Main Page

Churchilliad
Online Index


"THE GOVERNMENT
 IS THE SERVANT
 OF THE PEOPLE
 AND NOT ITS MASTER"

Winston Churchill
Oslo 1948

 

 

 

The River War Reconsidered

By Philip Bousquet  

Volume 14 Number 2 Fall 2002

What does Winston Churchill’s account of the River War tell us about the British Empire in the late 19th century? What does it reveal about the nature of war? How does his writing foreshadow his later views on politics and strategy?

These were among the questions that were discussed by participants at a meeting that was held in Boston this past August.

Each year, the American Political Science Association (APSA) organizes an annual meeting that offers academics the opportunity to submit papers and discuss their current research. Over 7000 people attended the 2002 Boston conference. The formal panel discussions encompassed a wide range of topics, from research methodology to international security. 

One of the discussions, organized by the Churchill Center, was entitled “The River War Reconsidered”. The papers and presentations examined Winston Churchill’s The Story of the River War: an account of the re-conquest of the Sudan (first published in two volumes in 1899; a second, revised edition, was published in 1902).

The panel was led by Professor James Muller of the University of Alaska, chairman of the Churchill Center’s academic advisory committee, and editor of a new unabridged edition of The River War that will be published shortly. Panelists included Richard Langworth of the Churchill Center, Mark Blitz of Claremont McKenna College, Michael Valdez Moses of Duke University, and Clifford Orwin of the University of Toronto.

Mark Blitz led off the discussion with his assessment of Churchill and the nature of war. He remarks that, at the age of 24, Churchill had yet to develop a ‘single, controlling point of view’ on world affairs. The ‘long view’ of the statesman would be formed in the years to come. However, hints of his later thought can be found throughout The River War. In this early work, Churchill both celebrates war (for the bravery it demands) and wishes its demise. 

Mr. Blitz notes that, while Winston Churchill writes passionately about the courage exhibited on all sides, he reserves his highest praise for the contribution that the railway makes to the campaign. Even as a junior officer, Churchill is developing a keen interest in the logistical and technical preparations that are needed to wage war in the industrial age.

Further to Mr. Blitz’s comments, one can find evidence that the young Churchill has an equally intense curiosity for the tactical aspects of the military. This is evident in his account of the battle of Omdurman, in which he makes note of an early form of ‘combined operations’ in his description of the rescue of the Camel Corps through the assistance of covering fire from gunboats that were observing the progress of the battle. Earlier in the battle, one notes Churchill’s admiration for technical advancement and, perhaps, a lamentation for an earlier age when he describes the slaughter of a Dervish column by a well-concealed battery of artillery:

“Did they realize what would come to meet them? They were in a dense mass, 2,800 yards from the 32nd Field Battery and the gunboats. The ranges were known. It was a matter of machinery… In a few seconds swift destruction would rush on these brave men.”        

Michael Moses selected the literature of empire as the theme for his review of The River War. Through a careful analysis of Churchill’s work, Professor Moses attempts

to place the account within the context of his contemporaries.  What he finds “may surprise modern critics” who assume that any such work would be supportive of foreign conquests. Professor Moses says that Churchill’s work “represents a serious challenge to the now conventional assumption that the ideologies of Western European imperialism… were invariably predictable, monolithic, impervious to self-reflection, critically unsubtle, and philosophically naïve”.

In contrast to many of his contemporaries, Churchill’s account of the war demonstrates a great respect for the Mahdi, and even occasional revulsion at the behaviour of the British forces. Throughout his account, Winston Churchill is attempting to write history from an objective view that offers a “philosophic detachment from its immediate historical moment”. Michael Moses ascribes this approach to Churchill’s classical education, in particular, his reading of Thucydides.    

While not denying that certain passages in The River War could be used by modern critics to demonstrate that Churchill was an apologist for imperialism, Professor Moses offers ample evidence of the young writer’s “desire for a balanced and unprejudiced historical view of events”.  

Clifford Orwin of the University of Toronto continued the discussion with comments in support of the earlier papers. He acknowledges that this early work contains much “that grates on our sensibilities”, but remarks that Churchill also demonstrates an ambivalence towards the campaign. Churchill attempts to account for the immense variety of peoples that he encounters, and ultimately treats the individual British soldier as the hero of the story.

Professor Muller, acting as discussant for the panel, provided commentary on each of the presentations, and offered additional insight into the changes that have been made to the text of The River War since its initial publication in 1899. This aspect of the work is worthy of study in itself as the book underwent considerable re-drafting prior to its Second Edition of 1902 (at which time, Churchill was serving as an MP).

When re-issued in 1933, Churchill provided a new introduction that offered him an opportunity to explain the book to those who have lived through “the moral exhaustion which followed victory in the Great War”. As an experienced statesman, Winston Churchill is able to look back upon his own account as a cautionary tale that should be studied by a new generation that will soon face challenges as daunting as any faced by his own. As readers today, we can look back upon the multiple editions of this work and feel grateful that the author survived to put its lessons to the test time and again.  

Copies of the papers that were presented at the APSA conference are available on the APSA website at:   

http://apsaproceedings.cup.org/Site/panels/067/p067001.htm


_________________________________________

Philip Bousquet served in the Canadian Forces and has worked as a policy adviser with the Ontario Government. He is a graduate of the Ontario Legislature Internship Programme (O.L.I.P.) and currently works as a public policy consultant.

Ed: Library Committee Chair Linda Corman informs Churchilliad that five editions of The River War were acquired from the Watt collection to join the two editions already in the Churchill Collection, namely the two-volume first edition (Longmans, 1899) and the condensed "shilling library edition" (Nelson, 1915). The Watt accessions include the scarce "new and revised edition" in which Churchill says nearly a third of the original text was jettisoned, mainly "personal impressions and opinions, often controversial in character...which some indeed may think to have been not the most valuable part of the book" (Longmans, 1902); the "first cheap edition" (Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1933); and two later paperback editions (New English Library, 1973; Sceptre, 1987), as well as a Swedish translation (1938).