|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on November 3, 2016.|
A map with the British and French possessions marked, and the proposed railways drawn would make this article MUCH more interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs)
- You have spoken and been heard, except for the railways part. - BanyanTree 20:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- The map included does not represent the territorial claims/possesions of 1898. It shows those of 1912-1914. Changes between 1898 and 1912 include the status of Morocco and the Congo, the borders of Cameroon and the borders and posession of Libya. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Having looked further in English and French, there does not seem to have ever been any plans for an E/W French railway, let alone seriously-mooted and influential ones like Rhodes's Cape-to-Cairo route. "Le Transsaharien" was the long-sought N/S French railway from Algeria to the Niger, not from Dakar to Djibouti. The nearest I can find to anything similar (aside from the present-day AU plans for such a line) is [http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k1040801/f370.highres this 1870s plan for the Transsaharian which proposed maybe someday possibly maybe extending a prospective Algerian line east from the Niger to the west shore of Lake Chad. The French were more than happy to just monopolize riverain and caravan routes, which was part of why Marchand was all off on his lonesome to begin with.
well written article but lacks neutrality. the exposed view is obviously pro-Britain, i speak for the military comparison. so the british were superior in both naval and ground force terms... well, well, well. i'm gonna check the french version, hope it's not gonna be a translation of the english version as often. Louis R14 04:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think that this article is a good overview of what happened, and why. It may seem "pro-Britain" but merely because they were the successful party! It IS neutral; If there is to be discussion on relative strengths of British and French naval and military forces, then other pages are the best place to lay that out.
- Nevertheless, it is a fact that Great Britain was rampant at this time, and at the very peak of her economic, imperial and maritime power.
The Fashoda Incident is interesting because it is that tipping point between the previous centuries of French/British conflict and ascendancy, and the future that was to revolve around Germany's continental hegemonic aspirations and the superpower era of the US and USSR.
- A very interesting period indeed!Omnes 14:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- End point maybe, but not tipping point. — LlywelynII 14:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
The article is clearly pro-british with some disturbing exaggerations that almost amount to historical revisionism. It should be flagged as lacking neutrality IMHO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:101:F000:700:91A4:E32B:7292:4815 (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I think the accuracy of this article could be disputed. The assertion that Britain's motive during the Fashoda incident was to secure the territory for a Cape to Cairo railway has been questioned by historians, most notably Robinson and Gallagher in their book "Africa and the Victorians." Said authors assert rather that Britain's conquest of the Sudan was driven mainly by a desire to prevent other Powers from controlling the Nile. By the 1890s Egypt had replaced Constantinople as Britain's main base for protecting India from Russia, and Britain thereafter pursued a policy of protecting the Nile for fear that if it was taken by another Power the water supply to Egypt could be cut off. It was in defense of the Nile (and ultimately the Indian colony) that Britain confronted the French in the Sudan - not in the pursuit of a Cape to Cairo railway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imthatdude804 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Quite. The British governments and ministers were quite clear on that point that it was fundamentally about access to the Upper Nile, as described (i.a.) here and here. — LlywelynII 14:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- It's an effect of the graphics. I've reduced the problem slightly Nunquam Dormio (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
blue and white Niles are mislabelled
- Must've been fixed, but it is still an ugly map. — LlywelynII 14:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Sources for article expansion
See above, regarding the French rail plans and two sources with many more details on the incident itself (such as Kitchener showing up in Mahdist boats but wisely writing ahead to explain that situation to the French). — LlywelynII 14:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)