The Battle of Tell El Kebir
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: All Battles Project
Forum Discription: Forum for the All Battles military history project
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=20073
Printed Date: 28-Apr-2024 at 19:32
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: The Battle of Tell El Kebir
Posted By: andrew
Subject: The Battle of Tell El Kebir
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2007 at 17:53
|
I was reading into the Battle of Tell El Kebir, took place between Egypt and Britain, and am impressed by how well the Egyptians held up against the British considering the year was 1882. I'm thinking the reason for the Egyptian army being realtively well armed and technologically up to speed is because of the reforms brough about by Muhammed Ali Pasha 50 years prior to the battle. Had it not been for trickery Egypt could have very well been able to keep the British out of the Suez Canal and perhaps be able to win the war.
|
Replies:
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 03-Jun-2007 at 08:59
|
It only took about an hour for the Egyptian 'rebels' to be defeated. The previous battle at Kassassin or the fighting at Kafr-el-Dawwar was less one-sided, and if he had won there Urabi might have been able to take the canal back, but it had already had its garrison reinforced.
What do you mean by trickery? Attacking at night is 'trickery'?
And 'keep the British out of the Suez Canal'? Who do you think built it?
------------- |
Posted By: andrew
Date Posted: 03-Jun-2007 at 14:14
|
In the first Anglo-Egyptian War, Egypt inflicted upon Britain several bloody defeats eventually winning because of the modern reforms brought about by Muhammed Ali Pasha. The trick was that false intelligence convinced Urab that the canal was not going to be attacked leaving the canal open and the British captured it with ease. The war is not as black and white as you make it out to be.
EDIT: At the battle the Egyptian forced inclicted more casualties upon the British then their own forces.
|
Posted By: Joinville
Date Posted: 03-Jun-2007 at 17:40
Why, the French of course!  ------------- One must not insult the future. |
Posted By: andrew
Date Posted: 03-Jun-2007 at 18:33
I was going to say that but it was to obvious I thought he was kidding.
|
Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2007 at 16:42
|
Whasnt Egypt under Ottoman rule then?
------------- Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg - |
Posted By: andrew
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2007 at 21:05
Yes, but Muhammed Ali liberated Egypt and brought is better trained and modernized army to the doorstep of the Ottomans in a series of battles. Had it not been for Europe's nosey business in foreign affairs Egypt is the new Ottoman Empire basically.
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 06-Jun-2007 at 06:30
That's 'trickery'? Disinformation is a perfectly legitimate weapon of war, as is a surprise dawn attack, following a nighttime advance.
I didn't. I merely pointed out that the battles at Kassassin and Kafr-el-Dawwar were more important than Tell-el-Kebir.
Not at Tel-el-Kebir they didn't. Tel-el-Kebir was a walkover for the British. I think you're mixing up your battles. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 06-Jun-2007 at 06:41
Sorry, bought it. If I remember correctly the largest single stake in the Company (which was of course French-registered) was owned by the British government, which bought it from Ismail in 1875. I accept that was after it was finished.
I didn't want to take anything away from de Lesseps. My point was that the British were controlling the Canal de facto quite a while before the Urabi uprising, so it wasn't a question of 'keeping them out'.
------------- |