What if no Mahdist revolt of 1881-1898? Would Sudan be an integral part of 20th and 21st century Egypt?

[raharris1973]

What if there was somehow no Mahdist revolt of 1881-1898? The Mahdi is killed early before gaining any fame, any revolts in Sudan remain scattered and local in scale, and never cause Egyptian troops to quit the whole of Sudan. Egyptian forces never lose control of Khartoum to any uprisings for more than a year. It doesn't take a whole big Kitchener expedition by the British, a decade after martyrdom of another British General (Gordon) and Egyptian force, to reclaim Sudan. Would the result be that instead of the special administration of "Anglo-Egyptian Sudan" which later, in 1956, simply became independent "Sudan" would simply remain multiple southern provinces of the Egyptian Khedivate and then Kingdom and ultimately Republic, through the 20th and 21st century? Could Egypt hold all Sudan, north and south, down? Would it have to do any less in the Arab/Middle East sphere with additional Sudanese preoccupations? Or would the resources extracted make up for the resources expended? Would Egypt-Sudan have any broader strategic orientations or temptations in Africa towards Eritrea and Ethiopia (on Nile issues), or other African neighbors - Uganda, Kenya, Congo/Zaire, Central African Republic, Chad, over border security/resource disputes?

In the shorter run, continuous Egyptian control over the Sudan after 1881, once Egypt is puppeted by Britain from 1882, should advantage Britain against French and Italian rivals, and perhaps German, to at least some small degree. It would preempt the events of the Fashoda Affair by allowing Britain to project influence via Egypt to that spot well in advance of French arrival. What effects might that have? Does that leave any room or likelihood for further British expansion into areas that became Chad/French Equatorial Africa? Or German Tanganyika? Or conflict with and expansion into Abyssinia, possibly in alliance with Italy?

 

[raharris1973]

No comments on the impact of a more modest Mahdist experience?

 

[mspence]

It would probably remain a smaller ethnic enclave in a post-independence Sudan.

 

[Husky_Khan]

I'd have to agree, Egypt might be bigger but I don't see it holding control over Sudan like it did in the 19th century. Ironically Egypt trying to hold control over Sudan might result in more interethnic and internecine strife for Sudan (and Egypt) in the modern day if the Mahdist Revolt was in fact more mild in the 19th Century.

 

[raharris1973]

I'd have to agree, Egypt might be bigger but I don't see it holding control over Sudan like it did in the 19th century. Ironically Egypt trying to hold control over Sudan might result in more interethnic and internecine strife for Sudan (and Egypt) in the modern day if the Mahdist Revolt was in fact more mild in the 19th Century.

I could imagine how Egypt could have more, but have a hard time imagining how Sudan could have more interethnic and internecine strife than OTL

 

[Husky_Khan]

I could imagine how Egypt could have more, but have a hard time imagining how Sudan could have more interethnic and internecine strife than OTL

Yeah i figure that Egypt would have a legacy of even more involvement in Sudanese affairs then it already does and that might actually have even more destabilizing effect in the country as opposed to a stabilizing one. Especially with other countries like Chad and Ethiopia and the like still existing nearby and all of the discord that occurs in North Africa in general in modern times. Plus if Sudan somehow ends up restricted from access to the sea or even landlocked if Egypt owns the present day Sudanese coast, things could be even worse off for Sudan.

 

[PsihoKekec]

I think there would be still too much difference between Khartum and Cairo for the country not to split eventually.