Glorification for someone who does not deserve it.

If I understand you right, I believe you missed a great part of the Mahdi's speech about why he would slaughter all the people in Khartoum. His plans were to continue his "pilgrimage" as he called it, to pray in the mosques of major cities all the way to Constantinople, which he would only do after seeing the region converted. And he would do it by force if they did not surrender. He states specifically that he wished no loss of life, but his mission to bring the Islamic religion to the rest of the world was paramount to him. And he would make an example to the rest of the world by slaughtering the people of Khartoum, in the hopes that the peoples of other nations would sooner convert than face his wrath.

Additionally, it is worth noting that Gordon, at least in the film, made his stand to force Britain to come to his aid. It is made very explicit that the Minister did not wish to become involved in military affairs in Sudan. But he could not, due to political and popular pressure, as depicted by the protesters, leave a general of his army to die in a siege without support. So when Gordon remained, he forced the army to come to him (though as the movie shows, they did so with great reluctance). Though he stated that he was not afraid to die, and would willingly do so in the defense of the land, Gordon did not intend to do so if any other recourse remained to him.

While I do not know the fate of those that went and sought the Mahdi's "protection," I can say that besides fighting, there was no other choice left to the people. The Mahdi would obviously not stand down or relent, so it was either surrender or resist. Gordon's presence made no difference, except to give the hope of British rescue.

If you're to fault Gordon and those that remained with him for not surrendering, I imagine they'd disagree with you completely. Whether a matter of pride or religion, there are people who will not bow to another's reign simply to survive. I doubt very much any of them considered it a "senseless death," unless they meant the senselessness of the attack.


P.S. As to the incident with merchant, in a time of war, especially a siege wherein civilians are just as much a part of the resistance and effort as any soldier, to steal provisions meant for the use of the army and the people for personal profit is entirely within the realm of corporal punishment. I'm not stating my opinion one way or the other in terms of a view on the death penalty, but to say the punishment did not match the crime is to ignore the circumstances to a fault.

You should leave a war movie feeling sick.... Actualy the most accurate war movie would be three weeks long - twenty days,twenty three hours and 55 min. of sheer boredom - followed by ten min. of the most frighting,numbing violence and horror you could'nt even concive of.
But would anyone want to see it?
Probably not! Any way you would'nt get any producer to fork out the dough to get it made in the first place.
Having said that-most people don't go to the movies to end up leaving "sick and shattered".... your average joe goes to be "entertained",not educated. Making an "anti-war" film is like a holly-roller making a movie about sin- and about as interesting.
Since before the dawn of time, humans have sadly settled their differances by violence,( monkeys, our ancestors, will frequently "hunt" and kill other monkeys from different groups) and a frighteningly large percentage of us seem to greatly enjoy it. Partly, War exists because man loves it- it's catharsis, it's rush of adrenalin, it's color,pagentry and exitment. War feeds on fear, anger and jelousy. But it's more complicated than that... War brings people together, as they never would in peace time. People will make sacrifices and perform the most amazing actions to help each other in wartime-that they would not do otherwise. Sorry, but it's true. War is like disease- as long as there are people, we will have illness.
As for war not being "nessesary"...
I'm sorry but it was "nessary" to stop Adolf from conquering the world and killing off all the non blond haired/blue eyed people he so disliked. As long as there is injustice, backed up by brute force, there will be war. As long as some people belive that their god is the only god or that their political beliefs are the only valid ones or that they are of a "superior" race, there will be war.
If a man broke into your home,tried to steal your posesions and kill you-
you're telling us you would'nt fight back, that it would be wrong?
Every one has a right to defend themselves.

Your analysis of the situation is basic at best, and the scenario at Khartoum is not simply one you can dismiss as another example of British imperialism gone wrong (though of course you can find many examples elsewhere). Rather than criticising Gordon, who can by no stretch of the imagination be called the aggressor, you might be better off considering the role in the previous decades of the Egyptian Khedive and the extension of his empire into the Sudan. Gordon's task was originally to evacuate the remaining Egyptian garrisons in the Sudan, but for a multitude of reasons including Gordon's own judgement, this was not possible, and a couple of times he had attempted to appoint a local successor in Khartoum in order to achieve some kind of autonomy.

I think you're extrapolating a specific event in the film as if it has historical weight, which is just wrong. Gordon was not "fighting wars", as you put it, and you might benefit from reading a couple of historical accounts and source material on the siege of Khartoum and (more importantly) the background explaining why he was there. The film is not the place to get any of this information.

Well said, Lacoby. Way more eloquent than my attempt to describe the childish behavior of people like Gordon.

I fully agree with the majority of the posters here.

Tawhicks, good point about stealing public food stores in a city that is beseiged. Contrary to the OP, this is clearly a capital crime. My only adjustment would have been to make the execution more public, to bolster morale and send a stronger message.

Also, the OP clearly did not understand the most basic premise of the entire movie: surrender was not an option. Either bow to oppression, or die. The villian stated that there would be no evacuation, for he intended on killing all.

I think the OP made his level of awareness clearer yet with the following assertion:

"Nothing in war is necessary, as war should never be necessary."

Hello, did you just watch this movie? "Should," what a wonderful escape. Of course, war "should" never be necessary, but guess what, sometimes it is. What a luxurious and sophmoric sentiment. It is lovely up until the point that one decides to wage war on you. At that point I would love to hear the opinion on what is "necessary" and what "should" happen.

In all fairness, I used to have thoughts similar to the OP, but by the time I reached my early teens I realized that not all people play by rules of civility and fair play. There really are people out there that will kill you (wage war on you) for the $15 in your wallet. Try explaining to them that it's not necessary, or that they shouldn't do this, after they slice open your thorax.

I also agree with Lentr, none of this logic is going to penetrate the OP's defense. (who is, by the way, a beneficiary of warfare).