrounding Britain in Egypt and Cyprus which therefore threatened British trade.  Subsequently, Britain decided to rush down and counter weigh the developments of other forces in what came to be the Fashoda incident.

Leopold’s presence in Congo and his desire to connect the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean having Uganda and Sudan within its limits greatly threatened Britain who rushed to counter weigh the developments this coming to face the French at Fashoda.

Meanwhile Menelik’s expansionist policy towards Sudan to have a share in the game of colonialism as he remarked.

“I have no intention of being an independent spectator as far distant powers participate in the idea of partitioning of Africa”.

The greatly threatened European powers Britain inclusive who decided to contract Menelik this coming face to face with the French.

Another factor was the Franco- Ethiopian agreement (Blue Nile convention) which had allowed France to cover the West bank of the Nile which tended towards Sudan.  It was therefore Britain’s attempt to contract this convention that she came face to face with France.

The British schools of thought argue that Britain rushed to Sudan in order to crush the Mahdist revolt and to avenge the death of Gordon whom they regarded as a martyr.  It’s however vital to note that some of these factors were only scape goats and therefore too far fetched to explain the crisis.

Britain also claimed that they wanted to safe guard the Christians against the Muslim world, avenge the 1776 American war of independence in which the French had assisted the Americans to defeat the British and also avenge Napoleon’s continental system that was geared towards undermining Britain’s economy.

In as much as many news could be provided, it is important to note that the Fashoda crisis was greatly a colonial economy rivalry between Britain and France and their desire to occupy Sudan predominantly for economic reasons.  It’s therefore little wonder that the two powers didn’t go to war partly because there was no serious reason that would force the two powers to fight.

It’s also argued that Britain was militarily superior in terms of weaponry and skilled military manpower led by the likes of General Kitchener and Wolseley who were men of experience in the military field.

It’s also important to note that France had just healed from the wounds of the Franco-Prussian war and therefore would never add insult to injury.

The two powers also feared African criticism and would therefore never go to war on African soils.

Closely related, European powers feared that African resistances would take advantage of their conflict especially the Menelik II who by this time was determined to participate in the game of colonialism.

It’s also vital to note that Britain and France had long time diplomatic alliances to assist one another in external conflicts.

The two powers also feared to break the theory of effective occupation that urged European powers never to go to war on African soils, they would undergo capital punishment.

Lastly both characters Gen. Kitchener and Marchand were believed to be diplomats who would never go to war on African soils.

It’s in light of the above circumstances that Britain and France agreed not to go to war and France withdrew in return for Britains recognition of French occupation elsewhere.  Hence on 16th July 1898, Britain after defeating Abdullah Khalifa at the battle of Omdurman, occupied Sudan on behalf of Egypt.  However, because Egypt had always claimed ownership of Sudan, Britain decided to establish a joint administration of Britain and Egypt in what came to be known as the Anglo-Egyptian condominium.

 

 

 

SUMMARY.

1)        Without river Nile waters there is no life in Egypt. The desire for Britain to bring the whole of Nile valley states under her control led to Fashoda crisis.

2)        The pressure from other scrambling powers was another cause for example from Congo area, Leopold II aimed at creating a big empire from Congo Eastwards to Zanzibar without limiting its northern extent

3)        Britain was trying to revenge for the death of Charles Gordon during the Mahdist revolt and decided to reconquer Sudan in 1898.

4)        Britain had declared protectorate over Uganda in 1894 and Kenya also had been colonised in 1895. Britain was already in control of the source of the Nile and the French advance to Sudan was considered a threat to their interests.

5)        The Franco-Congolese agreement of 1894 was also responsible for Fashoda incident.

6)        This incident was a result of French disappointment upon losing Egypt.

7)        Britain and France had for long been enemies for example

·      In 1882, Britain unnecessarily occupied Egypt in a complete disregard of the French interests in the Suez Canal and Egypt

·      In 1879, Britain supported Portuguese claims over the Congo in order to block the French advance in the area.

·      France had grievances against Britain arising from the British refusal to help France in Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71.

·      During the Berlin conference of 1884-85 Britain had supported Leopold's claims over Congo leading to the formation of Congo Free State under Leopold II which was against the wishes of France that had clashed with Leopold II which culminated into the calling of Berlin conference.

·      Britain had stood on the way of all French designs ever since Napoleonic period. Since then (the sanctions of the continental system), Britain and France had mistrusted one another in the field of trade and politics.

8)        On African continent there were threats exerted to Ethiopia under Menelik II after defeating Italians in 1896.

9)        The ambitiousness of the two men i.e. Captain Merchand and Lord Kitchener. This was because Frenchmen in Africa wanted to revenge for the loss of Egypt and re-assert the French political glory in Africa.

10)   By 1890, Britain had begun a formal move to colonisation of Africa.

 

WHY DID THE FRENCH WITHDRAW FROM FASHODA

The French government recognised the right of Great Britain and Egypt to rule Sudan. In return Great Britain recognised the right of France to her West African claims and with this, France saw no reasons of fighting a dangerous war.

France had long time of misfortunes at the hands of other powers. During Napoleonic era, France had suffered humiliation under Britain and it was too soon for France to have recovered from 1870 losses. France was conscious of British military superiority and she did not want to risk war against her.

The French expedition under Captain Merchand was in no way comparable to the Anglo- Egyptian force under Lord Kitchener. It was numerically inferior and did not have as many arms and supplies as the Anglo-Egyptian force.

The Anglo-Egyptian force could easily get suppliers from Egypt and from the British bases of Mediterrenean sea. On the other hand, the French expedition was completely cut off from France which had the nearest bases in Senegal and French Somali land.

The French foreign Minister was not a war monger. He believed more in negotiations than war. He thought that Negotiations with Britain would save France an embarrassment in Africa.

France did not see a reason of fighting over a miserable swamp\sand banks of Fashoda. After all there was still plenty of territory in Africa which was considered to be better than the Sand bank.

The French government recognised the right of Great Britain and Egypt to rule Sudan. In return Great Britain recognised the right of France to her west African claims and with this, France saw no reasons of fighting a dangerous war.

Captain Merchand's expedition had already reduced in size and weakened in strength after their long experience across West Africa. Merchand had left most of his soldiers in West Africa controlling the conquered areas.

Even before the Fashoda crisis, the British had already succeeded in occupying parts of Sudan and defeating the Khalifa's forces. They had pushed the Khalifa's forces far deep that these forces could not call back to attack them with ease. This also gave the British better position to deal with the French. French troops hence had to withdraw.

Finally both had to respect 1884-1885 Berlin conference articles where they agreed to recognise the claims of one another under genuine occupation so as to partition Africa peacefully and avoid humiliations on fighting on African land. This made the negotiations between the two countries representatives a success.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF FASHODA CRISIS

In 1898, a stable government was established in Sudan and resistance in all quarters crushed. Confidence was restored by fixing low taxes, land reforms were carried out and titles of land were registered. Schools and communications were established and by 1914, firm boundaries of Sudan with Uganda, Kenya, Ethiopia and Zaire were agreed.

At the end of the crisis Sudan was declared a British colony. Both Britain and Egypt were to govern Sudan as their colony. This led to the rise of condominium government in the Sudan until 1956. The condominium (joint foreign governments in control of a state) was an Anglo-Egyptian administration where the queen of Britain and the Khedive of Egypt jointly governed Sudan.

The interests of Britain in Khartoum were looked after by governor general assisted by many British governors. The first governor general was Sir Herbert Kitchener, He ruled Sudan until 1899 when he went to South Africa on the outbreak of the Second Anglo-Boer war for enforcement. He was succeeded by Reginald Wingate.

France lost Sudan to Britain thus its dreams of extending its West African block of territories 19 Somali land flopped. It turned its colonial intetions to North African States and concentrated on its West African colonies.

Fashoda crisis was a big diplomatic victory for Britain. It showed to the world that the British were not only powerful economically but also militarily. This was one of the most serious humiliations the third French Republic was faced with.

It led to the spread of Christianity in Sudan. Though Turko-Egyptians had introduced Christianity in Sudan. It had not spread quickly and widely because of deep rootedness of Islam. The 1898 condominium government led to the growth of Christianity most especially in the Southern Sudan. This was because British administrators were mainly Christians. It marked the beginning of conflicts between the Southern Christians and Northern Muslims.

It contributed to the colonisation of large parts of West Africa and French Somali land by France. This was because in conclusion of this crisis, Captain Merchand and General Kitchener agreed to solve their differences diplomatically where France left Sudan for Britain and Britain was to recognise French colonies in West Africa.

It led to division of Congo into two parts. The Fashoda crisis led to the conflict between France and King Leopold II of Belgium who had controlled Congo since 1876. Having lost Sudan, France became more interested in taking of Congo and decided to compete with King Leopold II of Belgium. This struggle led to sharing of the Congo into two by France and King Leopold, Leopold taking Congo Kinshasa and the former taking Congo Brazzaville.

Loss of lives on the sides of Sudan due to weak arms. They had carried muskets and spears to fight against Cannon fire, maximum guns and repeater rifles. Many of the Sudanese Khalifa's forces died at Kordofan

Indirect rule system was introduced in Sudan by Anglo-Egyptian government. Local chiefs were employed but these received orders from above where the top posts were dominated by British and Egyptians.

In the army and civil services the British were at the top with. the post of the Governor General as the head of the army being held by a Briton throughout the condominium government.

In social sector Christianity was encouraged, health services put up and. the British type of Education was introduced. Indeed in 1902 Gordon Memorial School was established. It began as a primary school and had become a secondary school by 1905.

THE ANGLO-EGYPTIAN CONDOMINIUM

Following the defeat of Abdullahi Khalifa’s administration, Britain and Egypt set up a joint administration and the two countries entered an agreement the Anglo-Egyptian condominium of 1899 signed between Lord Cromer on behalf of Britain and Butros Ghali on behalf of Egypt according to which;

·      Sudan was to be jointly administered.  Symbolically the British and Egyptian flags were to be     hoisted to show that both powers were ruling.

·      The Khedive had the powers to appoint the Governor General but on the recommendation of the British government.

·      The Khedive’s claims over Sudan were recognised and slave trade was hence forth to be abolished.

However, the terms of this agreement weren’t implemented in practice but only accepted for diplomatic purposes i.e to sweeten the bitter relationship between Britain and Egypt and to avoid the Ottoman interference in Sudan.

This constitutional arrangement saw Lord Kitchner as the first Governor General to rule over Sudan until December 1899 when he was called to go and participate in the Anglo-Boer wars of 1889-1902.  The withdrawal of Lord Kitchner witnessed the succession of a British Officer in the Egyptian forces in the personality of Wingate who ruled until 1916.

During the administration of the Anglo-Egyptian rule in Sudan, a number of problems were faced and these included the remnants of the Mahdist state who staged revolts from time to time especially with the influence of Abdullahi Khalifa who was still in hiding in Kordofan and was largely opposed to the administration.

In conclusion therefore the greatest development of the history of Sudan is largely evident during the Ango-Egyptian condominium under the able leadership of Wingate who ruled up to 1916.

1.                Discuss the problems faced by the condominium administration in Sudan between 1898-1914.

2.                Assess the contribution of the condominium rule on the people of Sudan between 1898-1914.

3.                What effect on the ruled people did the condominium administration have between 1898-   1914.