Advertisement
by DaShunchao » Sat Jan 27, 2018 1:53 pm
by The Crooked Beat » Sat Jan 27, 2018 4:19 pm
United Kongo wrote:Just a couple of thoughts I wanted to discuss.
So a question for the military minded in AMW, I am currently working on Sennar's fact book and in terms of the Kingdom's of military I am little stuck on possible organisation and size, as military matters isn't my strong point. Basically, I wanted to conceptualize the Sennari armed forces as being less of a proper army and more of a Gendarmerie type organisation that is more concerned with suppressing dissent and defending key resources that actually fighting other militaries. In addition, the Kingdom would also be looking to keep the military from becoming a potential political threat to the royal family and ensuring only certain ethnic groups/tribes are recruited. I was looking around at a few other African militaries for inspiration and initially thought about modelling the army off of South Sudan or Eritrea, but changed my mind as they seemed a little larger than what I was looking for and come from a history of militarisation that isn't really present in Sennar. Thus I was thinking of modelling the Sennari army off Mauritania or Cote D'Ivoir which have much smaller forces seemingly more dedicated to internal suppression of marginalized groups.
With this in mind, would it make more sense for the Sennari army to be divided into say, 4 divisions tasked with defending specific military zones, or for it to be divided into numerours independent brigades that can be moved around into different regional commands depending on need. I'm leaning towards the latter I think as it would also reflect the concerns of the Sennari state from preventing the army from becoming too powerful a force by preventing Generals from establishing themselves in any area too long. Plus it would also allow the Kingdom to move soldiers from their homelands and into areas with differing ethnic/tribal populations, again to prevent the creation of ethnic based power networks. In terms of its actual composition, I'd imagine it would mostly be either infantry or mechanised infantry (or maybe mechanised infantry where half the vehicles don't work) with probably very little need for armour or artillery.
Secondly, a question on the status of Communism in AMW, as AMW currently seems to have a number of socialist states, however do these form a distinct political bloc or are they perhaps more loosely organised and divided over ideological differences and geopolitical considerations? I ask as I intend to have communist movements to have been a former major political force in Sennar and one that is still lurking around although somewhat dormant. Sennari proto socialist movements probably would have emerged in the large mechanised irrigation schemes along the Nile in the 1930s and 1940s where large numbers of workers would have been brought together from all over the country to work as sharecroppers, giving rise to the first worker unions. From these worker unions would have emerged the "Sudanese" movement, an Africanist like political movement opposing Marimaiain colonial rule and the unity of all Sennari regardless of ethnicity or tribe (hence the designation Sudanese from term Bilad as Sudan = Land of the Blacks used to describe Sennar). While not initially an explicitly socialist movement, by say the 1950s and 1960s (the post war era if their is still a Great War?) the Sudanese movement would have become more or less synonymous with socialism and a major opponent of the Marimaian government, starting to engage in guerrilla activity. I think around this period between the 1950s-1980s it appears as though a lot of AMW's communist states come into existence if i'm not mistaken, and so the Sudanese communist movement could likely have been apart of this trend.
However in the case of Sennar, due to a combination of internal and external factors, the revolutionary movement fails and dies off by the 1980s/1990s. In its current form, the Sudanese movement would consist of a political party in exile to some friendly communist state whose membership consists of old guard revolutionaries still dreaming of class struggle and recent arrivals who have left/fled Sennar. On the ground however, the movement would consist of scattered groups of guerrillas in remote areas that are less interested in class struggle and more driven by parochial interests. However the appearance of revolutionary ideology is kept in order to receive financial and military assistance from friendly states. In addition their would be numerous underground unions and student movements more loosely connected with the original Revolutionary groups. Thus revolutionary communism would still be a potent and potential source of political opposition towards the Sennari monarchy, along with tribal and ethnic identity movements and a growing group of political Islamists.
by Walmington on Sea » Sat Jan 27, 2018 10:32 pm
by United Kongo » Sun Jan 28, 2018 6:36 pm
The Crooked Beat wrote:In belated response to this thought-provoking post, yes, the military structure appropriate to such a nation as Sennar is definitely not so easy to discern. Structure, indeed, may not even be the best word to use. I suppose a lot of it depends on the strength and influence of the central government, and the nature of the state itself. To what extent is governance a question of ethnically-based influence-peddling and patronage? Does the government purport to take a neutral line in that respect?
I suppose for any weak (institutionally speaking) state, the military is always going to be a potential threat, certainly when military officers are not themselves governing and often enough even when they are. Is the central government (such as it is) in Sennar more of a mediator to/prisoner of influential regional strongmen/operators, or does it at least aspire to control the nation's entire territory? What's the ethnic balance? Probably for any military raised and run by a state such as (I presume) Sennar, short on resources and lacking the ideological/institutional structure that supports war-making in larger, more deeply-entrenched militaristic countries, the line between formal and informal is always going to be blurry, and an order of battle that may exist on paper may not hold in practical reality. Perhaps the division/area concept you outlined earlier might be somewhat viable, as it would presumably allow for each division commander to carve-out a sphere of personal influence while simultaneously denying any individual military leader a nationwide platform, possibly making it easier for the central authority to play one commander off against another.
I really wish I had more to say about this question, as those smaller, quasi-informal militaries are tremendously interesting and are more and more the norm nowadays. I'd have to think that Chad is worth looking at, since while undeniably a deeply troubled country, its military has, if I'm not too terribly mistaken, proven rather effective at least in the context of the Sahel's various conflicts. Chad certainly managed to defeat Libya in the Toyota War, and seems to have done fairly well against Boko Haram and Ansar Dine more recently. Lots of fellows riding around on Hiluxes and RAM armored cars girded for war, at any rate. It seems you'd if nothing else be looking at a lot of 4x4 vehicles covered in various machine guns.
by Walmington on Sea » Sun Jan 28, 2018 7:12 pm
by Chrinthanium » Sun Jan 28, 2018 9:55 pm
Walmington on Sea wrote:It seems like a lot is happening and I have missed most of it. This is what I get for telling you to knock yourselves out and do whatever.
What is Cass doing, then?
I am going to have to re-think the little-brother role, aren't I?
by Cassanos » Mon Jan 29, 2018 7:16 am
by Walmington on Sea » Tue Jan 30, 2018 11:40 am
by Chrinthanium » Tue Jan 30, 2018 12:47 pm
Walmington on Sea wrote:In reference to what I have thus far read on these forums and in my telegram inbox...
I am not sure how this is going to unfold, but I think that if England and the English continue to exist in any form, it is safe to say that the Walmingtonians and Norse should share a history of bitter conflict, as the former are unlikely ever to accept that England is not English by divine right. There may even be a romantic commitment to a manifest destiny in the reconquest of England in particular or perhaps the British Isles in general.
I do not think that I want to become embroiled in running a British Empire again for the sake of it, and any Walmingtonian presence in England would have to be limited to some periphery lest it over-power the Walmingtonianness of my nation. I do not want to play England, per se, but would consider an English rump resulting from Walmingtonian counter-invasion or a Crusade to relieve a besieged England/East Anglia/Essex/Kent/Wessex, or what have you, at some crucial point in history.
by Amerique » Tue Jan 30, 2018 2:09 pm
by Walmington on Sea » Tue Jan 30, 2018 10:27 pm
by Amerique » Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:19 am
by Cassanos » Wed Jan 31, 2018 11:43 am
by Chrinthanium » Wed Jan 31, 2018 12:19 pm
Walmington on Sea wrote:This being AMW, there can be no hurry.
Chrin, do not play something that you do not want to, especially not just to please me, or you shall end up in the same mess I mean to avoid for myself.
If the Walmingtonians -Angelish and Amberlandic- came to save, perhaps, Kent and/or Sussex as the last hold-outs of the Anglo-Saxon world in Britain, that could be made to work. Kent, Surrey, Sussex, Hampshire, and the Isle of Wight count fewer than six million residents between them.
Essex and Greater London would take that sum to more than 16 million.
That is more than the population of WoS as it stands, of course.
London is an issue. Either more people than I wish to add to WoS, or a target that WoS would never stop fighting for, regardless of the odds.
by Walmington on Sea » Wed Jan 31, 2018 8:43 pm
by Amerique » Wed Jan 31, 2018 9:57 pm
by Walmington on Sea » Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:05 pm
by Chrinthanium » Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:30 pm
by Cassanos » Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:59 pm
by Iansisle » Wed Feb 07, 2018 10:54 am
Cassanos wrote:Only a quick response from me for now, Transport and reconnaissance
America and California seems like the most likely sources for those. Luckily, the P-3 is made by Lockheed, and if California is amenable to exporting to a fellow liberal country...
/EDIT: And as for the Harrier, I have no problem with giving them up. There was a German design I used for Nibelunc that E-P might be willing to share, and enough other projects to go around so I can pick one. Not sure about the F-35 in AMW?
by Walmington on Sea » Fri Feb 16, 2018 10:15 pm
by Cassanos » Fri Feb 16, 2018 10:54 pm
Walmington on Sea wrote:I was going to suggest dividing London on the Thames and sending the population from south of the river to the north, but if you, Cass, are willing to send the whole city to WoS (while you retain the population) that would also be agreeable to me.
Though I admit to initial scepticism about Amerique's relatively far-reaching proposals, in this light I can see the South East, South West, West Midlands, and Wales fitting together, with the Norse sweeping Scotland along with the north and east of England, only being stopped in the west by Wales being full of hills and relatively little of value in a pre-industrial era (the locally significant farmlands of Anglesey probably not appearing all that significant to an empire of international regard) and in the south by the Angleish and/or Amberlanders sailing up the Thames to join the 'last ditch' defence (I rather fancy that one may have gone to London while the other sacked some Scandinavian port and forced a shift in strategic focus).
The Thames may now also become known as, “The Ditch”, for better or worse.
In such a division, based upon a cursory reading of the regions -and a more precise accounting may presumably be derived through a county-by-county survey-, some 19,637,000 Englishmen would be counted Walmingtonian, assuming all of Greater London's population amongst the 33,963,761 Norse in 'England'. These estimations of course exclude Wales, Scotland, Mann, and Northern Ireland.
(Image)
A rough look at the maximum I feel that I could work with. I am willing to discuss having less than that, but not more!
I would want WoS without Britain to have small but significant outposts. The obvious ones do include Singapore and Hong Kong, of course. I am not trying to lay down the law, but I think that if these are to be colonial outposts, and WoS is to be amongst the nations with colonial outposts, well, does this not seem natural?
So many other potential outposts are worthy of consideration, but I owe a reply of some relevance and this is taking far too long.
by Cassanos » Fri Feb 16, 2018 10:58 pm
Iansisle wrote:Cassanos wrote:Only a quick response from me for now, Transport and reconnaissance
America and California seems like the most likely sources for those. Luckily, the P-3 is made by Lockheed, and if California is amenable to exporting to a fellow liberal country...
/EDIT: And as for the Harrier, I have no problem with giving them up. There was a German design I used for Nibelunc that E-P might be willing to share, and enough other projects to go around so I can pick one. Not sure about the F-35 in AMW?
An even quicker reply!
Sure. The P-3 is designated the "Virgo" in Californian service, and would face no export restrictions. More sensitive technologies might, however.
The F-35's only reference in my factbook is: "Lockheed's privately-funded 'Advanced Light Fighter' concept to replace the Codorniz has been plagued by technological setbacks and political indifference; an attempt to get official funding in 2010 was scuttled by Green ministers on the defense acquisition committee."
Also, fuck you, photobucket.
by Iansisle » Sat Feb 17, 2018 1:18 am
by Marimaia » Sat Feb 17, 2018 8:50 am
Walmington on Sea wrote:I was going to suggest dividing London on the Thames and sending the population from south of the river to the north, but if you, Cass, are willing to send the whole city to WoS (while you retain the population) that would also be agreeable to me.
Though I admit to initial scepticism about Amerique's relatively far-reaching proposals, in this light I can see the South East, South West, West Midlands, and Wales fitting together, with the Norse sweeping Scotland along with the north and east of England, only being stopped in the west by Wales being full of hills and relatively little of value in a pre-industrial era (the locally significant farmlands of Anglesey probably not appearing all that significant to an empire of international regard) and in the south by the Angleish and/or Amberlanders sailing up the Thames to join the 'last ditch' defence (I rather fancy that one may have gone to London while the other sacked some Scandinavian port and forced a shift in strategic focus).
The Thames may now also become known as, “The Ditch”, for better or worse.
In such a division, based upon a cursory reading of the regions -and a more precise accounting may presumably be derived through a county-by-county survey-, some 19,637,000 Englishmen would be counted Walmingtonian, assuming all of Greater London's population amongst the 33,963,761 Norse in 'England'. These estimations of course exclude Wales, Scotland, Mann, and Northern Ireland.
(Image)
A rough look at the maximum I feel that I could work with. I am willing to discuss having less than that, but not more!I would want WoS without Britain to have small but significant outposts. The obvious ones do include Singapore and Hong Kong, of course. I am not trying to lay down the law, but I think that if these are to be colonial outposts, and WoS is to be amongst the nations with colonial outposts, well, does this not seem natural?
So many other potential outposts are worthy of consideration, but I owe a reply of some relevance and this is taking far too long.
Marimaia wrote:So......
With it looking likely that my democratic, socially liberal Caliphate idea has received no objections and will therefore go ahead, there exists the prospect of what to do with the Suez Canal. Discussions on Discord have led to the idea that the Suez Canal will not be owned by the Caliphate but rather exist under 'international authority', something which I am perfectly happy with. So my proposal is for there to be an administrative organisation called the 'Suez Canal Treaty Organisation', 'Suez Canal Company', or something similar. The organisation will be much like the RL Suez Canal Authority, in that it 'owns' the Canal and attached buildings/equipment/etc., collects the tolls, and is responsible for the operation/maintenance/traffic safety of the Canal (the tolls being used to pay for these things).
As it will be an international organisation, the idea is that AMW nations will have representatives sitting on the Board of Governors/Directors/whatever. This Board will exist to oversee administration and maintain the Canal's neutrality. If there is some crisis/situation with the Canal which requires additional funding outside of the tolls, then the cost would be divided evenly between all represented nations (because if you want a say over how the Canal is operated, it's only fair that you contribute if it becomes necessary but you'd pay the same as every other nation on the Board). Basically it would act as a not-for-profit organisation because all income from tolls or anything else under the body's control would be ploughed back into maintenance, etc. I'm thinking that a majority vote would carry rather than a unanimous vote, just in case we get representatives on the Board who try being contrary to show the follies of capitalism, globalism, or somesuch.
We'd also need an AMW equivalent of the RL 1888 Convention of Constantinople, which grants the right of free access and use of the canal at equal conditions to all ships, commercial ships and ships of war, in times of peace or of war, even to ships of belligerent parties. That way if any one nation tries to block access to the Canal for someone else, the rest of the world has the right to Bonstock the crap out of them.
If this particular proposal is adopted then we're going to need AMW nations to sit on the Board. I'd like to put the Caliphate on the Board because the Canal cuts through their territory and is obviously important for their economy, so if you think the proposal works and want to be on the Board then say so.
If anyone's got any alternative ideas then feel free to offer them
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Dayganistan, Gallicelestia
Advertisement