Talk:Raid on the Suez Canal

Military history: South Pacific / British / European / Ottoman / World War I Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Ottoman military history task force
	World War I task force

Egypt Low‑importance

	Egypt portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palestine Low‑importance

	Palestine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Turkey Low‑importance

	Turkey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New Zealand Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The first?

Just a, perhaps stupid, question: Why is this battle called 'First Suez Offensive' when no other is apparently mentioned in WW1 context, and no article titled 'Second Suez Offensive' or similar exists? Is it just the conventional name for it, or were there, in fact, any subsequent offensives?

Mojowiha (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Second Suez Canal Offensive in Englisj historiography, but there is in German and Ottoman history. The second attack on Suez was planned in greater detail, but in the end never reached Suez after a major battle. Murat (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raid?

I would have said that this action constituted more than a "raid" in the normal English sense. Is there no better descriptor used in reliable sources? Srnec (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Battle honour for Egypt 1915-16

This is linked to the Raid on the Suez Canal which the 11th Light Horse Regiment did not take part in? --Rskp (talk) 06:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raid on the suez canal (first one) was an Ottoman victory.

The primary objective of the Ottoman raid on the Suez Canal was not to conquer Egypt, but to compel the British Empire to divert military resources away from other regions, particularly Europe, and to potentially incite revolts within British-controlled territories.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] In this regard, the operation achieved several of its strategic aims. The British responded by reinforcing their military presence in Egypt with approximately 150,000 more troops in a relatively short period.^[5] Several contemporary Ottoman leaders, including Djemal Pasha and Enver Pasha, described the raid as a success in their writings.^[6]^[7] German military advisor Kress von Kressenstein, who participated in the campaign, also characterized the operation as successful in achieving its limited goals.^[8] Given that the Ottomans did not intend to occupy Egypt, and instead aimed to disrupt British strategic planning and colonial control, this raid should be an either Ottoman tactical victory or Ottoman victory. Selim beg (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The lead and infobox are a summary (reflection) of the body of the article. If the article needs improvement, then do so. Then we might address what result the article reflects. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Termen28 i already put like 10 sources supporting my claim. Saying "no sources say" that is crazy because you haven't read any of those books before anyway. Selim beg (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operational success ≠ military victory. As a case where the standard terms do not adequately or reasonably apply, it is appropriate per WP:RESULT to vacate the result parameter and leave it to prose (in the lead) to explain the nuance of the result. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is not suited to prose or prose like statements such as what was added and doing so is contrary to WP:RESULT. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "Operational success ≠ military victory"? Ottomans achieved their goal therefore it should be an ottoman victory, that is literally how wars work. Ottomans dont need to invade the entire north africa for it to be an ottoman victory. Selim beg (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operational success does not require the defeat of an opponent that would result in a victory. The two are not synonymous. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What would it be then? Ottomans achieved their goal and didnt suffer a lot of casualties. What would you call the result? Selim beg (talk) 11:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The raid was a clear defeat for the Ottoman forces. Ottomans didn't want to capture Egypt - correct! The Ottomans' objective was to seize the Suez canal - it was so obvious from the start, even to the British how vital the channel was and its seizure by the Ottomans would bring huge disruption. Not only cutting British communications with East Africa, India and Asia, but also preventing British Empire troops from reaching the Mediterranean Sea and Europe. It's well sourced. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:08, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've already debunked it with sources. show me your sources to backup your claim. Selim beg (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is the need to debunk ? There are plenty of sources which cite failure in one way or another not one is considered a success. Im surprised you even asked this.

The Last Crusade: The Palestine Campaign in the First World War A. Bruce. pages 21-24
Ordered to Die: A History of the Ottoman Army in the First World War Edward Erickson. page 51
The Fall of the Ottomans: The Great War in the Middle East, 1914-1920 Eugene Rogan page. 66
British Military Intelligence in the Palestine Campaign, 1914-1918 Yigal Sheffy page 56
Imperial Germany and the Great War, 1914–1918. Roger Chickering. page 101
The Ottoman Army and the First World War Mesut Uyar. page 30

I can provide more if needed. Eastfarthingan (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Erick Jan zurcher already supports my claim, and the sources i put already respond to your sources Selim beg (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i meant erickson not zurcher my bad Selim beg (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Erckson on page 51? - Fourth Army's ill-conceived Sinai attack on the Suez Canal failed. Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Nevzat Artuç, Cemal Paşa, p. 197
^ Stanford J. Shaw, The Ottoman Empire in the First World War, Vol. 2, p. 1615
^ Tuğgeneral Şükrü Mahmut Nedim, Filistin Savaşı, p. 14
^ Artuç, Cemal Paşa, p. 198
^ Edward J. Erickson, Size Ölmeyi Emrediyorum ("Ordered to Die"), p. 102
^ Cemal Paşa, Hatıralar, p. 196
^ Artuç, Cemal Paşa, p. 209
^ Kress von Kressenstein, Türklerle Birlikte Süveyş Kanalına, p. 62

[1] Nevzat Artuç, Cemal Paşa, p. 197

[2] Stanford J. Shaw, The Ottoman Empire in the First World War, Vol. 2, p. 1615

[3] Tuğgeneral Şükrü Mahmut Nedim, Filistin Savaşı, p. 14

[4] Artuç, Cemal Paşa, p. 198

[5] Edward J. Erickson, Size Ölmeyi Emrediyorum ("Ordered to Die"), p. 102

[6] Cemal Paşa, Hatıralar, p. 196

[7] Artuç, Cemal Paşa, p. 209

[8] Kress von Kressenstein, Türklerle Birlikte Süveyş Kanalına, p. 62

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]