Lead Adventure Forum

Miniatures Adventure => Colonial Adventures => Topic started by: schoenkoenig on February 06, 2010, 04:13:29 PM

Title: Sudan - Distinctions between Mahdist forces?
Post by: schoenkoenig on February 06, 2010, 04:13:29 PM
Hello all:

 I'm currently working on building my own Sudan modifications for GW's Lord of the Rings (as my regular group is familiar with that ruleset). I've been reading everything I can on the Sudan conflicts and it really is an engaging period.  I plan on keeping this as mostly skirmish games because (1) these are more manageable, not requiring me to paint 800 Mahdists and (2) they're less one-sided. Although, I'd still like to do some small fort assaults.

Anyways, enough about that. I was wondering if anyone had any ideas for varying troop types among the Mahdist forces. I get the impression that the Beja are firearm-averse, but have higher morale and melee abilities. Conversely, the Jihadiyya are rather adept at shooting, but quite poor at melee. What about the differences between mounted and food run-of-the-mill River Arabs? Were there any differences between the different tribes that are noteworthy? I've already planned on building a unit of the red-turbanned Khalifa's bodyguard.

  Also, it seemed to me that about a 2:1 ratio of Mahdists:British is good because many of the British advantages in the larger battles to me appear derived from their use of disciplined formations. That is, I don't think 5 British against 25 Mahdists had the same chances of winning as 5,000 British against 25,000 Mahdists. Any thoughts on this?
Title: Re: Sudan - Distinctions between Mahdist forces?
Post by: bc99 on February 06, 2010, 05:01:07 PM
I'm not sure I'd consider any of the Mahdi really "adept" at shooting. The Jihadiyya were also melee based warriors for the most part as there was basically a paucity of firearms. Sure they had them in some respects, but the vast majority of your warriors will be melee based.

How about captured Egyptian gun teams or artillery crews?
Title: Re: Sudan - Distinctions between Mahdist forces?
Post by: HerbyF on February 07, 2010, 10:07:54 AM
Beja or Fuzzies were predominately melee type with only a few rifle or muskets mixed in. The Ansar mostly melee troops but maybe a unit of rifles & muskets mixed seperately from the rest. These would be the 'slave body guards' of amirs. As for artillery you could have both or either madists of captured Egyptians. Madists would have done just fine with older guns but they needed trained Artillerists to use the newer guns they captured. There might also have been groups of riverine Arabs pressed into the Madi's service they would be in civilian dress & mostly melee troops with a few bows, muskets, and maybe a rifle or two.
Title: Re: Sudan - Distinctions between Mahdist forces?
Post by: ErikB on March 02, 2010, 06:00:31 PM
Can you guys suggest some good nighttime or weekend reading material on this period?  I don't know where to look.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Sudan - Distinctions between Mahdist forces?
Post by: dadlamassu on March 04, 2010, 08:55:29 AM
Distinction in dress were more obvious in the early part of the wars.  The Ansar (followers) were encouraged to dress in the Jibbeh, a white tunic with coloured patches that represented the patched clothes of the poor.  However, in the early campaigns (Hicks, Gordon) the Beja, Riverine Arabs wore a mix of traditional clothes and the Jibbeh.  As time went on all adopted the patched jibbeh - the "Fuzzies" cut their hair etc.  So by the time of Omdurman there was little difference in dress amongst the Ansar.

For wargames purposes (and quite unhistorically) I have:

Beja (Fuzzies) in traditional dress armed witk mainly spears, swords and throwing spears and sticks.  A few firearms. Leaders get a whiter cloth and a better design on the shield.  Some even get to ride donkeys!
Riverine Arabs (Ansar) in a mix of traditional dress and jibbeh.  Most armed with spears with some swords and firearms.  Wargame units are not distinguished but you could pint the sash to correspond to the banner colour.   Not very historical but useful.
The Baggara horsemen were conidered to be very good so I give them more rifles.
The Jihaddihah I paint in white jibbehs with green patches and turbans - all of mine are rifle armed.
My artillery are all captured Egyptians in remnants of uniform and chains!
The elite mounted emirs of the Khalifa's bodyguard are in "Saracen" armour while the fot are in jibbehs patched in red and black.
Title: Re: Sudan - Distinctions between Mahdist forces?
Post by: HerbyF on March 04, 2010, 09:31:03 AM
I do my Bejas in traditional dress with mostly swords & spears and a few fire arms. I have some riverine Arabs in traditional dress armed like the Bejas but with a few bows too. I have my Ansars in patched jibbahs & armed like the Bejas. I have both horsemen & camel riders but bought them already painted so they are not armed as I might have done if I had built them myself. I do have a Jihaddihah unit of rifles, mine are in blue tubans. Blue is the color for slaves or owned men. Amirs didn't waste their money or other resources training & arming men they didn't have absolute controll over. Slaves owed there entire existance to their Amir.
Title: Re: Sudan - Distinctions between Mahdist forces?
Post by: Smokeyrone on March 04, 2010, 01:47:59 PM
I just orered some "riverine" Arabs, some with bows.  (some had crossbows, but I didn't order them)

BTW, good stuff, people.  I learned much from the thread.   ;)



Title: Re: Sudan - Distinctions between Mahdist forces?
Post by: ushistoryprof on March 04, 2010, 06:00:25 PM
Quote from: ErikB on March 02, 2010, 06:00:31 PM
Can you guys suggest some good nighttime or weekend reading material on this period?  I don't know where to look.

Thanks.
  Here are some articles on the period on line from the old "Savage and Soldier Magazine" dedicated to colonal gaming.

http://www.savageandsoldier.com/articles.html
Title: Re: Sudan - Distinctions between Mahdist forces?
Post by: Traveler Man on March 04, 2010, 07:32:43 PM
Due to the misadventures of Egyptian forces under Hicks Pasha et al, the Mahdists acquired a number of Remington rifles along with Krupp field guns. The majority of warriors who were issued with the rifles cut several inches off the barrel to make them easier to handle. You can only imagine what this did to the accuracy...
Title: Re: Sudan - Distinctions between Mahdist forces?
Post by: Smokeyrone on March 04, 2010, 07:48:56 PM
Quote from: Traveler Man on March 04, 2010, 07:32:43 PM
Due to the misadventures of Egyptian forces under Hicks Pasha et al, the Mahdists acquired a number of Remington rifles along with Krupp field guns. The majority of warriors who were issued with the rifles cut several inches off the barrel to make them easier to handle. You can only imagine what this did to the accuracy...

Yeah, I have a Lee Enfiled "Jungle" carbine (they lopped off a few inches of barrel as well) and it is innacurate to the point that I wouldn't take it hog hunting, where said hogs are usually shot at 20 feet. 
Title: Re: Sudan - Distinctions between Mahdist forces?
Post by: Plynkes on March 04, 2010, 07:52:05 PM
The jungle carbine wasn't a field mod, they were factory-manufactured like that. The accuracy issues are due to a flaw "inherent in the design" according to officialdom. They were withdrawn from service right after the war.
Title: Re: Sudan - Distinctions between Mahdist forces?
Post by: Smokeyrone on March 04, 2010, 07:58:35 PM
I know.  They are another WWII gun where the bayonet cost me more than the rifle.   :(  (although the D-Day Spike bayonet, I hapily found for a buck 99 mail order, so my No. 4s are all set)   :D
Title: Re: Sudan - Distinctions between Mahdist forces?
Post by: FierceKitty on March 19, 2016, 01:03:58 AM
I seem to remember reading that a major reason why the Italians thumped the Mahdists was that the Africans had acquired a large number of rifles which they didn't know how to use or maintain, and relied on them, rather than their far more dangerous fanatical charge into melee. Decades ago, so don't ask me for a source (sorry).
Title: Re: Sudan - Distinctions between Mahdist forces?
Post by: Atheling on March 19, 2016, 05:25:07 AM
I don't mean at all to sound condescending but read the histories and draw your own conclusions :)

This is Wargaming and not 'gaming' that we're looking back at.

:)

Darrell
Title: Re: Sudan - Distinctions between Mahdist forces?
Post by: Harry Faversham on March 19, 2016, 10:15:19 AM
Quote from: ErikB on March 02, 2010, 06:00:31 PM
Can you guys suggest some good nighttime or weekend reading material on this period?  I don't know where to look.

Thanks.

(https://www.perry-miniatures.com/images/go-strong-cover.jpg)

 ;)
Title: Re: Sudan - Distinctions between Mahdist forces?
Post by: cram on March 19, 2016, 10:47:07 AM
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mahdist-Wars-Source-Book-Comprising/dp/0692380833/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1458384242&sr=8-2&keywords=mahdist+war

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Mahdist-Wars-Source-Book/dp/0692524738/ref=pd_bxgy_14_img_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=1KRHWANW02P0TB3Q6XQC

Excellent books in my opinion!

I second Mr Faverham's suggestion for good reading.
Title: Re: Sudan - Distinctions between Mahdist forces?
Post by: Atheling on March 26, 2016, 11:30:16 AM
Quote from: Traveler Man on March 04, 2010, 07:32:43 PM
Due to the misadventures of Egyptian forces under Hicks Pasha et al, the Mahdists acquired a number of Remington rifles along with Krupp field guns

And importantly early on in the beginning of the uprising. Thus it wouldn't  be out of place to see the Beja in this time period with Remingtons.

Darrell.

Title: Re: Sudan - Distinctions between Mahdist forces?
Post by: VonAkers on March 28, 2016, 07:57:41 AM
Hi
I think dadlamassu has it pretty right.

I have kept my  the Nile Arabs ( lower  nile) with a  slightly different look from from Kordorfan ( Or main force) as I call them.
I have the main force with a more arab look, lots of Jibbehs, however I am gaming only the early Period.
I have the Fuzzys as the early ones as well , no patches yet and still have the traditional hair.

I believe the later Omdurman Mahdists were all very much of a much ness.
.
The Mahdist riflemen especially in the early period were very ineffective.

Can not recommend the Go Strong into the desert book highly enough.
Cheers
Title: Re: Sudan - Distinctions between Mahdist forces?
Post by: italwars on March 28, 2016, 08:21:29 PM
they were very poor shooters...as every native..up today
also in 3/4 of their battles, not against Anglo Egyptian, in which they send a purposly selected and armed (high percentage up to total warriors armed with firearms...almost captured BL) ..i'm referring against the Belgians , French and Italians the casualties sustained by the above mentioned Colonial powers from firearms where very limited...i play TSATF where the factors are practically  the same for all Dervishe types...maybe you can, just for the sake of a more varied game, to allow Fuzzy Wuzzy a higher morale to close in....as, in some occasions, their tactics (or lack of tactics)..lead them to the stupidity of charging close order formations modern armed European infantrymen over open terrain...
Title: Re: Sudan - Distinctions between Mahdist forces?
Post by: Happy Wanderer on March 28, 2016, 11:25:06 PM
Gents,

"they were very poor shooters...as every native..up today"


In relation to Ansar shooting ability...how does this reconcile with Doug Johnson's assessment?

http://www.savageandsoldier.com/sudan/AnsarFirepower.html

Seems to be he thinks Ansar firepower was a good deal better (at least for a period of time) than most thought and the 'thrust' of this thread suggests?

HW
Title: Re: Sudan - Distinctions between Mahdist forces?
Post by: nathan on April 12, 2016, 08:20:20 PM
I find Doug Johnson's article convincing.  It really looks like they used rifle fire to good effect.  Though not nearly to the degree the British did.  And not in the save way.