The Turkish system is vastly superior to the French in this important
matter of garrisoning their possessions in Northern Africa. The latter
require one hundred men where the Turks are content with one to hold the
country. Perhaps one of the chief reasons may be the difference of
religion. The Arabs and other natives of North Africa cannot endure the
sight of a ruler of another faith. Something, however, may be attributed
to the immense and sacred authority of the Ottoman Sultan, the great
chief of the Mussulmans of the East, as the Shereefan Emperor of Morocco
is the chief of the Mussulmans of the West. We may add, also, the
tremendous severity of the Turkish criminal law, or, rather, the
inexorable justice with which a crime committed against a Turkish
functionary is visited. The French make their razzias and strike off
heads enough; but their criminal code in Algeria is perhaps not so
summary and sanguinary as that of the Turks. Possibly one of the chief
reasons of this curious contrast may be the fact that the French soldier
is scarcely to be depended on when isolated. He acts well in masses, but
considers himself deserted and betrayed when left comparatively alone.
At any rate, the fact is that the Turks hold Tripoli with a handful of
men, whilst the French, with a military force nearly as large as the
whole British army, can scarcely maintain a feverish and uncertain
possession of Algeria.
Pages:
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117