BHD-style battle in 19th C Africa

After watchin BHD again on Sun night- just wondering, what 19th C battle between European soldiers & African tribes could best match the Battle of Mogadishu of Oct 1993in terms of losses on both sides (similar to the 18 American dead, 70 wounded vs 1,000 + Somalis killed) & consequences ?
 
I can't claim to know a huge amount about this stuff, but what about the Battle of Kambula in the Zulu War? 18 British killed to 1,000+ Zulu casualties, turned the tide of the war in the British favour. While the impact may not have been immediate as Mogadishu was, you could probably find a lot of stuff that the Zulu War ultimately influenced.
 
Wasn't there a Battle between the British under Kirchner and the Sudan Wabbists, where the British Squares inflicted this kind of a lopsided defeat on the whirling Dervishes.
 
After watchin BHD again on Sun night- just wondering, what 19th C battle between European soldiers & African tribes could best match the Battle of Mogadishu of Oct 1993in terms of losses on both sides (similar to the 18 American dead, 70 wounded vs 1,000 + Somalis killed) & consequences ?


Melvin,

Casualty wise, I'd say nearly all European vs. African battles in the 19th Century were like Mogadishu. Look at Omdurman for instance; 47 KIA and 340 WIA versus 9,700 KIA and 13,000 WIA.

As for consequences, it was a different time. Less media saturated and far less squeamish. Kitchener got in trouble for destroying the Mahdi's tomb with an eye towards having his skull made into a drinking cup, but no one seriously questioned the war or whether Britain should be in the Sudan.

Even the Zulu War, which Gladstone and other important figures bluntly stated was wicked, wasn't derailed by any hand wringing at home. The Zulu "king", Cetshwayo, become something of a media darling during is years in exile/captivity in London, but that didn't effect the partition of the kingdom, appointment of a resident, and other postwar matters one whit.


Bill
 
After watchin BHD again on Sun night- just wondering, what 19th C battle between European soldiers & African tribes could best match the Battle of Mogadishu of Oct 1993in terms of losses on both sides (similar to the 18 American dead, 70 wounded vs 1,000 + Somalis killed) & consequences ?

There are a large number of battles with similar casualty lines. As for reaction, I can't think of any which had a truly similar impact. Different age, different mindsets. There were a few battles which may have checked European advances into various african nations, but I can't think of many where these checks were permanent. Maybe the conclusion of the Central african mission, but that wasn't directly caused by defeat in battle, so I'm not sure if that counts. There are others, but none are very good analogues.

Casualty wise, I'd say nearly all European vs. African battles in the 19th Century were like Mogadishu. Look at Omdurman for instance; 47 KIA and 340 WIA versus 9,700 KIA and 13,000 WIA.

To be fair, there were a fair number where Africans managed to inflict equal or greater casualties on the Europeans, so the conflict was not necessarily a foregone conclusion. The Adowa, Isandlwana, and others (admittedly not to many). And if the boers are included, then things don't look quite as one-sided.
 
In OTL, we had the death of Gordon in Khartoum. Not sure about the casualty figures, but it checked the British advance in the Sudan for quite awhile.
 
Last edited:
In OTL, we had the death of Gordon in Omdurman. Not sure about the casualty figures, but it checked the British advance in the Sudan for quite awhile.

The Mahdists were fairly organized and scored some rather large successes against large British-commanded forces, al eit composed mostly of demoralized Egyptian troops. But they were too lacking in modern military technology to have a chance versus the Anglo-Egyptian army in 1897-98.

If they had had a handful of machine guns, Omdurman would have been a completely different battle.
 
The Mahdists were fairly organized and scored some rather large successes against large British-commanded forces, al eit composed mostly of demoralized Egyptian troops. But they were too lacking in modern military technology to have a chance versus the Anglo-Egyptian army in 1897-98.

If they had had a handful of machine guns, Omdurman would have been a completely different battle.

Shoot. I meant the death of Gordon at Khartoum, which is what I was referring to when I said the British got checked in OTL.

Omdurman is where the Madhists got curb-stomped.
 
In OTL, we had the death of Gordon in Omdurman. Not sure about the casualty figures, but it checked the British advance in the Sudan for quite awhile.

Gordon died in the siege of Khartoum. Hicks had his 10,000-man army totally destroyed earlier and Baker was destroyed as well.
 
Depending on the timeframe as the 19 cent. start 1800; the early lack of resources of both manpower and equipment often made warfare a hazardous expedition.
The Danish experience on the Gold Coast made for several close calls and one instance of a garrison being defeated. And usually the lack of resources made for cooperation of european garrisons or enlistment of friendly natives - like the Ashanti Wars.
 
Top