In 1884, an American engineer living in London built a machine that no one had built before. His name was Hiram Maxim. His machine was a gun that did not need a person to load it, aim it again, or pull a trigger many times. Once you started it, it kept firing — many bullets every second — for as long as the bullets lasted and the barrel did not melt. Maxim called it the machine gun. The world quickly called it the Maxim gun. In the years that followed, European armies bought thousands of Maxim guns. They used them in wars across Africa and Asia. Small groups of European soldiers, with one or two Maxim guns, were able to defeat much larger armies of African and Asian fighters. By 1914, most of Africa was ruled by European countries, and the Maxim gun had played a real part in making that possible. This object can teach us a serious lesson. Technology is never neutral. A new machine can change the balance between peoples — for a time, completely. The world we live in today, with its borders, its languages, its rich and poor countries, was partly shaped by what one machine could do. The descendants of those killed by Maxim guns are alive today. Their families remember. The story of this machine is also the story of how the modern world was made.
Numbers like these can become abstract. Slow down. 1,500 people lost their lives in 90 minutes. Each one was a son, a husband, a brother. Many had families who never saw them again. The Ndebele had spears and some older guns. They were not less brave or less skilled — many died running directly at the machine guns. They did not yet understand what the machine could do. After this battle, news spread, and African armies across the region had to think completely differently about how to fight Europeans. The Maxim gun did not 'win' the war on its own. But it changed what was possible. A small European force could now defeat a much larger African one. This is why the Maxim gun matters. Not because it was new technology, but because of what new technology made possible.
'We' is the British. 'They' is everyone else — but in practice, in 1898, it usually meant African and Asian peoples that the British were fighting or planning to fight. The poem treats the death of those people as a kind of joke. This is shocking today. It was less shocking then. Many British people sincerely believed they were better than other peoples and had a right to rule them. The Maxim gun was a piece of evidence in this belief: 'We have it, they do not, therefore we are stronger, therefore we should rule.' Students should see this as a real argument that real people made. They should also see what it leaves out. The Maxim gun was not a sign of better people. It was a sign of better factories. Britain's industrial revolution made the gun. The gun then helped build the empire. The empire then made Britain richer, which paid for more guns. This is a circle, not a justification.
We use the word 'battle' as if both sides have a real chance to win. Omdurman was not that. It was 10,000 deaths on one side and 47 on the other, in five hours. Churchill, who was not gentle in his views, used the word 'execution' because it was honest. Some historians today call events like Omdurman 'colonial massacres' rather than battles, because the word 'battle' hides what really happened. Students should notice how the words we use shape what we remember. If we say 'the British defeated the Sudanese in battle', we might think of two equal armies fighting bravely. If we say 'British forces with Maxim guns killed about 10,000 Sudanese soldiers in five hours', we are saying something different. Both can be true. But the second is closer to what happened.
This is the most important point of the whole lesson. The Maxim gun did not make European victory inevitable. When African armies had modern weapons too, they could win. Adwa is famous across Africa for exactly this reason. It shows that European colonisation of Africa was not destiny; it was a result of who had which machines, when, and how many. If we tell the story of colonisation as 'Europe was destined to win because Europe was better', we tell a lie. The truth is more uncomfortable: a few European factories could make these machines, and African states (with a few exceptions like Ethiopia and, briefly, others) could not. The world's modern shape — rich countries, poor countries, the borders of African states drawn in European meeting rooms — comes partly from this technical gap, not from anything deeper. Technical gaps can close. They have closed since.
The Maxim gun was the first true automatic machine gun, invented by the American engineer Hiram Maxim in London in 1884. European armies used it widely in wars in Africa and Asia between 1884 and 1914. Small groups of European soldiers with Maxim guns were often able to defeat much larger African and Asian armies — though not always, as the Italian defeat by Ethiopia at Adwa (1896) showed. The gun was a key tool in the European 'Scramble for Africa', helping to make most of the continent into European colonies by 1914. The world we live in today, including the borders of many countries and the gap between rich and poor nations, was partly shaped by this one machine. The Maxim gun is also a reminder that technology is never neutral — what we can build often changes what we choose to do.
| Question | Before the Maxim gun (1884) | After the Maxim gun |
|---|---|---|
| How fast could a soldier fire? | A trained soldier with a rifle: about 10 to 15 shots per minute | A Maxim gun: hundreds of shots per minute |
| Could a small army defeat a large one? | Sometimes, with skill and luck | Often, if the small army had Maxim guns and the large army did not |
| How much of Africa was ruled by Europe? | Around 10 percent in 1880 | Around 90 percent by 1914 |
| Were modern weapons sold to Africa? | Some, but mostly older designs | European countries often refused to sell the newest guns to African states |
| Did the gun decide every battle? | Not yet invented | No — Ethiopia defeated Italy at Adwa in 1896, even with Italians using Maxim guns |
The Maxim gun made European colonisation of Africa inevitable.
The Maxim gun made European victory more likely in many battles, but it did not guarantee it. Ethiopia defeated Italy at Adwa in 1896, partly because Ethiopia had bought modern rifles from France and Russia. Colonisation was a result of many factors, including the choice of European powers to refuse to sell modern weapons to African states.
Saying 'it was inevitable' takes responsibility away from the people who made the choices. The story is messier and more honest if we see it as a result of decisions, not destiny.
The Maxim gun was a British invention.
It was invented by Hiram Maxim, an American, who moved to London to build it. His company later sold it to many countries — Britain, Germany, Russia, China, and others. The Maxim gun was a global business as much as a national weapon.
Many students learn about empires as if each country built everything itself. The truth is that empires were tied together by trade, including the trade in weapons.
African and Asian armies were less brave or less skilled than European armies.
African and Asian soldiers fought with great skill and bravery. They lost battles like Shangani and Omdurman because they faced a machine they had not seen before, not because they were less able. When African armies had modern weapons, as at Adwa, they could win.
'They lost because they were less' is a story Europeans told themselves to feel better about what they had done. It is not history. It is a way of avoiding it.
The Maxim gun is just an old object in a museum.
The Maxim gun shaped the borders of countries that exist today. Many of the world's modern conflicts, languages, and economic gaps come partly from the colonisation it helped make possible. The descendants of those killed by Maxim guns are alive today, and some communities have asked for formal apologies and reparations.
Old objects are not always finished business. The Maxim gun is more recent than many students think, and its consequences are still here.
This is one of the most ethically demanding lessons in the series. Treat it with the same care as the Standard of Ur and the moai. Do not glamorise the gun, do not describe how it works in technical detail beyond what is needed, and do not let it become a story of clever Western invention. The deaths it caused were not abstract: name peoples (Ndebele, Mahdist Sudanese, Herero, Nama, Zulu) and places (Shangani, Omdurman, Namibia) when you can. Be aware that students whose families come from formerly colonised countries — or from formerly colonising countries — may feel this lesson personally; both groups should leave with their dignity intact. Do not make British, French, German, or Belgian students feel they personally did something wrong, but do not soften what their countries did, either. The story is about systems and choices, not about today's individuals. The Battle of Adwa (1896) is essential — without it, the lesson tilts towards 'European technical superiority' as inevitable, which is both wrong and dangerous. Finally, Belloc's couplet ('we have got / The Maxim gun, and they have not') is famous and worth quoting once, but it should be unpacked, not chuckled at. Many students will be hearing for the first time that real people once joked about killing other real people in this way.
Answer each question in one or two sentences. Use what you have learned about the Maxim gun.
Who invented the Maxim gun, and when?
How did the Maxim gun help European countries take control of much of Africa?
What happened at the Battle of Adwa in 1896, and why is it important?
Why did Winston Churchill, who was at the Battle of Omdurman in 1898, later call it 'not a battle, but an execution'?
Give one reason the Maxim gun is more than just an old object in a museum.
These questions have no single right answer. Talk in pairs or small groups, then share your ideas with the class.
Is technology ever neutral? Or does what we build always change what we do?
In 2021, Germany apologised to the Herero and Nama peoples of Namibia for killings that happened more than 100 years ago. Some people say this is not enough. Some people say it is too much. What do you think?
If you could uninvent one piece of technology in history, what would it be and why? What might be lost as well as gained?
Your feedback helps other teachers and helps us improve TeachAnyClass.
