Mahdist State in Sudan
Analyzing The Mahdist State in the Sudan
The Mahdist uprising in the Sudan is an event overlooked by in many throughout history. To many it was just a hiccup in Great Britains conquest of the African states in the east. The uprising was in fact a failure but what makes it so significant is the ability of the Mahdi, Muhammad Ahmed to unite a divided people against a common enemy using modern logistics and combining it with religious zeal. The author of The Mahdist State in the Sudan, P.M. Holt is one of the few historians to provide readers with a detailed survey of the entire Mahdist incident in Sudan from before it started to after Mahdi’s successor is killed. The issue with Holt’s book is that since it is one of the few sources on the subject, many people will revere his findings as the absolute truth instead of critically analyzing any bias that maybe present or some significant theme that he may have overlooked. The purpose of this paper is to analyze Holt’s account of the Mahdist state from the previous events that influenced the uprsing, to the Mahdist’s rule and finally the failure of his successor, “The Khalifa”. Before the “eve” of the Mahdist revolt, (as Holt likes to call it) Holt cites that Sudan had no prior contact with the outside world until the Ottomans under Muhammad Ali Pasha invaded the Sudan in conquest. Holt goes on to talk about the violence of the Egyptian invaders from the north and their arrival accelerating the slave trade in the region. Overall Holt’s point is that this arrival of the Ottomans as invaders and conquerors is what planted early seeds for the Mahdist revolt. I wanted argue against this notion because even Holt himself mentions that Sudanese for centuries were not a united people, and were constantly at hostilities with each other anyways in the form of tribe vs tribe warfare as well as slave trader vs slave trader. It is also of significance to note that there was no real country of Sudan
The Mahdist uprising in the Sudan is an event overlooked by in many throughout history. To many it was just a hiccup in Great Britains conquest of the African states in the east. The uprising was in fact a failure but what makes it so significant is the ability of the Mahdi, Muhammad Ahmed to unite a divided people against a common enemy using modern logistics and combining it with religious zeal. The author of The Mahdist State in the Sudan, P.M. Holt is one of the few historians to provide readers with a detailed survey of the entire Mahdist incident in Sudan from before it started to after Mahdi’s successor is killed. The issue with Holt’s book is that since it is one of the few sources on the subject, many people will revere his findings as the absolute truth instead of critically analyzing any bias that maybe present or some significant theme that he may have overlooked. The purpose of this paper is to analyze Holt’s account of the Mahdist state from the previous events that influenced the uprsing, to the Mahdist’s rule and finally the failure of his successor, “The Khalifa”. Before the “eve” of the Mahdist revolt, (as Holt likes to call it) Holt cites that Sudan had no prior contact with the outside world until the Ottomans under Muhammad Ali Pasha invaded the Sudan in conquest. Holt goes on to talk about the violence of the Egyptian invaders from the north and their arrival accelerating the slave trade in the region. Overall Holt’s point is that this arrival of the Ottomans as invaders and conquerors is what planted early seeds for the Mahdist revolt. I wanted argue against this notion because even Holt himself mentions that Sudanese for centuries were not a united people, and were constantly at hostilities with each other anyways in the form of tribe vs tribe warfare as well as slave trader vs slave trader. It is also of significance to note that there was no real country of Sudan