|
Mardonius -> RE: Scenarios (6/20/2007 5:52:53 AM)
|
Paper Tiger:
I think you may be being a little optimistic about the North African British Free State morales. You are correct in that during this period (Napoleonic) there were no UK invasions of North Africa. But there were earlier and later campaigns wherein the British/English were not able to effectively harness regulars into their military. The best earlier example is the English occupation and defense of Tangiers (1662 to 1684). Constant counter insurgency efforts until the British were driven out. In later periods, we see mediocre-to-fair regular Anglo-Egyptian troops under Gordon et alias during the invasion of the Sudan contrasted with the excellence of irregulars under TE Lawrence in WWI. Jordan might be an exception in later periods but, once again, they fought under traditional tribal lines, albeit with British training.
Nor did the French do much better in Algeria from the 1830's to the late 1950s. Some units, yes, were sent to fight in Europe in WWI but they were of no marked quality. WWII Franco-Algerian forces were of minor value to both Vichy and Allied war efforts.
Most of the French effort was in counter-insurgency.
Italy made little use of the Libyans. A few minor forces of minimal value. Eritreans, yes, but that is outside our EiA map. Again, most of the Italian's efforts from 1912 to WWII were spent in keeping the Senussi and others recalcitrant Libyans in line.
Some argument might be made for the Spanish in Morocco as Franco made good use of Moors in the Spanish Civil War. I am not a proponent of this school of thought as I reckon that Bourbon Spain was far too reactionary to stomach any Islamic soldiery, except perhaps for operations outside of Christendom. One might say the same about the opinions of the Moors as well, albeit from a different perspective.
The US's experience in North Africa in 1808 (circa) and their effective use of tribal irregulars to supplement Presley O’Bannon’s (Lt, USMC... Semper Fi!) march from Egypt to the "Shores of Tripoli" is, much like TE Lawrence's Arabian campaign, the way to fight effectively with most tribally based Arab/Berber/Moorish etc forces.
I assure you from first hand experience in Iraq that training an Arab army to fight in an Anglo-American-European fashion is no easy task. Tribal (irregular) lines work much better. Even the Turks in Egypt under Mehmet Ali relied on Albanians as their crack regular troops. Mamelukes make great raiders and can slice up a broken line but, as the Battle of the Pyramids showed, they are no good at cracking a line.
I could go on (e.g. Soviets in Egypt, Syria, Libya; Americans after Operation Torch in WWII) but my point is that I believe that it should be very difficult to use any North African Man Power outside of the Free State's own forces and that the Free State should have no higher morale than allowed under the current rules.
The higher morale for the Turk's recreating a viable North Africa is an exception as they would be more able to integrate the Islamic forces into their militaries and would be more adept at using them in traditional tribal roles.
Just some thoughts.
[image]local://upfiles/24637/A2EE0B0D6CE2423BB0DAC15196DB44B7.jpg[/image]
|
|
|
|
