Their eyes played tricks on them, they led the army into the deserts of Kordofan; and there a hundred of them perished, perishing from thirst, and the killer remained in land perfectly suitable, suitable for the enemies. And not suitable for fighting an organized army, so he suffered the most severe pains forever. I mean, what was expected to happen to the Mahdi and his men happened to our army due to the bad plan that was set for it, Tell me, on your behalf, from the envoy, about the loss of Sudan thereafter, was it Egypt or Ingatran?

And here is what General Sir Francis Reginald Wingate Pasha said, who is the most knowledgeable of the English commanders on Sudanese affairs, on page 115 of Lord Cromer's report on Egypt and Sudan in 1906, after he surveyed the battlefield: I visited the battlefield where the Dervishes killed the late General Hicks Pasha and his entire army in 1883. Strangely, the soldiers were in a severe state of thirst with a large pool of water a mile away from them, but they were unaware of it. The location is 30 miles south of El Obeid in the middle of a dense forest, and I have no doubt that if the relief sent to lift the siege of El Obeid had been more numerous and stronger. It would have met the same fate as Hicks' campaign. Sending that campaign in such circumstances is considered madness, and it is the greatest proof that the government at that time did not grasp the reality of the situation and did not account for the difficulties that a large army must encounter while passing through such a country. End of quote.

Lord Cromer arrived in Egypt from Ingatran several days after the campaign, and wrote about it in his aforementioned report, page 116, as follows: